Commuters Beware – Police Partner to Crackdown on HOV Violations

Virginia and Maryland law enforcement agencies are partnering May 22, 2012, to conduct the third annual “Capitol Region HOV Awareness Day.” The comprehensive traffic-safety enforcement operation will involve High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) saturation patrols by Maryland State Police, Virginia State Police, Alexandria Police, Arlington County Police, Fairfax County Police, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police and Prince William County Police.

Virginia law enforcement will be targeting HOV violators on Interstates 66, 95, 395, and the Dulles Toll Road. Maryland State Police will be conducting its HOV enforcement efforts on Interstate 270. During both morning and evening rush hours, law enforcement will be utilizing moving and stationary enforcement methods to detect and
deter HOV violators. Police will be adjusting their enforcement methods throughout the operation in order to prevent traffic backups and added congestion.
With the increased presence of troopers and officers on the highways, motorists are reminded of Virginia’s and Maryland’s “Move Over” laws. Both “Move Over” laws require motorists to change to another travel lane
or, when not able to, to cautiously pass emergency personnel stopped out on the road.

The 2011 HOV enforcement initiative yielded a total of 777 summonses and arrests in both Virginia and Maryland, with 575 of those for HOV violations.

 

Comments

  1. Another View says:

    This is yet another example of government tyranny. All must pay for roads, but only a favored class may use them; usually the public employee.

    • Fly on the wall says:

      [redacted] Those lanes are there for anyone who wishes to carpool or vanpool to work – regardless if it’s a public employee or folks in the private sector. If more folks took advantage of them, they’d better fulfill their purpose.

      That’s like mitching and boaning about public transit – all pay for it, but only (by your logic) the “less-favored” class or the poor folks use it regularly in those areas.

      [redacted] the government agencies that try to help make life better, promote the general welfare, and allow us to better pursue happiness and enjoy life.

      • Another View says:

        HOV lanes, while ostensibly open to all who carpool, actually serve only those who have regular hours. And in this area, who might that be? Why government employees!!!

        And what are we going to do if someone who was not so correct as to carpool but wished to use the always underutilized and free flowing car pool lanes? Fine ’em! Put points on their license! Hopefully soon we’ll institute capital punishment for such an egregious offense!

        Car pool lanes actually add to congestion. They are ineffective, offensive, and wrong.

        As for public transportation, there should be none. Transportation is not a proper governmental function. But for subsidies, it would fail miserably.

        The government does not make our lives better. The government serves to disrupt our lives. That is why it must be jealously restricted to its core functions, and nothing more. By its very nature, government is tyranny.

        • Hmmm... says:

          If, by “disrupt our lives,” you mean that you simply cannot do what you wish whenever you wish it…OK, fine, government is tyranny.

          Who’s the arbiter of what is “tyranny” and what is an appropriate use of the power of the people to order our lives for the better? You? Please…

          You cannot have it both ways, AV…the absence of any sort of government organization or collective unity places far too much on the whims of the individuals – and “Lord of the Flies” should be sufficient (in addition to the ample historical record) of what goes poorly when that organization is not there (or there, but so neutered that it is ineffective…see Dodge City, KS).

          • Another View says:

            The government tells us what kind of toilets, cars, washers, dryers, and air conditioners we can buy. The government tells us that we cannot consume trans fats, salt, sugar, organic milk, non-pastuerized cheese, alcohol, tobacco and certain drugs.

            The government dictates where our children must ride in our cars, that they must go to school, for how long and what they must learn, and now, that they cannot work on a family’s farm.

            The government dictates that you cannot refuse service to someone in your own business if that person is in a “protected class”. It matters not that you wish to serve some, and not serve others. It matters not your politics or your religious views. If the government dictates, you must obey.

            The government ended and transformed The Virginia Military Institute and The Citadel, because the Washington bureaucrat knew better than the schools themselves, their states, alumni, and more than a hundred years, respectively, of experience.

            The government wishes to require you to purchase health insurance, and pay for products in that policy, whether the products suit your needs or not. The government also wishes to dictate what medical services and products you may receive, irrespective of your need or desire.

            The government wants to take your hard earned money and give it to those who it deems more worthy.

            The government–by its nature–is tyranny.

          • Hmmm... says:

            Are you suggesting that it’s perfectly fine to discriminate against those different from you, in respect to your business and whom you “serve”? Yeah, that’s a Christian ideal right there.

            VMI accepts state taxpayer funds, and thus was ruled to not be able to exclude women.

            The government does tell you taht you “cannot” eat those items; rather, it informs you that those foods are bad for your health, and encourages you to make a better choice.

            Seriously, AV…you’re a one-note hack, and it’s your positions you endlessly parrot that keeps those who think like you in the weeds and on the fringes of any serious discourse.

          • Another View says:

            1. I am not suggesting that it is “perfectly fine” to discriminate against those who are different with respect to your business. Indeed, it is economically stupid. BUT, in a free society, we accept that people can be stupid with respect to themselves and their property. So if Boyd’s Nest will not serve blacks, and Jane’s Lunch will not serve women, fine. They should be legally permitted to do so. The market will decide the wisdom of those choices.

            2. I am well aware of the S.Ct. ruling on VMI (I was involved in it). That doesn’t make it right. There is nothing in the Constitution which permits the federal government to act as it did, and the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly. Moreover, I do not see you in a lather over the all women’s public school in Mississippi that the same Supreme Court held did not violate the Constitution, just a few years before. What’s the difference?

            3. The government does tell you that you cannot consume those items. There are dry countries in this country, where no alcohol can be consumed. There are cities that ban trans fats, certain salt and sugar levels, and foie gras. You cannot smoke marijuana. You cannot consume organic milk (from the farm) or unpastuerized cheese. In California, there are communities where you cannot smoke in your own house. AND IN VIRGINIA, you cannot smoke in a restaurant or your own office.

            It is easy [and intellectually lazy] for you to call me a “hack”. You and your big government friends on this site love the ad hominem attack. But the truth is, you are the ones who are truly one note.

            You know what I stand for, and why. I tell you in my writings. But can you justify your love of, and faith in, government? Stop the name calling and try substantive debate!

            On what legal basis may the government tell me what kind of toilet I may use in my house? On what legal basis may the government demand that I pay it monies so that it may transfer those monies to you? And are you seriously arguing that freedom is not impinged when a person’s consumption and associations are regulated?

            Freedom is neither free nor easy. Perhaps that is why more people succumb to the siren call of the nanny state.

          • Mr Mister says:

            Why do you like big government stepping in when it involves two men that want to marry? Or a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnacy? Pick and choose…..

          • Another View says:

            Two men cannot marry. And it is big government that is trying to redefine “marriage”. In Mass., Iowa, D.C and NY–government redefined “marriage”. In Maryland, government’s efforts to redefine “marriage” is on hold. In California, government’s redefinition of “marriage” was reversed by the people, and now government is trying to overturn the people’s verdict.

            As for abortion, there are two questions. The first question is what level of government, if any, can address this question. Prior to 1973, it was the States. After Roe v. Wade–a constitutionally vapid decision–it was the federal government. So the proper thing to do in the first instance is to return the matter to where it belongs, the States. In that case, Virginia might ban abortion, NY permit it, and NC do something in between.

