Hopefully it's just a slip.

There's a posting on Captain's Quarters blog about problems with the indictment of Tom DeLay such that even the Washington Post, hardly a bastion of conservatism, is skeptical of the claims. But the indictment isn't what triggered this post. What did were these lines from Captain's Quarters:

They seem to have forgotten that it's not their money -- it's ours. We only want it spent on items of national importance, and the rest of it should come back to us.

While the first sentence is, alas, right, the second must not be considered right. That is a very sub-optimal situation. The right situation is that the rest should not be taken from people in the first place. The idea that people's money is to be cycled through layers of government and returned is not something that should be considered an acceptable situation. I'm not talking about income tax refunds, but about the idea that money collected by taxation is to be doled back out in the form of projects.

That money should not be going through the extra layer of the federal government. While this would mean that lowering federal taxes might raise state taxes (but we should apply the same rule at the state level: the state should do things of state importance only) they would then be applied to things without added coercion. This is the bit whereby a federal mandate occurs by a sort of extortion: "We'll give you money for your project, but only if you enact this law in your state." While some of these laws may be good ideas, a good idea can be sold on merit. But extortion can push a bad idea just as much as it can push a good idea and government should not have that power.

YAQ: Alignment, as if I were a formal role-playing game character...

Via jmthane

( Alignment results )