Say cheese…I mean, pork.

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, “The 375 projects, totaling $3.4 billion, in this year’s Congressional Pig Book Summary symbolize the most egregious and blatant examples of pork. As in previous years, all of the items in the Congressional Pig Book Summary meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:

• Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
• Not specifically authorized;
• Not competitively awarded;
• Not requested by the President;
• Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
• Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
• Serves only a local or special interest.”

Some examples (no, I’m not making any of this up):

• $1,300,000 for berry research; $1,099,000 for alternative salmon products, $3,000,000 for the Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, $2,045,000 for the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, $750,000 for multiflora rose control, $234,000 for the National Wild Turkey Federation, $211,000 for tropical aquaculture in Florida, $250,000 for the Mojave Bird Study…
• $1,000,000 for the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative, $1,500,000 for the Allen Telescope array (to look for extraterrestrial life), $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games…
• $13,500,000 added by the House for the International Fund for Ireland, $2,300,000 for the International Fertilizer Development Center, $3,000,000 for the Foundation for Environmental Security and Sustainability…
• $4,000,000 for a visitors center at the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, $450,000 for the Bering Sea Fisherman’s Association, $150,000 for the Alaska Whaling Commission; and $98,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission.
• $600,000 for the Native Hawaiian Culture and Arts Program, $400,000 for the Kam Wah Chung & Company Museum, $150,000 for the Actors Theater in Louisville, Kentucky.
• $41,000,000 added by the Senate for Byrd Honors Scholarships, $100,000,000 added by the House for the Even Start program, $65,643,000 added for the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, $2,000,000 added by the Senate for the Underground Railroad Program…

And the list goes on and on…

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006

Is president Bush really a conservative?

I met Tammy Bruce (author and radio host) recently and I remember her describing president Bush as a religious liberal. I thought it was an interesting way to put it, but calling him a liberal has a lot of truth to it. Consider that he has grown government larger than ever and at a rate faster than any president in the last fifty years. He has increased spending to almost all government agencies and programs. He believes in a large “compassionate” government, which is really a contradiction, and he has not vetoed a single bill. In fact, the Left should really love Bush if it weren’t for three main things: he’s a Christian, Iraq and tax cuts. If it weren’t for those three things, how different would he be from the average Democrat?

The role-of-government issues used to be a dividing factor between the two parties, but that distinction is becoming increasingly blurred. As the Democratic Party has moved further and further to the left, it had the unfortunate consequence of also dragging the Republicans to the left as well. A founding principle of limited government seems to mean very little to both parties.

One of the presidential icons of the Left is president John F. Kennedy. This democrat was in favor of using the military during the Cuban missile crisis, and he strongly supported free trade and cutting taxes. By today’s standards he’d be considered a republican. This is how far the Democrats have moved left. Today’s Republicans are like the Democrats of 40 years ago, and the Democrats today are just outright Socialists. Those are our two choices – neither one faithful to the libertarian principles outlined in the Constitution.

Unfortunately there is such broad ignorance and/or contempt for the Constitution, that not many politicians could win elections running on a platform faithful to the founding principles of this country.

Why is there such widespread ignorance? Probably because the education system and the media are run overwhelmingly by liberals who are either ignorant themselves, or they don’t want people to know the truth, because they prefer to have people believing the government can do anything, or is supposed to take care of you.

President Grover Cleveland in 1887, upon vetoing a bill appropriating money to help drought-stricken farmers in Texas, said, "I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

President Cleveland added, "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood." [emphasis added] Imagine if any current president tried saying something like this.

Whenever and wherever government increases in size and thus power, economic freedom and liberty decrease. It is a fact that there is an inverse relationship between the size of government and the prosperity of the people. Of course some level of government involvement and spending is neces­sary to ensure that the basic structures of society func­tion smoothly, but we have far surpassed that level, and not just under Bush, but for most presidents going back to at least FDR.

This isn’t to say conservatives shouldn’t have voted for Bush, given the alternative was worse on all grounds. And certainly the issue of judicial nominees is another factor that still separates the two parties, and is probably one of the most important factors for the long-term. But the road the Republicans are on should be a wake up call to realize they are following the same wrong path the Democrats have taken, but they are just a little farther up the road. The Republicans need to turn the party around and head the other direction.

It wasn’t pork-barrel spending, entitlements and special interest groups lobbying politicians for favors that made America great, but it will make us much worse.

Who’s Pumping Whom?

With gas prices breaking the $3/gallon mark, what could realistically be done for the short term? And the long? (BTW-the picture is of a station in Beverly Hills, CA)

Maybe the only immediate thing that could bring prices down some is to eliminate the taxes on gasoline, especially since some states have a tax as high as 32.1 cents/gallon (gas or diesel), and that doesn’t include federal and local tax. When you add up all the tax, it’s over 50 cents/gallon and close to 80 cents/gallon in some places. All in all, the government makes more money from taxing oil than oil companies do in profit. Also many states have different environmental regulations, and thus many different blends of gasoline must be made and shipped frequently from farther locations because the closer refineries cannot make that particular blend. So many things contribute to the high cost of course, not the least of which is the higher demand from countries like China and India.

Price caps don’t work as we’ve seen the result of that in the 1970s with shortages and long lines. Government subsidies don’t work, just like subsides to anything or anyone does not work. And it’s also true that in inflation-adjusted dollars, gas is still cheaper (just barely) today than compared to 1981 prices. Hurricane Katrina heavily damaged the largest refinery region in the U.S. and is not back to full capacity (yet?). But I won’t defend the oil companies when they are engaging in unethical business practices.

