Friday, November 5, 2010

Conservative Senators.........please pay attention

The Wall Street Journal

NOVEMBER 3, 2010

Welcome, Senate Conservatives

Remember what the voters back home want—less government and more freedom.

Congratulations to all the tea party-backed candidates who overcame a determined, partisan opposition to win their elections. The next campaign begins today. Because you must now overcome determined party insiders if this nation is going to be spared from fiscal disaster.
Many of the people who will be welcoming the new class of Senate conservatives to Washington never wanted you here in the first place. The establishment is much more likely to try to buy off your votes than to buy into your limited-government philosophy. Consider what former GOP senator-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott told the Washington Post earlier this year: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.".

But someone can't be bribed if they aren't for sale. Here is some humble advice on how to recognize and refuse such offers.Don't let them. Co-option is coercion. Washington operates on a favor-based economy and for every earmark, committee assignment or fancy title that's given, payback is expected in return. The chits come due when the roll call votes begin. This is how big-spending bills that everyone always decries in public always manage to pass with just enough votes.

First, don't request earmarks. If you do, you'll vote for legislation based on what's in it for your state, not what's best for the country. You will lose the ability to criticize wasteful spending. And, if you dare to oppose other pork-barrel projects, the earmarkers will retaliate against you.
In 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) offered a measure to kill funding for the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." Before the vote, Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.), an appropriator, issued a warning on the Senate floor.
"If we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next," she said. "When Members come down to the floor to vote on this amendment, they need to know if they support stripping out this project, Senator Bond [a Republican appropriator] and I are likely to be taking a long, serious look at their projects to determine whether they should be preserved during our upcoming conference negotiations."

Second, hire conservative staff. The old saying "personnel is policy" is true. You don't need Beltway strategists and consultants running your office. Find people who share your values and believe in advancing the same policy reforms. Staff who are driven by conservative instincts can protect you from unwanted, outside influences when the pressure is on.The threat worked. Hardly anyone wanted to risk losing earmarks. The Senate voted 82-15 to protect funding for the Bridge to Nowhere.
Third, beware of committees. Committee assignments can be used as bait to make senators compromise on other matters. Rookie senators are often told they must be a member of a particular committee to advance a certain piece of legislation. This may be true in the House, but a senator can legislate on any matter from the Senate floor.
Fourth, don't seek titles. The word "Senator" before your name carries plenty of clout. All senators have the power to object to bad legislation, speak on the floor and offer amendments, regardless of how they are ranked in party hierarchy.
Lastly, don't let your re-election become more important than your job. You've campaigned long and hard for the opportunity to go to Washington and restore freedom in America. People will try to convince you to moderate conservative positions and break campaign promises, all in the name of winning the next race. Resist the temptation to do so. There are worse things than losing an election—like breaking your word to voters.
At your swearing-in ceremony, you will, as all senators do, take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution." Most will fail to keep their oath. Doing these five things will help you maintain a focus on national priorities and be one who does.
Congress will never fix entitlements, simplify the tax code or balance the budget as long as members are more concerned with their own narrow, parochial interests. Time spent securing earmarks and serving personal ambitions is time that should be spent working on big-picture reforms.

When you are in Washington, remember what the voters back home want—less government and more freedom. Millions of people are out of work, the government is going bankrupt and the country is trillions in debt. Americans have watched in disgust as billions of their tax dollars have been wasted on failed jobs plans, bailouts and takeovers. It's up to us to stop the spending spree and make sure we have a government that benefits America instead of being a burden to it.
Tea party Republicans were elected to go to Washington and save the country—not be co-opted by the club. So put on your boxing gloves. The fight begins today.
Mr. DeMint is a Republican senator from South Carolina.  Z: The article's shamefully stolen, in total, from the Wall St. Journal.
Please God, let all politicians read it.
z

82 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Constituents will have to keep the pressure on their elected representatives.

DaBlade said...

Hopefully they'll all read it, but more importantly, live by it. I agree with AOW, it will be up to us to keep their feet to the fire so they don't lose their souls to the machine. The Republicans better not waste this chance with more wasteful spending. We don't want them to be the "democrat light" party again, and second chances are not given in perpetuity.

JINGOIST said...

I like this article Z. :-)

Beth said...

AMEN!

beamish said...

