Cafe Hayek: With Such Standards, Everyone is Heroic

« Clinton and the Colonel | Main | The vanishing middle class» Russell Roberts

February 04, 2008

With Such Standards, Everyone is Heroic

Don Boudreaux

I sent this letter yesterday to the Washington Post:

Rick Perlstein suggests that it's petty and unjustified to criticize Sen. Hillary Clinton for earmarking $1M of taxpayers' funds to pay for a museum at Woodstock ("Getting Past the '60s? It's Not Going to Happen," February 3). His argument is that the amount of money involved is so relatively small - only "one-millionth of the federal budget."

The ethical standards to which we hold politicians are truly meager. Mr. Perlstein apparently cares neither about the constitutionality of such earmarks nor about whether or not they serve the public interest. Earmarks such as this one are okay, in his view, simply because the size of each one is so paltry in comparison with Uncle Sam's budget. I wonder if Mr. Perlstein or Sen. Clinton would excuse me if I refused to pay my taxes this year on grounds that my taxes are an infinitesimal portion of federal revenue.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e5502963cc8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference With Such Standards, Everyone is Heroic:

Comments

Nice zinger, Don; however, the problem with this is not that she's being criticized, but the level of criticism, which is all out of whack with the $1M price tag. It would be as if someone with a $500K/year income didn't pay his taxes, and someone with your income didn't pay taxes, and you got the lion's share of the outrage directed at you.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 4, 2008 4:44:24 PM

Yeah, but she wants to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! Isn't that relevant?

Posted by: gator80 | Feb 4, 2008 5:16:00 PM

Whether the scale of criticism is proportional or not bothers me not.

The faulty reasoning that "it's only a million dollars" is spoken like a true statist for whom other people's money is to be (quietly) confiscated and (quietly) used at will, and if anyone it to complain they are to be dismissed for griping about such a petty sum.

Certainly it is a petty sum in the scheme of the total federal budget (sadly), but the problem with this is that "a million here, a million there, pretty soon you're talking about serious money". It has to stop somewhere. This is as good a place as any.

I'm all in favor of targeting the three most massive portions of the federal budget (defense, welfare and social security) first. But I also see penny-ante stuff like this as "no-brainer" targets that we all ought to agree on...the government has NO business funding them. Go raise the money from all of those "anti-establishment rebels" from Woodstock that are now raking in their comfortable six figure salaries from the establishment they were so critical of 40 years ago.

Posted by: CRC | Feb 4, 2008 5:36:46 PM

Interesting letter. I'd be perfectly fine if they published it. Thing is, even conservatives--especially conservatives!--agree that Woodstock was one of the most significant cultural events of the second half of the 20th century. A good museum would be a reasonable contribution to American culture. Though I perfectly understand if a Hayek devotee believes the federal government shouldn't be funding culture, it's just as offensive as a Hayek museum.

I am a Hayek fan. (Then again, Hayek was a Keynes fan.)

Posted by: Rick Perlstein | Feb 4, 2008 5:54:29 PM

Rick, im not sure Hayek was a 'fan' of Keynes; he respected him as a person, but was a critic of Keyne's academic work. He criticized Keyne's 1930 treatise on money, and later referred to Keyne's economic influence as 'evil' in a speech in honor of Mises.

Posted by: Jacob | Feb 4, 2008 10:47:58 PM

"A good museum would be a reasonable contribution to American culture."

It must not be that good if the federal government has to fund it.

This hit on me when I saw a story about how my town was going ahead with some historical rejuvenation because they received federal matching funds. So, we weren't willing to pay for the project ourselves, but we were happy to when everyone else paid for it. In other words, the reason the feds were paying for it was precisely the fact that we didn't consider the project worth the cost. If the town had considered it worthy, the town would have simply done it, instead of making it contingent on federal funding. But, it was only the lack of actual value in the project that necessitated federal involvement.

I'd suggest there is a negative correlation between the value of a project and the amount of federal involvement.

