I dutifully apologize for my lack of insight and commentary on these important state and national stories. Too many pressing demands on my time. :0(
Have it good,
Here’s a few interesting stories of interest to Republicans in the news today:
In this story from the MN Legislature (Amendments stall vote on eminent domain bill), my first reaction is this bill is an excellent idea designed to support private property rights, but without knowing more I’m hesitant to fully agree. But if there is such a statute that makes it easier for companies to seize private property, getting rid of it would be a step forward for liberty. Time for some research.
Have it good,
Here’s your GrizzlyNews and opinions from across the country, and Minnesota in particular for 2/8/10:
Unallotment Deadline Looming – an excellent blog post about the political ramifications of the unallotment debate and court case for the DFL in an election year (what is unallotment?). I still can’t quite get over the difference between the MN Constitution and the Federal Constitution in terms of separation of powers, we seem to be a lot more fast and loose with the branch distinctions in Minnesota than the Feds are. I tried to spur some discussion on the difference between unallotment and the line-item veto in my Precinct caucus group last week, and it actually developed more than I thought it would. I even learned some interesting things about budget authority. Neat.
Google to enlist NSA to help it ward off cyberattacks – Not too sure what to think about this story, honestly. I’m swinging back and forth between “good for you Google, protect my privacy” and “OH GOD BIG BROTHER OMNIVEILLANCE AND CORPORATISM.” You can see the problem that arises with a story like this, obviously. I picked up the term Omniveillance from an article by Josh Blackman that I know I’ve mentioned before, yet it still comes back to haunt me with its insightfulness…
The inevitable fix for the deficit – Is the VAT really as “inevitable” as this article says? I don’t think so, sorry. The Value-Added Tax strikes me as another shadow way for government to hide its tax increases and to pay for its bloated expansion plans. If the government taxes products at the manufacturing level, as the article states is the basic plan for a VAT, at what will the public focus its anger? Business. All business. Since the businesses will have to price their goods higher due to skyrocketing input costs (thanks, VAT), the people will see the entity closest to them as the problem, and if businesses are the last link in the chain, then government gets off scot-free with the money. Whether that rant is an argument against VAT I have no idea, but damnit do we really want bureaucracy as big as Europe’s as the future of America? Look deep into your reservoir of knowlege and honestly answer that question. I don’t.
Jobs push continues with $50M MN Senate proposal – Everyone repeat after me. “Government spending does not create meaningful, long-term economic growth.”
To be continued, it’s time for class.
Have it good,
I’ve got a lot of projects in the works as of late, so my blogging might get a bit sparse the next few days. But here are some good reads for Tuesday:
Well good gods, no wonder it’s been such a bitch to find work. With an unemployment rate of 18% among those 18-24, what is this going to do to this generation? This is a very unsettling statistic because angry, intelligent and bored young people can do some dangerous things. See: Russian Revolution of 1917 and the entire decade of the 1960s.
2. Terror trials opinions:
Two good columns today about where to hold trials of 9/11 conspirators and other terrorists. Watch them face off!
Now this is just cool. Check it out.
“Spray-on liquid glass is transparent, non-toxic, and can protect virtually any surface against almost any damage from hazards such as water, UV radiation, dirt, heat, and bacterial infections. The coating is also flexible and breathable, which makes it suitable for use on an enormous array of products.”
And since it is caucus day today, here’s a concise set of principles for all you conservatives to keep in mind while you discuss and propose and poll tonight:
- You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
- You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
- You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
- You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
- You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
- You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
- You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
- You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
- You cannot build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence.
- And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
—William John Henry Boetcker (1873–1962)
Have it good,
Well isn’t this is a very interesting proposition for Republicans. Do we go and support the President on an issue we basically agree with and lend him an appearance of bipartisan support and agreement (just in time for the 2010 elections I’m sure) or leave him out to dry and watch the Democrats self-destruct on their own?
The problem I have with President Obama’s intended proposal is that he leaves out so many things that desperately need to be addressed, such as military spending and that other massive elephant in the room called entitlement spending. Which leads me to believe that this is a half-hearted attempt to look more in-tune with the majority of the country than he actually is.
So what is the right way to go for conservatives? How about taking a cautious approach, fully realizing and applauding the high priority and importance of such a spending freeze in these tough economic times, but acknowledging that it is just one step on the long path towards fiscal responsibility. I agree with this section from HotAir:
Republicans need to make that point very clear and argue that while a freeze is the first step, the next step must be to roll back those federal-budget increases back to at least 2007 levels in order to actually impact the budget deficit, let alone long-term debt. That will require significant cuts in federal programs that Democrats created or inflated over the last three years while having control of the pursestrings.
That’s right, we don’t just want a freeze, we want a spending freeze followed by a spring spending thaw that will let us drain the proverbial spending lake. If that’s too confusing a metaphor, all you need to know is that a spending freeze is not the end we’re looking for as fiscal conservatives. We’re looking for a decrease in government, a rollback, a cut, whatever you want to call it.
Ok, here’s one – we’re going to prune the frozen tree of spending after the shining Republican victories in 2010.
I just can’t speak in metaphor, can I? haha.
Have it good,
Here we go, this baby has been making the rounds through libertarian and conservative blogs, and I just had to repost it. It’s hilarious, oh man.
Have it good,
Here’s a few of the things I’ve read today, out of the 1000+ stories that exploded on to my Google Reader over the night. No time for commentary, Dr. Jones! Need to outline some reasearch papers!
Good lord, we’ve had a busy week this week between Scott Brown’s victory, a wild Supreme Court term so far, and some interesting politics! I think the explosion in commentary has come from the big SCOTUS decision regarding campaign finance laws. I can’t wait to see how that plays out in the political realm this year as well as 2012.
Decision may mean more foreign cash <—I’m going to watch this story, definitely
5 Reasons gold is the next bubble to burst <—Just for you Stu, haha. Not sure I agree with this guy’s assessment though
Judge reduces damages in illegal file sharing case <—Brainerd, MN!
Have a good weekend, I think I’ll be trapped inside due to winter storms!