Google Custom Search
Showing posts with label big government statism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big government statism. Show all posts

Saturday, September 19, 2009

A Clear and Present Warning


The social-Darwinist ingredient in progressive jurisprudence is the notion of the state as an organic principle, informed by the general will of society and by the particular facts, circumstances, and history of a people. Subject to no fixed limits, eschewing belief in objective justice, the state follows a path of incessant growth and flexibility, limited only by the ever-changing needs of society. As dictated by the laws of progress and evolution, the state moves society along an inevitable ascent. By application of “scientific” expertise and rationalizing administration, government directs this growth. Expressly left behind is Madisonian constitutionalism and its notions of natural rights, limited government, the rule of law, prevention of faction, and vigilance against the possibility of overly centralized and unaccountable government.

Need I say that Barack Obama and his minions represent the precise attack on the Constitution as described above? Read the whole thing at National Review Online.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Blowing the Lid on the Progressive Movement

Liberals today prefer to be called 'progressives.' But have you ever stopped to consider the history and goals of the progressive movement? It is an eye-opener.

I discuss this topic today at Columbia Conservative Examiner.

It is imperative that we consider the underlying philosophy of this movement as we fight the attempts of the big government statists to intrude in every aspect of our lives.

Tell a friend?

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Should There Be a Law Forcing Physical Exercise?

From Dr. Walter Williams:

During winter months, I work out 10 minutes on the treadmill and lift weights at seven stations four mornings a week. Over the years, during the spring through fall months, I racked up about 2,000 miles on my road bike. This level of exercise helps account for why, at 73 years, I'm in such good health and physical fitness. So my question to you is whether you think regular exercise is a good idea. I think the answer is definitely yes, if nothing other than its beneficial effects on health care costs. Since exercise is a good idea, would you support a congressional mandate that all Americans engage in regular exercise?

The notion that government should require citizens to do whatever is 'for their own good' in the name of 'promoting the general welfare' is a common argument among statists.

But is this kind of government intrusion really what we want? Is this what the Founders envisioned?

Be sure to read the entirety of Williams' excellent essay here.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Romano: Economy 'Too Big to Save'

From Robert Romano of Americans for Limited Government comes this dire assessment--the crumbling American financial system may be too big to save. The bailouts are not working, and Obama's prescriptions are clearly only making matters worse.

"Too Big to Save"
By Robert Romano

In the debate over moral hazard, one argument often made is that certain institutions are simply too big to fail. That, if they are allowed to fail, the greater economy will be irreparably damaged, and the people will be unnecessarily hurt.

The reality emerging, however, is that the crumbling financial system is, in fact, too big to save. And the bailouts themselves are irreparably damaging the economy, and yes, the people are hurting badly as a result. Unnecessarily.

On March 2nd, the Treasury and Federal Reserve unveiled the latest bailout for troubled insurance giant AIG—another $30 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) for a grand total of $173 billion thus far. This follows a long line of bailouts for this company—and others—that come in for money, and then show up just months later looking for yet more when the last bailout fails to return the company to profitability.

The argument being made by the Fed and Treasury, as reported by yesterday by the Wall Street Journal in “AIG’s Black Box,” is that these companies are “systemically important”—or in other words, too big to fail.

Under that comes everybody that has latched on to the TARP or the Fed’s discount window for cash: banks, creditors, investment firms, insurance companies, automakers, and on down the line.

To be certain, the bad news keeps rolling in. GM and Chrysler have received a combined $17 billion from TARP, but as Bloomberg reports, the companies are still descending into insolvency as sales figures come in worse than expected. They will likely follow on the heels of AIG and return to the Treasury with hat in hand, begging the taxpayers for more loans that they probably won’t be able to pay back.

Another example of government failing to plug a hole in a dam that has already broken is its ill-conceived foreclosure “prevention” schemes. In 2008, Congress dedicated some $300 billion for that purpose, and yet 2.3 million foreclosures happened anyway. In 2009, the Obama Administration is proposing another $75 billion to “prevent” foreclosures.

It gets worse. Last year, Congress spent some $200 billion to purchase Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt. Since TARP, the number’s up to $600 billion for purchasing mortgage-backed securities—which were sold by the Government Sponsored Enterprises all over the world with the implicit backing of the federal government. And now, this year, the Obama Administration wants to allocate another $200 billion for Fannie and Freddie to reduce mortgage rates for those who cannot pay at the expense of those who are making their payments on time and in full.

Stand back even further, and the picture only grows grimmer. Last year, $150 billion was dedicated to economic “stimulus.” This year, the number grew to $787 billion. Last year, $700 billion was dedicated to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, much of which still cannot be accounted for. This year, President Obama makes TARP a line on his budget—another $750 billion—“just in case.”

Does anyone see a pattern here? We do. The bailouts are not working. They have all to date proven to be insufficient at addressing the structural problems internally and externally that prevent these companies from returning to solvency and self-sufficiency. They should be allowed to fail. Allowed to go bankrupt. And allowed to be gutted by market forces.

Instead, these businesses are rapidly becoming nationalized as de facto agencies of government; yet more lines on the budget. What is happening is akin to the people of Pompei that were showered and solidified in volcanic ash ages ago. Neither will return to life any time soon.

