The Devil Vs. Daniel Webster

The Devil Vs. Daniel Webster

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

September 29, 2010

As an American, as a Jew, and as a Republican I cannot express my offense at Congressman Alan Grayson vociferously enough with the recent campaign advertisement impugning the reputation of his opponent Daniel Webster.

I am embarrassed for the Eighth Congressional District of Florida as a whole and just as embarrassed to call myself a co-religionist with Mr. Grayson. He has embarrassed himself as a person, member of Congress, a Jew, and as an American for his antics on the House floor this session making light of the Holocaust, suggesting Republicans want senior Americans to die as a form of cost-cutting and now with his disgraceful advertisement taking Daniel Webster’s words completely out of context.

While mudslinging and dirty politics are as old as campaigning itself, there is absolutely no room for outright lies. Even CNN has condemned the Grayson hit piece. The Grayson campaign took the words “submit to me,” from a speech given by Mr. Webster and inserted them into an advertisement labeling the Republican candidate “Taliban Dan,” suggesting that Mr. Webster opposed women, women’s rights and myriad other freedoms.

This could not be further from the truth, and all anyone need do is simply listen to the words of Daniel Webster himself. This can be done by visiting his website: www.electwebster.com. Mr. Webster referenced blessing the wives and women in a man’s life – just as is done by Jewish worshipers on Shabbat with the Blessing over daughters as well as the Woman of Valor love poem as found in Proverbs.

Alan Grayson may be a Jewish member of Congress and his opponent, Daniel Webster, may be a Christian, but we should elect our members of Congress based upon the content of their character and Congressman Grayson has demonstrated himself to be a character of the most embarrassing kind. He is most definitely not worthy of anyone’s vote for reelection.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

DREAM Act a Nightmare

DREAM Act a Nightmare 

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

September 17, 2010

Leave it to Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and his cohorts to politicize a Defense Department budget bill by linking it to his back door, de facto amnesty DREAM Act.

At a time when support for illegal aliens can not be found beyond the borders of Capitol Hill, save for such far-left sanctuary cities as San Francisco, El Paso, TX and even closer to home in Alexandria, VA, Senate Democrats are pushing this DREAM Act nightmare on the American people, all the while forgetting what the word “illegal” means.

In an attempt to curry favor with Hispanic voters, which should be an insult to them, the DREAM Act would put illegal aliens on a path toward citizenship by serving two years in the United States military or for being enrolled in an American college or university for two years – at in-state tuition rates.

This is wrong on so many levels, starting with the rewarding, for bad behavior, of criminal acts committed by people with no legal right to be in the United States, let alone taking the seats in a college classroom from deserving, legal students. The DREAM Act plows through the wickets creating a clear path for illegal aliens to garner citizenship as a reward for their criminal behavior.

As for allowing these illegal aliens the opportunity to gain their green cards via a two-year stint in the United States military, what guarantee is there that some of these illegal aliens won’t turn their military-issued firearms on their own platoon?

Attaching the DREAM Act to a defense bill is a purely political move the Democrats can use to levy a claim the Republicans don’t support the troops when they vote against the bill due to this rider. This is dangerous as the Democratic majority is playing with national security.

It’s no wonder TEA Party-endorsed candidates such as Sharron Angle (R-NV), Ken Buck (R-CO), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Joe Miller (R-AK), Christine O’ Donnell (R-DE) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), have all managed to speak to voters in a language the rank and file understand. They, along with many other candidates both Republican and even a few Democrats have come to realize that passage of the DREAM Act would be a nightmare.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Validating Old Town's Parking Crisis

Validating Old Town’s Parking Crisis

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

August 23, 2010

In her August 12 column, “Parking problems have us in a tight spot,” Alexandria Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tina Leone mentioned that we the people are creatures of habit for seeking out free or cheap parking locales when heading to Old Town. She is right.

Why would anyone in their right mind willingly pay more money to park their car for the “privilege” of dining or shopping in Old Town when they can do so for free in so many other places. Sure, Old Town is a greater draw than many other places, but when meter parking rates rose from $1 to $1.75 per hour with a two-hour maximum, so too did people’s blood pressure rise.

As is typical of government – the City of Alexandria was extremely short-sighted with the continued gouging of consumers willing to spend money in the city that already adds a city tax to restaurant bills. This is no longer nickel and diming people when a meter fee is $3.50 for two hours, particularly when people spend more than two hours at a time in Old Town.