Sadly, until the 17th Amendment that perpetuates Senate partisan politics at the national / federal level is repealed, "co-opting" of the "Tea Party" candidates will happen.

Thanks to the 17th Amendment, Senators are no longer there to give voice in federal government to the state legislatures and governors of the states that the Founding Fathers envisioned would be appointing them to do so.

And so, they're there to be partisan opposition rather than a state's check on federal power.

The best they can do is change the flavor of that partisan opposition.

Brooke said...

mm... Great pressure, indeed, must remain on these politicians or the same thing that got them elected will get that reversed.

Leticia said...

Maybe we should all copy this and fax it to each of our representatives who just won?

I am seriously considering it.

Loved this post!! Great job, Z!

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mustang said...

Excellent letter; excellent advice. Not long ago, Leslie put up a couple clips from the film, Mr. Smith goes to Washington. It is a reminder that corrupt politics has been with us from the beginning; it is the voice of that captured Roman prisoner reminding a victorious GOP that all glory is fading. I put up a somewhat similar letter today—a letter to the House of Representatives. Mr. DeMint reminds freshman senators who they work for, but so too much voters remain vigilant. We can no longer trust congress; we must keep an eye on them.

I do happen to agree with Beamish, but repeal of the 17th is no panacea for what ails our political system. In Mr. Smith, one underlying theme was the power exerted upon members of the senate from back home bubbas, who are in a position to make or break senators and representatives. This is a real problem and one clearly demonstrated this year in California (Brown) and Delaware (O’Donnell). I personally think senators appointed by state legislatures emphasized federalism, but also something else: the power of political machines was beyond the ability of voters to correct. The solution for corrupt members of the senate pre-17th Amendment was to vote out corrupt members of state legislators. Mr. Wilson apparently believed this was just too much for (ugh) common people to manage —but then again, he embraced progressivism like no other until Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama. On the other hand, maybe he was right. Unless or until states demand a constitutional convention, how we provide for members of the senate won’t change.

Our task remains this: vigilance, which is AOW’s theme.

Anonymous said...

Excellent letter from Senator DeMint. I've really enjoyed watching these Constitution-minded patriots get into office and I'd hate to see them lose their momentum.

I'm agreeing that we need to be vigilant and hold our representatives' feet to the fire but I'm not really sure how to go about this. Is there a website perhaps that would keep us conscious of the various members of those bodies and what they are doing without being more complicated than the average citizen has time to think about?

Thanks,

Lurker

Sam Huntington said...

Titan illustrates how bad our public education system really is. It is true that two republicans did embrace the concept of popular election of senators and help propel it into a formal amendment, but their entrance upon the stage came somewhat late in the game.

The idea of popularly electing senators began as early as 1826. In the 1890s it had become a populist idea. The first to grab hold of the idea in earnest were Robert La Follette and George Norris, both of whom were liberal progressives. It was the corruption of Democratic Senator William Clark (bribing the state legislature to elect him) that propelled Republicans Joseph Bristow (elected to the Senate in 1908), and William Borah (elected to the Senate in 1907) to embrace the concept of popular election of senators —neither man can be called a Civil War republican. Not all republicans agreed with Bristow and Borah; 8 southern republicans and most in the northeast opposed the idea.

Where was President Wilson’s veto pen? What was Titan doing during civics class?

WomanHonorThyself said...

wow good stuff Z..there's good news all around the country .so have a fabulous weekend my friend!

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Thanks to the 17th Amendment, Senators are no longer there to give voice in federal government to the state legislatures and governors of the states that the Founding Fathers envisioned would be appointing them to do so.

You mean thanks to the Civil War era Republicans, don't you? They're the ones that stripped the states of control over their own militias.

Actually, I meant what I said.

By taking away the power of a state's legislature and its governor to appoint its representative in the Senate, Senators are no longer beholden to the interests of the government of the state they represent, but rather to the diktats of their national party establishment.

Used to be if you didn't like the Senatorial representation of your state in Congress, you changed the local legislatures and Governor empowered to appoint them to those who would appoint a Senator more of your liking, and the Senator looked out for the interests of his state's government, or else.

The Civil War Republicans stripped nothing. The President has always held command of the militias.

btw - "Don't ask, Don't tell" is a terrible policy. How's a guy ever gonna ask a guy out with THAT policy in force? ;)

Email them from a fake Blogger account, of course.

