These people have no idea what they are describing. If the Social Security payroll taxes are invested in US Treasury debt (as they are), they fund other government departments by definition. You can't say that a given president has borrowed money from the trust fund and now should pay it back. The tax hikes on banks that the authors advocate will also be immediately invested in US Treasury debt, and therefore automatically lent out to the operating branches of the government.
By the way, I can buy US Treasuries myself through my account at Fidelity. Indeed, I can submit a non-competitive bid at the auctions of new issues and Fidelity adds zero mark up. Nobody needs the Social Security Administration to invest in US Treasuries if they want to. If the government stopped taking Social Security payroll taxes you'd be free to use that money to buy US Treasuries. This talk of putting our savings at the mercy of Wall Street is nonsense. Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
This is absolutely moronic, but not just for the reasons most people will think. If the elephants are pests, why don't the farmers kill them themeselves? (Probably because the dictator Mugabe does not allow his people the right to bear arms.) Also, it looks to be the least efficient way possible to stop herbivores from destroying your crop. How about an electric fence, for example? Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The government monopoly over people's access to medical care is pretty well baked in, and the militant unions fight to protect their privileges. But they can't stop Canadians who are denied care by government bureaucrats from coming to the U.S. and paying cash for the care they need. See http://tinyurl.com/5r4lhkm. About Canada Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What a difference a president makes! The NY Times' editorial this morning urged France to take a back seat on the bombing of Libya. (I write "bombing" because that is what I see happening. I have no idea what they mean by a "no-fly zone".) The editorialists urge that NATO take command of the campaign. NATO, of course, means the U.S., because the North Atlantic Treaty demands that an American general or admiral be the top uniformed officer in the alliance.
Actually, Canada is more economically free than the U.S. now, according to the Heritage Foundation's rankings, but it's because of smaller government, not because the government censors broadcast speech.
We have laws in the U.S. against libel and slander. What more do you socialists need? What is shocking about this story is that a regulatory bureaucracy has apparently overruled Parliament. How does that happen in a democracy? Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
This is grotesque. The 5th amendment concerns government actions such as stealling your property or throwing you into jail without a fair trial. It has nothing to do with "equal protection" as in teh 14th amendment. The latter applies only to states and not the federal government. In fact, it empowers Congress to legislate appropriately to enforce the 14th amendment - which it did via DOMA.
In every state where the people have decided the fate of same-sex marriage directly, they have declined to recognize or subsidize it. Only where the judiciary or the legislature denied the people the power to decide has same-sex marriage been imposed. If anything, those states are in violation of the Constitution, and the federal government has an obligation to restore "republican government" in those states (article 4, section 4). Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The New York Times is upset that the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives wants to inflict the worst sort of conservative social experimentation on the residents of DC.
This can only happen, of course, because of the "Enclave Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which allows the federal government to govern DC directly. For the left, the solution to giving voting rights to DC residents is to make it a state.