What Salisbury Needs…………..

Mr. Ireton is now looking to business owners for help with:

• Allfirst Bank Building, 201 W. Main St.
• 113 W. Main St.
• Hess Building, 205 W. Main St.
• The Powell Building, 218-220 W. Main St.
• White & Leonard Building, 117 &119 W. Main St

It seems a little late, doesn’t it? Will the right thing be done for the wrong reason? That is very possible.

What Salisbury needs is simple. It is what Maryland and America as a whole needs. Simply, we need the ability to live our lives, succeed or fail, we must be allowed the opportunity. Government can steal our money and try to prop some up and destroy others, but we all lose in that type of environment.

Is Mr. Ireton sincere in his quest to ask those who risk everything what they need to succeed? If so, the answer is simple. Mr. Ireton, the City and County Council, the state of Maryland and the Federal government, get out of our way! Get rid of the inventory tax, remove the red tape, and simplify the process.

This is a country based on the abilities, knowledge and the vision of invidividuals, not the force of the government.

More to come………

Read more here………….

Are Americans Becoming More Libertarian-Minded?

The basic definition of a libertarian is “a person who maintains the doctrine of free will,” but in political circles, the word becomes more complex, encompassing a wide range of perspectives on a litany of issues.

Generally speaking, though, libertarianism — in a practical sense — can be boiled down to a penchant for a more minimized governmental role in society and an increase in individual freedom and expression.

With recent societal patterns in mind, it is important to ask: Are Americans becoming more libertarian-minded? On The New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog this morning, Nate Silver explored the issue, writing the following:

Libertarianism has been touted as the wave of America’s political future for many years, generally with more enthusiasm than evidence. But there are some tangible signs that Americans’ attitudes are in fact moving in that direction.

These “tangible signs” come from polling data that was collected earlier this month. According to Silver, CNN has been asking the following questions since 1993:

Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?

Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?

In terms of the first question, a libertarian would typically say that the government is trying to do too much. As for the second question, he or she would contend that the government should not favor a “particular set of values.”

Interestingly, these indicators have stayed fairly consistent over time. But, the libertarian response to both questions reached an all-time high in the recent CNN study. It was found that 63 percent of respondents feel that the government is currently doing too much, with only 46 percent indicating that the government should promote traditional values. Below, you can see a Times graphic that shows the uptick and trend in libertarian views:

Read more here.

SCOTUS throws out massive class action sex discrimination case

Unanimously overruling the San Francisco-based 9th District Court, the Supreme Court threw out a massive class action sex discrimination case against Walmart. The key issue was whether the one and a half million women hired by Walmart, or who were not hired by Walmart after the case was filed, had enough in common to constitute a legally valid class able to sue. Reuters summarizes:

The high court accepted Wal-Mart’s main argument that the female employees in different jobs at 3,400 different stores nationwide and with different supervisors do not have enough in common to be lumped together in a single class-action lawsuit.

The Supreme Court only decided whether the 10-year-old lawsuit can proceed to trial as a group, not the merits of the sex-discrimination allegations at the heart of the case.

Justice Scalia,

said there must be significant proof that Wal-Mart operated under a general policy of discrimination. “That is entirely absent here,” he said, noting that Wal-Mart’s official corporate policies forbid sex discrimination.

The unanimous decision is yet another rebuke to the San Francisco-based 9th District Court of Appeals, the most-overruled circuit court in the nation, clearly out of step. The 9th also has the largest region under its jurisdiction, leading to calls to cut the district into two smaller regions. Perhaps the 9th’s jurisdiction ought to be limited to the City of San Francisco, with a new circuit created to encompass the rest of the current district. This is within the jurisdiction of Congress, according to the Constitution.

How ignorant is Jon Stewart?

Really? He’s kidding, right? A president can’t do much to affect the economy?

* Threatening small businesses – our main jobs generating machine – with tax hikes doesn’t affect the economy?
* Piling thousands of pages of new regulations in hundreds of new rulemaking processes doesn’t affect the economy?
* Having a president who has referred to the private sector as “the enemy” doesn’t affect the economy?
* Turning bankruptcy laws upside down and giving unsecured creditors preference over secured creditors doesn’t affect the willingness of secured creditors to loan money? And this doesn’t affect the economy?
* Threatening American business with unneeded environmental regulations that will cost perhaps billions of dollars has no affect on the economy?
* Telling businesses that they are not going to be allowed to locate manufacturing facilities in states where workers cannot be forced to join unions won’t affect the economy?
* Pushing a bill that would allow unionization-by-intimidation in the private sector won’t affect the economy?

Stick to the comedy, Jon.

Simply Lunatic

Centrist and right-of-center national security experts reacted with contempt to Attorney General Eric Holder’s claim at a legal convention that the courts are the nation’s “most effective terror-fighting weapon.”