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

Thanks to the 17th Amendment, Senators are no longer there to give voice in federal government to the state legislatures and governors of the states that the Founding Fathers envisioned would be appointing them to do so.

So, did the 17th somehow negate the 10th Amendment protection from out of control Federal influence?

H

beamish said...

The President has always held command of the militias.

Then why didn't Lincoln simply order Pickett off the battlefield at Gettysburg?

Same reason Gov. Lilburn Boggs could order that Mormon terrorists be exterminated on sight by the Missouri state militia on the micro-level.

At the macro-level Pickett was part of a militant wing of an organized insurrection in violation of the Constitutional ban on states forming a confederation to subvert federal law.

Sam Huntington said...

Actually, Sam believes human liberty comes from God, as enumerated by the Constitution and amendments. The power to maintain those liberties comes from the Second Amendment.

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Sam believes that "power" comes from a piece of paper called the Constitution.

I'm here to remind him that in truth, it lies in the number of guns you can place on a battlefield.


Kinda funny, Mao said "All power comes from the barrel of a gun."

My grandfather believed the same. That's why he encouraged everyone to own them, and know how to use them, because of the day when gun ownership and self-defense required such worthless pieces of paper like licenses and permits.

Print out and wrap the Brady Bill around your head. It still won't stop a bullet.

Sam Huntington said...

H

The Seventeenth Amendment did not negate the Tenth. It only modified Clause 1 and 2 of Article 1.

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducky's here said...

Hope Scott Brown reads it. Poor boy is in a tough place. Rand Paul (R - The Planet Mongo) is already taking shots at him and back home he endorsed an ex-state cop who had to resign for covering up a molestation.

Needless to say the family values Republican lost and the Dems gave notice that there will be no repeat of the Coakley fiasco.

And give people a couple yers to find out that the health care bill isn't all that bad (sort of a glass half full) and folks are going to wonder why the deficit is still huge and the R's haven't done anything about the economy.

Plus they'll over reach and create another bubble and Wall Street may have sense enough to figure out that Clintoon and The Black Bush have been the best friends they've ever had.

Meanwhile, the income disparity will widen and most of you lose.

Pass the popcorn, please.

"I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round,
I really love to watch 'em roll".

-- John Lennon

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Please remove Titan's posts. His profile and blog are a disgrace.

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

G-D never delegated His prerogatives to the founding fathers nor their Constitution.

However, no earthly kingdom exists apart from His knowledge and (however brief) consent.

H

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

The Seventeenth Amendment did not negate the Tenth. It only modified Clause 1 and 2 of Article 1.

Thank you, Sam Huntington.

I received my civics instruction while doing time in the public system, so am trying my best to get re-oriented :)

Craig and Heather said...

...and His consent is likely to wane the more we slouch towards Gomorrah....

More likely, He'll hand us over completely to what we (as a nation) have demanded we be given. This appears to be His pattern.

Actions have consequences, after all.

H

beamish said...

At the macro-level Pickett was part of a militant wing of an organized insurrection in violation of the Constitutional ban on states forming a confederation to subvert federal law.

lol! Where in the Constitution is THAT written?

Article I, section 10, the whole thing.

Did you forget Pickett's unlawful combatants from northern Virginia were in Pennsylvania, while the political branch of his insurrection was negotiating for treaties, arms, and alliances with foreign powers?

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

In other words, if we don't turn around willingly, we'll be allowed to destroy ourselves.

H

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

Titan,
Surely you don't want to demonstrate for the popcorn-munching resident leftist just how low class "the right" can be.

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

Why? Do you think I believe that we operate on a "higher" level than he does? The Left is ALL about revolution. Let him listen to how real revolutionaries speak.

No, I don't believe those on the right are more evolved or whatever.

I was thinking about the remark to Sam...Why go there? I personally don't equate the Constitution with "thus saith the Lord", but do respect it as the foundational law of the land. Is it wrong to want to uphold the law as it was intended?

H

Anonymous said...

Jim DeMint is a gem. Great advice to the freshmen Congressmen and Senators. He raised 5 million dollars to help our conservative candidates. The average donation amount was $45.00. Power to the people, and thanks to Senator DeMint!

And kudos to Michele Bachmann for her plan to take the newbies in the House, under her wing, and forging them into a conservative force in the House.