            The second question goes to the substance of abortion. Is it a killing? Yes. Since then it is a killing, should it be permitted? My answer is no. My answer is that innocent life should never be intentionally taken. That is why we criminalize murder. And that is government’s proper role. Government should be there to enforce the law, to preserve the peace, to protect innocent life and property, and to permit people to live their lives unfettered by interference from it or others.

          • J Gibson says:

            So…does Roe v. Wade not, in your own words, “permit” her “to live” her life “unfettered by interference from” government or “others”?

  2. I wish they’d crack down on people texting and driving. That’s a lot more dangerous activity than not wearing a seat belt

  3. Another View says:

    Roe v. Wade does violence twice. First, it violates the Constitution. Second , it permits the wanton murder of babies. It is our American Holocaust.

  4. Sam Card says:

    If there are drivers with too few passengers driving in the urban HOV lanes, than there must be a need to enforce the law. Our cities are congested, so public transportation and ways to move people with less cars is a good idea. The idea of the HOV lane was to encourage people to car pool. There is an economic externality from slow commuting times and health care costs associated with air pollution. The Clean Air Act has improved the air quality in places such as Los Angles, which was smog city in the 1960s. I heard that General Motors and Firestone conspired to ruin the mass transit systen in Los Angeles, The trolley tracks were pulled up and right aways were sold for real estate development. Lobbyists got government subsidies to build a freeway system in Los Angeles.

  5. Another View says:

    The question is not whether car pooling is a good or bad idea. The issue is whether government has or should have the authority to force or coerce citizens to act in conformity with their ideals. Our history and founding suggests not.

    As for what you “heard” about Los Angeles, that is not true. It is subplot of the cartoon feature movie, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” A fine movie, but wholly fiction.

    And as someone who does business in Los Angeles regularly, public transportation does not work there. Indeed, it also does not work in fairly compact areas such as San Francisco City. The fact is, public transportation does not work (with the possible exception of the NY subway system, which is an anomaly).

    • Fly on the wall says:

      Actually, AV, in our history…both individuals AND the government has regularly done things to “coerce citizens to act in conformity with their ideals.” The Founding Fathers who penned The Federalist Papers did exactly that, as those treatises could be seen as propaganda to sway public sentiment for or against a stronger central government than what was initially set up under The Articles of Confederation.

      The federal government, through strong laws, court rulings, and executive orders, moved to end segregation against minorities, establish the interstate highway system, enhance food inspection, and a host of other things that have served to better ALL of our lives here in the USA.

      Again, it’s not a perfect system (for it is run by humans, who have proven themselves time and again to be supremely fallible), but it is a far cry from the “tyranny” label you toss about regularly.

      • Another View says:

        Is it not tyranny to dictate what one may consume freely? Is it not tyranny to tax individuals in all things, great and small, in some instances amounting to more than 50% of one’s annual income? Is it not tyranny to dictate that one must buy some products, and may not buy others? Is it not tyranny to confiscate the fruits of some persons’ labors and give it to others?

        I say yes. So did, and would, the Founders. I put my lot with them, and not the benefits of a soft tyranny looking out for my best interests.

        • J Gibson says:

          So, yourproposal is what, exactly? In an earlier post, you mentioned eliminating half of the Cabinet: Transportation, HUD, Education, Energy, Agriculture, Labor, and perhaps 2 or 3 others. But, at what cost? Those departments control things like OSHA (which works to make our workplaces safe), NOAA and the National Weather Service (which, to me, seems kind of important), NHTSA (which investigates major road accidents, bridge safety, other things), mine safety, food and drug safety inspections, and other stuff. Oh, but you say that none of that is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, so it’s “immoral” and “illegal” and “tyranny.”

          You again come back, once you’ve traded your broad brush, and hit again at the health care reform efforts, and such programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public assitance. Are there abuses in those programs? Sure there are. As someone earlier posted, humans are involved, so chicanery will ensue (irrespective of political stripe). You stated, on a post several threads ago, that you long for a world where folks took care of each other. You seem to forget that, very often, the poor were clustered together in crappy tenements, or squatter’s villages, or shantytowns, or whatever; those with disabilities were often shuttered away from everyone else; those who couldn’t were often left behind. Churches and civic groups and individuals did what they could (when they tried anything at all), but at some point the needs are greater than the ability to meet them. I will agree with you that public assitance should NOT be a lifestyle or anything permanent; but I will disagree with you that it is “tyranny” for the government to have any sort of public safety net in place.

          You can live in your narrow literal-constructionist mindframe all you want. What clearly galls you is that your view is decidedly in a micro-minority, and you have no say in how things go. You pine for a world in which individuals are paramount, the free market decides all, and repercussions be damned. Sorry, my friend, that worldview is dangerous. If you want to rally anyone to your cause, stop playing to the fringe elements, put your real name on it, and take a stand. If not, well, keep doing what you’re doing.

          • “….stop playing to the fringe elements, put your real name on it, and take a stand….”

            Why do real names matter? I can bet you there are several names being used on this site that are being used by someone not using their real name, definitely more than one “fake” name per person. I’ve been accused of being someone else entirely and that person has been berated because of it on this and other sites.

            Not everybody thinks they should sit idly by and watch their taxes get raised to support some new government program that is ‘supposed’ to help the less fortunate but actually opens up the system for increasing abuses. Politics has become increasingly more polarized with the current two party system, and the middle of the road is disappearing. I think it’s disgusting how the two parties continuously refuse to work together for the common good. That’s what is wrong with this country. We are continuously forced by both sides to choose the lesser of two evils. The two evils are getting worse.

          • Another View says:

            Did it ever occur to you that if government can ignore its constitutional restraints, then there is no freedom and liberty for citizens? Did it ever occur to you that if government can ignore its constitutional restraints, then we are slaves to the government?

            And did it ever occur to you that we have been here before; that is, that when government ignores its restraints and acts as it deems best, that the only available response is revolution? What do you think 1776 and 1861 were all about?

          • Oh Pshaw says:

            First, you need a cuppa tea. Relax. Then, fit your head with a new tinfoil cap, go stand outside and say three times while you clap your heels together:

            “There’s no place like home”

            Hopefully, you will either be transported to Oz and can help the munchkins deal with whatever wicked witch is currently around, or,

            even better for you, go back in time say about 10,000 years, whereupon you will immediately be given a club, and a mate, who may or may not be related to you. You will be expected to hunt, kill, food and clothing. You will be expected to SHARE the kill with the members of your “group”. Meanwhile, The women, who have been scavenging a variety of seeds and grains will also be expected to SHARE. Someone in the group will have the tools to turn skins into little pants. They will SHARE these with you. If there is an orphan child you will be expected to HELP care for it. Someone in the group has a rudimentary medical knowledge, you don’t have money, but that person will try to HELP you or your mate if you are ill. You might be expected to invite that person over to your fire and give him or her a piece of mammoth steak. Or you might let that person have a roll in the hay with your mate.

            If someone kills the leader, that person will probably be dealt a fatal blow with a club. If someone kills your mate, tough, women have no value. Get another one, who may or may not be related to you.

            You should have all the freedom and liberty you desire.

            Of course, your lifespan won’t be as long as it would have been here…..probably croak around 22; but we who have advanced into the 21st century will enjoy longer lifespans, in part due to government acting on our behalf in many cases.

            Look at it this way, no seatbelts, no taxes, free clothing, etc. You’ll have fun.