Posted by: kebko | Feb 4, 2008 11:15:06 PM

kebko --

I think you may be taking too simplistic of a view toward your town's project. It's always easier for local politicians if the federal government is willing to fund their projects, regardless of whether the locality would be willing to pay for the project itself.

When I was a teenager, I was always happen when my parents paid for things, even when I could (and would) have paid for the same things if my parents had not.

Posted by: Chris | Feb 4, 2008 11:35:28 PM

It is sad that most "conservatives" were upset that the museum commemorated Woodstock and not at the idea of earmarking the taxpayers' money for pork-barrel projects.

Posted by: Billy | Feb 5, 2008 12:21:13 AM

...but the government is not our parent. Unless one is a Hillary follower.

Posted by: M. Hodak | Feb 5, 2008 12:23:53 AM

I love your analogies!

Posted by: Mark N. | Feb 5, 2008 1:01:13 AM

kebko,

If your town proposed a property tax deduction, and the federal government agreed to match that deduction, would you still complain that the town was accepting the federal money "precisely because" it was unwilling to fully fund the lower tax rate?

I don't see any reason why a city can't simultaneously *want* to pursue a project and accept matching federal money for that project. After all, the city still has to chip in - it's not as if it's being forced to do so. It would be a different case if the federal government paid for the *entire* project. Of course in that case, there would be even less for the local taxpayers to complain about.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 5, 2008 3:33:32 AM

"Interesting letter. I'd be perfectly fine if they published it. Thing is, even conservatives--especially conservatives!--agree that Woodstock was one of the most significant cultural events of the second half of the 20th century. A good museum would be a reasonable contribution to American culture. Though I perfectly understand if a Hayek devotee believes the federal government shouldn't be funding culture, it's just as offensive as a Hayek museum.
I am a Hayek fan. (Then again, Hayek was a Keynes fan.)
Posted by: Rick Perlstein | Feb 4, 2008 5:54:29 PM"

I am always sickened by what those of the socialist bent call logic and reason; and the way their expressions reveal their group think.

Rick Perlstein typifies that lack. He says, “Thing is, even conservatives – especially conservatives!—agree that Woodstock was one of the most significant cultural events of the second half of the 20th century.

My question to Mr. Perlstein is exactly when was I polled? Would Mr. Perlstein care to reveal the date of that poll of conservatives and the results that he claims is 100%? (You see Mr. Perlstein, you have to admit either you are guilty of hyperbole to the extreme or you are, as usual for a leftie, just talking out your ass to justify your desire to spend my money.)

I am quite conservative, no, I am extremely conservative and I see Woodstock as an event hyped to the extreme as a cultural event by those who were interested; but, there were at the time, and still are, vast numbers of people to whom Woodstock remains a remote event of no significance what-so-ever. Who are you, Mr. Perlstein, to tell them they are wrong much less to demand to use their money on your desire? The fact that the amount you wish to take is minute to each individual is not relative. Theft of a lot is stealing and theft of a little is stealing, there is no way to get around that.

The truth is, Mr. Perlstein, you may personally know some who call themselves conservative who think Woodstock was significant but those few do not translate into the generality of “conservatives” as a blanket statement.

“A good museum would be a reasonable contribution to American culture?” Why, Mr. Perlstein? In what way would it advance significant understanding of American culture? If knowledge about Woodstock is desired all anyone has to do is sit down at their computer keyboard and get all of the details and photos they could want. Isn’t that what a museum is designed to do, Mr. Perlstein? Why travel to New York to visit a building you want built with our money……oh, wait, yeah I guess it would be nice to visit my money to see how it was squandered.

Then the final socialist sleight-of-hand, “I am a Hayek fan (then again, Hayek was a Keynes fan).” That Hayek was friendly with Keynes and may have thought him a fine gentleman on a personal level, there is ample evidence that on the question of economics, as one of our posters above pointed out, Hayek thought Keynes ideas were so dramatically wrong as to be called “evil”. Mr. Perlstein, betcha didn’t expect to be called out on that one did you? It probably would have flown in the circles you move in, but not here.

