The election is over. Congratulations to the winners!

I am now in the process of writing a new book titled “The Campaign Diet”.  It will teach you how to get the strongest legs and knuckles you’ve ever had. j/k

This blog will be changing web hosting from wordpress.com to the domain I purchased for it back in the beginning of the year. This will give me greater ability to host videos, documents and generally utilize technology to keep you updated on the happenings in East Hartford Government.

Find the new site here:

http://www.brainflation.com

As you may know I have received the endorsement of the Republican Town Committee for a Town Council seat. As I move into the campaign I have to deal with the quirks that being a candidate brings.

After discussing what it means to be a candidate and have a personal blog with the SEEC it was determined that state law doesn’t address the issue of candidate blogs which historically cross over with campaign coverage.

Because the law is not clear I have decided to suspend posting to the blog for the duration of the campaign. Instead when the campaign website is announced I will blog from there.

I fully expect that Ladyx’s blog will ensure that this one is not missed.

http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net/easthartford

I received a letter from the state FOI commission today with the docket and ombudsman information for my complaint against the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee. It is Docket #FIC 2009-341.

The letter is here:
FOI Docket Assignment

It appears that the Redevelopment Agency has also failed to post minutes as required by the FOI Act.

I have sent Mayor Currey a request for an update on her investigation which has supposedly been going on for over a month with no results. I also asked her to recommend to the Town Council that the property transfer and contract authorizations be rescinded and the town’s actual property disposition methods be referred to the I&A committee to ensure they are in compliance with the ordinances.

Melody,

It has been just over 2 weeks since I delivered 37 pages of supporting documents for my public hearing testimony to your office. Have you made any progress into your investigation regarding my testimony? I am particularly interested in the legal process followed in disposition of the property.

I recently received documents from the Town Council Office in response to an FOI Request which clearly demonstrate that the method used to dispose of the policy is not in accordance with Section 10-19 of the town ordinances. In light of this I would appreciate it if you would issue a recommendation to the Town Council that they rescind the motions approving the property transfer and giving pre-approval to a sales contract which were approved on June 16th, 2009 and recommend that the Investgation & Audit committee investigate the process employed by the Town of East Hartford in disposing of town owned (taxpayer owned) property.

The entirety of the FOI documents can be found here:
http://brainflation.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/foi-docs.pdf

Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149

Also I sought an update on the development status from Jeanne Webb. This is the update:

Jon - Our developer is waiting for the HUD NOFA to be announced.  As
soon as it is announced, they will be putting an application together. 

We do not move to final disposition on Daley Court until all criteria
for the development have been met. 

In the mean time, we have extended their developer status until February
1, 2010 or until the HUD application is approved, which ever is the
earlier of the 2 dates. 

We do not have any scheduled meetings in the summer and will hold our
next meeting on September 16, 2009.

UPDATE: It seems I forgot to attach the PDF scan of the documents. The link is now at the bottom.

I received a rather thick stack of papers from the Town Council Office yesterday in reply to my FOI request. As expected the FOI demonstrates that the legal process for the town to dispose of town property was ignored while the town made up their own process as they went along.

At the bottom is a rather large PDF (180 Pages) which comprises the entire packet I received. I encourage you to review it. It contains the RFPs that went out in 2006 and 2008 as well as responses. The rest consists of various communications, memos and meeting minutes regarding Daley Court. Also there is one lone set of minutes evidencing the approval of the Burnside Avenue Redevelopment Plan from back in 1997.

To summarize how the law was broken the following procedures required by 10-19 are evidenced not to have been followed:

The Mayor did NOT recommend the disposition of Daley Court in writing.
The Council did NOT refer this recommendation to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT determine whether to seek bids or negotiate directly.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT issue an RFP.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT publicly open RFP responses.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT bring all the bids along with a recommendation to the Town Council.

What did happen is that the development department in conjunction with the Redevelopment Agency decided they wanted to dispose of Daley Court which as evidenced by Jeanne’s own communications with the Mayor was NOT owned or controlled by the Redevelopment agency which means the redevelopment agency had no authority to dispose of the property or issue bids. The Redevelopment Agency referred their RFP to the Town Council who referred it to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee who approved it, something they had no authority to do.

In fact, the Redevelopment Agency doesn’t even have the authority to take the Daley Court Property because the Burnside Avenue Redevelopment Plan doesn’t appear to have ever been re-approved by the town council. State law is clear that a redevelopment plan expires after ten years if not amended or re-approved. The plan expired in 2007.

http://cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap130.htm#Sec8-127.htm
(c) (1) The approval of a redevelopment plan shall be given by the legislative body. The plan shall be effective for a period of ten years after the date of approval and may be amended in accordance with this section. The legislative body shall review the plan at least once every ten years after the initial approval, and shall reapprove such plan or an amended plan at least once every ten years after the initial approval in accordance with this section in order for the plan or amended plan to remain in effect. With respect to a redevelopment plan for a project that is funded in whole or in part by federal funds, the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the extent that such provisions are prohibited by federal law.

What’s really interesting is that the RFP response by Sheldon Oaks is not the project that was approved by the Redevelopment Agency or the Town Council. In fact the original response by Sheldon Oaks is easily not the best proposal received. How is that Sheldon Oaks was able to change their project and acquisition price AFTER the RFP? The Council never voted to negotiate with any bidder so how was it that negotiations were made? Was any other bidder given this same consideration?

There is only one thing for the Council to do now. They must rescind the motions approved and immediately refer this issue to the Investigation and Audit Committee to determine why nobody followed the law and why the Chairman of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee, Mr. Bill Horan, didn’t insist that the law governing the actions of his committee be followed.

FOI DOCS

Following up on Daley Court further I have submitted an FOI request to the Town Council Office to evidence the compliance, or lack thereof, with section 10-19 of the Town Ordinances which governs the disposition of town owned property.

Angela,

I would appreciate your assistance in providing the the following records in accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act.

1) A copy of any written communication from Mayor Melody Currey to the East Hartford Town Council or it’s subcommittees regarding 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590  Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.

2) A copy of the agenda and minutes of the East Hartford Town Council meeting at which Mayor Melody Currey’s written request to dispose of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court was referred to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee.

3) A copy of any appraisal dated 2006 or later of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court which was acquired by the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee

4) A copy of any written communication, memo, minutes or agenda from 2006 or later addressing an appraisal or whether to acquire an appraisal of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.

5) A copy of any minutes, agenda, memo or communication of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee in which the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee determined whether to seek bids for, or negotiate directly with a buyer for 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.

6) A copy of any public notice of a request for bids on 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court from the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee published in a newspaper.

7) A copy of the minutes and agenda of the meeting of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee at which the committee opened bids for 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.

8) A copy of the minutes and agenda of the meeting of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee at which the committee approved a recommendation to dispose of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court to one of the bidders, reject all bidders and submit another request for bids or negotiate with another person.

9) A copy of the minutes and agenda of the Town Council meeting at which the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee submitted the bids for 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court or other written memo or communication evidencing a submission of bids on the property to the Town Council.

10) A copy of any emails to or from the Town Council, its subcommittees, clerk or members referencing 582 Burnside Avenue, 590 Burnside Avenue or Daley Court.

11) A copy of the agenda and minutes of the Town Council meeting at which the Burnside Avenue Redevelopment Plan was last amended, approved or renewed.

If any of these requests can not be met because the information does not exist please indicate this.

Thank You,

Jon Searles
51 Spaulding Circle
East Hartford, CT 06118
(860) 930-4149

A return receipt indicating that Angela opened the email was received at 8:47AM 07/16/09:

Your message

  To:      Attenello, Angela
  Cc:      Currey, Melody
  Subject: FOI Request - Information on Daley Court
  Sent:    Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:30:05 -0400

was read on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:47:44 -0400

A response was received shortly thereafter at 8:48 AM on 07/16/09:

Your request has been forwarded to the Council Chair.

Angela Attenello
Town Council Clerk

http://brainflation.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/shuttle-launches-tonight-even-if-we-cant-watch-it-on-tv-anymore/

The launch of STS-127 got scrubbed last night due to impending thunderstorms and rescheduled for tonight at 6:51 PM.

Watch the launch online:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html?param=public

Follow the mission blog for the latest:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/launch_blog.html

The thought of growing up to be a rocket scientist or astronaut seems to have lost its cool in competition with the instant success of American Idol.  Perhaps this is due to the natural human tendency towards laziness. Or perhaps it’s because we don’t watch enough shuttle launches with our kids.

Tonight you can rectify the problem. Tune in around 7PM to see NASA launch one of the last 8 shuttle missions at 7:13PM.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html?param=public

You can read more about the final 8 missions here:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/behindscenes/shuttle_countdowns.html

Follow the launch blog with the latest updates here:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/launch_blog.html

I received a response to my July 1st communication with the Mayor.

07/06/09 10:22AM

I have been informed by Paul Roczynski that hard copies will be
furnished to my office in the near future.  Thank you.

Mayor Melody A. Currey
(860) 291-7200
Town Hall
740 Main Street, East Hartford, CT  06108
mcurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us
www.ci.east-hartford.ct.us

All e-mails received or written at this address are subjected to the
Freedom of Information rules and regulations.

Today I filed 37 pages of the documentation I posted on the 22nd of June with the Mayor’s office along with the following letter.

Jonathan Searles
51 Spaulding Circle
East Hartford, CT 06118
July 6, 2009

Mayor Melody Currey
Town of East Hartford
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108

Dear Melody:

Attached are thirty seven pages of supporting documentation for my public testimony of June 16^th 2009 regarding the Daley Court property disposition.

No position on the Daley Court property transfer has been taken by the East Hartford Republican Town Committee and as such this is not an EHRTC issue. In the future any requests or questions you or the Town Council may have regarding my testimony or documentation should be communicated to me directly. Neither EHRTC Chairman Paul Roczynski nor the EHRTC have been involved at any point with my research, testimony or follow up on the property transfer and as such Mr. Roczynski is not a proper avenue for questions or communication on this issue.

Please distribute this letter and attached documentation to the Town Council and any other interested parties.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Searles
jsearles@underdeposit.com
(860) 930-4149

In this time of struggle in which our government once again embraces the tyranny of government for the few at the expense of the many we must not forget what the 4th of July means. It does not represent an epic struggle to find a seat for the local fireworks or a never before seen achievement in pool sales.

The 4th of July is about remembering those who cleared this rocky road of freedom and remembering why they bothered to do so in the first place. As Congress lay chains upon us slowing our every step we must remember that we and we alone have the power to throw off these chains and strike down the despots. They tell us that we must bear our chains to be free. I say I have never seen a free man in chains.

A phone call from Republican Chairman Paul Roczynski spawned the following email to the mayor.

Melody,

I received a phone call from Republican Chairman Paul Roczynski this morning regarding my testimony at the Daley Court public Hearing on the 16th of June. He informs me that during a conversation between Paul and yourself you had expressed a concern that I had not yet provided you with documentation to support my public testimony.

The documentation as well as video of the hearing is and has been publicly available for viewing at the following address:
http://brainflation.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/daley-court-video-and-documents/

Please do not hesitate to ask for any documentation referenced that isn’t posted.

Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149

The response if any will be provided when received.

The Capitol, Hartford, Conn.

12 noon – 3pm

Our grievances with the state of government in Washington, DC go well beyond one administration, a few policies, specific politicians, or a particular political party. The fuel behind our passion derives from the bipartisan destruction of our individual liberties, disrespect for our economic, social, and political well-being, and the shredding of our constitution.

To reclaim our independence and American civic traditions, the following are four key principles and positions that we must demand from our representatives.

PRINCIPLES

Bailouts, Taxes, and Spending Responsibility

There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and government should never grant private organizations license to commit criminal or fraudulent acts. We must also seek greater transparency of the Federal Reserve System through investigation, evaluation, and audit of its relationships with banking, corporate, and other financial institutions.

Respect the Integrity of the Constitution

We believe that the Constitution was instituted to restrain the arbitrary exercise of government power and to safeguard liberty. A government that routinely disregards the Constitution for the sake of political expediency cannot long remain a defender of the rights of its citizens.

Reducing the National Debt

We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust; it has greatly diminished the power of our dollar and threatens to undo decades of economic progress.

Individual Freedom

We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons.

http://connecticut.reteaparty.com
http://www.freeandequal.org

The Town Council meeting on the 16th was a truly interesting combination of arrogance, intelligence and poor representation. I was stunned at the turnout in the chamber. Hearing the many students and parents who came forward to the microphone speak drove home just how impressive and passionate these young minds are. I applaud those who came out to defend their music, sports and honor programs. You did well.

The arrogance of the Board of Education, particularly Chairwoman Mary Alice Dwyer Hughes, in using unarguably vital pieces of the high school experience to manipulate funding and avoid the serious restructuring in the education budget that they were tasked with this year should offend us all as taxpayers. Instead of seeking out true long term savings the Board of Education created an instant crisis by putting Music, Sports and Honors classes on the chopping block. It only takes 5 minutes of thought to realize that the Board of Education would never have gone through with this plan had they been called on their dirty bluff. They have to be elected this year too after all.

The Town Council for their part had the forethought to plan for a potential state budget crisis and put aside 2 million dollars to make up the difference in the event of a state funding shortage. Not only did the BoE fail to make the meaningful cuts needed in the budget but they demanded this 2 million dollars of reserve funds and redirected the blame for their failure onto the Town Council by ginning up misplaced outrage arguing that it’s the lack of the 2 million dollars of reserve funds that is responsible for the cuts in these core programs. Mary Alice Dwyer Hughes took the position of ringleader and lead arm twister.

