Liberty Unlimited

Sorry 'bout the lack of posting

2005-06-07T13:08:00.000-06:00

Blogs are a lot of work. I currently have a baseball team to coach, a Cub Scout den to lead, a history class to work on, and in my spare time, still need to go to work and bring home the bacon! So, blogging will be light--very light. If I have time, and something to say, I'll add a post or two. Mostly this will serve to keep Liberty Unlimited alive until I have the time needed to dedicate to it.

Cheers!

Private Accounts and Solvency

2005-04-04T06:36:00.000-06:00

In my last post on Social Security, I went over the first key concept: Social Security is an unfunded liability, i.e. paid now or later, the debt exists.

The next key concept you need to understand about fixing Social Security is the idea of private accounts. The question is this: Will allowing workers to deposit some of thier Social Security payroll taxes into a private retirement account do anything to fix the long-term solvency problem with the current system? The short answer is YES! (contrary claims by Dems notwithstanding)

Those opposed to private accounts claim a number of things: It won't do anything to pay for the transition costs; The stock market is risky; blah, blah blah.

The fact of the matter is this: The Dems don't want to do anything to Social Security that would take away a source of revenue for thier precious social programs. That's right, a portion of your Social Security taxes are paying for gum'mint programs! "Bt what about the trust fund?", you may ask. Doesn't exist. Each year, the Social Security Administration pays current retirement benefits from the payroll taxes of current workers. Right now, more money is collected than paid. The surplus is used to buy bonds from the government. The revenue generated by the sale of those bonds pays for any number of precious programs. Guess what. In 2017, or so, if nothing changes, payroll taxes collected start to equal payments. No more bonds for the government. That is the real crisis.

But I digress. On to private accounts. How do they fix solvency? It is simple, as you increase the amount of money put into the accounts, you also transfer the payments from the current system to the accounts. Private accounts are the way to keep the debt from building as we are paying off the current--already owed--debt.

Jack Kemp has a great piece over on Townhall.com. More here, here, and here.

And don't forget to make a trip over to Social Security Choice.

On banning guns

2005-04-02T07:05:00.000-07:00

Kevin over at The Smallest Minority posts a well-written, thought out response to a poorly written, emotion-driven letter to the Tucson Weekly.

His post does a great job illustrating the tactics that gun-grabbers use to further thier cause, i.e. dubious statistics and emotional outcrys. The letter seems to be right out of the anti's playbook, and those of us not afraid of the Second Amendment would do well to remember the arguments Kevin uses.

Rest in Peace

2005-03-31T07:58:00.000-07:00

Terri Schaivo has died.

Go with God Terri. My prayers are with your family, all of them.
God, help us to understand, cope with and learn from this tragedy.

Congressional Medal of Honor to be awarded

2005-03-31T07:33:00.000-07:00

Stories like this always give me goosebumps. I am always amazed at the courage and charisma displayed by our men and women in uniform. The other thing I marvel at is the response is usually "I was just doing my job." How about this for a "job":

Smith, 33, died behind the trigger of a .50-caliber machine gun as he fought off an Iraqi attack near Baghdad's international airport. He's credited with saving more than 100 American lives and killing at least 50 Iraqis.

I'm sure there is even more to the story. SFC Smith, I salute you. Godspeed.

Hat tip: Polipundit, because you probably won't see much of this in the MSM.

60 Days

2005-03-31T07:20:00.000-07:00

Mr. Kerry...hello? It's been 2 months now. When are you going to sign that SF-180?

The folks over at Decision08 have named John Kerry as "Weekly Jackass Number 17." Why can't I think of this stuff?

Hat tip to Polipundit for pointing me there.

Unbelievable

2005-03-30T09:37:00.000-07:00

George Felos, Michael Shaivo's lawyer has a book out. And people wonder (maybe they don't) why most non-lawyers view lawyers as slime.

I'm speechless.