That some who call themselves Republicans think of themselves as conservatives is just proof of what I have been saying for years, the average American has been so saturated with the socialist enculturation from birth to present thanks to our education and media that they have no clue as to what socialism really is or what conservatism really is and they wander twixt the two freely. Proof of that is the numbers that support taking public money to build that football stadium, or that Basketball arena. Yet they too will bitch like crazy to hear of your project, Mr. Perlstein. They will staunchly deny being socialist but will fight to get their hands in my pocket to support “their” idea.. What I just said is not a blanket condemnation of conservatives, just those that have never bothered to think…..oh okay, a majority.

Some people look back through history and say, “Oh look at all the magnificent works done by governments, pyramids, roads, and monuments to national and personal glory”; and, I look back through history and say, “Oh look at how governments took and squandered private money, think of what could have been done had all that wealth remained in the hands of the people that created it.” Would there have been roads, yes. Would there have been monuments yes. But, there would have been far more technical innovation had not governments interfered so much.

If you want to ask me personally for a donation, Mr. Perlstein, that’s well and good; but do not demand that money be taken from me by the thugs of government and given to you for your flight of fancy. The former would make you a good guy, the latter would make you just another thug.

Posted by: vidyohs | Feb 5, 2008 7:44:34 AM

Kebko,

"It must not be that good if the federal government has to fund it."

Precisely!

Posted by: Randy | Feb 5, 2008 8:09:13 AM

Vidyohs,

"The fact that the amount you wish to take is minute to each individual is not relative. Theft of a lot is stealing and theft of a little is stealing, there is no way to get around that."

Exactly. And an employee who skims a few dollars from the till gets fired. And even if the owner only suspects that there is skimming going on, the level of trust is greatly diminished.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 5, 2008 8:14:48 AM

There is just too much money going to Washington. We need drastic spending and tax cuts. The politicians are arrogant, mealy-mouthed, socialist scum. Socialists know no morality or ethics.

Posted by: jorod | Feb 5, 2008 9:59:59 AM

Yeah, yeah, but, if not; we know there could come a sovereign wealth fund and take over the idea and fund the Woodstock Museum and you all end up having to pay them for watching your own memories; and someone flag-waver will cry “Why did Hillary not help this to remain in American hands”.

And so what Hillary should do is to rally American support for this idea; but she knows when she goes out to do so that someone is going to answer her “Great idea…I will do it FOR YOU!”

And life goes on, and on, and on…

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Feb 5, 2008 10:53:48 AM

Nice zinger, Don; however, the problem with this is not that she's being criticized, but the level of criticism, which is all out of whack with the $1M price tag.

That only strengthens Don's analogy; if he refused to pay his taxes, he'd be sent to prison.

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | Feb 5, 2008 12:12:11 PM

The ethical standards to which we hold politicians are truly meager.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

I agree. $500,000,000,000 on a war for profit. I'll take the 1 million for a Woodstock monument any day. I'm all for holding the politicians to a higher level of scrutiny. But how to do it when people with money control and protect the politicians.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 5, 2008 12:58:04 PM

Posted by: CRC

If you don't like government spending then you're certainly better off voting democratic. The 9 trillion dollar debt is almost all from Bush 1 & 2 and Reagan.

Reagan/Bush debt.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 5, 2008 1:02:43 PM

The best way to see what the difference in the 2 parties leadership is to atually look at what they DO not what they say.

From Think Progress

Bush said: “The people’s trust in their Government is undermined by congressional earmarks — special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate.”

