I'm buying an iPhone - but I can't use it.

FOX news reports that University of Missouri journalism school will require all incoming freshman to purchase an iPhone of iPod touch.

Why?

So they can listen to lectures.

"Lectures are the worst possible learning format, There's been some research done that shows if a student can hear that lecture a second time, they retain three times as much of that lecture," Associate Dean Brian S. Brooks told the Columbia Missourian.

Brooks admits that students could use any MP3 player, but the school will require the Apple devices so you and I can pay for them.

Yes, taxpayers will help foot the bill for these students’ iPhone.

"If it's required, it can be included in your financial-need estimate," Brooks told the Missourian. "If we had not required it, they wouldn't be able to do that."

Financial aid primarily consists of government backed student loans, as well as Pell grants and other federal and state aid programs. You may not find yourself completely on the hook for all of these student’s iDevices – assuming they pay off their loans, but some of your hard earned dollars will ultimately find their way to Apple’s coffers.

In a further example of convoluted statist thinking, Brooks insists the policy will cost student’s nothing, because Apple offered a back-to-school package in the past that gave students who bought an Apple laptop a coupon for a free iPod touch.

"It's not going to cost them a cent," he said.

So let me get this straight. If the student spends over $1,000 on a laptop, she can get a free iPod touch, and that constitutes not costing a cent? Not to mention that any competent Economics 101 student (granted, there aren't many of those) will tell you - nothing comes free. Somebody has to pay for it. Believe me, Apple will recoup the cost of that "free" iPod touch, and I doubt the University of Missouri will foot the bill.

And what about students that don't receive student aid? They'll have to fork out the cash themselves - whether they want an Apple product or not. Nothing like a hidden tuition increase.

But that's OK. They're probably rich kids anyway.

Brooks also admits that students could conceivably just listen to the lectures on their laptop, but he said few students do.

So because they suddenly have a different device to listen to, they will now magically find themselves motivated by the desire to listen?

Confused yet?

I am amazed that I made it all the way through journalism school with a 3.9 GPA without ever listening to a recorded lecture. I didn’t even own an iPod touch.

I must be really special.

I propose -

In the wake of today’s Environmental Protection Agency ruling declaring carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases a public health threat, I am calling for an immediate ban on breathing – more specifically exhaling.

The average human exhales 1,140 grams of carbon dioxide each day, comparable to a car driving about five kilometers. Multiplied by some 6 billion people, this figures to about 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Clearly if we hope to save the planet and humanity, we must stem this massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I will propose the breathing ban take effect immediately upon passage by the legislature. It will remain in effect for approximately 15 minutes.

My family, hand chosen individuals and I will receive an exemption from this legislation due to the necessity of maintaining my brilliance for the further furtherance of humanity.

Citizens may apply for their breathing offset credit through the Department of Breathing Regulation. Automatic government credits will be provided for all citizens taking less then 250,000 breaths per year.

The Department of Breathing Regulation will label any world citizen found circumventing this law without documentation of approved breathing offset credits as a right wing extremist and will summarily shoot them.

Some my oppose this legislation, but I will simply remind my fellow citizens that the science is settled and we must act now to avoid cataclysmic and irreversible consequences.

Have a nice day.

“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.” -Sam Houston

On April 9, Texas Gov. Rick Perry expressed his support for a bipartisan resolution affirming states rights under the 10th Amendment.

Rep. Brandon Creighton authored the resolution.

Perry said that the time has come to rein in an ever growing encroachment of federal power over the states.

"I believe the federal government has become oppressive," Perry said. "I believe its become oppressive in its size, its intervention into the lives of its citizens and it interference with the affairs of our state."

Rep. David Floyd (R-Bardstown), Rep. Adam Koenig (R-Erlanger) and Rep. David Osborne (R-Prospect) introduced a similar resolution in the Kentucky State House in February.

The bill died in committee.

I'm thinking Texas might make for a good place to retire.

Watch Gov. Perry's remarks.

Member of Congress linked to terrorist?

According to a New York Times story, the National Security Agency has overstepped its bounds while conducting surveillance operations.

"Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional," the Times said.

I am torn over the N.S.A's use of domestic surveillance. I understand the necessity to gather information, especially in a time of war - and many have forgotten that we ARE engaged in a war. But I also appreciate the potential erosion of liberty and the potential government overreach of power.

But a little tidbit buried deep in the story should cause concern of another kind.

Apparently the N.S.A. sought to wiretap a unnamed congressman during an overseas trip to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 because this representative was in contact with an "extremist" with possible terrorist ties.

Does it bother anybody out there that a member of the Congress of the United States was possibly communicating with terrorists? The lack of media attention to this little detail astounds me.

Blast them

Bullies, thugs and depots thrive on weakness. They target the vulnerable and count on intimidation to achieve their nefarious goals.

Knowing this, why do so many insist on dealing with criminals from a position of weakness?

The maritime rules outlawing the arming of merchant ships represents this irrational thinking. These wizards of smart theorize that arming the law-abiding merchant marines would simply encourage the pirates to attack with greater force and risk the crews. So instead, we leave these large cargo ships, representing millions of dollars to the potential pirate unarmed, and when they are captured, kowtowed governments immediately reward this lawless behavior by paying off these thugs.

And then we wonder why they keep doing it.