If the increased meter rates are designed to move traffic in and out of Old Town businesses faster, be careful what you wish for City of Alexandria. Business and restaurant owners can attest to the fact that foot traffic in their establishments has waned, and not just due to the economy, but the inconvenience of having to schlep more quarters around than Rich Uncle Pennybags in the Monopoly® game.

Of the myriad complaints and discussions that have appeared in this paper, one that hasn’t been explored is that of validating parking. Ms. Leone wrote about the parking garages remaining nearly empty while people scavenge the city streets in search of free or cheap parking. Again, she is right; so let’s take it one step further, Ms. Leone.

Offer the incentive of free garage parking, sponsored by the Alexandria Chamber of Commerce and its participating Old Town members. When someone parks in an Old Town garage and returns with a receipt, for, let’s say a minimum of $5, from an Old Town restaurant or store, stamped by that business, the parking should be free.

This is a win-win proposition. More vehicles will find their way into garages – which, by the way, will keep the vehicle cooler during the stifling summer months, and more short term parkers will use the street spaces, feed the meters and get out of Dodge in a reasonable amount of time. Additionally, more businesses will be patronized by shoppers who realize they don’t have to rush back to their cars to feed the meter and simply decide to leave Old Town.

One doesn’t need to pay thousands of dollars for a study to see the wisdom behind this idea. After all, Ms. Leone, you asked the question, “What will persuade visitors to use garage parking instead of street parking or – worse yet – resident parking?” Your words, my solution.

Nordstrom in The Fashion Centre at Pentagon City validates parking for anyone with a Nordstrom credit card or a receipt from that store. Up the street from that mall, the Costco and other shops on

South Fern Street

in Arlington offers a time sensitive validation for parking. There is no doubt I am not the only consumer who would shop elsewhere were parking not validated.

If restaurants and shops want our business, we the people should not have to pay for the “privilege.” What say you, Ms. Leone?

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

College Griders Already Paid

College Griders Already Paid

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

August 22, 2010

After reading Donald H. Yee’s “Show Them the Money,” in Sunday’s The Washington Post (B-1, 4) in which he supports paying college football players and laying out a 10 step plan, it is painfully obvious he is in dire need of a 12 step program of his own.

Yee, a lawyer and partner in a Los Angeles sports-management firm, rightfully indicates that there is a corrupt system in place mingling agents with collegiate coaches and so-called student athletes. However, instead of suggesting ways to clean up the system and end the culture of corruption that has infested not just college football, but other high-ticket college sports such as basketball, Yee calls for a further perversion of college athletics by turning over the football programs to outside institutions and corporations and paying the so-called student athletes.

Such a transition would forever damage the concept of college athletics as well as the psyche of the so-called student athletes who are already treated as demi-gods on numerous campuses across the nation.

The worst of Yee’s 10 points, and the most offensive to the concept of the student athlete is to remove the word student from the mix altogether.

                       

                        “Academically gifted players could take regular university courses, if they could have gained admission on their own merit. Others may be more interested          in vocational training or other specialty classes. Either way, average students            would no longer lose a chance at admission because the university made an   exception for an academically less qualified athlete. And athletes would have a            broader array of course offerings. Some may even choose not to attend classes   and simply focus on honing their football skills.”

This is a disgusting and disgraceful notion. As it stands today, the NCAA is already a de-facto minor league for the NFL and the NBA. Yee couldn’t be more wrong about this particular point as to allow what would then be a non-student-athlete to roam a college campus without being a registered, class-attending student on some supposed degree track would be even more detrimental to the current status of the so-called student athlete. They would be strutting around campuses with bigger britches than they have on now with their over-inflated sense of entitlement.

College athletes, most notably football and basketball players, as they represent the big revenue generating sports, already get paid. Their pay is the scholarship that covers their tuition, books, tutors, room and board that often leads to players leaving school early for the NFL (or NBA) or not earning a degree prior to their eligibility expiring. There is no policy in place to demand players not staying in school four years to repay the scholarship in full.

Make no mistake, this is not a case of sour grapes, as I play and pay into this system as a season ticket holder to University of Maryland football, my alma mater, as well as being a member of the Terrapin Club, “the scholarship fund for Maryland athletics that helps offset scholarship costs of over $10.2 million in annual scholarship support for many of the 700+ student athletes who compete on 27 varsity teams representing the University of Maryland. …we receive no state financial support for our scholarship programs.” (www.terrapinclub.com/about/membership-information)

Yee calls for the elimination of university involvement with the football programs and turning them over to corporate entities to run. This would only further corrupt the system by removing the university, the organization responsible for bringing such student athletes to the campus in the first place.

