Think carefully before demanding that the government take up your cause

Image Source

"The average American of today is intellectually so far removed from his forebears
that instead of regarding government with apprehension,
he is more likely to regard it as a virtual parent,

concerned only with protecting him and helping him."

- George Reisman

Human nature being what it is, no government in history has ever been able to live up to the expectations that the current generation of Americans has for our government, and no government is ever likely to.

The government cannot take up your cause without oppressing those who do not embrace that cause.  If you're okay with that, then you are the reason our forebears regarded government with apprehension.  Modern government is full of people like you -- fine with the idea of oppression, as long as the oppressors are your fellow ideological tribespeople.

The fatal shortcoming of Obama's proposal for free community college for all

A February 4 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal notes that Obama's "free community college" proposal ignores a fundamental, immutable economic principle:

The spirit behind President Obama’s recent proposal to make community college free is understandable, but he has fallen victim to the fallacy of composition. He has made the mistake of believing that if one person benefits from an action, then everyone else who takes the same action will also benefit. Economics teaches us otherwise.
Although getting an associate degree or some college education at a community college may benefit any one person, in the aggregate a policy that increases the supply of people with associate degrees can backfire unless it has been designed to fill an existing excess demand. Otherwise such a policy will merely exacerbate an existing excess supply of labor with that level of educational attainment.

Unless our economy magically creates positions for this excess supply of labor, what we'll end up with is overtrained restaurant workers.

Government Health Nannies: "You keep making choices we don't like, so we'll do your choosing for you. You're welcome."

Image source

Be careful what you wish for (Or: This won't end well)

(Click image to view larger version)

This excellent point is usually attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but the curators of all things Jefferson at Monticello insist that there is no evidence he is the source.  They also note that other claimed sources, such as Barry Goldwater and Gerald Ford, are also spurious, although they are known to have employed the quote in their speeches.

As far as documentary evidence goes, the earliest written examples of the quote date back to the early 1950s; the original sage seems to have vanished into the mists of history.

Regardless of the quote's parentage, the point remains valid and deeply profound.  In my opinion, we are likely to see its validation in many unpleasant ways in the coming years and decades.

Further proof that the Obama has no clue whatsoever about the separation of powers

(or no respect for it, at the very least)

CNSNews, January 28:

Teen Dating Violence Is A ‘Cabinet-Level Priority,’ Attorney General Holder Says

(CNSNews.com) - Stemming teen dating violence and safeguarding children is a "Cabinet-level priority" of the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder told a gathering at the Justice Department on Friday.

[...] "That’s what the National Advisory Committee -- and today’s meeting – is all about.  By working together, I believe we can empower adolescents to understand and to develop healthy relationships before violence and abuse can begin. And I am confident that we can help more young people identify signs of abuse, and assist them in locating services."

The goal of Friday's meeting is to work on a "strategic, comprehensive action plan," Holder said in his prepared remarks.

Are there any local issues that the Obama administration refuses to meddle in simply because they're none of the federal government's business?

Further proof that ObamaCare is not about health care: New law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals

Weekly Standard, January 3:

Under the headline, "Construction Stops at Physician Hospitals," Politico reports today that "Physician Hospitals of America says that construction had to stop at 45 hospitals nationwide or they would not be able to bill Medicare for treatments." Stopping construction at doctor-owned hospitals might not seem like the best way to boost the economy or to promote greater access and choice in health care, but that exactly what Obamacare is doing.

Kenneth Artz of the Heartland Institute explains, "Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding." Politico adds, "Friday [New Year's Eve] marked the last day physician-owned hospitals could get Medicare certification covering their new or expanded hospitals, one of the latest provisions of the reform law to go into effect."

Quick Quote: James Madison on the federal leviathan

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

— James Madison, The Federalist #62

One way ObamaCare will make your food more expensive

CNSNews, November 8:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration estimates that it will take the food service industry 14 million additional hours each year to comply with a new regulation that mandates chain restaurants and vending machine operators label the products they sell with a calorie count in a place visible to the consumer.