Investigations into oil companies have found their practices to be legal – even if they are unethical. It is not illegal, for instance, to create an artificial shortage in order to boost the price at the pump. There has not been a new refinery built in 30 years and obviously the demand has increased in that time. Some claim the oil companies are closely monitoring the demand of gasoline and only producing enough to meet that demand, when they could in fact make more (again, not illegal). But they don’t want to do that and drive the price down, thus decreasing their profits. So long as they are not actually price-fixing, which would be illegal, if they all decided on their own to raise prices, it would be legal.

I don’t normally agree with Chuck Schumer, but he might be on to something with his suggestion to break up the oil companies back into smaller entities. Exxon-Mobil would go back into being Exxon and Mobil; you’d have BP, Amoco, etc. A free market works when there isn’t a monopoly or something very close to one.

Miles O'Brien of CNN suggested there “could be a good argument for a gas tax in all of this to help pay for these alternative fuels.” (just what we need, another tax, and on gas of all things) However, over $200 billion has been spent over the last fifty years by the government on alternative fuel research, with very little to show for it.

It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have alternative fuels, but it shows that government isn’t the solution, and the answer will be found in the private sector. But only if enough companies exist and compete against one another to make it worth their effort and expense.

A Terrible Cover-up

A governing body in Australia has banned the exposing of cheerleaders’ midriffs and ordered them to cover up. This egregious miscarriage of justice is being implemented so that young girls who see the flat stomachs of cheerleaders will not become anorexic.

“The organisation believes the revealing costumes make sensitive teenagers feel uncomfortable about their weight and ‘affect the self-esteem of others’.”

If we are going to stop activities that may affect the self-esteem of others or make teenagers uncomfortable, then basically all athletic activities including working out at a gym should be banned. And all swimsuits should also be banned and not allowed to be worn in public. Overweight people should also be banned as it promotes over-eating and obesity. Parents and grandparents routinely embarrass and make their children feel uncomfortable – all cheek pinching should be outlawed.

From the photo, only one would have to cover up, while the other two are sporting the possible new outfits. Teams have till the end of the year to make modifications to the wardrobes.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18824684-1248,00.html

THEFT TIME

Did everyone “pay” taxes? Seems funny to say “pay” as though it’s voluntary. Well, it’s that wonderful time of year again, when the largest organized crime ring in America – the IRS - robs Peter to pay Paul.

Will America ever have a drastically reduced flat or fair tax? Will we ever go back to what the Founders intended where taxation is concerned - all funding necessary for government function is collected solely via tariffs, duties, and excise taxes?

Sometimes reality is much more scary than anything Hollywood could dream up. Read the following court case from the Center for Individual Rights. Here is a sample:

“After its initial letter, the IRS stepped up its campaign against Pete. U.S. Marshals showed up at Pete's door step with subpoenas demanding more information, including the names of everyone who had purchased his book. One can only speculate as to the IRS's motives, but what better way to suppress a book than to disclose its readership to the IRS?”

http://www.cir-usa.org/cases/hendrickson_v_irs.html

The United States of ?

Imagine for a minute that you moved to say, Thailand. You are living there, but speak very little, if any, Thai. You only eat at McDonalds and make no effort fit in; you do not celebrate their holidays, you don’t believe in their values and do not participate in their cultural activities. Could you rightly call yourself Thai? Probably most people would answer “no”.

Now imagine that tens of millions of people are moving to Thailand but importing their own culture along with them. Would Thailand still be the same country fifty or 100 years from now? That is why assimilation is important – culture matters.

Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tennesse, has drafted a proposal to provide government grants to immigrants who would like to learn English and American history. But the La Raza director of Immigration Policy Research, Michele Waslin, said that while the proposal “doesn't overtly mention assimilation, it is very strong on the patriotism and traditional American values language in a way which is potentially dangerous to our communities.” [emphasis added] Doesn’t sound like the words of someone who wants to be Thai.

Certainly La Raza does not represent every Mexican immigrant, and many believe it (correctly) to be a racist organization, but unfortunately a large percentage of Mexican immigrants agree with La Raza.

To quote Ann’s latest column, “This is the only country on Earth that thinks it's not sporting to consider our own interests in choosing immigrants. Try showing up in any other country on the planet, illiterate and penniless, and announcing: ‘I've seen pictures of your country and it looks great. I think I'd like to live here! Oh, and by the way, would you mind changing all your government and business phone messages, street signs and ballots into my native language? Thanks!’ They would laugh you out of the country.”

Yes, but unfortunately some people don’t get it, and think the country should change to suit the immigrants instead of the other way around. Maybe we should adopt the same immigration policies of Mexico?

NYC expected to give non-citizens the right to vote

The deceptively named “Voting Rights Restoration Act”, will (if passed) allow non-citizens who only have a green card to vote in municipal elections, including for mayor, comptroller and city council, after having lived in the city for a period of only six months. A better name would be, “Democrats Expanding Unconstitutional Rights in Order to Get More Votes Act”.

New York City Councilman and outspoken Democrat Charles Barron said, “We’re very excited and very optimistic that this will pass. We see this as the historical launching of something that should have happened a long time ago.”

The New York Coalition to Expand Voting Rights eventually would like this practice to be extended to the national level. A spokesman for the group explained, "There is nothing in either the U.S. or the New York State Constitution that prevents us from expanding the franchise to include non-citizen residents.” That’s debatable considering both the 24th and the 26th Amendments specifically make reference to citizens voting, and would then imply that non-citizens cannot vote. Advocates claim that many state and federal territories during the 18th and 19th centuries allowed non-citizens to vote, but then again, how could you tell if someone really was a citizen back then anyway. So it will be interesting to see how this issue develops over time.

According to Heartbeat News, a Caribbean news service, the measure's impact on New York City elections would be considerable, adding up to 1.5 million voters. Most of the new voters, experts predict, would cast their ballots for Democrats. Gee, what a surprise.