Too small, not too big
The constant repetitive chant of the "conservative" parroting class is GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG! GOVERNMENT IS TOO POWERFUL!
Nonsense. In many cases the problems that obstruct business and prevent job formation result from a government that's too small or too weak.
(It's certainly big in many places where it shouldn't be, but that only accounts for half the problem!)
= = = = =
Navigation and transportation are among the most basic jobs of any government. The purpose of navigation is to enable commerce, not to provide esthetic pleasure to aging hippies. Some "judges" in Idaho have forgotten this, and the governor is too weak to reassert the proper role of government.
Specifically, several oil companies are trying
to build a new refinery in Montana and bring more rigs to the oilfields of Alberta. They're hauling some huge equipment from the coast to the inland locations via a rather tangled and old-fashioned route. Starting at the port of Vancouver, barge up the navigable Columbia to Lewiston, then put the big stuff on trucks and take it along the highways to Montana and Alberta.
(Super-heavy loads are generally better on railroads, but apparently these loads are too wide for the tight tunnels and bridges on the RR.)
A handful of people along the highway have filed a lawsuit, presumably with assistance from enviro-terrorists. These few people have brought the entire process to a dead halt.
Here's where a BIG AND POWERFUL government would intervene. A strong governor
would declare a judicial emergency and tell the judges to stand down or be shot. Or even better, shoot them immediately for stealing the livelihood of millions of future Americans and Canadians.
* * * * * * *
Update 11/1: Amazingly, the black-robed ecoterrorist was overturned
by the Idaho supreme court, but the ecoterrorists are not done; more appeals and technicalities will continue to kill America.
= = = = =
Copyrights and patents are among the few jobs specifically assigned to the Feds by the Constitution. The founders knew the importance of intellectual property, and wanted to insure that good ideas had a fair chance to make money FOR THEIR CREATOR. The original law did a pretty good job in that regard. Since Walt Disney bought himself a new law in 1998, the system has served only Walt and a few other giants. I already discussed
the problem of copyright trolls, but there's an opposite problem as well. The prevalence of digital pirates
makes it nearly impossible for small operators to make a small amount of money
on art. Only the giants can generate enough buzz to attract millions of people, which is the only way to overcome the piracy. I've experienced it myself (though I wasn't really trying to make a full income) and several of the serious full-time artists in this part of the graphics world have given up lately, exhausted from fighting thieves with no help.
Because the thieves are international this is specifically a Federal job, and the Feds have completely abandoned the field. The Disney law puts the burden of preventing theft purely on the author.
Well, Disney can afford an army of lawyers and investigators to file claims and suits against every possible infringement. One-man operations can't.
= = = = =
Politicians and party-hack commentators are trying to convince us that manufacturing can't expand because taxes are too high. Provably false. In the decades when America was the world champion of production, our federal taxes were MUCH higher than now. The problem isn't tax, the problem is China. There's no point in trying to make something here when you know for certain that China can make it cheaper.
Again, control of trade is a basic and inherent power of the Feds, explicitly given by the Constitution and forbidden to states. Since 1990 the Feds have surrendered this power, leaving in place a few old tariffs that serve a few powerful interests, but never adding new tariffs to defend us against China's aggressive trade war. A strong
Federal gov't would impose tariffs against all Chinese crap, then impose a blockade after treasonous multinational corporations found ways to get around the tariff.
= = = = =
SEC. Chris Cox. Goldman Sachs. Nuff said.
= = = = =
The common thread in all of these situations: "Smaller government" always shrinks in the exact ways that benefit Disney and Goldman and ArcherDanielsMidland. It never shrinks in any way that would benefit actual entrepreneurs or artists or banks or farmers.Plutonomics
in operation. Rich assholes and thieves end up with everything, honest labor gets zero reward.
(Oops, the Pluto in Plutonomics has nothing to do with Disney, but the pun works anyway.)
= = = = =
Therefore: We know what the "conservative" leaders are trying to accomplish for Goldman Sachs. (The "liberal" leaders, of course, are assigned by Goldman Sachs to reach the exact same goal from the opposite flank with different-sounding rhetoric.) By generating a movement that seeks nothing but smaller and weaker government, the "conservatives" are intentionally making life easier for the financiers, thieves, enviroterrorists and lawyers; and intentionally making life harder and poorer for small and medium businesses. The footsoldiers of the Tea Party don't understand this, which is a damn shame.