Your tax dollars at work

Study finds that if you eat less, you lose weight.

What's more awesome? The study was apparenly poorly conducted.

So not only do we find out what Physics (Thermodynamics) taught us quite some time ago, but we couldn't even conduct a proper study to do it.

This is why the government shouldn't have anything to do with science.

Or anything else, for that matter.

Horrifying

Horrifying that a state government would allow this to go on, even after they knew it was happening.

I wonder what, if any, criminal charges will be filed. I have an idea.

None.

Remember this when you wonder why people don't trust the government. Remember this when you think criminals get too many rights. These scumbags put countless people in prison. Or worse.

The Solution

I've figured out the solution to the economic "crisis". I, alone, can save 500,000,000 jobs.

End Social Security. That's all. No stimulus package needed.

Think about it. You immediately give every working person 12% more money each year to spend. It's a "progressive" tax cut, as the rich don't pay as much as a percentage (the cutoff for wages taxed is about $100k). You also give people the option to take a lump sum of what they have paid in, or leave it for when they retire. Those who are already retired and drawing Social Security payments would not be affected, as they just draw down the Trust Fund (assuming it exists. If not, I'm pretty sure the total liability of retired people isn't the $1 Trillion the 'stimulus' package will cost).

Sure, you'd have to iron out some details for people nearing retirement, but all in all, I think it would work. I'd even be willing to forgo the lump sum - they can keep what they have, so maybe have a cutoff of age 40, where if you are under 40, the government keeps what they took, if you are over 50 you have the option to stay in the program.

Think of how well that would stimulate the Economy! And give us a little freedom back.

Real Change.

How to fix the Economy, in 60 seconds or less

Anyone listening?

Because poor outcomes means we need more solutions

Scott Gottlieb asks the question that generates the above answer. It's a good editorial, even if it's meanspirited.

It isn't about good outcomes.

001100110010

Not so fast, please, says The One.

President-elect Barack Obama is urging Congress to postpone the Feb. 17 switch from analog to digital television broadcasting, arguing that too many Americans who rely on analog TV sets to pick up over-the-air channels won't be ready.

In a letter to key lawmakers Thursday, Obama transition team co-chair John Podesta said the digital transition needs to be delayed largely because the Commerce Department has run out of money for coupons to subsidize digital TV converter boxes for consumers. People who don't have cable or satellite service or a TV with a digital tuner will need the converter boxes to keep their older analog sets working.

Obama officials are also concerned the government is not doing enough to help Americans — particularly those in rural, poor or minority communities — prepare for and navigate the transition.

"With coupons unavailable, support and education insufficient, and the most vulnerable Americans exposed, I urge you to consider a change to the legislatively mandated analog cutoff date," Podesta wrote to the top Democrats and Republicans on the Senate and House Commerce committees.

IOU

That's what California residents might get instead of income tax refunds this year.

Of course, if a taxpayer tried that, well, they'd go to jail.

There's something very much wrong with this. The state takes your money by force out of your paycheck. You discover at the end of the year they took too much. You, of course, have to prove they took too much via your tax return. And instead of returning the money with interest, you get an IOU.

I guess they deserve it, they keep electing these clowns.

Equal time

Just to show I'm not picking on any one group, the enlightened voters of Arkansas voted overwhelimingly that kids are better off in an orphanage than being adopted by gays.

Hat tip: Balko at Reason

The first (of many) unintended consequences

High Black voter turnout hurt gay marriage.

Go figure.

(As an aside, my stance on gay marriage can be quickly summed up by "who cares?". I don't think the state should have any standing in any contract between two people other than to deal with violations of that contract. My marriage is between my wife and me, I don't see why I need permission from the goverment to enter into that contract. If my neighbors Jim and Mark want to get married, I certainly don't care one way or the other. Of course, this issue is exacerbated due to government welfare programs, primarily Social Security, where marriage has a benefit.)

