So is it Constitutional? – Part 2

[updated: Now with complete sentences]

Arizona just passed a law that may require an individual suspected of being an illegal alien to prove citizenship or their legal right to be in the country. Is it Constitutional?

This one in my view isn’t very close. It is completely unconstitutional to ask someone to show their papers or even identify themselves if they’re not involved in an actual crime.

It’s funny how conservatives who claim to be against things like a National ID card, don’t have a problem with making someone who just may “look” like an illegal and therefore undocumented alien identify themselves.

I hope this is thrown out as quickly as the health insurance mandate.

The Fake Outrage about Stimulus Package Waste

I read in the news about every week some story about wasteful spending related to the stimulus packages from both Bush and Obama. If you had the chance to confront a politician about it you'd get some fake outrage about how terrible it is and they'll promise to look into it. You must understand though that if they voted for the stimulus funds believing that they would help the economy, they are LYING about their concern for how it was spent.

You have to understand first that anyone who supports this type of economic rescue plan does not believe there is such a thing as waste when it comes to stimulus. Every politician has an economist who is close to them and assures them that this money had to enter the economy somewhere, and it mostly doesn't matter where.

President Obama introduced his stimulus as being available for "shovel ready" jobs to assure you that people would go to work immediately, but we find out everyday that pieces of the whole plan were spent on some silly projects.

As Bastiat pointed out over a hundred years ago, people who believe in this type of economic system believe that even if you use the money to hire people to break windows, the glass man gets paid and when the glass man has money he will buy food and goods and services with it. For this reason Keynesian economists and the politicians they advise will only pretend to be outraged by where the money is spent.

The fatal mistake of these plans is that they ultimately put the financial money supply in the wrong places. This cannot be centrally planned. Instead they give resources to the politically connected at the expense of those who may use it productively. So if the money is spent to hire a guy to hold a shovel, resources for someone to build and manufacture a better shovel will be scarcer. Even well-meaning ideas like "green jobs" or some other centrally planned industry will put resources in a place that a free market won't...at least not yet.

Our nation's hope to pay back the debt we've been accumulating since the 1980's will come from either currency devaluation (pay back cheaper dollars than those we borrowed) or through increased productive capacity. It's doubtful we'll reach higher productivity with an economy supported by reinflated market bubbles waiting for the next round of government influenced mal-investment to be exposed.

I'd like to see some genuine outrage about the government's role in these recessions and less fake outrage over how their "rescue" plans were enacted.

Now wait a minute...

I thought only Right-wing Tea Baggers were capable of ridiculous, overblown, and dangerous rhetoric...and poorly made homemade signs. Could it be somehow that there are those on both the left and the right that are nuts? Or more to the point...being left or right is just plain nuts. Yeah, that's probably it.

Governor Gregoire = Less sucky

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire recently signed a bill yesterday which opens the way for a broader spectrum of healthcare professionals to prescribe medical marijuana to their patients. This is a hugely welcome sign of freedom that is truly compassionate on the most vulnerable and sick in our world. I commend her for it.

It is curious that she has railed against recent claims about "State's Rights" while she quietly enacted this law. This is also not being characterized as an act of defiance against the Federal Government and I wonder why. How can she legally sign a bill to open access to a controlled substance the Federal Government strictly prohibits? Is this any less of a 10th Amendment principled stand than say...our Attorney General joining the lawsuit against the Federal Government over the recent health care reform?

This is the type of bi-partisanship I love to see. Each side staking out their case to defend the liberties of the citizens of my state. I hope they're both successful.