Time to Downsize Federal Government

A video from the Cato Institute on downsizing government was brought to my attention by my fellow Red County Blogger Steve Dalton.

For liberals out there who have a hard time understanding our foundational and constitutional mandate of limited government in the United States, let me explain something.

For instance, this video focuses on the need to downsize (dare I say "eliminate"?) the Agriculture Department. I grew up on a farm, the son of a farmer who was the son of a farmer, going back generations. I married into a farming family, with my father-in-law as a rancher going back generations. I appreciate the importance of agriculture.

But agriculture does not need to be regulated at a Department level by the federal government. In fact, it should not be, under our constitution. Agriculture will function much better under a private economic environment...and will cost the taxpayers billions less. Market forces have always been and remain the best regulator of practices in the agriculture or any industry. The government needs to end this Soviet-style central farming model and get its paws out of agriculture.

The insanity of government-run agriculture doesn't just extend to bloated bureaucracy and inefficiency. Our system also fosters egregious inequalities.

The Cato Institute video mentions Riceland Foods, an organization that I mentioned in a Rapid City Journal column I did a couple of years ago on agricultural subsidies. Subsidies are typically there to help "the little guy;" you know, the one socialists are so enamored with (my dad and father-in-law are, incidentally, one of those "little guys). So why does the bulk of the largess from the farm bill go to huge farming operations that don't really need help?

From my 2006 RCJ column:

For example, a 2004 Heritage Foundation report says Riceland Foods, an Arkansas co-op, received $110 million in farm subsidies. Yet Hoovers' business information says in 2006 to date, Riceland made $937 million in sales. We need the farm bill for this?

It's time for this to end. Time to send all our rowdy friends home, pick up the beer bottles, clean up the puke and declare that this party is over.

America has flirted and cavorted with socialism for some 60 years or more. The signs of its failure are legion here at home and internationally.

It's time to return to the free market system that made America great.

Santa Looking for a Bailout

With so many lined up with their hand out at the federal trough for bailouts, what's next? Will Santa come asking you and me (i.e. the money behind the federal trough) for a bailout?


From our friends at Americans for Limited Government.

Lack of Gratitude for Forced-Charity

There was an interesting letter on the Letters to the Editor page of the Rapid City Journal today.

It regards the proper use of taxpayer-funded charity, and it contains enlightening information about one of the many reasons why government-mandated, taxpayer-funded charity is inadvisable (if you're discerning enough to catch it).

Food stamp usage recipients’ business, not everyone elses

Monday, Dec. 1, in regards to the Two Cents section, somebody wrote in regarding the food stamp program. The last part state “…however we also need to put more control on the food stamp program, I don’t think the program was set up to buy candy, soda and similar products.

I’ve read similar letters and if I can be honest, they make me very angry.

I’m a disabled old lady that is raising my grandchildren. I love them very much and when they cry and beg for a candy bar or a can of pop every now and then I’m going to let them have it. They deserve a treat just like any other child. Most of these mothers you are griping about are treating their children. Of course, we have to sacrifice something, but that’s out business, not yours.

Don’t you have enough to do than to be picking on poor people?

You sound too much like Marie Antoinette who allegedly said, “Let them eat cake.” Well we are trying to do just that. If you’d leave us alone.

Stick your big nose into something that really needs sniffing.

IRENE CLIFFORD
Rapid City

I have just one question for Ms. Clifford with regard to whose business it is if food stamp money is being spent wastefully.

Who's paying the bill: her or the taxpayers?

The Stench of Big Government Out-Smells Tourist Stench

Senator Harry Reid may not like the stench of tourists in the U.S. Capitol, but the smell of unwashed taxpayers is nothing to the putrid odor of bloated, decaying government.

You know what they say about people living in glass houses, right? I think the same goes for people who live in houses of corruption and decay.


From our friends at Americans for Limited Government.

Ho Ho Ho, Merry Christmas, Slackers!

Industry slackers are praying the government-god or Santa Claus will bring big taxpayer-funded gifts this Christmas season.

Exercising fiscal irresponsibility and then expecting the taxpayers to rescue you isn't capitalism, guys.


From our friends at Americans for Limited Government.

Senator Reid's Delicate Nostrils Saved by Visitor Center

The Most High Senator Harry Reid of the United States Senate says he welcomes the new $621 million U.S. Capitol Visitor's Center.