A few heavy automatic weapons and some grenades, along with the advantage of elevation afforded by a cargo ship would easily thwart an attack from a small pirate vessel. And don’t you think these thugs would think twice if they knew they were likely to get blasted instead of welcomed aboard and rewarded with a few million in ransom money?

I honestly can’t fathom the thinking that capitulates to force believing that the bad guy will just leave us alone if we play nice with him. Anybody that has ever dealt with a bully knows that weakness simply invites continued and ever increasing attack.

Some political pundits display the same lack of logic when it comes to international relations. After North Korea’s saber rattling missile launch, President Obama made a speech about disarming and ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

He's kidding right?

I wish we could live in a world without weapons, but that dream will forever remain naive and dangerous.

Liberals fail to understand the reality of evil in the world. They look at every group and every individual with moral equivalence. They can’t fathom that some people may just possess evil motives and that no amount of understanding or negotiation will thwart them. They will continue to operate until somebody stops them.

Disarming nations make them weak and vulnerable and open to attack. A position of strength ensures peace. Disarming law abiding citizens make them weak and vulnerable and gives the lawless an advantage, because by definition, laws outlawing weapons mean nothing to the lawless. Disarming merchant ships makes them weak and vulnerable and invites teenagers with motorboats to hold hostages and wreck havoc on the high seas.

When the good guys - and yes, good guys exist – place themselves in a position of weakness, they simply invite attack, not peace. It’s happened over and over again throughout history.

But some people never learn.

Mike Adams provides some additional thoughts on this subject.

Profundity of the week

"What does 'economic justice' mean, except that you want something that someone else produced, without having to produce anything yourself in return?"

-Thomas Sowell

Big Brother coming at you from your computer

I don't have much sympathy for people downloading copyrighted music illegally. I think it represents part of the ever growing entitlement mentality prevalent in our society. I also understand the recording and software industries desire to protect their intellectual property through enforcement of copyright laws. But giving the government power to snoop around in private citizens computers goes way over the top.

That could happen if an international copyright treaty between the U.S., the European Union and some other countries currently in the works comes to pass.

Scary stuff.

Greed

The left likes to characterize capitalism as greedy. They often point to the famous quote by the fictional character Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street as an encapsulation of the capitalist system.

“Greed is good.”

But as WLAP radio host Leland Conway has said on more than one occasion, greed resides in the hearts of people, not in the structure of any economic system. Greed rears its head in government and liberal institutions in the same way it does in the free market.

The liberal mind conjures up images of redistributing wealth in order to make things “fair”. But what is fairness? How much does one take from the haves and give to the have-nots to achieve this notion of fairness?

I don’t think it really has to do with fairness. It comes down to wanting to take possession of what another has. It becomes a source of power, and greed lies at its core.

Liberals decry the “rich” as greedy. Yet these same people want to control what the rich man possesses. They excuse it through the seemingly noble intent of giving it to others, but it represents a form of greed none-the-less. And those who receive the benefit of redistributed wealth? They exemplify greed just the same. They want to take what the rich man owns for themselves.

The liberal wields power over both – in the taking from the one and in making the other dependent on his handouts. The liberal possesses an appetite, a greed if you will - for power. And he stokes the poor man’s greed for the rich man’s possessions to accumulate his own power over both.

How is this any less greedy than the rich man wanting to keep what he already has?

At least the rich man earned it.

Overpaid?

The University of Kentucky hired John Calipari to coach the men's basketball team yesterday, inking him to an 8-year $31.2 million contract.

Many criticize the salary as excessive, especially with state budgets squeezed by the economic downturn.

But David Adams over at Kentucky Progress makes a great point about Calipari's salary.

Quite frankly, I think people in this country spend far too much time worrying about how much money other people make - something that has absolutely no impact on their lives. Citizens should probably worry a little more about how much money the government is taking from them.

It's expensive to die

Under the current tax law, the death tax will drop to zero in 2010 from its current level of 45 percent. The tax dropped from 55 percent to 45 percent last year.

But the Obama administration embedded a provision in the new budget to maintain the tax at its current level.

A footnote on page 127 of the President’s budget reads: “The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters."

So the estate tax rate will continue at 45 percent. There is a $3.5 million exemption level. ($7 million for a couple.)

Many will undoubtedly remain unconcerned about this onerous tax because in their minds, it simply taxes “the rich”.

We like to tax the rich.

But the tax does not merely impact the rich. It also affects small business owners and farmers.

Take the farmer for instance. He may have little cash in the bank, and his lifestyle remains modest. But he has millions tied up in his land and the capital assets required to work a farm. He’s what one might call land rich and cash poor. When he dies, he hopes to pass his farm on to his children, but with the estate tax, the children must pay a 45 percent tax on the farm before they can take possession, putting them in a position where they must sell the land to pay the taxes.

The same thing happens to families with large amounts tied up in businesses. The heirs must sell business assets simply to pay the taxes. These dollars taken out of the private economy represents capital that would have been used to create jobs, products and greater wealth. Instead the government collects it for its own, less economically inefficient purposes.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed piece points out: “What all this means is that the higher the estate tax, the lower the incentive to reinvest in family businesses. Former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently used the Summers study as a springboard to compare the economic cost of a 45% estate tax versus a zero rate. He finds that the long-term impact of eliminating the death tax would be to increase small business capital investment by $1.6 trillion. This additional investment would create 1.5 million new jobs.”