          • Another View says:

            I would rather live in Oz than in the Soviet Union, a system that you describe nicely, and presumably miss. Because you do not describe the United States of America as envisioned by its Founders.

            THE GREATEST PERIOD OF GROWTH AND PROSPERITY IN THIS COUNTRY OCCURRED BEFORE THE NEW DEAL. BEFORE BIG GOVERNMENT. BEFORE FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT. BEFORE LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON. BEFORE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

            Government does not create economic growth and prosperity. Government oppresses and steals from the citizenry. Tyranny is its very nature, which is why it must be restrained.

          • Lonnie Bishop says:

            I’ve read this thread with a chuckle, watchin you and those others go back and forth. However, your post there is so laughable Jay Leno probably would wish he’d written it.

            You cannot compare the economic growth, in real dollars, that occurred after World War II…you know, the “Baby Boom” generation…with growth that came before. Even the Roaring Twenties pales in comparison to the explosion of wealth, science, technology, and so forth that was seen in the 1950s and into the 1960s. The expansion of the middle class, the interstate highway system (funded by the federal government, which – in turn – opened up new areas of the country to development), etc., all saw the American experience grow and expand; the civil rights efforts, helped by the federal government thru the Army and the National Guard to enforce the rulings of the Supreme Court, worked to help the less-fortunate folks in our communities get access to that growth of opportunities.

            THe government’s support of science research, for the military and the nascent space program, helped discover new materials that made civilian life better: plastic, Velcro, adhesives for different types of tape, communications, weather tracking improvements, etc. The new highways fueled demand for cars, trucks, gas, oil, tires that hadn’t been seen since well before the war.

            The New Deal, flawed it might be in places, DID get millions of folks back to work; DID create NEW job opportunities thru efforts such as the TVA, the CCC (we wouldn’t have that spiffy Skyline Drive and the tourist dollars it brings to the Valley without it), and other programs; and those Social Security funds that your parents and others rely on in retirement wouldn’t be there, either.

            So, go ahead and continue to get upset, to arrogantly swat aside those opinions you deem to be inferior to yours. Your claims ain’t backed up by the evidence, and – unless you launch a court case that topples OSHA or HUD or SS or Medicre – those programs are going to be there regardless of your opinion on them. I got a few more years before I retire, so I’m happy paying into a system that helped take care of my parents; they were the adults in the 50s who helped drive this country forward and helped me and my generation have a better shot than they had.

          • Another View says:

            I have never denigrated the economic growth that has occurred in modern times. But it is not as much as happened between 1830 and 1930. Not even close.

            The New Deal did not create any prosperity. Indeed, the New Deal made economic conditions much worse. Only with the threat of WWII did FDR relent and free business to do what it does best, so that the country’s economic engine could roar. No government program created the supplies that allowed our troops to prevail; free enterprise did that job.

            Moreover, you overlook the fact that the great libraries, museums and schools were founded and funded by private citizens–the so-called “Robber Barons” that the government class likes to slander. These folks made it possible for millions of Americans to improve their lot in life. Henry Ford, for example, made it possible for ordinary Americans to own automobiles. No government program did that.

            You display a lack of understanding on how the federal government works. The Supreme Court is NOT the last word on a statute’s or program’s validity under the Constitution. Moreover, the Supreme Court is often wrong. Case in point, which decision was correct, Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board? Both cannot be correct.

            My claims are backed up by evidence. The Constitution is my evidence. Where is yours?

            Your side–those who love government and its soft tyranny–cannot cite anything to the contrary. But your lack of candor prevents you from stating what is obvious; so long as you get your check, the Constitution be damned. You are results oriented, believing that rights are derived from man, and not from God.

            Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid are destined for failure. They always were. And the bill is coming due now. You may get your checks, but millions of Americans will be taxed to give you your “due”. And they will get nothing in return. Enjoy your government benefits.

          • Sam Card says:

            Philanthropy has enriched our nation. Carnagie Steel was used for skyscapers, cars and better railroad tracks. As a Scottish immigrant, Carnagie earned a lot of profit and wanted to give back to his adopted nation. He funded many public libraries. Think of the great performances at Carnagie Hall in New York City. Rockefellar bought and donated some land to the National Park Service in the US Virgin Islands.(St. John) Weatlthy people made it possible for Acadia National Park in Maine for the enjoyment of all people. Mellon bought the land for Sky Meadows State Park in Viirginia. Franklin Roosevelt had do respond to the Great Depression. Back then, there were many shanty towns of shacks in urban areas such as Seattle called Hooverville. There was 25 percent unemployment and the Civillian Conservation Corps put some able men to work in projects that we enjoy today, such as hiking trails and reforestation of Shenandoah National Park. Besides philanthropy, we are a better a nation from some of the government investments in our infrastructure.

          • Another View says:

            The California real unemployment rate now exceeds 36%. D.C. exceeds 51%.

            How’s that Obama government-centric economy suit you? Does it make you want to raise taxes? Create another CCC? Maybe if we flail the “rich” more, unionize our public schools, raise the minimum wage to $100.00 per hour, and mandate homosexual marriage, the economy will really roar!!!!!!!!!!!

          • My 2 Cents says:

            It just might! Let’s give it a shot! What’s wrong AV, is your 6 figure salary not as high as it used to be???? Cry us all a river!!!!! Come try and live in the Middle Class where things are really tight…..

  6. Another View says:

    You cannot, have not, and do not ever cite a single Constitutional authority for the welfare/nanny state you favor. Not one. Your arguments are therefore bereft of reason and based solely on emotion.

    The fact is it is not just unconstitutional for the federal government to operate the welfare/nanny state you favor, it is IMMORAL. It is IMMORAL to take from Peter to benefit Paul. It is IMMORAL to give to Mary such that you rob her of her dignity, initiative and responsibility.

    Moreover, most of the programs you champion don’t just have problems. Rather, they are abject failures. And as for Churches, civic groups and individuals, they were not unable to fill a need. Rather they were crowded out, and regulated out, by a central government which craved power over everything else.

    As for the programs that might be necessary–you cite the National Weather Service–private entities easily would fill the void. And private entities would be cheaper, and more efficient, delivering superior service.

    Finally, history did not start in 1933. All the programs you love began after that date, and many not until the late 1960s. This country survived–nay, prospered and thrived–without the welfare/nanny state. And if we did not have the welfare/nanny state millstone around our collective necks, we would do so again.

    If things do not change, if we do not throw off the yoke of tyranny and return to first principles, we are doomed. We are Greece. Don’t believe me? Catch a United flight to California and stay a few days. The future is bleak. But it doesn’t have to be.

    • Fly on the wall says:

      And your arguments are not equally “based on emotion”? What “Constitutional authority” do you cite, other than your own interpretation of the document?

      Churches were “crowded out” by a central government “which craved power”? Really? So, that whole Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, created by “W,” is just a myth?

      The offices and programs folks reference have largely come into being within the past century because that has been the century of tremendous change, growth, and expansion of American culture and life.

      Seriously, dude…either practice what you carp, or remain just as “bereft of reason” as you denounce others for. We now have the anti-Donald Marro, and the handle is “Another View.”

      • Another View says:

        You have not read my posts if you do not know what “Constitutional authority” I cite. Because I cite the Constitution.