Apparently his sensitive olfactory organ has been suffering from being in close proximity to stench of the unwashed masses who come to defile the holy sanctum of the Capitol.

It seems the unwashed masses are good enough to pay for a massively-over-budget and years-late facility at the U.S. Capitol (one that also seems to ignore the faith heritage of our country...but then, can't have competing religions at the temple where the government-god is worshipped, can we?) but not good enough to set foot in the Holy of Holies. Only high priests of the government-god such as Reid should be able to do that.

Thank the government-god that we now have an appropriate distance between the unclean and the truly worthy. No longer will our capitol building be defiled by filthy commoners.

"My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true."

Reid
by burghnews

Blowing the Horn of Plenty

From our friends at Americans for Limited Government.

Cold Day in Hell May Affect SD Highway Funding

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: For months now South Dakotans have been hearing about the shortage of funds in the state's highway fund program. This, with the reduction of fuel being used on our highways, has also caused a cut in the amount of gasoline tax the state gets from motorists. This, of course, adds to the problem of how South Dakota is going to be able to not only maintain its highways and bridges, but to repair and/or replace our highways and bridges.

The lack of funding also poses several interesting questions.

A FORMER West River long time legislator was guaranteed re-elections when he profoundly uttered his often used expression, "It will be a cold day in hell before I'll ever vote for a raise in taxes."

This and similar expressions have almost always been favorites to South Dakota voters. We have been generally recognized nationally for our conservative views, particularly when it comes to raising taxes. However, considering the shortfall on highway funding, South Dakota now finds both voters as well as our legislators may have to rethink "cold day in hell".

A special legislative committee has been meeting off and on for the past several weeks trying to assemble the pieces of the puzzle that will help solve highway funding. Ideas generated from these meetings have run the gamut from the proposal to have yet another study committee, to increasing South Dakota's 22-cent gas tax by several percentage points.

HERE ARE SOME pieces of the puzzle that make an interesting picture. First of all, one piece of the picture puzzle is the fact that $72.3 million will be needed to maintain our roads as they are. Another $17 million is needed for bridge preservation. Yet another $25 million is the cost of the wish list by the Department of Transportation which needs to be done, but which are not scheduled due to the lack of funding.

As I mentioned, the possible solutions are extremely varied. For example, the legislature would have to raise its current 22-cent tax on gasoline and 20 cents per gallon on ethanol by 13 cents a gallon to come close to raising the $72.3 million needed for highway preservation. This appears to be excessive, but if a portion of this proposal would be combined with other tax and fee raises, the $72.3 million may be able to be reached.

ANOTHER SUGGESTION to raise that $72.3 million would be to add the four percent sales tax to the purchase of fuel. It would appear that these two options are the best solutions because using motor fuels would make everyone on the highway share the load. I might add that when I say everyone, this includes those thousands of people, maybe millions, who use South Dakota as a drive-through state.

At the same time, raising license plate fees a few dollars should not cripple any of us too severely. Another option that has been discussed would be to remove the fees on license plates for older vehicles. However, the older cars are generally owned by those who cannot afford newer cars.

This would put a major stumbling block on this proposal.

THERE YOU HAVE IT, a picture puzzle that may not have the l,000 piece puzzle that we used to put together as kids. But assembling the few pieces we do have makes the job as difficult.

How the legislature will resolve the highway funding problem will be dealt with in just a few short weeks. Other options would be to do nothing at all or throw it to another study committee which are both bad ideas.

Consequently, if anything is going to be done, our legislature will have to realize there may be a "cold day in hell" as well as in Pierre awaiting them....

Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.

Ghilarducci 401k Taxing Scheme Exposed

A couple of weeks ago it came to light that House Democrats were looking at taking away the tax breaks for 401(k) retirement accounts and implementing another socialist ponzi scheme--via a new 5% tax hike.

Democrats are capitalizing on the recent economic downturn (which was of their own making) for this new opportunity to push more big-government solutions on the American people...and to tax you for the privilege.

Incidentally, these are the same Democrats who, while oblivious to the fact that their first socialist retirement system Social Security is fundamentally broken and about to fall, are oh-so-concerned about the 401k private retirement system which has helped expose their Social Security ponzi scheme for the sick horse it is.

