"The current budget cut proposals being debated in Congress are the political equivalent of making a New Year's resolution to lose weight going to the gym and then not going after the first week."
So writes Tim Shoemaker on the Campaign for Liberty blog.
Shoemaker is right.
Neither the White House nor congressional Republicans are proposing deep enough spending cuts to turn America's economic ship around and escape a deficit that threatens to drown our future.
Of course, it doesn't help when self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives, including the Kentucky delegation, would vote for a defense earmark that even the Defense department has repeatedly indicated it doesn't want and that the nation doesn't need.
In fact, conservatives refer to it as the "Mother of all Earmarks" and the new "Bridge to Nowhere" project.
But GE wants it, as does Rolls-Royce, its partner in the project to build an alternate engine for the F-35 joint strike fighter.
Yep, that's right -- an "alternate" engine.
Since GE lost in the bid to build the initial jet fighter's engine to Pratt & Whitney, it's using its considerable resources -- as evidenced by a recent aggressive ad campaign aided by a $9 million lobbying effort -- to be allowed to build an "alternate" engine ... all at taxpayers' expense, of course.
Even Tea-party conservative types in D.C. are having trouble saying "no" to GE, which has a presence in or near many of conservative leaders' districts, including Speaker John Boehner's in Ohio. About 1,000 employees have been working on the engine at a GE facility near Cincinnati.
Don't be fooled by GE's claims that having an engine making competition will "drive down costs." Not so. In its own release on the matter, the Defense department said the additional costs, including "the burden of maintaining two logistical systems," will likely outweigh the savings.
On March 24, the Pentagon ordered a halt to the engine's production.
Despite the fact that the two biggest-spending presidents in U.S. history -- Barack Obama and George W. Bush, both administrations' defense secretaries and the Defense bureaucracy itself said continuing to fund the $4 billion project could sap resources needed for more immediate security concerns, GE vows to try and find a way to keep it going.
Of course, that's no problem -- as long as they do it with their own money.
Click here for a timeline by Citizens Against Government Waste of spending that's already occurred on this boondoggle.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Coming to a state near you, Kentuckians: More choices for parents, chances for kids
While Congress was busy passing a bill that would restore the torpedoed D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program on Wednesday, a state closer to home was also passing landmark education legislation dealing with school choice and spending. Indiana's House of Representatives approved a voucher bill allowing students in a family of four with household incomes up to $62,022 to receive a voucher covering from 50 percent to 90 percent of a private school tuition. Imagine how such an option could shake up, say, a district like Jefferson County, where 60 percent of students are from low-income homes. No doubt, anti-choice forces would wail about how such a voucher plan would throw government schools into chaos. But have you taken a look at that district's student-assignment plan and busing disaster lately? It appears chaos arrived long ago. We're still waiting on choice to get here.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Robin Hood: Freedom fighter or medieval socialist?
If you haven't seen Ridley Scott's latest version of "Robin Hood," you should -- especially if you're an ardent lover of freedom and individual liberty.
I saw the movie recently and heartily recommend it. I also endorse Cathy Young's review of the film and analysis of the history of the Robin Hood character in the recent Reason Foundation magazine. Young rightly concludes that Robin Hood, played brilliantly by Russell Crowe in the latest version, has captured the imagination of generations because of "freedom, not redistribution."
Those who believe in using the power of government to take from those who earn and give it to those who won't may think Robin Hood is their superhero. But as Young points out: "The earliest Robin Hood ballads, which date back to the 13th or 14th century, contain no mention of robbing the rich to give to the poor." The person Robin helped in those earlier versions was a knight on the verge of losing his property to "the machinations of greedy and unscrupulous monks at an abbey."
It was only later that Robin Hood "turned from an outlaw farmer into a dispossessed aristocrat and, eventually, a patron of the poor." But even then, his primary opponent -- and the object of the people's loathing -- is the Nottingham sheriff, who was hated not because of his badge but because of his moonlighting as a tax collector.
No longer should Kentucky's leftist politicians, university professors, activists and groups take comfort in the popular notion that Robin Hood was a medieval socialist. Instead, freedom fighters across the commonwealth can include Robin Hood as one of their own.
He was, as Young puts it: "A libertarian rebel."
I saw the movie recently and heartily recommend it. I also endorse Cathy Young's review of the film and analysis of the history of the Robin Hood character in the recent Reason Foundation magazine. Young rightly concludes that Robin Hood, played brilliantly by Russell Crowe in the latest version, has captured the imagination of generations because of "freedom, not redistribution."
Those who believe in using the power of government to take from those who earn and give it to those who won't may think Robin Hood is their superhero. But as Young points out: "The earliest Robin Hood ballads, which date back to the 13th or 14th century, contain no mention of robbing the rich to give to the poor." The person Robin helped in those earlier versions was a knight on the verge of losing his property to "the machinations of greedy and unscrupulous monks at an abbey."
