Quotes of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on April 24, 2009 by Allahpundit
“I think we need to think hard about these tea parties. You had people in the streets. You had thousands of people in the streets.”
***
“Finally, in desperation, my critics said that it is not actually the level of taxation today that they are protesting. It’s the implicit tax resulting from large federal deficits that really concerns them.
I might have been willing to buy this argument except for the fact that these same people justified a huge tax cut in 2001 on the grounds that large budget surpluses, which had arisen toward the end of Bill Clinton’s administration, were proof of over-taxation since the government was taking in more revenue than it needed to pay its bills.
Furthermore, the conservative line for the last eight years was that budget deficits don’t matter, as Vice President Dick Cheney famously remarked when Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill raised concerns about them at a cabinet meeting in 2002…
Still, all movements must start somewhere. If the April 15 tea parties are really about more than just electing Republicans and increasing Fox News ratings, I may join them next year. In the meantime, protestors need to do a better job of figuring out what they are protesting and devise a real plan for dealing with our nation’s fiscal problem. Otherwise, their efforts will amount to nothing more than hot air.”
***
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sorry…
not what I meant to write.
The gain of the cash minus the loss of the house equals zero.
Saltysam on April 25, 2009 at 12:31 AM
“Otherwise, their efforts will amount to nothing more than *hot air*.”
This blog seems to be finally getting some good media recognition!
KS Rex on April 25, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Good Question:
No challenge from Congress because short-sighted and intent on immediate political objectives.
No challenge from Supreme Court which could challenge sua sponte but failed to out of cowardice and fear of wave of popular sentiment – ironically the very thing it was established to defend against.
pomerpants on April 25, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Saltysam on April 25, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Why would you sell the house if you were gaining nothing? That is stupid. Why would anyone buy the house if it was not worth it, i.e, a worthy trade. The buyer departs with his money because the house is more valuable to him than the amount of money. You sold it because the money gave you more opportunity than the house.
If you gain nothing in trade, then there is no point in trade. What are you, a socialist?
Free Constitution on April 25, 2009 at 12:34 AM
No, they don’t sincerely care what we expect of them, but they want to keep their jobs. Didn’t we just learn today that Specter is currently trailing Toomey badly? That message shouldn’t be lost on his fellow Republicans.
Neither party an be trusted in power, but Republicans are so desperate to regain relevance that they may be just desperate enough to give the voters what they want.
(Personally, I prefer Congressional gridlock.)
obladioblada on April 25, 2009 at 12:35 AM
You guys are getting hung up on the value of the house versus the cash received for the house. From the standpoint of the concept of the income tax, it’s largely irrelevant.
What’s relevant is there was a transaction that resulted in the trade of the house for money. That’s the taxable event, not the creation of the house. The amount of money received in trade merely determines the tax base.
JohnTant on April 25, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Or am I missing something in your back and forth…? People sell things at cost or at a loss if they think they cannot get a profit from a sale, or the opportunity cost in waiting is higher than the gain in selling.
JohnTant on April 25, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Or because the Court’s too politicized and some chunk of the Supremes likes the way things are going.
obladioblada on April 25, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I understand that. It’s just that I think there’s something deeper he doesn’t understand. I’m pointing out to him that trade is mutually beneficial, that trading one thing for another results in a net gain.
You’re talking taxable transactions. I’m talking the purpose of trade.
Free Constitution on April 25, 2009 at 12:40 AM
I’ve read Hot Air irregularly for two years, and daily for three months. Excluding liberal trolls, as near as I can tell there is no consensus on anything in detail (strategies, how far, how fast), but there is general consensus here on:
Win the War on Terror
End Political Corruption
Reduce Government Spending
Reduce the National Debt
Lower Taxes
But, perhaps I am mistaken.
Loxodonta on April 25, 2009 at 12:40 AM
If the cost of materials is 10 dollars, but by the transformation of materials through the effort of labor the materials now yield 100 dollars, the income tax is concerned with the value of that labor as a profit.
You can call it income if you want.
I call it theft.