Enter economist Teresa Ghilarducci from the New School for Social Research in New York. She rolled out the proposal socialist Democrats are salivating over at an October 7 hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee run by Rep. George Miller (D-CA).

CNBC describes the plan:

Under her plan, workers would receive a annual $600 tax refund if they set aside 5 percent of their pay into a retirement account run by the Social Security Administration, which would then invest globally in risky assets to seek high returns.

From that pool, workers would be paid a guaranteed 3 percent a year indexed to inflation.

The change would encourage workers not to hang on to jobs longer than planned.

Because their returns would be guaranteed, workers would be able to retire on schedule, she said.

"We need people to retire when the economy tanks in order to keep up aggregate demand and to reduce pressure on the labor market. And the only way to do that is to unhook the finance markets from retirement income," she told Reuters.

Wow! A whole $600 tax refund? Can you spend that any way you'd like...or does it require government approval first?

Ghilarducci's plan was first published on Nov. 20, 2007 in the Economic Policy Institute's Agenda for Shared Prosperity. You can read the 20-page paper here.

The Carolina Journal Online also has a report on the plan.

In her plan, Ghilarducci sounds like a good Marxist who would fit right in with Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" mentality. She uses good prol-friendly language about how private retirement accounts are "skewed to the wealthy" and “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities.”

Oh my! That one person might actually have more than another! Such a terrifying thought in the socialist Utopia Ghilarducci and fellow Marxists have in mind for the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The "mainstream" media is of course pooh-poohing this news, with some using creative wording to portray that the talk of this isn't really happening, and others simply patting Americans on the head and assuring them the eventuality just won't be realized.

Does anyone seriously think that the Democrat Party, with control of both Congress and the White House, won't move forward aggressively on such an idea? This is, after all, the party that gave America the bloated, inefficient and terminal Social Security system. This is, after all, the party that is on record time after time after time disparaging the private sector which brought our nation unparalleled prosperity while promoting the idea that government bureaucrats are smarter than you and the free market.

Does anyone seriously think big-government politicians wouldn't also rob these new retirement funds (which comes from the 5% they taxed from you) and spend this money on every new socialist program with which they become enamoured? As they have already done with Social Security?

This is simply another socialist scheme to separate you from more of your own money and make you more dependent on the government for everything.

This is the wrong direction for America.

America was founded as a free nation with a free economy. The United States was founded on the idea of personal responsibility and limited government--elements essential to keep a free people free.

The U.S. Constitution limits the scope and authority of our government to the enumerated powers found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Note that you do not find authority there for government charity or government-administered retirement systems.

If we want to remain a free people, we must turn this ship around, folks. We have sailed too far in the direction of socialist mediocrity and bondage. We must turn back before we dock with a permanent prison of our own making.

Obama's Tax 'Plan' – You Do the Math…then Decide

BY PAUL E. SCATES

IRS data from 2006 (last year figures available) show the following:

The top 1% of earners paid 40% of all income taxes. The Top 5% paid a little over 60%, and the Top 10% paid over 70% of all income taxes paid. The bottom 50% paid less than 3% of all income taxes for that year, and over 40% of Americans paid no income taxes at all.

Now, if Obama’s economic plan will “cut taxes for 95% of Americans,” that must mean 95% of the 60% of Americans who actually pay income taxes. Let’s see: that means the top 57% of taxpayers (out of the 60% who pay all the income taxes already) will get a tax increase. Since over 40% of Americans pay no income tax at all, doesn’t that mean that practically every American who now pays taxes will get a tax increase? (Yes; 95% of taxpayers will pay more.)

Also, a tax “cut” for the 40% who pay no income tax means they will have to get a check from the government. And where will the money come from to pay those checks? You guessed it…from that 60% of Americans who pay ALL the income taxes. Let me see if I’ve got this straight: Almost every American who currently pays income taxes will get a tax increase…in order to pay for the “tax cut” for the 40% who pay no taxes at all. And he calls this “fair and just”?

That’s not “spreading the wealth,” it’s “stealing the wealth,” and it’s pure socialism. Any candidate who tells such a blatant lie reveals his contempt and disdain for the people he seeks to represent; such bold arrogance bodes ill for our future if that candidate is elected. Once again a liberal Democrat has to try and sound like something else in order to get your vote. But if he’ll lie like this now, and show such contempt for “we, the people”…what is Obama capable of if he gets elected to the most powerful office on earth?

