Where are you in the federal government's pyramid? And, where are our children and grandchildren? Perhaps in the impossibly unsustainable level? Awesome!

What sent Ken Lay and his Enron minions to prison pales in comparison to the fraud regularly being perpetrated on the American people by our public servants. Yet instead of languishing in prison, the politicians and the preferred political interests who defraud the taxpayer in the name of “green jobs,” “affordable housing,” “social justice” and whatnot are handsomely rewarded.

President Obama likes to talk about crumbling bridges and a deteriorating infrastructure to justify more drunken, crack-smoking sailor spending. These days, the problem is that when the federal government gets involved with building bridges and other infrastructure, every project is forced through the intestines of a vast regulatory, money-skimming bureaucracy that puts the completion date somewhere in the far-distant future at a price tag umpteen times higher than if the locals got together and made it themselves.

Never mind Social Security, big government as a whole has become a vast Ponzi scheme. It has been set up to reward itself on the backs of the average citizen. It is sold to us as an “investment in the future,” but whose future, exactly? Certainly not mine nor my kids’ future, nor any future generations that will follow me. As Mark Steyn puts it, we’re looting the future to bribe the present.

And that’s essentially what these various so-called jobs, stimulus, health care, financial reform and other bills are all about: bribing specific constituencies to build political power. These constituencies are given preference over others, violating one of the bedrock ideas of America’s founding philosophy, equality before the law. Those who are being treated unequally – the average hard-working American who wants nor expects anything from the federal government – sees much of what they pay in taxes go into the black hole of political favoritism.

Black holes are formed from stars that collapse from their own weight, and that is the future of America as so vividly illustrated by solar-collapsing Solyandra. We said goodbye to half a billion of our taxpayer dollars and yet in today’s surreal, hyper-inflated atmosphere it seems a mere drop in the bucket when your average “stimulus” bill is reckoned in the trillions.

Just as we’ve become used to buying gas for more than $3 a gallon, the political class has desensitized us to the concept of trillions of dollars as a reasonable amount for the government to regularly outlay to those whom it favors. And you better believe that politicians and bureaucrats tend to favor themselves over any others, followed closely by those who help them ensure they stay in office so they can continue to favor themselves.

James Madison wrote that “power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” Unfortunately, we have strayed quite far from that philosophy, and have allowed a remote central government to operate almost completely unrestrained. One need only read the Constitution to see how far astray we’ve really gone.

What do Americans really want? Is it a nation of do-nothing slackers who expect that all of their problems will be solved by Sugar Daddy Uncle Sam? Or, is it a nation of independent innovators who welcome risk and the consequences of failure?

I’m afraid the answer is increasingly the former, and as Americans purposely shackle themselves to this dependent model they will find they have fewer real liberties as their political betters grow in wealth and power. The pyramid in the world’s largest pyramid scheme ever is being assembled as we speak, write and read. Where are you in the pyramid?

Let the Distancing Begin:

We Don’t Need No Stinking Empirical Facts: The brilliant Thomas Sowell has a great article up at Townhall entitled “Politics Versus Reality.” Sowell discusses the ever increasing problem or uninformed political discourse. How do you debate an opponent that wishes to remain willfully ignorant?

The same preference for talking points, and the same lack of interest in digging into the facts about realities, prevails today in discussions of whether to have a government-controlled medical system.

Since there are various countries, such as Canada and Britain, that have the kind of government-controlled medical systems that some Americans advocate, you might think that there would be great interest in the quality of medical care in these countries.

The data are readily available as to how many weeks or months people have to wait to see a primary care physician in such countries, and how many additional weeks or months they have to wait after they are referred to a surgeon or other specialist. There are data on how often their governments allow patients to receive the latest pharmaceutical drugs, as compared to how often Americans use such advanced medications.

But supporters of government medical care show virtually no interest in such realities. Their big talking point is that the life expectancy in the United States is not as long as in those other countries. End of discussion, as far as they are concerned.