And thanks to Sarah Palin for her outstanding fundraising events, endorsements, and spirited embrace of the tea party movement.

Pris

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Did you forget Pickett's unlawful combatants from northern Virginia were in Pennsylvania, while the political branch of his insurrection was negotiating for treaties, arms, and alliances with foreign powers?

...before of AFTER the Yankee's ignored their lawful orders to vacate Fort Sumpter?

They were never given lawful orders to vacate Fort Sumter. Several United States military installations had been overrun in the "Confederacy" by the time Fort Sumter came under siege. After the massive defense spending cuts of the Pierce and Buchanan administrations, military fortifications were ill-supplied, and worse, many of the soldiers in them actually joined the insurrection against the lawful election of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln hadn't even been sworn in as President yet! The soldiers of Fort Sumter remained loyal to their oaths to uphold the Constitution and follow the orders of the President, who on duty at the time was Democrat James Buchanan.

Was it a wise decision? It served to start a civil war, didn't it?

beamish said...

Lincoln offered to surrender Fort Sumter if it secured Virginia's promise not to join the insurrection.

In response, the political wing of the insurrection ordered an attack on Fort Sumter.

The rest is history.

Craig and Heather said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave Miller said...

It should be noted for the Demint lovers that the real leadership of the GOP, namely McConnell and Boehner have both come out today and said there will be no permanent ban on earmarks.

The GOP has couldn't wait a week before telling the Tea Party crowd to stuff it.

I am amazed...

Joe said...

If Demint's letter does one thing, it reveals the problems our newly elected politicians will face: conforming to the established practices of corruption and pressure.

Mustang said...

There is a perception that earmarks are somehow illegal, or sleazy, or evidence of corruption. I think there is some basis for this perception, but I also think that the popular version goes too far in the opposite direction.

I find our expectation of political purity amusing. Our elected officials are hardly saints. The behavior one observes in the House of Representatives or US Senate is the exact same behavior we observe in state legislatures, county commissions, and city councils. This penchant for bringing jobs home to one’s state or congressional district is how business is done because making people back home happy is how one achieves reelection.

I suppose one can sneer at McConnell and Boehner for announcing no ban on ear marks, but it is also possible to note that they are (refreshingly) telling everyone the truth. The power to allocate earmarks is given to Congress by Article 1 of the Constitution. This means two things: first, Congress can designate earmarks, and second, voters can hold their member of Congress accountable for earmark behavior. McConnell and Boehner may not prohibit them … it would be unconstitutional to do so.

The 110th Congress provided that every member of congress shall sign an affidavit attesting that they will not benefit from any earmark. We have to realize, I think, that political behavior is always on the edge of corruption. If you think it is bad in the House, imagine what it is in the smoky backrooms back home, where the bubbas really run things. I suppose Mr. Miller displays partisan amazement. I don’t recall him (or many from either side of the aisle) screaming bloody murder when Jack Murtha spent $500 million for the airport named in his honor.

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

10th Amendment - 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.

Secession was NOT prohibited. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and locked up the Maryland legislature to prevent their voting to secede. How come Lincoln wasn't tried for war crimes at the Hague? Oh, that's right, "sic semper tyrannis!"


That returns me to my original question concerning the 10th Amendment. It seems to me the Civil War was as much about state vs federal sovereignty as it was anything else. And we still can't seem to agree on where that line is even as individual and state rights/responsibilities have been steadily siphoned away to federal jurisdiction over the years.

H

Dave Miller said...

Mustang, I am not displaying partisan amazement at all. It is genuine amazement that the establishment couldn't wait even a week before telling the more conservative wing of the party, indeed the part of the GOP who was actually energized in this election, to take a hike.

Normally, they might have waited until they at least were sworn in.

I happen to have no problems with earmarks prese, and yes I was equally outraged when Obama reneged o his promise to not support earmarks.

I believe if, as a congressman you believe something merits federal money in your district, or anywhere else for that matter, you should have the courage to step up, put it in a bill, and sell the rest of congress on it.

Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

"that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence."

Interesting thoughts from Madison.
It is true that throughout history, previously attempted state-enforced religious directives have been pretty disastrous.

On the other hand, a political leader's religious convictions most certainly inform his decisions and the laws of any society find relevance in someone's standard of "right and wrong".