The estate tax also represents double taxation. The wealth taxed upon death was previously taxed when it was earned.

But beyond the pragmatic reasons to oppose death tax, their exists a deeper philosophical principal. It basically represents legalized theft from the family of the deceased. It encapsulates the government mentality that all wealth belongs to them, and they get to decide how much we the people get to keep. The excessive tax rates imposed on the “rich” are not designed to raise revenue for necessary government purposes, but as a method of social engineering and wealth redistribution. This concept violates our basic inherent right to property and a nefarious encroachment of individual liberty.

Schools sit on millions in contingency funds

While Kentucky school systems cry poor, and lawmakers raise Kentuckian's taxes, Kentucky's public schools sit on millions of unused dollars.

Kentucky schools had more than $656 million in the bank at the end of the last fiscal year, according to a report by Laura Cullen Glasscock of the Kentucky Gazette.

Fayette County had $18 million in its contingency fund, about 5.7 percent of the systems total budget. The total budget for Fayette County schools was nearly $309 million in fiscal year 2008.

State law requires school districts maintain two percent of its budget in a contingency fund for emergencies. The Office of Educational Accountability recommends a 5 percent set aside.

Unlike other state agencies, school districts can roll over money from one budget year to the next.

Obama not running auto makers

President Obama said he has no intention of running GM.

"Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM."

But Obama forced the resignation of GM CEO Chairman Rick Wagoner.

The president said the move was not a "condemnation" of the chairman -- rather a "recognition that it will take a new vision and new direction to create the GM of the future," according to a FOX News report.

This represents a perfect example of Obama doublespeak. He's not running GM, but he's dictating how the company does business and apparently knows best what the car company's "new direction" should be.

Sounds an awful lot like running GM to me.

The administration also gave Chrysler 30 days to finalize its merger with Italian car maker FIAT. Chrysler will receive $6 billion from the feds if it reaches an agreement "acceptable to the government".

Apparently the Obama administration is also not running Chrysler.

The folks over at Ford who refused to accept any government money because they wanted to avoid just this kind of government meddling look pretty smart about now.

Lexington crime stats show slight increase

Officials released Lexington crime statistics on March 26, revealing a slight increase in crime over last year.

2008 saw a rise of 380 Uniform Crime Reported offenses over 2007.

“Though the population of Fayette County continues to climb, crime trends continue to remain low, with over 3,350 fewer Uniform Crime Report offenses than ten years ago,” a Lexington-Fayette County Urban County government Web site stated.

The follow breaks down Part 1 crimes by category.

Homicide 11
Manslaughter 2
Rape 137
Robbery 529
Assault 1,102
Burglary 2,259
Larceny 6,878
Auto Theft 587
Arson 44

Total 11,549

Government spending

It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expenses, either by sumptuary laws, or by prohibiting the importation of foreign luxuries. They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expenses, and they may safely trust the private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.

-Adam Smith

The enviro-Nazi's hate blacks

Black cars that is.

California lawmakers may ban black cars beginning in 2012. Black plaint absorbs more sunlight, and as a result it takes more energy to cool black autos.

The proposal stems from California's Global Warming Solutions Act. This law created a comprehensive plan for California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

Drip. Drip. Drip.

That's the sound of our personal liberties melting away in the heat of the global warming "crisis".

What's a job?

Lexington Mayor Jim Newberry announced $23 million in federal stimulus funding today.

Lex Tran will receive $4.4 million for new buses, scheduling software, conversion of buses to hybrid technology and the construction of new shelters.

The city will allocate another $12 million to a 1,700 foot section of the Newtown Pike extension, connecting Main St. to Versailles road.

The Legacy Trail, a proposed nine mile walking an biking trail, will receive $4.7 million in federal funding. Planners say the money should fund completion of the trail's first two phases, a seven mile stretch from the Kentucky Horse Park to the Northside YMCA on Loudon Ave.

The final $1.1 million in federal stimulus funds will pay for the first phase of the downtown streetscape project. The city plans to install curbside rain gardens, wider sidewalks, dedicated bike lanes and non-peak "parking lanes."

"These projects mean solid progress and real jobs," Newberry said. "These are exactly the kinds of projects that the stimulus is intended to fund."

But when the news director for 630WLAP radio asked how many jobs the projects would create, the Mayor didn't know.

"We are awaiting some additional guidance from the federal government about what actually constitutes a job for their purposes."

This vividly illustrates the utter incompetence of both local and national politicians. The whole purpose of the stimulus was to create jobs and jumpstart the economy. But these projects do not create permanent jobs. They merely create temporary work that will only last until the city completes the projects.

Worse, these projects direct taxpayer money out of the private sector into useless projects that serve few people. Government spending allocates resources to things the market would deem less valuable - because they don't really serve the majority, and necessarily away from activities that could create real economic benefit. Every dollar spent to build the walking path (clearly not a necessity) must eventually come from some taxpayer's pocket and represents a dollar that taxpayer no longer has to spend on things he or she wants or needs.

Real economic stimulus derives from citizens keeping more of their hard earned money to spend and invest as they see fit

Editors note: What in the hell is a curbside rain garden??