As bad as this strong arm manipulation by the BoE was I just can’t help but feel the Council is more to blame for it than the Board of Education. Marcia LeClerc gave a concise sound reason for the funds being placed in reserve. The state may come up short and the reserve funds are a necessary safety. She then made a logical leap that I couldn’t follow. She and the rest of the council supported giving the funds to the Board of Education based on the recommendation of the Mayor despite the fact that exactly the same unknown budget conditions existed that made the reserve funds necessary to begin with. What happens if the the funding doesn’t stay the same? I guess it’ll be an “oops, who could have known” moment on the council.

Worse is that the BoE ended up with a million dollar surplus from the last fiscal year. This means two things.  First, despite complaining last year that funding was inadequate we paid them a million more than they needed. Second, with the 2 million reserve and 1 million surplus combined the BoE won’t even need to follow through with many of the cuts it already made. Our Town Council has utterly failed us in this issue by failing to hold the BoE to any kind of fiscal restraint in this recessionary period and failing to protect us from a possible state funding shortfall. A responsible council would have called out the political stunt on the 16th for what it was and sent the BoE back to their budget books to decide if they really wanted to campaign on cutting music, sports and honors.

...

With almost 2 weeks having passed since the public hearing and subsequent action on the Daley Court property I am becoming concerned that the investigation which was promised at the meeting may have concluded before it was announced.

I have sent a request for a meeting, on the record, to the Mayor in hopes that the lingering questions can be resolved.

Melody,

I still have some concerns regarding the process by which the East Hartford Town Council came to their decision to transfer the title for 582(590) Burnside Avenue to the East Hartford Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday the 16th of June 2009. I can’t seem to find a singular or combined set of ordinances or state statutes that describe the process taken and the ones I’ve found seems to contradict the process employed by the Town Council.

I was encouraged by your statement on the 16th that you were going to look into the claims I made at the hearing starting on the morning of Wednesday the 17th. Unfortunately I have not heard anything more on this investigation and the as yet unresolved questions could have a serious impact upon the ability of the citizens to trust their government. Such a mistrust would be entirely undesirable.

I would like to meet with you, and any others who you feel may be helpful, on the record to discuss the specific legal process followed in the disposition of the property to the East Hartford Redevelopment Agency.

Also, I received and reviewed the discussion agenda for the Green Committee meeting I was unable to attend. I would look forward to a tour of the recycling facility. The last 2 weeks of July would work great.

Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149

The JI, Reminder and Gazette have mentioned the Daley Court events. Unfortunately due to the JI’s relatively recent subscriber model I can no longer link their stories.

http://www.remindernews.com/node/7/&town=easthartford&url=EASTH-2009-06-24-2-Ar00200

http://ehgazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:crow-demands-council-save-arts&catid=92:news&Itemid=377

I received a response to my request from the Mayor on 06/26/09 at 7:21 PM.

I am awaiting word from the state's attorney concerning next steps.
Depending on his reply, I will be in touch or his office will on this
issue.  

Mayor Melody A. Currey
(860) 291-7200
Town Hall
740 Main Street, East Hartford, CT  06108
mcurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us
www.ci.east-hartford.ct.us

A neighbor has lost his indoor cat. The cat has been missing since Friday the 19th and was last seen Sunday in the vicinity of Maple Street and Spaulding Circle. See the included flier for a photo and the number to call if you have seen the cat.

Finally I have processed the documents and video from the hearing last Tuesday. Video is below and the documents are at the bottom. You be the judge. I’ll be glad to answer questions through the comments section.

History shows that Mr. Horan reads this blog. Here is a challenge Mr. Horan, as Chairman of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee, show me the law that WAS followed in the council’s disposition of the property because I have listed the law that I believe wasn’t.

Council Calls Public Hearing To Order

Chair of Redevelopment Agency Speaks

Developers Bill & Dan Speak

Jon Searles (Me) Speaks

Mayor Currey Addresses Council

Council Debates and Passes Transfer and Sale Motions

** If any of the below documents give you an error please update your adobe reader to 6.1 or better or let me know about the problem so I can down convert the document for compatibility.**

Town Fact Sheet
State Response to EHRA Eminent Domain 06-18-2001
State Refusal to Authorize Property Sale – 2000
Sheldon Oak Central Windfall Profit
RFP 08-043
Redevelopment Minutes 02-27-03
Property Card 2009
Property Card 2003
Koteen Offer 12-02-2002
Karno Letter Pushing Koteen 06-21-2002
HUD H 08-08
Hud 202 Guidebook
Hovanec EHHA appraisal 09-08-2000
GIS Property Card 2009
EHHA to EHRA update on deal 12-05-2000
EHHA to EHRA on expedition of emminent domain 07-02-2002
EHHA EHRA Solicitation 03-22-2000
East Hartford Town Ordinances Chapter 10 – Finance & Taxation
CGS 8-137
CGS 8-24
Certificate of Taking – Eminent Domain – 08-13-2002
Sheldon Oak 2007 990
New Samaritan 2007 990
EHRDA vs Beatman Emminent Domain 06-14-1999
EHRDA vs Karabetsos Emminent Domain 04-20-2000
ToEH vs EHHA Emminent Domain 07-19-2002
Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee FOI Appeal
Town Council Agendas Page 1
Town Council Agendas Page 2
Town Council Minutes
Town Council Subcommittees
Town Council Minutes 05-14
East Hartford Notices 04-15 to 05-11
East Hartford Notices 05-11 to 05-20

As I stated tonight when I gave my public testimony regarding Daley Court, I have documents to back up everything I said. Soon I will process the relevant parts of the council video and scan in the relevant documents which are not already scanned in for the review of the general public.

In the meantime I have a few comments.

First, I sincerely hope the Mayor is honestly going to start an investigation tomorrow. I have documents.

Second, if Mr. Kehoe was interested in the accuracy of any of my statements or information he could have asked me to demonstrate the information during my comments or when the questions arose. I was sitting right there. Instead he attempted to impugn my character, research and the accuracy of my data. It is evident based on the course he chose that finding out the truth was not his goal.

Third, I invite any media outlet to contact me to verify my information. My claims will stand, theirs wont.

Fourth, I am disappointed that the matter was not referred to the Investigation & Audit  Committee for review despite documentation to warrant it.

All in all it was a great night for the citizens of East Hartford because those on the council and in town hall are on notice that at least one person is watching.

I’ve been working on my public comment for the public hearing on the 590 Burnside Avenue deal (Daley Court) for a while and can’t believe how long it has gotten. Clearly there is a lot wrong with this deal and few answers.

Here’s what I have for comments so far. Keep in mind they are written in the confused and improper form in which they flow out of my head.

Public Testimony June 16th

.

It’s come to my attention that the new version of Adobe creates documents which aren’t fully backwards compatible and as such the FOI complaint I posted may not be readable for everyone. Here is the complaint set to compatibility all the way back to Acrobat 4.X.

Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee FOI Appeal

.

As I researched the chain of events that led to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee’s recommendation to the Town Council regarding Daley Court I found something odd. The committee never gave such a recommendation… or at least according to the town website they didn’t. After visiting the Town Council office I learned that the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition committee had held two secret meetings in May in which they made decisions on Daley Court and the Kilty Farms property.

According to the FOI act the town is required to give at least 24 hours notice on the town website whenever a special meeting of any of it’s bodies are called. This is to ensure that the public can attend if they so choose. After all, the public comment section of the agenda is pointless if the public isn’t notified.

No notice was filed for either the 05/14/09 or 05/19/09 Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee meetings on the town website and minutes for the 05/14/09 meeting, in which the Daley Court recommendation was made, were not even posted until 06/11/09, the day after I made a trip to the council office to figure out what happened.

In response I have filed an appeal (complaint) with the State FOI Commission in response to these violations of the FOI act seeking an order against such secret meetings and a nullification of any business conducted in those meetings.

Here is the complaint.
Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee FOI Complaint

My public comment for Tuesday night (assuming this doesn’t kill the agenda item) is still being written and so far is far too long and hasn’t covered all the bases. There is a lot wrong with how this project is being moved along and sadly it appears that nobody even knows it’s wrong because it’s how things are done in East Hartford… wrong.

As previously mentioned the East Hartford Town Council will be holding another public hearing on Tuesday June 16th to hear what the public thinks about their transferring a property which the town appraised during reval at 2.2 million dollars for 50 thousand dollars to a group of non-profit developers who intend to develop senior housing which will cost the tax payers greater than twice in subsidies what the property tax levy brings in.

Here is a flyer to distribute in your neighborhood.

Public Hearing Flyer

Follow me on a journey through Daley Court, AKA 582 Burnside Ave., AKA 590 Burnside Ave. I will show you that Daley Court is not some falling down slum development but instead a structurally sound, if in need of modernization, development. Our town officials are lying to us and it’s going to cost the taxpayers of East Hartford millions.

This past Tuesday the town council held a public hearing at which point it became apparent that the council and development department had not done their homework. In response they have scheduled a second hearing for June 16th at 7PM in the town council chambers. Please come and voice your opposition to selling a 2.2 million viable commercial residential development to a non-profit developer of subsidized housing projects for a mere $50,000. Tell them you aren’t willing to give up millions on this property so they can have an election issue. It will take a minimum of 10 years for the new development to offset the loss on the property alone that this deal would create.

Shame on the East Hartford development department and shame on East Hartford Mayor Melody Currey for recommending this transfer to the Town Council.

2009 Libertarian Party of Connecticut

Convention featuring Peter Schiff

Bridgeport, CT – On Saturday, May 30th, the Libertarian Party of Connecticut (LPCT) will hold their annual
convention at the Holiday Inn in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Although 2009 is not an election year, the convention is generating a great deal of interest due to the impressive
lineup of speakers – including potential Senate candidate Peter Schiff. Schiff, a Darien resident, is the founder of
Euro Pacific Capital and the well known author of “Crash Proof” and “The Little Book for Bull Moves in Bear
Markets”.
Other featured speakers include:
· Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel who became a noted critic of military
intelligence leading to the Iraq war . Karen writes for a variety of web sites and journals,
including regular articles on LewRockwell.com.
· Katherine Albrecht, a sought after campaigner and expert on privacy issues, who hosts a daily
syndicated radio show.
The event will kick off at 3pm with the speakers appearing at varying times throughout the night (a schedule is
available at LPCT.org). Tickets for the event are still available for $45, which includes a buffet style dinner
reception.
For the first time ever, those unable to attend in person will still have the option of participating in the LPCT
convention via the internet. The convention will be broadcast live on ustream using the LPCTTV show. This
video feed will also be available directly from the official website of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut,
LPCT.org.
The LPCT will also be taking questions for the scheduled speakers via Twitter. Those wishing to submit
questions and receive updates live from the event should “follow” (twitter speak for monitoring a user)
LPCT2009. Please use hashtag #LPCT2009 for questions.

For your enjoyment here are some photos I took at the 2009 East Hartford Memorial Day Parade.

My Toasted Sacrificial Shoe

I’m not militant against smoking and having chosen not to be a smoker I respect the choice some make to smoke. There is no secret that many don’t give the same respect for that choice as evidenced by calls for smoking bans everywhere, regardless of property rights. It’s also clear that many smokers lack a basic respect for those who don’t smoke and the property rights of others.

Today I was at the Fox Run Mall in Glastonbury. As anyone who has had the pleasure of witnessing could attest I have a habit of pacing while talking on the phone. I found myself mindlessly walking the sidewalk engrossed in conversation when an odd sight caught my eye.  Smoke… rising from the landscaping. I walked over and investigated and discovered a ring of burning mulch approximately 7 inches in diameter surrounding a cigarette butt. I attempted to stomp it out and was at first unsuccessful as the mulch had turned into burning coals. I was able to kick the larger bits onto the concrete and grind them out and stamp out the remainder, though I’m afraid I sacrificed a shoe to do so.  As I stood watching the remains of burnt mulch to make certain there was no re-ignition I took a look around paying attention for the first time to the volume of discarded butts in the otherwise appealing and no doubt costly landscaping.

So I thought to myself, what kind of mindlessness thinks it’s ok to discard burning objects randomly? What is it about butts that make them ok to litter in so many people’s minds? The location of this small yet persistent mulch fire was  a lonely stretch of landscaping in front a closed toy store which would warrant little passing foot traffic today. What if I weren’t a pacer? Chances are nobody would have noticed that little mulch fire until it was a landscape inferno. What would the careless and disrespectful smoker who discarded that butt, who no doubt is on a surveillance tape, have to say if I had not stomped out the mulch and the management of Fox Run Mall sought compensation for their burnt up landscaping?

I suppose the bottom line is that if smokers want to be respected in their choice to smoke than they ought to show enough respect for others to keep their butts to themselves. Throwing your properly extinguished butts anywhere not specifically designated for garbage or butts is rude, and a violation of the property rights of whoever owns the land you are littering on, but throwing still burning butts in wood chips and other flammable materials is an idiotic case of pure negligence.

From the Hartford Courant:

Starting Spot For Parade Has Changed To Middle School

May 22, 2009

EAST HARTFORD — – In order to avoid potential construction work, organizers have moved the starting location for the annual Memorial Day parade to the East Hartford Middle School.

