The American Spectator : Barack, Meet Friedrich

Text Size

Barack, Meet Friedrich

Arrogance combined with stupidity can be lethal.

“This isn’t about me,” President Barack Obama asserted recently, maintaining that his manic push for a vote on health care reform is all about us.

In fact, the big rush is all about him and his attempt to hurriedly get his problematic notions on health reform enacted into law before his quickly falling approval numbers drop him completely into the cellar.

A recent cover article in USA Today on the growing qualms about President Obama’s policies reported that his overall approval rating, after six months in office, ranks him “10th among the 12 post-World War II presidents at this point in their tenures.”

Only the approval ratings of Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford were worse. Ford’s public support took a nose dive after his pardon of Richard Nixon. Clinton stumbled right out of the chute with his “don’t ask, don’t tell” position on gays in the military. That was followed by putting Hillary in charge of redesigning the nation’s health care system.

Ranking third from the bottom among America’s post-World War II presidents, Obama is behind Republicans George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Nixon and Dwight D. Eisenhower after their first six months in office, as well as Democrats Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter.

More specifically on key issues, public support for President Obama’s proposals on the economy, health care reform and the overall role of government is in rapid decline.

By 50 percent to 44 percent in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, those surveyed disapproved of how Obama is handling health care policy. On the overall role of government, 52 percent said Obama is calling for too much expansion in government power and 59 percent said his policies are producing too much government spending.

On his overall handling of the economy, President Obama’s disapproval rating of 49 percent to 47 percent represents a swift turnaround from his 55 percent to 42 percent positive rating just two months ago.

Rather than re-thinking any of his key proposals in the face of this growing public disapproval, Obama’s answer was to try to ram a health care bill through Congress, as well as a global warming bill, before the August recess — even if no one had the time to even speed-read what’s in the legislation.

In his book The Fatal Conceit, Nobel laureate Friedrich A. Hayek provided some insight into this lethal combination of arrogance and stupidity.

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design,” advised Hayek.

Before the “obvious economic failure of Eastern European socialism, it was widely thought that a centrally planned economy would deliver not only ‘social justice’ but also a more efficient use of economic resources,” wrote Hayek. “This notion appears eminently sensible at first glance. But it proves to overlook the fact that the totality of resources that one could employ in such a plan is simply not knowable to anybody, and therefore can hardly be centrally controlled.”

In other words, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama just don’t know enough — can’t know enough — to design or run a complex economy. It’s not just that neither of them has even run a successful hot dog stand. The problem is that there are too many millions of transactions in an economy, too many interactions and unintended consequences, for any one person or any single committee to understand — even if they all went to Harvard.

The “fatal conceit” is that they think they are able to shape the world to match their collectivist visions.

The good news is that we know what works. What’s delivered the goods to the greatest number of people in world history — delivered unprecedented levels of both freedom and prosperity — is economic freedom, individual initiative, self-interest, competition, voluntary exchange, private property, decentralized and spontaneously self-organized markets and highly limited government.

What hasn’t worked is government coercion and centralized planning, or, as Hayek put it, “the deliberate arrangement of human interaction by central authority based on collective command over available resources.”

It’s a basic economic lesson that President Obama seems not to have learned.

About the Author

Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise and an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (120) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Rocco| 7.28.09 @ 6:52AM

"In other words, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama just don't know enough -- can't know enough -- to design or run a complex economy. It's not just that neither of them has even run a successful hot dog stand. The problem is that there are too many millions of transactions in an economy, too many interactions and unintended consequences, for any one person or any single committee to understand -- even if they all went to Harvard."
Herein lies the problem. We as a society continue to elect idiots, know-nothings, to political office. We elect them year after year without thinking - paying more attention to our modern version of bread and circuses, creating a professional political class of people who have no practical REAL-WORLD experience, which would temper the bullshit they legislate for the rest of us who struggle day to day to keep a roof over our heads, our families clothed and fed. Most of them are lawyers. While lawyers, who do practice their profession, perform a critical service in our economy, those who go into politics are dangerous. And while lawyers do handle cases involving a myriad of topics, this does not make them experts in any of them. I think there is a certain "know-it-all" arrogance that attaches to lawyers who get involved in politics. Obummer is a prime example, and that is why we are where we are. My undergrad and masters degrees have a very heavy economics content, and the ignorance I see in economics from our "ruling class" down to the average worker is simply amazing. Time to just clean house in Congress next year and vote the whole lot out! All ofthem.

Our Founders HAVE to be spinning in their graves.

Bill| 7.28.09 @ 7:40AM

Rocco, I agree with you.
As for Sarah... I love her values and her good common sense. Go Sarah... :))
By the way I also have a degree in economics and have been in finance all my life.

Deborah D | 7.28.09 @ 8:00AM

Methinks you have another spammer on your hands. Apparently spamming is easier than actual rebuttal of your arguments, Mr. Reiland.

Haven't you heard, we're all socialist now, according to that profound knower of all things American, Newsweek. I agree, President Obama knows nothing about economics; doesn't care to know anything about economics; doesn't care whether you or anyone else has health insurance or not; doesn't care whether cap and trade does or doesn't do anything for globaloney. He doesn't care whether our country is indebted up to its eyeballs or not. It's about one thing: the power to control.

Once we all finally get that through our heads, we might actually be able to fight the real fight. This man and his party want to be able to tell you what to do because they are "so much smarter" than we peons out here. There will be rules for us little people and rules for the connected. The Chicago Way. Let's deal with that. Kick these people out before they become entrenched like they are in our educational system.

moron| 7.28.09 @ 8:00AM

The falling poll numbers tell more about the nitwits that voted for him than Obama himself. Obama hasn't changed one iota since election day.

Curly Smith| 7.28.09 @ 8:28AM

"In other words, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama just don't know enough -- can't know enough -- to design or run a complex economy."

True, but by the time they're finished we won't have a complex economy. If your state-owned industries don't need to generate a profit then running them is about rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies. Take a look at Cuba and Venezuela... how complex are their economies?

joseph| 7.28.09 @ 9:01AM

WHY OBAMA CANNOT AND WILL NOT REVERSE COURSE

In examining Obama and his Chicago allies approach to governance, the following stands out on why he is following the strategic approach being implemented.
The question is why would Obama continue so keenly to follow the blueprint that he and Emmanuel and Axelrod had outlined at the beginning of the Presidency ? Why continue a suicidal approach in which polls and prevailing opinion are beginning to show that the electorate disfavor his approach and could turn significantly against the Democrats in the 2010 Elections ?
The following should be noted as background information.
Polls are not being particularly kind to the President Obama’s Administration or to him personally. Rasmussen reported as of yesterday (28th July, 2009) that there is a negative 10% gap between President Obama’s strongly approve (30%) and strongly disapprove (40%) numbers. Those labeled as Independents who were solidly in the Obama/Democrat camp a few months ago, are now trending towards conservative positions and against the destructive liberal economic and foreign policies now on the plate.
The significance of those polls is highlighted when you recognize that on January 21st, 2009 that 44% strongly approved while 16% strongly disapproved (+28% strong approval) and 65% in Total approved and 30% in Total disapproved (+35% approval).
In six months there has been a massive fall in Obama’s strong approval/disapproval rating. This trend should continue for awhile, until you hit the bedrock of liberal/socialist religious faithful who will go down with the Obama ship come what may. Obama/Emmanuel/Axelrod had better hope that there is not any spectacular foreign policy, national security or economic event within the next few months as with this slippery slope movement - freefall will follow. Such an event would shatter any faith that the electorate has in this neophyte socialist President. He would never recover after this.
The following are further background facts and/or strong possibilities in the near future:
A) The Deficit in Government Expenditure for this year has hit an unprecedented $1,000,000,000,000 – as in $1 TRILLION and should climb to $1,800,000,000,000 by year end.
B) Government is printing money to cover the deficit. This will and is affecting interest rates (upwards), the ability of small businesses and consumers to borrow and therefore the possibility of a robust recovery since consumer spending makes up 70% of the American economy. This affects the credibility of the US dollar particularly for China holding $2 Trillion in foreign reserves and a large portion of this held in United States IOUs.

C) Unemployment stands at 9.6% and underemployment is said to hover around 15%. There is the suggestion that unemployment will hit 10.5% to 13% in the next 12 months and could hover around 8% at least for the next 3 years. Wait until the 10% figure comes on the horizon.

D) Most concede that any recovery will be L shaped with unemployment and growth moving laterally at the bottom for a number of years.
E) Because of unsustainable liberal policies, states led by California and New York are effectively bankrupt and in desperate need of infusion of funds that may have and are to some degree, coming from the taxpayers through the Federal Government.
F) “Cap and Tax” and health insurance legislation stand together to add anything from $2 Trillion to $4 Trillion on debt to the taxpayer and consumer within the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office has already placed a $1.3 trillion price tag on the Democrats Health Care debacle but evidence shows that the charges are being forward loaded so than by 2019 the actual annual bill will be $254 billion or $4,000/yr for a family of five. Taxes on small businesses and the more wealthy in the society will shortly be passed to partially cover this deficit and “generational theft” is taking place at an alarming rate bankrupting future children to support the political ambitions of such as Nancy Pelosi. Any talk of “savings” as part of the equation is oxymoronic. Who ever heard of Democrats saving taxpayers money ? That is like a hungry hyena leaving a juicy piece of meat on the savannah !
G) Everything therefore indicates that the Obama Administration is following a no growth economic policy that will cripple the Democrats electoral chances in 2010. Why keep on this suicidal path? Even the fact that Obama just announce a $12 billion infusion for Community Colleges shows he thinks money grows on trees.