Additionally, Yee suggests eliminating football programs that are perennial money-losers. Such black holes are no good for the university, Yee suggests. This defeats the lessons team sports teaches and would take away the vehicle for which genuine student athletes have for continuing to play football at the collegiate level even if they never enjoy a winning season or a trip to one of the myriad bowl games that only requires a six-win season (another issue for another column).

Team sports participants tend to make strong leaders in the corporate world as well as in government and politics, just as the Boy and Girl Scouts.

Yet, the bona fide suggestion of eliminating the unqualified so-called student athlete from the university system in the first place is never addressed by Yee. His answer, as stated earlier, is to allow the lesser qualified “students” to play football without attending any classes whatsoever. That is detrimental to both the university that would condone such a perpetual underclass and more so to the athletes who will never see the inside of an NFL (or NBA, since ultimately this would be the next sport to be drawn into such a myopic system) locker room.

Under Yee’s system, the non-student athlete would play football for four or five years then leave the university with nothing to show for the efforts, except perhaps a paycheck, most of which would have already been squandered by the 18-22 year old who had no skills in money management. Couple that with a less than two percent chance of playing in the NFL or even the CFL, what does Yee expect that former college athlete to do with no marketable skills?

Yee refers to the “coveted” high school athlete as being allowed to enjoy the “fruits of American capitalism.” Those fruits are offered in the form of scholarships, and are also one of the reasons student athletes are given more than four years to complete a degree program. With all the time allotted for practice and travel during the football season, as well as spring practice, football players should be afforded a lighter academic load during the fall semester, but conversely make up the load during the spring and summer sessions.

Those so-called student athletes unable to qualify for admission on their academic merits should be denied admission. If these athletes are so coveted, there should be a minor league system for them to hone their skills paid for by the various NFL or CFL teams interested in developing these players into professional athletes. For those who would argue that such a system would dilute the NCAA football programs across the country’s campuses, it would no doubt be felt on a relatively equal scale. This way universities would no longer have to turn an already blind eye to the academically unqualified under the guise of calling them “student athletes,” who will merely take the place of an academically qualified student who may major in engineering or political science while bringing no revenue to the school.

Yes, I recognize the student athlete generates revenue that he or she does not pocket in the form of a paycheck. But these same athletes are demonstrating their wares and skills on the gridiron or hardwood floor in the hopes they will be drafted by the NFL, CFL or NBA.

There is already a corrupt system of coaches in cahoots with boosters and agents on the sly with a knowing wink and a nod providing players with the various unspoken perks of being a coveted student athlete. This is done all in the quest of winning national championships, conference titles and bowl games.

Make no mistake, those of us who support our alma maters or local universities enjoy the winning seasons and post season play and are equally disappointed when the former does not occur on a regular basis. But we also know the importance of seeing those same student athletes who march down the field in victory, march across the stage in a cap and gown in the victory of earning a degree.

Clearly Mr. Yee’s column does not support the notion of educating our student athletes and that will only have long term deleterious effects on them for which we as a society will ultimately pay.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA. He is a Maryland football season ticket holder and member of the Terrapin Club.

Ground Zero Mosque: Legal: Yes; Moral: Never

Ground Zero Mosque: Legal: Yes; Moral: Never

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

August 16, 2010

The Jewish synagogue, the Christian/Catholic church, the Shinto and Confucian shrines, the Buddhist and Hindu temples, and yes, even the Islamic mosque are all houses of worship to be respected, revered and prayed in by people of faith seeking answers, guidance, truth, atonement and presumably a path to goodness, peace, righteousness and betterment.

Yet, as anyone with a pulse knows, more wars have been waged in the name of all that is holy, from Crusades, Inquisitions, pogroms, holocausts and in more recent history terrorist attacks.

Catholic priests are not calling for the destruction of any peoples for not accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Jewish rabbis are not condemning non-Jews for eating a ham and cheese sandwich, yet Muslim imams around the globe are demanding that all other faiths bow to Sharia law. There are also regular calls for the slaughter of “infidels,” even among Muslims themselves, not to mention the shouts from the mountaintops for the destruction of Israel, the United States, Western Civilization, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims.

