Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/30/immigration_isnt_the_problem_105381.html

This is EXACTLY how I feel about this topic. I, too, favor greater enforcement of the border and harsher penalties for those found here illegally. And I, too, favor greater legal immigration. These two statements are inconsistent only to emotionally-driven simple-minded people who have no capacity for rational thought. One very good point Harsanyi makes that I’d like to highlight:

There are, on one noisy periphery, those who yell “Nazi” or “racist” at any sign of enforcement. In truth, many of these folks don’t believe any person can be here illegally; to them, the very existence of a border is xenophobic and an affront to human rights.

This is absolutely the case. These people hide behind “racial profiling” and other scare tactics. But what they feel is that unfettered immigration is a human right (perhaps this is true, perhaps not) and that those who break immigration laws are thus not lawbreakers (absolutely untrue). They do not respect the political process but think they are right and anything they do to resist the law is permissible.

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/30/barack_obama_americas_selective_salary_policeman_105372.html

A good article about Obama’s despicable attack against wealth creation.

Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/23/government-motors-repayment-fraud/

I was as surprised as anybody to hear GM CEO Ed Whitacre claim in a recent commercial that “we have repaid our government loans in full — with interest — five years ahead of the original schedule". As pointed out by a lead editorial in the Washington Times and by a Fox News report, a government watchdog has indicated that $4.7 billion of the $6.7 billion repaid came from another bailout account, and the FTC could become involved to investigate truth-in-advertising violations. And that’s not to mention that, even if the money flow had come directly from auto sales (which it didn’t), as the administration has been trying to say, the claim in the commercial leads the listener to believe that the company is free of all bailout debt (i.e. “repaid our government loans in full” seems to mean all government loans).

So you have a government-financed company lying on taxpayer-funded commercials that the taxpayer funding has been paid back. That’s rather creepily familiar: Democratic government employees used taxpayer funds in the stimulus package to lie to the taxpayers about how many jobs were being created or “saved” by the stimulus package itself. You are paying for your government to lie to you about whether it is actually working.

There have been a lot of empty promises in the age of Obama. And much that is Orwellian. But this is about as inimical to transparency and clean government as anything I’ve yet seen.

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/21/myths_about_capitalism_105250.html

Excellent article to pass on. Capitalism is nothing but freedom and voluntary exchange!

Link: http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2010/04/14/bunning_endorses_outsider_paul_in_us_senate_race

See attached article. Up with the libertarian Republicans!

Link: http://article.nationalreview.com/431155/the-preemptive-tax-revolt/rich-lowry

Good article on taxes by Rich Lowry of National Review.

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/14/how_bad_could_2010_really_get_for_democrats_105152.html

In the linked article, Sean Trende says that while it is certainly possible for Democrats to lose only a couple of dozen seats in the House in the upcoming Nov 2010 elections (if the economy improves and the Republicans “overreach"), it is also possible that they could lose upwards of ninety seats. Wow.

A couple of tasty nuggets from the article:

The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn’t be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.

Well, I would be. And so would most people with an eye on politics. His analysis showing parallels to perfect storm elections (bad economy, many freshmen in opposite-party districts, controversial agenda) of years long past (1938, 1894) when such things happened is respectable, though.

President Obama’s policy choices to date are wreaking havoc on the brand that Democrats cultivated carefully over the past twenty years. Bill Clinton worked long and hard to make it so that voters could say “fiscal conservative” and “Democrat” in the same sentence, but voters are finding it difficult to say that again.

This is true in spades. People don’t like seeing their tax dollars flushed down the toilet, whether through handouts, bailouts, corruption, or sloppiness. When Clinton was President, a Republican Congress reined in spending, and Democrats had to be tight-fisted. Middle-class and suburban voters had more money then, too. Economic scarcity and horizon doom were not part of the equation. Obama and Pelosi have squandered any illusion people had about Democrats being responsible with public funds. It will be a long time before they are let near the till again.

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/13/good_riddance_105145.html

I completely agree with Tom Sowell. It is not disrespectful to say John Paul Stevens was a terrible Supreme Court Justice. That is my opinion, and it holds more water than the numerous “opinions” Stevens authored as a justice. He never interpreted the law faithfully, but rather just tried to have his way. He was an “ends justifies the means” sort of public figure. Yeah, the kind we’re all pretty sick of right now. With him gone, the country will be better off no matter who they put in his place.

Out with him!

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/10/the_vat_is_a_terrible_idea_105114.html

First and foremost, I want to make something absolutely clear: I LOVE THE VAT. It is the best, most fair, most practical tax currently in widespread use. Unlike the income tax, it taxes consumption, instead of unfairly taxing savings and investment before they are consumed. Unlike the income tax, it does not give out efficiency distorting exemptions, deductions, or credits. It does not cost much to enforce. Unlike a sales tax, it does not suffer from a significant amount of tax evasion. And above all it is fair: it treats everyone and all activities equally. What’s not to like?