Obama Death Star
Why does the Obama Economic and Foreign Policy Death Star keep on this trajectory.
A) It is in his blood and this is his character. This is what Obama knows by nature and nurturing. From his liberal non-conventional Mother and socialist Third World Father, training at the hands of an avowed terrorist (Ayers) and a number of socialists plus weaning at the altar of Chicago Mafia politics as a “community Organizer” - this is what Obama knows. This is his religion and only stark failure staring him in the face and one step from the abyss will change his policies. His sheer arrogance and narcissistic personality cannot see his failings and it will always be someone else’s fault until it is too late.
B) He has too many supporters salivating waiting for and/or dividing up their pound of flesh. All of his action and implemented policies to date have been about pay-back time. The Unions, the rapacious Democrats in the Beltway, ACORN, and the academic supporters are all clamoring for the Return On Investment (ROI) that Obama represents. Within his huge bubble he is the Savior and he will be bolstered in his failings until reality hits them all in the face. Watch them begin to peel away like rats not wanting to go down with the ship. The fact that in order to feed these sycophants, bottom feeders and parasites required the taxing of the working middle class and killing of the characteristics that made America such an exceptional country, is secondary. Car companies are now in the hands of the Unions and still tanking, the banks were fed the people’s taxes in the name of TARP and now while the average Joe suffers, it is the banks reaping billion dollar profits and bonuses. These were the banks and Bernie Madoff types that gave millions to the Democrat Machinery and whose members and past employees now populate Obama’s economic think tanks and Administration. Contrary to what most felt it was the Democrats who received Wall Street money and not Republicans. It was Democrats like Barney Frank who engineered the subprime mortgage crisis with their dumb and incompetent manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through Congress. Go Figure.
C) He cannot afford to admit failure and reverse course so early in his Administration. Admitting that the Limbaughs or Hannitys were right is simple too galling to face at this point. To admit that a Governor Sarah Palin by sheer force of her conservative instincts would have made a much superior President that he has turned out to be, is just too galling. To turn back only six (6) months after his adoring and ignorant fans swooned over him and a sycophantic media celebrated his historic Presidency is just too mind boggling for him to contemplate. It is simply impossible to refute the liberal religion just when they have victory in their sights after 100 years of fighting conservatism and America.

In spite of all of the above, the fact is that staring him and the Democrats in Congress in the face is the truth that they will be humbled, chastised and could possible loose both Congress and the Senate in 2010. With the present numbers in freefall Obama could have an overall disapproval rating within 4 months of 50+%. This guarantees a landslide of epic proportions for Republicans in 2010 because Obama’s numbers in this region mean that Democrats in Congress are looking at 20-25% approval numbers at the same time. Individual race numbers in various states support this proposition.
So why continue this madness? Axelrod and Emmanuel get these numbers every day. What possible scenario could make them continue with this suicidal madness?
The theory is preambled by the following.
Within the White House the Obama team and Obama are solely concerned with Obama’s re-election . It has always been about Obama – every time and all the time ! It is not about the electorate, Democrat Congressmen or Senators, African Americans, America’s standing in the world or the economy. It is about BARRACK HUSSAIN OBAMA. If the Democrats totally lose Congress and the Senate in 2010 so be it. That is their tough luck as long as it does not affect Obama’s chances in 2012.
With this as a fact, Obama and his team think that even if numbers start to fall temporarily that they will survive with the following.
Their belief in the infallibility of the Obama mystique and personality. The snake oil salesman has not yet burst the bubble of his dubious talents. The smile is still there, the “say one thing, mean another” is still vibrantly alive and done eloquently and with panache. The dutiful, supportive, resentful wife still provides the sustaining pillow talk confirming that they can now be proud of racist America for believing in “Hope and Change”.
Their belief in their Chicago Mafia styled, political manipulative skills particularly with the main stream media acting as Obama’s personal PR firm. This involves their belief that they can destroy any potential Republican candidate who shows their head above the parapet using the MSM. See the attacks on former Governor Sarah Palin or the highlighting of any Republican leader’s folibles, if you think this is not true.
But the most important reason is that their strategy is to pass "Cap and Tax" and the health care bill, feed enough unions and welfare recipients and others with trillions in borrowed and tax dollars so as to fool and intimidate sufficient persons who will give Obama the votes for 2012. With the bankers still raping the economy and in their corner, with the Goldman Sachs and GE’s of the world waiting to begin trading on Cap and Tax, with the Warren Buffets and Soros using their personal connections with Obama to make sure their empires remain stable there is the view that enough constituencies will form a sufficient coalition to defeat any bad news that come down the pipeline. With their control of the health system which is such a massive part of the US economy too many Americans and voters will be beholden to Government and not dare vote against it. In other words if you damn the torpedoes and throw enough money around to specific constituencies, you can fool the people sufficiently until Nov 4th ,2012.
So this Obama Death Star has not run its course. Clearly red flags have been raised but in the end the Presidential Messiah’s personality and a “Chicago Mafia cum Third World politics” modeled strategy to manipulate the economy and people’s lives, is seen as sufficient to trump economic degradation, moral decay, dubious security policy that places American in peril for their lives and the death of the remarkable America by a thousand liberal cuts.

Appleby| 7.28.09 @ 9:33AM

I don't know if it's worthwhile to post on a thread that has been hijacked by spammers, but here goes anyway.

My late Daddy worked in a factory that made seat belts, as his last job before he was retired on disability. Two things that are relevant to this discussion came immediately to mind when I read the original article.

(1) Daddy said that there were virtually no supervisors on the shop floor who had risen through the ranks, that is, nobody who actually had any experience doing the job they were now in charge of managing. They had grandiose ideas on how to manage, and they had no interest in hearing from anyone who was doing the work as to why their ideas were unworkable. (I have noticed this in my own field of expertise as well, in everthing from furniture purchases to the design of the copy room.)

(2) The factory being in Alabama, the first day he was on the job all new hires were taken into the cafeteria and given paperwork to fill out. And everyone was instructed, "I know most of you have more than one Social Security Card and ID. WHATEVER YOU PUT DOWN ON THESE PAPERS WILL BE YOUR SOLE ID WHILE YOU WORK HERE."

This was in the early 1990s.

Judging by Obama's behaviour to this point, I think he is using the same manual as that factory used.

M. T. Wallitt| 7.28.09 @ 9:39AM

"The Silent Deat [sic] of U. S. Citizens" -- you are sick [sic].

Why not just cut to the chase and tell all of us what you want done to Jewish people, just so we'll really know where you're coming from? It must be hard on you to keep that hatred bottled up inside. Clearly, it has rotted your brain, as well as your heart.

Remember, "Christian," one day you will stand before Jesus, the King of the Jews. Good luck explaining your hatred of Jews to Him.

Tony in Central PA| 7.28.09 @ 9:43AM

Its time for the moderators to chop out some of these ridiculous posts. It might be a good idea to limit post length as well.
The article exposes the default thinking of today's American liberal minds for every " problem ". Namely, the solution is to enlarge and empower the central government at the expense of everybody and every other institution. Or maybe that's the goal.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 9:51AM

Appleby:

I agree: Obama doesn't WANT his mind to be clouded by reality. Like an adolescent, be believes that facts will simply present obstacles to his hell-bent-for-leather rush to create a "perfect" society.

It is a jaw-droppingly callow mind-set, and this is one of the things that undermines what many believe is an IQ that is "off the charts" (the characterization of Obama by Michael Beschloss, of all people, a once somewhat level-headed scholar).

Another is Obama's general ignorance: Even his supposed area of expertise, Constitutional law, betrays a spotty - at best - grasp. Certainly his knowledge of economics is about as deep as Celine Dion's, and it's pretty obvious he's never cracked a history book or any weighty works of great literature.

So we have a man with no knowledge, no judgment and no tempering by experience, but a supposedly high IQ.

Oh. And a racial grudge the size of one of our supposedly melting glaciers. Yipee.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 9:51AM

Appleby:

So we have a man with no knowledge, no judgment and no tempering by experience, but a supposedly high IQ.

Oh. And a racial grudge the size of one of our supposedly melting glaciers. Yipee.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 9:52AM

Sorry for the double post - my finger twitched!

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 10:03AM

Tony:

I agree - the moderators should do something about this spamming. If they could banish "Dave Mathews" to Cyberia, surely they can do something about this clown.

I also agree about liberal thinking: More government is the answer to every question. I understand why those in power - the Obamas, the Pelosis, the Reids, the Franks, etc. - want to create a statist leviathan. Nothing is more attractive to power than more power.

But why do so many supposedly good-hearted liberals, who were supposed to have cut their teeth on anti-big-brotherism and distrusting the "Establishment," now believe that the sole purpose of a human being - well, a white male human being of European descent, at any rate - who is born in America is to serve the state?

I was not born to serve the state. My existence is not measured by the extent to which I contribute to the common good. I was not born to be a cog in the statist machinery. I am not a vassal. The state is supposed to serve me.