I wish he was my Congressman

Daniel Hannan, MEP from southeast England, blasted British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, calling him a, "devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government."

Hannan articulated conservative principals in a way seldom heard from U.S. politicians. He eloquently made the point that government cannot tax and spend a nation to prosperity.

"You cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bits of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit."

Marching merrily along

Last month I was debating a liberal friend of mine - well he says he's a moderate, but in this case he sounded pretty liberal. At any rate, I was lamenting the loss of liberty that goes along with taking government money and looking to the government for solutions to our problems. I also expressed fear that once the government set the precedent of regulating executive pay, they would eventually try to expand that power - in an incremental, slippery slope kind of way. He poo-pooed that notion, insisting that the feds needed - and even had an obligation to regulate the pay of those greedy CEO's because they took tax payer money.

You can read the post that started the debate here

His response:

"there are should also be certain ramifications to corporate welfare. I agree that executives should be rewarded, companies should be allowed to spend the stockholders' money how they chose. BUT, the moment that company sticks it's hand out for OUR money...there should be restrictions."

But here we are less than a month later and the Obama administration is already looking to expand its power. The Treasury Department wants the authority to take over non-bank financial businesses if they decide the company could fail and its could have an impact on the overall economy. And not to be outdone, Democrats in Congress are pushing to pass legislation to expand its oversight over CEO pay - possibly to companies that have not taken bailout money.

I know - I know. The government needs this power because of blah blah blah. There always seems to exist a blah blah blah that justifies the expansion of government.

If this type of government power grab does not concern you, there is nothing that I can say that will change your mind. But just keep in mind - eventually they are going to come after something of yours that you hold dear. By then it may be too late.

What happens when government dictates pay?

Good people leave.

Dear A.I.G., I quit!

Your share of the debt

We're in debt to oureyeballs.

“In rough magnitude, right now we’ve got about $19,000 worth of public debt for everyone who lives in the U.S., and that will be roughly tripling for every person by 2019,” said Chris Edwards, director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.

Floridians pay for light poles in Kentucky

The city of Greenville recently received $130,000 in federal Transportation Enhancement funds. Gov. Beshear presented the money to the citizens of Greenville on March 9.

The city will utilize the funds to install antique-style “cross-arm” traffic light poles, replacing wooden poles in downtown.

“This funding will not only restore the historical value, but it invites new interests and investment for communities across the commonwealth,” Beshear said. “Restoring a piece of hometown USA is important to the vitality of this community.”

Greenville received $354,400 in 2007 for the renovation and beautification of sidewalks.

Greenville is a city of 4,398 located in Muhlenberg County in western Kentucky.

$130,000 represents a minuscule sum when compared with the trillions the feds have spent in the last few months, but it perfectly illustrates the ridiculous use of federal tax payer money.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for nice sidewalks and pretty lamp posts, but if the people of Greenville want or need those things, they should pay for them.

Why should taxpayers in Florida foot the bill for light poles in western Kentucky?

The founders of this nation never intended the federal government play Santa Clause to the states, but as the power of the feds continues to expand, the states rely more and more on the federal till - and subsequently lose more of their sovereignty.

Form over substance

Pundits constantly laud President Obama for his speaking ability. Chris Matthews became nearly orgasmic after an Obama speech during the primaries.

"I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

Public speaking experts even utilize Obama speeches as teaching tools. I stumbled on one Business week article written last year entitled How to Inspire People Like Obama. The column lists four Obama speech delivery techniques that you can use to become a more persuasive speaker. These include holding out hope, using rhetorical devices and confident body language.

I will grudgingly admit the president can deliver a speech, although I find the way he chops up phrases annoying.

But when we cut through all of the superfluous speaking techniques and get to the heart of the matter, the words flowing out of the President's mouth often don't mean anything at all.

Take this for instance. Obama delivered a speech in California yesterday and momentarily channeled Harry Truman - "the buck stops here." Commentators fawned over Obama, praising him for taking responsibility.

But look at what he actually said.

"I know Washington's all in a tizzy and everybody's pointing fingers at each other saying it's all their fault, the Democrats' fault, the Republicans' fault. Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the president." *Insert cheers here* Then he continued, "We didn't draft these contracts. We've got a lot on our plate…"

So is he responsible or not?

Maybe he wasn't actually channeling Truman - more like Dennis the Menace.

People gobble up the form that is Barak Obama. But where is the substance?

Why do they hate them?

“Everyone of you (AIG) should be executed with piano wire!…. We are looking for your families, your children”

Liberals project an image of themselves as compassionate, diverse, tolerant and kind-hearted. Conversely, they brand conservatives hateful, intolerant, bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobe, and on and on. Just Google the words Limbaugh and hate together and it will return over 2 million hits.

But liberal tolerance only extends to groups they deem worthy, and the vitriol and hatred from the left directed at those they deem inferior far exceeds anything I’ve ever seen or heard from the right.

The “rich” apparently deserve no tolerance or respect, as liberals spend a great deal of energy demonizing and – well, hating those who have managed to accumulate wealth.

I thought hating was bad. I thought intolerance was the cardinal sin in the 21st century. I thought we weren’t supposed to stereotype.

But maybe hatred becomes a virtue when expressed from the right motives.

I have to confess, I get pretty confused. Then again, nobody ever accused liberals of moral clarity.