The parade will leave from the school at 10:30 a.m. turn onto Burnside Avenue before traveling along Hillside Street and ending at Hillside Cemetery, where a memorial service will take place.

This year’s parade is dedicated to the late Leo J. Cordier, a U.S. Air Force lieutenant and World War Two veteran.

05/19/09 Agenda
05/19/09 Minutes

This past Tuesday’s Town Council meeting was somewhat eventful with a decent discussion of what lies ahead for the dike repairs. According to Denise Horan, the town engineer, we have spent almost all of the original 7 million dollars we were told the project would cost back in 2007. She indicated that for the almost 7 million spent we have a host of engineering reports and surveys as well as some tree/vegetation/wildlife removal on the dike and little actual repair work. The total cost of the project has ballooned to 27 million dollars and even that is a number that could “wiggle” according to Horan.

Mayor Currey reported that she has word that Dodd is earmarking 15 million dollars in an upcoming energy bill for the East Hartford dike and another earmark for 2 million dollars has been stuck into an upcoming agriculture bill. Odd that they can’t allocate money with a simple “East Hartford Dike Repair” bill instead of spending the money on the sly.

In addition to that potential 18 million the town previously received a commitment from the State DEP for 4 million in reimbursements for approved projects which has and will fund dike repair costs and the Council approved the Mayor to enter into contract with the state for another 3 million dollars which would bring the state chip-in to 7 million dollars. Assuming the federal money doesn’t show up we’ll have a 13 million dollar hole to fill before this project can be completed.

Worse yet, the project completion deadline before our dike is de-certfied is February 22, 2010, a date the mayor is confident can’t be met. According to the mayor if the funding is lined up the earliest this project could be completed is by the end of the 2010 construction season, meaning fall 2010. We were assured that our federal legislators were diligently working on crafting an exemption for East Hartford.

The Fire Department has stepped up to the plate in response to the elimination of funding for maintenance items by identifying two FEMA grants which will pay about 90% of the cost for replacement of Engine #5, 50 SCUBA sets and 3 thermal imaging cameras which aid in identifying the location of fires. The sum of these three maintenance items would be about $669,000 but with the grants they will cost the department $60,850 which will be funded entirely from the existing Fire Department budget. The grant process is expected to take about a year.

The final interesting piece of the meeting came in the form of an approved motion to permit the finance director to refinance, to speak simply about a complicated process, up to 26 million dollars of outstanding bonds. The expected savings is between $125,000 and $600,000 over the remaining life of the bonds if the full amount were refinanced. It is important to note that Mr. Walsh, the finance director, was not optimistic about then entire amount being possible to refinance due to market conditions and it’s unclear how the bottom line savings would be adjusted by a reduction in the amount refinanced. None of the council members saw fit to ask.

CT Resistance put on a protest in front of Dodd’s office this past Saturday which was quite entertaining.

From their page:

The event was a success. There were hundreds at the protest. Everyone I talked to said they had a great time. We must thank a lot of people:

The Hartford Police. They were a big help and treated us well.

Campaign for Liberty. Huge help in promoting the event.

Scott Adamsons for filming the event.

Pam Fowler, Jim Azzola, Papa Possum, and Joe Visconti for speaking.

Michael Marcucci for co-authoring the Declaration of Independence from King Dodd II.

We pulled all this off without any help from the Republicans.

I caught the event on video using my new Blackberry  8900 (I know why they call it crackberry now) and attempted to stream it but QIK, the streaming application, seems to have borked most of the video. I do have one of the two best parts of the protest. Sadly I lost the second which was an analysis of Dodd’s Iowa caucus results. Did you know only 2 in each 10,000 caucus voters cast a ballot for Dodd?

I look forward to more from Sean Murphy in the future.

Check out around the 7 minute mark for a funny poem from Papa Possum.

As yet another election approaches for East Hartford this November it’s important that we steel ourselves against the onslaught of rhetoric and look-at-me politics which threaten to swallow us whole like a Connecticut River flood. Inevitably those officials already in office will parade papier-mâché accomplishments as evidence that they deserve another term while challengers will attempt to prove they have something new, or perhaps old and ignored, to offer. We have a duty as the electors of East Hartford to demand truth and seek honest answers. We must hold those who are not forthcoming with these accountable at the polls and in the chamber hall.

One of the papier-mâché accomplishments we’re sure to see this year will be the new budget which maintains the mill rate at the same level as the previous year. While it seems like an amazing accomplishment in comparison to previous budgets by the current office holders it’s nowhere near where we need to be and appears to be the best we can ever hope for from this council and this Mayor. Sadly this zero increase budget was not balanced through serious and sustainable reductions or efficiencies. Instead it was balanced on the elimination of town maintenance items such as police vehicle replacements which will in turn need to be double funded next year, or triple funded the year after and temporary union concessions. Certainly these are enough to get the Mayor and Council through this election if unchallenged on the facts but the reality is that we will all pay heavily for this next year and the years after when these false savings have to be paid for. The Mayor and Council have made no progress whatsoever in halting the freefall of our grand list, one of the two major drivers of our ever increasing taxes.

Interestingly prior to the 2007 municipal election the Mayor and Council played the same trick on us proclaiming they had shrunk the budget only to make up for it in 2008 giving grand speeches defending an increase in the Mayor’s salary and condemning the acts of previous councils, which most of the council members conveniently forgot they were a part of, in failing to fund maintenance spending. That year we let them get away with it. This time let’s not fall for it again.

By the way, have you thought of running for office? Maybe it’s time.

Jon Searles
East Hartford

Tickets can be purchased online at the Libertarian Party of Connecticut website.

http://lpct.org/Convention.html

East Hartford GOP Seeks Candidates

The East Hartford Republican Town Committee (EHRTC) is seeking candidates for the following offices.

Mayor
Town Council
Selectman
Board of Education
Constable

Registered East Hartford Republicans with questions or interest in these offices should contact Valentine Povinelli, Chairman of the EHRTC Selection Committee, by phone at (860) 568-5373 or by email at vpovinelli@aol.com or contact Paul Roczynski, EHRTC Chairman, by phone at (860) 569-7006.

The EHRTC Selection Committee is currently conducting interviews with interested individuals. Candidate endorsements by the EHRTC will occur in July so time is limited.

The Republican American is reporting that the Journal Inquirer (subscription now required online) is reporting that Hank Pawlowski, the East Hartford Board of Education member who resigned after being arrested for hit and run, assaulting police, drug possession and driving while intoxicated, has been fired from his job at the State Freedom of Information Commission.

From the report:

The head of Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Commission says an agency lawyer is being fired after being charged with a hit-and-run collision and violent confrontation with police. FOI Commission Executive Director Colleen Murphy says she informed Hank Pawlowski’s attorney that his employment ends May 21.-East Hartford police say Pawlowski fled from a collision in January, then struggled with officers until he was subdued with a Taser, police dog and chemical spray. He had been on paid administrative leave since the arrest. Murphy says she worried keeping him on staff would damage the FOI Commission’s credibility. Pawlowski’s case is pending in Manchester Superior Court, where he has pleaded not guilty to several charges. His attorney says he has a serious but treatable mental health condition.

Here is some previous coverage from this blog:

Hank Pawlowski Criminal/Motor Vehicle Docket Is Up – Summary of Charges

8 Bag Pawlowski to resign from BoE

CORRECTION – Councilman Bill Horan Will Not Defend BoE Pawlowski After Drunken Rampage

Mug Shot – Is he saying High?

Say WHAT!? BOE member busted with 8 bags o’ pot.

Although It slipped my mind the Mayor did respond to my suggested use of municipal tax liens as relief from future pension funding liability. Here is her response dated the 13th of April.

Jon,

Thank you for your recent e-mail suggesting that the Town's Pension Plan
invest in Town Tax Liens.

While the investment of pension plan funds rests solely with the 5
member Town Retirement Board led by Town Treasurer Joseph Carlson, I
would be reluctant to recommend your strategy to them for the following
reasons:

Statutory:

Connecticut General Statutes Chapter 112 section 7-400 is the starting
place for guidance on municipal investments.  Unrated tax liens are not
a municipally allowed investment by statute.

Liquidity:

While the 18% investment returns you cite are attractive, such rates of
return must be realized, and while the town would have priority as you
have pointed out, the ability to efficiently monitor and possibly
dispose of these properties through a long foreclosure process would be
difficult and outside of the annual goals and objectives I have set for
departments.

Not a core competency for local government:

The function of overseeing properties where the town held the tax lien
is not a core competency of the town, meaning that acting as a property
maintainer, if even for a short time, would not be a process in which
the town would excel.

Liability under "Prudent Man":

A Pension Plan's Board is measured by a variety of competencies, and one
such measurement is the "Prudent Man" rule.  In short, could investing
in a non-graded local tax lien be deemed imprudent by taxpayers or
employees, subjecting the plan and town to litigation?  I believe the
potential is there.

So in summary, while the information you point out in your request is
accurate, the town would have considerable obstacles in the form of
statutory, liquidity, core competency, and liability, among others not
mentioned here in order to make this a consideration of the Retirement
Board.

Jon, I thank you again for reaching out.

Melody

A week ago organizers estimated the Hartford Tea Party would host about 1,000 protesters. Today their expectations were shattered when 5,000 angry patriots flooded the north lawn of the State Capitol to vent their frustration over bailouts, taxation and a distinct socialistic direction the country has taken.

Pictures and video are streaming in from attendees and can be found at the bottom of this post.

The Huffington Post took the citizen reporter route in an attempt to cover all the tea parties across the country and asked volunteers to submit twitter, written and visual reports of their local events. Here is my report:

Hartford, CT – Jon Searles

Normally a decidedly blue city, Hartford Connecticut took on a red hue Wednesday as 5000 self described conservatives converged on the north lawn of the State Capitol to express outrage over runaway spending, bailouts and excessive taxation from Federal, State and Local Governments. Self titled a “Tea Party” this gathering was among thousands of similar events staged across the country in an effort characterized by participants who say they are fed up with both major political parties.

Capitol Police who observed the event provided an attendance estimate of 5000 but generated some controversy of their own when they were observed videotaping the crowd for about an hour. Following the recent revelation of a Department of Homeland Security report which has been reported on talk radio to characterize conservatives as threats some attendees questioned the purpose of this taping.

Signs carried by the crowd were as diverse as the people carrying them. However, with messages such as “T.E.A. Taxed Enough Already” and “Forget the Tea Pass the Tar and Feathers” the message from the crowd was anything but diverse. Loud cheers came from the crowd every time one of the radio hosts, political activists or fellow citizens who took the mic denounced government bailouts, intervention in the markets and taxation leaving little room to misinterpret the reason so many turned out at lunch time on a work day.

One of the organizers identified as Rick reluctantly volunteered as a grassroots organizer when other leadership failed to surface. He jokingly wondered when he’d be receiving his check in response to claims by some media outlets that the Tea Parties were a product of the RNC or other national Republican organizations. There was a variety of material being passed around from multiple organizations including the Campaign for Liberty and Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations but the lack of State or National Republican representation at the event gave credibility to the grassroots claim. Organizers were deliberate in their exclusion of politicians and candidates from the microphone citing a desire to prevent a genuine citizen movement from being hijacked by the agendas of the same politicos who brought on the need for protests.

Pictures and video:

RadioViceOnline:
http://radioviceonline.com/photos-and-video-from-the-hartford-tax-day-tea-party/

Jim Banks:
http://community.webshots.com/album/571109957HEFTWj

Hartford Courant:
http://www.courant.com/video/?slug=hc-tea-party-wn

Frederic Bastiat

The Law

Translated by The Foundation for Economic Education Permission to reprint granted without special request.

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

Life Is a Gift from God

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production–in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What Is Law ?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right–from God–to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend — even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

A Just and Enduring Government

If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non- intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.

The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.

The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.

A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

Victims of Lawful Plunder

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!

Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

The Results of Legal Plunder

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them. The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

The Fate of Non-Conformists

If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that “You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests.”

If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought: “That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force.”*

*General Council of Manufacturers, Agriculture, and Commerce, May 6, 1850.

Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.

Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But, by way of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that has lately occupied the minds of everyone: universal suffrage.

Who Shall Judge?

The followers of Rousseau’s school of thought — who consider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times — will not agree with me on this. But universal suffrage — using the word in its strictest sense — is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.

In the first place, the word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding the others.

Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?

The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted

A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.

The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.

If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one’s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.

The Answer Is to Restrict the Law

I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.

In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?

If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?

The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder

But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few — whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.

The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote — and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:

“We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law — in privileges and subsidies — to men who are richer than we are. Others use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat, iron, or cloth. Thus, since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use the law for our own profit. We demand from the law the right to relief, which is the poor man’s plunder. To obtain this right, we also should be voters and legislators in order that we may organize Beggary on a grand scale for our own class, as you have organized Protection on a grand scale for your class. Now don’t tell us beggars that you will act for us, and then toss us, as Mr. Mimerel proposes, 600,000 francs to keep us quiet, like throwing us a bone to gnaw. We have other claims. And anyway, we wish to bargain for ourselves as other classes have bargained for themselves!”

And what can you say to answer that argument!

Perverted Law Causes Conflict

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.

Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person’s liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues — and only two — that have always endangered the public peace.

Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder

What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of plunder.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

Its is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime – a sorrowful inheritance of the Old World – should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States – where only in the instance of slavery and tariffs – what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of law is a principle; a system?

Two Kinds of Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] adopting the thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Carlier, has said: “We must make war against socialism.” According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles Dupin, he meant: “We must make war against plunder.”