Hat tip: WILLisms

The Big 3

2005-03-30T08:45:00.000-07:00

Despite the near continuos coverage in the MSM of the Teri Schaivo and Michael Jackson cases, other things continue to happen in the world. Politically speaking, the Big 3--Social Security, Judicial Nominations, and Immigration--will dominate the next election cycle. Elections matter, and you owe it to yourself to get informed.

For all your Social Security needs, look to Social Security Choice.

Info about Judicial Nominations can be found at Confirm Them.

Current news on Immigration and illegal immigrants can be found at Michelle Malkins new project The Immigration Blog

Social Security-key concepts

2005-03-29T08:47:00.000-07:00

For those who think the Democrats are interested in Social Security for anything other than their own political gain, take a trip over to Social Security Choice. The fact is, Democrats have yet to put any plan on the table, instead waiting it out because they fear that the first plan--like so many first plans in Washington--will be dead on arrival. They remind me of little children throwing at temper tantrum--"If we can't do it our way, then we don't want to do it...waaaaaaaa!"

Know this--the Democrats have no interest in letting you control any of your Social Security money. Because to do so would take control of your life from them. That, my friends, is something they can't stand.

There are a few key concepts you need to understand regarding Social Security. The media does a HORRIBLE job of making them clear (big surprise!), but you need to remember them.

First, Social Security is an unfunded liability. This means that there is no pot of money sitting around to pay benefits--todays benefits are paid for by todays payroll taxes. The benefits promised for next year and beyond--your benefits, possibly?--ARE NOT PAID FOR yet! The key concept is that the debt for those benefits ALREADY EXISTS. Remember that when you hear politicians talk about "transition costs." Social Security already owes the money--the only debate is when to pay it. Consider this scenario: You buy a nice new bedroom suite and desk. Altogether the furniture costs about $2500, and you buy it under a "2 years same as cash" program. Most likely this means that you open an account for credit with the store. 20 months later, you realize you haven't paid anything on the furniture, because the bill every month said "$0.00 due." Now you have 4 months to come up with $2500. That's $1125/month. Ouch. On the other hand, you could leave it on the store's credit, but the debt has been accruing interest (probably around 20%) the entire time, and will be added to your bill as soon as the 2 years is up. So now you will owe the store significantly more than the original $2500--don't ask me to do the math--but the payment will be less than $1125/month. Or, you could move it to a lower interest credit account. The best thing to do would be to pay it off--the debt that already exists--and be done with it. That $1125/month is the transition cost. It hurts, but it fixes your problem and eliminates the debt.

Up next: Private Accounts

Culture of death

2005-03-23T07:03:00.000-07:00

I've been wanting to post on this, but a combination of no time and a deflated feeling I've gotten each time I hear a Teri Shaivo update have precluded posting.

While I feel for Teri's family, the thing that has me delfated the most is the culture of death that surrounds the reports on this case. I do not know her true condition. There are numerous conflicting reports. However, I cannot understand how it can be more humane to starve this woman (with no advance directive), than it would be to let her loving parents take care of her and let her husband (continue to) get on with his. Now it appears that all of the appeals have been exhausted, and I can live with that, specifically, in this case.

What I don't like is the underlying basis in this country for all of those decisions. I am a regular fan of Neal Boortz, but I have to disagree with his analysis--mostly because it doesn't seem like he did any. He seems to say that even if you don't have any written, legal documentation of your wishes, and your coustodian doesn't think, for whatever reason, that your life is worth living anymore, then you should be starved to death. My problem is this: who gets to decide if your life is worth living? Well, in this case, it was the government. I seem to remember reading about another government deciding which lives were worth living and which lives weren't.

That is why, although I initially struggled with it, I ultmately agreed with Congress. Look, I am no fan of the Federal Government--I am a states rights guy. However, I don't see how the legistlation passed by congress will do any harm. As a matter of fact, Congress does have oversight of the courts, and it seems to me they were exercising that oversight. Besides, shouldn't Teri Shiavo have at least the same review as a felon sentenced to die?