Formerly a liberal and an atheist, Paul E. Scates served as a Marine in Vietnam and is a lifelong student of American history, politics and culture. A former contributor to national website TooGoodReports.com, he writes his staunchly independent Conservative and informed Christian commentary for his fellow ordinary, working Americans, the “we, the people” who are ultimately responsible for preserving our Constitutional liberties.

The Marxist Shuffle: Obama's Incredible Shrinking Tax Cut

Don'tcha just love the Marxist Shuffle? Isn't it a cool dance? As the thresh hold of "evil rich" drops, your taxes go up.

How low do you think the thresh hold will be if Obama gets to be president? $75,000? $50,000? $30,000?

Oh heck, let's just raise everyone's taxes so everyone can be patriotic, spread the wealth, be unselfish, and help build a glorious People's Republic of Obama.

Obama's vision is far from that of Founding Fathers

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

Pushing back on accusations from John McCain that he's a socialist, Barack Obama said, "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret Communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

Once again, we get the Obama oratorical fog. The problem isn't what he does with his toys or sandwich, it's what he sees as legitimate to do, under authority of government, with mine and yours.

"(McCain) has called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class."

Obama's plans go much further than using the tax code to redistribute wealth.

He's got about $700 billion in so-called refundable tax credits in mind, direct money transfers to individuals, to finance his social engineering ideas in education, child care, and environmental policy.

We're talking about a trillion dollars in new government spending to pay for his government-directed schemes to deal with just about every aspect of our lives.

Don Boudreaux, chairman of George Mason University's economics department, says it's more accurate to call Obamanomics "Socialism-lite", rather than outright Socialism, because we're not talking about overt government ownership of our manufacturing and financial entities.

But the line of distinction is fine, and the slope to overt and blatant socialism, as Boudreaux points out, is pretty slippery.

The real question is "So what?" Okay, so our country becomes more socialized and, by definition, less free. What difference does it make? After all, voters will have transmitted power to Obama in open and free elections. Isn't that what it's all about?

Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be."

Obama will have succeeded in selling a vision of America that has little to do with the vision of its founding because so many Americans are now detached from and uninformed by the documents that defined the country -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bible.

If we randomly surveyed voters and asked, "How is the role of government defined in the Declaration of Independence?" how many could answer the question?

How many could answer that the Declaration talks about our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and, "That to secure these rights governments are instituted among Men..."?

Government's job, according to the founders, is to protect individual liberty and guard against intrusions on our life and property -- the very wholesale intrusions that Barack Obama will begin in earnest once he is empowered by American voters.

There is no freedom without law and courts. And what is law for Obama?

He'll appoint judges who have "the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

The Bible tells us, regarding courts and justice, "Do not glorify a destitute person in his grievance."

Our biblical tradition, which is clear that we should love our neighbor and give charity, is also clear that courtrooms are the place to objectively apply law and not for politics.

History is filled with the dismal lessons of nations where law was turned into molding clay and citizens who abdicated personal responsibility for their lives to messianic sounding demagogues. But when we stop reading, thinking, and taking seriously the eternal truths of tradition, the only thing left is to re-learn through experience what history has already taught.

Apparently this is where much of America stands today.

And the rest?

Recall the words of Samuel Adams. "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate and tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

Obama the Thief and Envy-Monger Says Property Rights are Selfishness

Like a good Soviet, er, Marxist, er, socialist, er, Democrat, Barack Obama is trying to put a positive spin on his Marxist plans to spread your wealth around to those who haven't earned it.

From ABC News:

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

I'd like to know when Barack Obama made a virtue out of envy and theft.

You see, when you take someones money from them without their consent, that's theft. It doesn't matter if you give it to someone else; it's still theft.

Want to try it? Go into your neighbor's house without asking, take his TV set or grab his wallet and go give it to another neighbor. See if he's okay with that. In fact, see if the police are okay with it.

It's called legal plunder, folks.

Besides, Americans are the most giving people in the world--and conservative Americans are the most giving of all Americans.

The Index of Global Philanthropy finds that in 2006, private philanthropy accounted for $11 billion more than the U.S. government gave in foreign charitable aid. Great Britain, the next most generous, gave less than 10 time less than the U.S.