Meanwhile, it is the issues that government refuses to address that are all the more disconcerting for the American taxpayer.

To date, Congress has not voted upon any proposals to restore price stability by eliminating the dual mandate at the Federal Reserve—it was easy money from the Fed that accommodated excessive lending that created the housing bubble in the first place. Nor has there been an up-or-down vote to reduce spending, balance the budget, pay down the national debt, and get America off its addiction to foreign credit, which further allows this unbridled spending spree to continue unabated.

The icing on the cake, though, is President Obama’s proposed $3.6 trillion budget that will expand the deficit for 2009 to $1.75 trillion. The national debt will grow to well over $11 trillion. One can almost hear the American taxpayer’s head exploding.

The debt being placed upon the American people is a heavy burden that they did not ask for, did not vote for, and is one that can never possibly be paid back.

The dawning reality is that these companies: AIG, the automakers, the banks, the housing sector—indeed, Big Government itself—are not too big to fail, but too big to save.

And that case must be made loud and clear to lawmakers before they proceed even further into the breach. Before the economy is irreparably broken and the nation forever bankrupted. Before the people becomes slaves to the national debt. In short, before it is too late.

Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of ALG News Bureau.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The Best Part of Obama's Speech...

...was Governor Bobby Jindal's response from the Republicans.

No clearer distinction could be made between big government Democrats and conservative Republicans than Jindal made last night.

Barack Obama's speech clearly defined his ideology. Spend trillions of taxpayer dollars and expand the role and scope of government, because the citizens simply can't be trusted with their own money. This is pure socialism.

Bobby Jindal, by contrast, stated that individual Americans can do anything we set our minds to do...if only government gets out of the way.

This is precisely the philosophy set forth by President Ronald Reagan in his 1981 Inaugural Address.

Liberals, Democrats, and President Obama believe that only the federal government can be trusted to 'fix' things. Conservatives, Republicans, and Bobby Jindal believe that the individual citizens can do far more than they ever conceived if they put their minds to it.

Who do YOU trust? The federal government? Or the people?

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Gov't Terrorism Targets U.S. Citizens

If this is true, then those who believe we the citizens have nothing to fear from our government will be shocked to discover the ultimate consequences of having one's head buried in the sand:

AMERICAN GESTAPO: State-Supported Terrorism Targets U.S. Citizens

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Democrats Discuss Seizing Private Retirement Accounts

The Democrats who now control 2 of the 3 major branches of government are discussing the possibility of seizing the private retirement accounts of the citizens.

401Ks would be targeted for confiscation and absorbed under the Social Security Administration.

Under the guise of 'protecting citizens from the current losses in the stock market,' the Democrats would rob Americans of their right to maintain their own private or employer-funded accounts in order to place big government in control.

But don't look for them to stop there.

IRAs would also become a target of the money-hungry liberals who are now firmly in control of government.

Our 401Ks and IRAs would simply be confiscated (stolen) with or without our permission, and the money would be placed in government coffers.

Clearly, this is an example of nanny-statism at its worst as the Democrats decide that we, the peons of the masses, do not have sense enough to manage our own financial affairs, and therefore, they must step in and 'protect us' from ourselves.

My friends, those of you who voted for this gang of thugs are about to wake up from your drunken stupor and realize you are getting ready to be hosed. We ALL are going to be hosed.

My suggestion? Drop 'em, bend over, and grab 'em, because we are getting ready to be screwed.

Friday, November 07, 2008

Statism vs. Liberty

The notion of a big government nanny state takes on many forms. Big government Republicans can be just as dangerous as liberal Democrats. Both support big government and are therefore the purveyors of statism.

Despite their protests to the contrary, statists by their very nature oppose human liberty.

We have seen the work of so-called 'compassionate conservatives' in vastly expanding the size and scope of government. Liberty has suffered as a result.

To be sure, 'compassionate conservatives' compensate for their statism by supporting tax cuts. Big government liberals have never supported the idea that citizens get to keep more of their own money.

As Geraldine Ferraro told Bill O'Reilly recently when O'Reilly complained about Obama's possible hefty tax increases on his money, 'Just be glad you get to keep some of it.'

This is the liberal ideology in a nutshell. They think your money belongs to them and you get to keep some of it only by their good graces.

Ferraro is totally and absolutely wrong. She should just be glad we allow the government to take some of it.

After all, that money is ours, not the government's. We pay taxes only as the citizens allow government to collect it.

At least the big government conservatives agree with my view on taxes.

But I am greatly disturbed by recent trends among conservatives, especially within the GOP, to embrace and support the expansion of government. This is totally antithetical to the views of our Founders.

As someone stated recently as I was reading through blogs, perhaps the terms 'conservative' and 'Republican' have lost their significance. Perhaps better terms are 'statism' as propounded by big government statists, and 'liberty' as propounded by small government Jeffersonians.

An encouraging sign that the true conservatives, the small government Jeffersonians, have gotten the message is that a group within government made up of the guardians of liberty has been engaging in a series of meetings since the election.

This group maintains that they put no stock in the fact that a person may refer to themselves as 'Republican' or 'conservative.' The only thing that matters to them is whether or not the person is anti-statism and a guardian of liberty as envisioned by the small-government Framers of the Constitution.

And this is the best sign of hope I've seen in a long time.