Saltysam on April 25, 2009 at 12:40 AM
That is a very good idea. Everyone grab their signs and show up at the festivities.
cjs1943 on April 25, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Yea, not just money, but opportunity cost, all that. There are gains in both sides of a trade whether you get money or not.
Free Constitution on April 25, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Thanks, Made me laugh.
Loxodonta on April 25, 2009 at 12:42 AM
You can call a dog’s tail a leg, but that doesn’t mean the dog has five legs.
You are also skipping a few key concepts. Go ahead and transform $10 worth of materials into $100 worth of goods. So what? That’s not taxable.
What is taxable is the transaction if/when you sell those goods.
You aren’t being taxed on the labor involved in creating the goods, because if you created them but did not sell them there would be no tax. QED.
JohnTant on April 25, 2009 at 12:43 AM
You know…earlier today I handloaded 200 rounds of .45 ACP. I took raw materials in the form of lead, brass, primers, and powder and created a good that currently sells for more than the sum total of the components.
No tax…because I’m not engaging in a taxable transaction as I did not sell what I made….
:)
JohnTant on April 25, 2009 at 12:46 AM
So, I build a house in the wood, as you say.
Then I sell it.
Is my gain assets sold minus expenditures?
And what was my expenditure?
Socialist? Apparently, you think you and I have a right to each others “income”, as you call it. Epiphany yet?
Saltysam on April 25, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Labor is not the only source of wealth. Where’d you go to school at Saltysam? Moscow?
Free Constitution on April 25, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Saltysam, now you’re mixing up the philosophical concept of the income tax with specific tax laws. The two don’t necessarily meet.
JohnTant on April 25, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Your gain is assets sold, minus expenditures, minus labor, plus opportunity. If you do not feel you are gaining, you would not sell. No one would buy it either if they felt they were not gaining. The house to them would be worth more than the money they give you for it, else they would not buy. Get it?
This cannot be explained strictly in monetary gains/losses, opportunity, scarcity, and necessity are also factors determining value. Value is subjective, always.
Free Constitution on April 25, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Also…the labor theory of value was discredited quite some time ago, Saltysam.
The reality is the value of something really can’t be anything else other than what someone is willing to pay you for it.
JohnTant on April 25, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Loxodonta
I did over generalize but there is consensus on the items on your list. There is also consensus on the bail outs, government management of private enterprise, the principle of states rights and opposition to nationalized health care.
obladioblada on April 25, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Put your money where your mouth is…
This year July 4th is on a Saturday.
The next round of coast-to-coast Tea Party’s are set for Independence Day and over July 4th weekend.
Whatever your political affiliation is, Peacefully participate for an hour, or a day, or all weekend.
It is your voice that needs to be heard!
SilverStar830 on April 25, 2009 at 12:54 AM
The war on terror is becoming a back burner issue now. the biggest threat to the republic is in Washington DC. They are declaring us the real enemy more and more each day. Soon they will come after us and we must be ready to fight totalitarianism when it declares war on us.
Always remember, the current administration sees you as the real threat, and not some foreign power or terrorist group.
conservnut on April 25, 2009 at 12:57 AM
And I understand your point…to a point.
Problem I have is this:
Taxation through the regime of “income” is a recipe for…well..see where we are?
It so absolutely ridiculous for a free people to willingly accept the premise that the government has the right to account for any and all of your private “transaction” affairs.
They are not owned by the State. Fair enough?
Saltysam on April 25, 2009 at 1:00 AM
Saltysam, look, I don’t like taxes either. It is a kind of theft. But we, according to Locke’s social contract theory, tacitly agree to live under and support this system of government. Consent to be taxed is all our system needs to tax. And by staying here, paying taxes, and using public services, we are giving our consent. If you are hardcore, read some Henry David Thoreau, he’s a badass. But he did wind up in jail.
Free Constitution on April 25, 2009 at 1:01 AM
So, I build a house in the wood.
I sell it.
Assets sold = 50k
Expenditures = My Labor
Opportunity = Yet to be determined
What is the taxable income, in your opinion?