FACT — BUSH HAS ENGAGED IN HIS OWN EARMARKING: In 2007, Bush stuffed approximately 580 earmarks worth $15.6 billion into his appropriation request for military construction and veterans affairs. Bush’s earmarks included $24 million for the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program and “$8.9 million for the Points of Light foundation, a pet project started by his father, former President George H.W. Bush.” [Washington Examiner, 11/15/07]

FACT — BUSH HAS REPEATEDLY SIGNED PORK-LADEN BILLS INTO LAW: According to the Congressional Research Service, there were 997 earmarks in the Fiscal 2000 defense appropriation bill. By the Fiscal 2005 law that Bush signed into law, there were 2506 earmarks, “more than two and half times the number contained the Fiscal 2000 bill.” In the bill funding the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, the number of earmarks grew from 291 in 2000 to 3,014 in 2005. [Lilly, 1/28/08]

FACT — EARMARKS EXPLODED UNDER THE GOP-CONTROLLED CONGRESS: When Republicans took over Congress in 1994, there were 4,000 earmarks on appropriations bills. At the end of the 109th Congress in 2005, there were 15,000. [Washington Post, 1/25/06; The Gavel, 1/28/08]

FACT — CURRENT 110TH CONGRESS HAS CUT EARMARKS IN HALF: “As promised when they took control of Congress,” in 2007, “House Democratic leaders cut in half from last year the value of earmarks in the bill, as they did in the other 11 agency spending measures.” [New York Times, 11/4/07]

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 5, 2008 1:18:20 PM

Muirgeo,

I'm no bigger a fan of republicans than I am of democrats, but the notion that only republicans get us into wars is just plain silly. Restore the money spent on WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and all the wars and military spending that was a direct consequence of our involvement in those wars, and then maybe we can discuss Iraq.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 5, 2008 1:33:46 PM

muirgeo,

I have just realised why you are so creepy, let me explain. Today I was walking through a local retailer when a man started ranting, quite suddenly and loudly. First, he complained about the price of some goods from another store, then about people who listened to him when he used his mobile phone, and finally he vented about the security cameras.

The strange thing was that he wasn't ranting at anyone in particular, and yet both his tone and words seemed to suggest that he should have been. When his rant was finished, he put on a large pair of earphones and began to mumble to himself, seemingly oblivious to anybody else or how they might have responded to his outburst.

I do not suppose that the man was the full ticket, and I am quite sure that he mumbled something about his medication. Anyway, I now realise that you and that man share something in common, something which is quite creepy for a bystander to observe. That is, you both have the strange disposition to argue with someone who is not in the room, and quite fiercely.

I hope that you do not take this the wrong way.

Regards,
Lee

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Feb 5, 2008 1:40:44 PM

Lee,

Would you like to rebut the facts as I've laid out? Or do you want to just focus on ad homs? If we're going to talk about holding politicians responsible why not look at the facts that suggest there IS a difference between the two parties and that it DOES matter who our leaders are.

I think I'm creepy to you because you don't really have a better reply and that's about it.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 5, 2008 1:47:00 PM

excellent rebuttal! I'll try and remember this one ;)

Posted by: Mathieu Bédard | Feb 5, 2008 1:56:21 PM

I like the below comment from her WSJ piece...

American families don't need new government bureaucracies; they need new tools to help them climb the economic ladder. This begins with health care, because rising costs erode workers' savings, make insurance less affordable, put businesses at a competitive disadvantage, and threaten our fiscal future.

And let's be clear: Unless we cover all Americans, we will never end the hidden tax that the uninsured pass on to the rest of us when they end up in the emergency room and we wind up footing the bill.
------------------------
The question that remains is this... Wouldn't this new government "insurance" plan just be another bloated and expensive bureaucracy? Why yes it would and I am sure Hillary believes she knows what the best care would be for me and my family. This woman is dangerous and threatens the prosperity of all Americans.

Posted by: Doug | Feb 5, 2008 1:58:38 PM

muirgeo,

If you write something with which I disagree, then I might argue with you. If I agree with you but feel like playing Devil's advocate, then I might argue with you. If you continue to argue with the person who is not in the room, then I will be creeped out by you.

I suspect that person you are arguing with is on another blog.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Feb 5, 2008 2:00:17 PM

muirgeo,

I'll take 500 billion for Iraq over 500 billion for welfare.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 5, 2008 3:00:51 PM

muirgeo:

from the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to ...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

You may not agree with the money being spent in Iraq, but there can be no argument that Congress has the right to spend that money. Now, if you can cite me chapter and verse of the constitution which empowers Congress to fund museums (or retirement or health care) we can begin a constructive argument. Oh, and please don't make a fool of yourself by citing the general welfare clause.

