|
Blog Still Deaf to the Sirens’ Song Last month, ALG News reported to you that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, had responded to the call for a foreclosure bailout with the fortitude of Odysseus in resisting the sirens’ song.  This month, we are pleased to report that Governor Pawlenty is standing firm in promising to veto legislation which would postpone houses from being foreclosed upon: “[T]he measure in Minnesota would let homeowners delay foreclosure for one year … if they keep paying at least 65 percent of their monthly mortgage payment. The option is only for owner-occupied homes financed with subprime loans. Governor Pawlenty is certainly to be commended for his courage in choosing to do what is right over what is politically expedient. That is the sort of leadership the American people deserve. And now, joining in the Odyssean ranks is President George W. Bush, who is promising to veto the legislation moving through Congress purportedly aimed at preventing foreclosures. ALG News has previously called upon the President to veto this bill, and we are happy to report that it appears he will do just that: “I will veto the bill that's moving through the House today if it makes it to my desk, and I urge members on both sides of the aisle to focus on a good piece of legislation that is being sponsored by Republican members.” He warned that the bill will reward speculators and lenders, both of whom took and made loans that couldn’t be paid. Not only that, the legislation would essentially create a new entitlement when the worst of the foreclosure crunch may not even have passed yet, despite market interventions by the Federal Reserve and other government organs. For example, this news from Florida, as reported by MSN Money, under the headline “Foreclosures Accelerating”: “Foreclosures numbered 1,441 in December and 7,324 for the year -- about 4% of the single-family homes in Lee County. And most of those foreclosures were after August. The situation is not getting better. Hank Fishkind, an Orlando, Fla., economist, estimates that it may take four years for the housing market to recover. [emphasis added] Congress and many States may believe they can “prevent” foreclosures, but in reality they will be putting hundreds of billions of dollars – which could be put to productive use elsewhere – into a ship that is sinking. And sinking fast. A question that must be posed to policy makers before they waste these tax dollars on “preventing” foreclosures: What if the bleeding doesn’t stop? What if it gets worse? Will Big Government be there to the rescue again? And again? There is also a basic question of fairness. What of all the people who were foreclosed upon before the sub-prime crisis? Why is it okay to bail the sub-primers out, but not everyone else that came before them? Heck, why doesn’t government just buy property and build homes for everyone by just channeling money directly to banks that make bad loans? Where and when does the sirens’ song end? The answer, of course, is because it cannot. Nor should it. The market needs to be allowed to work itself out and let homes clear at lower prices, instead of incentivizing bad behavior and prolonging the market agony. If government sent a clear message that there would be no market intervention in this area, the crisis would come to a swifter conclusion, and the recovery would begin far sooner. In ancient Greek literature, the only way to defeat the sirens’ was either to plug your ears, or to somehow resist their song. Legend had it that if any man resisted the song, the sirens would fall into the water to perish. Perhaps our leaders should take a page from the Greeks, and follow the leads of Governor Pawlenty and President Bush. ALG Perspective: Not knowing when the bleeding in the housing market will end, it would be highly dangerous for the government to set the precedent of paying off foreclosures and only adding to the unsustainable growth of Big Government. For all anyone knows, what Congress is attempting to do could be akin to attempting to fill the Grand Canyon with sugar one teaspoon at a time. Posted by Robert Romano The Extinction Agenda “And another one gone, and another one gone, Yet another big fat, government has run out of food, as the species of governmentus overspendus lumbers on to certain extinction.  The city of Vallejo, California, a suburb of San Francisco has filed for bankruptcy after a unanimous vote by the city council: “City Manager Joseph Tanner and the city's finance director had advised filing for bankruptcy before its fiscal year ends on June 30 because Vallejo faces a projected budget deficit of $16 million and has no money in its reserves. In other words, this city alone was facing an actual $21 million deficit, and with no extra cash on hand, had to bite the bullet. Apparently, the city’s mayor, Osby Davis was worried, before voting for bankruptcy, that the move would stigmatize the city. One consultant had consoling words for city officials: “‘There is a stigma associated with bankruptcy that's not necessarily warranted,’ said Sajan George, an Atlanta-based financial turnaround consultant who worked on the Orange County bankruptcy.” How’s this for a stigma? You spent so much money now you don’t have any. You’re spendthrifts. If you were a publicly-traded business, we’d short you. This example should probably serve to remind governments not to base budgets on the revenues generated by overvalued homes. One effect of a slumping housing market is that cities and municipalities collect far less in property taxes as property values plummet. Of course, that doesn’t mean that those localities ought to jack up the tax rates to make up shortfalls. What it does mean is that Big Government across America must find ways to survive with less, and to scale back where necessary. Else, other starving breeds of governmentus overspendus too will bite the dust. ALG Prediction: This is only just the beginning. The unsustainable growth of government throughout the nation was dependent in gargantuan ways to a growing economy. Just to give you an idea of how unsustainable Big Government is, America is not even currently in a recession. The city of Vallejo could not even survive the current economic slowdown its spending was so excessive. What if the nation actually went into recession or worse? Posted by Robert Romano Taking Aim RINO’s, or Republicans In Name Only, was a clever derogatory term created by commentator Celeste Greig in 1994 to denote those very special “Republicans” who pretend to be conservatives when they run for office, but upon being elected, abandon their principles in favor of compromising with the Left, or catering to a mainstream, liberal media.  Over the years, the term has been applied to establishment Republicans such as Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, or Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrest. And apparently, today, they are an endangered species. One organization taking aim at these officials who have wandered off the sound, conservative reservation is the Club for Growth. Yesterday, former Pennsylvania Congressman Pat Toomey, the PAC’s president, defended the practice in the pages of the Wall Street Journal in the aptly titled piece, “In Defense of RINO Hunting.” In it, he quotes prominent Republicans who have denounced the organization such as Pennsylvania Congressman Jim Greenwood, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and most recently, Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole, Chair of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee: “‘The problem I have with the Club is I think they're stupid,’ Mr. Cole said. ‘They spend more money beating Republicans than Democrats.’” Lest anyone think that the Club for Growth was mistakenly taking aim at otherwise conservative Republicans who were in fact adhering to principles of limited government, one need only consider Mr. Toomey’s examples of former Senator Lincoln Chafee and former Michigan Congressman Joe Schwarz: “Mr. Chafee, who was defeated, switched his party affiliation to Independent and has endorsed Barack Obama for president. Following his loss to conservative Tim Walberg in the 2006 primary, Rep. Schwarz of Michigan backed a state-level tax hike, and threatened to run against Mr. Walberg as a Democrat.” In other words, these “representatives” truly were Republicans In Name Only! Way to support the party’s nominees, guys… Partisans are rightly outraged by the protection of worthless incumbents by party leadership in primaries. Traditionally, primaries are an opportunity for the base of a party to test incumbents, and to weed out representatives that do not follow the party line. If a candidate promises to do one thing when elected, and then commits to actions completely contrary to those precepts, voters and political organizations have every right to back another candidate who does. America is a republic, not an aristocracy. Incumbents are most certainly not entitled to their seats in government, nor for protection from on-high to save them when they get into a tough primary. Party leadership ought to really stay out of primary battles, and simply promise to back the party’s nominees. It is one thing for local party organizations to back one candidate or another for Congress and quite another for a Congressional campaign committee to give preference to incumbents. What matter is it to a national committee who a Congressional district’s party nominee is? Perhaps Mr. Toomey puts it best when he writes: “Winning for the sake of winning is an excellent short-term tactic, but a lousy long-term strategy. Just look at the consequences of the 2006 congressional elections, when the GOP lost control of both houses of Congress… A Republican majority is only as useful as the policies that majority produces. When those policies look a lot like Democratic ones, the base rightly questions why it should keep Republicans in power.” If those in power do not act upon the principles which get them elected, they should expect a primary. Take note, RINO’s. You could be next. ALG Perspective: ALG News would like to tip our hats to the Club for Growth for remaining committed to advancing conservative principles in government, and demanding results from elected officials. Their hard line against RINO’s keeps representatives on their toes, and reminds them that they are accountable to the people via the primary process. Historically, the incumbency advantage in the House of Representatives may be about 95% in the general election, but that advantage does not mean that Congressmen need not pay attention to voter concerns. There is more to sitting in government than consolidating and concentrating power. Power is the means to an end – usually some reform or another – not the end in itself. Posted by Robert Romano New York Gas Tax Holiday Cancelled? Big Government has once again proven that it really believes that tax dollars belong to them and not the taxpayers they “appropriate” the funds from.  