Saltysam on April 25, 2009 at 1:04 AM
I believe there is consensus on all you added, except maybe not States’ Rights. At the very least, the last battle that issue was fought over was a state’s right to segregate by race, and that does not seem to be an historic period that generates fond memories. It doesn’t for me. I think most would agree that the federal government should be constrained and limited, as long as it doesn’t allow a state to go off the deep end on some issue of national importance. But that may just be me.
Loxodonta on April 25, 2009 at 1:04 AM
Um…We The People allow the government to impose a number of taxes in exchange for things, like armies to protect us and roads to help us travel. The taxing power of Congress isn’t something they snatched or made up out of whole cloth. It’s an enumerated power of Congress in the Constitution.
As for your formulation…I think it has a little more hyperbole than is perhaps warranted. In this I agree (again) with Free Constitution when he brings up Locke and the social contract we have vis a vis taxes and government.
JohnTant on April 25, 2009 at 1:11 AM
I understand your objection over segregation.
I’m tired and not sure how to articulate it well. The feds should not have the right to force legislation at the state level by threatening to with hold funds. There are additional areas in which the feds have overstepped their authority to dictate to states.
Time to sign out.
obladioblada on April 25, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Taxable income is the transaction, which is 50k. (I assume you mean the 50k is your asking price which you received)
Unless you are irrational, the 50k is more than the value of your labor, since that is the only expenditure, resulting in a net gain. Think about working for someone building a house. One builder offers you 10 cents an hour to build it, another offers you $50 an hour to build it. You would not work for the 10 cent guy because you think you’re worth more. You would work for the $50 guy because you think you will profit from working for $50 an hour.
Free Constitution on April 25, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Hate the USA? Get a big smile & warm handshake from our Prez!
Love the USA? Get a spot in Janet Nappytool’s Terrorist List.
jgapinoy on April 25, 2009 at 1:13 AM
It’s not taxation that I am against.
It is the 16th amendment. It has created a system of inequality, where the Fed has been able to socially engineer, intimidate, usurp freedom, and extort.
The concept of income is skewed and it can be whatever they determine it to be.
It allows them into our households, and IMHO, the ability for the IRS to audit personal incomes is a de facto bastardization of the right of the government’s reasonable search and seizures clause in the 4th amendment, among other principled protestations.
We can argue all day long about “taxable events”, or SCOTUS precedents about the definitions of income…
it only touches the surface of a much deeper problem facing a “free” country.
Saltysam on April 25, 2009 at 1:15 AM
I think you’ve done very well tonight. Thank you very much. Please rest well and take good care of yourself.
Loxodonta on April 25, 2009 at 1:18 AM
While I question your understanding of wealth and trade, I fully support the repeal of the 16th amendment. However, being a free-trader, I do not support tariffs, and a bare-bones government would still need some kind of tax to protect our lives, rights, and liberties. Perhaps a national sales tax (though fees would likely be increased).
Free Constitution on April 25, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Saltysam, the 16th Amendment did not create the income tax. In reality we had income taxes before the 16A even came into being. The power to tax incomes does not reside in the 16A.
What the 16A does is remove the requirement that taxes on certain sources of income must be apportioned. This goes back to a SCOTUS case where it ruled (in a ruling which turned stare decisis on its head) that taxes on income derived from property must be apportioned. However, SCOTUS ruled that taxes on income from other sources, like wages, had no apportionment requirement.
To address the ruling and rather than try to craft a tax code that apportioned property-based income tax but left other income sources alone (which would have been a huge nightmare), the 16A was brought up and ratified to remove the apportionment requiremnent from any taxes on income.
There are arguments about a heavy-handed IRS, and I may even agree with you to a point, but you are carrying the points much farther than merit will allow them. I mean, the 4th Amendment does not extend to a 1040 form…
JohnTant on April 25, 2009 at 1:21 AM
MY familiarity with that history has been too vague, thanks for clearing that up. I’m out. Happy birthday Hot Air.
Free Constitution on April 25, 2009 at 1:24 AM
Indeed. When I was laid off following 9/11 I was rather surprised to discover that I had to pay income tax on my unemployment.
Rip Ford on April 25, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Umm.
