As every element of modern life moves towards more customization and individual empowerment, government stands alone as the only major entity moving in the opposite direction.  And liberals, (i.e., Democrats and some Republicans), are its only salesmen.

Innovation and new technologies have led to increasingly rapid advances in products and services that are centered around consumers and their personal preferences.  These changes in turn have upended existing industries and business models and created new ones, the result being that many of today’s biggest and most innovative companies or services, (such as Facebook, Google, i-Tunes, YouTube, etc.), didn’t even exist (or just barely) when the War on Terror began in 2001.

Computers continue to get better, smaller, faster and cheaper, with multitudes of customizable options.  Phones have evolved into a combination of phone, stereo, camera, camcorder, TV and hand-held computer – all at a fraction of what only one of those individual devices used to cost, much less all of them.

The winner in this sea change is of course the consumer, who gains access to more choice and better quality at a lower cost.

But then there’s government, which continues to become more expensive, bloated and uniform, rather than innovative, primarily because it has what it doesn’t allow businesses to have: a monopoly.

Granted, there are many things that, due to finances, can’t be customized for everyone.  Roads come to mind, (despite the delusions of some drivers).  But the point is that choice benefits consumers and weakens any monopoly.  If your services are no longer the only game in town, and if people don’t need what you’re selling, then they don’t need you – which is why government tends to outlaw its competition.  read more »

As the final vote in the Senate on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the US Supreme Court draws near, there’s little doubt that she will be confirmed, given the Democrats large majority.  But it will be a missed opportunity if Senate Republicans don’t use the debate to make some larger points about the judiciary and the size and scope of our government.

The problem is that when it comes to the American judiciary, what once was extreme has become mainstream, and the views of government held by those who wrote and ratified our Constitution are today considered extreme and out of date.

So how did this happen?  It certainly wasn’t suddenly.  Instead, it has been a long and insidious process, routed in the old “progressive” political movement whose adherents changed their names to “liberals” when progressive became a dirty word, and have now changed it back.  But this weed by any other name would smell as bad.  read more »

Imagecolumn: 

Let's get one thing straight. The government and its misguided housing policies caused our current financial mess. And, as a result, the government should help fix it.

That said, exactly "what" should have been fixed, "how" and for "how much" are the right places to focus our attention. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make sure everyone knows exactly how we got in this mess. 

The origins lie in the Clinton Administration's misguided attempt to raise the percentage of homeowners in America by forcing banks to give loans to people with, shall we say, less than stellar credit, (those "sub-prime" mortgages you keep hearing about).

So how did they do this? With two government (read: taxpayer) sponsored companies called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As the Clinton Administration leaned on banks to loosen credit restrictions, (even having Janet Reno threaten lawsuits), Congress forced Fannie and Freddie to buy the sketchy loans as soon as the banks and mortgage companies wrote the loans. So the lenders made the loans (hey, why turn down a commission?), and everyone made bonus at the end of the year.  read more »