The New York State Assembly is reticent to take up a measure to cut the Empire State’s gas tax by 32 cents per gallon from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day. The State’s Senate, led by Republicans, adopted the gas tax holiday 46-15 with bipartisan support. The State’s Governor, David Paterson, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, both Democrats, are also opposed to the tax holiday on the grounds that the government would lose $500 million in funds. Republicans, on the other hand, note that if all gas taxes at all levels of government were suspended for that period of time, it would save New York motorists 65 cents per gallon. If a car took 20 gallons to fill up, the driver would therefore save $13 per fill-up. That would mean hundreds of millions of savings for drivers throughout the State, a big boost for the State’s economy over the summer months, as those dollars could then be directed to purchases of other goods and services. Left out of the Democrats’ calculation – as usual – is how a boost to the economy positively impacts upon general revenues. It is a simple fact that reducing the tax burden on individuals bolsters economic activity, and that bolsters profits and purchasing power, which means that revenues increase. Their $500 million projected “loss” in revenue is therefore meaningless, and should be disregarded by New Yorkers. It’s a simple fact: If a business, to remain competitive, reduces the price of the good or service it is selling, it will boost sales, move more inventory, and may even have to expand in order to keep up with orders. That means more profits and thus growth. Another line commonly used is the myth that somehow the savings do not get passed on to the consumers: “Opponents to the state measure -- which comes in an election year when the cost of gas is a top complaint for voters -- say they don't trust the oil industry not to jack up prices to eliminate any consumer savings.” And it is a myth. So replies Senator Andrew Lanza of Staten Island, a Republican: "Look at New Jersey, where you'll find a lower tax for gasoline, and you know what you'll find? A lower price for gasoline… Gas costs more here, because we impose a higher tax here. If we impose a lower tax here gas will cost less here. What is so hard about that to understand?" Indeed. As of this writing, the average price of gasoline in NY was $3.823/gallon. And in New Jersey it was $3.517. A difference of 30.6 cents. And the gas taxes in each State are $.412/gallon and $.145/gallon, respectively. A difference of 26.7 cents. If these kooks were right, wouldn’t the difference in price between the two States be less than the difference in taxes, and not greater? In other words, based upon empirical data, where is the evidence of price-gouging? Left with no other argument, the Left uses conspiracy theories to justify more government taxation. Therefore, the only evidence ALG News notes is that of tax-gouging. ALG Prediction: Relying on conspiracy theories and armed with no understanding whatsoever of basic economics, the New York State Assembly will ignore the State Senate’s reasonable call for a gas tax holiday over this coming summer. Posted by Robert Romano The Heart to Help If the globaloneyists had their way, a man named Jed would still be “a poor mountaineer who barely kept his family fed.” In the short span of 30 years, the Greens have cooked up massive global warming hysteria, stood in the way additional oil exploration and gasoline refinement, and refused to allow viable alternatives to oil (nuclear, coal, natural gas, etc.) to even be seriously considered.  As Americans consider proposals for a national energy policy, it is important to keep in mind the words of Lincoln: “He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help.” For all of the blanket nay-says heard today from the Greens in terms of the viable energy options, not nearly enough time is spent considering the alternatives they have proposed, and their inherent unviability:
In short, it’s time for the Greens to put up or shut up. Those proposing that their stop-gap “alternatives” are anywhere near ready to supplant oil and coal are not, as they portray themselves, ingenious. They’re disingenuous. They know that if their risky schemes were mandated by law, it would result in a catastrophic reduction in Americans’ standard of living, which is coveted throughout the world. One line the Greens like to continually bandy about is that the environment must be protected for the children. “Do it for the children,” they say, smiling beatifically. Meanwhile, they are consigning future generations to misery by using government to create an energy crisis artificially limiting an adequate supply. Their myopic obsession with their own ideas is driving up prices. And they are deliberately stymieing the efficient development of available energy resources desperately needed “for the children.” More than 40 years ago, John Kennedy wrote that the dream of every generation is “to build a good world for ourselves and a better world for our children.” The hard Left has now put the lie to that once reliable axiom, preferring to foist a myth on the world today – and leave tomorrow’s children to fend for themselves in the darkened shell of a primitive nightmare. ALG Perspective: This is a prescient example of a flawed, fraudulent public policy where handcuffing free markets has plunged the Western World into a deepening, darkening abyss. Now is the time to increase the supply of the viable energy sources we do have and to expand dramatically the alternative energy more viable than any conventional form of energy: nuclear. Bottom line: America has had a fossil fuel alternative for over sixty years. Whether we use it or not is not a question of capability but will. Posted by Robert Romano There He Goes Again! California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (already familiar to ALG Daily Feed readers) has yet again attempted to overturn the will of California’s voters, by attempting to confuse them with yet another legislative “reform” package. One element is strikingly similar to that proposed by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. But whereas the governor’s plan focuses on the redistricting process (moving control of it from the elected legislature to an appointed panel), Nunez’s “reform” plan goes even further: 
Prohibiting contributions during budget deliberations will not prevent those donations from being made at a later date. Nor will it prevent lawmakers from taking calls from potential donors during that time. Enough with the nudging and winking. Finally, by amending the current term limits law, he would be defying the clear will of California voters, who – just three months ago – saw through misleading information and $16 million in advertising to reject a similar term-limits increase. In brief, this bill is pointless. Redistricting? That is already taken care of by the governor’s proposal. Prohibiting campaign contributions during budget deliberations? Does he think that will stop lobbyists and special interest groups from merely “promising” contributions to be delivered as soon as the budget is passed? No, the bulk of his proposition serves only one purpose: to allow his political cronies to maintain their grasping, greedy hold on office. Nunez defends his request for more time in office, claiming that, as a politician, he likes to “come back and figure out how to do things.” Which, of course, may well be why the good people of California term-limited him out in the first place! ALG Perspective: It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what this measure is after – increasing power to those who already have it (and don’t want to lose it). Nunez’s excuses are as pointless as those of a child, hand caught in the cookie jar, claiming he was only “counting them.” It is a power grab, plain and simple. Posted by Robert Romano Time for a “National Dialogue” Anteiglesia is not a term with which today’s politicians are particularly familiar. But, perhaps, they should be.  