That's why we fought the Revolutionary War.

It's not just time that we stop the metastisizing of the State - it is time to dismantle the monster that began to grow (and continues to do so year in and year out) under FDR.

A second Revolution? Add my name to the list.

John| 7.28.09 @ 10:05AM

Didn't Representative Fwank run a successful brothal?

Anthony| 7.28.09 @ 10:19AM

Many of the elites on the Left are infected with the"fatal conceit". However, with the election of Obama, their restraint has been overwhelmed and they are bold in their desires and contempt, and dare I say, their insanity.
Bill Moyer's recent comments on Rush Limbaugh demonstrated a world class ignorance and profound inability of self examination, that temporarily stunned me, as hard as that is to do, given the many daily examples coming from the Left. For Moyers to defend the "Fairness Doctrine" is, in and of itself, an insane position for any member of the media to advocate. But Moyers' absurdity went even further. He claimed Limbaugh, and his far Right bilge, would be off the air, but for his coersion of ad fees, from apparantly unwilling customers. This is INSANE. It is Moyers, whose far left program airs on PBS, a station supported by tax payer dollars, that was chartered to be "non-partisan", that is engaged in coersion. Moyers, like a Leftist government, cannot comprehend the concepts of profit and competition. If Moyers had to compete, his show, and many others on PBS, would have gone the way of Air-America.
It is stunning how over the top the Left has gone. There can be no doubt, Liberalism is indeed a form of Insanity.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 10:20AM

Of course, Fwank running a brothel - successfully, no less - is a resume enhancement for the Democrat party.

That guy has absolutely no sense of shame. He's a friggin' sociopath.

Which makes him a Democrat in good standing.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 10:31AM

I agree with you, Anthony. The fairness doctrine will rear its ugly head again, but of course they'll give it a new name that's equally mendacious and the opposite of what it is. Dems are so good at that (card check is called "The Employee Free Choice Act," hardy har har).

The most insidious aspect of this is its permeation of our educational system; secondary school textbooks are stripped of anything that doesn't champion victimology, and our esteemed universities are preacticing draconian speech codes.

Gee, I remember when universities prided themselves on their free speech. Now you have a diversity-sodden, feminist-imbued, "social justice"-marinated obstacle course you must endure just to say hello. There's a list you have to memorize of what you can and cannot say on campuses across this country.

And so our wonderful education system is doing exactly what the liberals want it do to: Nut educating anyone, but, rather, turning out unthinking, proper little Marxist soldiers who believe oppression is freedom, war is peace and hate is love.

Seems to me that kind of language was in a book once, but it's banned on campus now, so no one will read it.

Tony in Central PA| 7.28.09 @ 10:40AM

The Hayek quotes reminded me of just how illiterate our voters and elected officials are these days when it comes to history. In a culture that regards anything more than two weeks old as ancient and irrelevant, Soviet Communism is seemingly given the same treatment as the Dark Ages. When it comes to Obama voters and the subject of Collectivism, most of them truly don't know what it is and the few who know what it is think it doesn't apply in their case because the world has never seen anything like them.

aware| 7.28.09 @ 10:46AM

WTF is it with these long, pasted, way off subject posts??? And I with the earlier poster about the anti Jew posts(I would scroll back up to name you but it must be 250 FEET back over the aforementioned pasties). A. S. , if you can't have a monitor maybe limiting characters to say under a few HUNDRED THOUSAND would help.

Good article. If only more "conservatives" spent time with Hayek, Von Mises, Hazlett, and Rothbard we might have a chance of getting a REAL opposition party! Opposition not just to neo-fascist Democrat State tyranny but to saber-rattling pro bankster Republican State tyranny.

As to the "recovery".....we have never seen more creativity displayed as we are seeing now as pertains to "economic data". The numbers aren't just cooked, they are turned into a seven course meal!

But the markets are up on news of profits! Hurray! Except its because of mass layoffs and reductions in expenses, NOT increased sales or production. Then we hear that new home sales are the highest in 8 years! Hooray! Except they are really down by 26% from June of '08. And there's ever popular GDP increases or not as bad as expected declines. Except this includes all that fiat(created out of thin air, like any other counterfeiter)money conjured up by the Central Banksters so the State could go on spending like there was no tomorrow(this should actually be a measurement of DECLINE!!!).

And what the hell is a JOBLESS recovery? Modern economics is a colossal failure at every level. It failed to predict, helped to bring about, and even in the midst of it can't understand, this collapse. Are they stupid? Yes. Are they corrupt? Yes! Are they in bed with the State? Of course!

But the big question.....how stupid are we for allowing it to go on? For believing in fairy god mothers and silver bullets? In central banks and State "benevolence"? In thinking that the malinvestment(thanks to the bait provided by the State) and suicidal monetary policies(ditto the State) of the past 50, and especially in the last 20, years can be cleaned out in just a few scary, but relatively survivable months?

If what the State is doing now in an effort to "fix" the "economy" turns out to "fix" anything it will be the first time in 5000 years of economic history and in defiance of natural law(the one that says if you spend more than you make you end up broke). As one of Hitler's henchmen said "the truth will always be in opposition to the State".

JAH666| 7.28.09 @ 10:48AM

I'm glad other posters are getting as tired of the spam posts as I am. There must be a way for the AS web-masters to keep us from having to look at Designer Handbag and Anti-Everything posts that have endless quotes from Pravda!

About the Reiland article...
Excellent summation of the brainwashed, socialist mindset. These sort of minds cannot, EVER be changed or admit when one of their cherished beliefs is a known failure. History and practicality can never intrude upon this sort of mindset. I've seen this exemplified over and over in my own life by people who I thought were intelligent and rational. Once the liberal/progressive mindset takes hold, seldom can it be overcome. One such mind is a nuisance in any group or organization, but an entire population of such minds (such as we have in Washington right now) dominating an organization as powerful as the FedGov is dangerous and destructive. Such a group draws strength from shared belief and nothing can shake the determination of such a group from a specific course or plan. Even when that group fails, as must inevitably happen, there will be 'external reasons' that THE PLAN didn't work. It is never the fault of the plan or the planners.

franklin| 7.28.09 @ 10:54AM

Barack Obama ,who daily violates his oath of office,has this plan for America: downsize,demonize, Balkanize,nationalize,and Stalinize.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 7.28.09 @ 11:10AM

As I recall, Blarney’s then boy toy took the rap for that homosexual brothel enterprise. Fwank would be tossed out of the communist party if he were ever connected with a successful capitalist business.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 11:14AM

Franklin, you left out one part of the Obama agenda: He and his fellow Chicago goons will live large, large, large.

yeah, the spammer(s) SUCK(s). I think it's Marcell - he's learned that every time he opens his digital mouth, ignorance rushes out, so he's contented himself, as every good liberal eventually does, with destructive behavior.

Hey, Aware: I TOTALLY agree with you. Now we're hearing about optimistic yield curves and normalizing bond markets. All well and good, but it's PHONY. GDP is also PHONY. The government continues to metastasize. We will reach a tipping point soon in the US - first, so many people won't be paying taxes at all that they have NO vested interest in the cancerous growth of government; second, such a large percentage of the working population will be employed by government (and in illegal unions, to boot) that they will have EVERY vested interest in the cancerous growth of government.

The banality of evil reemerges: It's not some Hitlerian villain rubbing his hands together and twirling his mustache: It is the faceless, feckless, but ubiquitous bureaucrat who will have control over the way we live, what we do, what we think and when we die.

The "Bobs" and "Liberal Reader/Jeremiahs" of this world are entirely too sanguine about where this country is headed.

Over a cliff. And I, for one, will not be a lemming.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 11:20AM

Gill, you are correct. However, if Fwank could pwove that only elitist Democwat hypocwites pwofitted fwom his entewpwise, he might be given a wepwieve.

I understand Fwank is planning to donate his thong to the Smithsonian. Which will require a new wing, of course.

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 11:37AM

This is an argument -- the argument based on epistemological humility -- that David Brooks consistently makes in the Times.

It's a good argument, too.

Markets sniff out inefficiencies and waste that a committee of regulators could never find.

However, there are certain things that are both inefficiently delivered by the market and too necessary to do without. Education is the classic example.

Looked at from a purely "conservative" lens, public education is pure socialism: it is a wealth redistribution plan of the highest order. But most reasonable conservatives have no problem with public education (as an idea).

The question is whether -- for example -- health care is more like education than it is like deodorant or -- to use yesterday's example -- lemonade.

The fact is we can't act like rational consumers when we buy health care: the cost are too large and too unexpected. There needs to be a third party. Once you have a third party, you have huge opportunities for abuse, exploitation, and waste. Government involvement becomes almost inevitable.

Markets are never free. Study the beginnings of capitalism in England in the 16th century: the government got involved almost immediately to regulate prices of grain and other commodities.

