“[The] larger point is less about nuclear power than how we react as a society to inevitable disasters, both natural and man-made. Because a plane crashes, we don’t stop flying. Because an oil rig explodes in the Gulf, we don’t (or at least we shouldn’t) stop drilling for oil. … We should learn from the Japanese nuclear crisis, not let it feed a political panic over nuclear power in general.” . . . The Wall Street Journal . . .
“Scientists can tell you just to the minute when something is going to happy 10 million miles away and none of them has ever been smart enough to tell you what day to put on your heavy underwear.” . . . American humorist Will Rogers (1879-1935) . . .
“Where there are taxpayer-funded cowboy poets, there must surely be cowboy poetry festival administrators, and a Bureau of Cowboy Poetry Festival Licensing, and cowboy poetry festival administration grant-writers, and a Department of Cowboy Poetry Festival Administration Grant Application Processing, and professors of Cowboy Poetry Festival Educational Workshop Management at dozens of American colleges credentialing thousands of cowboy poetry festival workshop coordinating majors every year.” . . . columnist Mark Steyn . . .
“How much fuel your car burns. What type of light bulb you buy. How much energy your appliances use. What kind of health plan you have. … What do they have in common? Meet your hidden master: regulations – a long list of rules governing nearly every aspect of life. In fiscal year 2010 … the administration adopted regulations that will cost more than $26.5 billion a year. The nanny state isn’t just a nagging do-gooder – it’s a costly scold. … Tax bills are just part of what you pay for government. Federal regulations cost the average American household some $17,500 per year. It’s time Congress put a stop to this expensive meddling. Rolling back the $26.5 billion in rules added just last year would be a good start.” . . . Ed Feulner, president of The Heritage Foundation . . .
“The administration would have us believe that its enormous deficits are the new base line and that as long as we keep deficits at, say, $1 trillion, we are moving toward balancing the budget — wholly ignoring that our national debt would be increasing by $1 trillion every year. You don’t make progress toward balancing the budget by deliberately jacking up federal discretionary spending to unprecedented levels and then locking in those unsustainable figures with a spending freeze. You don’t decrease deficits by first increasing them, and you can never make headway on reducing the national debt until you eliminate deficits altogether.” . . . columnist David Limbaugh . . .
“Pumping money into the economy when so much evidence of inflation is readily available is dishonest. What governments, particularly in the United States and Europe, are doing is attempting to whittle down their huge debts by debasing their currencies while continuing to borrow scandalous amounts of money. They are also hypocritically using the devaluation of their currencies brought about by quantitative easing to compete internationally – while accusing others, with good reason, of manipulating their own money to keep up their export machines.” . . . Peruvian writer, economist Alvaro Vargas Llosa . . .
“What happens when more of us work for the government — or receive paychecks from the government without work — than those of us who work in the private sector? … We’re soon going to find out. This week, CNBC reported that social welfare payments now comprise 35 percent of wages and salaries this year. In other words, more than a third of all people receiving ‘paychecks’ are receiving government redistribution checks via welfare, Social Security, Medicare or unemployment. In 1960, just 10 percent of the population garnered a wage from government anti-work programs. Now more than one in three of us do. … And then there are those who receive paychecks by working for the government. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 8 percent of the work force is government employed. There is certainly some crossover between the two groups, but between them, we can assume with certainty that the government supports more than 40 percent of Americans. Is it any wonder that so few Americans want to cut social welfare benefits? … The easiest way to avoid government cutbacks is to vote democrat. The dirty little secret of the liberal political program is that it isn’t a program at all — it’s simple bribery. Vote for us, you get a check. Vote for them, you lose your check. It’s quite simple and quite effective. … The question is: what happens when the money runs out?” . . . columnist Ben Shapiro . . .
“One difference between politicians and businessmen is what they want. Politicians want votes. Businessmen want profits. There’s not the least reproach in wanting either one. The relevant question is: Which of these two aims has more to do with the satisfaction of customer needs? And the answer is of course! Business. A businessman is no smarter, perhaps, than a politician. He’s just more cued in to matters economic. Once the politician has your vote, you recede from view, at least until the next election. The businessman, by contrast, wants your business every day.” . . . professor and syndicated columnist Bill Murchison . . .
“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” . . . Rev. William J. H. Boetcker (1873-1962). . .
“To highlight the offensiveness to liberty that democracy and majority rule is, just ask yourself how many decisions in your life would you like to be made democratically. How about what car you drive, where you live, whom you marry, whether you have turkey or ham for Thanksgiving dinner? If those decisions were made through a democratic process, the average person would see it as tyranny and not personal liberty. Is it no less tyranny for the democratic process to determine whether you purchase health insurance or set aside money for retirement? Both for ourselves, and our fellow man around the globe, we should be advocating liberty, not the democracy that we’ve become where a roguish Congress does anything upon which they can muster a majority vote.” . . . economist Walter E. Williams . . .
“[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.” . . . John Adams, An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power, 1763 . . .
“There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.” . . . William F. Buckley, Jr . . .