The United States of America is presumably the most religiously tolerant nation in the world – starting with the Puritans who sought religious freedom in the 1600s before there was even a United States. Catholics found a religious haven in the Maryland Colony, Jewish refugees found homes in the United States and assimilated, some would say far too deeply for our own good.

It is the irony of this deep-rooted tolerance that will one day befall the grandeur and religious freedoms of the United States. Nine years after the devastating terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the failed assaults on the White House or Capitol Building in Washington, DC, 3,000 people of numerous faiths lay murdered by Muslim extremists in New York City, Arlington, VA and a field in Shanksville, PA – scores of whom were never identified or found.

Nine years after Muslim extremists issued a clarion call to the global community that they will not play by the rules of civilized society, and adding insult to injury, literally so, there is a mosque planned for construction in the shadows of the September 11, 2001 attacks and murders.

We, as Americans, are being told by one of the most intolerant faiths, to be the tolerant nation we have been to other faiths. Political figures with absolutely no spines have weighed in on this issue is a most cowardly fashion. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has called for “mutual respect and tolerance,” in his support of this mosque at this location. Just how many synagogues and churches are being built in Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country? We can expect groundbreaking ceremonies about the time bacon is declared kosher.

There is tolerance and then there is myopic stupidity. This nation bends over backwards to be tolerant – even in the face of all the wrongs committed in the United States. No nation is perfect and the US is certainly no exception with a history of slavery and internments, but this is not an issue of payback or overcompensation. This is an issue of common sense. Ultimately, we are killing ourselves from within by giving in to people who want us dead. There is no gray area here.

In addition to the weak-kneed Bloomberg, there are the politically correct New York Congressmen Jerrold Nadler and Anthony Weiner as well as New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who in their abject liberalism have given their blessing to this insidious project. All four are embarrassments as Jews. Where is the backbone of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani when he is needed?

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the chairman of the Cordoba Institute, the sponsoring organization of the Ground Zero mosque, said 19 days following the 9-11 attacks and murders that the United States was an accessory in those attacks, that Osama bin Laden was “made in the US,” and demands that the United States become more Sharia compliant. There is certainly nothing tolerant coming from Imam Rauf.

Imam Rauf still has yet to condemn Hezbollah or Hamas as terror organizations and has called for jihad against Jews, Christians, the United States, Israel and other Westerners. Rauf calls the United States repressive as a political statement, yet in his demands of a more Sharia compliant America, is calling for the deaths of homosexuals, the stoning of women who might be adulterous, and is categorically anti-Jewish and anti-Christian. Where is the tolerance, Imam Rauf?

Then there is the insipid weasel-ness of the White House. Let’s start with that deer in the headlights White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who little more than a week ago said, “We’re not at war with a religion, but an idea.”

How naïve. Just where did this idea originate?

What next? A mosque planned at the Pentagon and in the field at Shanksville?

Then of course, Barack Obama feels compelled to weigh in with his obtuse two cents after declaring this a “local issue.” Although it most certainly is not a local issue, he would have been better off leaving it at that then demonstrating his tacit short sightedness.

“Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,” said Obama, Friday, August 13 while hosting an iftar, the daily breaking of the fast during the month-long observance of Ramadan.

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable,” said Obama in supporting the Ground Zero mosque and showing his true colors.

Is the erection of such a structure legal? Yes, it is legal, but it most certainly is not moral. Obama had a golden opportunity to do the right thing, but instead, as usual, bowed to political correctness by taking the easy way out. The right thing would be to defend the right of people to worship and defend people’s religious freedoms, but then to strongly encourage that Imam Rauf relocate the mosque from the shadow of the site of the greatest and most horrific attack perpetrated on American soil.

And although this mosque is slated for construction on private property, where is the funding, to the tune of $100 million, coming from? There should be absolute transparency as to the origins of every last nickel going into such a structure, assuming a construction crew in New York City can even be found to work on such a project.

Such transparency has been called for by New York Congressman Peter King and GOP gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, both of whom oppose the building of the Ground Zero mosque, while Lazio’s opponent, New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo supports the mosque. (Hopefully the voters in New York will remember that on November 2.)

Most Americans agree that the building of this mosque is legal. At the same time they also believe it to be a slap in the face of those who died there as well as their families who will have to see that structure in perpetuity while remembering their loved ones died at the hands of Muslim extremists – a term the Obama administration refuses to utter, again in the interest of political correctness.