Al Adab| 7.28.09 @ 11:59AM

Good morning guys,
Here we have the unvarnished truth. Pres. does not want his thinking (his faith) clouded by facts and reality. This is a rush toward tyranny unseen in the history of our nation. These people are "true believers" and history and we plebs must simply obey our betters and follow like sheep.
These are dangerous times in America and free people need to understand Hayek, Locke, Burke, Jefferson and the others to know from whence comes their liberty and what it means to defend it.
As I write, my gaze lifts toward a painting on my wall titled, "Crockett's Last Sunriase". When and how do free men decide enough is enough and become willing to pay the price demanded for their Freedom? Are we prepared to hold the standard high and pay that cost? Let us all hope it never comes to that. Yet, with our Constitution under attack from our government, we must ask the question and determine what action we must take. God willing our ballots are still enough.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 12:11PM

Who says most conservatives have no problem with public education? Wow. You can really see the scaffolding on that staw man. I think education should be privatized. Pronto. But then that would stop the propaganda factory in its tracks, wouldn't it? Ever see the cost of a generic text book? Ever wonder why they're so ridiculously expensive? Hint: It's not private enterprise at work.

And if government ran the deoderant industry, we'd all still smell like 14th century peasants, but we'd be paying $6,000 for a Mennon speed stick!

And on health care, you're making foolish assumptions. Costs too large and unexpected? Not all costs are too large or unexpected, and that's what catastrophic policies were invented to cover! Many health care costs are predictable and should be borne by the patient. The reason insurance (third parties) is so screwed up - and costs are so high - is GOVERNMENT and nothing else. Come on.

Surely you know that, so I can only surmise you are being dishonest (but then you are a liberal, so fish gotta swim. . . .).

Must I rehearse the litany of reasons?

Frivolous lawsuits are the main reason costs have skyrocketed (even as the actual costs of technology have fallen!) -which Obama conspicuously does NOT want to change. The fallout from these parasites explains stratospheric malpractice insurance and the panoply of tests doctors prescribe to cover their butts.

Also involved is government-decreed tax credits for employers to provide cadillac, one-size-fits-all, cost-be-damned policies to many who don't need them. And let's not forget the government's insistence that an ever-larger pool of non-essential practices and procedures be covered by insurance companies who then have to raise premiums to cover this burgeoning entitelment - THESE are the reasons health care is so expensive.

It's not the evil insurance companies. Although now, thanks to Government, the insurance companies, like the banks and the car companies, have become thoroughly corrupted too.

More government is ALWAYS counterproductive economically and corrosive to the spirit and the character of the individual.

And you, liberal reader, are exhibit A of the latter.

No, markets are never truly free. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be as close to free as possible. And it surely doesn't mean that more meddling by mediocre politicians is better.

Your argument is similar to saying, "war will never be eliminated. So let's have a big one right now."

Markets aren't ever free, but that's not due to some natural law - it's because do-gooders and exploiters and politicians try to manipulate markets.

And far more often than not, with dismal results.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 12:21PM

Liberal Reader, as a classic anti-progressive liberal, I'm sure 30 years ago you would have made the argument that surely any reasonable conservative would want to leave the delivery of mail to government, an essentially socialistic proposition.

And you would have been wrong about that just as you are wrong about public education, which damn well ought to be privatized.

If you had been in charge, Fedex would never have revolutionized the mail and package delivery system in this country.

And the sclerotic post office, which, like Amtrak, continues to limp along as nothing more than a taxpayer money sponge, can only raise prices year after year even as demand for its products falls.

What business that isn't government-controlled responds to decreased demand by raising prices?

Sheesh!

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 12:24PM

Grzmlyk --

Privatizing education would be a disaster, and the founding fathers were insistent on the need for free public schools. You should read Jefferson on this issue.

Knowledge is a wealth that increases in value as more people acquire it.

And while some "conservative" are comfortable spouting uninformed opinions, most responsible conservatives do not advocate the abolition of public education.

On health care: the price are sky-rocketing largely because of a) larger profits and salaries; and b) technological innovation.

Lawsuits account for about 1% of health care costs. We probably should reform laws governing lawsuits, but it's just a drop in the bucket.

Private health insurance companies have administrative costs of 30% or more.

They SPEND the money YOU give them to DENY YOU coverage.

Think about that for a second, my friend. They TAKE your money and hire people whose job it is to deny you coverage.

That, and advertising, accounts for billions of dollars every year that could be spent treating people for illnesses.

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 12:27PM

I am grateful for your opinion that education should be privatized, however, because it's a perfect example of people using capitalist models as allegories for how all things about our society should be run.

This is incredibly decadent. Conservatives in the 40s, 50s, and 60s did not think this way. The basic idea is that you don't want to have a society: you want a collection of atoms bouncing off one another. Greed, appetite, consumption, aggression and lust will rule the day. It's a revolting picture with only one accurate name: it's called Hell.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 12:48PM

Nice try. That 1-2% number is bandied about all over the internet. You're talking about awards only. That number rises to 10% when you include malpractice insurance and "defensive" medicine. That is because just one lawsuit can be ruinous. If you don't believe me, try to find an OB/GYN in the midwest. Many have gotten out because they can't afford the malpractice insurance. And they can't pass all of that onto patients.

I used to work at New York Hospital for the most prominent sonogram dept. in the city; i worked with established doctors, new doctors, interns and insurance. Believe me. Lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits are a huge deal.

Also, although much of the technology has come down in price (MRI's, etc.) some costs remain high - like newer technolgoies that continue to come online and new drugs - because, yes, it does cost as much as $1 billion to develop a new drug- and then a company has 7 years to recoup its investment before generics laws kick in.

How much innovation do you think's gonna happen in the new bottom-line focused Obamacare, which will drive profit out of the system? Are you on the payroll? Cuz you can't be that dumb.

As for Jefferson, I'm wondering if he'd have the same opinion if he were to look out over the sewer that is the public school system today. No doubt Jefferson didn't envision teachers' unions whose raison detre is not eduction but feathering their own nests. No doubt he didn't envision liberal propaganda factories for whom teaching had nothing to do with the curricula.

And I'm supposed to believe public eduction would be a disaster because Liberal Reader says it would be? Sorry. Look at our continually tumbling scores in every major subject. How's that public education worked out so far? I know, I know, Liberal Reader has the solution: MORE GOVERNMENT. And yes, NCLB was foolish - Bush's ridiculous sop to Teddy.

You remind me of the guy who took his horse to the vet because it sneezed and the vet kept telling the guy to give his horse ever-higher doses of Mercury. Eventually the horse dies, of course, and the angry guy goes to the vet asking why - the vet says, "hey, you didn't give him enough medicine!"

Oh and decadent? The only alternative to public education is a collection of atoms bouncing off of each other? HUH? Dude, put another quarter in. Your bullshit is running low.

Eli| 7.28.09 @ 12:53PM

We have long had a combination of public and private education. Harvard, Yale et al are certainly Private while USC, UT and others are state supported. What is at issue is a government mandated curricula, particularly at the elementary level, which serves to indoctrinate rather than educate. There is a difference.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 1:17PM

Oh, yeah liberal reader: I'd much rather have a faceless bureaucrat protecting his political ass in Washington DC looking at an actuarial table and the bottom line deny me coverage than have some profit-driven insurance company guy deny me coverage. That would make me feel much better.

And you talk about administrative costs of 30%??? Care to know what administrative costs are for Medicaid and Medicare? Try 70%!!!!!!

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 1:46PM

As one of the current bogey men on the right is the "faceless bureaucrat," let's take a moment to examine such a person.

The bureaucrat is keeper of the Good.

You heard me.

Bureaucracy is simply how the government administers laws. The bureaucrat is what stands between you living in the United States and you living in Somalia.

As for administrative costs, where did you hear that70% figure? Sean Hannity?

The administrative costs of those programs and Social Security is well below 5%.

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 1:47PM

AS for Jefferson: your speculation on what he would probably think if he was under the trance of right wing propaganda that determines your every opinion is not really all that interesting.

The point is that the founding fathers all saw that democracy depended upon public schools.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 2:04PM

You really do believe that government is a dispenser of fairness, don't you?

Liberalism: The triumph of hope over experience.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 2:06PM

I wish you well in any case - you don't seem like a bad guy.

Bob NT| 7.28.09 @ 2:16PM

Lib,
Got an great idea for you; why don’t call the ONE and have him use the great success of our public education system as a means of selling everyone on the fantastic potential of Obamacare.... I am sure that if he tells everyone that over time they can expect the outcomes in healthcare to mirror the outcomes in public education people will line up to sign on. Please don’t wait do it now!

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 2:27PM

LOL!!! 5%????????????????????????????? W

You have got to be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have worked with Medicare!!!!!!

What the hell are you talking about? You are a fricking babe in the woods!

What web site did you get THAT on? What do they call administrative costs? Government can't lower the price of anything; government is about the bureaucracy ONLY.

You are very young, aren't you?

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 2:38PM

The "bureaucracy" that administers Medicare, for one thing, is private. That is, the government funds Medicare but does not administer it.

The figure 5% is actually somewhat higher than the oft-repeated 2%, which is usually referred to in what are called Newspapers (daily periodicals that report events and information that is in the public's interest to know).

But since Newspapers are part of the liberal conspiracy to destroy America, let's multiply that figure times 5 and say Medicare's ad. costs are 10%. It's still well below private insurance.

Marc Jeric| 7.28.09 @ 2:45PM

Our situation is much worse that any of these pessimist can project. Abu Hussein from Kenya, our Community Organizer-in-Chief, is engaged in a true sovietization of America, through his ACORN brownshirts. Let us translate the word "community organization" into Russian: it spells "soviet". This invention by Lenin was perfected by Obama's teachers Davis and Alinsky for American conditions, and is now being put in force all over the country with the help of government employee unions.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 2:46PM

70%.

