Given the special interest politics at play in the U.S. and elsewhere, which policy — fiscal conservatism or Keynesianism — is more likely to be achieved in something like its pure form?
My Townhall column this weekend asks a question about political feasibility … of the most popular doctrine in 100 years. Take a look,
“Don’t vote,” anarchists say, “it only encourages them.”
All freedom lovers get a chuckle out of that old chestnut. But it doesn’t take a genius to realize that non-voting by sensible skeptics does more than encourage usurping politicians. It gives them free rein.
Voting in rational self-defense seems like the more practical approach.
Alas, that’s easier said than done.
This weekend’s Townhall column by Yours Truly floats a proposal: swapping votes for freedom.
Politicians swap votes all the time to get what they want. We want less government. Can we get what we want by swapping votes in our way?
Well, read the column, then come back here, and maybe we can make some mutually profitable trades!
(If you put your email in the appropriate box when you leave a comment, your email will be viewable to me but not publicly on the Internet.)
It’s the silly season in politics, that special time when politicians pretend they like us better than the special interests that fund their campaigns. They bombard us with bold and expansive promises of their incredible abilities; they pledge their future fidelity to principle. From bitter experience, oft repeated, we know those promises tend to evaporate faster than warm spit on an August sidewalk.
Regardless of what happens in the presidential race or in the pitched battle for control of the U.S. Senate (and possibly even the U.S. House of Representatives), voters will also be deciding 157 ballot issues in 34 states this November. As Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, once quipped, “One big difference between initiatives and elected representatives is that initiatives do not change their minds once you vote them in.”
Here are this year’s top ten ballot measures most critical to … [read the rest of the column on Townhall]
NOTE: For a run-down off all 157 ballot issues in 34 states, consult Ballotpedia.
This week, over at Townhall, a state-of-our-freedoms address … before the conventions, before the elections. Wander over to Townhall.com, then make a beeline back here to check the sources:
Oh, and for a more famous use of the title allusion, you might try W. H. Auden.
This weekend on Townhall.com — it is Father’s Day!
Winning the lottery
Paul Jacob
June 17, 2012
My dad was trained as an accountant. So, why didn’t he just do the math?
According to the Department of Agriculture, it costs those American families categorized by Uncle Sam as “middle income” a whopping $234,900 to rear a child from birth to age 18. Families with household incomes of less than $59,000 supposedly spend $169,080 per kiddo; wealthier families (those earning more than $102,870 per annum) will fork out $389,670 per heir.
Wow. Mom and Dad had six kids. That’s almost $1.5 million.
Apparently the price tag has been greatly inflated since my parents’ day. Which naturally conjures up the next question: how have my wife and I financed our three?
It gets worse. These sticker shock numbers don’t even include the cost of pre-natal care, the birth itself or, on the back-end, putting the youngsters through college. And remember, college costs have increased ten-fold from when I went to school. Add another $50,000 to $80,000 to child-rearing if college costs are included … and the student chooses a less expensive university.
Of course, birthing in bulk creates some economy of scale. “Families with three or more children,” the Los Angeles Times reports. “spend 22 percent less on each child than parents with two or fewer.”
Be thankful, of course, that these are government statistics, which must be ingested with a healthy skepticism… (click here for the complete article)
And here are some links to the column in question:
The enemies of freedom usually pretend to be engaging in their outrageous and over-bearing coercion “for the people’s sake.” Don’t believe them. See Sunday’s column at Townhall — and then come back here for links and hints on further reading.
One thing not made clear in the column (and it can’t go on forever, eh?) is that the big soda ban only applies to sugary drinks (not juices or diet drinks), and only applies to restaurants, targeting fast food joints, really. So Bloomberg’s ban is, in essence, a stab at the lower classes. Fancy restaurants don’t serve the big drinks, as I point out in the column, and you can still buy big non-fountain drinks at the store, and binge … sans the convenience of a fast food establishment, where dumb, stupid people are too easily swayed.
Do you ever wonder if much of the welfare state is just an excuse for well-off folks to rag on poorer folks, for being so, well, icky? “You obviously can’t run your lives — if you could, you’d be like us!”