Most of the burden of the regulation, which is buried in President Obama’s 2,000 page health-care reform bill, will fall on the vending industry.

In the Nov. 5 edition of the Federal Register, the FDA estimates “a total of 14,068,808 recurring hours, with nearly all of these for vending machine operators, including 31,408 recurring hours for recordkeeping and 14,037,400 recurring hours for third party disclosure” in conjunction with the regulation.

San Francisco food nannies know what’s best for the city’s remaining children

San Francisco has long been the gathering place for people who aren’t interested in having children.  Thus, it was with some surprise that I read this week about an action taken by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to manage the restaurant food choices of families with young children.
Los Angeles Times, November 2:

San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.
The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.
The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.

Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure, described it in magnificently Orwellian fashion:

“We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice.”

Well, if this is all about “food justice”, we can’t let ourselves be sidetracked by petty issues like the right of parents to make  informed choices about their children’s diet.
Given that SF officials don’t appear to have much experience raising real-life kids, allow me to clue them in: The availability of toys in a kids meal affects the choice of restaurant much more than it affects the choice of food.
The Center for Consumer Freedom adds that this is more about the parents’ choices than it is about the kids’ choices:

But there’s nothing wrong with the occasional fast food dinner. And that much has always been up to parental discretion: It’s not very often you see a child hop in the car, drive to McDonald’s, and charge a Happy Meal to his own credit card. Yet San Francisco seems to think parents are no match for the “I’m Lovin’ It” jingle.

The supervisors seem well aware of the ridicule their nannying efforts are provoking around the country.  Nevertheless, they hope their action will end up starting a cascade that ends up undermining parental rights everywhere.  From the L.A. Times article linked above:

Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose swing vote provided the veto-proof majority, said critics should not dismiss the legislation as a nutty effort by San Franciscans. "I do believe the industry is going to take note of this. I don't care how much they say, 'It's San Francisco, they're wacked out there.' "

It’s San Francisco—they’re wacked out there.  We’re not buying into their nutty efforts.

Is the GOP already losing its will to fight ObamaCare?

Jeffrey Anderson at National Review Online (emphasis added):

Less than three days after the passage of Obamacare, many Republicans are already losing their stomach for the fight. As Ezra Klein gleefully — but aptly — observes over at the Washington Post, “In about 12 hours, the GOP's position has gone from ‘repeal this socialist monstrosity that will destroy our final freedoms’ to ‘there are some things we don't like about this legislation and would like to repeal, and there are some things we support and would like to keep.’ . . . At this rate, they'll be running on expanding the bill come November.”

Sen. Jon Kyl said, “I would guess probably more realistically would be a potential repeal of pieces of the bill.” It lights the fire in the belly, doesn’t it? Sens. Mike Enzi and John Cornyn followed suit.

On MSNBC, Rudy Giuliani, said, “You just laid out how the Republicans should run the campaign, when we get a month, two months out of this — not repeal health care.” With all due respect to Mayor Giuliani, this is the sort of thinking that led to his Florida Strategy.

Sometimes, one has to wonder at Republicans’ tin ear. If they were writing Patrick Henry’s famous 1775 address, would they have advised, “Well, full liberty might be a bit much to ask for. And I’m not sure if we really want death. How about, 'Give me a little more liberty, or make me ill'?”

“Repeal, and then real reform” — that’s the right message, and the one that reflects the American people’s views. “Partial repeal” actually legitimizes Obamacare and helps to sell it by suggesting that the GOP doesn’t really think it’s all that bad.

You can read the WaPo article here.

Be sure to vote in our C-Poll some time in the next 7 days!