Americans are at least as generous here at home, giving to everything from homeless centers to soup kitchens to pregnancy centers and so on. Well, that is, most Americans are generous.

Ironically, socialists like Barack Obama are typically the least generous.

ABC reported that the Obamas are charity cheapskates:

The Obamas' donations to all recipients totaled $2,350 in 2000, $1,470 in 2001, $1,050 in 2002, $3,400 in 2003, and $2,500 in 2004. They also paid federal taxes totaling $311,044 during the same period on their $1.2 million of income."

So is his running mate Joe Biden. The Hill reported

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate, has donated a total of $3,690 since 1998 despite his higher Senate salary, according to an analysis posted by National Review.

Conservatives, meanwhile, are consistently shown to be more charitable and less selfish.

Liberals are generous alright: generous with your money, seldom with their own.

Socialism and wealth redistribution didn't cut it for the Founders and their understanding that limited government was necessary to maintain freedom, property rights and a good work ethic:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

- We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

This socialist is just trying to cover his tracks since Joe the Plumber exposed him for the Marxist he is.

Joe the Plumber Punished for Blaspheming the Government-God

What happens when you blaspheme against the almighty government-god?

What happens when you show disrespect to the government-god's high priest the Obamessiah Barack Obama?

The prophet Big Brother comes down on you.

The Columbus Dispatch says Joe the Plumber received a very close and intrusive look from the government deity after he exposed the Obamessiah as the High Priest of the Government-God, and the Obamessiah's holy plan to "spread the wealth" among all his children.

It seems they not only looked into any connections Joe had with the child support system, but also

whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.

Jones-Kelley made the revelations in a letter to Ohio Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, who demanded answers on why state officials checked out Wurzelbacher.

I think it's pretty obvious why some government-worshippers in Ohio government did it: to discredit a blasphemer.

"See, he receives blessings from the Government-God, too! That makes it okay."

Or so they hoped to be able to claim.

If this is happening now, before the Obamessiah even gets a chance to occupy the Holy Headquarters of the Almighty Government-God, what will life be like if he does get elected?

What will life be like for blaspheming Americans who don't worship at the Holy Trough of Government Largess?

Make no mistake: there is a price to be paid.

But thanks, Joe the Plumber, for standing up to this false god.

Obama Tax Cut Cutoff Drops Like Marxist Currency Value

Looks like Barack Obama's tax cut thresh hold is dropping like a Marxist citizen's hopes of ever being free.

WorldNetDaily points out that the magic $250,000 figure recently touted by Obama to be worthy of a tax cut has dropped.

It hit $200,000, and is now reported to have dropped to $150,000.

This sounds a lot like Obama's excuses about his association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. First, Ayers was just "a guy in the neighborhood." Then Obama "didn't know" about Ayers' bombing of the U.S Capitol, the Pentagon and several other locations. Then he thought Ayers had been "rehabilitated."

I'd suggest he go pull my other leg now, but I ran out of legs a long time ago.

You Obama voters out there had better hope next week's election comes quick. By election day, that tax cut thresh hold could have dropped to $10,000 before you know it.

You, too, could wake up as one of the "evil rich" in Obama's Marxist wealth-spreading sights.

Palin: Joe the Plumber Did What the Media Couldn't

Maybe that would be more appropriate to say, "Joe the Plumber did what the media wouldn't."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize Barack Obama's (and most other Democrats) ideology as socialist.

Journalists in the media are more than educated enough to recognize progressive taxation as Marxist socialism. The reason they don't (except for this rare and commendable exception) is because they, like the Democrats, want socialism...but at the same time realize most Americans aren't going to fall for it if you call it what it is.

Thank the Lord for Joe the Plumber and his courage.

It's a wonderful thing when pure, unadulterated truth shines through the muddy waters created by the Left and their allies in the "mainstream" media.

"Somehow Joe accomplished what the rest of us have not been able to accomplish, even the media could not accomplish this, but Joe did. He got our opponent to finally state his intentions in plain language. Senator Obamas says that he wants to spread the wealth."

Measure 10 ban on tax-funded lobbying fully constitutional

GUEST COLUMN

By Stephen Wesolick

Voting "Yes" on Measure 10 will stop politicians from using our tax dollars for lobbying and political campaigns, prohibit campaign contributions by government contractors, and require posting government contract information on the Internet.