But of what plunder was he speaking? For there are two kinds of plunder: legal and illegal.

I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling — which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes — can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of society. Anyway, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the command of these gentlemen. The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848 — long before the appearance even of socialism itself — France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.

The Law Defends Plunder

But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.

This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations — and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

Legal Plunder Has Many Names

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole –with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: “The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice.”

But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical — in fact, absurd — to assume otherwise.

The Choice Before Us

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

1. The few plunder the many.

2. Everybody plunders everybody.

3. Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.

Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).*

*Translator’s note: At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead.

The Proper Function of the Law

And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution — so long searched for in the area of social relationships — is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.

Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law — that is, by force — this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization — justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?

The Seductive Lure of Socialism

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.

Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty

Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: “Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity.” I answered him: “The second half of your program will destroy the first.”

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.

At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder.*

*Translator’s note: The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.

Plunder Violates Ownership

I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance — as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it — without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud — to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.

It is to be regretted that the word plunder is offensive. I have tried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for I would not at any time — especially now — wish to add an irritating word to our dissentions. Thus, whether I am believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so independent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the suffering.

Three Systems of Plunder

The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries.* Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development.

*If the special privilege of government protection against competition — a monopoly — were granted only to one group in France, the iron workers, for instance, this act would so obviously be legal plunder that it could not last for long. It is for this reason that we see all the protected trades combined into a common cause. They even organize themselves in such a manner as to appear to represent all persons who labor. Instinctively, they feel that legal plunder is concealed by generalizing it.

But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value — the origin and the tendency — of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder.

Law Is Force

Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion.

Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.

Law Is a Negative Concept

The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

The Political Approach

When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.

Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?

But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements — legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not contain the principle of plunder?

The Law and Charity

You say: “There are persons who have no money,” and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.

The Law and Education

You say: “There are persons who lack education,” and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching – and – learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.

The Law and Morals

You say: “Here are persons who are lacking in morality or religion,” and you turn to the law. But law is force. And need I point out what a violent and futile effort it is to use force in the matters of morality and religion?

It would seem that socialists, however self-complacent, could not avoid seeing this monstrous legal plunder that results from such systems and such efforts. But what do the socialists do? They cleverly disguise this legal plunder from others — and even from themselves — under the seductive names of fraternity, unity, organization, and association. Because we ask so little from the law — only justice — the socialists thereby assume that we reject fraternity, unity, organization, and association. The socialists brand us with the name individualist.

But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.

A Confusion of Terms

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

The Influence of Socialist Writers

How did politicians ever come to believe this weird idea that the law could be made to produce what it does not contain — the wealth, science, and religion that, in a positive sense, constitute prosperity? Is it due to the influence of our modern writers on public affairs?

Present-day writers — especially those of the socialist school of thought — base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general — with the exception of the writer himself — from the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most important group. Surely this is the weirdest and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!

In fact, these writers on public affairs begin by supposing that people have within themselves no means of discernment; no motivation to action. The writers assume that people are inert matter, passive particles, motionless atoms, at best a kind of vegetation indifferent to its own manner of existence. They assume that people are susceptible to being shaped — by the will and hand of another person — into an infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected.

Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental affairs hesitates to imagine that he himself — under the title of organizer, discoverer, legislator, or founder — is this will and hand, this universal motivating force, this creative power whose sublime mission is to mold these scattered materials — persons — into a society.

These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For this purpose, he devises tariff laws, tax laws, relief laws, and school laws.

The Socialists Wish to Play God

Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals — the farmer wastes some seeds and land — to try out an idea.

But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!

It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator’s genius. This idea — the fruit of classical education — has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.

Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man’s intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange.

The Socialists Despise Mankind

According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men — governors and legislators — the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race.

Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our country is this idea — the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power called law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves mankind.

A Defense of Compulsory Labor

Let us first consider a quotation from Bossuet [tutor to the Dauphin in the Court of Louis XIV]:*

“One of the things most strongly impressed (by whom?) upon the minds of the Egyptians was patriotism…. No one was permitted to be useless to the state. The law assigned to each one his work, which was handed down from father to son. No one was permitted to have two professions. Nor could a person change from one job to another…. But there was one task to which all were forced to conform: the study of the laws and of wisdom. Ignorance of religion and of the political regulations of the country was not excused under any circumstances. Moreover, each occupation was assigned (by whom?) to a certain district…. Among the good laws, one of the best was that everyone was trained (by whom?) to obey them. As a result of this, Egypt was filled with wonderful inventions, and nothing was neglected that could make life easy and quiet”

*Translator’s note: The parenthetical expressions and the italicized words throughout this book were supplied by Mr. Bastiat. All subheads and bracketed material were supplied by the translator.

Thus, according to Bossuet, persons derive nothing from themselves. Patriotism, prosperity, inventions, husbandry, science — all of these are given to the people by the operation of the laws, the rulers. All that the people have to do is to bow to leadership.

A Defense of Paternal Government

Bossuet carries this idea of the state as the source of all progress even so far as to defend the Egyptians against the charge that they rejected wrestling and music. He said:

“How is that possible? These arts were invented by

Trismegistus [who was alleged to have been Chancellor to the Egyptian god Osiris]“.

And again among the Persians, Bossuet claims that all comes from above:

“One of the first responsibilities of the prince was to encourage agriculture…. Just as there were offices established for the regulation of armies, just so were there offices for the direction of farm work…. The Persian people were inspired with an overwhelming respect for royal authority.”

And according to Bossuet, the Greek people, although exceedingly intelligent, had no sense of personal responsibility; like dogs and horses, they themselves could not have invented the most simple games:

“The Greeks, naturally intelligent and courageous, had been early cultivated by the kings and settlers who had come from Egypt. From these Egyptian rulers, the Greek people had learned bodily exercises, foot races, and horse and chariot races…. But the best thing that the Egyptians had taught the Greeks was to become docile, and to permit themselves to be formed by the law for the public good.”

The Idea of Passive Mankind

It cannot be disputed that these classical theories [advanced by these latter-day teachers, writers, legislators, economists, and philosophers] held that everything came to the people from a source outside themselves. As another example, take Fenelon [archbishop, author, and instructor to the Duke of Burgundy].

He was a witness to the power of Louis XIV. This, plus the fact that he was nurtured in the classical studies and the admiration of antiquity, naturally caused Fenelon to accept the idea that mankind should be passive; that the misfortunes and the prosperity — vices and virtues — of people are caused by the external influence exercised upon them by the law and the legislators. Thus, in his Utopia of Salentum, he puts men — with all their interests, faculties, desires, and possessions — under the absolute discretion of the legislator. Whatever the issue may be, persons do not decide it for themselves; the prince decides for them. The prince is depicted as the soul of this shapeless mass of people who form the nation. In the prince resides the thought, the foresight, all progress, and the principle of all organization. Thus all responsibility rests with him.

The whole of the tenth book of Fenelon’s Telemachus proves this. I refer the reader to it, and content myself with quoting at random from this celebrated work to which, in every other respect, I am the first to pay homage.

Socialists Ignore Reason and Facts

With the amazing credulity which is typical of the classicists, Fenelon ignores the authority of reason and facts when he attributes the general happiness of the Egyptians, not to their own wisdom but to the wisdom of their kings:

“We could not turn our eyes to either shore without seeing rich towns and country estates most agreeably located; fields, never fallowed, covered with golden crops every year; meadows full of flocks; workers bending under the weight of the fruit which the earth lavished upon its cultivators; shepherds who made the echoes resound with the soft notes from their pipes and flutes. “Happy,” said Mentor, “is the people governed by a wise king.”. . .”

Later, Mentor desired that I observe the contentment and abundance which covered all Egypt, where twenty-two thousand cities could be counted. He admired the good police regulations in the cities; the justice rendered in favor of the poor against the rich; the sound education of the children in obedience, labor, sobriety, and the love of the arts and letters; the exactness with which all religious ceremonies were performed; the unselfishness, the high regard for honor, the faithfulness to men, and the fear of the gods which every father taught his children. He never stopped admiring the prosperity of the country. “Happy,” said he, “is the people ruled by a wise king in such a manner.”

Socialists Want to Regiment People

Fenelon’s idyll on Crete is even more alluring. Mentor is made to say:

“All that you see in this wonderful island results from the laws of Minos. The education which he ordained for the children makes their bodies strong and robust. From the very beginning, one accustoms the children to a life of frugality and labor, because one assumes that all pleasures of the senses weaken both body and mind. Thus one allows them no pleasure except that of becoming invincible by virtue, and of acquiring glory…. Here one punishes three vices that go unpunished among other people: ingratitude, hypocrisy, and greed. There is no need to punish persons for pomp and dissipation, for they are unknown in Crete…. No costly furniture, no magnificent clothing, no delicious feasts, no gilded palaces are permitted.”

Thus does Mentor prepare his student to mold and to manipulate — doubtless with the best of intentions — the people of Ithaca. And to convince the student of the wisdom of these ideas, Mentor recites to him the example of Salentum.

It is from this sort of philosophy that we receive our first political ideas! We are taught to treat persons much as an instructor in agriculture teaches farmers to prepare and tend the soil.

A Famous Name and an Evil Idea

Now listen to the great Montesquieu on this same subject:

“To maintain the spirit of commerce, it is necessary that all the laws must favor it. These laws, by proportionately dividing up the fortunes as they are made in commerce, should provide every poor citizen with sufficiently easy circumstances to enable him to work like the others. These same laws should put every rich citizen in such lowered circumstances as to force him to work in order to keep or to gain.”

Thus the laws are to dispose of all fortunes!

Although real equality is the soul of the state in a democracy, yet this is so difficult to establish that an extreme precision in this matter would not always be desirable. It is sufficient that there be established a census to reduce or fix these differences in wealth within a certain limit. After this is done, it remains for specific laws to equalize inequality by imposing burdens upon the rich and granting relief to the poor.

Here again we find the idea of equalizing fortunes by law, by force.

In Greece, there were two kinds of republics, One, Sparta, was military; the other, Athens, was commercial. In the former, it was desired that the citizens be idle; in the latter, love of labor was encouraged.

Note the marvelous genius of these legislators: By debasing all established customs — by mixing the usual concepts of all virtues — they knew in advance that the world would admire their wisdom.

Lycurgus gave stability to his city of Sparta by combining petty thievery with the soul of justice; by combining the most complete bondage with the most extreme liberty; by combining the most atrocious beliefs with the greatest moderation. He appeared to deprive his city of all its resources, arts, commerce, money, and defenses. In Sparta, ambition went without the hope of material reward. Natural affection found no outlet because a man was neither son, husband, nor father. Even chastity was no longer considered becoming. By this road, Lycurgus led Sparta on to greatness and glory.

This boldness which was to be found in the institutions of Greece has been repeated in the midst of the degeneracy and corruption of our modern times. An occasional honest legislator has molded a people in whom integrity appears as natural as courage in the Spartans.

Mr. William Penn, for example, is a true Lycurgus. Even though Mr. Penn had peace as his objective — while Lycurgus had war as his objective — they resemble each other in that their moral prestige over free men allowed them to overcome prejudices, to subdue passions, and to lead their respective peoples into new paths.

The country of Paraguay furnishes us with another example [of a people who, for their own good, are molded by their legislators].*

*Translator’s note: What was then known as Paraguay was a much larger area than it is today. It was colonized by the Jesuits who settled the Indians into villages, and generally saved them from further brutalities by the avid conquerors.

Now it is true that if one considers the sheer pleasure of commanding to be the greatest joy in life, he contemplates a crime against society; it will, however, always be a noble ideal to govern men in a manner that will make them happier.

Those who desire to establish similar institutions must do as follows: Establish common ownership of property as in the republic of Plato; revere the gods as Plato commanded; prevent foreigners from mingling with the people, in order to preserve the customs; let the state, instead of the citizens, establish commerce. The legislators should supply arts instead of luxuries; they should satisfy needs instead of desires.

A Frightful Idea

Those who are subject to vulgar infatuation may exclaim: “Montesquieu has said this! So it’s magnificent! It’s sublime!” As for me, I have the courage of my own opinion. I say: What! You have the nerve to call that fine? It is frightful! It is abominable! These random selections from the writings of Montesquieu show that he considers persons, liberties, property — mankind itself — to be nothing but materials for legislators to exercise their wisdom upon.

The Leader of the Democrats

Now let us examine Rousseau on this subject. This writer on public affairs is the supreme authority of the democrats. And although he bases the social structure upon the will of the people, he has, to a greater extent than anyone else, completely accepted the theory of the total inertness of mankind in the presence of the legislators:

“If it is true that a great prince is rare, then is it not true that a great legislator is even more rare? The prince has only to follow the pattern that the legislator creates. The legislator is the mechanic who invents the machine; the prince is merely the workman who sets it in motion.

And what part do persons play in all this? They are merely the machine that is set in motion. In fact, are they not merely considered to be the raw material of which the machine is made?”

Thus the same relationship exists between the legislator and the prince as exists between the agricultural expert and the farmer; and the relationship between the prince and his subjects is the same as that between the farmer and his land. How high above mankind, then, has this writer on public affairs been placed? Rousseau rules over legislators themselves, and teaches them their trade in these imperious terms:

“Would you give stability to the state? Then bring the extremes as closely together as possible. Tolerate neither wealthy persons nor beggars.