Big Nanny stands ready to criticize your food choices

AP (via Yahoo) reports on one of the mandates buried in the health care “reform” signed today by the president:

A requirement tucked into the massive U.S health care bill will make calorie counts impossible for thousands of restaurants to hide and difficult for consumers to ignore. More than 200,000 fast food and other chain restaurants will have to include calorie counts on menus, menu boards and even drive-throughs.
The new law, which applies to any restaurant with 20 or more locations, directs the Food and Drug Administration to create a new national standard for menu labeling, superseding a growing number of state and city laws. President Barack Obama signed the health care legislation Tuesday.
The idea is to make sure that customers process the calorie information as they are ordering. Many restaurants currently post nutritional information in a hallway, on a hamburger wrapper or on their Web site. The new law will make calories immediately available for most items.
"The nutrition information is right on the menu or menu board next to the name of the menu item, rather than in a pamphlet or in tiny print on a poster, so that consumers can see it when they are making ordering decisions," says Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who wrote the provision.

“The idea is to make sure that customers process the calorie information as they are ordering.” But what if, despite the new labeling, the customer still ignores the calorie information?  The administration (led by Gen. Michelle Obama) has declared war on obesity, so I can’t imagine it standing by idly as customers continue to order the foods they like.
So, what’s the next phase of the campaign?  How about “informed consent”?  Customers will not receive their food until they sign a form affirming that they are aware of the calorie impact of their meal.

But what if customers STILL won’t make good food choices? Is it really outlandish to predict that the government will eventually start regulating the maximum calorie content of restaurant meals?
One last thought: as the above excerpt shows, only restaurant chains with 20 or more locations are subject to the labeling requirements. This means that obese people can continue to patronize local non-chain restaurants in blissful (and deadly, if you believe the nannies) ignorance, regardless of the gastronomical atrocities on said restaurants’ menus.
This is an implicit acknowledgment of the fact that compliance with these regulations is awfully expensive.  But, if we accept the notion of the federal government as our food-choice nanny, we cannot protest when the regulations are eventually made universal, even at the expense of the financial stability of our favorite local eatery.  As Hillary Clinton famously said in 1994 regarding the financial impact of the Clinton administration’s attempt to nationalize the health care industry: “I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America.”

Quick Quote: Founder Patrick Henry speaks out on ObamaCare

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

-- Patrick Henry

In fairness, the federal government as a whole has been guilty of this inversion of the Constitution’s purpose for several generations.  It was bad enough when the Bush administration gave us things like the Medicare Prescription entitlement. It’s just that the current administration has ratcheted things up a few notches from the worst excesses of any previous administration (including perhaps the FDR administration).

(By the way, I’m assuming this quote was actually from Patrick Henry.  I have looked for a site that gives the original reference for the quote, but so far, if there is any citation at all, the websites are citing each other.  If someone can point me to the quote’s actual source, I’d be much obliged.)

San Francisco’s city government defies gravity; fails to collapse under its own bloated weight

San Francisco has already been described as an increasingly child-free city.  Lately, many have come to recognize yet another dubious distinction for SF.  Benjamin Wachs and Joe Eskenazi report December 14 in SF Weekly:

Despite its good intentions, San Francisco is not leading the country in gay marriage. Despite its good intentions, it is not stopping wars. Despite its spending more money per capita on homelessness than any comparable city, its homeless problem is worse than any comparable city's. Despite its spending more money per capita, period, than almost any city in the nation, San Francisco has poorly managed, budget-busting capital projects, overlapping social programs no one is certain are working, and a transportation system where the only thing running ahead of schedule is the size of its deficit.
It's time to face facts: San Francisco is spectacularly mismanaged and arguably the worst-run big city in America. This year's city budget is an astonishing $6.6 billion — more than twice the budget for the entire state of Idaho — for roughly 800,000 residents. Yet despite that stratospheric amount, San Francisco can't point to progress on many of the social issues it spends liberally to tackle — and no one is made to answer when the city comes up short.

“Despite its good intentions”… For some, the nobility of one’s intentions cover a multitude of sins.  Sure, many of these problems are worse than ever despite all of the money we’ve thrown at them, but at least we care.