When it comes to health care liberals are brain-dead. Their arguments are tired cliches. It’s almost impossible to break through the misinformation. Heath care as an entitlement is a religion and the libertarian position is the infidel.

Casey Anthony: I haven’t kept up with this story and I can’t even muster up a reason why anyone should care. Apparently a jury of her peers acquitted her. That’s all I need to know. Now FOX News can get back to covering something that’s actually important.

Government Intervention: The shocking conclusion from CNN is that the housing market won’t recover until it hits bottom. Of course it won’t reach bottom as long as the Federal Government keeps intervening in the market.

So you really want dufuses like this to run our health care system? Okay then...

He said he was originally from Indiana, but the state was “too conservative” for his tastes; Aspen was just right for him. The ride ended before I could ask him if he was Federalist in his politics, meaning a belief that locals rule the details while the federal government manages the “general political interests of the nation,” as Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 84, not “the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.”

The great thing about Federalism in theory and practice is that it allows someone who doesn’t like the political climate in his location to move somewhere else that better suits them. Do you want universal health care? Move to Massachusetts. Want to openly smoke pot? Move to Aspen. Don’t want the state to be on your ass all the time and regulate you into oblivion? Move to Texas or Indiana.

However, when those jokers in D.C. consolidate their power and begin to regulate every species of personal and private concerns, there is no escape. What does this have to do with Twitter Boy, Anthony Weiner? It’s just the latest example in a long line of bi-partisan examples that should warn all of us to limit, rather than enlarge, the scope and reach of the federal government.

But every time one votes for a Democrat they’re voting to give the federal government more power, concentrating that power in only a few hands, hands that are decidedly busy looking for ways to use their office to get into someone’s pants or pickpocket our money for nefarious purposes. I don’t really care what these people do in their spare time, but I sure as hell care when they do it on the taxpayer’s dime, a.k.a., my dime.

Then, they typically lie and obfuscate about their sins as they search for some way to retain the perks of their office, the aforementioned hands in the pants and pockets. And you really want them to run our health care system?

Let me be clear, to borrow a phrase… The only individual they care about is themselves, by and large. Where do you think you really stand in their world? Like most people the world over they have only their best interests at heart. This is human nature, the nature liberals deny in their unicorn-filled fantasy world.

America’s founders rejected this fantasy land, this brotherhood of man nonsense that they understood to be unattainable. They realized that allowing a small group of people the ability to regulate every species of personal and private concerns from a remote location would mark the end of the freedom they envisioned for the people of the United States.

Thus the Constitution is a document of limitations on federal power. It enumerates the necessary functions of a central government, while it gives states and localities the power to handle the details (please see the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights). If you think about it logically, it makes perfect sense. Our local and state leaders are far more accountable to the people than are a relative few thousands of miles away in Washington, D.C.

So why did the aptly named Weiner run for office in the first place? Was it a selfless dedication to protecting our liberties and freedoms through valiant public service? Or, was it to opiate the masses with hand-outs so that he could more easily pursue his primary passion… young ladies?

Yesterday Rep. John Campbell asked CBO director Douglas Elmendorf about this claim:

“It’s about jobs. In it’s life, it [the health bill] will create 4 million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately.” – Nancy Pelosi February 25, 2010

How does this claim hold up?

Campbell: You just mentioned that you believe—or that in your estimate, that the health-care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about one half of one percent. Given that, I believe you say, there’s 160 million full-time people working in 2021, that means that, in your estimation, the health-care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in 2021. Is that correct?

Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that household employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade.  Half a percent of that is 800,000.

Oops! ObamaCare is probably going to be repealed one way or the other. For President Obama he’s probably better off if the courts do the job before his reelection. There’s just no possible way to defend his chief legislative monstrosity. It was passed in the most deceitful way imaginable. The White House lied about the bill before and after and Americans are still upset by the process.

Shortly before the show I had some drinks with some friends at a bar called Kickstand. I was introduced to a fine English gentlemen and discussed politics for over an hour. The only reason I bring up my conversation with this self-described Tory is because we ventured on to the topic of Health Care.

