Firstly, the government is the most inefficient way to deliver goods or services. There is no way that there will be any savings due to efficiency if the government is directly involved, except by *rationing.* Do you want some bureaucrat deciding whether your father should get prostate cancer surgery? Massachusetts has a miniature version of what Obama is proposing and they have 33% cost overruns and still they have 1.2% uninsured, even though it is mandated that everyone must have coverage. Hawaii had a mini version of Obamacare. They went bankrupt in 7 months, because most states' constitutions require a balanced budget. The Federal system will be able to print money when they run out, which will only lead to further inflation (when it comes, it will be worse).

We can undo Cap-and-Trade when elect a reasonable Congress and President. We won't be able to undo Socialized Medicine so easily, because all the current insurance companies will have failed and we'll be stuck with only the Gov't plan for a few years.

A gas tax, as much as I hate to say it, works to discourage buying larger vehicles. I would suggest, however, that for diesel, we keep the taxes low because trucking companies are suffering and we don't need the additional cost added to all our goods. A gasoline tax would have worked much better than the stupid fleet MPG laws which contributed to the downfall of the US car manufacturers. People wanted big cars, but the car companies had to keep their average MPG high, so they had to give away the small cars to meet this law. When the price of gas went up and nobody wanted big cars coming off lease and everyone started buying the small cars that didn't make any profit for the car makers, they got in trouble financially.

I can't see the replies, but the gas tax would be easier for me to afford than the mileage tax. I have to drive 49 miles each way to and from work. I can't afford to move closer to my work. I have a high-MPG car, so a mileage tax would be worse for me.

ATTENTION WEBMASTER:
The ability to see replies is flakey. When I click on "3 replies" the arrow icon points down, but I usually don't see the replies. I tried reloading and it worked once, but 99% of the time, you can't see the replies. I've tried this with Firefox (my usual browser) and also with IE... same problem.

Yes. It's called a "recall election." It's how you can change your mind on an elected representative, if you find that they aren't representing you. Alas, it's only allowed at the state level and only 18 states allow it:

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
Washington
Wisconsin

Another possibility is a Constitutional Convention. This is something that is separate from Congress... 2/3 of the States must call for it. It basically means that each state sends delegates to rewrite all or a part of the Constitution. It's a dangerous thing to open up the Constitution for meddling, but it would allow for adding things such as providing for federal referendums or providing for recall elections of all Senators, Representatives, and the President. There is a provision for a "Limited Constitutional Convention," but I'm not sure whether it 's possible to limit it strictly to adding federal referendums. With that tool, we citizens could pass a referendum, for example, to limit members of Congress to two terms, repeal Cap and Trade, or repeal the Healthcare Reform bill if it passes.

I've heard (on Glenn Beck's show) that simply fear of a Constitutional Convention would cause Congress to fly straight.

How about if we insist that anyone elected to Congress promise to pass term limits. If they don't, we'd limit their term for them!

I'd like to offer up a suggestion for an unintended consequence of the Obama administration's actions. I think that all cities, towns, and villages should file for bankruptcy. They can use it to get out from under contracts like like the one in New York City, where the school board cannot fire those 700 unfit teachers because of tenure. Let's use this downturn to make some lasting *CHANGE* to the many unfair contracts that have crippled our municipalities.

Every day on the news, I see our elected officials saying things with which I'm certain more than 75% of their constituents disagree. For example, I was reading where representative Waxman got angry at former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich for suggesting that tax incentives should be used to encourage green energy, not punishments. Waxman said: "Mr. Gingrich, I'm sure glad you're not in charge of foreign policy. Do you think the only way to incentivize a country is by offering them more and more carrots?" To which Gingrich replied: "Mr. Chairman, I don't think of American citizens the way I think of foreign dictators. And I don't think this Congress should punish the American people."

Is someone logging these statements and filing them away for when Waxman and others are due for reelection? I'd say that 90% of Washington is out of step with their constituents and the people who would like to take their place in Congress should easily be able to get themselves elected, purely by playing back the words of the incumbents to the voters.

What say ye?

On today's show, Glenn had a guest on who said that the Montana gun law (in it's present form) was likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court because they would likely find that it would significantly change interstate commerce. Wouldn't making Montana guns a unique caliber solve that problem? The Supreme Court couldn't find that commerce in .30 caliber and .45 caliber would change if Montana guns and ammunition came in .31 caliber and .46 caliber, could they? They should also specifically say that those guns can not be transported outside of Montana, so that Texas can use the same calibers for their law.

Now you might think that these odd calibers might be a big problem, but I think that once the cat is out of the bag, in other words, when the Federal Gov't realizes that they can't de-gun Montana, they will likely not bother with passing laws that mess with Montana's 9mm's and .30-06 and .45's, etc.

P.S. I started reading The 5,000-Year Leap today. If you are debating whether to get the cheaper version or the 30th Anniversary version, go with the latter. I found Glenn's introduction not only inspiring, but comforting... I won't feel bad at all if my kids decide to not go to college, just like Glenn.

Clearly it's another example of the mainstream media bias. If a conservative member of congress was to have done the same thing, it *would* be on the front page of every newspaper, for several days now, and at least once just before that representative is up for re-election.

I understand your frustration, but I think you're mistaken. The problem with the illegal aliens is not the money they are making (it's probably barely enough to support their families). The problem is that illegals cost taxpayer money (emergency room medical care, police, schools, etc.). California is $47 billion short on their annual budget partly because of the cost of illegals in the system. Illegals pay sales tax, but not income tax, and probably not property tax. Furthermore, consider that if comrade Obama gives them all amnesty, all those illegals will get social security, medicare, medicaid, and unemployment insurance. The ones that came in when they were 50 will have only paid in for 15 years before they start collecting.

You'd be better off focusing your anger by picketing employers who hire illegal aliens. If there were no jobs for illegals, they might as well try and get in the legal route.