In the Spanish Basque country, in the Middle Ages, anteiglesia was the name given to the periodic meetings of the local townspeople who gathered “in front of the church” to robustly discuss the important issues of the day and vote the people’s will. It was in some ways similar to the “town meetings” some politicians stage today – but not really. At the ancient anteiglesia, what was said actually mattered. This was brought to mind earlier this week when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich issued his “Plea to Republicans” listing the “real changes” the House GOP needs to make in order to “avoid real disaster.” Mr. Gingrich is a smart man, and there’s no doubt his wish list had merit. But, even before unveiling his list, the Speaker had one major suggestion that he obviously thought took precedent over all else. We know this because in his online version of the “Plea,” he boldfaced the suggestion and even went so far as to color it blue. It read: House Republicans Should Call an Emergency, Members-Only Conference. And that’s brings up a problem. A problem that might be resolved through the ancient practice of anteiglesia. Specifically, the Speaker suggested that “the House Republicans should hold an emergency members-only meeting. At the meeting, they should post this stark choice: Real change or certain defeat. “If a majority of the House Republicans vote for real change,” the Speaker continued, “they should instruct Republican leader John Boehner and his team come back with a new plan by he Wednesday before the Memorial Day recess.” Well, now, the truth of the matter is that the last thing any group of politicians in Washington needs is another closed-door, “members-only” meeting where they conjure up “stark choices” and “come back with a new plan” -- whether it’s “before the Memorial Day recess,” or after the Twelfth of Never. Americans for Limited Government is clearly sympathetic to the notion that Republicans need to get their act together, as was recently highlighted in the piece “Endgame.” And we are 100 percent in agreement that urgency is of the essence. But, maybe – just maybe – it’s time for the GOP to forget about yet another “members-only” meeting (which is how they got themselves into this mess in the first place). And instead, perhaps – borrowing a page from the Medieval Basque townsfolk – they might want to actually invite in the America people. Instead of cloistering themselves yet again in the closeted confines of some secluded inner sanctum, perhaps the Republican members of the House might want to throw open the doors to the American people -- and have a real, honest-to-goodness, no-holds-barred National Dialogue. That’s right, invite in the real experts in virtually every field from across the country to honestly, openly, candidly discuss the deepening problems that are besetting the country. Listen (don’t talk!) to the real experts from the fields of health care, energy, currency, taxes, budget reform, national security – and yes, even raising a happy, healthy family in modern American society. And instead of colluding in secret and guarding the door against outside intruders, throw open the doors to every American who cares to listen, watch, or take an active part. Now, as never before, the Internet provides the way. It’s time for the politicians to show the will. If the new National Dialogue takes a week, so be it. If it occasionally turns a little raucous, all the better (forget the arrant pomposity of traditional congressional show hearings – welcome in a little “sound and fury,” signifying something). And, if it forces the politicians to finally start actually listening to the folks with whom they have long since lost touch – well, finish it up with a rousing cheer and get ready for next year’s National Dialogue II. No, anteiglesia may not be a word with which today’s politicians are familiar. But, it should be – particularly if they want to “avoid real disaster.” ALG CTA: We encourage journalists across the nation to urge their audiences to contact House Minority Leader John Boehner at (202)225-6205 to express their support for an emergency conference. And also stipulate that they do not want Republicans to just talk to each other, but rather they want them to talk to experts, and to the people. Posted by Robert Romano Let George Do It! “[E]rror of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural, March 4th, 1801  If a new brand of cola were developed that was tastier than its competition, and cheaper, but it was called “Cyanide”, how many repeat customers would there be? Undoubtedly none. And Cyanide’s competitors would have every right to promote their own products as safe and drinkable, while rightly calling the competition “poison.” Nobody would flinch at such “negative” advertising. By the same token, if a politician came out with his or her own brand of poison to sell to the American people, whether it was by promoting a tyrannical form of government, or some racist doctrine, undoubtedly the voters would catch on fast and vote for that politician’s opponent. Moreover, they would have every right to spend as much money as they like to defeat that political poison at the polls. But not so under our new, restrictive campaign finance “reform.” Thanks to McCain-Feingold, Benito Mussolini could be on the ballot, but you’d still only be allowed to donate $2,300 to his opponent’s campaign. In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, “The Reformers Who Ruined Politics”, the authors note the ironic farce that is the nation’s campaign finance laws. Those “reforms” were supposed to get the Big Money out of politics. Now, there’s more money than ever. They were supposed to create an even playing field so that all candidates can compete. Now, candidates hampered by the $2,300 per individual limitation have to spend more time than ever catering to donors. And they were supposed to eliminate “undue” influence upon the electoral process. Now, independent political and issues advocacy organizations have more influence than ever. “Irony abounds” is apparently the first law of unintended consequences. But there’s more to this story than merely the mockery of the goals of campaign finance “reform” (which are never met), or even the absurdity of “reform” advocates wanting even more restrictions. And there’s even more to it than the fact that individual donation limits substantively limit the legitimate exercise of free speech. The Journal hits it on the head when it mocks those “good-government types who pledge allegiance to the idea that money is the root of political evil.” It is not. And that is the real story. The Journal closes its piece by calling for “more simplicity and transparency, so office seekers can raise whatever amount they can from whomever they want so long as it is reported immediately on the Internet.” That may even seem a happy medium compared to the complex, maze-like level of regulation candidates and political organizations now need to navigate. Simplicity is certainly desirable, and even required by the First Amendment’s free speech protections. But, if money is not the root of all political evil, then why are transparency and donor disclosure requirements even necessary? Are such disclosures even constitutional under the First Amendment’s freedom to association protections? As the Supreme Court noted in its 1958 decision, NAACP v. Alabama: “It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as the forms of governmental action in the cases above were thought likely to produce upon the particular constitutional rights there involved. This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations [emphasis added].” In other words, if a potential donor to a campaign knows that his or her personal information would be public information, and that causes the individual to refrain from making the donation, then that is an effective restraint upon the freedom to associate. That case stemmed from Alabama’s reporting requirements of membership rolls as was forced upon the NAACP in that state. The Court ruled in the NAACP’s favor because the reporting requirements were a form of real intimidation, which prevented the organization from expanding its membership and engaging in fundraising. In that case, “transparency” was being used as a weapon to stifle particular associations from occurring. And so, too, today are these reporting requirements used as weapons to stifle free speech and association. Let’s face it. Today, one could not have a “Publius” advocating a new, federal form of government. As delegates to the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist’s James Madison and Alexander Hamilton would have had to shed their anonymity under law so as to register as a campaign political action committee under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, its “board of directors” listed publicly, and all of its donations and expenditures similarly disclosed. ALG News’ objection to the Journal’s approach to this issue does not end there. The piece also refers to 527 organizations – the ones that are allowed unlimited donations and expenditures – as somehow being “unsavory.” Their presence, the Journal notes – particularly the ones backed by George Soros – apparently threatens the candidacy of Republican candidate, John McCain. Now there is hardly a thing that ALG News would find to agree with about what George Soros says. (In fact, if cyanide ever assumed human form… well you get the point.) But like Voltaire, we would fight to the death for his right to say it. He is certainly unsavory for what he says and the messages he endorses. But not, we hasten to add, for his ability – or, indeed, his right – to say it, or to fund those who say it for him. In truth, the way to counter and defeat wealthy and/or objectionable opinions is to maximize the ability of opposing opinions to engage in the marketplace of ideas. For as Thomas Jefferson noted, the error of opinion can always be tolerated so long as reason is left free to counter it. ALG Perspective: The unintended consequences of campaign finance “reform” are certainly ironic, and a free marketplace of ideas is certainly needed to counter the Left’s considerable political influence. But the right system for Americans is a constitutional system that does not use transparency as a weapon, does not limit speech by restricting individual donations, and does not create complex, convoluted structures that leave Americans powerless to fight the many politicians out there selling their own brands of poison. Posted by Robert Romano The Soviet-Style Housing Scam Surely, one of the great, if unintended, consequences of the Internet explosion has been what might be termed the “John Doe Syndrome.”  