        Again, the Constitution bestows enumerated powers upon the federal government. These powers are specific and limited. The Constitution also states that if it is not in there, the powers belong to the States or the people (that would be the Tenth Amendment).

        SO–follow me here–if the Constitution does not state that the federal government may operate a national pension fund, then Social Security is unconstitutional.

        If the Constitution does not state that the federal government may operate a medical care system, then Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare are unconstitutional.

        If the Constitution does not mention education or school lunches, then the federal government may not be involved in education or school lunches.

        If the Constitution does not mention marriage, then the federal government has no role in marriage or the attempted redefining of marriage.

        If the Constitution does not mention unemployment insurance, food stamps, housing, etc., then the federal government cannot maintain programs for these purposes.

        Please do not respond with the notion that the General Welfare clause enables the federal government to do whatever it wants. It does not. The General Welfare Clause merely describes a purpose which is defined and circumscribed by the specific enumerated powers set forth in Article I, Section 8.

        SO IN CONCLUSION FLY ON THE WALL, and others, the burden of proof is not on those who deny that the federal government has a power. Rather, the burden of proof is on the proponent of a federal program to identify the federal power enumerated in the Constitution.

        A burden that you refuse to meet. But that’s okay, because it is a burden you cannot carry.

        • Fly on the wall says:

          The Constituion also does not specifically mention any of the executive departments; it merely mentions the “executive departments” from whose directors the President is to seek counsel. These were set up, by George Washington, to help him carry out his duties. Other departments have been added over the years as the country, and by extension its government and interests, has grown.

          By your estimation, though, this country should not set aside national parks or monuments like the Statue of Liberty, Mt. Rushmore, and Yellowstone; should have ignored James Smithson’s efforts to set up those museums; should not have built the interstates in the 1950s; should not have gone to the moon; should not inspect our food and water and medicine supplies; should not regulate the railroads or the TV or bandwidth spectrums; should not have a national weather service (nor have launched the satellites that serve that service); should not have veterans’ benefits; should not maintain a strategic stockpile of oil; should not enforce anti-discrimination laws; and so forth.

          • Another View says:

            The federal government should not be involved in food or medicine, the weather, television or radio, railroad regulation (such as it is), or the application of any so called anti discrimination law to private entities or individuals.

            Cabinet departments may be established under the necessary and proper clause to carry out an enumerated power.

          • Another View says:

            And no national parks. Sorry I forgot.

    • J Gibson says:

      This country “prospered and thrived” prior to 1933? Really?

      If you speak of the robber barons, the oil/steel/railroad/banking titans of the Gilded Age…sure, they prospered and thrived.

      But, if you’re speaking of the sharecroppers, the myriad immigrants pushed into squalid tenements, those poor lads who (while still children) worked in coal mines or wool ills, the Blacks who found that – despite the “Civil War Amendments” that bigotry and Jim Crow laws and other impediments held them back and pushed them down, or women (who couldn’t vote until 1920, and even into the early 1970s, in some places, had to quit teaching if they got married and/or pregnant), or our native peoples (who have been pushed onto reservations)…nope, prosperity for them was harder to scratch out and come by.

      Turn off the rhetoric, for all you do is continue to ring hollow. I referenced some programs (OSHA, NHTSA, Social Security, Medicare, etc.), and you didn’t get specific…you just, once again, took a broad ol’ swipe with your brush and railed about those “immoral” entities and how they’re “abject failures.” You, AV, are wrong. You offer nothing of substance to back up any of your ridiculous rants, while and others have pointed out the very phrases IN the Constitution that DO enable the federal government to do those very things you call “immoral” and “illegal.” If phrases IN the Constitution are not a suitable “Constitutional authority” for you, then clearly nothing is.

      I will no longer dance about the mulberry bush with you, AV. You are dug in with your narrow viewpoint of the world, and I hold fast to mine. I wish you well.

      • Another View says:

        Actually I do. I offer the Constitution and our system of federalism as substance. You, on the other hand, engage in ad hominem attacks, and offer the ends justify the means arguments.

        I challenge you again to identify the Constitutional authority for a program you love. Pick it–Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, OSHA–you choose. But my guess is that you cannot. You do not know and do not care, because you only know you love government. Perhaps you are a government employee who loves their privileged status, at taxpayer expense. Or perhaps you are a recipient of government largesse–crop subsidies, food stamps, EXPORT/IMPORT BANK subsidies, unemployment insurance, Medicare, who knows?–all at taxpayer expense. Or perhaps you are simply a true blue socialist/communist who is simply afraid to admit it in public, and therefore dances around the issue.

        I do not offer rhetoric. But I see no need to make the simple complicated. If it is not in the Constitution, the federal government cannot legitimately do it.

        Prove me wrong, if you can.

        • Hmmm... says:

          Our “system of federalism” is built on executive departments, created by Congress to carry out the laws passed by Congress to support the powers invested in the Congress and teh federal government to – stay with me – form a more prefect union, establish justice, promote domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare of ourselves and our posterity. Do those words sound familiar?

          You rant about OSHA? Does it not promote the “general welfare” of workers to be able to work in places that are as safe as possible, so that the commerce of the nation can continue? You said you wanted to cut the Ag Dept., which – if I’m not mistaken – does include the office that sets weights and measures (an expressed power of the Congress).

          “Promote the General Welfare” of the people now and in the future…with the “necessary and proper” clause of Article I, Section 8, would seem to encompass those efforts. Of course, SCOTUS rulings could be sought to challenge one of these things, I reckon…but up to and until such a thing happens, your reliance on CAPS and !!!!!!!!!! to shout your opinions do not make them any more than that – your opinion. The law, until it is overturned either by a new law OR by a court ruling, is decided fact that is in effect. You crying that it is “immoral” or “illegal” or “unconstitutional” alone does not make it so.

          • Another View says:

            You do not understand the Constitution or federalism. Federalism is the division of responsibilities between the States and the federal government. The States relinquished only a few enumerated powers to the federal government, reserving the rest. So if it is not in the Constitution, the federal government cannot do it. The general welfare clause confers no authority, and the necessary and proper clause only serves to implement the enumerated powers.

          • Fly on the wall says:

            And when the states fail to adequately address something, or have ruinous or hurtful policies or laws or stances towards minority groups, or other things, it is precisely those clauses which empower the national government to intervene and set it right. See the Civil Rights Act, etc.

            Again, I agree with you that there are abuses, and for sure are agencies and offices that perhaps are redundant or not necessary. I also agree with you that the federal Constitution should not be amended to deal wiht marriage, or any of a host of other issues like that.

            But, you carry the “tyranny” rant way too far, imho. And…please cite your source(s) for your last statement there; since you decry others for their lack of “understanding” and lack of sources, practice what you demand of others.

          • Another View says:

            If the States do not do something or do it improperly, the federal government is not then empowered to act. The federal government does not exist to supervise the States.

            As for the authority you request, read the Constitution, Article I and Amendments 9 and 10. If you still do not understand the plain meaning, read the Federalist Papers and Madison’s Notes.

          • Fly on the wall says:

            Specifics, AV, give us specifics. You’ve hinted that you work in the legal realm, and although it clearly pains you to have to explain things to we Luddites…give it your best Donald Marro shot.