How you should vote

Since most people assume their elected officials are smarter than they are, I figure they might think I'm smarter too. So here goes, the 2008 Libertarian Lifter voting guide:

President: Bob Barr/Wayne Root (Libertarian)
This is the only shot you have at getting us going in the right direction again.

Representative in Congress, District 3: Thomas Harris (Republican)
This guy is kinda, actually, not so bad as far as Republican's go. Plus, he's not Sarbaines.

Circuit court Judges: None. They all suck.

Question 1: No.
This is the early (often) voting provision which would allow you to vote early, and vote wherever you feel like it. It's just too rife with fraud. If you can't get to your polling place one day every year, you are probably too stupid to vote.

Question 2: No
This is the Slots amendment to the Maryland Constitution. This is the Democrats way to support something without supporting it... the locations of slot parlors have no place in our Constitution.

The rest of these are Baltimore City specific:

Question A: No.
We don't need another department of anything

Question B: No
We don't need to borrow more money for schools.

Question C: No
We don't need to borrow more money for libraries.

Question D: No.
We don't need to borrow more money for the Mayor to use however she wants for "community development".

Question E: No.
We don't need to borrow more money for the Mayor to use however she wants for "economic development".

Question F: No
We don't need to borrow more money to spend on parks.

Question G: No.
We don't need to borrow more money to fix public buildings.

Question H: No
We don't need to borrow more money to give to the Lyric Opera house.

Question I: No.
We don't need to borrow more money to give to the Baltimore Museum of Art.

Question J: No.
We don't need to borrow more money to give to Port Discovery.

Questions K thru P: No
We don't need to borrow money to give to the Everyman Theater, Aquarium, Science Center, Walters, Meyerhoff, or the Zoo.

Easy.

Constitution? Who needs it.

The Judge on Congress and the President ignoring the Constitution.

The $700 billion bailout of large banks that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).

Read all of it.

Realignment?

Did Carl Rove destroy the Republican Party? Is McCain finishing the job?

This Libertarian hasn't voted for a Republican for President since George HW Bush in 1988. The Republicans threw me away with the zealous war on drugs, and cemented my distaste with the last 7 years of trading freedom for "security". The gay marriage thing is pandering to evengelicals, and not a real issue, any more than abortion is a real issue. It is much bigger than that.
But this Libertarian certainly can't consider voting for Obama (and has never voted for a Democrat for President), for pretty obvious reasons.
The Republicans have a serious identity problem, and while a split will create issues of power in the short term, we may find something positive comes out of this long term; one can hope a splinter of the Republicans can unite with freedom loving Democrats and build a more libertarian coalition.
Hey, a guy can dream.

For National Security reasons, I suppose

They aren't going to tell us where the $700 Billion bailout is going.

Your government at work

The TSA's effectiveness exposed.

Schnei­er and I walked to the security checkpoint. “Counter­terrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better,” he said. “Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.” This assumes, of course, that al-Qaeda will target airplanes for hijacking, or target aviation at all. “We defend against what the terrorists did last week,” Schnei­er said. He believes that the country would be just as safe as it is today if airport security were rolled back to pre-9/11 levels. “Spend the rest of your money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response.”

Schnei­er and I joined the line with our ersatz boarding passes. “Technically we could get arrested for this,” he said, but we judged the risk to be acceptable. We handed our boarding passes and IDs to the security officer, who inspected our driver’s licenses through a loupe, one of those magnifying-glass devices jewelers use for minute examinations of fine detail. This was the moment of maximum peril, not because the boarding passes were flawed, but because the TSA now trains its officers in the science of behavior detection. The SPOT program—“Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques”—was based in part on the work of a psychologist who believes that involuntary facial-muscle movements, including the most fleeting “micro-expressions,” can betray lying or criminality. The training program for behavior-detection officers is one week long. Our facial muscles did not cooperate with the SPOT program, apparently, because the officer chicken-scratched onto our boarding passes what might have been his signature, or the number 4, or the letter y. We took our shoes off and placed our laptops in bins. Schnei­er took from his bag a 12-ounce container labeled “saline solution.”