Now, for the first time in history, average “everyday citizens” can rise to the rank of respected pundits literally at the push of a button. The public forum truly has become the people’s purview. And, “Send” has become the keyboard equivalent of the Call to Arms. At ALG News, we applaud ascendancy of the individual. And starting with today’s daily feed, we want to occasionally feature a statement or an action from a John (or Jane) Doe we think is particularly worthy of approbation – and emulation. As David Burns avers in the letter below in the Connection, Section 8 housing as it is currently administered nationwide, is turning what were once proud working-class neighborhoods into little more than government ghettos. And the only people enjoying the results are slumlords and nanny-staters. If you have a letter or op-ed from a member of your audience you think deserves greater currency, please feel free to send it to us at ALG News. We’ll be pleased to place it (along with your plaudits) on our GetLiberty.org site and perhaps even feature it as one of our new “Meet John Doe” weekly guest editorials. “Soviet-Style Solution? Posted by Robert Romano Democrat Committees Using Watergate Tactics On April 23rd, an arm of the Democrat Party took a chilling step over a line that people of all political views and parties had honored for more than 30 years. It deliberately attempted to drag the IRS into the rough and tumble of political discourse.  Just six days later – as if to prove conclusively that the tide of debate had turned decidedly sour – the Democrat musclemen struck again, making sure no one mistook their shockingly low blow for an unintended foul. In neither case did Democrats merely ask for a preliminary ruling, a precautionary censure, or even a fine. They demanded that the IRS immediately revoke the tax-exempt statuses of the two not-for-profit organizations they had caught in their crosshairs. And for the first time since Richard Nixon propagated his infamous Enemies List, a major political entity had attempted to politicize the most feared regulatory agency in the nation’s capital. The first IRS salvo from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) was aimed at a not-for-profit organization the far left has long deplored, U.S. Term Limits (USTL). USTL’s crime? One of its vendors had accidentally, unknowingly mislabeled a YouTube video. The second hit came when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) demanded that the IRS to revoke Freedom’s Watch tax-exempt status as well. The Democrat hitmen charged that the group was not meeting what they had decided were the standards set by the Supreme Court for political issue ads. Freedom’s Watch’s advertisement did not even include any direct advocacy. But, really, the content of the commercials is beside the point. The point is that for the first time in more than 30 years, a political entity has chosen to bypass the Federal Election Commission – the very organization charged with monitoring political campaigns and punishing wrongdoing – and instead turn to the IRS. In short, it has spurned the watchdog in favor of what it hopes will be the attack dog. Fortunately, the commissioners of the IRS have thus far not risen to the bait. Lest anyone doubt the thoroughly destructive nature of the assault, the Democrats are in essence asking the IRS to put issue groups out of business. Nixon’s disregard for civil liberties and rule of law pale in comparison to the thuggish antics of the DSCC and the DCCC. The IRS should be praised for not allowing itself to be pulled into political warfare in the past. And it should stay out of these politically-motivated tong wars now. They’re America’s tax agency, not the campaign or speech police. There needs to be a firewall of separation between political entities and police powers – else America will become a nation where politics is criminalized. And only those with conniving, criminal minds will dare enter the political fray. The Democrat campaign committees have made it clear they want the IRS to become an agency used to silence political opponents. If they succeed, civil discourse could quickly become a criminal offense. ALG Prediction: The IRS will continue to walk a wide circle around these types of political excesses. And the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for even risking such a transparently dangerous and duplicitous stunt. This type of action shows why Americans can’t warm up to the idea of Democrat control of government – even after the less than inspiring record the Republicans have built the last seven years. At their core, the Democrat Party is showing its hard Left base and authoritarian, dictatorial essence. It’s not very appealing. Posted by Robert Romano Endgame “Now the children try to find it,  There’s a dangerous endgame being played out in the Nation’s Capital today. At stake are 33 seats in the U.S. Senate and all 435 in the House of Representatives. The presidency of the United States is also at stake. And the winner will determine the direction of the U.S. economy for decades to come. Unfortunately, only one side seems aware that the endgame’s afoot. From the Oval Office to the Halls of Congress to their ornate dukedoms at the RNC, the Republicans in Washington seem to have abandoned the field to the opposition, furtively searching for an easy way out, white flags aflutter and mouths agape. The Democrats, for their part, have seized the offensive with reckless abandon, determined to drive the final nails in Reaganomics and bring back Big Government with an agenda that would be the envy of the comintern. As Robert Novak wrote in his May 5 column, “The Speaker Unchecked”: “Operating outside the public view, the House Democratic majority is taking extraordinary steps to maintain spending as usual while awaiting the arrival of a Democratic president. Remarkably, the supine House Republican minority hardly resists and even collaborates with its supposed adversaries.” In order to get around President Bush’s vague threat to veto congressional spending bills he may consider excessive, House Democrats for the second year in a row plan are passing a single omnibus bill encompassing all domestic spending. In response, House Republicans are doing what they’ve come to do best: feigning indignation – then rolling over and playing dead. Here’s how Novak reported the GOP charade when the tempest in a teapot arose over regulations to limit funds to the states for Medicaid: “Less expansive but more audacious is what Democrats are doing to the administration's Medicaid rules, which would impose fiscal integrity on states tapping into the federal funds for that runaway program. The bill passed by the House on April 23 would ‘temporarily’ suspend those rules through March 2009, and the plan is for President Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to get rid of them for good. Because the president is not subject to pay-as-you-go rules requiring offsets for lost revenue or added spending, the government would lose $17.8 billion over five years and $42.2 billion over 10 years, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Really, the operative words in the entire Novak expose are in the second sentence of the final paragraph: “… but their vaunted whip operation stood dormant.” In other words, when push came to shove, the Republicans did neither. With a wink and nudge from the House leadership, the rank and file voted two to one to continue the spending glut. And they handed the Democrats an entitlement victory that signaled the surrender to come. Such is the state of the “supine Republican minority,” to quote Novak. But, actually, that’s not surprising. Because for more than a decade, such was also the state of the supine Republican majority – in the House and Senate alike. For more than a decade, the supine Republican majority did little or nothing to bring so-called “entitlements” under control, and the Welfare Vulture Culture grew unabated. For more than a decade, the supine Republican majority did little or nothing to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy, and the union bosses built an army of lockstep public employees. For more than a decade, the supine Republican majority did little or nothing to end earmarking, preferring instead to pile on their own largesse. And for more than a decade the supine Republican majority did little or nothing to reduce federal spending, make the tax cuts permanent, and bridle the leviathan waiting in the wings to reassert its stranglehold. So, now, the Democrats are charging back, Big Government banners aloft, staring in amusement and, yes, amazement at a retreating GOP that – having failed to lead when given the nod – now nods off in acquiescence. And the endgame draws to a whimpering close, as an ever-hopeful American public looks to its heroes for a last hurrah … and a sad refrain drifts across a largely abandoned field: “the old team isn’t playing, and the new team hardly tries.” ALG CTA: If what now must be termed the remnants of the GOP are to roar back and mount a fight, it will likely only be because limited government adherents in the nation’s media sound the alarm and spur the battle. So … “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Posted by Robert Romano Florida GOP to Dems: Stop Whining! "We didn't fall into the easy trap of raising taxes… We didn't whine. We didn't complain. We just made tough business decisions." – Florida State House Budget Chairman Ray Sansom (R-Destin.).  