            I have read the entire document, as well as all of the amendments, and most of the Federalist Papers. However, those papers are opinions on why the document should be ratified, and have no legal sway as to rulings when it comes to the Constitution itself. True, you can see Madison’s and Hamiltion’s intentions in them, but once the document was ratified, and the subsequent Bill of Rights ratified 2 years later, it is that final document and its 27 amendments which hold sway now.

            So, again…up to and until a new law is passed, or an amendment is ratified, that markedly changes something, it would seem that the current setup of our government is going to remain. For the most part, that’s a good thing. I would like to see far less pandering to fringe elements within either party, far less influence of super PACs and so forth, and some more common-sense legislation come out of both richmond and DC. But…you waste an awful lot of pixels to not really say anything of substance or really refute anything that pulls the rhetorical rug out from under your arguments.

          • Another View says:

            What have you just written of substance? That you have read the documents I’ve referenced? It is hard to imagine, given your postings, unless English is a second language or you dismiss the thoughts of those who actually served to put this country together.

            The Constitution is not a document to be interpreted by judges. It is to be obeyed by all branches, and in cases or controversies, APPLIED by the courts. It means what it says, not in the light of today, but in the time of its writing. If we as a people find it inadequate, we can amend it. But we are not free to just ignore it because we find it convenient to do so.

            And the Federalist Papers were not just opinions. The Federalist Papers explain the Constitution’s meaning, and were meant to persuade in favor of ratification. The Supreme Court finds the Federalist Papers authoritative enough to cite them; is that not good enough for you?

            Our current government may remain, but it is not a good thing. We have abandoned concepts of individualism, liberty and freedom, free markets, all for a mess of pottage. We have traded in our birthright. Sadly we may never get it back. All because some–you–prefer comfort to principles.

          • CLARKE 1 says:

            Free Markets! That’s all you Pubs think about. MONEY, MONEY, and MONEY!!!!!!!! Funny how you are for less government, but wanna mandate women having ultrasounds….. HYPOCRITES

  7. Another View says:

    Sam Card:

    Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and unemployment insurance are not infrastructure. They are welfare. And we are poorer for it.

    • Sam Card says:

      To Another View, I was thinking of government investment in public works that have made our nation better. I was not talking about transfer payment entitlements. During the Great Depression, men in the Civilian Conservation Corps earned a paycheck doing public work projects, that improved our public lands. Money sent home to mothers and wives helped support and sustain families. In 1978, I worked a summer in the Youth Conservation Corps in Wise Virginia. At age 18, I helped build a hiking trail up High Knob Mountain near Big Stone Gap. I learned about coal mining issues in Appalachia and earned a paycheck from sweat equity in the Clinch Ranger District of Jefferson National Forest. I enjoyed meeting my teenager co workers who were from different areas of Virginia. We had pride in our work and learned about forestry and timber stand inprovement.

      • Another View says:

        Great. I was a Boy Scout, built nature trials, learned all sorts of things about forestry, conservation and nature, and did not use a dime of government money during the whole process.

        You make my point. Some people–you included–think that government is the provider of all things good and decent. I, on the other hand, believe in God and the individual, acting in his own interest, and the concept of liberty and freedom for all.

        You can have big government security or you can have liberty. You cannot have both.

        • Can't look away from this train wreck... says:

          Um…even the most basic of Google searches reveals that the Boy Scouts and the government have had a close level of cooperation for decades and the Scouts have received plenty of benefits from that relationship.

          • Another View says:

            Um . . . was there any record of what I did in the BSA? Because if you reread my post, that was to which I referred.

            Our troop and all its activities–all of them–were funded by the Church and by parents. No government monies.

          • Can't look away from this train wreck... says:

            Obviously individual troops don’t receive direct funding from the government, but I think there is a history of connections between the government and the Boy Scouts. I don’t have any sons and don’t know the first thing about how the Scouts operate, all I know is what I read about them. Wasn’t there a case about whether they were a public or private entity, or something similar?

            “How Your Tax Dollars Support the Boy Scouts of America”
            http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/bsa.html

          • Another View says:

            The BSA is a private organization that receives no public funding from ANY government. There is some association by Explorer posts with public safety organizations whereby young men learn about those organizations and develop skills that might permit them to consider a career in public safety.

            The Left attacks the Boy Scouts because 1) the Scouts require and proclaim a belief in God; and, 2) the Scouts find homosexuality incompatible with its mission. The BSA stands firm against these efforts to undermine the organization.

  8. Another View says:

    My 2 Cents:

    Envy is a very ugly thing. The class warfare you and Barack Hussein Obama thrive on is destructive to our society.

    • My 2 Cents says:

      Far from Envious! Just stating the facts! The Rich wanna stay Richer and will do whatever it takes to remain so. I would be more apt to say that GREED is an ugly thing too!

      Love how you radical repubs have to stress Obama’s Middle name when you type. It just makes you look even more silly!

      • Another View says:

        It is not greed to keep what you earn. The greedy are those who demand that others pay for them!

    • Naked Truth says:

      AV, so does the racial divide you and your ilk but inserting and emphasizing the Hussein. Why do you do it? Because it insinuates that he is neither white or American! By doing that constantly, who are you trying to destroy? That sounds un-American to me. Shame on you.

      • Another View says:

        I insinuate no such thing. I use his name. It is the Left that projects that if one utters the President’s given name, then they are trying to claim he is un-American. You should examine your own prejudices to see why you think this way.

        • My 2 Cents says:

          Oh please! Everyone know’s the objective behind the Radical Repubs use of his name… You guys are such hypocrites….. Just be honest, we all know how you feel. You tell us EVERYDAY

          • Another View says:

            OH PLEASE! I am not a Republican.

            And before you start throwing around charges of racism, you might want to examine the history of the Left and the Democrat Party. A short view would show that it was the Democrats who created the KKK. It was the Democrats who created “separate but equal”. It was the Democrats who created “Jim Crow”. It was the Democrats who practiced eugenics, in order to thwart high black birthrates. It was the Democrats who used fire hoses in the streets of Birmingham. It was the Democrats who bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church. Democrats murdered Emmit Till. Democrats largely opposed civil rights. And today Democrats cry racism over ever issue, despite continuing to practice the politics of race.

  9. Another View says:

    1/2 of all American households now receive some government benefits. How is this possibly a good thing?

    And for those who see this as a positive, where is the morality in requiring some to work for others? Did we not abolish slavery in 1865?

    • No Brainer says:

      I suspect you interpert the Bible the same as the Constitution.

      How’s that workin’ for ya Hon? Happy are ya?

      Those of us who give back and don’t judge are the happiest:)

      • Another View says:

        Supporting heavy government taxation of certain folks in order to redistribute it to others is not giving back, and it certainly is not charity. It is theft by a different name; Marxism.

  10. Clarke Life says:

    Not everyone makes your kinda money, Remember there are people out there working everyday jobs that aren’t Doctor’s, Lawyer’s and the such! You know, people who are called the middle class.

  11. Stonebroke says:

    Someone develop AV his own website! I’m tired of reading his rants!

  12. Another View says:

    First, you have no idea what “kinda money” i make. But I will tell you this, I earn every penny of it, and take not a cent from the government.

    Second, that someone is not earning enough does not entitle them to the fruits of another’s labors. If that person wants or needs more money, then they should earn it; not steal it.