It was only later that Robin Hood "turned from an outlaw farmer into a dispossessed aristocrat and, eventually, a patron of the poor." But even then, his primary opponent -- and the object of the people's loathing -- is the Nottingham sheriff, who was hated not because of his badge but because of his moonlighting as a tax collector.
No longer should Kentucky's leftist politicians, university professors, activists and groups take comfort in the popular notion that Robin Hood was a medieval socialist. Instead, freedom fighters across the commonwealth can include Robin Hood as one of their own.
He was, as Young puts it: "A libertarian rebel."
Robin Hood: Freedom fighter or medieval socialist?
If you haven't seen Ridley Scott's latest version of "Robin Hood," you should -- especially if you're an ardent lover of freedom and individual liberty.
I saw the movie recently and heartily recommend it. I also endorse Cathy Young's review of the film and analysis of the history of the Robin Hood character in the recent Reason Foundation magazine. Young rightly concludes that Robin Hood, played brilliantly by Russell Crowe in the latest version, has captured the imagination of generations because of "freedom, not redistribution."
Those who believe in using the power of government to take from those who earn and give it to those who won't may think Robin Hood is their superhero. But as Young points out: "The earliest Robin Hood ballads, which date back to the 13th or 14th century, contain no mention of robbing the rich to give to the poor." The person Robin helped in those earlier versions was a knight on the verge of losing his property to "the machinations of greedy and unscrupulous monks at an abbey."
It was only later that Robin Hood "turned from an outlaw farmer into a dispossessed aristocrat and, eventually, a patron of the poor." But even then, his primary opponent -- and the object of the people's loathing -- is the Nottingham sheriff, who was hated not because of his badge but because of his moonlighting as a tax collector.
No longer should Kentucky's leftist politicians, university professors, activists and groups take comfort in the popular notion that Robin Hood was a medieval socialist. Instead, freedom fighters across the commonwealth can include Robin Hood as one of their own.
He was, as Young puts it: "A libertarian rebel."
I saw the movie recently and heartily recommend it. I also endorse Cathy Young's review of the film and analysis of the history of the Robin Hood character in the recent Reason Foundation magazine. Young rightly concludes that Robin Hood, played brilliantly by Russell Crowe in the latest version, has captured the imagination of generations because of "freedom, not redistribution."
Those who believe in using the power of government to take from those who earn and give it to those who won't may think Robin Hood is their superhero. But as Young points out: "The earliest Robin Hood ballads, which date back to the 13th or 14th century, contain no mention of robbing the rich to give to the poor." The person Robin helped in those earlier versions was a knight on the verge of losing his property to "the machinations of greedy and unscrupulous monks at an abbey."
It was only later that Robin Hood "turned from an outlaw farmer into a dispossessed aristocrat and, eventually, a patron of the poor." But even then, his primary opponent -- and the object of the people's loathing -- is the Nottingham sheriff, who was hated not because of his badge but because of his moonlighting as a tax collector.
No longer should Kentucky's leftist politicians, university professors, activists and groups take comfort in the popular notion that Robin Hood was a medieval socialist. Instead, freedom fighters across the commonwealth can include Robin Hood as one of their own.
He was, as Young puts it: "A libertarian rebel."
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Show us the transparency
The same lawmakers who won’t tell taxpayers how they are spending our tax dollars are lecturing others about more transparency.
The Lexington Herald-Leader recently reported that: “Several lawmakers told college leaders earlier this month at a Council on Postsecondary retreat that they wanted the universities to be more transparent about how they spend money, particularly funds used to teach students.”
More transparent about how they spend money?
Shouldn’t these same lawmakers demand transparency from Gov. Beshear, who promised to put Kentucky’s checkbook online so all taxpayers can judge how their hard-earned dollars are spent.
Of course, Kentucky’s university presidents, who constantly find their way to Frankfort looking for handouts from state coffers, should report how they spend our tax dollars. So, while the universities appear to be responding to requests for transparent spending of public tax dollars, we’re still waiting on the governor’s office to do the same.
The Lexington Herald-Leader recently reported that: “Several lawmakers told college leaders earlier this month at a Council on Postsecondary retreat that they wanted the universities to be more transparent about how they spend money, particularly funds used to teach students.”
More transparent about how they spend money?
Shouldn’t these same lawmakers demand transparency from Gov. Beshear, who promised to put Kentucky’s checkbook online so all taxpayers can judge how their hard-earned dollars are spent.
Of course, Kentucky’s university presidents, who constantly find their way to Frankfort looking for handouts from state coffers, should report how they spend our tax dollars. So, while the universities appear to be responding to requests for transparent spending of public tax dollars, we’re still waiting on the governor’s office to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)