Opposition is so strong that 68 percent of those asked, oppose the mosque being built at Ground Zero – and this was a CNN poll – certainly no right wing media outlet. And those who approve because the cultural center has board inclusive of people of Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths, don’t forget, the Nazis had Jews laboring as kapos during the Holocaust. Even the left of center Anti-Defamation League called for the mosque to be relocated, calling it “insensitive,” said ADL Chairman Abraham Foxman.

Mr. Obama need be reminded that slavery was, at one time, also legal, but it too was never moral or right.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Stone's Sense of History is Rocky

Stone’s Sense of History is Rocky

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 26, 2010

Film director Oliver Stone is right. Now before all who know me wonder if I am not suffering from heat stroke, let me clarify the statement.

“We can’t judge people as only bad or good,” said Stone in his defense of both Stalin and Hitler in recent comments castigating the United States for its disproportionate focus on the Holocaust.

Stone was right in that apparently Hitler liked dogs.

Other than that, Stone couldn’t be more wrong that there are redeeming qualities in Stalin, Hitler, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Chavez has been pointedly anti-American and anti-Semitic and Ahmadinejad has long called for the eradication of Israel from the map both figuratively and literally. Stone defended all four monsters in an interview with the Sunday Times of Britain.

Stone’s sense of history is about as fictional as the garbage he writes and passes off as fine cinema as he said “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people – 25 or 30 million killed.” Stalin was responsible for more deaths of his fellow countrymen than any outside forces. And is Stone suggesting that six million murdered Jewish men, women and children is acceptable because more Russians were slaughtered? Do the math Ollie, no group was marked for evisceration or suffered per capita losses like the Jewish people. Is Stone being a provocateur or is he simply a pernicious insolent anti-Semite and Hitler apologist who clearly hasn’t read a history book? I believe the latter.

Of course Stone makes such delusional remarks to an overseas reporter which will be widely ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, paradoxically, if Stone’s next statement were actually valid, the so-called mainstream media would be all over this interview like cream cheese on a bagel. Stone was asked why there is such a fervent focus upon the Holocaust in the US, to which he said, “the Jewish domination of the media.”

Were the media dominated by Jews as Stone suggests, I should have a nationally syndicated column by now. Clearly Stone is drinking Kool Aid served up by fellow readers of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a popular screed bandied about when anti-Semites need a scapegoat for their own inadequacies.

Stone further demonstrated his faulty knowledge of history saying that Stalin “fought the German war machine more than any person.” Once again, Ollie, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and in your case, very little knowledge is very dangerous, especially since you have a public forum from which to rant and rave.

In an effort to avoid a two-front war, Hitler had learned from the failures of World War I, and forged an agreement with Stalin’s Soviets in August of 1939 – the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. This was weeks before the Nazi invasion of Poland and more than a year after Hitler had already swallowed up the Sudetenland. First came an economic agreement, followed by the Non-Aggression Pact itself. Stalin gave Hitler carte blanche to cut through Poland and Western Europe like a hot knife through butter. The 10-year deal lasted only until June 22, 1941 when Germany launched a surprise attack on the Soviet Union, thus forcing Stalin’s armies to fight the Nazis.

While the United States did not enter the war until the day after the dastardly and craven attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, and President Franklin Roosevelt was certainly no friend of the Jewish people, American fighting forces took on the Nazis and the Japanese in a fever pitch two-front war. Although the war for the Allies did not start off well, in time they vanquished all enemies and attempted to restore some semblance of order in the ruins of Europe.

Oliver Stone is certainly entitled to his opinion – this is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals don’t like someone’s opinion, they seek to have it quashed, while conservatives offer a differing opinion and remind people that their words, thoughts and ideas have consequences. For Stone, those consequences should be failure at the box office. Perhaps eh should cast Mel Gibson in his next film. I have not, for years, put dime one in Stone’s pockets due to his lugubrious sentiments both anti-American and anti-Semitic. I will continue my personal boycott of Stone films. What you do, is up to your conscience to decide.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Voting No Confidence in Government

Voting No Confidence in Government

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 15, 2010

Here’s a shocking revelation: government, regardless of the party in power, does not create jobs. Confidence in government, however, is a driving force in job creation by the private sector.

Giving government unfettered freedom to run roughshod over our Creator-endowed rights – that hinders job creation. When government passes legislation it typically closes doors instead of opening them. By its nature, government is restrictive – it tells the people what they can’t do.