  13. Another View says:

    Clarke 1:

    Free markets made this country prosperous. Free markets creates the wealth that permits there to be something for government to confiscate. Free markets are the backbone of this country.

    And who wrote anything–other than you–about ultrasounds? Can you not address the subject matter and defend it on the merits? Or must you resort to canards because you have nothing to offer in rebuttal?

    • Lonnie Bishop says:

      Yes, AV, but it was the federal government that standardized railroad gauges, making interstate rail commerce mroe economically viable.

      It was the federal government that spearheaded the build-out of the interstate highway system under President Eisenhower.

      It was the federal government, through the Army Corps of Engineers, that facilitated the dredging of nearly all harbors, canals, and thus enabled many cities to develop ports, and enabled wide-scale flood management feasible (not a perfect system, and grossly underfunded now, but there nonetheless).

      It was the federal government, through NASA and its affiliations with major universities and other science labs, where major research for the space program, the military, and in the fields of science, medicine, and agriculture led to many private uses and applications that we ALL – including you – partake of on a daily basis.

      It was the federal government that forced businesses to mov e away from racist policies of denying service or opportunities based on color; of the misnamed “seperate but equal” facilities and schools; etc. This, in turn, opened up economic, educational, and other opportunities for those who had been held back or denied precisely that.

      It was the federal government, through many New Deal programs like the TVA and the CCC, that got millions of able-bodied fellas working during the Depression; that money went home to provide for famillies, and their efforts led to expanded access to electricity (the TVA) which fostered economic growth in those areas, and developed a national park that draws thousands of tourists, and their dollars, to our area every year.

      It was the federal government that spearheaded the efforts, both here and abroad, to create national parks in the 1st place, which in turn created new job opportunities.

      It was the federal government, through its space program, that facilitated the growth and expansion of private satellite launches that benefitted the telecommunications, weather-forecasting, Internet, entertainment, and other sectors of the economy by extending communication coverage around the globe. Those satellites launch from many government facilities, like Wallops Island.

      A good many of those efforts above “promote the General Welfare” of this nation and its people; a few support the expressed power of advancing the sciences, or regulating interstate commerce, etc. It is for those, and a host of other reasons, I’m proud to be an American, and am glad that our government has survived and grown over the past 235 years. Again, I in no way disagree with you that it’s not without its significant flaws. But, in truth, you make arguments about the government doing nothing to foster economic development and do nothing but exercise tyranny without checkin that the facts run counter to what you shout.

      Happy Memorial Day, AV. I don’t like what you spew on here, but I’m grateful for those who died to protect your right to spew it.

      • Another View says:

        My family has fought in every American military engagement since the Powhatan Indian wars in Jamestown. I am grateful for their and every other serviceman’s contribution to our liberty and freedom. But the key is “liberty and freedom”, not welfare and personal economic security.

        My complaints have been centered on the nanny state, on issues of personal liberty such as idiotic seat belt laws, tobacco, alcohol and food restrictions, and socialized medicine. My complaints address immoral programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment and disability payments. My complaints concern blatant intrusions into Americans’ personal lives such as mandating automobile mileage standards and toilet specifications.

        Discussing NASA and the Interstate Highway System is a distraction. You cannot rebut my arguments, so you set up a straw man in order to argue that I am wrong. I am not wrong; I am correct.

        • Oh Pshaw says:

          I quote George Will: You sir are a bloviating ignoramus. And I qualify that statement. You are obviously not ignorant, but with making whatever case you think you are making, which is so narrow that a pin couldn’t fit into it, you come off as an ignoramus. And bloviating surely fits. You are one unhappy bitter dude, and I do pity you for your lack of compromise and open mindedness.

          You are destined to be forever disappointed. Especially come November. Nobody will make you happy.

          So Bloviate away. You aren’t making much of a point about anything except your…..ummmm…..well not much.

          • Another View says:

            Thank you for your constructive, substantive observations. Frankly it is what I have come to expect after 30 years in Washington, D.C., in and out of politics, from the Left and its supporters. Debate and reason are not tools welcomed by the Left, as it prefers ad hominem attacks, distractions, straw men, and outright fabrication.

            Your emotional response to my reason does not make me less correct. Indeed, your emotional response simply illustrates how right I am. Thank you for your help in this regard.

          • Oh Pshaw says:

            I do not believe I was emotional; you are overreacting. I choose not to argue, because nothing will change your mind. non Compromise is typical of far right wing people who simply repeat repeat repeat their narrow views. Those that harp ad nauseum as you do, in fact, bloviate.

            I’m sure should you choose to take a less narrow path you might see some of the good points people have made.

            You won’t be happy whoever wins, because no person can head the country holding such views as you spout here. I for one would not and I think you’ll find left and right alike would not.

            Enjoy your bloviating.

          • Another View says:

            You are emotional, engage in name calling, and offer no substance. What good points are you talking about? My whole point is that the Constitution does not authorize certain government activities. So far no one has shown me the error of my thinking.

            As for compromise, how do you compromise on illegitimate government actions? Let them only do things that are partly illegitimate? How about socialized medicine (aka Obamacare); how do you compromise there? Or Social Security? You propose no compromises, and your position is just as rigid as anyone else’s.

            He who lives in glass house should never throw stones. You should learn that adage.

          • CLARKE 1 says:

            The only thing that people like you, ANOTHER VIEW do is alienate your base. You are pushing the people in the middle more to the left! Noone shares your views. Just go ahead and keep helping the Obama re-election bid!

            Thank you

          • Another View says:

            No one? Really. You read the postings by a handful of Democrats in Clarke County, Virginia and you conclude that no one shares my views.

            Did you notice the election results in 2010? Have you heard of the Tea Party movement?

            Barack Hussein Obama will be a one term President. But don’t worry, I won’t gloat. I am willing to debate the issues. Now if only you people would actually debate the issues instead of–what is the term of art your side likes?–bloviating?

            You are welcome.

        • Lonnie Bishop says:

          Those things are not a distraction, because they cut square against your claim that the federal government does nothing to spur economic activity nor does anything of benefit. You cannot refute them, so now you call them “a distraction.”

          I, and several others, have consistently rebutted your argumenst by continually going back to the Constitution’s own words…you just refuse to accept that fact. So, I – like J Gibson – am now done with this thread, since you clearly are unwilling to accept the fact that your narrow opinions are merely those – opinions – that don’t have much to stand on.

          • Another View says:

            You have rebutted nothing. You and others simply write “General Welfare” clause as if it meant something. The fact is it carries no weight in authorizing the federal government to do anything.

            Moreover, I have never stated that the federal government does nothing of any benefit. I have criticized its actions outside of its legitimate and legal bounds. And I have rested on the Constitution’s plain meaning, something you and others refuse to accept because it would totally undermine your worldview of government beneficence.

            You call names, and I put forth arguments. You should actually try and address what I write instead of taking your ball and going home, like a spoiled child. Defend Obamacare, Social Security or Medicare on Constitutional grounds. I would love to see you try.

          • Fly on the wall says:

            Arrogance, thy name is “Another View.”

            The “General Welfare” clause “carries no weight in authorizing the federal government to do anything”? Really? If it is so “weightless,” why did Madison et al. put it right up front in the Preamble, and argue so earnestly for the government they wanted to see that would support that mission?

            I don’t see where Lonnie called you any names.

