freedom from reality

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

FDR promoted freedom from want. As if such a goal could be achieved. Across the whole of human history, suffering has existed and its a safe bet will always exist. The line between dreamers who push the envelope and the madman's fantasy world is very hard to discern. The politics of meaning of the day during the Fascist Roosevelt years, has not been undone to this day. Its often said who doesnt deserve a good life - as though all freewill is removed from the people and replaced by sovereign policy makers. But unlucky stuff has to happen - how could it not based on simple probability. Material wants can only be obtained by self efficacy. If it is being provided by another source (other than family, friends, mutual self-interested business transactions) it is tainted with blood. Every child in america deserves a good upbringing but its not going to happen no matter how hard the village tries. There will always be some outlier - the receiver of misfortune - and the more powerful government is made to fight Murphy's law the more people will subcome to it. Be it education, healthcare, living wages the result is always the same ("I just want you to know how sorry we are that things got so [messed] up with us and Mr. Wallace. We got into this thing with the best intentions and I never... "). Legitimate government is only comprised to protect an individuals abstract rights, not to be a giant make a wish foundation for their wants.

what is mine can be yours

TAXES

The personal income tax code is largely immoral. Properly put the IRS as an entity is not immoral itself, being inert, but rather the majority of congress that passed the laws and the president who signed the laws. It is immoral to take income and redistribute it to politically embraced majorities. That is what happens in this Nation. The middle class majority has instituted a progressive income tax that taxes the minority rich too much. These taxes are then spent on all kinds of benefits to the middle class and the poor. This is stealing and it is wrong. (For all the anti-war fanatics - think if the actual costs of war were passed to all equally not just the rich) If one held a gun to the head of a wealthy person, took their watch and gave it to some hobo under a bridge, that would also be wrong. The difference is that in the first instance it is the law and in the second it is against the law. Yes some populist / progressive "reformers" properly amended the constitution for the 16th time a ways back. That only permits the Federal government to collect income taxes - it does not force it to. Virtue is having the power to do wrong, even a popular defense for doing wrong, yet showing the fortitude to resist earthly temptation (aka being politicaly popular / PC). Mike Huckabee may be a smooth talking, Bible thumping, gadfly from Hope, but goddamnit - he is right about eliminating unequal tax on income and going to taxing consumption!

maverick for whom

PRIMARIES

All right, All right - McCain is not ideal. He buys the global warming bonanza, incumbent campaign protection, thinks bloody non-state murderers deserve Geneva rights, and has voted against tax cuts. He is a Teddy Roosevelt progressive. OK. But on the defining issues of the day and into the early 21st century he is correct (global warming will hopefully fizzle away within the next decade or two). He is correct in fighting IslamoFascism (water-boarding aside) and correct on entitlement reform. Who is better qualified to deal with foes Iran and North Korea not to mention pseudo friends Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Ok, his gang of 14 participation was humbling to the GOP but also a Machiavellian move. He proved to be a soothsayer in early opposition to Rumsfield. He has called for a troop increase in Iraq from the getgo, so on foreign issues he will be solid. Domestically, presidents lasting impact is mostly budgetary and judicial. On budget he is a deficit hawk as opposed to an anti-tax stalwart. Both have their merits. On judicial there may be his one wild card - we need more of Clarence Thomas and less of Steven Breyer. But who among all those claiming they will not vote or worse, those claiming to vote Dem, will not be affected if the nominees are the Clintons? In the fall debates with Hilary waxing on about universal (coercion) coverage, and McCain's response - who will leave our Senator from Goldwater's seat alone in his defenses? Of course if its Barrack all bets are off.