Grzmylk| 7.28.09 @ 3:02PM

You didn't tell me the newspaper you got the info from.
BTW, I've also worked with "newspapers" a lot in my life. Your average reporter is almost the laziest person on the planet. They do not conduct their own studies for stuff like this. They do what you did - run to the government web sites and copy it down without fact checking or proofing.

Believe me. Look up http://www.routethree.com/solving/Medicare_admin_costs.pdf.

Don't you realize that everyone parses data to make them look better? That's why statistics are so malleable. "administrative costs" is about as blank a slate as you could possibly assign; so the government is going to want to look efficient, and they put what one would normally ascribe to administrative budget down in other categories.

Dude, you have ZERO credibility on this topic. I've been there. But go on thinking government is the dispenser of all things good and selfless and that corporations are evil because they're profit-oriented.

You don't get it. Which is what makes you such a useful idiot.

ben| 7.28.09 @ 3:05PM

Here's some data from the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2505.cfm
Administrative costs are customarily expressed as a percentage of total costs, that total being the sum of administrative costs and health benefit claims paid. In the case of Medicare, the cost to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) of operating the Medicare program has ranged in recent years from 2.8 to 3.4 percent; adding in costs incurred by other government agencies in support of Medicare brings the total to a range of 5.7--6.4 percent.
In the case of private insurance, administrative costs are measured by the difference between premiums collected and claims paid. The result is that this includes some costs that are not really "administrative."
For example, many private insurers provide disease management services for patients with chronic conditions and/or on-call nurses for patients to consult by phone. Because these services are provided directly by the insurance company, they do not result in a claim being paid. In addition, most states impose a "premium tax" on health insurers; this tax is obviously not a health benefit claim. However, because all non-benefit costs are defined as "administrative," these and other similar expenditures are reported as administrative costs. In recent years, these so-called "administrative costs" have accounted for 11.4--13.2 percent of total health insurance premiums.
Imagine, for a moment, that Fred and Jane each have a credit card from a different bank. Fred charges $5,000 a month, and Jane charges $1,000 a month. Suppose it costs each bank $5 to produce and send a plastic credit card when the account is opened. That $5 "administrative cost" is a much lower percentage of Fred's monthly charges than it is of Jane's, but that does not mean Fred's bank is more efficient. It is purely a mathematical artifact of Fred's charging pattern, and it would be silly to compare the efficiency of bank operations on that basis. Yet that is how many analysts compare Medicare with private insurance.
When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare's administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453. In the years from 2000 to 2005, Medicare's administrative costs per beneficiary were consistently higher than that for private insurance, ranging from 5 to 48 percent higher, depending on the year (see Table 1). This is despite the fact that private-sector "administrative" costs include state health insurance premium taxes of up to 4 percent (averaging around 2 percent, depending on the state)--an expense from which Medicare is exempt--as well as the cost of non-claim health care expenses, such as disease management and on-call nurse consultation services.
------------------------------------------
Thes G**Damn Liberals think they are so moral and so right that they have a duty to enforce their beliefs on the rest of us - this is why they fight for gov't mandates and programs which all of us have to accept (Tyranny) rather than leaving us to our own choices (Freedom). Let me choose what's right for me and you can choose what's right for you with neither of us forcing the other to capitulate to our own personal beliefs. Gov't entitlements and mandates force our decisions, and are by definition Tyranny.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 3:09PM

Your naivete shows in the fact that you swallow that 5% number - no organization ont he planet - let alone one of the biggest bureaucracies on the planet - can run any enterprise and devote just 5% of costs to administrative purposes. You couldn't run a lemonade stand and keep books and not have admin costs exceed 5%! You got payroll, IT, travel, overhead, HR departments, procurement, infrastructure, supplies, physical plant maintenance, paperwork - and that's just off the top of my head!!!

LOL!

Gimme a break.

Len| 7.28.09 @ 3:15PM

Liberal Reader, Jefferson saw public education as a good that by teaching people to reason and be informed as history and politics would benefit society. This does not mean that he endorsed any kind of education offered. Take for instance his comments concerning the Tories who needed to be removed from the Faculty at UVA, thus showing that he had in mind a specific kind of education.
It's quite clear that government and others can no longer be entrusted with education, and that government needs to stripped to only the basics of protecting life, liberty and property, along with such utilities that benefit commerce and general intercourse.
Why should I or anyone else continue to support public education when fundamentals such as natural rights and their being the foundation of government are no longer taught, which then leads to a government and society that is destructive toward these rights.

Len| 7.28.09 @ 3:26PM

Liberal Reader, it's really quite easy to see where Jefferson would come down on government today, as there is a wealth of his views available. He continually opposed Marshall and saw what he was doing as undermining the Constitution, so to think that he would be in any favorable to SCOTUS and it's complicity in growing the reach of the Federal government as it is today can only be called absurd.
Then we can see how he opposed Hamilton and the introduction of the federal government into the economy. This was something else he opposed throughout his life, so to think that he would be anything less than vehemently opposed to the Federal Reserve, bailouts, and the government attempting to manage the economy is also absurd.
Let's throw in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions for more insight. If one does not see that Jefferson would be opposed to any infringement on states rights, particularly when the federal government essentially blackmails states into accepting such things as setting drinking ages to get highway money one can only be called obtuse.

Len| 7.28.09 @ 3:29PM

Jefferson on the banking bill(for insight on his view of the US constitution).

The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:

1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.

2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain.(1)

3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands, and so far is against the laws of Alienage.

4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of Descents.

5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat, and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.

6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line and so far is against the laws of Distribution.

7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.

8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures, and so, probably, they will be construed.

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.

I They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution.

2. "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.

3. To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills, so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trace, but as `' productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.

II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following:

1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

2. The second general phrase is, "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.

If has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes, Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are "necessary," not those which are merely "convenient" for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to everyone, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grant of power would be nugatory

But let us examine this convenience and see what it is. The report on this subject, page 3, states the only general convenience to be, the preventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between the States and the treasury, (for I pass over the increase of circulating medium, ascribed to it as a want, and which, according to my ideas of paper money, is clearly a demerit.) Every State will have to pay a sum of tax money into the treasury; and the treasury will have to pay, in every State, a part of the interest on the public debt, and salaries to the officers of government resident in that State. In most of the States there will still be a surplus of tax money to come up to the seat of government for the officers residing there. The payments of interest and salary in each State may he made by treasury orders on the State collector. This will take up the greater part of the money he has collected in his State, and consequently prevent the great mass of it from being drawn out of the State. If there be a balance of commerce in favor of that State against the one in which the government resides, the surplus of taxes will be remitted by the bills of exchange drawn for that commercial balance. And so it must be if there was a bank. But if there be no balance of commerce, either direct or circuitous, all the banks in the world could not bring up the surplus of taxes, but in the form of money. Treasury orders then, and bills of exchange may prevent the displacement of the main mass of the money collected, without the aid of any bank; and where these fail, it cannot be prevented even with that aid.

Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience cannot constitute the necessity which the Constitution makes the ground for assuming any non-enumerated power.

Besides, the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphia I believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which, by an arrangement with the treasury, are paid by any State collector to whom they are presented. This expedient alone suffices to prevent the existence of that necessity which may justify the assumption of a non-enumerated power as a means for carrying into effect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, and well done, without this assumption, therefore it does not stand on that degree of necessity which can honestly justify it.

It may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency all over the States, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single State. So it would be still more convenient that there should be a bank, whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow from this superior conveniency, that there exists anywhere a power to establish such a bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it.

Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such as those against Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly? Nothing but a necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitution of laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence. Will Congress be too strait-laced to carry the Constitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over the foundation-laws of the State government for the slightest convenience of theirs ?

The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature: 1. The right of the Executive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States, and consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed under its protection,

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 3:30PM

BTW, Ben, thank you for your thoughts.

Empical evidence - not to mention common sense, if liberals had an ounce of it - tells you that government is the most wasteful entity man can devise; when you're spending other people's money, you don't care how much you spend. That's one reason patients always say "yes" to additional tests and treatements without regard for cost - if their insurance company is picking up the tab, what do they care? Same is true for expense accounts. People tend to spend to max them out. It never fails when you're spending money that you don't have to account for. that's why bureaucracies ALWAYS metastasize. Liberal Reader thinks bureaucracy is good. That's because he has yet to deal with it.

I'm certain Liberal Reader is very young, is a beneficiary of middle-class parental financial suipport and so all of his opinions are based on hypotheticals, theory and idealism. The real world has a way of making a realist of you.

the idea that government can - or even wants to - do anything efficiently is truly beneath contempt.

Grzmlyk| 7.28.09 @ 3:32PM

Len, you rock.

Len| 7.28.09 @ 3:39PM

Bureaucrats keep me from living in Somalia?
Thanks for proving how foolish you are and showing all the more why not to take you seriously.
What about rule of law? What about protecting my natural right, particularly the right to the fruit of my labor? Does a bureaucrat make that happen? No, a police/military force and a just legal system certainly help. If I and the rest of society are free to pursue our happiness through our labor and trade with another then we will prosper.
Bureaucrats tend only to want to control and quantify everything and thus slow down everything, when all that is needed is good legislation that does not infringe on natural rights. Really the more bureaucrats there, there must be a corresponding amount of laws and regulations, most likely in place not for the mutual benefit of all, but for the enablement of power hungry people to attempt to control all aspects of life. Were the bureaucrats in the USSR the agents of good there?
You are laughable.

