Dating and Relationships Dating and Relationship Stories and Articles

Do understand that BOR is a progressive and that for every problem there should be a NEW law to prevent it. Enforcing the old ones? Well… why do that when you can have brandy-new laws to make things right? He doesn’t see the need to reduce government and, sadly, neither does Brit Hume who trotted out the ‘but how would our food get inspected without federal inspectors?’

Say, wouldn’t the manufacturers be liable for putting out bad food and not want the overhead costs of lawsuits on them? why yes, yes they would. Thus they would hire inspectors and look to create an industrial standard for food safety. And if you don’t like that I do hate to tell you but many States, of which PA is the best known, have stricter safety requirements and inspection needs than the federal government… getting that ‘Approved by the PA Dept. of Agriculture’ on your foodstuffs is no easy task. so food producers would still have to meet individual State requirements and could set up their own requirements body that would enforce the highest standard across all governments so that those hired to do the inspection are liable and the producers get returned items that don’t meet the standard.

What is so hard to understand here? this works extremely well in the electronics industry and getting a UL label means you meet safety requirement standards that are very high because you can’t get the label without passing muster on safety.

I’m sorry but if that is the best that Mr. Hume could do, then it points out to just how much of the government must go as it is not needed to do a job that others can do cheaper and better to higher standards… and pay to get that done to higher standards to boot!

If the R’s want to prove they are serious about cutting they can start with the Dept. of Ag, Ed, Energy, EPA, FCC, Labor…. just bills to end them. yes they won’t pass the Senate or get the Odipstick signature, but that is not the point: when you do as you say you will do to reduce spending and the size of government then you had better prove that you mean it by trying to do it.

Once you win trust by doing as you say you will do, then you can start in on entitlements and ending them as a system. Get rid of all the tax carve-outs and make them all, including SSA, pure spending programs without their own tax basis. Cut off new entrants to SSA and then allow it to slowly die off as a spending item. Add up Medicare and Medicaid, divide by 2, block grant to the States via population and draw down spending to zero over five years and let the States figure out if they can afford this as the federal government CAN’T.

Pass these in the House. It doesn’t matter if they go anywhere, as their blockage points out where the blockage actually IS. that will focus attention on the block points: the Senate and the POTUS. once people start to think that government is doing too much and in a manner that isn’t cost effective the cutting meme will get rolling and a cost/benefits analysis ratio can be applied to every discretionary part of government. not programs, mind you, but entire AGENCIES.

Cut the loopholes? yes. Widen the tax base so that everyone finds out what the actual ‘pain’ is of having such a monster? You betchya. One low, flat, no exemptions, no excuses, no favorites, applied to everyone equally and without favor tax rate, both for corporations and individuals will make this idea that you get no freebies from government a reality. D’s want the ‘rich’ to carry all the pain and spread it to them: that is concentrating pain and not spreading it around. Take them at their word and tell them you WILL spread the pain in a way that favors no one, no thing, no individual, no corporation…. watch them sputter and gasp and claim this will ‘hurt the economy’. if you want a fair tax rate to spread the pain, then damned well mean it and back it up and propose it so it gets done. No loopholes for ANYONE means a low tax rate for EVERYONE and whenever you want to spend more you are increasing the pain on EVERYONE without exception. this can only be done once you prove you mean you want a smaller government by starting to cut the beast… not BEFORE.

You don’t raise the rates on ‘the rich’ because that will kill the economy like you wouldn’t believe. We cannot afford to be the wards of the rich, it will cost us our liberty and freedom.

This isn’t about capping the size of government, but reducing it and getting it out of our lives so we can be free people to live and die on our own and help each other out. We now have the proof it costs far too much to let government do that FOR US and that message is coming home loud and clear. I now have one person in the higher realms of politics who has gotten this clue and is willing to start saying she thinks that government needs to be cut back by disbanding parts of it.

I like that.

If you are backing someone who can’t say that in the open then you really do have to ask just what it is they are standing for. I’ve seen the ‘help’ the federal government gives. And I’m well armed because I’ve seen its results. Better that than being unarmed and a victim of tyranny, no?

ajacksonian on July 12, 2011 at 7:48 AM