Why was it necessary to ADD the 16th amendment? Apparently, the powers vested in Congress under Article 1, Section 8 suggest the founding fathers might have a little more in common with my way of thinking.
It is an amendment. It can be repealed.
I’m not saying anything radical, here. It’s not like I’m lobbying for constitutional convention.
Saltysam on April 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM
No doubt.
And, really, the problem isn’t taxation at the end of the day.
No system of taxation is ever going to solve the problem that this out of control, “buy your vote”, spend crazy Congress creates.
I just think that the fight has to be taken to them on BOTH FRONTS and at FULL THROTTLE.
Saltysam on April 25, 2009 at 1:46 AM
Thanks for that post.
After that, I had to go read the history of the income tax.
I learnt somethin’.
Saltysam on April 25, 2009 at 2:06 AM
Yes, that’s true.
However, can the 13th Amendment extend to a 1040 form? If the Government places such a high burden of tax on its citizens, so as the wealth of an individual is determined by the Government, is that a form of Government Slavery or at best Government servitude?
BDU-33 on April 25, 2009 at 3:51 AM
We need to have the states ratify the 1st article of the consitution and expand the House seats to an order of magnitude more than the current 435 seats. this will give power back to the people. More congresscritters to bribe, more needed to get a majority. It is doable we need about 25 states to ratify the amendment. congress submitted it to the states back in the 1700′s with no date of expiration it is still out there waiting to be ratify. It would make the house have like 1600 memebers. the pure choas of that many house memebers would be sweet. It would also do away with gerrymandering. Let’s pass the 1st amendment to the consitution.
Since 1904 the house has stopped growing. It is no longer the house of the people but the house of the special interests.
unseen on April 25, 2009 at 7:43 AM
It’s only slavery if it is against your will. Americans can abandon the US and it’s corrupt government at any time (so far). Otherwise, by staying in the system, submitting to the system’s laws, and contributing to it monetarily, citizens have given de facto approval of it. Likewise, the politicians count the grudging tolerance of their corrupted system as license to continue the same corrupt behavior.
TMK on April 25, 2009 at 7:49 AM
How’s that “New Majority” working out?
Lehosh on April 25, 2009 at 8:01 AM
I would say if you’re comparing the income tax to actual genuine slavery, you’ve insulted people who have suffered as slaves.
Needless to say, I think classing taxes as indistiguishable from the involuntary servitude to with the 13A refers is just a little, well, reaching. I think it’s clear exactly what the 13A was mean to address, and it wasn’t in removing the power of Congress to tax.
JohnTant on April 25, 2009 at 8:40 AM
I find these snarky references to the socalled huge surplus of the Clinton years to be so much nonsense. For one thing, the surplus was only there for the last year, and for another it was gone by the time Bush laid his hand on that bible. The slow down in the economy due to the dot com bubble crashing took care of any surplus.
The larger point however, is one of degrees. Reagan ran deficits, in fact as part of GDP those deficits were as large or larger than the Bush deficits…but the level of spending we are seeing dwarfs anything we have seen before. I find it almost incomprehensible that so many people seem to be indifferent to it.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 8:41 AM
I personally like the idea of continued local tea parties. I think it speaks to our representatives. Going to Washington puts an undue burden on the attendees and lowers the diversity of the crowds. July fourth would give the media the opportunity to lump the crowds with tourists in D.C. for the normal festivities. I know the crowd count could actually help but I think we know that the media would play it the other way. I also think we that weekends are better.
Cindy Munford on April 25, 2009 at 8:42 AM
What’s interesting is that several moderates I know had no problem understanding the point of the tea parties, attended with full awareness, and found them to be enjoyable and pleasant.
So I think that the notion that nobody gets the point is mindless criticism. Yes, some of the signs were “off-topic,” but I still had no problem understanding.
AnninCA on April 25, 2009 at 9:13 AM
No, you are not mistaken… a pretty good conservative platform!