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 3:57PM

Len --

Setting aside your insults, it is indesputably true that bureaucracy prevents states from becoming "failed states."

Bureacracy IS the rule of law. It's what prevents government spending from fanning out in networks of clans and family. It's what prevents vengeance and vendetta from replacing due process. Bureaucracy is what happens when countries are ruled by laws and not men.

On public education:

A few points.

Just like 95% of what the Supreme Court decides is largely uncontroversial, most of what gets taught in public schools is politically neutral.

I know, I know: you've heard Rush Limbaugh relate anecdotes about outrageous things a handful of teachers have done.

But you have to think a little more critically.

Tens of millions of children are going through the public school systems of this country. For every anecdote that you thrill to while listening to right wing radio, anyone who knows anything about the topic could give you 100 anecdotes of great things happening in the schools.

True, we are doing poorly in some respects; high school drop out rates are through the roof, and some test scores are way too low. (Some are radically improving recently though, which Limbaugh has no interest in talking about.)

The fallacy that gets promoted goes like this: a school system in this city is failing; therefore, the historic mission, begun in the late middle ages in Europe, to achieve universal public education is a failure.

It's fallacious reasoning; it's cynical; it's weak and cowardly to think this way.

Again, conservatives did not used to give up so easily, and once they were far more civic minded than they are now. It's a debasement that will hurt this country, and from which it will be difficult to recover.

aware| 7.28.09 @ 3:58PM

"It is true, we are as yet secured against [tyrannical laws] by the spirit of the times... But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224

"[An] act of the Congress of the United States... which assumes powers... not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:383

For you Liberal Reader and now "bureaucrat is keeper of the Good. ".....like all those Indian agents, huh? Please explain the metamorphosis that takes place when men become minions of the State. How do they no longer seek personal and political advantage? No longer act stupidly? Shed incompetence? Become models of virtue?

Yours is exactly the attitude that must be changed if we are ever to get the State under the control of law again(if it ever was). Take the central bank for example. It was foisted upon us to give us "sound money" and thanks to these "keepers of the good" my dollar now buys a nickel's worth of goods. Not to mention the fact that the Fed is made up of rotating banksters(only with white hats) who watch over the other banksters(in black hats) to make sure they play nice. No wonder Jefferson positively hated the idea of a central bank saying bankers were more of a threat to the Republic(by the way NOT democracy) than foreign armies.

If the founders were so hot for public education why did they not provide for it in the Constitution? As the earlier quote says if its not provided then the central government is forbidden to do it and you are ignoring the fact that private schools turn out better educated graduates than public schools(with the university system as the [still] most obvious example of "private schools").

WHAT Right Wing????? I'd like to join that! All I can make out are neocon big government Republicans who promise "smaller government" but we always end up with bigger anyway or "independents" who are "more pragmatic" and just want to do "what works" without even a head fake to what the law and principles have to say.

And, along with the neo fascist control freak Democrats, they all compete to see who will take charge of this mass legalized corruption(the State) so as to milk the unsuspecting tax payer so as to enrich themselves, their pet projects, and their favored patrons. And all the time the State gets bigger and bigger and it takes more and more.

Accepting the current scope of our Federal government and the trajectory it is plainly on is to usher in a dark age for individual liberty. Individual liberty was THE reason for Jefferson's entire political belief system and the founding of this Republic( NOT democracy!).

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 4:03PM

When I said to read Jefferson on public education, I wasn't suggesting that everything Jefferson wrote on any topic should be simply accepted as Gospel, either.

Jefferson, my hero since I was a boy, was a deeply, a profoundly flawed man. His writings are uneven; he contradicted himself on many things. His plans for the United States seem to have been in horrible conflict for the reality that faced us, a fact which he seems to have accepted the moment he became president.

He was guilty of crimes against humanity (slavery), for which he bears more responsibility than almost any other person of his time precisely because of his great humanity and vast learning.

Anyway, I encourage you to go on studying Jefferson. He -- and his compatriots -- are endlessly fascinating, and knowledge of them is crucial to knowledge of ourselves.

And he believed that everyone should be educated, whether they were rich or poor.

If you don't agree with that, fine: but you don't get to sort of say Jefferson didn't mean it.

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 4:10PM

aware --

Lovely post, although I'd like to point out that -- factually speaking -- Democrats are not fascists.

Also: a very common mistake around here is to say "we live in a Republic, not a Democracy."

This is and is not true.

We live in a certain kind of democracy called a "republic."

So while it is true to say we live in a republic, it is also true to say we live in a democracy. It is NOT true to say we live in a republic, but not a democracy.

A democracy, broadly speaking, is any form of government that is subject to the will of the people by means of pre-scheduled elections.

That's about all that means.

But again, I loved your post. Witty, erudite, well-reasoned.

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 4:23PM

And so... just to sum up, just to review:

A hare is a kind of mammal, a mouse is a kind of rodent, a trout is a kind of fish, and the United States is a kind of democracy.

But it is also a republic of a certain kind. We're nothing, that is, like the Republic of ancient Rome. We're our own thing.

Len| 7.28.09 @ 4:34PM

As I said you are laughable.
Let's see, you state that 95% of SCOTUS's decisions are uncontroversial. OK, let's say that's true, does it matter in regards to the ones that are controversial? Take for instance, the time that a farmer was told that he couldn't grow wheat on his own property to feed his family, and that SCOTUS upheld this. Does it matter if this is only 5% of it's decisions, when the violation of a mans right are so egregiously violated? Kelo vs. New London, in which first SCOTUS has no jurisdiction, but then to so blatantly violate property rights and allow one private citizen to be given the property of another private citizen even if compensated, which BTW led to the Port Chester ruling, allowing straight out blackmail to gain the property of another citizen for less than even compensation.
Wait! How about Roe vs. Wade in which the federal government dictated to states to force them to accept their governance on internal matters. This is without even addressing the bad science accepted to redefine what is a human being, when science still cannot point to the origin of life, yet it can define life.
As for public education and what is taught in schools, I barely listen to Rush and as I work in an educational environment certainly don't need him as a source of information. Frankly I can see the evidence everyday in the countless numbers such as yourself who have no concept of what the US constitution truly says, what federalism, and why natural rights need to be the foundation of government, not some vague unprovable progressivism that believes in legislating for an egalitarian society, yet can point to no objective and unalterable source to determine the rightness of that. What about the millions who believe that education is a right and are told so, when it is to be a good which enables society to flourish through an educated and reasonable people?
As I said earlier, if public education was truly serving it's purpose I would be fine with it, but I can see the tens of millions who are frankly clueless as to the importance of what I mentioned above.
I can also see how it fails to produce the skill of critical thinking, as you choose to ascribe thoughts and views to me, rather than respond to what I have written. You label me as sycophantic, not using that exact word, but descriptively(Rush listener), in an attempt to invalidate my points which shows your intellectual dishonesty.
BTW, can you show me where the federal government gets the power for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Bailouts, government economic policy(think on this), education, drug laws, the federal reserve, etc.? Can you point to that delegated authority for health care legislation? I also ask this, can you tell me what is the right and recourse of the people when the federal government, or for that matter any government violates the bounds of its authority and acts under assumed powers never granted?

Todd| 7.28.09 @ 4:35PM

I think the moderator here should talk with the moderator at American Thinker because I never see spam on their site because the moderator has to approve all the post before being posted. Makes it much easier to read through comments without having to scroll through spam, trolls and Jew haters. Time to make it happen

Richard Baker| 7.28.09 @ 4:36PM

Ah, dictators. They surround themselves with sycophants who are afraid of telling the Emperor that he has no clothes. The Kenyan is acting more in the manner of a Kenyan tribal leader than an American except that he does it with a Chicago "twist". The net results will be similar.

Len| 7.28.09 @ 4:44PM

BTW in regards to ASSERTION, as it is that and no more, there has been no drive since the middle ages for universal public education. If you say differently give documentation, cite sources, OH and above all, prove that this is the ideal manner in which to most advance education.
Although I hew very closely to Jefferson in most political thought, one of his flaws was to place too much weight on reason, as if it would naturally occur through education, and how this reliance ignores the proclivity of man to reject reason for sophistry due to flawed souls, or more plainly that man's baser instincts will hold sway over reason, if he has not integrity and a love for righteousness.

Todd| 7.28.09 @ 4:50PM

Peter McGrath| 7.28.09 @ 4:58PM

Pithy explanations, such as Mr Reiland's here, as to Obama's declining poll numbers being related to his luddite clinging to the utterly discredited tenets of socialism, offer real hope that the half-wits who placed this twerp into office are finally starting to "get it."

Get your torches and pitchforks ready.

Next year, when the porkulus hits high gear, we'll have one scandal after another relating to outrageous corruption associated with this boondoggle.

Of course, along with the corruption, Obama's eonomic tumescence (i.e.inflation AND high interest rates) will give us all the high hard one.

