Replies

Spoiler alert. Last sentence, "Asking the government to imprison your neighbor if he does not pay you is a dreadful thing to do. It needs to be dressed up in pieties, no matter how absurd they are."

Brillant article. Sort of a Steyn meets Von Mises mashup. Mr. Whyte is a fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London but he could have just as easily wrote this about the USA. Except of course that we are not trying to cut anything.

“...he could have just as easily wrote this about the USA. Except of course that we are not trying to cut anything. “

And we’re not robbing the neighbor, just his grandkids, many of whom will now never be born because of the excessive debt that has accrued.

I expect that next: The IRS threatening kids with “Penalties for avoiding Obamacare mandates by failing to be conceived so they can pay their “fair share””

Every politician should read Charles Beard's classic An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. In it, he specifies those areas where gov't is deemed responsible for spending. The areas narrow to two centers of spending: 1) policing of property rights (e.g., a legal system), and 2) social overhead capital (e.g., those things the private sector won't provide but are necessary for the Republic to survive (e.g., a standing military, bridges and roads, etc.). I would venture to say that the overwhelming percent of gov't spending takes place in other areas when the gov't has no legitimate reason for spending other than buying votes. Why, for example, if I live in the Midwest, is my tax money being used to restore private property due to Sandy in NJ? NJ has the highest property taxes in the country. Why isn't that money being used to clean the public buildings and roads up? If your house was swept away by the storm, why should my tax dollars fix it just because you didn't buy enough (or any) insurance? Are the owners of the beachfront property going to ask you or me to spend a week at their place this summer? I don't think so.

Some gov't programs are "fuzzy" in that they may or may not fall into one of the two real areas of gov't spending. But cells phones for poor people? Really? Other than getting reelected, how do programs like that make any sense?

Obozo bitches about tax breaks for the rich. Really? Who the hell does he think wrote the Tax Code. You and your cronies did and you did it to give them breaks so you could do them favors in return for election contributions.

It's time to clean house...both houses, both parties.

It’s like people complaining that the government needs to pay them because a hurricane hit. You can predict a hurricane, but you can’t stop it. It’s not like the government has anything to do with that. Yeah, I’ve had people that I care about affected by it; one friend’s basement flooded, and another friend out on Long Island lost the first floor to her house, but seriously, why is it the government’s responsibility to pay you so you can rebuild? I learned my lesson the hard way, by myself as well as observing those close to me, that it’s better to hold on to money as long as you can, instead of spending it on useless things (like a vacation). Yeah, I needed new boots for work, so I went out and bought new boots.

The Interstate system might fall under the Commerce Clause, since it crosses state boundaries. But the Commerce Clause has been so screwed and abused since Wickard v. Filburn that it requires serious repair.

One item of government spending that usually DOESN’T cross state lines, however, is disaster relief.

I don’t mean to sound cruel, but why should my tax money be spent to provide relief for tornado victims in Oklahoma, or a forest fire in California or a flood in Alabama? Shouldn’t the states and/or insurance companies provide that relief?

I’m aware of the story of Davy Crockett and the farmer who was pissed at him for voting to provide federal relief for the victims of a fire, and that story does have a certain resonance here.

Charity is not a legitimate function of “limited” government and it certainly does not appear in the Constitution. Americans have proven themselves amazingly generous in helping their fellow citizens, but that beneficence should be voluntary, not mandatory.

Again, I don’t mean to sound unkind. But if my home got flattened by an earthquake, I could not, in good conscience, expect some taxpayer in Nevada to cough up for the rebuilding effort.

This nation owes veterans, so much more, than what if being done, period.

Every stoop-sitter, basement dweller in mama’s house, or daughter that shows up at mama’s empty nest house with baby in arms, deserves nothing.

I served this country,because I love her. I handled barrels of agent whatever, but becaue I did not fit the reported years of time, I, of course, do not have any tainting from agent whatever. I have paid my “forty quarters” twice, but -I- had to sue, to get my social security benefits. Yet some confounded KID gets it, and more, just for not wanting to say “NO”?!?!?!?

Then, those ‘fredding buzzards’ talk about not being able to pay the military paychecks, but they have been cutting checks to unions all year?!?!?!

Do I trust the government? Not since the one bullet theory of Kennedy’s death; not since the greatest swimmer Harvard had ever had on its swim team drowned a woman on Chappaquiddick; not since a future President named FORD served on the Warren Commission; not since a member of The Keating Five ran for President. I’ll stop there.