Something to ponder

I wonder if Pres. Obama plans to return the $110,332 that A.I.G contributed to his campaign?

And while we're on the subject, Sen.Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) received campaign contributions totaling $281,038 from the bailed out insurance giant. Dodd chairs the the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

Check out the complete list of A.I.G. campaign contributions.

Why should A.I.G. employees get their bonuses?

Because they have a contractual right to them.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm as frustrated by the concept of taxpayer funded bonuses for employees at a failing company as anyone. But I don't direct my ire at A.I.G. I am angry with the government for short circuiting the market and bailing out these losers in the first place.

That said, I can't stomach the concept of the feds telling A.I.G. how it may or may not compensate its employees, especially in light of the fact that the payouts arise via contractual obligations.

The sanctity of contacts create a bulwark which supports the whole economy, and as smelly as the bonuses may seem, it strikes me as far more nefarious to give the government the power to willy-nilly void valid contracts that they don't happen to like.

New York Times writer Andrew Ross Sorkin makes the best case I've seen for leaving A.I.G. alone.

Bailouts and bonuses - oh my!

The New York Times reports that American International Group plans to pay out $165 million in bonuses today. Yes, A.I.G. - the insurance company that has taken $170 billion in federal bailout money.

The company says they cannot legally rescind the bonuses because of contractual obligations to pay them.

My reaction to this news probably falls in line with the rest of the public. How utterly ridiculous to reward the employees of a failing company that suckles at the public tit to survive.

But Edward M. Liddy, the government-appointed chairman of A.I.G., makes a good point.

“We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the A.I.G. businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury,” he wrote Mr. Geithner on Saturday.

I have to confess that I find myself conflicted. I fully support bonuses for employees, high executive pay and whatever compensation directors choose to provide. Companies compensate employees based on market conditions and what they feel necessary to recruit and retain talent. And if they make the decision to overpay their executives, the market will punish the company, and eventually it will cease to exist, or else adjust its practices to survive.

But on the other hand - it's our money! I can't argue with those that say government gets to call the shots since taxpayer money is involved.

And herein lies the reason the federal government should not bail out private companies.

By propping up A.I.G. and other struggling businesses, the government short circuits the market. Where the market would have forced these poorly run companies to collapse and allowed their assets to migrate into the hands of people better equipped to utilize them, we now find our selves throwing good money after bad, trying to save miserably managed companies - still poorly run - and now saddled with the added burden of governmental and political interference.

In essence, we've rewarded failure. Why do we act surprised when those companies continue to operate under the same failed policies?

We need to just allow the ugly consequences of bad business run its course. Yes, we will suffer short term pain, but in the long run, we will have a healthier economy.

More government overreach

Two Kentucky lawmakers recently introduced a bill in the state House of Representative that would prohibited anonymous postings to blogs and other online forums.

Rep. Tim Couch (R-Hyden) and Jimmy Higdon (R-Lebanon) sponsored HB 775, which was introduced on March 4. If passed the new law will "require prior registration for anyone who posts information to a website, blog, or message board and create fines for violations."

This bill represents yet another overstep of government power and an erosion of personal liberty. A law of this nature would produce a chilling effect on free speech and violates the First Amendment's free speech clause, creating undue governmental regulation of speech.

The ability to disseminate views anonymously allows citizens to express unpopular views without the fear of retaliation or censure.

Courts have upheld the right to anonymous expression, especially in the realm of political speech, recognizing the importance of the protective shield anonymity affords. Typically courts have only allowed forced disclosure of anonymous communicators in cases of "compelling governmental interest".

In Tally v. California (1960) the United States Supreme Court overturned a ban on anonymous leafleting saying, "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."

In a similar ruling, the court upheld Margaret McIntyre's right to distribute unsigned leaflets. The state of Ohio had banned the practice under the auspices of election law.

In its 1995 ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio, the Supreme Court noted, "The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. ...

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at the hand of an intolerant society."

Interestingly, James Madison and John Jay published the Federalist Papers under pseudonyms, in essence a form of anonymous speech.

Dirt flipper jobs

Readers old enough to remember the Reagan years will recall that liberals often derided the expanding economy and increasing employment in the 80's by claiming Reagan’s policies were merely creating “hamburger flipper” jobs.

Fast-forward 25 years and we have a President Obama creating what we might well label “dirt flipper” jobs.

In fact, the recently passed stimulus package will not create jobs, but instead merely creates work – temporary work that will do little to help the economy in the long term.

At least a hard working hamburger flipper has the potential to work him or herself into a management position.

Kentucky will receive $3 million dollars from the stimulus package for three projects to clear trails and roads in National Forests blocked by fallen timbers. Workers will clear brush in the Daniel Boone National Forest and the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area.

Forestry officials claim 262 miles of roads and 287 miles of trails suffer blockages from felled trees and limbs, primarily due to the January ice storm.

Work could begin in the next few weeks.

So how many jobs will this $3 million create?

The work in the Daniel Boone area, accounting for about $550,000 of the $3 million, calls for six “person-year” jobs, which amounts to bureau-speak for six employees working one year.

But the Forestry Service wants to get the work done faster, so they will hire more people and finish up in less time.

They don’t say how fast they plan to complete the project, but let’s say they want to get it finished up in four months. That would employ 18 people for four months at the cost of about $30,500 per job.