The bottom line is this: Ask yourself what had to happen each day for Teri Shaivo to live? She had to be fed. The same as you and me.

The Governator

2005-03-19T08:03:00.000-07:00

While I don't advocate amending the Constitution to allow Ahhh-nold to be President, I have to applaud his work in the (Once Was) Great State of California. The GOP needs more forward thinking, states rights leaders. Other governors need to pay attention.

The Core of the Social Security debate

2005-03-18T06:43:00.000-07:00

Andrew Roth over at Social Security Choice links to an editorial from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. The debate comes down to one word--Liberty!

Terri Shiavo

2005-03-18T06:13:00.000-07:00

The Drudge Report is reporting the following (there is no specific link yet, so I'll post the whole thing):
**Exclusive Fri Mar 18 2005 00:50:07 ET** The Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee, Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) has requested Terri Schiavo to testify before his congressional committee, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In so doing it triggers legal or statutory protections for the witness, among those protections is that nothing can be done to cause harm or death to this individual. Members of Congress went to the U.S. Attorney in DC to ask for a temporary restraining order to be issued by a judge, which protects Terri Schiavo from having her life support, including her feeding and hydration tubes, removed... Developing...Seems to me like a pretty slick way to intervene. I'm just trying to figure out what part of "...Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..." includes granting a "right to Die," with absolutely no direction from the patient. Now, I am not against a person having a living will, with pre- established directives, in case that person cannot communicate thier wishes. I can see that person being in a situation where they would rather nature take its course and wish not to have life support, nor herioc measures taken in order to prolong thier life and pain.

BUT, absent any pre-directives, the decision, in a civilized society, must always err on the side of Life.

UPDATE: Teri Shiavo's feeding tube has been removed. So, let me get this straight. Scott Peterson (I know, why did I have to mention HIM?) gets a trial which lasts, it seems, forever. This trial is by a jury of his peers for crime of murder, 2 counts--one of which is for an unborn child. This jury convicts him, and then recommends the death penalty--unanimously. Then a judge agrees with the jury. Now Mr. Peterson gets to spend the taxpayers money for the next umpteen years appealing this decision.

On the other hand, Teri Shiavo gets the death penalty with no trial, no jury, and no crime to even be accused, much less convicted of. Oops, sorry, I guess she commited the crime of being a burden on her husband, who, it seems, would like to expedite the "till death do us part" part.

We're entering a sad time in the country when the judicial system finds it easier to legislate death, rather than life. I guess now, if you can't fend for yourself--whether it is at the very beginning of your life, or the end--the courts can always find someone to argue that you are better off dead.

Social Security

2005-03-17T06:16:00.000-07:00

This is a great site with information about Social Security reform. It is time that this Ponzi scheme, which would be illegal if anyone else set it up, be fixed for good. We need private accounts, to stop the raid on the so-called trust fund. In addition, I would advocate issuing bonds to cover the short term solvency problem. Those on Washington who don't think anything needs to be done, and those who think that private accounts aren't needed are burying their heads in the sand.

Test of w.bloggar

2005-03-15T10:46:00.000-07:00

to see if it works... If it does, its magic!

More on McCain

2005-03-15T08:14:00.000-07:00

This article illustrates why John McCain has no business in the Senate, much less the White House. It is also a very good illustration of the practical result of the Campaign Finance "Reform" law. For instance:

In any case, the Reform Institute helps keep McCain in the public eye and burnishes his image as a reformer, thereby enhancing his presidential prospects. The senator seems to be taking advantage of one of those terrible "loopholes" in campaign finance law that allows people to engage in unfettered political speech.

Meanwhile, he is determined to close other people's loopholes. His odious Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 already prohibits "nonpartisan and issue-oriented groups" from criticizing politicians close to an election, and it may lead to regulation of bloggers and online journalists. Unsatisfied by this impressive assault on the First Amendment, McCain wants to ban the so-called 527 groups that raised such a ruckus in the last presidential campaign.

