Wyoming says, “no farther“:
This week, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal signed House Joint Resolution 2 (HJ0002), claiming “sovereignty on behalf of the State of Wyoming and for its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government or reserved to the people by the Constitution of the United States…”
“For decades we have shared increased frustration dealing with the federal government and its agencies. What started out as a leak in the erosion of state prerogative and independence has today turned into a flood. From wolf and grizzly bear management, to gun control, to endless regulation and unfunded mandates – the federal government has become far too powerful and intrusive.”
For your own good, of course. Washington politicians are much smarter than those at the state and local level.
Update: Federalism?
What a novel idea.
Kudos for the state of Wyoming. I have always fealt that the 10th ammendment was the most abused contsitutional ammendment by the federal government. The intrastate commerce clause has been used as a crudgel by the federal government – that and denying states funds if they don’t follow the federal line. It’s time that states draw a line in the sand.
If by abused, you mean ignored, then I wholeheartedly agree with you, Boss.
Amen. I wonder that we citizenry have become so discouraged that apathy seems the best course. But imagine what would happen if people start to get excited about the rebellion that has now generated resolutions in “Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Tennessee, … Utah, Alabama, and South Carolina.”
On one hand, we older geezers remember when southern states tried to buck the Feds on segregation and were overcome. On the other hand, we now have a much more straightforward constitutional limitation to defend. I’m actually encouraged that all is not lost, and the imperious behavior of Washington could really have its chain yanked. States’ rights isn’t just for the south. If as the Wyoming resolution states, “The state of Wyoming will not enforce such [Federal unfunded] mandates”, what are they gonna do, call out the National Guard and pull a Kent State on us?
Us Rebs been biding our time, Yank. You noticed how many of them military installations are down south of the Mason-Dixon Line? Yup, this time we’re gonna make sure that fried catfish and grits are served in the Whitehouse, and a man can make all the moonshine he wants
Seriously, this sounds like a damn good idea. I’m all for it.
Byron, I can’t believe you left of hushpuppies. catfish without hushpuppies is an execration, not a meal.
Actually, since the National Guard serves at the pleasure of the governor of a particular state, I don’t think that’d be an issue.
Until the President orders them into Federal service, in which case they become just more active duty US Army/USAF units. The SCOTUS already ruled on that back in the 80s. Which is why the states all need to form organized militias, like some states have already done.
If the National Guard serves at the pleasure of the Governor then the Governor is perfectly capable of allowing them to resign at any time for any reason. Most of these northern states have a “right to work” law that allows one to quit without notice, which of course also means can be fired without specific cause. Upon hearing that the NG was to be activated the guard could resign or the governor fire them all at his pleasure.
This would probably not get you through the next round of base closings.
– Max
This is just for reference sake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the way I understand the 10th Amendment is that the States grant powers to the federal government… not the other way ’round. These days, it seems as though they’ve got it backwards to me. The original authority begins with God, flowing through the people to the state, then the federal level. Our rights are God given. TheOne wants to have it his way: the Federal Government gives rights (or just permission) to the people. One surefire way for BHO and those who surround him to eliminate individual rights in America is to deny God, thereby eliminating God given rights… otherwise known as the “Transformation of America”.
As for the “Commerce Clause”, I heard a judge explain it once, saying that the only thing it was truly intended to do was to regulate … uh, interstate commerce. Such as, if we grow pine trees in Washington, California cannot prevent us from selling them in their state, nor can they levy a tariff on Washington pine trees just because they happen to be from a different state.
Naturally, the Congress has tied anything and everything, including the proverbial kitchen sink, to the language in the 10th Amendment by virtue of the Commerce Clause.
All this is well and good except that the 9th and 10th Amendments were effectively repealed on 9 April 1865.
Maybe. But try telling that to the states. A whole lot of state reps don’t quite want to roll over and play dead on this. It’s not impossible for the Lilliputians to bind Gulliver.
That’s odd… seeing how the SCOTUS has ruled on them many, many times since that date. One more item: they have NOT been repealed.
I said EFFECTIVELY repealed. If the Federal government can use force of arms to compel the citizens of States to submit to a government to which they do not consent, the the 9th and 10th Amendments are meaningless. You only need to look at the government in Washington, DC to see what 300,000 Confederate soldiers died to prevent.
Jeff Davis predicted this would come up again. The current left is actually a spiritual descendant of the Radical Republicans. Ironically, the Republicans were the first leftist party in the US.