Efficient eh?

And by the way, the folks at Daniel Boone will utilize a contractor already approved for work in the Land Between the Lakes in order to “speed the process.”

This project exemplifies the “job creation” touted in the stimulus bill. It amounts to nothing more than make work projects. Once completed, we find ourselves back at square one. The only way to sustain these jobs – spend more government money.

The stimulus package had little to do with creating jobs and a lot to do with funding pet projects and expanding the scope of government. Some people will clearly benefit, but at an equal cost to others. The economic math revelas no net gain. Keep in mind that every dollar spent by the government must at some point be taken from the private sector via taxation. Every dollar spent by the feds represents a dollar you and I no longer have to spend.

If you want true economic stimulus, let “We the People” keep more of our money. Let markets direct dollars to economic activity that the citizens value instead of projects driven by political considerations. Let the economy create real, permanent employment instead of temporary government make work “jobs.”

In the words of Ronald Reagan, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Moderate elements of the Taliban -

Only cut your head half way off.

The great unifier strikes again

After eight years of Pres. Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" diminishing the United States' image around the world, I thought Pres. Obama was going to raise the international stature of the U.S.

"The morning papers and TV last night featured plenty of comment focused on the White House's very odd and, frankly, exceptionally rude treatment of a British PM."
- Iain Martin, The London Telegraph

Nice start Mr. President.

Read Iain Martin's full comments

Liberal senator fears executive overreach

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) sent a letter to Pres. Obama on Feb. 23 expressing concern over the appointment of "czars" to oversee policy making. Byrd believes the system creates the potential for an overreach of executive power. He specifically mentions the recent creation of offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change.

"The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd wrote.

Read the full text of the letter

Puppet strings

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced Senate Bill 463 on Feb. 24. The legislation would prohibit any company receiving TARP (bailout) money from hosting, sponsoring or paying for any entertainment or holiday events during the calendar year in which they receive the funds or the following year.

Lawmakers have introduced other bills that would allow the government to oversee or limit expenditures, executive pay and other business decisions of companies receiving TARP money.

Herein lies the insidiousness of bailouts. I understand the argument that because companies accepted taxpayer money, the taxpayer via the government should exercise some control over those companies. But allowing the government to intervene in business decisions makes no sense.

What does John Kerry know about running an auto company, or an insurance business? I’m not here to defend corporate spending, but at times what we view as wasteful from the sidelines may have a valid business purpose. For instance, holiday parties can serve to improve the morale of employees. Parties, trips and awards for sales reps can boost productivity.

Government bureaucrats simply can’t know enough about the particulars of any given business to make sound business decisions. Instead they dictate policies based on political considerations and public perception. For instance, members of Congress rail against the use of corporate jets when in reality the use of private planes save countless hours of productivity for executives.

TARP has simply become a tool to increase governmental power. It provides a doorway for greater control over private businesses. It decreases liberty. With the precedent set, I guarantee government agents will find even more justifications for interfering in private enterprise.

The CEOs who accepted TARP money dug their own graves. The ran to the public till with their hands out, and now they find themselves suffering the consequences of petty, small minded politicians interfering in their business.

Interestingly, no company infused with government money has improved its position in recent months. GM is talking bankruptcy. AGI has its grubby paws out looking for more of my money.

They got what they deserve – a lifeline that amounts to nothing more than puppet strings.

Others should beware. The injection of government into the private sector only leads to increased governmental power and a loss of citizen liberty.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington.

Ky. lawmakers seek to stop tax decrease

Kentuckians stand to enjoy a tax cut.

But it won’t likely come to fruition.

The state gasoline tax, currently set at 22.5 cents per gallon, will drop 4 cents on April 1, but state lawmakers are poised to freeze the tax at its current level.

The drop in wholesale gasoline prices triggered looming tax decrease because a portion of the gas tax is indexed to price. Kentucky collects a fixed 5 cents per gallon, and an additional 1.4 cents flow into a fund to repair leaky underground storage tanks. The remainder of the tax is figured based on 9 percent of the current wholesale price.

But legislators fear a drop in the tax will threaten funding for road projects. Officials estimate that the 4-cent cut would result in a revenue decrease of about $130 million, further depleting what they call an already shaky road fund.

"We're going to have to step up and do something about the 4 cents that we will lose without further action of the General Assembly," Gov. Steve Beshear, said. "The road fund is in pretty dire straits right now, and if you lose those 4 cents it would put it in a situation to where, for the foreseeable future, you wouldn't be able to even maintain roads much less build any new ones."

A vote to freeze the tax at its current level was originally scheduled for tomorrow, but lawmakers may delay the vote until next week.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo (D-Prestonsburg) supports the freeze, along with senate president David Williams (R- Burkesville), who said the tax decrease could prove “catastrophic” for state roads.

Rep. Don Pasley, (D-Winchester) also supports the freeze

"If those four pennies aren't locked in, you would be looking at a deficit situation in the Road Fund," he told the Courier-Journal. "And it wouldn't be raising the tax; the tax is already at that level."

But not all lawmakers agree. Rep. Stan Lee (R-Lexington) called the tax freeze a classic case of changing the rules in the middle of the game.