            As for Social Security’s Constitutional bearing…

            “Constitutionality

            The constitutionality of Social Security is intricately linked to the evolving nature of Supreme Court jurisprudence on federal power (the 20th century saw a dramatic increase in allowed congressional action). When Social Security was first passed, there were significant questions over its constitutionality as the Court had found another pension scheme, the original Railroad Retirement Act, to violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Some, such as University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein and Robert Nozick, have argued that Social Security should be unconstitutional.[citation needed]

            In the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case of “Helvering v. Davis”,[107] the Court examined the constitutionality of Social Security when George Davis of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston sued in connection with the Social Security tax. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts first upheld the tax. The District Court judgment was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Commissioner Guy Helvering of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (now the Internal Revenue Service) took the case to the Supreme Court, and the Court upheld the validity of the tax.

            During the 1930s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in the midst of promoting the passage of a large number of social welfare programs under the New Deal and the High Court struck down many of those programs (such as the Railroad Retirement Act and the National Recovery Act) as unconstitutional. Modified versions of the affected programs were afterwards approved by the Court, including Social Security.

            When Helvering v. Davis was argued before the Court, the larger issue of constitutionality of the old-age insurance portion of Social Security was not decided. The case was limited to whether the payroll tax was a suitable use of Congress’s taxing power. Despite this, no serious challenges regarding the system’s constitutionality are now being litigated, and Congress’s spending power may be more coextensive, as shown in cases like South Dakota v. Dole[108] during the Reagan Administration.”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

            Medicare is perhaps a stickier wicket, but – as with SS – up to and until someone successfully challenges it in court and it is ruled as such, the program has legitimate legal standing regardless of your personal opinion on the matter. One can argue that the program is for the benefit of the aged, promoting the general welfare of everyone because it’s a safety net in place should other resources not be sufficient to provide for care when old. It is very expensive, to be sure…but is it unconstitutional? I don’t think so, but – just as you adamantly argue to the contrary – that is my personal opinion based on what I’ve read.

            “Obamacare” is a similar thing…and something which the SCOTUS will soon deliver some sort of ruling. Do I personally think it’s unconstitutional? I don’t think so, but I’m neither a gung-ho supporter of all its components, either. It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS decides, if anything.

            That aside, I still find your overheated tirades against “the nanny state” and “tyranny” to be ridiculous and your penchant to merely dismiss those opinions – however prescient – that might differ from your hyperbolic rhetoric as merely reflective more on your own reluctance to offer up any sort of valid reference source for your screed aside from “the Constitution’s plain language.” When the document you esteem can – with its own words – undercut your own arguments, you have not succeeded in defending your case.

  14. Another View says:

    A “Preamble” is an introductory statement, which explains what you are about to read, and its purposes. It confers no actual authority, but merely describes the “coming attractions”.

    In the case of the Constitution, the “Preamble” does exactly that; it describes the purpose for which the States granted the federal government certain specific, enumerated powers. That is, the States would give the federal government some powers in order to promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense. This is the Constitution’s purpose.

    But the actual conferment of power upon the Congress is Article I, Section 8. It does not provide the federal government any sort of police power (a fact regularly acknowledged even by the most unfaithful of Supreme Court justices), and certainly does not provide the power to operate a federal pension or socialized medicine system. IT IS NOT IN THERE.

    So . . . what words in the Constitution undermine my arguments? Not the Preamble. Not Article I, Section 8. And certainly not Amendment 10 which reserves all powers not specifically enumerated to the States or to the people.

    Taking your use of Social Security as an example. Even you acknowledge that the Supreme Court has not ruled the concept of a mandatory pension system legitimate. But let us go deeper. Not only is Social Security unconstitutional, but it is immoral. It robs younger generations in order to benefit an older, and largely wealthier, generation. It is theft from those who can least afford it to benefit those who do not need it.

    And it is also immoral in that 1) it was sold as a lie, with claims that it was an insurance program; it is not; 2) it is compulsory, contrary to all notions of freedom and liberty, as espoused in our founding documents; 3) it is an unsustainable Ponzi scheme; and, 4) the rate of return is a negative percentage. In fact, Social Security is just another tax to permit greater federal spending, in return for which, older folks are tossed some scraps off the federal printing press. If this system were operated privately, all involved would spend their lives in prison.

    What we as a society have experienced since FDR is tyranny. It is more oppressive than anything King George III did to our forebears. But hey! What do you care? You get your government check, lovingly provided by the nanny state. Enjoy!

    • Fly on the wall says:

      It didn’t rule on that concept because that was not the subject of the case. However, given that the tax was allowed to stand and ruled Constitutional – and in the absence of any court challenges to the program itself, the program remains unchallenged and thus maintains its legal status.

      Is it “immoral”? You rail that it is. I don’t see it that way. In some ways, it is a means of everyone pitching in to make sure that the aged or those with disabilities have some sort of net to help them in their need. Call it “Christian duty” or whatever, but it’s there for a good purpose. You could argue, as Scrooge did early before the ghosts visited him, that the churches and other private groups should handle it all, but when the need far exceeds the ability of private groups to solicit sufficient private funds to meet that need…what then? If SS promotes the general welfare of our elderly citizens and those with disabilities, then I’m happy that the government has that program there to do so.

      I do not like that it is routinely used as a political football, and the revenue is being outstripped by payments so it clearly needs to be re-thought. But I am not in favor of scrapping it entirely, as it serves an important function, imho. Again, you clearly disagree with this sentiment; I’d be interested to know if you’re going to partake of the SS you’ve paid in throughout your career. Not that it has any bearing on the discussion here, but just for curiosity’s sake.

      Enjoy getting the final positng on this one, AV, because I am going to join the others and exit this dance floor.

      • Another View says:

        Just because Social Security has not been ruled unconstitutional by a court does not serve to legitimize it.

        And if you think it is such a great program, make it voluntary. See how many folks stay in and how many opt out.

  15. AV – Will you apply for SS or Medicare when you are of that age (if not already)? I’m sure you will say you will refuse it, but I have a feeling that is different than the reality.

    • Another View says:

      I would be more than willing to trade all the tax monies that have been paid into those programs for a free and clear release today. I have no need for government support.

      • AV, you couldn’t bring yourself to say you would not take SS, instead throwing in a caveat (getting back what you have paid in those taxes for some sort of trade?) that you know isn’t an option. What IS an option is to not apply for SS andt Medicare benefits. People do that all the time. Since you state you do not need government support, why not say that is what you plan to do. Instead you wiggled out of that opportunity to stand behind your rhetoric.

        • Another View says:

          That is not what I wrote. What I wrote is let me out, and do not make me pay any MORE taxes. You can keep what the government has stolen so far, so long as I go free.

          I wiggled out of nothing. Your public education failed you in comprehending what I wrote.

          • Man, talk about a rich elite snob “taking his ball and going home.” You played the system, made your bank, and now you just want to effetely sit back, tell us all what to do, and not be a player in the game anymore.

            Nice…

          • Another View says:

            What does that even mean? What system did I play? Social Security and Medicare are scams, Ponzi schemes if you will, which are going broke. I have paid in for years. I am willing to forgo any promised benefits in return for being released from the system altogether.

            You should be thanking me. A lot.