I stoked out the debt item because doing the others will largely accomplish it, but you are right on.
drunyan8315 on April 25, 2009 at 9:22 AM
The tea parties were nothing more than disgruntled hothead conservatives taking to the streets, and crying because they lost the election. My advice, get over it. Fox Noise pushed them, the RNC pushed them, Dick Armey and his group pushed them. They weren’t grassroots, they were top down organized protests without a cause. Todays conservative movement has turned into a whine fest, all belly aching, all the time. They wouldn’t know a new idea if it hit them in the face. Limbaugh,Rove,Gingrich, no new faces, just the same ole blather about the evil libruls. The American electorate has rejected them but they continue to tell EACH OTHER how relevant and smart they are. They tell each other that if Americans were more informed, they would vote republican. Guess what dude, the most informed people I know voted for Obama. They think the gop is a joke. Neanderthals. Stuck in the past. But go ahead, blame Obama for things Bushie did. Your movement is bankrupt, they did it to themselves. Limbaugh thinks you should go further to the right, I hope you do, then your tent will be down to about 30% of the electorate. But,you can keep telling yourselves that ,yes, we may be out of power, but our ideology is right, as you slip further into the political wilderness. Rejection is hard to swallow, try to learn something from it,although I doubt you will.
athensboy on April 25, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Mr. Bartlett is just another smug, condescending elitist who demands that everybody acknowledge he’s the smartest man in the room while consciously avoiding the real point of the tea parties.
Fail.
SKYFOX on April 25, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Conquered your gag reflex have you. Good boy.
JiangxiDad on April 25, 2009 at 10:19 AM
I’m sick of this liberal canard. Why are there protests now and not during Bush? For a number of reasons – for a few, there wasn’t a 28% of GDP budget, there wasn’t a $2T defecit (w/o even considering the coming SS/Medicare armageddon), and there wasn’t talk about raising taxes on all aspects of life (deduction cuts, carbon tax, etc.).
Moreover, I can tell you that I complained to my Congressman when this Medicare bill was passed. Look, Republicans were in charge. They were supposed to be against this crap. People complained to their congressmen that were supposed to vote against it; the Republicans didn’t listen and got their a$$es kicked, deservedly.
Now Bartlett wants us to sit back and take our high taxes without complaint, his main reason being because the world, and especially the Europeans, do it. What a tool. He’s gone Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy on us.
besser tot als rot on April 25, 2009 at 10:29 AM
My guess is that a general goal of reducing government spending would include the specific issues of ending more bail outs, government management of private enterprise, and nationalized health care. At least, I don’t see how the federal government can do such things while at the same time reducing overall spending.
Loxodonta on April 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Yes. Liberals are in the process of criminalizing thoughts, words and deeds with which they disagree. At the moment, I don’t know how to summarize this problem in a short phrase or slogan. In some ways, this gets back to many of the cultural battles for which there is no broad national consensus or even consensus among conservatives. If anyone has an idea how to summarize this issue simply, that would be great.
As to the War on Terror, if broadly defined to include threats to America and world freedom from not only terrorists, but rogue states, I believe this continues to be a high priority. This is demonstrated by recent news about the nuclear programs of North Korea, Iran and the threat that Pakistan could be taken over by the Taliban, as well as the piracy issue. Also, the perception that the Obama administration is weakening national security can help galvanize the public. Americans want to be defended from suspected terrorists, not have them released from Guantanamo into our residential neighborhoods. Americans want our country to strong and free, not bowing to a Saudi monarch.
Loxodonta on April 25, 2009 at 11:35 AM
What’s wrong with having assemblies on Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day, too?
The pressure has to be kept on, or we are in danger of violating one of the left’s most often used rules-
The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition (Alinsky 1972: 129)
Also:
A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag (Alinsky 1972: 128);
So, change up the tactics. Write editorials to submit to your local paper, send your Congressmen/Senators letters. E-mail them. Send some of your weak-kneed friends copies of some of the good posts from Hot Air or send ‘em a link. Pin printouts on the grocery store bulletin boards, laundrymats, etc. Make it truly grassroots.
And finally:
Make the enemy (his words, not mine) live up to their own book of rules (Alinsky 1972: 128);
All of these taken together can have the effect on forcing their hand and we’ll begin to recognize them early enough to derail the bs. Fight fire with fire, I say. Use it against them.