After a year of debating this issue I’m still surprised at all the misinformation that’s passed on as fact. For example, there’s this idea that if the United States simply quit spending as much on the military we could pay for anything we want. I tried to point out that U.S. defense spending is only around 20% of the current budget, but my English friend could not be convinced.

Now some would point out (and they would be correct) that the military is actually spending more than what is budgeted. This is mainly due to the war, but the Department of Defense  isn’t the only part of the government with this problem. Social Security and health care programs add up to 40% of the budget. Both of these programs are forecast to eat up more and more of the budget in the future. Simply cutting the defense budget in half would not make those entitlements solvent in the long-run.

The truth of the matter is that defense spending has already been drastically reduced. Between 1950 and 1970 U.S. defense spending averaged around 40 to 50 percent of the budget. People love to complain that our military is overstretched. That’s correct, and it’s underfunded for the current work requirement. Attention liberals, Utopia cannot be funded through defense budget cuts. You’ve already raided that money to pay for the Great Society, which didn’t reduce poverty or increase the accesses to affordable health care.

Remember the Good Old Days:

“It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.

“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

Just wait until some of these people realize they’ll face fines if they don’t get insurance. I guess I shouldn’t be that surprised when nearly half of U.S. households don’t even pay Federal income tax. It seems that no one realizes that life saving medical breakthroughs come at a cost. When the financial incentive is removed there will be less research and less breakthroughs. Unfortunately John Smith wants his unicorn and he wants it now. Progress be damned, the idea of “fair share” is much more important than saving lives.

The pressure of this law will eventually force restaurants like Davanni’s to reduce consumer choice as a way of managing the overwhelming burden of maintaining their disclosures. Smaller chains that succeed in satisfying their customers and managing their business used to be rewarded with growth, but this law will put an artificial cap on expansion at 19 locations. That means that fewer people will find jobs, and even in existing stores, money that may have funded more jobs will instead go to reprinting the same menu boards over and over again. And all of this comes because political elites think that people are too stupid to know that a pizza is fattening or how to access information that already exists in much more efficient formats than menu boards.

Is this law really worth the cost? Are Americans really going to benefit from having calorie counts on their menu at Chili’s? As what point does the nanny state end? Have calorie counts discouraged people from buying unhealthy food at grocery stores? If people want healthier choices at restaurants the market will take care of it. However, progressives do not believe Americans can think for themselves. Daddy Federal Government has to take care of us, or we’ll hurt ourselves.

Or, to put it in simpler terms, they’re getting f***ed by the same people who pushed the “F*** the Vote” campaign and the Democrats.  Had the younger voters taken the time to learn something about risk pools, insurance, and the experience of Massachusetts and Maine using the same kind of mandates, they’d have told Rock the Vote to f*** off.  They still have the opportunity to deliver that message to Democrats in November.

Shouldn’t young educated Americans know this issue better than anyone? That’s a rhetorical question because I already know the answer. Of course they don’t understand. Outside of the business college at the local university the higher education centers don’t teach things like balanced budgets. Instead, we get such practical programs as Queer Studies, Gender Studies and other pseudo-academic pursuits in the name of pursuing faux social justice instead of excellence. A recently graduated student may well understand the principles of smart growth, thinking green, and the concept of “fair share.” However, none of those things matter if everyone is going bankrupt.

The Young and the Uninformed

That’s the most puzzling thing. In 2000 the United States was headed toward bankruptcy. In 2002 we added the Department of Homeland Security. Shortly after that we added the colossal prescription drug bill. In 2009, TARP added a trillion more to our national debt. In 2010, we’re going bankrupt at an even faster pace and now Obama has passed another entitlement we can’t afford. The question I have for young voters is this: do you want to live in a banana republic in your lifetime?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-XJ6iM7Ffc

Senator Harkin tries to deny he made such a statement, but the pork-loving politician from Iowa must have a short memory.  I touched on this briefly yesterday, but the mainstream press should be the ones calling out politicians for making idiotic statements like the ones Harkin made about health care. Harkin’s comparison did nothing to advance the debate.