Amidst a national economic slowdown that has caused tax revenues to drop and projected deficits to explode, State governments across the country are making tough decisions. Budget priorities are being questioned, public sector employee unions are in an uproar, and Big Government spenders no longer get to don their Santa Claus suits and sling a sack full of taxpayer-funded giveaways over their now-emaciated shoulders. Nothing like a slowing economy to knock some sense back into legislatures, whose otherwise utopian views of limitless government spending often make citizens wonder if the laws of gravity apply to state house, as well as household, budgets. They do. And in Florida, those laws are in full effect. For this fiscal year, lawmakers were left with a $1.2 billion budget shortfall that they first had to correct before working on next year’s budget. For the 2008-2009 budget spending was slashed by over $4 billion, bringing the budget from about $70.75 billion to $66.2 billion. That’s about 5.6 percent in reductions. Ever the optimist (when it comes to other people’s money), at least one Democrat felt that higher taxes and looting rainy day funds were the key to balancing the budget: “‘We preferred to worsen the pain on Florida citizens as opposed to raising money,’ said Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller of Cooper City, who unsuccessfully pushed to expand gambling, close corporate tax loopholes and dip deeper into the state's rainy day fund to soften the cuts to programs… ‘It's not quite the unmitigated disaster it started out as....but we did make choices,’ he added. ‘They were bad choices.’” But, as Senator Geller learned, what goes up must come down. In times of economic downturn, choices do have to be made, about whether government will play a role in speeding economic recovery, or in digging a greater hole through yet another tax-and-spending binge. Increasing the tax burden prolongs such downturns by increasing the burden that government poses at precisely the time when businesses and the people are simultaneously feeling the pinch and need relief. It is clear that while the economy catches it breath, governments nationwide need to join Florida in making the tough decisions that can put the country back on a business-footing. ALG Perspective: Florida lawmakers deserve credit for making necessary spending reductions in order to balance the budget without increasing the tax burden in the State. This will enable Florida’s economy, one of the hardest hit by the credit crunch, to recover more speedily than it would have. Posted by Robert Romano Made in Brazil? "Made in America" used to be the imprimatur of pride and perfection. American industry set the pace -- and the tone -- for state-of-the-art manufacturing worldwide because, as one American manufacturer use to say (before it moved offshore): "The quality goes in before the name goes on." But, no more. Regardless of one's position on the propriety of companies moving their operations to Latin America and elsewhere, one fact remains largely indisputable: union work rules have made it tough, if not impossible, for U.S. workers to compete. As the times changed, the union hierarchy didn't. And because compulsory unionism in most states, and industries, handed union bosses the scepter of tyranny, workers had little voice in adapting the workplace and adopting new roles. Nowhere did the union hierarchy play out its hand with more rapacious intransigence than in America's formerly world-class auto industry. As the video below demonstrates, the union bosses sewed the seeds of greed ... the American worker reaped a harvest of ruin ... and "Made in America" went the way of "See the USA in Your Chevrolet."  ALG Perspective: If "Made in America" is ever again to regain its place of preeminence, the American government is going to have to overturn the sections of the National Labor Relations Act giving union bosses dictatorial rule on the factory floor. As former Washington Post columnist William Raspberry wrote of compulsory unionism, "Good unions don't need it, and bad unions don't deserve it." He might have added: And for the sake of workers and the workplace alike, no union should receive it as a right from the hand of government. Posted by Robert Romano “Mirror Syndrome” BY HOWARD RICH It’s no secret that elected officials are prone to viewing the world through the distorted prism of their own indispensability.  In fact, an old Washington, D.C. proverb maintains that “every Congressman looks in the mirror and sees a Senator – and every Senator looks in the mirror and sees a President.” Appropriately dubbed the “mirror syndrome,” this tendency of politicians to regard themselves as transcendent figures doesn’t stop at the banks of the Potomac. Sadly, it extends to state capitals and seats of local government all across our nation. In last month’s New York Times, for example, a Nebraska State Senator arrogantly asserted that the movement to establish term limits in that state was undertaken for the sole purpose of removing him from office. “There’s nobody else they feared enough to get term limits for,” State Sen. Ernie Chambers told the Times. “They’d get rid of everybody else to get rid of me.” As if that wasn’t narcissistic enough, Chambers grudgingly assented to the will of Nebraska voters by saying “I wouldn’t have wanted to die on the floor. That would have given my enemies too much pleasure.” With all due respect to Mr. Chambers, the term limits movement has absolutely nothing to do with him, his “enemies” (or friends), or any of the beliefs he holds, or his future rendezvous “at some disputed barricade.” Similarly, it has absolutely nothing to do with the political persuasions or personal preferences of the thousands of elected officials across this country currently serving in term-limited legislatures. Instead, term limits is about a philosophy of government – an ideal of citizen leadership that dates back to the world’s earliest democracies. In ancient Athenian democracy, for example, citizens were prohibited from serving consecutive annual terms on the boule, one of the world’s first legislative bodies. Additionally, no citizen could serve on the boule more than twice in his lifetime, or serve as the leader of the boule more than once. Additionally, the Roman Republic prohibited censors from serving more than one term, and mandated term limits for numerous other positions, including consul – its highest elected office. What these forbearers of modern democracy realized was that rotation in office served two fundamentally beneficial purposes – the constant infusion of new ideas and fresh perspectives into government, and the mitigation of the potential for officeholders to abuse their positions of public trust for personal gain. We need look no further than U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens’ “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska or the estimated $3 billion in pork barrel spending that U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd has funneled to his home state of West Virginia (which has no fewer than 50 taxpayer-funded projects bearing his name) to see the rationale behind this safeguard. In the fifteen state legislatures in which term limits have been implemented in the United States, they are providing a vital check against this sort of abuse by elevating the democratic ideal of merit-based decision making above self-serving political expediency. Simply put, when the personal interests of powerful, entrenched politicians are removed from the equation, a strange thing happens – the needs of individual citizens and taxpayers come to the fore. The results are better laws, less corruption and more accountable, cost-effective government. It is for precisely these reasons – not the like or dislike of any one individual – that voters in Maine and California recently rejected attempts to weaken term limits in their states. They had seen firsthand the proof of the pudding, and wanted more of the same. The elevation of citizen leadership in our democratic institutions is a cause that all elected officials should support, even in those cases where the outcome is a necessary limitation on their personal power. Similarly, no elected official should be so deluded as to presume that these limitations constitute a personal vendetta – no matter what delusions they entertain when they gaze into the mirror. The author is Chairman of Americans for Limited Government. Posted by Robert Romano Car-Kiting Scandal Envelops Quarter of House Charles Rangel (D-NY) believes that the best way to represent his constituents is to cruise around in expensive cars while visiting them. Unfortunately for his constituents, the only way Rep. Rangel is able to do this is because of a loophole which allows members of congress to lease cars – paid for by the taxpayers themselves. For a congressional district that is tied at #3 for its poverty level (30.48%) and #424 for median Household income ($27,934) – Congressman Rangel’s $9288/year Cadillac DeVille isn’t very “representative.”  Fortunately for the congressman though, he is not alone. About a quarter of his fellow House members do the same thing; some choosing modestly-priced rentals ($200-300 per month range), while others going as high as the $998/month that Representative Gregory Meeks (D-NY) is paying – or rather not paying. This is nothing more than a repeat of the “Check-Kiting scandal” of the early 90s, in which a group of (mostly Democratic) congressmen were forced out of office following reports that many of them were intentionally overdrawing their checking accounts, without any penalty – essentially taking out interest-free loans. The car leasing issue is not a new revelation, either. As early as 1991, a Chicago Tribune article concluding that the House of Representatives could have halved its transportation bill by simply requiring members to lease out of the GSA vehicle pool. But the report apparently went unheeded, as the number of leasing representatives is down by only about a dozen. Aside from the actual vehicle itself, “general maintenance, insurance, registration fees, and excess mileage charges” are also picked up by the taxpayers. And yes, taxpayers also foot the ever-increasing gas bill. ALG Perspective: This “Car-Kiting” scandal is just more proof that Congress is more than willing to spend money – when it does not hurt their pockets. There is a story told of frontiersman Davy Crockett who, during his tenure in the House of Representatives, gave a powerful speech against giving public money to a war hero’s widow. While he acknowledged her husband’s service, he stated that it was not the purview of the government to provide her with a pension – indeed, the government would go in debt were it to provide pensions to all the worthy widows! Crockett suggested instead that each representative give a week’s pay to this widow, which would amount to more than they had proposed. But instead, some of the wealthier congressmen, who had given speeches stating that such a sum as was proposed was insignificant – not one was willing to draw from his own pocket. The following statement which Crockett made to one of his fellow representatives could easily describe the Car-Kiters of today: "Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people." Posted by Robert Romano Columbia Free Trade – Pelosi's Dangerous Game By HOWARD RICH With America's economic, national security and geopolitical interests teetering on an extraordinarily precarious footing, now is not the time for our nation's leaders to allow a narrow special interest to circumvent the will of our democratic institutions.  