While the 9th and 10th amendments weren’t repealed de jure, they have been ignored by the FedGov. I’m glad people are waking up and it looks like the south is now all over the country. I just hope it isn’t too late, but I have the gut feeling it is.
Oh boy.
Mr. Bill K, are you saying then that when it comes to segregation, the “states rights” should have won out? Do you really think that would have worked to have certain citizens still treated as second (or worse!) class when it comes to civil rights? I’m no big fan of a large Fed gov’t but civil rights is one area where the Fed needed to stick their nose, especially in the South in the sixties.
I live right down the street from KSU. As a kid the local Nat’l Guard tank unit rolled past where my family was living on May 4, 1970. My mother-in-law was an LPN at the local hospital when the “peaceful protestors” were brought in for medical treatment.
I would be most curoius to see what would happen if the fight with the Feds you so obviously seem to want would go down. The Feds can federalise the Nat’l Guard of any state. Then what do you do? Are you really that upset with the Feds you want that sort of crisis, especially with all that is happening in the world today?
How would you feel if the parties in power were reversed, and a different set of states then decided to do the same thing as Wyoming? I get the feeling you would suddenly be in favor of a Federal solution.
regards,
Phalanx08
No, I think that integration was morally right, and that racists used “states’ rights” as a cover for an immoral end. So I also am glad that that particular issue worked out largely to the destruction of racism.
And I am not anxious to “fight” if you mean militarily. But I am upset as a patriot – a la “Oathkeepers” (though I’m not one of their members), that we Americans who are loyal to our constitution, do not want to see the country destroyed by enemies foreign or domestic.
As to your comment that the Feds can federalize the NG, I don’t have a solution. I don’t want a crisis – I want limited government, don’t you? You indicate you do? What other solution would you propose if Washington politicians lose perspective as to what the Fed limits should be? Do you want to see this country become like imperial Rome – bread and circuses?
But if by civil disobedience, not just a few states, but the majority of states decide that enough is enough; that the “United States” want the liberty to differ on issues not enumerated, their withdrawal of assistance from a bullying taskmaster might put the Feds in an untenable position, and force them to back off. I would hate to see our union dissolved – I am not a secessionist. But overweening power many times cannot be sustained should the minions fail to enable it.
As to your last question, pose a hypothetical issue – I care nothing for parties, since it appears that both republicans & democrats have helped gut the Constitution.
P.S. Phalanx08, I am most impressed and grateful for the civility of your questions and response. Many thanks!
Well said, sir.
This boils down to a decision. My oath as a commissioned officer was to “solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The hard part is in deciding when the actions of the domestic (do not assume that this is not the actions of the President and the Congress) require my supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against their actions. My opinion is we are getting damned close.
Much to their consternation, I believe that many people are feeling the same way about now!
I’m a WY resident, even if the Army deems I spend most of my time in AZ. I recall a time when Mr. Reagan declaired that if a state didn’t raise the drinking age to 21, they would no longer recieve federal highway funds. The WY Governor promptly wrote a check to the feds equal to the amount of highway funds WY had recieved, with a note that they would not be blackmailed. It’s the cowboy way.
This is a second hand story that was told to me a long time ago.
My friend was driving through Wyoming shortly after the national 55 speed limit was mandated.Pulled over for speeding,he was told he must pay a 5 dollar fine for ‘wasting national resorces’. The fine was to be paid to the officer and a reciept was given.Being the smart a%% he is,he asked the officer if he could buy a book of ten to cover the next few days.The reply”No need sir,that one is good for a week”
Lex, I tell you one thing. That was an incredible video you found from the Governor’s Alliance. I… Am… Motivated. Carry on, Captain. Lead the way.
By the way…. I think it was in “Thank You For Smoking”, when the NRA dude was quoted to have “joined the National Guard so that he, too, may shoot college students.” Hilarity ensued.
-CG
The Window War for our generation starting?
http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/03/19/993040/brick-thrown-through-window-in.html
Question: I understand that this thread is discussing de-unionizing the US into a more loose federation. Do you want to keep the dollar? If so, what if one of the states goes broke, say just like Greece?
Nup, the thread’s just about retaining — and possibly regaining — the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. You know, that document that POTUS and Congress take an oath to uphold and defend, then promptly ignore both the document and the oath?
