"These things I believe: That government should butt out. That freedom is our most precious commodity and if we are not eternally vigilant, government will take it all away. That individual freedom demands individual responsibility. That government is not a necessary good but an unavoidable evil. That the executive branch has grown too strong, the judicial branch too arrogant and the legislative branch too stupid. That political parties have become close to meaningless. That government should work to insure the rights of the individual, not plot to take them away. That government should provide for the national defense and work to insure domestic tranquility. That foreign trade should be fair rather than free. That America should be wary of foreign entanglements. That the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. That guns do more than protect us from criminals; more importantly, they protect us from the ongoing threat of government. That states are the bulwark of our freedom. That states should have the right to secede from the Union. That once a year we should hang someone in government as an example to his fellows." --Lyn Nofziger
In a nutshell, he just about got it. Almost short-circuits the need for a blog...but there will always be times when people need to hear about issues in the context of the quote above.
Next week, I'm hoping that the close of the legislative season here in Maryland won't create any more damage than it already has. I'm still pissed about the Wal-Mart bill and I wish Governor Ehrlich had the balls to veto it despite the fact it would be overrode. I'm just curious if there were any RINO's who voted for that mess. When government goes out to target one individual or entity for a (perceived) wrong like not spending enough on health benefits, it's time to rein in government.
The other item I'm very unhappy about is the uproar over selling off state land to a developer. I say sell off more! Put the land back on the tax rolls so the rest of us pay a little less freight. I wrote about this to the Daily Times not too long ago. This is what I wrote, or close to it (since my letters seem to get edited sometimes):
No need to halt sale of surplus state lands
Lately the issue of selling state land for private development has found its way to the front burner, as evidenced by a number of bills introduced in the Maryland House. These measures would put roadblocks in any effort to sell "surplus" land.
To me, the word "surplus" implies not needed for any purpose. In an era where the trend is for government to overuse its power of eminent domain, I find returning state land to the private sector a refreshing trend.
After I looked at this article, I pulled out my state map of Maryland and noticed there's a lot of green area on it, meaning government-owned land. I know a lot of this area is set aside for recreational use and wildlife habitat, but does the state really need that much land?
I would like to see a lot more state land turned over for private use. The extra taxes collected could help lower that burden on the rest of us.
Development is not a dirty word. It's development that keeps all of us working and makes life more convenient for area residents. Maybe it was nice when Route 13 was all open space up to Delaware and down to Fruitland, but we all shop there now.
So put me down as a person firmly against any effort to halt state land divestment.
Almost forgot, they passed the state minimum wage increase as well. Idiots. That was the letter I sent to the Baltimore Sun and they gutted it.
Let the market set the floor for our wages
(Note: my edited out parts will be in standard print).
In a game of keeping up with the Joneses (or in this case, Delaware and DC), the powers that be in the Maryland Legislature have placed in the hopper a bill to increase the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour ("Md. legislators to push for minimum-wage rise, Feb. 11). The Sun's article noted that just 2% of Maryland hourly workers would actually directly benefit from this increase. In other words, just 2 of every 100 laborers make $5.15 an hour.
However, this doesn't count the thousands of people who make just above the minimum wage, who would also get a bump up in wages. Then the people just a little more skilled up the employment ladder would see the people below them get wages that now equal theirs and demand raises for themselves, and so forth. All this adds up to inflationary pressure.
Obviously, the unions would be behind this because in many instances, their contract wages are tied to minimum wage. Thus a higher minimum wage would be an unnegotiated wage increase for their rank-and-file. Higher wages mean more union dues and more largesse to spread around political circles.
And all this leaves me, as a salaried worker who negotiated his own wage, scratching his head as to how I would continue to enjoy the standard of living I sought by coming here and taking my job while prices go up around me. And sooner or later, after prices go up, people will demand a higher minimum wage, since "just" $6.15 an hour won't do. Then the merry-go-round will circle again. Economics is not a zero-sum game, a fact which I think Democrats sometimes forget with these proposals.
I have (a) some simpler, more business-friendly solutions for those of you down the block in DC who control such things at the federal level. How about sunsetting the minimum wage and letting the market control itself? (This is where the Sun version ends).
Or, as a half-measure, why not adopt a lower "training wage" for workers under 18 who can get their start at the low end of the corporate totem pole? Many of those who make minimum wage are under 18 and aren't supporting a family. A slightly lower wage for them would be incentive for employers to hire younger workers and let them learn the responsibility of holding a job. If they work out well as good employees the employer would think long and hard before ditching them for a younger and cheaper employee, since experience is worth much more than a small wage gap gained by replacing an older worker to take advantage of the "training wage".
I think either solution at the federal level is better than this simple misguided attempt at "fairness" coming from Annapolis.
************
Don't you hate it when your great argument is left on the cutting room floor? When I write these kinds of things, I generally offer some sort of proposal or solution. I don't just bitch and say this is so wrong, life sucks, I hate everything, blah blah blah.
So I think I'll sit down in the next couple weeks and study what further restrictions have been put on my freedom in this so-called "Free State". Right now I wouldn't even say it's at a greatly reduced price.