OkieDoc on April 25, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Being in such great debt to China poses great risks, and leaving a mountain of debt to the next generation is immoral. Voters have too frequently approved federal but now, pay later scams. And, if nothing else, the federal government has proven to be skilled in creative bookkeeping.
So, if we leave out the goal of reducing the national debt, it may not be addressed at all. Simply lowering government spending may not reduce the debt because we could lower taxes even more, thus increasing the debt. The goals of reduced debt and reduced taxes must be balanced.
So, unless I am mistaken, or additions or modifications are preferred, the following represents a large consensus, at least of Hot Air posters, of what a Conservative agenda for our country should be:
Win the War on Terror
End Political Corruption
Reduce Government Spending
Reduce the National Debt
Lower Taxes
Loxodonta on April 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Exactly. Bartlet like the rest of the establishment are acting like F%%king idiots. There is something call a breaking point. Many7 conservatives thought Bush was terrible fiscally and PUNISHED the Republicans for it! The fact the Bartlet pretends that this didn’t happen is hilarious.
Secondly what Obama is doing just this year alone is criminal; oure and simple. Bush never did anythng like this. Obama has lost his mind with spending and proping up bad business.
This is disgustingly dishonest.
Dritanian on April 25, 2009 at 12:14 PM
You aren’t right. Hell…You aren’t even wrong.
Drone.
daesleeper on April 25, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I supported the tax cuts, because it made any growth on the part of government less likely, due to the implication that it would effect deficit levels. I think this was the original agenda behind the cuts, but it failed when 9/11 happened and defense spending had to be increased sharply.
A surplus = spend more to Washington politicians and, though John McCain was right to advocate for paying down the debt, it wasn’t realistic as a long term strategy given the propensity to spend. The best way is to foster growth in the economy while retaining a reasonable debt of 5-8% of GDP. Some leverage is good, but too much can spell disaster.
The very reason Obama’s spending is deeply worrying some is because of the debt, which Ross Perot successfully made an enduring issue(though the Republican reckless spending did put the issue in the foreground). This dynamic can result in politicians finally having the political support to actually cut back government programs like social security and medicare. The support for such actions has to be significant (up until now it really hasn’t) given that many will be impacted. Obama’s deficits MAY be the catalyst for actually being able to reform some big entitlements. Obama’s near term activity can be rolled back, but Social Security and Medicare require high levels of concern about the debt.
Stickeehands on April 25, 2009 at 2:09 PM
athensboy on April 25, 2009 at 9:49 AM
What’s the going rate for rent a mob these days? Is it more or less than prior to 2008?
Can you share the costs per protest group? Or is it based on “per individual”? I betcha the war protesters were pretty expensive at one point (with supply/demand); but should be cheap now.
Is the media coverage fee included? If not, is there a discount when using MSNBC versus CNN? A low volume discount of sorts?
Also, do you work on commissions or have a flat rate?
DWB on April 25, 2009 at 2:24 PM
The intellectual dishonesty of the left is so glaring.
We didn’t complain about the Bush deficits so we have no right to complain about the Obama ones?
Wait …
Let’s see … if a friend of mine comes to my house and has a few Beers and goes home … am I going to complain? Nope.
If my other friend comes over … drinks 4 six-packs, breaks my stereo, pukes on my carpet and bashes my guitar into the wall in a drunken rage … will I complain?
Oh yeah.
And what do I tell him when HE complains that I said nothing about my other friend who was drinking in my house?
Are you serious?
HondaV65 on April 25, 2009 at 8:59 PM
If you haven’t figured it out yet.. and I can tell you as an organizer in Ct… the movement is about creating a political army – the largest in HISTORY – that the GOP will come begging to like a puppy who misplaced his bone.
amend2 on April 26, 2009 at 1:46 AM
Bottom line. Read the Constitution and follow it. Spend the next several years reviewing all of the laws and rescind all of those that do not protect or provide relief from oppression.
Realize the Feds powers are limited, and the States must do their best to rewrite their laws to allow each of them to compete for our desire to live there. Similarly, each municipality should provide an environment that is healthy and safe.
MSGTAS on April 27, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2