“That’s utter nonsense … it is simply lunatic,” said Ralph Peters, military analyst, author and former soldier. In the war against the jihadis, he said, the courts “have been totally ineffective when they’re not outright destructive.”

“He’s unconsciously shilling for his own profession,” said Michael Rubin, a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “Holder, like many ambitious bureaucrats, wants to build a bureaucratic empire … [and] by doing so, he will get Americans killed.”

On Sunday, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell added his voice to the criticism. “The attorney general said the other night our biggest weapon in the war on terror was the U.S. civilian court system,” he said on CBS’ Face The Nation. “ I don’t know what planet he’s living on.”

Holder’s declaration came in a Thursday speech to hundreds of progressive lawyers, advocates, judges and students gathered at the American Constitution Society’s annual gala. “I know that – in distant countries, and within our own borders – there are people intent on, and actively plotting to, kill Americans,” he told his legal peers in the enthusiastic audience. “Victory and security will not come easily, and they won’t come at all if we adhere to a rigid ideology, adopt a narrow methodology, or abandon our most effective terror-fighting weapon – our Article III [civil] court system,” he declared to much applause.

Read more here.

Defending the indefensible

“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible.”

Those words were spoken by White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley. He made this statement after listening to complaints from businesses leaders about government regulation … though one could argue that those words could apply to the administration as a whole. Government regulations can have just as much of an effect on businesses, hamstringing entrepreneurs and stifling growth. And guess what? These regulations are only growing!

From the States News Service:

Between 2001 and 2011, 38,700 new regulations were added to the Federal Register. Of the over 4000 new regulations that are currently being developed by various government departments and agencies, 224 are estimated to cost the economy more than $100 million each. And the Obama administration appears to be doubling down on regulation, with massive new regulations in the works at the Environmental Protection Agency, new health care regulations, and a host of yet to be written regulations covering financial services …

Just how much money are federal regulations costing our economy? The answer appears to be quite a lot. Every year economist Clyde Wade Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute releases a report, entitled “The Ten Thousand Commandments” analyzing federal regulations and their costs. Crews’ analysis found that in 2010 the federal government spent around $55.4 billion dollars funding federal agencies, and enforcing existing regulation. But these costs barely compare to the compliance costs that regulation imposes on the economy. Crews’ report cites the work of economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, whose study of the net cost of regulations determined that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP. As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion.

Can you believe that, folks? Twelve percent of our economy is tied up in government regulations! That works out to about $15,000 per household. This is truly “indefensible.”

Howard Dean on the Tea Parties

Howard Dean is a walking case of a rectal-cranial inversion. At the moment, he is focusing back on the Tea Party, in anticipation of the 2012 elections. He is carrying the torch for all of those who wish to demonize the Tea Party in attempts to marginalize the movement. Look for more liberals to start doing this again, as they realize that they have nothing to hang their hat on when it comes to defending their guy, Barack Obama, and his handling of the economy. Instead of digging in on the facts, they will attempt to paint the Tea Party as “dangerous” and as a shrinking fringe movement.

Temporary debt limit hike possible

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel has indicated that it is possible that the White House and Republicans will kick the debt ceiling can down the road a couple of months if both sides are unable to come to an agreement.


McConnell said on Sunday the ceiling could be raised enough to last a few months so that negotiations can continue on a larger deal that would include changes to so-called entitlement programs like Medicare.

“The president and the vice president, everybody knows you have to tackle entitlement reform,” McConnell said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“If we can’t do that, then we’ll probably end up with a very short-term proposal over, you know, a few months. And we’ll be back having the same discussion again in the fall,” McConnell said.

Vice President Joe Biden is leading negotiations with congressional Democrats and Republicans who are trying to agree on how to narrow huge budget deficits and raise the debt limit so the United States can avoid defaulting on its financial obligations and keep borrowing money to pay its bills.

Biden and top Democratic and Republican lawmakers aim to reduce the country’s stubborn budget deficits by $4 trillion over the next 10 years in order to give lawmakers the political cover to raise the debt ceiling.

Delay benefits the Democrats. The closer we get to 2012, the less likely that broad, deep cuts in entitlements will be forthcoming in any deal. Why McConnel would countenance a temporary measure is puzzling. The only thing I can imagine him thinking is that the economy will worsen between now and the fall, and that it will put pressure on Democrats to deal on Medicare and Social Security. It is widely assumed – at least by professionals on Wall Street and around the world – that a failure to raise the debt ceiling will have a disastrous effect on world markets and is likely to push the American economy back into recession.

That may nor may not be the case. No one knows the answer which makes a temporary rise more attractive for politicians who hate the idea of having to make an unpopular vote close to an election.