Hajo-Hi, The US Constitution is unlike any constitution of any government in Europe, and it is emphatically NOT the EU Constitution. Rather than lecture, I ask you to carefully read the language of the Declaration of Independence, followed by the Preamble to the Constitution, to see where the powers of our government come from. The 10th Amendment, discussed here, is explicit that any right not enumerated (written and clearly given) to any part of the Federal Government belongs to the states. Through many means the Federal government has taken away those powers reserved to the states, and what the Wyoming state government is doing, as are many other state governments, is stating that its state agencies will no longer enforce federal rules or laws that it feels the federal government has no constitutional power to create, and may even create state laws limiting what federal agents can do in their states. It’s as if Hesse stated that it will no longer enforce any rules mandated by Brussels. Hey, there’s an idea!
No, it isn’t about “de-unionizing” the Union. It is about trying to dial back the federal government until it is within the bounds set by our Constitution. This is nothing new. Good ol’ Tommy J. commented on it way back when:
I see…with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic…aided by a little sophistry on the words ‘general welfare,’ a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare.
JEFFERSON, THOMAS, Letter to W. B. Giles, 1825
And Jimmy, who wrote the Constitution had this to say:
You ask about Greece, how about California? We are broke, and it doesn’t look like the feds will bail us out.
I loved in that video when Queen Nancy say “We have to pass this bill so you can see what is in it.” (something close to that). Why? Why must it be in camera? Didn’t she promise that this Congress would be open? Didn’t the former jr. sen. from IL promise us that everything would be done in public view? Why the secrecy and strong arm now?
Joe, those two quotes strike at the heart of our present dilemma.Unfortunately unless and until we can elect a President and Congress who will appoint and confirm Supreme Court Justices who view the Constitution in the same light, the 10th Amendment will continue to be pretty much a dead letter–woefully.
And we must remember that Nacy Pelosi is the most corrupt person in Congress, and that both she and Mr. Obama are liars.
Thanks, Virg. That is how I feel about them too. But, I can’t really fault the capons too much for trying to grab all the power they can, any more than I can blame a dog for piddling on a tree, it is just their nature.
I put the blame square on the shoulders of We the People for not taking the time to know our history and our Constitution. And for being more than willing, as a society not as individuals, to do the easy thing and turn our lives over to the capons and expect them to see to our best interests.
Until we have an aware and connected electorate we can only expect the situation to get worse.
Looks like I’m adding Wyoming to my list of possible locations for retirement.
Good for Wyoming. I only wish we could all wake up to ourselves and start pushing back.
Dick “F-ing” Cheney represented Wyoming, I do believe. There’s some stern stuff out that way.
That video has my heart racing and my vision a little blurry. These are the times that try men’s souls as they say. And yet we do have the ability – and capacity – to rise up and change it.
November 2010 is coming….
November 2010 is only significant if the powers in DC consent to the results of an election or whether they find some trick way to remain in power. I am thinking more along the lines of April, 1775.
Hello!
You are very welcome, Mr. BillK!
Yeah, in an ideal world we’d have a limited Federal gov’t. I don’t know how ideal it is, though, to have 50 small govt’s all negotiating trade policies, for example, instead of the Feds. Maybe it would be an improvement! But I am concerned that places like China would love to see a very limited Fed role in trade, for example, which would allow them to further exploit the race to the bottom amongst state govt’s. Does that make sense?
Mr. Juvat – being a veteran I also remember said oath. I disagree with “damn close”. Pushing the envelope? Maybe. But I felt we were closer when the GOP had total control and was spending like crazy plus cutting taxes. My analogy is I’m gonna buy a bigger house, a new car, send kid to private school, and oh yeah cut my work hours. I’ll just float a loan based on financial alchemy and the like to make my assets appear more valuable.
Strange that none of the Tea Party people were complaining then.
Mr. CitadelGrad – there are many townies in the area who feel the Guard should’ve shot more kids on May 4th.
Mr. hajo-hi – that is indeed where some of the most fervent types of Federalism would go. Of course, they would be screaming for the Feds to help when said state(s) went bust. I do hear China has a lot of money, though, and the interest rates are low. *G*
Phalanx08
My understanding of federalism is that it is a union which seeks to promote common interests while avoiding intrusion into things that can be managed individually by states. It is in the states’ common interest to band together for defense, and to agree to rules that avoid trade wars between themselves. But I also see the beauty in having 50 simultaneous government experiments such that if one government tries legislation that is a boon to its citizens, other governments are free to adopt it; but if not, citizens are free to find the sets of rules that seem most right to them – this promotes freedom. The Wyoming governor who signed this resolution is a Democrat – a fact which speaks volumes to the original debates of our founders who were neither republicans nor democrats, but they were federalists and anti-federalists, the old equivalent of our modern statists versus libertarians.