Posted by: Bruce | Feb 5, 2008 3:11:07 PM

Thought you folks would be interested in this. I asked Jamie Galbraith, John Kenneth's son, about Hayek and Keynes' mutual personal and intellectual affection, and he sends this: "In 1975 I was at the Salzburg Seminar, and on my father's recommendation called up Hayek and invited him to the Schloss Leopoldskron for lunch. He came, and entertained a group of about four or five of us (the UT economics professor James McKie, now deceased, was there) for an hour or so. I recall some stories about Keynes that were wholly respectful, and an expressed conviction that had Keynes lived, he would have been strongly anti-inflation in the postwar period (which I think is correct). Some conversation about mountain-climbing apart, that's about the extent of my aging memory. Jamie "

Posted by: Rick Perlstein | Feb 5, 2008 3:33:41 PM

muirgeo,

I'll take 500 billion for Iraq over 500 billion for welfare.

Posted by: FreedomLover

So you are for welfare for the super rich that involves killing hundreds of thousands of men women and children in another country while detsroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of our own citizens who stepped forward to serve OVER welfare for our own citizens to help them get educated, to get healthcare and food and to help them out of the cycle of poverty?

Are you proud of that? Is that why they call you "freedomlover"?

But you've got yourself a problem fella becasue there are lots of other Americans here who disagree with you and they call themselves freedom lovers too and come this Novemeber they're gonna take back what is rightfully theirs.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 5, 2008 4:37:29 PM

Oh, and please don't make a fool of yourself by citing the general welfare clause.

Posted by: Bruce

And that would be because only YOU know what is meant by "general welfare".

And could you please point me to Congress's declaration of war on Iraq?

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 5, 2008 4:42:30 PM

Hey Muirgeo,

I've seen even the most extreme numbers, and I am yet to see any numbers that indicate that:
"killing hundreds of thousands of men women and children in another country"
is in any way accurate.

Please link to where these hundreds of thousands were killed as well as what hundreds of thousands of our servicemen and women had their lives destroyed.

Posted by: EconStudent | Feb 5, 2008 5:30:07 PM

Econstudent,

1,000,000,000

Lives destroyed

U.S. Casualties By Calendar Year
Year US Deaths US Wounded
2003 486 2,413
2004 849 8,001
2005 846 5,949
2006 822 6,298
2007 901 6,075
2008 41 34
Total 3945 28770

the number with post trauumatic stress disorder is in the 10's of thousands. Each of these effected individuals has 5-10 close family people effected by their trauma thus..the hundreds of thousands of effected Americans.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 5, 2008 5:42:03 PM

Thanks for dragging Iraq into it. I haven't seen some of these talking points in hours.

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | Feb 5, 2008 6:17:50 PM

"(Then again, Hayek was a Keynes fan.)"

Posted by: Rick Perlstein

Ricky, Ricky, Ricky. Still the B- history student, I see.

Actually, it was Keynes who was a fan of Hayek:

"Surprisingly to some, John Maynard Keynes praised the book highly. On the book's cover, Keynes is quoted as saying: 'In my opinion it is a grand book.... Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it; and not only in agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement.'"

Friedrich August Hayek (1899-1992)

Stop making excuses for liars. Woodstock.....please.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Feb 5, 2008 6:32:17 PM

Thanks for dragging Iraq into it. I haven't seen some of these talking points in hours.

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek

A million dollars of waste SHOULD be debated in detail. 500,000 times that with lives and limbs included proportionatly more. If you think otherwise then apparently you think less of the issue of government waste then me.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 5, 2008 7:35:13 PM

Yeah muirgeo - Freedom of grumpy old Conservatives Lover!