True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.



The concept of "tolerance" for any and every belief system only stretches so far, doesn't it?

H

The Vegas Art Guy said...

The states never totally controlled their own militias once the Constitution was ratified. The POTUS is the CinC after all. There is going to be a fight in the GOP about the earmarks and we need to make sure the GOP understands our positions, if not the primaries are once again going to be a slaughterhouse as the conservative wing expels the id10ts in the GOP.

Z said...

Titan, I just mentioned your avatar on the other post asking what the heck is it but I just clicked into your profile and figured it was what I thought and, frankly, I don't want you here with it.
THere are lots of blogs where that flies, but it doesn't here. Thanks.


Sadly, I'd just written a bunch of responses when I saw Anon's comment and decided to check Titan out more thoroughly so I lost them all.

Please just know I respect the brains around here a LOT and have learned an awful lot from your discussions, thanks everybody. Whew! I'm impressed.

Z said...

Heather, Do you believe that our constitution embodies God’s grant of human liberty?
Do you think God has had his hand on our country?

beamish said...

Secession was NOT prohibited.

Sure it was. What exactly is the purpose of Constitutionally enumerating the powers of Congress and the Presidency during a time of rebellion, insurrection, and war if those powers are not applicable to "Confederate" slave state terrorism?

The Founders sought to create a more perfect Union, not a dissolvable compact of convenience. So too is there no Constitutional way to expel a state from the Union either. That's too bad. Imagine if enough states decided to kick useless, socialist leecher states like Massachussetts, most of New England, Michigan, or California (sorry Z) out of the United States for having nothing but a negative impact on the federal treasury?

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and locked up the Maryland legislature to prevent their voting to secede.

As was his right and power to do so during the illegal "Confederate" insurrection.

Craig and Heather said...

Hi Z

Heather, Do you believe that our constitution embodies God’s grant of human liberty?

I believe that Biblical principles played a part in the shaping of our Constitution. And I have found scriptural support for the reality of spiritual liberty regardless of circumstances.


I believe the physical realm will often reflect spiritual reality (ie our spiritual freedom mirrored in the American Constitutional right to liberty), but it also seems that when people do not properly appreciate and care for our God-given privileges, we risk having them taken from us.
Considering the current threat to our freedoms, I have been wondering whether we, as a society, have abused or ignored our privileged status to the point of loss.
It's a perspective I can't quite shake off, and I really try to not project my own weird thoughts onto the beliefs of others...


Do you think God has had his hand on our country?

I absolutely believe in God's sovereign direction of our country's affairs regardless of whether we have had "good" leadership. Knowing that I ultimately have to answer to Him is the reason I take so seriously the need to try to understand what our law actually says and settle in my own mind what role I play as an American citizen.

H

Craig and Heather said...

I also should probably admit that living in the middle of pacifistic Mennonite-land plays heavily into my religious/political frustration. While I may seem ridiculously unpatriotic in some ways, I'm a lot more culturally aware than many in my little corner of the world.



H

Craig and Heather said...

The Founders sought to create a more perfect Union, not a dissolvable compact of convenience. So too is there no Constitutional way to expel a state from the Union either.

I'm getting really confused and am still trying to figure out how the balance of power is properly distributed between federal and state/individual rule under the 10th Amendment.

Are states that currently oppose heavy-handed federal control doing so without Constitutional backing?

H

The Vegas Art Guy said...

Heather, It works like this. If a power is not specifically given to the federal government they can't do jack spit about it, it becomes the domain of the states and city governments. Unfortunately this has been bastardized to the point where it's almost ignored in DC.

Craig and Heather said...

Thanks Vegas Art Guy.
That's kind of what I thought, but I get lost in conversational details and start to wonder if I actually missed something.

I'm seriously hoping to be able to pass on to my children a better understanding of what our govt ought to be than what I received.

H

beamish said...

Are states that currently oppose heavy-handed federal control doing so without Constitutional backing?

Not necessarily. But, for example, if states didn't raise their legal drinking age to 21, they would have been denied federal money for highway maintenance.

The Supreme Court ruled, in South Dakota v. Dole, that the power of Congress to withhold federal funds in pursuit of national policies, such as the drinking age, was Constitutional.

Anonymous said...