Federalism does not go so far as to promote anarchy. And I think it is wrong to promote a government on the basis of what is good for “me” versus what is good for “thee”. What I earnestly desire is a government that does not play favorites, with any constituents, with any companies, with any donors. Since fallen men tend to wield power for personal advantage, that government is best which is not allowed to gather to itself too much power – and I would hope that the vast majority of Americans would agree with this proposition.
And it is my sincere belief that if we had a revival of the basic principles of justice as stated by Moses, “You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice; nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute” (Ex 23:2-3), all the material things that concern us, prosperity, trade, etc. will follow.
But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Phalanx, you really need to upgrade your education. The purpose of the FedGov is to act as the face of the Union to foreign governments. It was never meant to be a “national government.” That was the product of the Lincolnites and associated Whigs. Trade policy was always a matter for the FedGov, as was all of foreign relations, which included diplomacy and war. All of this is readily available to the reader who studies what happened at the founding.
P8,
Not sure I have enough matches for all those strawmen.
50 states negotiating trade policies? Bah. I reckon most here agree that trade policy is clearly within the constitionally defined role of the Fed .gov. Sorta a big part of that whole problem with the original Articles of Confederation.
As for the GOP “spending like crazy plus cutting taxes”…
Define “spending like crazy.” I’ll accept that criticism but recognize we have need of superlative term for the order of magnitude greater spending we’re seeing by the Dems who now “have total control.” Perhaps you could suggest a new term d’ arte for this new level of excess. Perhaps Mega Debt, Fatal Femto-Financial Foolishness?
If you think the Tea Party type folks weren’t complaining during the Bush years then I have to wonder if you were paying attention. Glad you are now though.
As for your comment about the GOP cutting taxes — you say that like it’s bad thing. If you don’t understand by now that a) the way to increase .gov revenue is to reduce taxes and that b) increasing taxes doesn’t result in increased .gov revenues then I’m not sure where to start to help you. I suppose recommending you google “Laffer Curve” is the best I can do and leave you to your homework.
For the very few fringe that would like
…oops. I accidently snipped that last part responding to comment about “fervent types of Federalism.”
Federalism assumes a sharing of power between national and state governments. We have a constitution that defines the limits of what that relationship is supposed to be in this country.
Count me in as “fervently” desiring a decided tilt back toward the Constitionally defined division of state/national powers. I’ll even accept for the sake of discussion that the states most desirous of it would go bust. (snicker, snicker, snork, guffaw, AK, TX, WY, MT, ID,…). Let’s say some states to go bust. So? Again, you say that like it’s a bad thing. How’s propping up MI and Detroit working for us?
Let things that deserve to fail — FAIL! What a concept. People move. Companies move. Let the fruit of bad policy rot of the vine for all to see. Clearly many have trouble learning from history so rather let them learn from current events.
Dying Detroit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02x8EHXPfB0
Mr. be603,
I recall no protests by any Tea Party people from 2001-2008. None. Can you cite any?
The only people I remember complaining about anything in the Bush years were those who felt anyone who questioned Dear Leader Bush were somehow “unpatriotic, un-American, etc.” and needed to be dealt with as traitors.
The Laffer Curve has been discredited by people far knowledgeable about economics than you or I. By your logic, cutting taxes to zero would result in infinite revenues. Um, nope, not gonna work.
Spending like crazy. Throw two wars, cut taxes (revenue), but increase spending. Um, no, not gonna work either. WWII, for example, had a 90% top tax rate. If we’re serious about fighting a “War on Terrorism” (which is hard to do – terrorism is a TACTIC. That’s like trying to have a War on Aircraft Carriers or a War on GPS guided bombs.) then the revenue needs to be increased.
I have no problem paying higher taxes for stuff like that, the Judiciary, Border Defense, etc. I do think there are a lot of things the Feds need to stay out when it comes to taxes but that’s another thread/topic/dissertation.