Mitchell even makes similar concessions in this “VAT is bad” article:

The VAT has its virtues: As a single-rate, consumption-based system, much like the flat tax or national sales tax, it would introduce far fewer economic distortions than today’s income tax – and a heckuva lot less paperwork.

But as he says, “if proponents wanted a VAT to replace the Internal Revenue code,” that would be super, “But that’s not what’s intended …” Congress wants to add the VAT to the existing scramble of federal grubby hands: the personal income tax, the corporate income tax, the payroll tax, the gasoline tax, excise taxes, user fees, tariffs, not to mention regulations that make just about everything we buy more expensive.

If we could have a revenue-neutral law that replaced any (or all) of these with a VAT, I’d be at the front of the line jaw-jawing on the bullhorn, waving the poster-board, and storming the steps of Congress. But alas, all the talk about the VAT in recent days is about finding more ways to lift money out of the wallets of American earners. It’s about more grubby hands.

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/07/what_am_i_105075.html

Not the best one-page exposition of libertarianism I’ve read, nor the most clear, but every expression of this line of thinking deserves as many readers as possible.

Link: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_bad_nukes_myth_FdlnLjZQ8ZQ8LHBrbJRNVM

I completely agree with this article. As Peters says, yesterday’s announcement of the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, that we will not use nuclear weapons as a response to chemical, biological, or cyber attacks is “an act of reckless vanity on the part of the administration.” President Obama puts millions of Americans at risk of attack so that he can look like a peacemaker with lofty ideals. His naive pacifism is completely misplaced in the world we live in. How irresponsible would it be for a police chief to announce that all his officers carry guns that fire blanks? In Happy Town, USA, the consequences would perhaps be minimal. But in a dangerous city like Detroit or Philadelphia (that’s right, I’m calling you out) it is a clear invitation to crime, both violent and nonviolent.

One unforeseen consequence not mentioned by Peters is that this gives our enemies incredible leverage in diplomacy. Before, we held the ultimate leverage because in a standoff we could force the greatest damage. Countries would therefore buckle to our suasion on even minor issues and bargaining points. Now we must buckle to theirs: they need not use WMDs, they only need to threaten to use them. What would our response be? Nothing. We are impotent.

Stupidity in the extreme.

Link: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/04/column-how-much-taxation-is-enough.html

Excellent article.

Although, Goldberg again falls back on the “taxes are bad for economic growth and are economically inefficient” argument. Of course they are, but conservatives need to pound the moral argument more. He takes a good step in this direction when he says, “But any amount of taxation can be unjust if it is being used for bad reasons, is applied discriminatorily or if it’s taken without representation.” The key word in that statement is “discriminatorily"–the progressive income tax is an offense to equality. Progressives and liberals like to talk as if they are friends of equality (ever see those silly yellow-and-blue equals sign bumper stickers?), but they are not. While most conservatives want a single rate for everyone (whether through a consumption tax or a flat income tax), liberals want to overtax one group (those with high incomes) and undertax others (those with low incomes). They want to pick winners and losers. They are the violators of equality, sticker or no sticker.

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aJkhXxGLizJU

I almost missed this article from Caroline Baum about our silly multicultural census form. What is really absurd is not so much that they have their noses sniffing around privacy issues, but that the only thing they seem to care about is stuff that shouldn’t matter: race, sex, hispanic origin, and age. (Well, maybe age should matter). Disgusting.

Another thing I noticed when filling out the form is the self-promoting slip they sent with it, urging everyone of the importance of the census to local communities because it determines levels of federal funding for schools, hospitals, and other social services. It nearly begged the respondent to fudge the numbers to get more tax dollars sent their way. Nowhere did it ask the respondent to tell the truth. I guess that honesty would be a “process” formality irrelevant to the end goals of policymakers, whatever they are.

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304252704575156031760261858.html

This is an EXCELLENT article by Dan Henninger of WSJ.

People have gotten wise to a simple fact. When Democrats and progressives applaud the moral righteousness of government programs, from global warming to health care, they pat themselves on the back for supposedly doing good things, but the actual “good” that’s being done is the labor of just about everyone else: the rich, big business, small business, and future taxpayers. And yet progressives sneer, deride, and vilify these groups at every turn.

Foolishly they take solace in polls that indicate they can still cobble a majority out of traditional Democratic constituents, program beneficiaries, and government workers. They ignore something very important. People who have no stake in these programs are forming opinions in response to them that are of an intensity well out of proportion to what would be expected, certainly higher than recipients. Henninger is right: it is not entirely about health care. It is a cumulative effect. People who are not beholden to government are fed up with paying the bills for those who are, and the entire host of programs which have been added to the bill in the past are the object of their rage. They have been giving inches their entire life, and now they want to take back the mile.

Even people who are beholden to government see the result as a loser. It reminds me of Harry Browne’s simple question: Would you be willing to give up your favorite government program to not have to pay income taxes for the rest of your life?