A Rasmussen poll published today shows that a majority of 'likely voters' favored Tea Party-identified candidates over candidates defined as progressive.
Tomorrow Speaker Boehner will open the first session of the 112th Congress by reading the Constitution. Cato's Roger Pilon, in the Wall Street Journal,discusses why that largely symbolic gesture is important and more importantly, how it will hopefully effect the efforts of this Congress. Well worth reading the whole article, including this:
The 112th Congress will have its hands full simply monitoring what the more than 300 federal agencies are up to. But if the new members want to get to the root of the problem—if they want to start restoring limited constitutional government—they'll have to do far more...
First, they'll have to keep the debate focused on the Constitution, not simply on policy or practicality.
refers to a set of regulations that the FCC has proposed for the internet. Up until now the internet has been regulation-free, governed only by its users ~ the free market. A hearing introducing and voting on those regulations is being held in Washington, DC today.
Reason Magazine is all over this. For their definition of net neutrality, the effect of imposing price controls and what imposing seemingly 'fair' regulations now may lead to in the future, watch this:
I believe it boils down to a choice between regulation by consumers (the market) or regulation by politicians. Up until now, the internet has been regulated by the market to great success with very little downside. Putting the power to regulate anything into the hands of bureaucrats is like asking a pedophile to care take for your child. He, like the bureaucrats, will have a difficult time drawing lines for himself.
To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.
The Cato Institute has written extensively on net neutrality here, here and, for a full policy paper, here. Cato's Julian Sanchez argues against the ACLU's support for regulation of the internet by the government.
Back to Reason TV for the three main reasons against political regulation of the internet:
In a related news story in today's Washington Post, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is supporting extending the current "Social Responsibility Law," which places certain bans on broadcast media, to the internet in order to protect Venezuelans against online crimes. And those crimes are?
'messages that "disrespect public authorities...or are aimed at creating "anxiety" in the population.'
First the trillion plus dollar spending bill was, at least temporarily, thrown out, a major victory for anyone who wants to downsize the federal government.
Then the ban on allowing gays to serve in the military was repealed, another major victory, this time for social liberals.
Rarely do we libertarians celebrate even one decision made by our lawmakers, much less two in one week.
The DADT policy was unrealistic and, more importantly, beyond disrespectful to a whole lot of people who were willing to join our all-volunteer military force and serve to the best of their abilities. It's worth reviewing why it needed to be repealed:
The ban was repealed in the Senate by a vote of 65-31, with just seven of the votes coming from Republicans. The 31 Republicans who voted against repealing the ban were just following what they believe their political base wants, good old-fashioned social conservatism. They were probably mistaking this for this:
While all Tea Party activists are advocating for bringing down the cost of the federal government, the majority of Tea Party supporters also want the reach of the government pulled back to the boundries defined by the Constitution. Somewhere in that mix are the libertarians, who make up a good 50% of the movement, and are social liberals who want the government out of our wallets and our bedrooms.
It'll be interesting to see if the career politicians on the Republican side of the aisle will be able to truely understand what limiting government really means.
It means that the revolt against big government that so impacted this year's elections was and is real and meaningful. Whomever thought on Capital Hill ~ whether it was Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell ~ that we weren't paying attention was wrong. The Christian Science Monitor agrees.
Of course, keeping an eye on career politicians to make sure they haven't slipped some over-reaching, expensive whatever into the next bill that comes along is like making sure your two-year-old doesn't pinch his baby sister as soon as you turn your back.
The newly elected Representatives had better pack their big boy pants and be ready for battle, including the one (hopefully) over rewriting of the spending bill. I'm hoping this is what C-Span looks like beginning in January:
We've got plenty of help keeping an a watch on the 2011 Congress: Washington Watch follows bills from start to finish, including all the dirty details; Taxpayers for Common Sense is a middle-of-the-road organization that wants more transparency when the government spends our money; Taxpayers Against Earmarks breaks down earmarks state-by-state, very useful for keeping track of one's own represetative; and, of course, the Cato Institute's Downsizing Government site offersthe well-researched policy and institutional information necessary for understanding the intentions of politicians and all things government.
I ran across this short and sweet post from Commentary Magazine while I was looking through the papers this morning ~ is it really 'looking through the papers' when it is done via a series of clicks? (Answer: yes it is but way better.) The post addresses the busted Social Security system under the headline: I'm Crazy Ponzi-Man, Now Gimme That Money. As it works on the internet, this post is in response to a letter to the New YorkTimes written in response to an article about, um, yeah, the financial difficulties the Social Security system faces in the future based on the annual report released by its trustees. I know, TMI.