A new term. Hmmm…. I always like the F-105. One engine, tough, and always sporty to go downtown in. How about Ultra Hog Debt Levels with the gliding capability of a Lead Sled? Or will that invoke the wrath of the Thunderchief fans amongst us? Lemme get my helmet ready…. *G*
thanks,
Phalanx08
There is a point. A limit to choking down constitutionally guaranteed rights being trampled. The current government leadership has us on a fast track trajectory towards a three percent solution. There seems to be a concensus on Lex’ pages that constitutionally questionable acts are being perpetrated by the Federal government. Government infringements. I agree. Do you believe, as Pelosi said, “We’ll kick the door open,” and many more bills to follow, or do believe this health care thing will be the end of constitutional violations? I believe Pelosi, the President, and their ilk will never stop until confronted. It logically follows that further erosion of our founding father’s vision of America will reach a breaking point. At least for some of us. It’s scary stuff.
Mass Tea Party movement? No. The Tea Party didn’t happen over night. That pot had been working up to a boil for years. Mass discontent among conservatives evident all over the place? Mass disillusionment and defections on election day by conservatives. Absolutely.
Like I said, clearly you weren’t paying attention to what conservatives where talking about then. Welcome to the party now.
Laffer Curve discredited? In the words of Ronnie Raygun, “There you go again.” I’ll help you out by going back to preface my original comment by saying “Given our present location of the curve…” Happy now?
Seriously dude. Knock it off. I’m running out matches for your strawmen. Indeed, cutting taxes to zero would reduce revenues to zero. Exactly as described by the Laffer Curve. Thank you for confirming at least part of Laffer’s point. Don’t know what to conclude at this point — either you don’t really know what the Laffer Curve looks like or you’re not being intellectually honest.
As for the magnitude of spending by the current adminstration I see you avoided that altogether. Wouldn’t be trollin’ here would ya? Someone will have to remind me not to feed the trolls.
Yes, if it suits you, Bush was a hosebag, an overspender, a warmonger and it’s everythings his fault. Anything goe$ now for the WunWhoWon.
coffee. more coffee. and a spellchecker…
The only people I remember complaining about anything in the Bush years were those who felt anyone who questioned Dear Leader Bush were somehow “unpatriotic, un-American, etc.” and needed to be dealt with as traitors.
You are being willfully ignorant. Google “Porkbusters” or email the Instapundit and he’ll help you find some information.
The Laffer Curve has been discredited by people far knowledgeable about economics than you or I. By your logic, cutting taxes to zero would result in infinite revenues. Um, nope, not gonna work.
The Laffer curve has not been discredited by anyone. You actually give an example of it in action. If you decrease the marginal tax rate to zero, you raise no taxes. Conversely, if you raise the marginal tax rate to 100%, you will also raise no taxes, as commerce will cease. The trick is finding which marginal tax rate generates the maximum revenue. Mind you, the Laffer curve deals solely with revenue generation, and does not address spending, which is a whole ‘nother ball game.
On of the other perversions of our tax system is that through credits of various sources, almost half of our population pays no income tax at all.
On another matter, you hear a lot about the checks and balances of the three branches of the federal government, but few if any people have lately remarked up on the checks and balance relationship between the states and the federal government. That was part of the point of the 10th Amendment and indeed, the whole structure of our federal system. Remember, the Constitution wasn’t ratified by the people, but by the various states.
Oh neat.
Mr. XBradTC – On of the other perversions of our tax system is that through credits of various sources, almost half of our population pays no income tax at all. Yet certain levels of people, in certain quintiles(?), pay a larger proportion of their income in various other taxes. You make it sound like these people are only leeching of the rest of us. That is not the case.
I’m still skeptical about the half not paying any income taxes. Is that before deductions? How is it computed?
Laffer curve stuff:
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/4065
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1102/laffer-curve-revisited
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2009/09/18/the-real-laffer-curve-vs-voodoo-economics/
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/07/a_laughable_laffer_curve_from.php
This one is interesting due to the Australian perspective:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/debunking-the-myths-of-corporate-tax/
Please note: I merely cite these links for informational purposes. There is a great deal on some of these links I would not agree with. But they make a good read.
And nope, not being willfully ignorant. I have yet to see any concrete citation by you or others that specifically states Tea Party people protested against any Bush spending. Instapundit has an idealogical axe to grind so I don’t count them as a neutral, unbiased source.
I did see the mention of conservative people protested the spending polices of Bush II. Yet over and over again the Tea Party people go to extreme lengths to say they are not all conservatives. Hmmm…..
Now, checks and balances? Good idea. But with the changing nature of society, economy, world economics, political systems, etc, I think it would be fair to revist exactly where some of the checks and balances are.
Mr. be603 – nice to see some clarification on a certain point in the Laffer Curve. One could read your earlier post and surmise 0% tax rate = infinite revenue.
