frankhagan.com

Well, well, well … the Dems in Congress are already talking about cuts in defense spending, probably hoping to re-create the “peace dividend” that happened after the fall of the Soviet Union.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.
[From South Coast Today]

The good Sister Toldjah describes Rep. Barney Frank as “licking his chops”, a disturbing but illuminating image. What effect would a 25% cut in military spending have on total Federal spending? It just so happens that insightful Richard Fernandez at the The Belmont Club provides a handy chart today showing the growth of spending in three areas, Human Resources, Defense, and “all others”.

The size of federal spending has been growing inexorably, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Often Human Resources spending has grown faster under Republicans than it has with Democrats. The difference is in the atmospherics. The Republicans have increased the size of government while moaning with regret in the manner of the walruses eating the oysters in Alice in Wonderland. Liberals on the other hand, have rubbed their hands with glee at each expansion. But attitudes aside, both have increased it just the same.
[From The Belmont Club]

Fernandez’s analysis of the Claremont Institute Study is revealing. While the growth of the Federal bureaucracy now has over 60% of outlays for Human Resources, Defense spending has shrunk to about 20%.

There hasn’t been a mandate to reduce the size of government, by either party, since the election of Ronald Reagan. After this election, assuming John McCain loses in respectable Bob Dole style, limited government conservatives should reassert themselves. Its not enough to equivocate and say, as my ever-hopeful Republican friend said the other day at work, “Hey, at least our bastards are better than their bastards.”

Politics

Knowing that the Congress will be hesitant to enact a sweeping carbon tax, the Obama campaign has revealed an ingenious “end run” around the Constitution’s separation of powers:

Jason Grumet is currently executive director of an outfit called the National Commission on Energy Policy and one of Mr. Obama’s key policy aides. In an interview last week with Bloomberg, Mr. Grumet said that come January the Environmental Protection Agency “would initiate those rulemakings” that classify carbon as a dangerous pollutant under current clean air laws. That move would impose new regulation and taxes across the entire economy, something that is usually the purview of Congress. Mr. Grumet warned that “in the absence of Congressional action” 18 months after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, the EPA would move ahead with its own unilateral carbon crackdown anyway.

From the Wall Street Journal

Executive branch usurpation of the Legislative Branch’s prerogative is nothing new, but this one is a sweeping, expensive proposition that will impact every American. The fuel oil used by the northeast is particularly dirty, and the regulation and tax cost will fall disproportionately on those with low or fixed incomes. Expect news stories of people freezing to death because they have run out of fuel oil. The midwest sees most of its electricity generation from coal fired generating plants, and electricity costs could double.

Living in California, I know the kind of draconian measures that are taken by regulatory bodies. Our NOx regulations shut down the sale of charcoal briquettes and lighter fluid a few years back until a new formulation was finally found in a compromise, and certain yard equipment is now illegal. Oil based paints are nearly non-existent now. The article’s author is not out of line with his statement of the far-reaching impact such a ruling would have:

The EPA would monitor and regulate the carbon emissions of “lawn and garden equipment” as well as everything with an engine, like cars, planes and boats. Eco-bureaucrats envision thousands of other emissions limits on all types of energy. Coal-fired power and other fossil fuels would be ruled out of existence, while all other prices would rise as the huge economic costs of the new regime were passed down the energy chain to consumers.

Climate, Politics

After only seven months, the great state of Hawai’i has abandoned universal health care coverage for all the children. The reason is simple: liberals are ignorant of human nature.

“People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free,” said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. “I don’t believe that was the intent of the program.”

From the Associated Press

I remember a conversation with a recent college graduate (i.e., fresh liberal). He was shocked that a lazy malcontent at his very first place of employment was claiming a stress disability. It simply never occurred to this young liberal that people will cheat, and I expressed mild amusement that he was so surprised. “But disability is for the people who really need it; the state doesn’t even know this guy, and I can tell you, he isn’t ’stressed’, he’s just a lazy bum.” I reminded him that his disability tax was only 1.5% of his wages. He didn’t look comfortable.

Another conservative in the making.

Families in 2009 will make similar choices; with either McCain’s or Obama’s health care insurance plans, budgets will soar as people will choose to “get it for free” rather than pay for it at work. People are very creative when it comes to saving money, and because they pay taxes (or think they do), they will think nothing of manipulating the situation to get the free coverage. After all, its “taxpayer paid”, isn’t it?

Family, Politics