By then, it should be clear to virtually anyone with a functioning brain that Chicagobama and his rabble in Congress have truly performed the impossible act on them, and us.

Jimjam| 7.28.09 @ 5:02PM

Obama may be an arrogant dilettante but he does know one thing the American people keep missing or denying. He knows his mission is to destroy America as fast as possible. He, and his puppetmasters, hate America, pure & simple. Put anything he does in that context and it all makes sense. Dark clouds are on the horizon.

Peter McGrath| 7.28.09 @ 5:02PM

Todd, I disagree. This site is great because of the free exchanges. I can figure out whether a post is dreck-ful after wasting only a few seconds.

By not preapproving posts, this site provides for a lively, illuminating, and frequently hilarious reading.

Keep it up, TAS!!

End of the world by design| 7.28.09 @ 5:03PM

By Dr. Elias Akleh, Information Clearing House,

In mid 1970s the American Power Elite drew a “Grand Plan” to control and to monopolize global oil and nuclear energy resources, for he who controls energy resources determines the fate of nations. The base of this “Grand Plan” is the invasion of energy rich countries to directly control their resources, and to create subservient governments that would exploit their own people as cheap labor to harvest energy for the United States.

The collapse of the Soviet Union had created a window of opportunity for the United States to ensure and to affirm its global superiority through expansion and controlling energy resources without any real opposition. The attacks of 911 were necessary requirements for the Bush administration to wage a “global war against terror” that would serve as a cover up for American hegemony. President Bush borrowed Mussolini's fascist motto of “If you are not with me, you are against me” and turned it into “You are either with us or with the terrorist” to terrorize weaker nations into accepting American expansions.

Part of the “Grand Plan”, which deals with the Arab World (Middle East) and South East Asia, was handed down to the Bush/Cheney administration for execution. The invasions and destructions of Afghanistan and Iraq are just the beginning. Iran, Syria, and Lebanon are next. Controlling Iran is very important to the American administration. Iran sits on a lake of oil and has large deposits of uranium that, when mined and refined, could make Iran a super global power. Controlling Iran leads to the containment of China (America's greatest competitor), who depends heavily on Iranian oil to satisfy its growing hunger for energy. Geographically Iran makes the shortest and the most economical route for Kazakhstan's oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea ,north, to the Persian Gulf south with all the oil-tankers traffic. Iran also fits perfectly within the line of American hegemony in South East Asia. Listening to Bush's speeches – especially his speech to the United Nation last September 2006- one can detect his “enthusiasm” for “spreading democracy and freedom” into the “despotic Middle East” with Iraq as an example.

The Bush/Cheney administration started its overt aggression against Iran immediately after 911 attacks. Bush described Iran as one of the “axis of evil” sponsoring “terrorist” groups such as the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas, who are in reality defending themselves against Israeli aggression. After the American invasion of Iraq the American administration accused Iran of instigating a civil war in Iraq by supporting Shiites against Sunnis, and of opening its borders wide for terrorists to enter Iraq. The administration is accusing Iran of building a nuclear bomb, and is continuously threatening its government to abandon its nuclear “ambitions” or else face dire consequences including nuclear strikes (a paradox of using nuclear weapon to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons). Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State described Iran as a “central bank for world terrorism” that is threatening the stability of the Middle East.

Len| 7.28.09 @ 5:05PM

Liberal reader, it is not republic vs. democracy, rather confederated republic vs. democracy. What is the difference? Well in a democracy all the people have a say in the legislation which would be a national government. Here the numerous societies that comprise this country each have representation for those matters that are external to them, but the people of one state cannot have a say in regards to another, thus confederated republic, not mobocracy.

Winterkorn| 7.28.09 @ 5:12PM

Dear Liberal:

1. Public Education may have been recommended by Jefferson, but as we now it now, it began in the mid-1800's in Massachusetts, and gradually became prevalent. The control by local people, such as PTA's and local boards kept the curricula and teaching methods reasonable. The influence of state and federal government, starting roughly in the 1960's, subverted local control, and it was downhill from there. When I taught in public school in the 1970's, it was already so difficult to expell a student, because of federal court decisions, that teachers were becoming cynical about their ability to maintain order in their classrooms----and the ill-behaved knew their "rights" and pushed them to the limits. I am a physician now, and expect the same kind of deterioration of American medicine that we have seen in education, over the decades, if Obamacare is instituted.

Government schools cannot go out of business, no matter how poor their performance; modern students cannot be expelled, almost no matter how disruptive their behavior; and tenured, unionized teachers cannot be fired, no matter how incompetently they perform.

aware| 7.28.09 @ 5:13PM

Liberal Reader....didn't say Dems were fascist said neo fascist. Lets see, Mussolini owned the means of production through the State, which also owned the banks. Here the Dems, and plenty of Repubs, merely "control" these by tax policy and regulation. The neo fascists cover the mailed fist with velvet and don't have a thing for uniforms and parades but they still consider everything and everybody to be property of the State. The usual hum of the Hive, collectivists all.

In a democracy the voters vote directly on issues(Athens) and 51% can legally vote the extermination of the losing 49% or anything else.

In a republic the voters elect representatives to decide the issues. The only "democracy" practiced here ends with the election of these representatives, who then go and run a republic.

By muddying up waters such as these the Left makes its strides toward the Total State because too many people just aren't sure its against the law.
And you will find we are much more like Rome in its republic days than we are Athens. Come to think of it, we also seem to be moving from republic toward empire like Rome too. Hmmmmm.

aware| 7.28.09 @ 5:14PM

In a democracy the voters vote directly on issues(Athens) and 51% can legally vote the extermination of the losing 49% or anything else.

In a republic the voters elect representatives to decide the issues. The only "democracy" practiced here ends with the election of these representatives, who then go and run a republic.

To make it simple, The form of government we have(or had) is a republic with democratically elected representatives. So while it is true to say we have a democratic republic, it is not true to say we have a republican democracy.
By muddying up waters such as these the Left makes its strides toward the Total State because too many people just aren't sure its against the law.

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 5:25PM

aware --

You're having some trouble with labels and definitions.

The confusion is understandable, but it is remediable too.

Get thee to the library, and read.

Extremely Extreme Extremist| 7.28.09 @ 6:35PM

This is the one (and only) thing Liberal Reader has so far been right about that I know of: the distinction between "democracy" and "republic" among the Founders turns out to be a distinction without much of a difference. There are certainly individual quotes you can point to and say, "Aha! See, here's the difference," but in point of fact if you take the totality of what is said about them (including the comments of Madison, who tried to be the most explicit of all), they end up being synonyms.

Anyone who wants to go on trying to discover fine distinctions between "democracy" and "republic" in the Founders' thought is certainly welcome to, but so long as "democracy" is understood to refer to the principle of popular sovereignty rather than direct democracy or "mob rule," you will find that it's basically a huge waste of effort. Conservatives who belabor the apparent distinction (as I used to) tend to think it's hugely significant, but in the end nothing much rides on it. The notion of popular sovereignty inherent in each term is the same. The only case in which a distinction is relevant is when people use "democracy" in the sense of "mob rule." But no one does that these days. Not even leftists are in favor of mob rule (for the simple reason that they are dictatorial totalitarians; the very opposite of democrats).

Liberal Reader| 7.28.09 @ 7:04PM

Republicans are fascists.

Republicans are traitors.

Republicans are terrorists. They hate this country.

Conservatives want to destroy America.

Conservatives are totalitarians, statists, dictatorial thugs.

When you read these sentences, try to understand that this is the exact experience I have when I read most of your posts. It's the precise experience that probably more than half the country would have.

You read thinking, do I try to argue against this? Where do I begin? The person doesn't even seem to know what these terms mean, yet this is just the kind of talk that is debasing our political culture and ruining our ability to have a national debate about important topics. Do I just ignore them?

You should try to think about rhetoric like this. It's shallow and pointless to refer to your fellow citizens as "totalitarians" and "fascists." It belies real historical ignorance and moral idiocy. Try to clarify your ideas and use proper terms. People will take you more, not less seriously.

JustPlainBob| 7.28.09 @ 7:29PM

Liberal Reader,

One thing that ya'all on the left don't seem to realize that your "cost savings" or "cost controls" are simply price controls. You slam a lid on the price that providers can charge, and call it savings. But it's not. You don't seem to like to realize that your "savings" carry "queueing costs", like months of waiting for cancer treatments, waiting for simple tests, etc. Those costs aren't easily quantified, so progressives ignore them. While they make sure that THEY don't have to participate in the grand schemes that they're designing for the rest of us.

Thom| 7.28.09 @ 7:56PM

Liberal Poster, academics spend countless hours arguing over labels to the determent of the point in the end. Recorded history is full of labels but the fundamental human condition is relatively concise in its scope of misery and triumphs over those. As I’ve said to you before you are a Marxist who then responses you are not but a classic liberal and so on. Your beliefs were tried at James Town in 1607 and cost people their lives and almost the entire colony. They were Marx’s ideas they tried. Before that it was labeled something else, Feudalism comes to mind as the closest label and all Marx is is Feudalism repackaged and dressed up without the divine right of birth being the determinant of wealth and prosperity. He replaced that with what some call “materialism” or what I simply call the latest arrogant, condescending elitist to come along with a grand plan for power and riches at other people’s expense. If you see distinction throughout the ages between all these labels I can assure you their victims wouldn’t.