I never said I was a fan of the current spending levels. Bailing out the big banks, GM, Chrysler, etc, was the wrong thing to do with tax dollars. Ford has managed to turn things around and I love the fact the company took no taxpayer cash.
But, this idea that suddenly the Fed is spending too much money while willfully ignoring what happened in the previous Administration is disingenuous.
I wouldn’t feel too superior about even Texas not having financial problems:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/02/22/1987967/texas-budget-mess-got-started.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-cuts_0223edi.State.Edition1.2bf6bc3.html
Interesting sentence. “Yes, if it suits you, Bush was a hosebag, an overspender, a warmonger and it’s everythings his fault. Anything goe$ now for the WunWhoWon.
Tell me, have I made any statement, any clue, as to whether I support any particular party, candidate, officeholder, ideaology? I didn’t really care for Bush II but I would certainly NOT give him the majority of the blame for the current economic status. I also wouldn’t blame the current POTUS, either.
I blame a society that wants too much too damn fast and not have to pay for it. I blame a Wall Street quarterly profit and financial alchemy mentality that has pretty much destroyed America. I see it in a lot of these college kids today, what has been labeled an “Entitlement Mentality”. Americans have becomed spoiled. Maybe the current economic situation may help change that. I dunno.
Phalanx08
Alas, Phalanx is an example of how much or education system has been degraded.
Mr. Quartermaster – pithy. Most of my education was military. How does that fit into your public education = totally bad and must be eliminated worldview?
Phalanx08
I’d have to say you slipped the leash somehow. I never saw any of that nonsense in the military and I spent much of my life in and around it.
Your snide “pithy’ comment really does you a great discredit. The posting of unpersuasive, even ignorant links about something that has never been refuted, much less seriously challenged is truly silly. The Laffer Curve describes a fact, it does not come as a result of the theoretical nonsense that abounds in Economic thought these days. It is empirical, something that the leftist Economists have serious problems with because they are not scientists in the true sense. Even Laffer, has problems with Science as he made a serious fool of himself several years ago in a debate with Schiff. Laffer is now eating those words, but not on the curve my friend. That is about axiomatic as you can get in Economics.
Like I said earlier, upgrade your education and start thinking through what you are going to write. You won’t make a fool of your self as Laffer did that way.
Popcorn, anybody?
*passing 55-gallon bowl to center ring*
Mr. BillT – popcorn is fine as long as it’s the real stuff, with real butter, and not that artificial chemical crap. Oh, and extra salt, too, please.
thanks,
Phalanx08
I wouldn’t feel too superior about even Texas not having financial problems:
Please, pray tell, point out how either of these articles point to “financial problems” on anything approaching a California or NY scale. The DMN article points to needed budgetary savings that will help balance the Texas budget — pretty low hanging fruit. The other is actually from the Austin American Statesman, the most liberal paper in the state. Guess what? Liberals don’t think taxes are high enough. News at 10 (here in Texas, that when we get the news, ya’ see).
Texas isn’t in the crapper, because the state hasn’t tried to solve every ache and pain of every citizen with the public checkbook. The Legislature, by law, meets every two years for 140 days (the old joke is that they got it backwards). We don’t have professional legislators — they have to have real jobs to pay the bills the other 590 days. Keeps them grounded in reality. As a right to work state, unions, especially public employee unions, are weak. We could start with those two principles in reforming DC. As I drive on the gleaming new highways, see the stores jammed with people spending money, see job listings every day, and people streaming in and out of model homes, it appears that the laboratory of government has declared this experiment to be the successful one. NY, CA, NJ, MI? Not so much.
So, please, put the strawmen back in the toy box.
Mr. Scott,
I will agree with you on this point: We don’t have professional legislators — they have to have real jobs to pay the bills the other 590 days. Keeps them grounded in reality. I don’t know how workable that would be on a Federal level.
Texas has seemed to do very well for itself with low taxes, low help for anyone who needs it, etc.
Texas also does very well when it comes to teen pregnancies:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/27/when-in-texas-just-say-i-dont-know
And Texas has also done very well, above national average, for people in poverty:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=16&cat=1&rgn=45
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/12_2_0.html
Something to be proud of, no? Congratulations! Obviously the “laboratory of government” is a great success!
Is this the system you want for everyone? I’ll pass.
Phalanx08
Care to view the following video and comment on your blog? your opinion matters!
http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/videos/laffercurve1-3/laffercurve1-3.shtml