Quick Quote: Thomas Jefferson on nanny government

And now, a word from the founder of the Democratic Party:

Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

– Autobiography, 1821

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (74)

Dems in Congress have no clue about the constitutional basis of their power

A reporter for CNSNews has been asking prominent congressional Democrats: Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance? 
All of the proposed health care “reform” bills have this mandate, so obviously the majority think they have the power to  make the purchase of a product a “condition of lawful residence in the United States” (in the words of the Congressional Budget Office, which notes that such a move by Congress is unprecedented).
Of course, no such power is granted to Congress, but you wouldn’t know it asking congressional leaders.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer thinks that the health care mandate is no different from a general tax law:

Hoyer, speaking to reporters at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must by a health insurance policy. Hoyer said that, in providing for the general welfare, Congress had “broad authority.”
“Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end,” Hoyer said. “The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.”
Hoyer compared a health insurance mandate to the government’s power to levy taxes, saying “we mandate other things as well, like paying taxes.”
The section of the Constitution Hoyer was referring to, Article I, Section 8, outlines the powers of Congress, including raising taxes, but not the purchasing any type of product or service. The opening paragraph of Section 8 grants Congress the power to raise taxes to, among other things, “provide for the … general welfare of the United States.”

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy simply asserts the authority:

CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"
Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"
CNSNews.com: "I’m asking—"
Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is flabbergasted that anybody would question Congress’ power to legislate as it pleases:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated [sic] that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

The question obviously caught Pelosi by surprise, and her answer amounted to “Who let this guy in here?” Later, her staff gathered its wits and fell back on Congress’ old friend, the omnipotent ‘Interstate Commerce Clause’:

Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

Okay, I’m convinced.  How about you?

Government-run health care, v 1.0

Here’s the version the Democrats in the House of Representatives passed, as interpreted by the Republican staff on the Joint Economic Committee.

I call it version 1.0, because this version still includes private insurers.  Later versions may do away with that component.

Click image to enlarge (or click the link above to view the original, which is even larger), not that it will aid comprehension very much.

When government controls your healthcare

Is this America, ten years after the imposition of ObamaCare? UK Daily Mail, July 6:

An active pensioner admitted to hospital for routine treatment for a stomach bug died six weeks later following a series of 'blunders' by overworked staff.
Betty Dunn, 79, was taken to Tameside General Hospital in Ashton-under-Lyme, Greater Manchester, to be rehydrated with saline.
But her horrified family watched helplessly as the widow's condition deteriorated over six weeks before she died after contracting the superbug C-diff.
At one point her relatives, who battled to communicate with staff who apparently didn't speak English, were so concerned for the former Land Girl's welfare they called in police.
Doctors then transferred the great-grandmother to another hospital for 'rehabilitation'.
But when Mrs Dunn was unable to sit up she was sent straight back to Tameside. She died three days later.
Mrs Dunn's family, who call the hospital a 'zoo', compiled a log of her treatment and claim that a catalogue of errors made by staff included:

• Giving her penicillin when she was allergic to the drug
• Mistakenly denying her antibiotics
• Failing to advise relatives to wear protective gloves or aprons to guard against superbugs
• Giving her a designated food substitute three times a day - against the advice of doctors
• Breaking the news of her increasingly grave condition to relatives in a busy corridor in front of other visitors.

(Image found here)

The U.S. Census, enabler of the nanny state

As the Obama administration gears up for next year’s census, we are reminded how far this decennial ritual has drifted from its constitutional roots.
Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution indicates that the exclusive purpose of the census was to provide an accurate headcount of the citizens of each state, for the purpose of apportioning Representatives and direct taxes.
The 16th amendment severed the relationship between the headcount and direct taxes, so the remaining sole legitimate purpose of the U.S. Census is to determine how many representatives each state gets.
Accordingly, the only legitimate questi0n on the census form should be: How many people live in your household?
In recent decades, the census form had grown into a monster, “asking” that households provide information that reached into the farthest corners of their personal lives.
Why would the federal government want to know all of this? Because virtually every unconstitutional action in which it engages depends on this knowledge.
This time around, most of the intrusive demographic questions has been pulled out of the census form, instead asking only for the following: name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, relationship and housing tenure. While this is much better than before, it still violates the original intent of the census. This is why U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann has vowed to return her family’s form with only the headcount filled in.
This doesn’t mean that the government has lost its appetite for the data that was removed from the census, though – instead, that data will be collected through the annual American Community Survey. As you can see from the official sample of the 2009 Survey, respondents are asked to pretty much bare all.
By separating this data collection from the census, the government can now claim that the census is no longer politicized. Smart move on their part. They still get what they want, and they disarm their critics at the same time.
Armed with its ACS data, updated yearly instead of every ten years (and with much less fanfare than accompanies the census), the nanny state is well-equipped to carry on.