McCain describes the danger they pose this way: "Some billionaire decides he or she doesn't like you in office, and they decide to form a 527 and contribute $10 million or $20 million and dive-bomb into your state or district. That should alarm every federally elected member of Congress." Maybe so, but why should it alarm anyone else?

Indeed. Spending money on a campaign is one way candidates get thier message out, and is a practical way for individuals to help get messages they believe in out. By restricting money spent by one group, but not another, they create a class of citizens who are granted a right to speak and resrict that right for another group. Who decided which group had a right to speak? Congress.

Let's take a gander at the ole' First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

So, let me get this straight. Donating money is how individuals have chosen, in recent times, to exercise thier First Amendment right. Congress decides money corrupts, so the House and Senate clamor for "reform." The President signs it, and the Supreme Court upholds it.

The problem is, the Campaign Finance Reform Act dealt with the "corruption" money causes in the way those politicians saw it being used at the time: television and radio ads. Enter the internet and blogs. George Soros spent like $10 million on a 527 group trying to comply with the law. Now, I don't agree with Soros, or his politics--but he should be free to spend his money however he likes, as should I and everyone else. Now the politicians are figuring out they created a law that is quickly becoming outdated, because it doesn't apply to the internet. Oops, gotta fix that!

This just illustrates the absurdity of the law in the first place. Since it is obvious the law isn't working as they'd hoped Congress needs to look into changing it. They can either move toward banning ALL political speech, (see First Amendment, above) or they can move in the other direction and get rid of this atrocious law. Either ban speech for everyone, or ban it for no one.

Which way do YOU think they will go?

Let it Snow, Let it Snow...

2005-03-14T15:56:00.000-07:00

What's wrong with this picture?

A. Nothing. It's March and snowing, get over it.
B. It was 70 degrees 24 hours ago.

If you picked "B", go to the head of the class. I'll never get used to the weather here, especially in March. It'll probably set record highs on Wednesday! Sheesh!

Cue the circus music

2005-03-12T09:19:00.000-07:00

Far be it for me to second guess how the police do their work. Hell, my twin brother is a cop, so I get the police view of things a few times a week, and I regularly ask his opinion. However, having said that, I must say that the events in Atlanta yesterday and this morning are portraying Atlanta PD as a modern version of Keystone Cops.

First, the defendant, Brian Nichols, shows up to his trial (for rape and other charges) on Wednesday with hand-made knives in his shoe. Do they step up security following this? Nope. Must be business as usual. Then, Friday, he overpowers the one (female) security guard, takes her gun and shoots her, the judge and the court reporter. He then escapes and carjacks a green Honda. We all saw the description of the car on the news last night. "Be on the lookout! He's armed and dangerous! We have a tip line." Then, this morning--"Oops, he left the car in the parking garage in which he stole it in the first place." You can hear the circus music in the background of reports coming in from Atlanta.

One has to wonder, would this guy have tried/suceeded to escape if he was assigned a guard that was his size or bigger, maybe a male? I mean, this guy is on trial for crimes against his fiance; we can assume he doesn't have a whole lot of respect for women. How about two guards? Also, why wasn't this guy in an orange jumpsuit and shackles? I know, I know, he is innocent until proven guilty, so he gets to sit in the courtroom in civilian clothes--that is until he proves he is a danger. I guess trying to smuggle a couple of knives in to the courtroom two days earlier wasn't a big enough clue. It seems to me this tragic event may have been the result of some political correctness.

UPDATE Ann Coulter's column this week addresses this very issue

Carnival of Cordite is up...

2005-03-11T21:43:00.000-07:00

...this week hosted by Chris Byrne over at The AnarchAngel

Kofi An-nonsense

2005-03-10T07:20:00.000-07:00

More non-sense from Kofi "I won't confront any nation-ever, and you can't make me" Annan:

The United Nations must recognise Hezbollah as a force to be reckoned with in implementing the UN resolution calling for the withdrawal of all Syrian forces from Lebanon and the disarmament of the country's militias, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said later on Tuesday.