Unfortunately, that's precisely what's happening in Washington, D.C. right now as Speaker Nancy Pelosi – in an unprecedented display of partisan obstructionism – changed the rules of the U.S. House to block a vote on a free trade agreement with Columbia. In the words of one of her home-state columnists, Pelosi is "aligning herself with a wing of the Democratic Party that has grown increasingly hostile to consensual acts of commerce." Not coincidentally, this "wing of the Democratic Party" is funded by none other than organized labor, which continues to ignore the inescapable economic reality that free trade benefits American workers by lowering or eliminating costly tariffs and opening new markets for our products. Since the 2005-06 election cycle, labor unions have contributed over $80 million to Democratic candidates – including over $500,000 to Pelosi individually. No wonder the Speaker was able to carve out enough Democratic support to block a bipartisan effort to pass the Columbian trade agreement. Pelosi's obstructionism is a dangerous game on many levels, most importantly in its impact on the American economy. According to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, over $1 billion in tariffs have been levied on American products in the year-and-a-half that Congress has failed to vote on the agreement. These harmful tariffs choke off economic growth at a time when America should be doing everything within its power to generate more jobs, higher income levels and new capital investment to stimulate our flagging economy. Additionally, Pelosi's refusal to permit a vote at the unions' behest has profoundly counterproductive ramifications for our national interests South America, most notably in the gift-wrapped victory it provides for Venezuela's rabidly anti-American dictator, Hugo Chávez. As a recent editorial from the Mobile Press-Register aptly summarizes, "in trying to appease anti-free trade labor bosses, (Pelosi) lost sight of the broader economic and national security issues." Indeed, a diminished American influence in Columbia plays directly in Chávez's plan to destabilize the continent. Already seeking to undermine the Columbian government at every turn due to its close diplomatic ties to America, Chavez is widely-suspected of clandestinely supporting the "Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia," or FARC, which is seeking to give its drug cartel backers a new foothold by systematically infiltrating the labor movement in that country. Incidentally, the Columbian government is quick to point out that many of the so-called "attacks" on organized labor leaders that Pelosi and her AFL-CIO allies bemoan are in fact directed at suppressing this violently anti-American terrorist organization. In a column in The Wall Street Journal last week, former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker described the potential cost of Pelosi's pandering. "If our leaders in Congress don't change their approach, a critical building block for stability in an important region of South America may fall victim to domestic partisan squabbling," Baker wrote, adding that "the world is watching to determine if the United States will remain committed to embracing a free-market global economy, or display a growing isolationist attitude that can befuddle and vex our allies around the world." Speaker Pelosi has a clear choice – she can continue to put America's economy and national security at risk by kowtowing to her big labor bosses, or she can allow our elected officials to do their job and vote on an agreement that creates jobs and stability both at home and abroad. ALG Editor’s Note: Beginning with today’s edition, Americans for Limited Government founder Howard Rich will be contributing a weekly column to the ALG News daily feed. Please use it as you see fit. Posted by Robert Romano Empire State to Go on Diet? A new proposal by a New York State commission would drastically consolidate services throughout the State at a local level and, says the commission, would help to relieve residents of some of the highest property taxes in the nation to the tune of more than $1 billion. So reports the New York Times:  “The commission recommended centralizing at the county level functions like tax collection and emergency dispatch, encouraging school districts and village courts to consolidate back-office functions and ending compensation and perks for special district commissioners. On its surface, the proposal would appear to limit the excesses of government throughout the State with an eye to eliminating redundancies, such as tax collection and garbage collection. It would also eliminate the power of localities like towns and villages to collect taxes. However, proposals such as granting sweeping powers to the Department of Education to consolidate school districts without the support of residents is something that needs to be closely examined. According to Governor David Paterson, a Democrat, who supported the commission’s recommendations, local boards have become “patronage mills,” wherein officials get elected and then hand out jobs to partisans or even creating new (and often unnecessary) positions at taxpayer’s expense. Just who are these officials working for? According to the story: “The commission identified thousands of local government entities distinct from county, city, town and village governments, including a profusion of ‘special districts’ created to provide water, library and other services to the state’s sprawling suburbs. Those entities are studded with appointive jobs and many can levy taxes, helping give New York ‘arguably the most complex property tax system in the nation,’ according to the commission’s final report.” That’s a lot of government, even by New York’s command-and-control standards. How much is a lot? Says the commission in a letter to New Yorkers: “Our Commission was launched with the conviction that New Yorkers are living under a very outdated local government structure. The vast majority of our municipalities were established and their boundaries set during the horse-and-buggy era. There are also outdated laws and offices for which no modern rationale exists. Over the years we have added to this outdated system, but rarely simplified, and today we have nearly 5,000 local government entities.” 5,000! That would account for about 5.6 percent of all government out of the some 88,000 units of government throughout the United States. That is a lot a government, proving once again that Americans, especially in New York, are overtaxed, overregulated, and overgoverned. The burden posed by government in New York ranks it 48th in terms of tax competitiveness by the Tax Foundation. Unsurprisingly, the commission’s recommendations drew the ire of labor unions and school superintendents. From the story: “Some of the recommendations, however, were quickly criticized by labor unions and school superintendents, whose ranks would bear the brunt of some of the changes… ‘The report unfortunately presents a one-sided point of view on how local governments can achieve cost savings in New York State, and unfairly places the burden of solving the cost issue squarely on the shoulders of working men and women, and in particular, our public workforce,’ said Denis M. Hughes, the president of the state A.F.L.-C.I.O.” Of course, the burden that public sector unions place upon the system in large part explains the high tax rates that New Yorkers face on an annual basis. In particular, limiting the benefits which public employees would receive is certainly necessary since it contributes greatly to the unsustainable growth of government. In addition to reorganizing the State at a local level, and something the commission was not tasked at looking at, is to look at the waste that occurs on the State level itself. ALG News would be cautiously optimistic about the commission’s proposal, which appears to centralize government control in some sectors, particularly in education. Such drastic reorganization at the local level, however, could be more palatable if it were coupled with severe limits on what could be done at the State level itself, lest New Yorkers wind up with a government that is too top-heavy. The commission’s recommendations also drew some support of the State Senate Majority Leader, Joseph Bruno, a Republican: “‘Everything that we can do to help minimize the cost structure in New York State is critically important,’ Mr. Bruno, a Republican, said. ‘It starts at the local level.’” And certainly, the government that governs least governs best. ALG Perspective: The commission’s proposals are certainly very interesting, but Americans for Limited Government takes them with a grain of salt. To the extent that those municipalities have sprawled out of control, creating a maze of bureaucracy throughout the State, ALG is sympathetic to the findings of the commission. However, one of the benefits of local government is local control in the hands of the people. A balance needs to be struck so that the voice of the people at a local level is not extinguished. While it is true that New Yorkers are clearly overburdened by government at all levels, one must always be cautious centralizing power in the hands of a few. Posted by Robert Romano Exiting Inferno Dante and Virgil may be exiting the many levels of Inferno after a long, sad journey through the depths.  