This is the beauty of the Constitution – it limits what government can do – not what the people can do. Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, however, government has done as much as it can do to control, limit and even shackle the people by thwarting the noble efforts of a free people to be creative, innovative and inventive. The pinnacle of this destructive trend is the coddling and patronizing attempts to stifle the creative process by using taxpayer dollars to bail out corporations seen as too big to fail in the eyes of this administration.

Failure is the mother’s milk of invention. Bailing out a flailing company is akin to giving it false hope of future success. The public made a decision that they did not want the “widget” being manufactured and sold by John Q. Businessman. By bailing that company out, the government artificially props up that company hoping that a new day will spark a desire by the public to want that widget.

Letting the company fail forces the owner to don his thinking cap and invent the next new and improved Widget II. The new and improved product forces the competition to conjure up its next great product. That is how the economy is genuinely stimulated as opposed to the artificial stimulation being thrust upon the people by the government all the while using the taxpayer’s money to force us to by the widgets we didn’t want in the first place.

It is the creative, innovative and inventive who hire people – create jobs. When the people have confidence that government will leave them alone, and not steal from them via oppressive taxes to pay for unnecessary social programs and the needs of illegal aliens as well as those people who wantonly avoid work in exchange for government support (welfare), there is job creation. The job creators have a willingness to invest in their own creativity and inventiveness.

This confidence is further exuded when taxes are low because people have a greater amount of disposable income. However, with unemployment approaching double digits at 9.5 percent, confidence has been eroded mightily, and that stunts growth considerably, ultimately driving unemployment even higher and production down. This leads to greater layoffs of people who will have less disposable income to spend on taxable goods and services.

Meanwhile, the rising unemployment figures drives government spending higher in an effort to pay the unemployment benefits of those folks out of work. Simultaneously, with private sector spending down, so too is the intake by the government of revenue derived from taxes that come from the spending of people’s disposable income. It’s a matter of the dog chasing his tail. Additionally, this lack of confidence has spilled over onto Wall Street as the business community is equally as skittish because of the culture of anti-business and even anti-capitalism awash in the White House. This is evidenced by the redistribution of wealth philosophy that came pouring out of the mouth of Obama during the 2008 campaign.

One exception to government does not create jobs: the current lawsuit by the Obama administration against Arizona simply because the Grand Canyon State dared to pass legislation to protect itself because the federal government won’t. Thanks to such a moronic lawsuit, money is pouring into Arizona by people supportive of the passage of SB 1070. These are every day Americans – tourists taking vacations, business people scheduling conferences, on-line purchases, etc. This is their own economic stimulus – with their own money that they earned and not given them by government.

And just what legislation did Arizona pass and how does it relate to the current economic quagmire? Arizona picked up the gauntlet fumbled by the federal government by not enforcing the laws pertaining to illegal aliens. And while liberals are having conniptions over the legislation, it should really be conservatives, because the Arizona law is not nearly as strict as its federal cousin. As for the impact on the economy, illegal aliens are a drain on the system with billions of untaxed dollars being funneled back to their countries of origin.

After all, who pays when an illegal alien needs medical care and shows up at the hospital? The taxpayers. Who pays for their food stamps they should not possess in the first place? The taxpayers. Who pays as class sizes continue to expand when the children of illegal aliens are not permitted to be turned out of school? The taxpayers. Who pays to feed those same children breakfast and lunch in those same schools? The taxpayers.

Arizona is attempting to stave off becoming California or Illinois, who in turn are fast turning into Greece as they are going bankrupt. Illinois, for example, is facing a $5 billion shortfall. Vast numbers of illegal aliens milking and bilking the system coupled with the problems regarding the various pension funds has created an economic disaster that is neither untenable nor unsustainable. High praise must go to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) for combating the economic problems the Garden state is facing by not just standing up to the overreaching teachers’ unions but also by calling for the privatization of some state services. And kudos to Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R) for producing a budget surplus.

Taxes can only be raised so much before those who endure the brunt of that burden will simply work less, earn less, and ultimately pay less in taxes. As they produce less, they will lay off more workers, who, in turn, will spend less. And on and on it goes – there’s that pesky dog chasing his tail once again. Priming the pump is not sustainable either, nor is it the purpose of government.

“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government,” said James Madison, the credited father of the Constitution and Fourth president of the United States.

The government cannot tax its way out of this economic hole. The haves will not continue to sustain the have nots. They will take their businesses elsewhere or shutter the doors in utter frustration. Remember, the first rule regarding getting out of a hole is to put the shovel down. The Obama administration had best learn this rule and put down the shovel before we all get buried.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.