The Planners

If you want to know why nothing ever changes for the better in Washington, look at the man in the White House, then look at the rest of the political cadre, and try to find a difference.

You will find a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. And what is their kind? They are central planners, and those who do not share their love for the State are outside the "mainstream."

Politicians who do not paddle in the "mainstream" are not heard, and to the degree they are heard, they are ignored.

Education may be the best example of something always changing for the worse, with no effort given to thinking what would change it for the better.

If, as the man once said, the definition of insanity is banging your head against the wall and expecting anything other than a headache, then American education is insane.

For decades, the federal government has showered the public schools with a cascade of money resembling Niagara Falls. Yet for decades, test scores in public schools have declined; parents are dissatisfied not only with the performance of their children but also illiterate teachers and the arrogant educrats hostile to their religious beliefs and morals.

As student performance plummets, the demand for more money climbs, particularly from the educrats and their political patrons in Washington. Aside from the obvious question of why Washington bureaucrats must anoint money with their holy hands before sending it back to the states from whence it came, one must ask why we persist in the naïve hope that more money will solve our "educational" problems.

The answer is that all American politicians are fully invested in the public school racket; i.e., planning from above. Thus, the debate is always and forever about money and planning in Washington, although education was better before federal intervention. When the federal department of education opened its doors, it was a grim day for American education.

Both political parties concede the federal Leviathan’s control of public schools, and discussion outside these two prevailing views is not permitted. This is true despite the manifest superiority of private schools and home-schooling, both of which spend far less money educating students than the racketeers of public education.

The same is true for "agriculture policy." Almost every federal politician assumes government must plan the agricultural economy. No successful politician suggests that Uncle Sam should drop the hoe and abandon the farm. More generally, no popular or nationally successful politician suggests eliminating a single program.

Politicians tenaciously tinker with fatally flawed policies. Questioning the policy itself is forbidden. We have to "do something," everyone agrees, the question is what. Reform! More planning!

No one dares suggest doing "nothing," or stopping what we are doing, although given the results, doing nothing would not only be better than doing something but also exactly what our federal Constitution requires.

There, of course, lies the problem. The Constitution permits almost no federal meddling, but everyone either assumes the opposite, or that the Constitution doesn’t matter. We have to be practical, you know. It’s not 1800 anymore.

No, it isn’t. But the immutable truths about socialism and central planning haven’t changed since 1800 either. They can never change, and because the planning never ends, things never get better in Washington.

Syndicated columnist R. Cort Kirkwood [send him mail] is managing editor of the Daily News-Record in Harrisonburg, Va.

The Real Problem

Q. Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?

A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time. Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic An Interview With Ron Paul, SierraTimes.com, 05. 23. 03

I'm not sure I like the idea of George II sucking up to the Democrats this way: Inviting the Kennedy Clan to a movie, meeting with the Black Caucus (you'll notice it never changed its name to the African-American Caucus), commiserating on the phone with Father Jackson, inviting congressional Democratic leaders in for friendly one-on-one chats, going off to address the retreats of the House and Senate Democrats. On the surface it looks like the right thing to do: prove to the Dems that you really are interested in bi-partisanship, in getting along with them and working with them, in forgetting old grudges and insults. On the surface it looks good. But there's a couple of things young George needs to remember: First, don't woo your enemies at the expense of your political base. And second, what he's doing is a waste of his time if he doing it because he really thinks it will pay off. It won't. Democrats look on friendly advances as signs of weakness, not as genuine efforts to seek cooperation for the good of the country. Young George can meet with every Democrat in the country and it makes no difference. When he sends up conservative appointees they will be savaged. When he sends of conservative measures and proposals, they will be fought, mocked and blocked. When he says things they differ with he will be sneered at, laughed at, criticized and attacked as a dummy, a kook and an incompetent. It has always been this way and it will always be this way. Trouble is some people, mostly Republicans, never learn. I surely hope young George isn't one of those." --Lyn Nofziger 06 October 2003- Federalist No. 03-41
Monday Brief

"The power of coercion, which is inherent in the nature of government, fundamentally undermines the claim that the government is doing a moral thing by helping people. Let me show why this is so. I am walking down the street, eating a sandwich, when I am approached by a hungry man. He wants to share my sandwich. Now if I give him the sandwich, I have done a good deed, and I feel good about it. The hungry man feels grateful to me, and even if he cannot repay me for my kindness, possibly he will try to help someone else when he has the chance. So this is a transaction that benefits both the giver and the receiver. But see what happens if the government gets involved. The government takes my sandwich from me by force. Consequently, I am a reluctant giver. The government then bestows my sandwich on the hungry man. Instead of being thankful to me, however, the man feels entitled to this benefit. In other words, the involvement of the state has utterly stripped the transaction of its moral value, even though the result is exactly the same. Now let's keep the same scenario but change the outcome. I am approached by the hungry man, as before, but this time, instead of agreeing to share my sandwich, I refuse to do so. Along comes a third man, who pulls out a gun, points it at my head, and forces me to hand over my sandwich to him, upon which he gives it to the hungry guy. What is the moral quality of the gunman's action? I think most people would consider him an unscrupulous thug who should be apprehended and punished. Yet when the government does precisely the same thing - forcibly seizing from some in order to give to others - the liberal insists the government is acting in a just and moral manner. This is clearly not true." --Dinesh D'Souza 06 October 2003- Federalist No. 03-41
Monday Brief

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.