If the soil is poor or barren, or the country too small for its inhabitants, then turn to industry and arts, and trade these products for the foods that you need…. On a fertile soil — if you are short of inhabitants — devote all your attention to agriculture, because this multiplies people; banish the arts, because they only serve to depopulate the nation….

If you have extensive and accessible coast lines, then cover the sea with merchant ships; you will have a brilliant but short existence. If your seas wash only inaccessible cliffs, let the people be barbarous and eat fish; they will live more quietly — perhaps better — and, most certainly, they will live more happily.

In short, and in addition to the maxims that are common to all, every people has its own particular circumstances. And this fact in itself will cause legislation appropriate to the circumstances.”

This is the reason why the Hebrews formerly — and, more recently, the Arabs — had religion as their principle objective. The objective of the Athenians was literature; of Carthage and Tyre, commerce; of Rhodes, naval affairs; of Sparta, war; and of Rome, virtue. The author of The Spirit of Laws has shown by what art the legislator should direct his institutions toward each of these objectives…. But suppose that the legislator mistakes his proper objective, and acts on a principle different from that indicated by the nature of things? Suppose that the selected principle sometimes creates slavery, and sometimes liberty; sometimes wealth, and sometimes population; sometimes peace, and sometimes conquest? This confusion of objective will slowly enfeeble the law and impair the constitution. The state will be subjected to ceaseless agitations until it is destroyed or changed, and invincible nature regains her empire.

But if nature is sufficiently invincible to regain its empire, why does not Rousseau admit that it did not need the legislator to gain it in the first place? Why does he not see that men, by obeying their own instincts, would turn to farming on fertile soil, and to commerce on an extensive and easily accessible coast, without the interference of a Lycurgus or a Solon or a Rousseau who might easily be mistaken.

Socialists Want Forced Conformity

Be that as it may, Rousseau invests the creators, organizers, directors, legislators, and controllers of society with a terrible responsibility. He is, therefore, most exacting with them:

“He who would dare to undertake the political creation of a people ought to believe that he can, in a manner of speaking, transform human nature; transform each individual — who, by himself, is a solitary and perfect whole — into a mere part of a greater whole from which the individual will henceforth receive his life and being. Thus the person who would undertake the political creation of a people should believe in his ability to alter man’s constitution; to strengthen it; to substitute for the physical and independent existence received from nature, an existence which is partial and moral.* In short, the would- be creator of political man must remove man’s own forces and endow him with others that are naturally alien to him.”

Poor human nature! What would become of a person’s dignity if it were entrusted to the followers of Rousseau?

*Translator’s note: According to Rousseau, the existence of social man is partial in the sense that he is henceforth merely a part of society. Knowing himself as such — and thinking and feeling from the point of view of the whole – he thereby becomes moral.

Legislators Desire to Mold Mankind

Now let us examine Raynal on this subject of mankind being molded by the legislator:

“The legislator must first consider the climate, the air, and the soil. The resources at his disposal determine his duties. He must first consider his locality. A population living on maritime shores must have laws designed for navigation…. If it is an inland settlement, the legislator must make his plans according to the nature and fertility of the soil….

It is especially in the distribution of property that the genius of the legislator will be found. As a general rule, when a new colony is established in any country, sufficient land should be given to each man to support his family….

On an uncultivated island that you are populating with children, you need do nothing but let the seeds of truth germinate along with the development of reason…. But when you resettle a nation with a past into a new country, the skill of the legislator rests in the policy of permitting the people to retain no injurious opinions and customs which can possibly be cured and corrected. If you desire to prevent these opinions and customs from becoming permanent, you will secure the second generation by a general system of public education for the children. A prince or a legislator should never establish a colony without first arranging to send wise men along to instruct the youth….”

In a new colony, ample opportunity is open to the careful legislator who desires to purify the customs and manners of the people. If he has virtue and genius, the land and the people at his disposal will inspire his soul with a plan for society. A writer can only vaguely trace the plan in advance because it is necessarily subject to the instability of all hypotheses; the problem has many forms, complications, and circumstances that are difficult to foresee and settle in detail.

Legislators Told How to Manage Men

Raynal’s instructions to the legislators on how to manage people may be compared to a professor of agriculture lecturing his students: “The climate is the first rule for the farmer. His resources determine his procedure. He must first consider his locality. If his soil is clay, he must do so and so. If his soil is sand, he must act in another manner. Every facility is open to the farmer who wishes to clear and improve his soil. If he is skillful enough, the manure at his disposal will suggest to him a plan of operation. A professor can only vaguely trace this plan in advance because it is necessarily subject to the instability of all hypotheses; the problem has many forms, complications, and circumstances that are difficult to foresee and settle in detail.”

Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes that this clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrarily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They are intelligent and free human beings like yourselves! As you have, they too have received from God the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for themselves!

A Temporary Dictatorship

Here is Mably on this subject of the law and the legislator. In the passages preceding the one here quoted, Mably has supposed the laws, due to a neglect of security, to be worn out. He continues to address the reader thusly:

“Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the springs of government are slack. Give them a new tension, and the evil will be cured…. Think less of punishing faults, and more of rewarding that which you need. In this manner you will restore to your republic the vigor of youth. Because free people have been ignorant of this procedure, they have lost their liberty! But if the evil has made such headway that ordinary governmental procedures are unable to cure it, then resort to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.”

In this manner, Mably continues through twenty volumes.

Under the influence of teaching like this — which stems from classical education — there came a time when everyone wished to place himself above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it in his own way.

Socialists Want Equality of Wealth

Next let us examine Condillac on this subject of the legislators and mankind:

“My Lord, assume the character of Lycurgus or of Solon. And before you finish reading this essay, amuse yourself by giving laws to some savages in America or Africa. Confine these nomads to fixed dwellings; teach them to tend flocks…. Attempt to develop the social consciousness that nature has planted in them…. Force them to begin to practice the duties of humanity…. Use punishment to cause sensual pleasures to become distasteful to them. Then you will see that every point of your legislation will cause these savages to lose a vice and gain a virtue.

All people have had laws. But few people have been happy. Why is this so? Because the legislators themselves have almost always been ignorant of the purpose of society, which is the uniting of families by a common interest.

Impartiality in law consists of two things: the establishing of equality in wealth and equality in dignity among the citizens…. As the laws establish greater equality, they become proportionately more precious to every citizen…. When all men are equal in wealth and dignity — and when the laws leave no hope of disturbing this equality — how can men then be agitated by greed, ambition, dissipation, idleness, sloth, envy, hatred, or jealousy?

What you have learned about the republic of Sparta should enlighten you on this question. No other state has ever had laws more in accord with the order of nature; of equality.”

The Error of the Socialist Writers

Actually, it is not strange that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the human race was regarded as inert matter, ready to receive everything — form, face, energy, movement, life — from a great prince or a great legislator or a great genius. These centuries were nourished on the study of antiquity. And antiquity presents everywhere — in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome — the spectacle of a few men molding mankind according to their whims, thanks to the prestige of force and of fraud. But this does not prove that this situation is desirable. It proves only that since men and society are capable of improvement, it is naturally to be expected that error, ignorance, despotism, slavery, and superstition should be greatest towards the origins of history. The writers quoted above were not in error when they found ancient institutions to be such, but they were in error when they offered them for the admiration and imitation of future generations. Uncritical and childish conformists, they took for granted the grandeur, dignity, morality, and happiness of the artificial societies of the ancient world. They did not understand that knowledge appears and grows with the passage of time; and that in proportion to this growth of knowledge, might takes the side of right, and society regains possession of itself.

What Is Liberty?

Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties — liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism — including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self- defense; of punishing injustice?

It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire — learned from the teachings of antiquity — that our writers on public affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy.

Philanthropic Tyranny

While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations.

This was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other artificial arrangements, always starting from the same point: the omnipotence of the law.

Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period:

SAINT-JUST: “The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be.”

ROBESPIERRE: “The function of government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being.”

BILLAUD-VARENNES: “A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices…. Citizens, the inexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government.”

LE PELLETIER: “Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people.”

The Socialists Want Dictatorship

Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to will their own improvement; they are incapable of it. According to Saint- Just, only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely to be what the legislator wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by decreeing the end for which the commonwealth has come into being. Once this is determined, the government has only to direct the physical and moral forces of the nation toward that end. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely passive. And according to the teachings of Billaud- Varennes, the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and no desires except those authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to say that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.

In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue: “Resort,” he says, “to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.” This doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:

“The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality for selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy.”

Dictatorial Arrogance

At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not content to pray for a great reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a result from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will remake mankind, and by means of terror.

This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he aims to explain the principles of morality which ought to guide a revolutionary government. Note that Robespierre’s request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a temporary measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish from France selfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty. Not until he, Robespierre, shall have accomplished these miracles, as he so rightly calls them, will he permit the law to reign again.*

*At this point in the original French text, Mr. Bastiat pauses and speaks thusly to all do-gooders and would-be rulers of mankind: “Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”

The Indirect Approach to Despotism

Usually, however, these gentlemen — the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs — do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws.

To show the prevalence of this queer idea in France, I would need to copy not only the entire works of Mably, Raynal, Rousseau, and Fenelon — plus long extracts from Bossuet and Montesquieu — but also the entire proceedings of the Convention. I shall do no such thing; I merely refer the reader to them.

Napoleon Wanted Passive Mankind

It is, of course, not at all surprising that this same idea should have greatly appealed to Napoleon. He embraced it ardently and used it with vigor. Like a chemist, Napoleon considered all Europe to be material for his experiments. But, in due course, this material reacted against him.

At St. Helena, Napoleon — greatly disillusioned — seemed to recognize some initiative in mankind. Recognizing this, he became less hostile to liberty. Nevertheless, this did not prevent him from leaving this lesson to his son in his will: “To govern is to increase and spread morality, education, and happiness.”

After all this, it is hardly necessary to quote the same opinions from Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier. Here are, however, a few extracts from Louis Blanc’s book on the organization of labor: “In our plan, society receives its momentum from power.”

Now consider this: The impulse behind this momentum is to be supplied by the plan of Louis Blanc; his plan is to be forced upon society; the society referred to is the human race. Thus the human race is to receive its momentum from Louis Blanc.

Now it will be said that the people are free to accept or to reject this plan. Admittedly, people are free to accept or to reject advice from whomever they wish. But this is not the way in which Mr. Louis Blanc understands the matter. He expects that his plan will be legalized, and thus forcibly imposed upon the people by the power of the law:

“In our plan, the state has only to pass labor laws (nothing else?) by means of which industrial progress can and must proceed in complete liberty. The state merely places society on an incline (that is all?). Then society will slide down this incline by the mere force of things, and by the natural workings of the established mechanism.”

But what is this incline that is indicated by Mr. Louis Blanc? Does it not lead to an abyss? (No, it leads to happiness.) If this is true, then why does not society go there of its own choice? (Because society does not know what it wants; it must be propelled.) What is to propel it? (Power.) And who is to supply the impulse for this power? (Why, the inventor of the machine — in this instance, Mr. Louis Blanc.)

The Vicious Circle of Socialism

We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.

Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?

Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the law.

And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?

Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?

Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.

The Doctrine of the Democrats

The strange phenomenon of our times — one which will probably astound our descendants — is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.

The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater detail.

What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.

When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.

But when the legislator is finally elected — ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.

The Socialist Concept of Liberty

But ought not the people be given a little liberty?

But Mr. Considerant has assured us that liberty leads inevitably to monopoly!

We understand that liberty means competition. But according to Mr. Louis Blanc, competition is a system that ruins the businessmen and exterminates the people. It is for this reason that free people are ruined and exterminated in proportion to their degree of freedom. (Possibly Mr. Louis Blanc should observe the results of competition in, for example, Switzerland, Holland, England, and the United States.)

Mr. Louis Blanc also tells us that competition leads to monopoly. And by the same reasoning, he thus informs us that low prices lead to high prices; that competition drives production to destructive activity; that competition drains away the sources of purchasing power; that competition forces an increase in production while, at the same time, it forces a decrease in consumption. From this, it follows that free people produce for the sake of not consuming; that liberty means oppression and madness among the people; and that Mr. Louis Blanc absolutely must attend to it.

Socialists Fear All Liberties

Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people to have? Liberty of conscience? (But if this were permitted, we would see the people taking this opportunity to become atheists.)

Then liberty of education? (But parents would pay professors to teach their children immorality and falsehoods; besides, according to Mr. Thiers, if education were left to national liberty, it would cease to be national, and we would be teaching our children the ideas of the Turks or Hindus; whereas, thanks to this legal despotism over education, our children now have the good fortune to be taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)

Then liberty of labor? (But that would mean competition which, in turn, leaves production unconsumed, ruins businessmen, and exterminates the people.)

Perhaps liberty of trade? (But everyone knows — and the advocates of protective tariffs have proved over and over again — that freedom of trade ruins every person who engages in it, and that it is necessary to suppress freedom of trade in order to prosper.)

Possibly then, liberty of association? (But, according to socialist doctrine, true liberty and voluntary association are in contradiction to each other, and the purpose of the socialists is to suppress liberty of association precisely in order to force people to associate together in true liberty.)

Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats cannot permit persons to have any liberty because they believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward every kind of degradation and disaster. Thus, of course, the legislators must make plans for the people in order to save them from themselves.

This line of reasoning brings us to a challenging question: If people are as incapable, as immoral, and as ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right of these same people to vote defended with such passionate insistence?

The Superman Idea

The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.