          • AV – I understood what you said. ” trade all the tax monies that have been paid into those programs”. HAVE been paid. Past tense. Now you changed that to say “do not make me pay any MORE taxes”, and the government can keep what it has “stolen” from you. Quite different responses, but so glad you cleared that up for my public school (!) educated brain. However, your last scenario still isn’t an option at this time. You still must pay into those programs just like the rest us. You can not “go free”. You keep trying to throw a caveat in there that isn’t based on reality. So I guess we can assume that given real life circumstances, with the laws as they are, that you WILL apply for SS and Medicare.

          • Another View says:

            So what you want me to do is to pay taxes in a system for your benefit (and others), but refuse to take the benefits. The voluntary payment of taxes?

            How about you? Do you overpay your taxes? I notice that Barack Hussein Obama does not voluntarily pay more taxes. Neither does Warren Buffet. Hmmm. Can you even name a Democrat–all whom LOVE higher taxes, claiming that paying taxes is patriotic–who voluntarily pay more taxes? Even one?

            This is a perfect illustration of why the Democrat Party is the party of plunder. You think that all monies belong to government, and that the taxpayer should be grateful for what he is permitted to keep.

            Personally I want these programs abolished. They are immoral, unsustainable and unconstitutional. Pay for your own health care and retirement.

          • AV – no need to get so angry. I am not telling you to do anything. Just asking you some questions to better understand your position.
            “So what you want me to do is to pay taxes in a system for your benefit (and others), but refuse to take the benefits. The voluntary payment of taxes? ” People do have that option. Not everyone applies for those benefits, even after paying into them many years. SO If, as you say, you do not need government support, that is an option for you.
            Obviously we all have different opinions on what is best for society. I for one do not mind paying into a system that benefits retirees today. I hope that when I retire, the majority of taxpayers still feel the same way as I do.

          • Another View says:

            I’m not angry at you. But I am passionately opposed to the tyrannical and immoral system set up as being in the taxpayers’ best interests. It is not. It is the provision of crumbs in return for real money and opportunity.

            Sadly, many Americans are content with government promises and its provisions of crumbs. Our ancestors built railroads and settled a wilderness. We sit on our couches, play video games and wait for the mailman to bring our government checks. What a sad, sorry decline in a very short time.

          • Ah yes, our forebears did all that…with the government providing, via the Army, forts located at strategic points along the way to fight off hostile native peoples; with the federal government brokering “peace” with the tribes through dubious or otherwise treaties; and so on.

            For you to say that America was built without any sort of support by the federal government ignores a pretty sizeable chunk of reality, bub.

          • Another View says:

            You mean Congress raised an army? That would be an enumerated power located in Article I, Section 8.

            But how did we settle this country without unemployment insurance, Social Security and Medicare? Did you know that due to a lack of food stamps, people often had to grow and hunt their own food? And instead of drawing unemployment checks, they had to take lesser jobs, or even move to areas where jobs were more plentiful?

            Please stop distorting my arguments. If you cannot reply to what I write, at least do not imply that you are.

  16. WOW!! CDN you created a monster with this article. It started out as a warning about crack downs on HOV lane violations. But quickly turned into a political monster on the comments board. Bet you did not see this coming.

    CDN Editor: It’s always nice when people limit comments to the subject of the article. While the comments related to this post did veer off subject, both sides of the debate have been well articulated and seemed especially worth publishing given that the US Presidential elections are only six months away. Hope that our reader’s agree that the debate was worth following.

  17. This comment makes me a little nervous here. “”So if [a restaurant] will not serve blacks, and Jane’s Lunch will not serve women, fine. They should be legally permitted to do so. The market will decide the wisdom of those choices.” AV, trying to give the benefit of doubt here,that you were trying to make a point of what the government states you have to do without offer of choice. I certainly hope so because I for one would really hate to see the clock turned back due to discrimination.

  18. Got-A-Dollar says:

    Three more days and I can sign up for my social security, entitlements are great.
    Four more years!

    • Another View says:

      Congratulations! The takers’ roll continues to increase.

      You better be nice to the producers. Otherwise those checks will cease!

  19. Another View says:

    I am not advocating racial discrimination. But in a free society, you must tolerate things you find distasteful. Freedom of association includes the right not to associate. Property rights include the right of exclusion. Freedom of religion also includes the right of exclusion.

    Should Boyd’s Nest refuse to serve blacks? No. Should the government punish Boyd’s Nest for not serving blacks? No. Should private citizens act consistent with their opposition to Boyd’s Nest policy? Absolutely!

    Discrimination is an overused and misused term. It is perfectly fine for the Girl Scouts to exclude boys. Jews should not be required to marry Muslims. Are we going to force the Knights of Columbus to admit atheists? Of course not.

    Most people–individuals–are going to do the right thing. The key to a free society is to understand and tolerate that there will be some who do not.

    • The Knights of Columbus is a private fraternal organization whose membership is comprised almost exclusively of Catholics. Thus, it is not a valid comparison with any for-profit business seeking to engage commercially with the buying public.

      However, in case your memory is a bit muddled, “most people” thought they were doing “the right thing” when they supported discriminatory practices, segregated businesses and facilities. It wasn’t really until the federal government, via executive orders, federal laws, SCOTUS rulings, and the use of the 101st Division and the several National Guard forces in the negligent states (Arkansas, in particular), that such things were finally put to rest (albeit not snuffed entirely).

      If I’m a person of color, or of a different religious tradition, why should I not be able to pursue happiness by enjoying a lunch at Jane’s Lunch, to borrow your example? Why should I sedttle for waiting to see if the “free market” drums some sense into those folks? Ain’t I a person, a full citizen, just like those other folks who get to go in there?

      • Another View says:

        First, your historical memory is wrong. Government–yes, that beloved institution–IMPOSED segregation.. Private individuals did not choose it.

        Second, if I own Jane’s Lunch, it is mine. You may not dictate to me that I must serve you. And if I do not, I lose your business, and perhaps everyone else’s too. It is my freedom and my risk.

  20. And AV, in your free society, you will be okay when your employer fires you when you turn 50 because you are just too old? Or pays your wife 1/2 the wages of a man doing the same job? Maybe when they close down the public schools and your daughter can’t afford to send her kids to private schools so they go to work at age 12 for a few dollars a day because government should not impose minimum wage or labor laws? That free society, free of government intrusion in our lives that you yearn for sounds like a giant step backwards my friend.

  21. Another View says:

    First, yes I would be fine with the freedom for folks to so act even when I do not care for the result. As I explained, freedom means you must tolerate things you do not like.

    Second, minimum wage ad similar laws distort markets, making people poorer.

    Third, my daughter has no money problems. And with less goverment intrusion in, and taxation of, our daily lives, more people will enjoy her status.

    • Wagonman says:

      AV while I don’t agree with you in entirety I must say I share some of your concerns. As a Vietnam vet, volunteer fireman and a conservative I do lean slightly to the right. However as I am of sufficient years to collect Social Security I don’t feel that it’s a handout as I have paid into the system for about 50 years. IF THE FUND HADN’T BEEN GUTTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT There would be resources for years to come.

  22. Kevin Lambert says:

    Another View,

    I think you accomplished your mission. Can we please move on? I think I speak for a majority of people who have seen enough of your daily diatribes.

    • Another View says:

      Thank you for your substantive contribution. I completely understand why a member of the government class would wish to terminate this discussion. But my ideas live on!