I can see it now--"We'd like to do something about these murdering terrorists, it's just that ~~we're too scared of their power~~ er, they are a force to be reckoned with."

And people wonder why the UN didn't do anything about another murdering thug.

Hat tip: Right-thinking dot com

McCain-Feingold and the insurrection...

2005-03-08T14:42:00.000-07:00

Let me just say this. The McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" Act has got to be the worst peice of legislation ever written.

First, let me reference the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Does it say "...abridging freedom of speech (unless congress decides it needs to be abridged)..."? Or "...or of the press (the requirements to qualify for the press will be determined by congress)..."?

NO!

I will not be silenced. Consider this a "petition to the Government for a redress of grievances."

2005-03-08T13:17:00.000-07:00

David Limbaugh continues his piece on the recent Supreme Court decision to ban, in all cases, the death penalty for those who committed their crime while a minor.

This case illustrates that courts ought to invoke the general sweep of a constitutional prohibition sparingly in order to avoid gross injustices in particular cases. Only an enormous amount of arrogance could lead the Court to preempt juries, which are infinitely better situated to make these exceedingly sensitive and important (life and death) determinations, and impose a general rule to apply in all cases.

In its feel-good zeal to protect "underage" murderers across the board, the Court issued a blanket rule negating in general what the jury specifically found in this case: that a 17-year-old has the mental capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his murder.

As Justice Scalia noted, it doesn't require a great deal of sophistication to know that murder is wrong. How much less does it take to understand the immorality of the compounding factors involved in this case?

A few of points:

First, the Court has overstepped the bounds of the Constitution in telling the States what punishments will be taken off the table. Whether or not any state has the death penalty is primarily up to the voters in that state.

Second, as stated above, jurors in each case are in a better position to determine the circumstances behind a crime, and, therefore, in a better position to determine the punishment.

Third, we now have a situation where the Supreme Court believes that a 17 year old girl is mature enough to decide on her own to have an abortion, but not mature enough to know that murder is wrong. From Hodgson v. Minnesota:

For reasons that follow, we now conclude that the requirement of notice to both of the pregnant minor's parents is not reasonably related to legitimate state interests, and that subdivision 2 is unconstitutional.

And from Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth:

...the State may not impose a blanket provision, such as § 3(4), requiring the consent of a parent or person in loco parentis as a condition for abortion of an unmarried minor during the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy.

Whether or not abortion and/or the death penalty are “right” is another argument. However, whichever side(s) of the issues you come down on, the hypocrisy here is phenomenal.

Cucumbers

2005-03-08T10:17:00.000-07:00

One of the big reasons I am pulling my kids out of gum'mint schools is this: I think parents should be able to control what is taught to their children. My oldest is in third grade and I already see glimpses of the propaganda machine. Things will only get worse:

From Cal Thomas yesterday:

In the produce section of the grocery store, the lowly cucumber is about to achieve an elevated position in some Montgomery County, Md., public schools. Montgomery County has long been known as a "bedroom community" in the affluent Washington, D.C., suburbs - an appropriate moniker given what young students are about to be taught.

The school system announced last week that a new sex curriculum will be introduced this spring for three middle schools and three high schools. Students will be taught how to put a condom on a cucumber. They will also be taught that homosexual couples are the newest American "family."

This apparently isn’t even due to a request from parents. It is a classic example of the elites running today’s public schools unilaterally deciding what is to be taught.

Not for my kids. Read the whole thing.

Beuller, Beuller...

2005-03-08T09:34:00.000-07:00

Max, are there?

Another righteous shooting...

2005-03-08T09:30:00.000-07:00

Head on over to the Nation of Riflemen for the details. Short version: Dead goblin count is now 97

Back in the saddle?

2005-03-05T09:04:00.000-07:00

OK. Second try at blogging. I know, I know, there are thousands of people blogging. Don't care. I just want to vent!