As Americans are paying more at the gas pump and at the grocery store than ever, ALG News has been calling upon politicians to take initiative to add strength to the dollar. Though there have been a few voices crying in the wilderness, it still appeared as if Americans were being continually led down the Road to Perdition. But there may be hope now, even though the sign read on the way in, “Abandon hope all ye who enter here.” As the CATO Institute recently noted in an opinion piece for the Washington Post, the Federal Reserve is tasked with two sometimes contradictory missions: checking inflation through price stability, and stimulating economic growth. What Americans are learning today is that too much emphasis in generating short-term economic growth hurts its original mandate of a strong dollar, and which harms the nation’s long-term economic prospects. Now, a Wisconsin Congressman, Paul Ryan (R-CD1), wants to put an end to that by restoring the mandate of the nation’s central bank solely to providing a strong currency: “[T]he Federal Reserve lowered the fed-funds rate to 2% [last Wednesday], its lowest level since late 2004. In a nod to growing inflation fears, the Fed said ‘it will be necessary to continue to monitor inflation developments carefully.’ To do so, Mr. Ryan is introducing the Price Stability Act of 2008, which would get the Fed out of the business of tinkering with the economy in the short-term. In truth, the free market can take care of economic growth itself without central planning and interventionism. What the Federal Reserve should be primarily concerned with is monetary policy, and not the politics of keeping the economy chugging along. While several pundits have been attributing the rise in the costs of commodities to speculators on the future markets, what has been left out of this commentary has been the predictable rise in commodities as a safe investment against the weak dollar. Every time the Fed broadcasts yet another interest rate cut, investors know to buy more commodities. If the Fed’s sole mission was restored to simply strengthening the dollar, those very same speculators that everyone hates now would be betting that the prices of commodities would be dropping on the futures markets. The Federal Reserve was established in 1913 to manage the nation’s currency. As ALG News reported to you last week, a weak dollar adds significantly to the cost of doing business, hurts purchasing power, and stagnates economic activity. In the long-term, a strong dollar provides price stability, which keeps the cost of doing business in America to a minimum, maximizes profits, bolsters the purchasing power of regular Americans, and therefore generates economic growth. The latter is the formula for success. The legislation will be introduced sometime this week, according to Ryan’s office. Such a controversial piece of legislation looks to be a hard sell, and Congressman Ryan will certainly have a mountain to climb. Many still believe in the alchemy of the Fed’s market interventions, and believe that the Fed’s Board of Governors should be concerned with economic stimulus. This sort of short-term thinking, however, is hurting Main Street Americans across the nation. Congressman Ryan is hereby being awarded with ALG’s first annual Testament to Courage Award, for his daring act to challenge Congress to reassert a strong dollar policy which will help all Americans as they go shopping for new clothes, toys, and tools. Inflation is the cruelest tax of all, and it is high time that our nation’s leaders do something about it instead of haplessly ignoring the obvious. A strong economy must be predicated upon a strong currency, and it appears that Congressman Ryan has heard that message loud and clear. America may yet find its way to Paradiso. ALG CTA: Congressman Paul Ryan is going to need all of the help he can get from Congressional leaders to give his legislation a fair hearing and ultimately passage. A strong dollar is not a partisan issue, as rising prices hurt all Americans. In light of that ALG News calls upon journalists throughout the nation to urge their audiences to contact House Minority Leader John Boehner, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to tell them that they believe a strong dollar because that will lead to a stronger America. Posted by Robert Romano Feathering the Bed at Taxpayer Expense While Rome burns, the politicians are busy feathering Big Government beds with new make-work jobs. That’s the news from our nation’s capitals.  With the economy faltering amid slowing growth, rising prices, falling government revenue, and the private sector tightening its belt, public sector employment is skyrocketing according to USA Today: “Federal, state and local governments are hiring new workers at the fastest pace in six years… Governments added 76,800 jobs in the first three months of 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports… That's the biggest jump in first-quarter hiring since a boom in 2002 that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. By contrast, private companies collectively shed 286,000 workers in the first three months of 2008.” Lest anyone think this splurge indicates some sort of misguided anti-recession move, instead it shows that once again Big Government is behind the curve, leaving the taxpayer behind the eight ball: “‘More hiring has nothing to do with good government or economic policy,’ says economist Kenneth Brown, research director at the Rio Grande Foundation in Albuquerque. ‘It has everything to do with government being slow to react to economic change.’ Essentially, these positions were authorized last year when things looked good. But times changed – and Big Government, of course, didn’t. Hence, the politicians have just gone ahead and hired despite the economy, and thus revenues going south. This represents an unsustainable increase of the size of government precisely at the time when Americans are tightening their own belts. In order to pay for these jobs, the politicians have only two alternatives: either increase revenues, or go even deeper into debt. Either means that the American taxpayer will have to foot the bill. According to the USA Today story, nearly 88,000 units of government throughout the country employ 22 million people. That is an onerous swath of the nation, and does not even take into account all of those retired public sector employees still receiving government benefits. In addition, public sector employees unions consistently demand budget increases in order to pay for their burgeoning benefits. Simultaneously they oppose any fiscal restraint on the part of governments when economic times are hard. In short, they only exacerbate the larger problem – all the while demanding the creation of yet more layers of unsustainable spending. But, let’s cut to the chase: This additional 77,000 new government jobs is simply feathering the bed at taxpayer expense. Unlike the private sector, government does not need to produce any products or profits. And the truth is, government doesn’t create jobs; it makes work. Yet, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, public employment is the nearest thing on earth to eternal life. When times get hard, businesses scale back or they go under (and then nobody has a job). Government, on the other hand, uses rosy forecasts in order to justify new government jobs, more taxes, and increased spending. Even when those forecasts turn out to be incorrect, the bureaucrats and their political puppet-handlers simply attempt to hold the line and prevent any drawdown in spending. Even when Rome is burning, the politicians cannot even be counted on to grab a pail of water and help put out the flames. Instead, they insist on continuing to build a monstrosity – while the spoils of their pyrrhic victory are ashes in the taxpayer’s mouth. ALG Perspective: The American people do not need jobs programs from government. Rather, they need the burden reduced that government heaps upon the economy in the forms of overtaxation and overregulation, which inhibit economic growth, prevent new businesses from forming, and make impossible new private sector jobs creation. With that gargantuan burden, real job security for Americans based on sustained economic growth will remain elusive and illusive. Posted by Robert Romano Liberty let the Gentleman see, Just how nice a dame you can be … We guess it’s all a matter of priorities. Over the course of the past week, headline writers throughout the world sounded a clarion call for immediate action to rescue what ALG News in its editorial cartoon called “The Orphans of the Corn.”  Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) apparently got the message. The Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee gave a lengthy speech on the Senate Floor Tuesday “demanding action to address the rising cost of feed and fuel due to hasty biofuel mandates.” That, from the Senator’s press release. Waxing indignant, the Senator pulled no punches: “We are in the midst of global food difficulties brought on by decades of misguided environment and energy policies. As worldwide food availability decreases and prices continue to skyrocket, decades of ill-conceived planning by politicians and bureaucrats afraid of expanding our energy supplies are now bearing an ugly fruit. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), a strong advocate of using biofuels food for oil, and an equally strong opponent of oil drilling, gasoline refineries, nuclear energy, and windmills (when so positioned to obstruct his view), had other concerns. While Africa, India, and Somalia starved, Mr. Kennedy “joined the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation in planting a tree to honor the people of Massachusetts.” That, from the Senator’s press release. Not satisfied to kick around a few shovelfuls of dirt, the Senior Senator was moved to wax poetic, taking time to recite one of his favorite poems: “In a chariot of light from the regions of day, No, you can’t make this stuff up. Over the past several days, Mr. Kennedy has also issued news releases about the National Guard’s mental health, student loans (he wants more), Mr. Ahern coming to the Capitol, the President’s “lip-service” to the economy, workplace safety (he thinks it’s a good idea), antibiotics in food (he’s not too crazy about that), Iraqi translators, on and on and on. But nary a word about the worldwide famine following on the heels of the biofuel debacle he helped engineer. Yes, we guess it’s all a matter of priorities. ALG Perspective: The majority in Congress clearly does not have its priorities straight, calling into question whether the American people should keep them in that position. They might want to get a glimpse at what their priorities really are by taking a look at their website press release compendium. It can be pretty revealing. Posted by Robert Romano New York State Web Tariff What do you call it when a government places an additional cost on the price of imported goods? A tariff.  