The Socialists Reject Free Choice

Please understand that I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law — by force — and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.

I do not insist that the supporters of these various social schools of thought–the Proudhonists, the Cabetists, the Fourierists, the Universitarists, and the Protectionists — renounce their various ideas. I insist only that they renounce this one idea that they have in common: They need only to give up the idea of forcing us to acquiesce to their groups and series, their socialized projects, their free- credit banks, their Graeco-Roman concept of morality, and their commercial regulations. I ask only that we be permitted to decide upon these plans for ourselves; that we not be forced to accept them, directly or indirectly, if we find them to be contrary to our best interests or repugnant to our consciences.

But these organizers desire access to the tax funds and to the power of the law in order to carry out their plans. In addition to being oppressive and unjust, this desire also implies the fatal supposition that the organizer is infallible and mankind is incompetent. But, again, if persons are incompetent to judge for themselves, then why all this talk about universal suffrage?

The Cause of French Revolutions

This contradiction in ideas is, unfortunately but logically, reflected in events in France. For example, Frenchmen have led all other Europeans in obtaining their rights — or, more accurately, their political demands. Yet this fact has in no respect prevented us from becoming the most governed, the most regulated, the most imposed upon, the most harnessed, and the most exploited people in Europe. France also leads all other nations as the one where revolutions are constantly to be anticipated. And under the circumstances, it is quite natural that this should be the case.

And this will remain the case so long as our politicians continue to accept this idea that has been so well expressed by Mr. Louis Blanc: “Society receives its momentum from power.” This will remain the case so long as human beings with feelings continue to remain passive; so long as they consider themselves incapable of bettering their prosperity and happiness by their own intelligence and their own energy; so long as they expect everything from the law; in short, so long as they imagine that their relationship to the state is the same as that of the sheep to the shepherd.

The Enormous Power of Government

As long as these ideas prevail, it is clear that the responsibility of government is enormous. Good fortune and bad fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and inequality, virtue and vice — all then depend upon political administration. It is burdened with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything; therefore it is responsible for everything.

If we are fortunate, then government has a claim to our gratitude; but if we are unfortunate, then government must bear the blame. For are not our persons and property now at the disposal of government? Is not the law omnipotent?

In creating a monopoly of education, the government must answer to the hopes of the fathers of families who have thus been deprived of their liberty; and if these hopes are shattered, whose fault is it?

In regulating industry, the government has contracted to make it prosper; otherwise it is absurd to deprive industry of its liberty. And if industry now suffers, whose fault is it?

In meddling with the balance of trade by playing with tariffs, the government thereby contracts to make trade prosper; and if this results in destruction instead of prosperity, whose fault is it?

In giving protection instead of liberty to the industries for defense, the government has contracted to make them profitable; and if they become a burden to the taxpayers, whose fault is it?

Thus there is not a grievance in the nation for which the government does not voluntarily make itself responsible. Is it surprising, then, that every failure increases the threat of another revolution in France?

And what remedy is proposed for this? To extend indefinitely the domain of the law; that is, the responsibility of government.

But if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest- free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if, in these words that we regret to say escaped from the pen of Mr. de Lamartine, “The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people” — and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure — which, alas! is more than probable — there will be an equally inevitable revolution?

Politics and Economics

[Now let us return to a subject that was briefly discussed in the opening pages of this thesis: the relationship of economics and of politics -- political economy.*]

*Translator’s note: Mr. Bastiat has devoted three other books and several articles to the development of the ideas contained in the three sentences of the following paragraph.

A science of economics must be developed before a science of politics can be logically formulated. Essentially, economics is the science of determining whether the interests of human beings are harmonious or antagonistic. This must be known before a science of politics can be formulated to determine the proper functions of government.

Immediately following the development of a science of economics, and at the very beginning of the formulation of a science of politics, this all-important question must be answered: What is law? What ought it to be? What is its scope; its limits? Logically, at what point do the just powers of the legislator stop?

I do not hesitate to answer: Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle to injustice. In short, law is justice.

Proper Legislative Functions

It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.

It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.

Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice.

Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self- defense. It is for this reason that the collective force — which is only the organized combination of the individual forces — may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.

Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.

Law and Charity Are Not the Same

The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property.

Furthermore, it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons and plundering them of their property; this would be a contradiction. The law cannot avoid having an effect upon persons and property; and if the law acts in any manner except to protect them, its actions then necessarily violate the liberty of persons and their right to own property.

The law is justice — simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this.

If you exceed this proper limit — if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic — you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?

The High Road to Communism

Mr. de Saint-Cricq would extend his philanthropy only to some of the industrial groups; he would demand that the law control the consumers to benefit the producers.

Mr. Considerant would sponsor the cause of the labor groups; he would use the law to secure for them a guaranteed minimum of clothing, housing, food, and all other necessities of life.

Mr. Louis Blanc would say — and with reason — that these minimum guarantees are merely the beginning of complete fraternity; he would say that the law should give tools of production and free education to all working people.

Another person would observe that this arrangement would still leave room for inequality; he would claim that the law should give to everyone — even in the most inaccessible hamlet–luxury, literature, and art.

All of these proposals are the high road to communism; legislation will then be — in fact, it already is — the battlefield for the fantasies and greed of everyone.

The Basis for Stable Government

Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say how even the thought of revolution, of insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose organized force was confined only to suppressing injustice.

Under such a regime, there would be the most prosperity — and it would be the most equally distributed. As for the sufferings that are inseparable from humanity, no one would even think of accusing the government for them. This is true because, if the force of government were limited to suppressing injustice, then government would be as innocent of these sufferings as it is now innocent of changes in the temperature.

As proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the people ever been known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or mob a Justice of the Peace, in order to get higher wages, free credit, tools of production, favorable tariffs, or government-created jobs? Everyone knows perfectly well that such matters are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Peace. And if government were limited to its proper functions, everyone would soon learn that these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.

But make the laws upon the principle of fraternity — proclaim that all good, and all bad, stem from the law; that the law is responsible for all individual misfortunes and all social inequalities — then the door is open to an endless succession of complaints, irritations, troubles, and revolutions.

Justice Means Equal Rights

Law is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law could properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are not rights equal? By what right does the law force me to conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de Melun, Mr. Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral right to do this, why does it not, then, force these gentlemen to submit to my plans? Is it logical to suppose that nature has not given me sufficient imagination to dream up a utopia also? Should the law choose one fantasy among many, and put the organized force of government at its service only?

Law is justice. And let it not be said — as it continually is said — that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who believe that the law is mankind.

Nonsense! Do those worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow that if we receive no energy from the law, we shall receive no energy at all? Does it follow that if the law is restricted to the function of protecting the free use of our faculties, we will be unable to use our faculties? Suppose that the law does not force us to follow certain forms of religion, or systems of association, or methods of education, or regulations of labor, or regulations of trade, or plans for charity; does it then follow that we shall eagerly plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed? If we are free, does it follow that we shall no longer recognize the power and goodness of God? Does it follow that we shall then cease to associate with each other, to help each other, to love and succor our unfortunate brothers, to study the secrets of nature, and to strive to improve ourselves to the best of our abilities?

The Path to Dignity and Progress

Law is justice. And it is under the law of justice — under the reign of right; under the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and responsibility — that every person will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his being. It is only under this law of justice that mankind will achieve — slowly, no doubt, but certainly — God’s design for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.

It seems to me that this is theoretically right, for whatever the question under discussion — whether religious, philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government — at whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my researches, I invariably reach this one conclusion: The solution to the problems of human relationships is to be found in liberty.

Proof of an Idea

And does not experience prove this? Look at the entire world. Which countries contain the most peaceful, the most moral, and the happiest people? Those people are found in the countries where the law least interferes with private affairs; where government is least felt; where the individual has the greatest scope, and free opinion the greatest influence; where administrative powers are fewest and simplest; where taxes are lightest and most nearly equal, and popular discontent the least excited and the least justifiable; where individuals and groups most actively assume their responsibilities, and, consequently, where the morals of admittedly imperfect human beings are constantly improving; where trade, assemblies, and associations are the least restricted; where labor, capital, and populations suffer the fewest forced displacements; where mankind most nearly follows its own natural inclinations; where the inventions of men are most nearly in harmony with the laws of God; in short, the happiest, most moral, and most peaceful people are those who most nearly follow this principle: Although mankind is not perfect, still, all hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions of persons within the limits of right; law or force is to be used for nothing except the administration of universal justice.

The Desire to Rule over Others

This must be said: There are too many “great” men in the world — legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.

Now someone will say: “You yourself are doing this very thing.”

True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire.

My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks – – armed with rings, hooks, and cords — surrounded it. One said: “This child will never smell the perfume of a peace- pipe unless I stretch his nostrils.” Another said: “He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders.” A third said: “He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes.” Another said: “He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs.” A fifth said: “He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull.”

“Stop,” cried the traveler. “What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty.”

Let Us Now Try Liberty

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

The Journal Inquirer has an article today reporting that in order to properly fund the town pension system the 2011 funding level will need to be about twice what was budgeted this year.

EAST HARTFORD — The town faces having to increase its pension fund by more than $6.5 million by 2011 to satisfy actuarial demands, officials said Wednesday.

According to Mayor Melody A. Currey, the town’s actuaries have recommended the increase to bring the pension fund up to $14.5 million in 2011. In March the Town Council approved a pension plan contribution of $7.97 million for the 2009-10 fiscal year.

“Because of extraordinary times, the actuaries are saying we need to put in $14 million,” Currey said.

The result could be a rise in the tax rate in future fiscal years.

Town Finance Director Michael P. Walsh said the actuarial increase is a recommendation that won’t be acted upon until market conditions are clear.

While the increased funding liability is unavoidable due to the pension system East Hartford has and the market downturn it is incumbent on the Mayor, Finance Director and Council to identify ways to offset this added burden so that the taxpayers don’t suffer more than necessary.

On the positive side this added funding today will result in reduced funding than would otherwise be required in the future as the market recovers. While scrapping pension programs may be a good idea underfunding an existing one is a bad idea.

Being a concerned citizen who has previously blogged on the issue of creative pension cost reduction I shot an email over to Melody and Mike Walsh with a suggestion to reduce taxpayer pension liability in the long term.

Melody & Mike,

I had previously mentioned this idea casually to a council member but I don’t think anything ever came of it.

While I am not certain of the legality, a purchase of town tax liens by the pension program could yield significant savings for the taxpayers of East Hartford through reduced contribution costs.

Currently, as I’m sure you are aware, the town sells tax liens annually through the RFP process to the highest bidder in order to reduce the tax delinquent rolls.
As I understand the criteria used for lien sales is 3 years delinquent or greater than $10,000 delinquent.

Many of the liens put out to bid are secured by developed commercial and residential property and all are priority liens, subordinate only to federal and prior municipal liens, meaning they are typically the first to be paid in the event of a property sale or most financing operations or foreclosure. These liens also carry a statutory simple interest yield of 18% annually making them entirely unmatched as far as return is concerned. As additional security these liens can be foreclosed. The statutory life of a municipal tax lien is 15 years which means that the average lien put out to bid has 12 or more years of life remaining.

I believe in 2008 of the 3.6 million in delinquent taxes $820,000 worth of liens secured by desirable residential and commercial property were successfully sold through RFP.
More liens were offered but because of the property securing them, mobile homes and vacant or swamp land, they are effectively worthless as an investment and the town would not be wise to back the pension system with them. The undesirability of these liens is evidenced by their unsuccessful sale history.

Had the pension system purchased these liens last year the pension system would have experienced up to $147,600 in return which would effect a reduction in budgetary funding for the pension system. Because of the statutory life of the liens it would be wise for the pension system to either attempt foreclosure, which is probably beyond it’s scope, or auction the liens to a third party to foreclose after the lien reaches about 12 years old. That would provide up to 9 or more years of return.

Each dollar continuously invested in municipal tax liens at current statutory rates will double every 5 years meaning that by the time any one lien reaches the end of it’s safe investment life it will have provided a 200% return. Comparably similarly secure CDs at going rates double every 20-25 years.

There may also be further benefit from pension ownership of municipal liens. It is in the interest of a lien holder to ensure that the property securing their lien is well kept, secure and desirable so that it maintains or grows it’s value in order to protect the lien in the event of a sale, refinance or foreclosure of the property. This may give incentive for volunteer maintenance of liened properties by pension participants and thereby reducing blight and increasing personal investment in East Hartford’s communities.

Jon Searles

Pensions will plague taxpayers until they are laid to rest in the graveyard of bad social experiments. Until then I’m sure the Mayor would be glad to hear your suggestions on how to reduce the tax impact of these programs. Send her a line at mcurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us.

Are You TEA’d Off?
(Taxed Enough Already)

STOP
Wasteful Spending of
YOUR Hard-Earned
Tax Dollars!

Join the Hartford Tea Party
at the State Capitol

Wednesday, April 15, 2009
12:00 PM – 2:00 PM

Bring Your Signs & Flags

Invite Family & Friends

“by the people, for the people”

For Updates and Information Visit:
www.hartfordteaparty.org

Here is a print quality version of the above flier for distribution:

http://brainflation.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/teapartyflyer12-2.pdf

The Stamford Tea Party went off as planned yesterday. I was not in attendance this time.

Here is some of the coverage:

Hartford Courant:

Tanya Bachand has always been interested in politics, though she viewed it as largely a spectator sport. “I never felt compelled to get off my couch … and do something,” said the 34-year-old attorney from Wallingford.