I agree with Lee. By law the tax should drop, and if the legislature votes to freeze the tax, they have functionally raised it beyond its legally prescribed limit. You can spin your way around it by saying it simply remains at the level we currently pay, but the fact remains that freezing the tax at its current level results in citizens of the Commonwealth paying more than they were legally required under the original law.

Sounds to me like a tax increase.

I also find the argument that allowing the tax to drop to its legally prescribed level will cause the state’s roads to suddenly crumble into disrepair. According to the governor, Kentucky stands to receive $421 million for road and bridge construction from the recently passed federal economic stimulus bill. That means that even with the estimated $130 million dip in revenue resulting from the drop in the tax, the states road fund will receive a net infusion of $291 million.

This is a great opportunity to functionally put some of that "stimulus" money back into the taxpayer's pockets.

Government functions like a crack addicts. It always “needs” more taxpayer money. What it currently gets never satisfies and soon it needs more to function “normally”. When it gets more, it can never go back to the prior level. At some point, it needs to suffer the pain of withdraw so it can become truly healthy.

I think this is a good place to start.

Fast facts

Federal gasoline tax – 18.4 cents per gallon.
Kentucky state gasoline tax – 22.5 cents per gallon.
Total government take – 40.9 cents per gallon.
Average oil company profit – 8 to 10 cents per gallon.
Kentucky State Dept. of Transportation budget FY 2008-2009 – $2.4 billion.
Portion of 2008-2009 budget dedicated to highways - $684,759,200

Ky. lawmakers demand state's rights

On Feb. 24, Rep. David Floyd (R-Bardstown), Rep. Adam Koenig (R-Erlanger) and Rep. David Osborne (R-Prospect) introduced a resolution in the Kentucky State House that would demand the federal government cease mandates beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; prohibit federal legislation which requires states to comply under threat of penalties or sanctions; prohibit any government or agency from assisting enforcement of laws that violate the Kentucky Bill of Rights.

HCR 172 resolution verbalizes the state's rights already granted by the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Read the resolution here

The fact that legislators feel the need to write such a resolution indicates how far this country has strayed from its founding Constitutional principals.

I wholeheartedly support this bill. Call the Legislative Research Commission hot line at 800-372-7181 and leave a message for your representative to support HCR 172.

Another liberal fascist

A West Virginia lawmaker proposed a bill to ban the sale of Barbie and other similar dolls in the state because he believes they promote an unhealthy message to young girls.

Del. Jeff Eldridge (D) of Lincoln County, W. Va. said that although nobody will join him in signing on to the bill, he planned to proceed alone.

"I just hate the image that we give to our kids that if you're beautiful, you're beautiful and you don't have to be smart."

Eldridge may have a valid point, but what gives him the right to force his worldview on all of the citizens of West Virginia?

Nothing other than his sense of superiority and his access to power. Many politicians seem operate under the premise that if they can't sell their beliefs in the market place of ideas, they should simply force their worldview on society via the strong arm of government power.

Their "improvements" to society amount to nothing more than an erosion of liberty.

Wasting money

Here's yet another example of politicians wasting our money.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear went to not one, but two NASCAR Sprint Cup races last year in order to learn about the economic impact of these events. The governor and his cabinet secretary, Larry Hayes attended races in Charlotte and Bristol last year.

The governor was studying up on NASCAR because state lawmakers are considering granting a tax incentive package to the owners of Kentucky Speedway so they can expand the track in the hope of luring a Sprint Cup race.

Am I the only one that finds this ridiculous? The governor could have saved himself a lot of time - and the tax payers a few bucks by tuning into FOX to catch the broadcast, or perhaps using this amazing new technology called Google to look up the attendance and economic impact of these races.

You just gotta laugh

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in the middle of a sitcom.

It's funny enough listening to a president who just signed a $700 billion bill full of pork and wasteful spending lecturing us on fiscal responsibility. But Vice President Biden takes the cake for humor. You just have to laugh.

Check out his advice to a small business owner wanting to know how the "stimulus" bill will help her.

"I would recommend that woman call my office directly, and I will be able to guide her as to what pieces of this package would be directly helpful to her. For example, it may very well be that she's in a circumstance where she is not able, her customers aren't able to get to her, there's no transit capability, the bridge going across the creek to get to her business needs repair, may very well be that she's in a position where she is unable to access the -- her energy costs are so high by providing smart meters, by being able to bring down the cost of her workforce."

But it gets funnier. In his speech Tuesday night, Obama talked about how tough ol' Joe is, and tapped him as the "recovery" oversight Czar.

"That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort,because nobody messes with Joe." The audience -- and Biden -- laughed and cheered.

The next day - Biden didn't even know the Web site.



Change we can believe in!

Tax facts

President Obama thinks the rich should pay more in taxes. Most people agree. We love to tax the rich because most of us don’t fall into that category. Most think the rich don’t pay their fair share.

Here are the facts based on IRS figures from 2006. (the last year available) Incomes listed are adjusted gross income.

The top 1 percent – making over $364,657 per year pay 39.38 percent of the total taxes

The top 5 percent of taxpayers – making more than $145, 283 per year pay 59.67 percent of the total tax burden.

The top 10 percent of taxpayers – those making more $103,912 pay 70.30 percent of all income taxes.

The top half - those making above $30,881 pay 96.93 percent of the income taxes.

The bottom half of the wage earners in this country pay only 3.07 percent of the tax burden.