Proving once again that there is no limit to how far the Left will go to undermine the free market, a tariff is exactly what New York State Governor David Paterson, a Democrat, wants to impose on all out-of-state Internet sales. According to the Wall Street Journal, he is applying New York’s sales tax to any purchase a New Yorker makes on the Internet from an out-of-state retailer: “[T]he new Governor has resurrected one of Eliot Spitzer's least popular ideas, a tax on Internet sales that he hopes will raise more than $70 million a year. Despised by consumers and constitutional scholars alike, this new tax will hit e-shoppers within weeks. In truth, the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision did not go far enough. The Federal Constitution gives to Congress (in Art. I, Sec. 8) the power to place tariffs on imports, and the States are prohibited from doing so without the consent of Congress (in Art. I, Sec. 10). In other words, Congress’ power to place tariffs preempts any power of the States to do so, to say nothing of placing tariffs on goods purchased inside the United States. Of course, the States who set up Internet sales taxes for out-of-state purchases do not believe that what they are doing amounts to a tariff. They simply believe they are entitled to the revenue based on the mere fact that money is changing hands. They want a piece of that pie, and they want it badly. And in New York, they want it to the tune of $70 million annually. What will this mean for consumers in New York? Say you log onto Amazon to buy a book or movie. Right now, unless you live in Washington, Kansas, Kentucky, or North Dakota, you would not pay a sales tax. Under New York’s new law, they will pay up to 9% extra on every single purchase. If New York is worried that their onerous taxes and regulations make their businesses uncompetitive in the Internet marketplace, perhaps it ought to stop overtaxing and overregulating! Perhaps consumers do not want to deal with the Empire State’s imperial hubris. According to the Tax Foundation, New York already ranks 48th in business tax climate, and in the words of the Journal’s editorial, “Mr. Paterson’s money grab could make New York the biggest loser when it comes to tax competitiveness.” ALG Prediction: A few years ago, New York did the same thing to out-of-state purchases of cigarettes. Now, they are getting greedy. New York’s web tariff will be struck down in the courts because to allow it to stand would deal a mortal blow to interstate commerce, and would ruin the last bastion of the free market: the Internet. Posted by Robert Romano Pin the Tail on the Donkey Lest anyone think high energy prices are because the world has completely maximized its production of fuel while demand continues to grow, it is clear that in the Land of Opportunity, the American people are missing opportunity after opportunity to bring down costs by increasing supply. And to find the perpetrator of this injustice, one need only pin the tail on the donkey.  Don’t believe it? On April 29th, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-KY) threw down the gauntlet and let the American people know just who is responsible for their gas pains: “Gasoline today at the pump is $1.25 more, on average, than it was when the Democrats took over Congress. Why is that a good place to measure? Because during that period, we've had an opportunity to build more refineries, and the Democratic majority voted it down. We've had an opportunity to open up additional parts of the Outer Continental Shelf and the Democratic majority voted it down. It's clear that on the production side of the equation, this new majority is not interested in doing anything [emphasis added].” In truth, Democrat politicians and their fellow Green travelers love high gasoline prices as the means to bring down domestic fuel consumption, or “conservation” as they call it. To them, sky-high gasoline prices are a necessary catalyst to reducing emissions. That is exactly how the Greens justify higher gasoline taxes which, of course, increase the price Americans pay at the pump: "‘A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congestion and reduce carbon emissions,’ said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.” In other words, the Left wants (and likes) high energy costs because they strangle domestic energy consumption. They believe that it is the Earth that has a problem, and they want Americans to pay for it, no matter the cost. In fact, it is regular Americans who have to drive to work every day who have a problem. A price problem. While there are several factors which drive the costs of energy higher, a large part of it is that America has a supply problem: government is artificially keeping a cap on energy supplies. Don’t believe it? President Bush spoke of this extensively recently, lamenting Congress’ repeated failures to address America’s energy production problem: “Americans are concerned about energy prices, and I can understand why. I think the last time I visited with you … I said it was like a tax increase on the working people. The past 18 months, gas prices have gone up by $1.40 per gallon. Electricity prices for small business and families are rising, as well. In other words, every single substantive thing that could have been done to reduce energy costs by increasing supply in the past 7 years has been blocked by Democrats in Congress. Republican leaders are effectively turning energy into a big political problem for Democrats this election year. It’s time to pin the tail on the donkey. ALG Perspective: Since pro- is the opposite of con-, it is obvious that the opposite of progress is Congress. The American people need to take note, and vote for leaders this year that will increase domestic energy production, which is really the only way to become energy independent. Democrats may say they want energy independence, but they condition that upon energy that is non-carbon-emitting. Good luck with that, Greens! Now that ethanol has been discredited as a Third World-hunger-producer, the only viable, efficient, and cost-effective options are carbon-emitting and nuclear energies. Posted by Robert Romano Price Problem Hurts Economy Soaring prices of commodities and other goods are significantly contributing to the slowdown of the American economy.  In a further indication this, 58 percent of States that report quarterly sales tax collections have reported a decline in revenue: “Of the 36 states that have released sales-tax data for the first three months of this year, 21 showed outright declines, compared with the first quarter of 2007, according to a tally to be released Thursday by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a research arm of the State University of New York. Meanwhile the Commerce Department has reported increased consumer spending in March by .4 percent, however much of that increase can be attributed to the increase in prices Americans are paying for goods and commodities: “Today's reports also showed that the Federal Reserve's preferred measure of consumer prices rose more than anticipated [emphasis added], and that manufacturers are paying the most for goods in four years.” In other words, when Americans have to pay higher prices, less goods and services are sold, and this hurts the economy. By extension, this is drying up revenues to State governments, as noted by the decline in sales tax revenue, and many of these States are already in deep deficits for this fiscal year. In addition to harming the overall economy, high prices are significantly hurting individuals, who now have less money to spend on their children’s birthdays, or to make home improvements, or to purchase that new car. As food and energy budgets rise, the amount of spending that Americans do in other sectors of the economy must fall in accordance. As ALG News has been reporting to you, a major steroid of economic downturns is the burden that government poses upon private enterprise, free markets, and the people precisely because it discourages the creation of wealth. Excessive taxes and deficit-spending represent lost opportunities in the economy. And in the Land of Opportunity, the policy of government needs to be in maximizing the potential of economic growth. Now is the time for pro-growth policies to be enacted at the Federal and State levels of government. Precisely at the time of economic downturn, government needs to send a strong message to businesses that it is not going to punish wealth creation. It can do that by slashing the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent, appreciating the dollar, and lessening the burden of Big Government by making significant spending reductions. With government already hampering the economy, the sharp increase of prices is not welcome to consumers who are already feeling the pinch. As ALG News has reported to you, the Federal government must also seriously reconsider its approaches to energy and monetary policies, which are greatly impacting consumer purchasing power. What must be understood is that there is indeed a threshold that can be crossed in terms of high prices sinking the economy. It’s happened before in the 1970’s. It’s called stagflation. ALG Perspective: America is standing at a crossroads, and citizens do not want to hear excuses for why nothing can or will be done, they want to hear practical solutions. If government fails to understand the government-induced causes for soaring prices, then the American people cannot and should not expect any relief in the near term. While it is true that there are factors beyond the control of government which are contributing to the problems, such as increased global demand for commodities, it is also true that there are real, tangible things that the government can do to lessen the pinch being felt. Posted by Robert Romano Big Trouble in Latin America While the presidential candidates are immersed in debat |
|
|||