But as she grew increasingly alarmed by the billions of dollars the federal government was spending on bailout and stimulus packages, Bachand was driven to act: She recently joined a burgeoning grass-roots political uprising known as the Tea Party movement.

Stamford Advocate:

The tea bags that dangled from Kort Walsh’s hat danced in the morning breeze Saturday as more than 200 angry taxpayers gathered in front of the Ferguson Library to protest bailouts and President Barack Obama’s $3.5 trillion budget.

“I’m in complete and total distress over what is happening,” said Walsh, a 20-year Stamford resident. “Everything that was promised is now 180 degrees from what is happening.

“Not a single campaign promise has been fulfilled, from staffing to transparency to earmarks. (Obama) goes beyond socialist. He’s a Marxist.”

The Hour:

Demonstrators wearing pig costumes and Revolutionary War garb lightened the mood at a gathering in front of Ferguson Library but the protesters conveyed a serious message of frustration over government bailouts on Saturday.

Touted as a “tea party,” the demonstration featured Constition-themed chants, signs and three-cornered hats as approximately 100 people convened in front of the library.

Photos:

http://community.webshots.com/album/570720131diegss

The biggest party yet is rapidly approaching on April 25th. Currently parties will be held in New Haven, Hartford and Norwich. Bring everyone you know.

Keep an eye on taxdayteaparty.com for more info. Oh, don’t forget. When the government says the party is canceled it’s nothing more than a challenge to bring twice as many people.

Stamford Tea Party Protest

“In 1773, a small group in Boston met to discuss taxes, monopoly and tea… “

Start Time: Saturday, March 28 at 10:00am
End Time: Saturday, March 28 at 12:00pm

Where: Stamford, CT @ 96 Broad Street (Starbucks/Library location), the corner of Broad and Bedford.

So here we are. Dodd is vulnerable and a very good chance exists to kick the guy out of office in 2010. Frankly, for his dishonesty and contempt for the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold and the taxpayers he is supposed to represent  he deserves much worse than being voted out of office.

Now National and State Republicans are demonstrating exactly what the problem is in American politics. Rob Simmons with the unofficial nod of both the State and National Republican party has jumped in the ring. In case you aren’t from eastern Connecticut Mr. Simmons was the eastern Connecticut U.S. House Representative who lost to Joe Courtney two cycles ago. Are we following the principle of the political ladder/treadmill in this state or do we just not have an honestly worthwhile Senate candidate?

Here is Simmons’ unremarkable and unprincipled voting record courtesy of the Washington Post:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s001152/votes/

Here’s a Republican who didn’t vote for Obama or McCain who won’t vote for Dodd or Simmons either.

While the media was busy covering the Working Families Party/Acorn door to door bus run at just about 2 reporters for each protester average Americans like you and I were down in Ridgefield spreading the gospel of personal and corporate responsibility with all the temporary pain and hardship that entails.

The Tea Party was a smashing success with over 200 in attendance.  Here are a some videos and photo galleries of the day’s events.

Something to consider for Tea Party protesters such as myself is whether the stimulus monies earmarked for Acorn paid for the bus, signs, letters stipends and other materials used for the door to door class warfare protest… irony… hypocrisy? Maybe just a lack of freedom principles.

http://community.webshots.com/slideshow/570623932wgWpof

http://www.jasetaro.com/blog/2009/03/21/scenes-from-the-rebellion-ridgefield-tea-party/

In 1773, a small group in Boston met to discuss taxes, monopoly and tea…

Are You Opposed to the So-Called “Stimulus” Bill?

Do You Believe the “Mortgage Bail Out” Rewards Bad Behavior?

Are You Willing to Make Your Voice Heard?

You are invited to attend a “tea party” being held in downtown Ridgefield, CT to make your voice heard. We want to encourage other like-minded citizens to oppose giant government programs that will reach deep into our pockets, creating huge economic burdens for ourselves and our children.

Just as a few patriots did in 1773, we are protesting an irresponsible and unresponsive government. We plan on a cheerful, constructive demonstration. Please join us!

WHERE: Ridgefield, CT. The corner of Main Street and Bailey, near Town Hall. (Public Parking is available off Bailey and also off Prospect St. one block away)

WHEN: Saturday, March 21st at 10:00 a.m.

WHAT YOU’LL NEED: Your voice, a good attitude and a desire to have your views heard.

This peaceful protest is being organized by local residents and is permitted in the town. Let your fellow citizens know your views and meet other like-minded people who want responsible government.

Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.

What is the world coming to when all it takes to be a terrorist is a historic flag, a belief in 3rd party politics and a healthy respect for the United States Constitution?

I learned today that I’m a terrorist. I’ve known I don’t walk the line for some time but today’s revelation came as a surprise to me.

This report (Infowars) from the Missouri Information Analysis Center, a government cooperative information agency, is intended to inform the Missouri State Police on the traits of so called modern militias which, the report contends, have an intention of harming law enforcement officers.

While I have no association with any militia you’d certainly think I did based on this report. I counted 18 references in that report which are identifiers the report attributes to militias which I along with many of the people I know identify with.

For starters just about every historic flag of America is identified as militia propaganda along with two documentaries I have personally viewed. (America Freedom to Fascism & Zeitgeist) While I may not agree with the entirety of either of the documentaries the mere fact that I’ve viewed them would likely be enough for incrimination. Further, those of us who classify ourselves as hostile to the concepts of abortion, the Federal Reserve System, any attempt at a North American Union, gun confiscation, RFID implementation, taxation and similar intrusions into a free economy and personal liberties are highly suspect.

Let’s hope that the individual officers of the Missouri State Police have more reason and respect for truth and justice than the writers of the report or else, combined with a law like this (Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act), I may have to ensure I detour around Missouri next time I’m heading that way or I might end up in Guantanamo.

For you Missouri Information Analysis Center, my favorite flag. Appropriately named the Rebellious Stripes.

Rebellious Stripes - Sons of Liberty

In the interest of helping you be a better terrorist here are the suspect documentaries.

AMERICA FREEDOM TO FASCISM

ZEITGEIST

The East Hartford Town Council voted unanimously this evening for the Mayor’s proposed budget with just a few changes, the details of which I’m unsure because I couldn’t figure out what Council Member Marcia was saying, or trying to.

Once again the best show awards go to Bill Horan and Rich Kehoe for presenting themselves in a manner becoming a Council Member during discussion of the budget with Bill pulling a bit ahead of Rich.My only complaint with Bill’s monologue was the suggestion that the Town Council would love to spend more money if we were in better economic times. I could have sworn it was the duty of the Town Council to exercise restraint every year, even the few which could be classified as flush in comparison to this.

There wasn’t any of  the heat that characterized last year’s budget meeting which provided little opportunity for embarrassment to anyone with the result being a very short meeting.

One odd bit came from Marcia’s comments after the budget was adopted when she read her speech, for lack of a better description. It sounded like she was commending the Council or Mayor for not neglecting maintenance items like rolling stock in the budget because such neglect would result in hardship down the line. Yet, unless it was in the part of Marcia’s budget motion which I couldn’t make out, the budget as proposed does indeed fail to fund maintenance items such as rolling stock.

The 2 million effectively put in escrow for the board of education also struck me as a false savings item. It was described that if state funding should fail to come through as expected the 2 million would be transferred to the Board of Education to make up the gap. What happens if the state does come through? Can we expect another elevator to the Mayor’s office? Maybe an escalator this time?

At the end of the day no tax increase is what the residents of East Hartford, myself included, needed and that’s what we got. While I am certain further cuts could have been made I’ll take this as a start that we can build on next year.

In response to the blatant Constitutional violation of Ted Kennedy in accepting a Knighthood while serving in the United States Senate I introduced a resolution demanding his resignation within 14 days at tonight’s East Hartford Republican Town Committee meeting.

Sadly, a vast majority did not feel as I did that it was important to make a stand for the United Stated Constitution on this issue.

Text of the proposed resolution:

Whereas, Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution states “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”; and

Whereas, On March 4^th 2009 Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Gordon Brown announced sitting Senator Edward Moore Kennedy, also known as Ted Kennedy, was given an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II entitling him to be known as Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire; and

Whereas, On March 4^th 2009 Senator Edward Moore Kennedy publicly acknowledged his acceptance of an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II entitling him to be known as Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire; and

Whereas, The United States Congress passed no resolution to permit Senator Edward Moore Kennedy to receive a title of any kind whatever from Queen Elizabeth II; and

Whereas, The above mentioned facts evidence a willful violation by Senator Edward Moore Kennedy of the United States Constitution and his oath of office to defend the United Stated Constitution; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the East Hartford Republican Town Committee, That the East Hartford Republicans –

(1) Demand Senator Edward Moore Kennedy resign from the United States Senate within 14 days.

(2) Demand the United States Senate initiate proceedings for removal of Senator Edward Moore Kennedy upon failure to resign within 14 days.

We must stand on the Constitution or we will find ourselves being stood on.

Posted in Connecticut, democrats, East Hartford, GOP, National Tagged: East Hartford, EHRTC, Republicans, resolution, ted Kennedy ]]> http://brainflation.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/ehrtc-chose-not-to-take-constitutional-stand/feed/ 1 brainflation http://brainflation.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/dodd-laughs-at-constitution-refuses-to-uphold-oath-of-office/ http://brainflation.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/dodd-laughs-at-constitution-refuses-to-uphold-oath-of-office/#comments Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:10:16 +0000 brainflation http://brainflation.wordpress.com/?p=594 ]]>

I attended the Health Care Forum down at the Coast Guard Academy today. Overall it was about what I expected, much hot gas was released but no cogent ideas were formed.

While I didn’t get the opportunity to unleash my health question trifecta on Dodd during the forum I did catch up with him afterward. I asked Mr. Dodd when Congress authorized Senator Kennedy to receive his honorary knighthood from England. He honestly enough told me that no such authorization came out of congress. When I then informed him that Senator Kennedy is in violation of Article I section 9 of the Constitution and asked when the Senate intended to remove Kennedy he had only laughter.

It is clear that Senator Dodd has no interest in upholding his own oath to defend the Constitution in response to Senator Kennedy’s violation of his oath of office and the Constitution.

It is obvious that we need to get rid of this clown because he has no intention of ever doing what he was elected to do, uphold the constitution.

From Article I Section 9:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Here is the audio/video:

As talk continues of national health care as a solution to unaffordable insurance I got to thinking. Has anyone ever really taken the time to figure out just what our existing national health care system costs?

I subscribe to an HSA through my employer which costs me about $312 per month for a family of four plus another $150 or so a month in HSA contributions, which go towards my retirement and future medical costs. I had the option of a non HSA plan but the way the math worked (yes I took the time to analyze my options as everyone should) it cost a few dollars more than the HSA assuming I actually met my deductible. I don’t anticipate meeting my deductible this year and expect to bank $1,800 in savings on account of it with no impact to the quality of my health care.

As part of my annual health care search I found, as I had last year and the year before, that private insurance was available despite the fear mongering from our politicians, albeit for slightly more than my employer plan cost and without the guaranteed money losers for insurance companies like maternity coverage.

Consider the absurdity of insurance covering maternity for a moment. If you have four kids at a covered cost of $10,000 each and an employer health care cost of $400 a month the insurance plan would need to retain you without any additional expenditures for over 8 years just to break even on you. That’s not insurance, that’s making your neighbors pay for your children through their health care premiums. Even with the modern standard of 2 children the company would need 4 years without expenditure to make up their loss. How many of our employers maintain the same insurance plans year to year, forget for four or eight years running. Is it any wonder private insurance has gotten so expensive?

Back to the real cost of our existing national health care, also known as medicare, medicaid and SCHIP. I did a google search to try to identify if a well known source had data in an easily usable format and found that the Kaiser Family Foundation not only had data but had done similar reports. Unfortunately I found that I couldn’t rely on the KFF data because their reports were dated and appeared to be over reporting subscribers by double counting some who are enrolled in multiple programs and under reporting expenses by not including all the expense items as attributable to subscriber.

Undaunted by this I pressed on and entered the confusing world of HHS.gov. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services found at http://www.cms.hhs.gov archives, in a typically confusing and undocumented government fashion, all the statistics related to SCHIP, medicare and medicaid.

Also as is fashionable in government data there is a significant time lag between complete sets of data and today with the most recent complete data picture being from 2006. The simplest and most concise single resource for this data is the capital market updates CMS statistics report for 2007. While 2008 is listed and should in theory give a complete picture for 2007 sadly the data links are broken.

This CMS statistical data (pg 10,15) gives a total enrollment in all three programs of 90,100,000. When duplicate enrollments are removed (pg 15), meaning if a person is enrolled in a combination of medicaid, medicare and SCHIP they are counted only once, the total enrollment figure for 2006 falls to 59,400,000.

The data shows (pg 26,27) that the total 2006 outlay for all three programs was $707,500,000,000. There was some $52,400,000,000 in “offsetting receipts” such as premiums which made for a net cost of $655,100,000,000. I should mention that roughly 150 billion of this net is paid out of state budgets which makes it easy for these various reports to pretend the additional expenditure isn’t there.

Based on the enrollment figure above the annual per subscriber cost works out to about $11,028 or $919 per month. Now, consider that this is per subscriber and so the total cost for my family, a family of four, would be $44,112 a year or $3,676 a month, only $3,364 more than I currently pay each month.