Posted by: Gil | Feb 5, 2008 9:46:19 PM

Nobody mentioned Irag. In fact, Iraq is a major bone of contention among real Conservatives (Classical Liberals) and Libertarians like Ron Paul. Now we can argue Iraq but there are so many variables and unknowns that it will be pure conjecture. But if we must the argument should be framed in an economic manner: will we return over our cost of capital for when considering our expenditures on the Iraq operation? Within that we must attempt to quantify the intangible costs/benefits such as death, lost prestige, etc. on one hand and democracy, goodwill, gained prestige, etc. on the other hand. More generally the debate boils down to empire-building- is it worthwhile and at what cost. This is interesting on the subject: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/02/trade_and_hegem_1.html

I don't think we should have this debate but, if we need to, we should do it on a seperate thread as it's too complex to merely be a tangential argument.

Posted by: Hudson | Feb 6, 2008 10:15:19 AM

muirgeo,

I offer this quote:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

That quote comes from James Madison, a primary author of the constitution. I can only assume that you are not so arrogant as to claim a better understanding of that document than its author.

As for the declaration of war in Iraq, you will find that here:

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

Now, given this, don't you feel even a little ashamed of your ignorance?

Posted by: Bruce | Feb 6, 2008 10:54:03 AM

Bruce,

First, have you found the congressional declaration of war on Iraq as required by the Constitution....I know you must have it somewhere? What you linked to was NOT a declaration of war and indeed Bush subverted the intent for the use of force as written in that document.

Regarding Madison I do believe his point was of checks and balances and of congress being ultimately elected by the people.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 6, 2008 11:18:25 AM

"But you've got yourself a problem fella because there are lots of other Americans here who disagree with you and they call themselves freedom lovers too and come this November they're gonna take back what is rightfully theirs."
Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 5, 2008 4:37:29 PM

And you’ve all got (or we all got ourselves) a problem fellas because the US is not something that “come this November they're gonna take back what is rightfully theirs.”

The US has to belong to all of their citizens and perhaps even a tiny little bit to all other of us that share with the US citizens the fact that we are all indigenous to this little planet of ours.

You want to know what is the most dangerous weapon of mass destruction the US can face… Divisiveness! And there are a lot of “dogs of the war” making a splendid living peddling that weapon right in front of your own noses in your own houses.

And you can bet that as a Venezuelan I can tell you a lot about the destruction capabilities of divisiveness.

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Feb 7, 2008 10:10:56 AM

Muirgeo:

At the time, only the House was elected by the people, yet Madison speaks of Congress, not merely the House. Further, he invokes the direct Constitutional limits on Congressional power, rather than the indirect limits imposed by the system of checks and balances. I think your interpretation is born of the same kind of wishful thinking that leads to the "collective right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Madison's point was that the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution does not give Congress carte blanche to act in furtherance of what it believes is the general welfare, but is instead constrained by the specific provisions of the rest of the Constitution. I understand that such a reading of the Constitution is inconvenient for you who would hand over as much power as possible to the government, and thus your need for Madison to have had a different point. But he didn't.

Posted by: Billy | Feb 7, 2008 4:08:06 PM

It is a shame that neither my high school colleague Ricky Perlstein, nor muirgeo understand that it is not overt budgetary spending, or wars, or even bogus “cultural enhancement” expenditures get us into trouble, but rather the slippery slope of good intent coupled with misplaced institutional faith in government and related dysfunctional bodies that results in our current conundrum.

It is also a shame that they are easily misled.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Feb 7, 2008 7:14:40 PM

"The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived. "

James Madison

The people are the government Mesa so basically you show no understanding of the foundations of this country.

"Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. "
James Madison

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 7, 2008 11:06:38 PM

Mesa Econoguy,

"...the slippery slope of good intent coupled with misplaced institutional faith in government and related dysfunctional bodies..."

Well said.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 8, 2008 8:17:33 AM

Muirgeo,

"The people are the government..."

I ask you to take 30 seconds to consider that the above statement is simply not true.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 8, 2008 8:41:20 AM

...and 30 more seconds to consider that the Madison quote does not support the same statement.

(Sorry to piggyback, Randy)

Posted by: Billy | Feb 8, 2008 12:18:58 PM