We now have a post of national cat-catcher. Isn’t that so patriotic as to swoon? (Not)
Is the Museum federally funded? If so, that’s the problem starting. Do they have an organization to get funding from:1 the public, 2 the state, 3 United Way (they give to feral humans) 4. PETA, 5. ASPCA, 6. business? Doubt they would need Federal funding.
I started with a barn cat a couple of years ago. He (Tiger) showed up; just a little fellow, and we took him in.
Did a good job keeping the chipmunks at bay, and was no problem to keep around.
This spring, a couple more cats showed up - his girlfriends no doubt - from his extended days away from home. Now, at last count; there are 17 of the varmits freeloading off of me! No doubt Obama voters all!!
They hang around the porch; fussing and feuding with each other; constantly looking in the window to see when more food will be forth coming.
My wife says I've spoiled them, with the heated floor in the doghouse, and warming their milk to keep it from freezing.
Of course, I did it all out of sake for the
chilrun kitties and NOW look what's happened. If they EVER find out about free medical care; my economy is DOOMED!
Imagine the Key West liberals getting fed up with the Washington leftists and shooting them. Now wouldn’t that be a twist on all the scenarios we imagine that would ignite CW II?
It is almost impossible to get the average lib to understand the difference between allowing the fed government, or any government, to do its constitutionally uauthorized duties and allowing it to do anything it wants. Of course most libs are people who seek greater power over other people just because they can. To ask them to back off from overreaching governmental incursions into private territory is like asking a wild animal not to trespass into your yard. It won’t understand anything except force.
Somewhere in a cubicle in D.C., some bureaucrat with an $80k job, with 2 or 5 supervisors up the chain each with $100k jobs, are churning out diktats on cats. Our tax dollars at waste... and of course these aren't the ones who'll get the axe in any 'cuts'. The axe will fall where it is the most visible and punishing to the public as a means to punish the public and convince them that more tax monies are needed.
Unfortunately, if you try to advance federalism in a piecemeal fashion, attacking just one onerous regulation at a time, you will quickly find that it is just a single pebble in a Mount Everest of overregulation. And for each pebble you remove, several hundred are put in its place, on a monthly basis.
So here is a better approach: give the regulatory ability of the federal government to the states.
For example, a regulatory agency like the EPA should constitutionally create regulation only when pollution transcends state borders, or when there is an ecological disaster too great for a state to clean up (of which there are many). This would fit the original intent of the constitution.
But beyond these things, the EPA should only be an *advisory* agency, to give out information that others may *choose* to use to regulate.
Next, the problem of largess should be handled in a simple way, by giving the states block grants and *advice* on how those grants should be spent.
So, for example, if congress votes a new health program for poor children, the money would be given as a block to each state, based on how many poor children that state had. And if a state agreed to take the money on condition that they use it only for that poor children program, they could either choose to take it, or refuse it outright.
Doing this would slash a vast amount of federal government, cost a whole lot less, and make the federal budget much simpler.
It would be “federalism with a vengeance”.