The bottom 40 percent pay no income taxes.

From 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS.

Bush tax cuts for the “rich”

The total federal revenue in 2003 when the Bush tax cuts went into effect was $178.5 billion. In 2006, the total revenue was $247.3 billion.

Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product, which is above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.

The 2000 budget baseline (figured before Bush cuts) projected 2006 revenues at $2,465 billion. They came in at $2,407 billion. Even with the tax cuts, the revenues came in only $58 billion below 2000 projections. The same 2000 budget baseline estimated 2006 spending at $2,407 billion. The actual spending came in at $2,654 billion – a whopping $514 billion above the estimate. In other words, one can contribute the Bush deficit 10 percent to revenue shortfall and 90 percent to overspending.

The top 1 percent paid 34.3 percent of the tax burden prior to the Bush cuts and 39.38 percent after. The Bush tax cuts on the rich actually resulted in the rich paying a higher percentage of the total tax burden. The Treasury Dept. estimates the top 1 percent would have paid about 31 percent had the Bush tax cuts not been enacted.

A poignant warning from Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin hardly counts as a right wing zealot, making his comments in a speech before the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland even more intriguing. He provides a poignant warning from a country with a history of state controlled economic policies.

Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake.

True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.

The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.

Whose money is it?

Sen. John Kerry’s comments on the Senate floor during the debate over tax cuts in the economic stimulus plan belie a misunderstanding common to the governing class.



Politicians operate on a fundamentally false belief, and unfortunately many citizens have bought into this fallacy, consciously or not. Politicians think that all of the money and resources in this country belong to them and they get to decide how much of it we the people get to keep. They believe that they can better handle our money than we can. That’s why they act like a tax cut represents some kind of gift. In reality, a tax cut simply allows citizens to keep more of their own money.

IT’S OUR MONEY!

We worked for it. We earned it.

Lexington mayor on Fox News

Watch Lexington Mayor Jim Newberry embarrass himself on national TV.

Hope?

The stock market represents investors view of the future. Apparently President Obama has failed to inspire a lot of hope on Wall Street.

The Dow Jones stood at about 9,300 on Oct. 31, 2008; as of Thursday, Feb. 12, 2009, it had fallen about 1,400 points.

Obviously we can't blame the steady downward market trend completely on Obama, but it certainly does not indicate that the business world places a lot of hope for the economy under our new president.

Big money coming our way

According to an AP report, the tax cuts in economic stimulus plan, dubbed “Making Work Pay”, were scaled back in the final version of the bill.

Instead of a $500 tax cut, individuals will receive $400. Couples will benefit to the tune of $800 instead of a $1000.

That translates to a whopping $7.70 per week for the average American.

Meanwhile, GM gets a $3.2 billion tax break. You’ve got to love the government propping up failing companies.

I will refrain from making big plans for my windfall, since the inflation inherent in all of this government borrowing and printing of money will likely wipe out any gain.

Click for the AP story

A voice from the past

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot!"

-Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary

Stimulus?

While members of Congress demonize the use of private corporate jets, Cessna continues the process of laying off 2,500 workers.

Send Schumer some pork

During the debate on the Economic Stimulus Bill, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that the American people don't care about pork.

"And let me say this - to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little tiny -yes, porky amendments. The American people really don't care."

Leland Conway, a Lexington radio talk show host on 630WLAP, decided to show just how much the citizens of Kentucky DO care. He is collecting bags of pork rinds at the radio station to send to Sen. Schumer.

Readers can drop off some pork at the station until noon Friday.

2601 Nicholasville Road
(look for the big, blue ClearChannel sign)

Getting a little cloudy in DC

During his campaign, President Obama promised to bring more transparency to government. Among his pledges was proposal to post all non-emergency legislation for five days for public examination before he signed it.

"Among the proposals in Obama's plan to open government are: putting government data online in accessible formats; airing live webcasts of agency meetings; restoring scientific integrity; allowing people to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks and lobbyist contacts online; and allowing five days for public to review and comment on legislation online before its signed."

Today Obama will sign the SCHIP bill, expanding health coverage for children.

It passed yesterday.

Government power run amok

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
-President Gerald Ford

Citizens of this great nation should seriously consider the ramifications of President Obama’s order today that limits executive compensation for companies that take federal bailout money to $500,000 per year. In reality, the order goes further, placing limits on “any expenditures related to aviation services, office and facility renovations, entertainment and holiday parties, and conferences and events.”

Doubtlessly, many readers will applaud the action. Who doesn’t like to see “greedy” CEO’s get theirs?

In reality, the government has no business dictating business practices of private companies.

But companies that accepted the bailouts gave up their right to run their business as they see fit. Now they must operate under the dictates of bureaucrats that have no clue about their business and no consideration for the market factors influencing their operation – dictates based on arbitrary feel-good notions of fairness.

Therein lies the lesson. When we look to the government to solve our problems, we grant them the power to interfere in our lives as they see fit. We may gain a modicum of security, but we have traded our liberty.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin

Keep this in mind as we march toward more and more government intervention in the economy. Keep this in mind as we nationalize our healthcare system. We may get “free” insurance, but we will also invite the government to tell us what we can and can’t eat, how many kids we can have and what medical procedures we are allowed to undergo.

I for one am not willing to make that trade off.