As to Jefferson, like most people he was a work in progress and the old man wasn’t quite the same as the young idealist, was he? Some of his concepts, like the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time make great copy but carries with it a significant downside don’t you think? He’s not talking about elections there but the eternal lust for power of some men over others. As a practical matter, he was right unfortunately. On matters of “generational taxation” he was rather blunt with his distain for placing a tax upon those not yet born or having had any say in the matter. What government run generational tax programs do you think Jefferson the man would tolerate today? As for Public Education, well I think Jefferson knew the difference between education, an outcome and schooling a baby sitting/day care service. As I remember he got elected by those same ignorant uneducated masses that elected all those people to represent them in State legislatures and Congress after ratifying the Constitution. Tens of millions of Public School children graduate after 12 or more years in those institutions of day care that are both illiterate and could not even read the Federalist papers or pass a simple test on the meaning of any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights but all of them know what their “rights” are……and the rest of us bear the cost of each Public School idiot graduated into society.

Jefferson would burn down Washington DC today if he were alive.

Extremely Extreme Extremist| 7.28.09 @ 8:53PM

LR, I'm perfectly willing to discuss with you my use of adjectives like "totalitarian" when referring to political leftists (i.e. Marxists). I know exactly what I'm talking about, having spent more time seriously studying, reading, absorbing, and experiencing than you've likely been alive. You have no idea who I am nor the quantity and quality of my education, so you can stop with your puerile schoolyard bluffing. Throw a punch like a man or go sit down and shut up.

As for your conceited attempt to fill me in on what's going on inside your head as you read my comments: A) you're hardly the center of anyone's universe--particularly mine--and B) I already know your reaction before you even have it (you're lying about it, btw). Get this: I don't care! Gee whiz. Imagine that. I'm not writing for you, you self-absorbed nincompoop.

Now, if you'd care to debate me, fire away. Put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate for the Spectators here the vast breadth and depth of your learning; the fathomless profundity of your understanding. Bury me six feet under with a single, impeccably aimed barb from your razor-sharp wit. Force me to reveal, to my eternal shame and in the full light of day, the true extent of my "historical ignorance and moral idiocy." Let fly, little prince.

(Actually, no. Although I'd love to play, just to shut you up, in all honesty I don't have the requisite time for tilting at windbags. I will try to remember to get back here to read any riposte you may have to offer, but in all likelihood I won't. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. I guess you win, then. Congratulations!)

Don| 7.28.09 @ 8:54PM

The mantra of Natzi Pelosi.Himmy Reid, Idi Ammen Obama and the rest of those Demon-crats is: "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities". Thank you Karl Marx

Their are 545 Elected officials responsibile for the condition of our country, They DO work for us even if they think not. We need to FIRE them ALL.

Brian Richard Allen | 7.29.09 @ 12:37AM

Rocco's Right -- and so are Bill and Mrs Palin. Who has once again shown she is both brighter by far and has more moral integrity in her little toe than does the entire "Democratic" potty. And most of the Republican Party, too.

The "Democrats" are the proverbial dog that caught the car and for now they'll mill about in circles, with only one another's arses to sniff. And most of those, particularly of the self-annointed, self-appointed East-Coast "establishment" variety, who wear the Repulican costumes are in any case indistinguishable from the dhimmis.

Mrs Palin, meanwhile, will instantly replace the lifetime Republican Party and Bush Family blind spot occupant, perfumed prince and Peter Principle poster person,Powell -- and his candidate and the Dems' -- McRainman, on the talking-head shows, where she will make the likes of Huckabee Finn and Thomson Sawyer seem like characters from a Mark Twain yarn and Rudy and Mitter Romney look like what they are, too: yesterday's losers.

And while carefully managing her own business (Politics) -- and ours -- will make a heap of money, clear away her lawyer bills, attract the most enthusiastic support since Ronald Wilson Reagan the First, show Katie Gibson, Charly Rivero, Geraldo Couric and whathisname and the rest of the obscenely corruptly lock-stepping Goebbelsesque propagandists and pamphleteers who pretend to be the nation's "press" who's intelligent, who is competent -- and who's the boss -- and perfectly position herself and retired Army General, David Petraeus, to respectively, come January 20, 2013, become the United States of America's 45th President and Armed-Forces Commander-In-Chief -- and Vice-President!

PALIN/PETRAEUS/2012!

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles - Callifobambicated 90028
And the Far Abroad

aware| 7.29.09 @ 6:46AM

"You're having some trouble with labels and definitions."...LR since you have not said where, I assume you mean I continue to use the correct labels instead of the newspeak of the word twisters on the Left.

While the neo fascists don't have their Nuremberg Rallies, they do their best with faux-Greek temples, don't they? And then there is their substitute for the Hitler Youth, compulsory "community service". Or their talk of a "civilian defense force" as "well funded as the military" in place of the Brown Shirts. Not to mention the endless chatter about "organizing" every level of society along the State approved lines. Fascism comes from the root word fascio, which means to bundle or group. Applied to human society it is the antithesis to individual liberty.

There is no difference between an economy owned by the State and one controlled by the State. American central planners will be no better than their Italian, German, or Soviet predecessors.

And as far as libraries are concerned, that is a short walk downstairs to my personal collection of over 3500 volumes. Some people have home theaters I have a library. Except for the classics it contains no fiction.

I have provided examples to back up my "labels" but you have only made unsupported generalities. I have shown exact parallels and you reply with sweeping assessments(Dems not fascist) with no examples. I think this is called "spitballing" . At least debating neocons is only a matter of overcoming their faux-patriotism, but with the Left you have to endlessly argue over the meaning of "is".

Pingback| 7.30.09 @ 1:15AM

Stacy McCain Links to a Piece on Hayek & ObamaCare Because .. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…on Hayek & ObamaCare Because .. This post was written by Greg Ransom on July 30, 2009 Posted Under: Local Knowledge “there is no such thing as “too much Hayek”.” Here’s the link. Let me also recommend this one. Add a Comment Name required, use real name Email required, will not be published Website address optional, your blog address CAPTCHA Code (required) Previose Post:…

C D Rossini Jr| 7.30.09 @ 1:56AM

It must take equal parts chutzpah and insanity to defend public secondary education between these shores. The dropout rate is 16%, with 30% of college bound students needing remediation. The college bound are supposed to be our best and brightest. Large urban systems are a disaster, where 50 years ago they were the pride of America. If any factory in America threw away over 15% of its work in process and had to rework 30 of its premium goods, it would be shuttered in 6 months, if not before.

Richard Baker| 7.30.09 @ 2:53PM

C D Rossini Jr:
I used to live in Durham, NC where Duke University is sited. Duke is considered one of the better schools in America. My wife read somewhere, last year, that Duke has remedial classes for incoming Freshmen. Amazing how the mighty have fallen. Considering that the US Public school system is the feeder for the colleges and universities, Duke's troubles are probably not unusual. Sad, isn't it? Yet the Public school loonies want MORE money!

Richard Baker| 7.30.09 @ 10:47PM

Liberal Reader:
Are you going to call we conservatives "Mean"? Acting adult and not adolescent is a real problem for you folks, isn't it? Take two LSD and call us in the morning.

Pingback| 8.1.09 @ 2:47PM

The Differences Between A Credit Union And A Bank « Wicked Blogging links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…your financial needs for mortgage loans and mortgage rates, line of credit, refinancing options for you new home purchase or existing mortgage. You may also want to check out: The American Spectator : Barack, Meet Friedrich Blogging On Interest Rates, Economics & Business in New Zealand Mr. Mortgage's Guide to the TRUTH! » The End of Large-Bank … Avoid Fifth Third Bank at all costs… |…

Tim | 8.3.09 @ 7:54AM

UGG Boots

UGG Classic Cardy Boots

UGG Classic Short Boots

gesdsaa| 9.11.09 @ 10:53AM

polo shirt
Men's popular Polo shirt

kkejjakck| 9.11.09 @ 10:54AM

polo shirt
Men's popular Polo shirt

dsss| 9.11.09 @ 11:03AM

cheap Polo shirts
high quality Men's Classic-Fit Polo shirts

jjjkk| 9.11.09 @ 11:03AM

cheap Polo shirts
high quality Men's Classic-Fit Polo shirts

vdsss| 9.11.09 @ 11:30AM

softwares
practical Microsoft Windows XP softwares

fdsssaa| 9.11.09 @ 11:30AM

softwares
practical Microsoft Windows XP softwares

rrffggfgf| 9.15.09 @ 3:44AM

Discount Ugg Bootscaught many people's eyes.Also like
Dicounted Ugg Matala Sandal
all very hotsale.do not hesitate,you can have it now.

frtd| 9.15.09 @ 3:44AM

Discount Ugg Bootscaught many people's eyes.Also like
Dicounted Ugg Matala Sandal
all very hotsale.do not hesitate,you can have it now.

pollor| 10.8.09 @ 12:21PM

We are having our own shipping network which enable us to ship goods for our customers to all parts of the world conveniently.
Cheap High Prada
Cheap Nike shoe

jacky | 3.21.11 @ 3:40AM

Don't you see the absurdity?

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|9 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|2 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|1 comment

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|4 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|3 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|1 comment

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|101 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?