It's laughable to me, though, that the failure of the system is still under discussion. It's not old news, it's ANCIENT news. Decades ago it was obvious, and discussed by outliers, that the Social Security trust fund was headed towards inanition, and now of course, is beyond it.
The Cato Institute, former outlier, now mainstream for those who want to reduce the size and reach of government, has been contrasting our Social Security system with the Chilean AFP system since before it was established in 1980, offering immeasurable support to Jose Pinera, who implemented the new system.
Inside-the-beltway types call Social Security the third rail of politics. Certainly it was for Sharon what-was-her-name-again? in Nevada. The Dems started using their mantra Oh my God, the Republicans are going to privatize Social Security!! before the 2010 elections and will continue to sputter it as long as they believe it will frighten people away from considering the reality of what we face, and how we might be able to rein the system back into usefulness.
Here is one man's response to the deceitful rants from the Left:
It's in everyone's interest to understand our current Social Security system and why it long ago passed the line of sustainability, and what privatizing Social Security really means. Ya-da, ya-da, ya-da, of course the Cato Institute provides plenty of information for anyone who wants to educate themselves for the (hopefully) soon-to-be political storm.
Walter Williams gives a short tutorial on the social Security system, less screaming but with as much impact:
Social Security, along with Medicare, has long been the so-called elephant in the room. Everyone sees it but no one mentions it. Will the newly-elected Republicans Representatives, along with their born-again small government Republican friends waiting for them in Washington, be willing to take on the third rail?
I hate lemonade and never stop at sidewalk lemonade stands, no matter how cute the kids are, although plenty of people, far more generous than I am, do. I should make clear that I admire their budding entrepreneur spirit and, if they're selling cookies, I'm in. If you like that sort of thing, buying home-baked cookies or lemonade from kids on the street, get this.
Last week a couple of 13-year-old boys, Andrew and Kevin, met with great success, to the tune of $120, selling home-made sweets in a New Castle, New York park. Deciding to build on their initial gain, they expanded their menu to include Gatorade and water for the second day of business. Unfortunately, a man named Michael Wolfensohn happened to pass by....
He quickly pulled out his cell phone and called the cops to report the reprobates for operating their cookie stand without a license. The police soon arrived and shut down the dangerous baked goods operation. "All vendors selling on town property have to have a license, whether it's boys selling baked goods or a hot dog vendor," Wolfensohn said proudly afterward...
Thank you, Mr. Wolfensohn, for teaching those boys a lesson! The next time Andrew and Kevin decide to sell frigging anything in the park, they will take out the necessary permit that requires a $1,000,000 certificate of insurance and, way better for the town coffers, pay the fee of $150 for every two hours they are in business.
It won't be long before only virtual reality kids will be able to sell lemonade.
But, and that's a big but, lemonade stands aren't the only small businesses that have to pay a lot of money to various levels of government before they can even earn their first $1 ~ for no particular reason other than to enrich and grow the government.
Businesses are often successful because they are providing a very narrowly defined product or service. Intricate African-style braiding is one of those services. Braiding salons began to popping up in inner city neighborhoods a few years ago and now, of course, they have attracted the attention of government regulators and special interests, in this case, the cosmetic art profession.
The Cato Institute makes an interesting point about what Chris Edwards calls political entrepreneurship, those in business who both grow and protect their companies with government money and not-to-be-admired relationships.
Now the serious romancing begins. Special interests are descending on the new Congress (and the always reliable returning career politicians) like love-starved sexual predators, or at the very least, TSA employees, to get the cycle of pay-off-for-special-treatment in place in time for the swearing-in ceremonies in January.
But, to mix a couple of metaphors, the new Congress will have to turn the other cheek and Just Say No to this torrent of charm. Their task now is to turn their campaign rhetoric into serious action ~ to pull back the size and reach of the Federal government.
David Boaz, as usual, boils down what seems like an overwhelming task into a comprehensive guide for Washington neopyhtes to help them avoid the hugs and get their work started.
Among other suggestions, Boaz advises to stay away from social issues and stick to our fiscal problems. Social interests did not play a role in the 2010 election in any significant way. A survey conducted on by a conservative website backs that up. Given that it's probable the majority of people who responded to this poll are conservative, and keeping in mind that conservatives are supposedly obsessed with social issues, the results may surprise you. As a libertarian, I like the third question best ~ 72% of the respondents would accept a more socially liberal culture if that was the result of fiscal conservatism. Cool.
The results of a recent Rasmussen poll are another sign that voters don't much care for government intervention, in this case, with children's nutrition. While 82% of those polled oppose the new ordinance passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors banning the inclusion of toys in certain fast food kid meals, only