Titan's contributions have been interesting and thought provoking. What his motives may or may not be in posting them I can't pretend to know, but it's always a pleasure to see evidence that actual THOUGHT is taking place.

It's very rare in this world of vehemently held prejudices and knee jerk reactions.

Quoting Madison or openly questioning Lincoln 's motives and character -- something that should have been don a long time ago -- should hardly be considered offensive.

Prudishness is the refuge of small, timid minds.

Taking offense at the behavior of others that in no way materially affects one's existence is more tiresome than the offense itself in most instances, unless the offense be violent and wantonly destructive of property.

Either we have freedom of thought and expression, or we have tyranny. There is no middle ground. Words and images should never be equated with actions.

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

Free Thinker, maybe you might like to check out Titan's blog.

Craig and Heather said...

Not necessarily. But, for example, if states didn't raise their legal drinking age to 21, they would have been denied federal money for highway maintenance...

Ah. Interesting how federal funding is the leverage point.

Ok. Thanks.

I've been working through the Bill of Rights with my children and noticed how the rights granted by several Amendments appear to be interconnected. As we have not yet looked at the 17th, and it appears to affect the balance of state/federal power, it left me considering the potential difference between what was originally intended and what actually exists on the books today.

Joe said...

The problem with earmarks is that most are attached to unrelated bills. That they are a way for states and/or districts to get their hands on "their deserved" federal dollars is a minus, not a plus.

I say, if a state/district wants federal dollars for a favorite project, introduce a separate bill, defend it, get it passed and voila: federal dollars.

That would take a great deal more time and effort. Good! We need less "success" from the government, not more.

Right now they deal with tens of issues at a time, in one bill. Not good. If bills moved more slowly, maybe a few lawmakers would have time to actually read them so we could know what's in them BEFORE they are passes.

beamish said...

Now try this one on:

The federal government subsidizes tobacco farming.

The various state governments demand a extra tax upon each sale of a tobacco product to artificially inflate the market price in their state in attempts to curb demand for it, and each state's tax rate is different.

Should Congress invoke its power over interstate commerce to force states to stop punitively taxing the sale of a federally subsidized product?

Craig and Heather said...

The federal government subsidizes tobacco farming.

Is there any form of commercial farming the govt doesn't subsidize?

Should Congress invoke its power over interstate commerce to force states to stop punitively taxing the sale of a federally subsidized product?

Huh. See, this is what gets me tied in knots over trying to understand which element of govt has top billing over any given area.

It this particular instance, it seems the duel between fed and state would be put to rest if the federal subsidies were eliminated. If the govt pays for it, the govt has purchased the "right" to dictate the rules.


So, is the excessive taxation at state levels a result of attempted behavior modification from a legislative level? That'd open a whole other can of worms with the govt-acting-as-conscience.

If nothing else, your illustration explains the appeal of the tax-free seller near the border, here.

H

beamish said...

Here's the next twist of the noodle - the federal government prohibits the advertisement of tobacco products on radio and television...

So, you've got a product the federal government subsidizes so it can be marketed, yet extremely limits advertising for, and then states tax the crap out of people who actually buy the product.

If there was sense to be made of it, someone would have by now.

Z said...

they criticize it, put warning labels all over it, and THEN subsidize it :-)

Craig and Heather said...

If there was sense to be made of it, someone would have by now.

Ack! You win.
That is insane and now my brain's twisted in a knot

Thank you for that. :P

beamish said...

they criticize it, put warning labels all over it, and THEN subsidize it :-)

And then, once you proven that you're been around the sun enough times to be legally responsible for your behavior so you can buy the tobacco product, you can't even get a native American religious exemption to partake of it in restricted areas.

Catherine Barry said...

Titan seems to be a mixed bag... some parts of his posts I would actually agree with from a historical perspective, but some of the rest is just creating arguments to be contrary. His blog tries to indicate he's a gay basher... but I think he's a bit obsessed myself.

Ducky, once again, you show you are an idiot.

...Rand Paul (R - The Planet Mongo) is already taking shots at him and back home he endorsed an ex-state cop who had to resign for covering up a molestation.

Now, would you like to produce a link or some factoid to support this crap??? You run your mouth and just sound like the stupid little troll you are. At least Titan has some factual tidbits in his posts. You are pathetic!

MK said...

Good advice, let's hope they heed it and their true masters.