When dish detergents are outlawed, only outlaws will have clean dishes

Eco-nannies in Spokane County, Washington thought they had scored a major victory when the county banned the sale of detergents containing more than 0.5% phosphates. This eliminated popular brands like Cascade and Electrasol, and left consumers with brands that supposedly are more eco-friendly but are not so popular.

The reason these eco-friendly brands aren't popular is....

...wait for it....

...they don't actually clean your dishes.

This flies in the face of altogether reasonable customer expectations about dishwasher detergents. The outcome was predictable. Associated Press, March 28:

The quest for squeaky-clean dishes has turned some law-abiding people in Spokane into dishwater-detergent smugglers. They are bringing Cascade or Electrasol in from out of state because the eco-friendly varieties required under Washington state law don't work as well. Spokane County became the launch pad last July for the nation's strictest ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates, a measure aimed at reducing water pollution. The ban will be expanded statewide in July 2010, the same time similar laws take effect in several other states.

But it's not easy to get sparkling dishes when you go green.

Many people were shocked to find that products like Seventh Generation, Ecover and Trader Joe's left their dishes encrusted with food, smeared with grease and too gross to use without rewashing them by hand. The culprit was hard water, which is mineral-rich and resistant to soap.

As a result, there has been a quiet rush of Spokane-area shoppers heading east on Interstate 90 into Idaho in search of old-school suds.

The ban will be expanded to the entire state next year, so look for a thriving black market to develop, thanks to entrepreneurs who are willing (for a small fee, natch) to save people the inconvenience of having to drive to Idaho.

This law has a loophole big enough to drive a contraband-laden truck through it: only the sale of such detergents is banned. It's still legal to drive outside the ban zone, buy some Cascade, and bring it home.

The ban's chief proponents acknowledge that the law is easily and routinely bypassed. Easy prediction: Eco-nannies hate it when the general public doesn't take them seriously, so it won't be long before the loophole is closed.

Then, whenever you get invited to a dinner party in Washington, if your food is served on a clean plate, just wink at the host and keep your mouth shut.

"Psst! Did you see the plates and glasses? Do you think they...?"
"Hush, sweetheart. Don't ask, don't tell."

New house bill would let Geithner set ALL salaries in bailed-out companies

The wise are cautious and avoid danger;
fools plunge ahead with great confidence.

The Bible, Proverbs 14:16

The assaults on the pillars of the old Republic keep coming. The inglorious death of the 90% AIG tax didn't deter the architects of our New National Order; they simply regrouped and attacked from another direction.

House Democrats have now introduced a bill that goes far beyond the scope of the AIG bill. Now, the federal government is not only claiming jurisdiction over executive compensation at companies that receive bailout funds, they're claiming jurisdiction over the compensation of all employees at these companies. Retroactively, of course.

Here's how Byron York describes it in the Washington Examiner today:

The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

When the Soviets tried to orchestrate the minutiae of their economy, we mocked them for it, and rightly so. Central control of a nation's economy has never worked anywhere. N.E.V.E.R.

And yet, our rulers plunge forward with great confidence. Maybe it will be different this time.

Click.

Lady Liberty is on the rack, and the ratchet has just been been turned another notch. She cries out in pain, but few speak up for her. Her tormentors yawn disinterestedly. They have so much to do; why must they waste their time drawing out her death?

Okay, maybe the preceding was a little melodramatic, but I hope you get my point. It seems abundantly clear to me that our country and its institutions -- everything that made America so attractive to the immigrants of past generations -- will be unrecognizable once the Obama administration and Congress have fulfilled their dreams for us. They are destroying, not building.