As a lawyer and drafter of Measure 10, I am obliged to set the record straight. Voters can be assured, knowing that such laws in place federally and in other states have been upheld as fully constitutional.

For example, the Hatch Act prohibits federal contractors from making campaign contributions. The Securities and Exchange Commission and a growing number of states have adopted the same restriction.

The SEC prohibits municipal bond underwriters from doing business in states where they've made political contributions within the previous two years, saving taxpayers an estimated $500 million the first year alone. A U.S. Court of Appeals upheld that law in Blount v. SEC, specifically finding that restrictions on "indirect" contributions by underwriters' family members are constitutional in cases where "(the government contractor) is directing their contributions."

Anti-"pay to play" laws, which stop politicians from kicking back government contracts to campaign donors, have been routinely approved by courts nationwide to advance the public's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption.

States with such laws already in place: Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, West Virginia, South Carolina, Hawaii, and Ohio -- plus Illinois, just last month. Like South Dakota, Alaska and Colorado will decide such laws on the ballot.

Other states have adopted industry-specific bans to stop trading of government contracts for campaign contributions. Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Virginia apply such laws to the gaming industry; Delaware and Montana, the insurance industry; Florida, the retail food and insurance industries; and Georgia, public utilities and "all regulated entities."

Measure 10 will empower average citizens to speak without being drowned out by tax-funded lobbyists and tax-financed government contractors.

Everyone knows the Constitution protects every American's free speech, and that no state law or ballot measure can change that. That is why the "No on 10" campaign's television ads are so deceitful. It helps to explain that all those television ads were financed entirely out of state. Liberal NEA union officials in Washington contributed $1.1 million to the "No" campaign, 85 percent of its entire budget.

The majority of that money was collected, by compulsion, from teachers in non-Right to Work states where they can legally be forced to financially contribute to NEA union officials’ political activity as a condition of employment. In layman’s terms, “pay up, or you’re fired.”

The broader off-the-books campaign against Measure 10 is financed with our tax dollars by city, county and school district officials, along with their tax-funded lobbying groups which -- like the NEA’s lobbyists -- also spend our tax dollars lobbying Congress and the legislature for things like gun control and higher taxes.

Compulsory NEA union dues and our own tax dollars are being combined to deceive voters and crush the citizen-led reforms by which Measure 10 would level the playing field for taxpayers.

Measure 10 will end "pay to play" contracts and stop politicians from "laundering" our tax dollars for lobbying and political campaigns. Please vote "Yes," knowing it will simply require state and local politicians to play by the same commonsense, constitutionally-tested ethics already required of our federal officials and in other states.

Rapid City attorney Stephen Wesolick is responsible for drafting Initiated Measure 10 and is legal counsel for South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government, the ballot campaign committee promoting a “yes” vote on the measure.

Analysis of McCain and Obama Tax Plans

A brief but good analysis of John McCain's tax plan and Barack Obama's tax plan.

If you're into economic growth, McCain's plan is obviously the way to go. If you're into greed and envy, and want to stick it to someone who has more than you, Obama's plan is obviously the way to go.

Rea Hederman, senior policy analyst and assistant director of Heritage's Center for Data Analysis, explains the differences between Barack Obama's and John McCain's tax plans.

Trick-or-Treating at Obama's House

Look who's Trick-or-Treating at Barack Obama's house. And look who paid for the candy.


From our friends at Americans for Limited Government.

House Democrats: Abolish 401k Tax Breaks, Create New Tax

What do Democrats do when they see a system or program that isn't working? They throw more money at it, or recreate the same system under another name, or both.

Social Security (or rather, Socialist Security) has been revealed as the glorified government-mandated ponzi scheme that it is, and the Democrats answer is to create another version of it.

Workforce Management says House Democrats are looking at another plan to tighten the goverment's grip on your life, your retirement, and take a bigger chunk of your paycheck.

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.

At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”

So the Dems want to take away the tax breaks for 401ks...and tax you yet another 5%???

And this idiotic program would be nothing more than a Social Security spinoff. It's just more of the same government-mandated socialist ineptitude.

The definition of "reform" in the Democrat playbook is ludicrous. Keep doing things that don't work. Come up with new ways to do the same things that don't work. Tax more. It'll all be fine.

We need to end that--now.