“It’s allowed,” he said. Medical supplies, such as saline solution for contact-lens cleaning, don’t fall under the TSA’s three-ounce rule.

“What’s allowed?” I asked. “Saline solution, or bottles labeled saline solution?”

“Bottles labeled saline solution. They won’t check what’s in it, trust me.”

They did not check. As we gathered our belongings, Schnei­er held up the bottle and said to the nearest security officer, “This is okay, right?” “Yep,” the officer said. “Just have to put it in the tray.”

“Maybe if you lit it on fire, he’d pay attention,” I said, risking arrest for making a joke at airport security. (Later, Schnei­er would carry two bottles labeled saline solution—24 ounces in total—through security. An officer asked him why he needed two bottles. “Two eyes,” he said. He was allowed to keep the bottles.)

We were in the clear. But what did we prove?

“We proved that the ID triangle is hopeless,” Schneier said.

Read it all.

This should scare you.

We continue to move towards the government tracking your every move.

An Iowa-based research center is looking for 450 Baltimore-area motorists willing to have their every driving move tracked by satellite to test a system that could theoretically replace the federal gasoline tax with road use fees.

The federally funded study will use a global positioning system satellite to track not only the mileage driven over eight months, but also whether each road traveled is funded by the state, federal or local governments.

Participants will receive a simulated bill each month for the road use fee owed to each level of government. Volunteers who take part in the study will get $895 for their services. It's all part of a $16.5 million study in six states to test the technology as well as motorists' reactions to the concept of road use tracking and fees - an idea that has received the outspoken support of U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters and other critics of the federal motor fuel tax.

Opponents of what is known as the gas tax say it's a dwindling source of revenue that is only crudely related to how much someone drives and where. Supporters of the road use fee argue that it would allocate money more precisely than the tax. But critics doubt that citizens would ever accept a system that gives the government specific information about their traveling habits.

They say now citizens won't stand for it. 50 years ago, they would have said the same about the Federal government telling us how much water we can flush. California will soon be telling people what temperature their thermostats can be.

The subjects will accept it. They are about to elect a Marxist.

Election law, who needs it?

Coming as no suprise, Bob Barr loses his Texas lawsuit. With no explaination.

Along the state owning you theme..

A nice post from The Superfluous Man on the subject.

You get your rights from the state, you need the state, you will work for the state.

Scary stuff

Boy does this stuff scare me. Even more than Universal "Free" Healthcare, and more than the expansion of the warfare state. This is plain old slavery.

Talk about a tax increase...

They act suprised

Revenues are down after raising sales and income taxes? Really??

I wonder how that happened. Maybe, just maybe, everyone not on the tax more spend more Left was correct when they told you this would happen.

If you raise my taxes, I don't produce as much, because the incremental value of the additional production is reduced, often to the point that I choose not to produce. Likewise, increasing the sales tax increases my prices, subsequently affecting the supply and demand curves. So I buy less stuff, or I buy less expensive replacement stuff.

Maybe, just maybe, the way to get out of a fiscal problem is to quit spending so much on things that are wasteful or not in the government domain.

Over and over and over again we see these policies don't work, and over and over and over again we elect people who implement the same policies.

Bus Update

A while back I mentioned that you can no longer take an MTA bus to the Raven's home games from a park and ride.

Turns out the regulation is that if you take Federal money for your mass transit, you can't use that mass transit to compete with private companies (like charter buses). I'm sure the intent is to keep the MTA from sending city buses to Atlantic City, and to me, it makes sense.

So while it's a federal regulation, it's in place to keep states from using federal dollars to compete with private companies.

Solution: Stop taking the tax dollars of the citizens of Iowa and giving them to the State of Maryland for bus service.

Just a thought.