Do we really want to be on the national health care roll? Maybe this private insurance stuff isn’t as bad as it’s made out to be.

I warned the P&Z commission months ago at the public hearing when I presented my legally defensible plan to create an adult zone that their plan to open all I3 zones in town would bring more businesses. They didn’t heed my warning and it has come to pass.

The Gazette has a story on the enforcement efforts of Bonnie Nichols in upholding the ordinances passed by the town council. In it is hidden the more important story. A new Adult Video/Book store is quietly moving into a now defunct beauty supply store at 2 Tolland Street. While an adult video/book store is certainly not a strip club it will be a matter of time, likely only until the ordinance battle is completed, until they follow.

I put together some secondary effects buffer information for this property. There are 212 properties within the 1000 foot secondary effects buffer of this new business.  Here is a breakdown of these properties:

76 Single Family
61 Multi Family
38 Commercial
23 Commercial/Apartments
6 Vacant
8 Unknown

A conservative estimate would be 311 households in this buffer zone with the actual number likely more. That’s 311 families who, because of the opening of I-3 to permitted adult use, will have no idea that they are about to have  an new Adult Establishment less than 1/4 mile from their front door until it opens.

Buffer Map:
2 Tolland Street Secondary Effects Buffer Properties

Here is the video of the 2009 Budget Hearing. There were 4 members of the public who commented, myself included. The others were Susan Kniep, John Bezzini and one honest to goodness average citizen,

Budget Hearing Intro

John Bezzini Comments

Susan Kniep Comments

Susan Kniep Comments Contd.

Shelly Ranney Comments

Jon Searles Comments

Here is the budget commentary I submitted:

East Hartford Town Council Members,

First, I’d like to commend the effort of the Mayor to bring forward a budget which doesn’t increase taxes on residents or businesses in a time when neither can afford it. This is an accomplishment I thought I would never see.

That being said I have found some immediate issues with the budget as presented. While the Mayor does indeed appear to have made a solid effort to cut back and balance the budget as honestly as possible. I have found that some maintenance items which are part of the 5 year capital improvement plan such as rolling stock replacements have not been included in the budget as presented. Failure to properly fund such items in this budget will provide no real savings to the residents of East Hartford since we will eventually need to purchase extra vehicles to make up for the deferred maintenance. This council was vocal last year about the need for constant and continuous maintenance of the town infrastructure. I believe it was Mr. Kehoe who spoke to the folly of previous councils in neglecting the maintenance of town roads causing the exorbitant repair costs we face today. This is a mistake I should hope will not be repeated.

It is my opinion that the Board of Education has failed to present a budget which adequately shoulders their share of the burden in these hard economic times. This places a disproportionate amount of the reductions on the municipal side.

I am disappointed that despite the unique opportunity and motivation that these hard economic times provide the Mayor and BoE have limited their budget reductions only to levels required to balance the budget and have failed to make meaningful reductions to the tax burdens we all feel. I hope the council will make more serious attempts to do so.

I firmly believe in the editorial advice of the Gazette’s new owner Bill Doak that one shouldn’t tear something down unless they have a plan to fix it and as such I have researched the town budgets from 1999 through 2008 as well as the 2007 and 2008 Blum Shapiro Financial Audits in hopes of identifying areas of excessive growth which may aid you in your budgetary duty. I also attempted to review the last ten years of BoE budgets but was informed by a BoE representative that no physical or electronic copies were readily available prior to 2007. This naturally leads to the question of how the BoE can prepare a budget without historical budget data.

My statistics come from the 2007 and 2008 financial audits for the Council’s convenience. I present this information as mathematical evidence free of the emotional entanglement which too often obscures budgetary issues. Nor have I given any consideration to the political popularity.

What I found is that in the period of 1998 to 2008 the size of the municipal government remained almost the same with a net growth of 5 employees. With the Mayor’s proposed elimination of 20 positions the net change is -15. The largest municipal growth item was the addition of 14 employees in the police department.

While I am not qualified to opine on the cause and effect relationship of these new positions the statistics bear mentioning that arrests are down significantly in 2008 from 1998. Whether this indicates current overstaffing or past understaffing is something for the council to determine, but it warrants a look.

I have also looked at the growth of each summary expenditure item for the ten year period of 1999 to 2008 to see if they indicate any particular arm of the government which could offer opportunities to cut back. Here are the growth rates in order of smallest to largest. These numbers can be compared to the CPI inflation rate of 27.95% for the same period.

Capital Improvements – 24.8%
Legislative – 26%
Debt Service – 28%
Boards & Commissions – 30.5%
Contingency – 33.5%
Development – 33.5%
Executive – 34.4%
Board of Education – 43.6%
Public Safety – 45.4%
Public Works – 48.2%
Parks & Rec. – 51.8%
Health & Social Services – 62.7%
Inspections & Permits – 83.1%
Finance – 114.6%

The education side of town employment shows an entirely different picture. In the period of 1998 to 2008 educational employment showed a net increase of 243 employees. During this period the school systems did experience a significant increase in enrollment, however this enrollment peaked in 2005 at 8,397 students. Despite the subsequent fall from this peak to the current enrollment level which is estimated around 7,000, which is the lowest in over 10 years, employment levels did not decline.

In 2005 the school system had a student to staff ratio of 6.98 with a student to administration ratio of 233.25, a student to teacher ratio of 13.72 and a student to non teacher/admin ratio of 15.15. Based on these ratios, 2008 employment levels and the estimated 7000 students enrolled for 2009-2010 the school system is currently overstaffed to the tune of 19 administrators, 103 teachers and 53 non teacher/administrator positions. While the BoE has already proposed cutting a number of positions for the 2009/2010 budget year there is clearly more room for reductions. Unfortunately due to the lack of BoE budget availability I was unable to identify where these excess positions are located.

It would also be prudent for the BoE to investigate savings associated with school consolidation now that enrollment has fallen so significantly.

I hope the council will give serious consideration to the information I have provided in an attempt to provide legitimate tax relief for the residents and businesses of East Hartford.

Jon Searles

Related Coverage:

http://www.journalinquirer.com/articles/2009/03/06/towns/east_hartford/doc49b00ee673682558067510.txt

While John Galt hides away yet longer there is something we, the plebes, can do in protest of the abusive government bailout and stimulus programs.

We can punish and destroy utterly the contemptible companies who participate in tarp and the stimulus programs. How? Stop doing business with these banks and companies.

Withdraw your money yesterday from the guilty banks, refinance your mortgages and loans (unless you are delinquent or will be, in that case leave them alone) over to responsible institutions who are not abusing the tax payers. Stop buying cars or anything else from guilty auto makers. Do no business with any guilty company unless it is harmful business.

We have an obligation as free citizens to show the government and companies that we the people will not stand for abuse and will not stand by while our futures and the futures of our children are appropriated.

Let us cast a shadow of shame on these unpatriotic businesses. If they will not renounce their actions we will tear them down dollar by dollar.

Find a list of TARP participants here:

http://www.propublica.org/special/show-me-the-tarp-money

Some CT institutions who need a lesson are:

First Litchfield Financial Corp
Connecticut Bank and Trust Company
Webster Financial

Some TARP participant companies who do business in CT:

Citigroup
Bank of America
BoA – Merrill Lynch
AIG
JPMorgan Chase
Wells Fargo
General Motors
Morgan Stanley
Chrysler
GMAC
Capital One Financial Corp.
American Express
Discover Financial Services

There will be another Tea Party demonstration in Ridgefield on the 21st.

Details here:

http://brainflation.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/march-21-2009-rally0001.pdf

One of my biggest gripes about establishment Republicans, of which I am one, especially at the national level is the way they knowingly or not go about the business of defending liberty and free markets in the most inconsistent ways. They’ll berate pork while spending it and denounce censorship while censoring. They’ll resort to underhanded political tactics while they are employing them.

Liberty can not be defended by inconsistent men who chain their brothers. Free markets can not be championed by those who themselves are taking double handed scoops of the capital lifeblood directly from the markets when they see fit.

The Republican party needs consistency and must have champions of principle, not politics. No battle is worth winning if sacrificing your kingdom is the cost. For Republicans our principles are our kingdom. I will not sacrifice my kingdom and I will not stand for so called Republican leaders who are willing to do so.

I am a Republican but the established party is not mine. I am a Republican of principle, not politics. My party members are my neighbors both local and not so. We stand together fighting against the tyranny which has gripped this nation in the name of Republicans and Democrats.

I warn you wobbly men who feign greatness.  Greater men than you have been punished for less.

9 years our forefathers endured in the face of gross abuse by their government. For 9 years they resisted, they protested and organized but the government with all it’s wobbly men did not take heed. After 9 years our forefathers shed wobbly blood on free soil and ended their torment.

How many years will we toil and suffer under the heel of our government and it’s great wobbly men? Be afraid ye wobbly men.

It is time for each of us, the many, the least to stand up and follow in the footsteps of our forefathers. Today we protest, we complain. Tomorrow we organize. And then…

Transcript:

We do this in front of a tree because this is a… It is a mighty tree indeed is it not?

It is indeed.

Let’s make this speech because I think we’re making  our state… But we like our state police officers very much.

So ladies and gentlemen you read the constitution. That is one job they should be fully funding. That is their job.

They keep us safe.

But you’ll notice they don’t have to keep anyone safe around us because we’re well behaved.

We know our constitutional rights.
We know the law.
We behave.
We behave and we follow the rule of law.
Now we are asking our legislators to follow the rule of law.
We’re asking them to read the constitution.
Here we are in front of this mighty tree and it is a mighty tree indeed.
It started out like this [Jim demonstrates with his hand].
That is how it started out.
This takes us back some 300 years and when Sam did it he was drunk.

I understand now why he drank.

Perhaps I should have had something to drink.
I can assure you this and I can assure them this [pointing to the Capitol and LOB] this is just the beginning.

And I mean it from the bottom of my heart. It is not your money.

There will be people who will walk by and they will not understand what I’m about to say.
But your very personal freedom and the liberty that young 15 and 16 and 17 year old boys fought for in 1776 and died for in 1776 is absolutely at stake.
They put their lives on the line.
They put down their pitchforks and they picked up their guns for the name of liberty because they knew what it meant.
They crossed the ocean in the smallest of ships with their babies and their children because they knew America was the last best hope of freedom and liberty.

When you give them all of your… the earnings  of all of your hard work you turn over your freedom and liberty to them [pointing to the capitol].
They will tell you they are here to help you.
They will tell you you don’t have daycare we’ll give you daycare.
You don’t have  a job we’ll give you a job.
You don’t have college we’ll give you college.
You don’t have retirement we’ll give you retirement.
And you don’t have health care we will give you health care.

But when you give them your money,
when you give them your liberty,
when you let them give to you what you’ve already earned
they then tell you what day care center you will go to and when.
They then tell you what schools you will go to and when.
They then tell you what and when and where and how you’ll retire and how much you’ll retire on.
And finally they will decide what doctors you see, what diseases they’ll  treat and which members of your family will get treated.
Make no mistake it starts small so you have to decide which will grow bigger.
Your fervor and your zeal to stop this now and grow this into a big tree or are you going to let a government which is already this size grow even bigger.
So when Rick says to you if you understand what the stakes are,
if you understand that it’s your money,
if you understand that that is not their title [pointing at the capitol] that we vote them into that office then you will get out and you will do what they do.
Except getting your dead relatives to vote.

Don’t. Do not. I have asked my father, not the other father, the father that lived here [pointing to the ground]. I have asked my father who has now been dead for 30 years if he could just please if he would just vote one more time and he said Jim that would be unethical. That is what the other side does.
I can tell you you can learn from it and here’s what you can learn.
2010 is fast approaching.
They are already lining up their candidates.
And they are already sweating bullets because they know what’s coming.
Now they think those seats belong to them.
They think it’s a blue state.
They think that they can’t possibly ever leave office.

Demonstrations are great.
What’s better is what’s coming in 2010.

Rick… Rick said it. You are the beginning of the movement.
This is how it started in Boston on a town green. There weren’t much more than 40 or 50 people there when Sam Adams would give his speeches but people heard and they listened and he came back over and over and over again.
Now you have to each one of you be a Sam Adams.
Minus the beer.
You need to go out.
You need to go out and you need to talk to your neighbors and you need to no longer be afraid to talk about the things you believe in inside a blue state.

And so when someone tells you that well you don’t care about the poor you tell them that not only do I care but I want them to be as rich and as great as they can be.
And they tell you that well you don’t care because they don’t have health care you say we think they would get much better health care if they had the ability to pick it themselves instead of having it chosen for them.
You tell them you do care about kids who have an education.
An education system that is locally based and not run from Washington D.C..
You do care that teachers are paid well because they’re teaching your kids.
But not paid well for just going through the motions.
You tell them that you do care and that you do have a plan and that you’re not a party of no because we are not…
we are not…
we are not…
we are not a group of people.
We are not the party of help me.
We are the party of can do.
So let’s do it.
Do it.
Go out and talk.
For the next year and a half you go out and talk and you talk and you talk and you talk to your friends and you convert them and you bring them over to the party of liberty.
You bring them over to the tea party.
And you tell them that in November of 2010 you will send a message that will indeed be heard around the world.

Thank you all for coming out.

Now go do it.
Go do it.
Go do it.
Don’t just walk away.
Go do it.

I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

CNBC’s Rick Santelli (backed by mortgage traders), called out last week for a “Nationwide Chicago Tea Party” to protest the Obama Administration’s Pork laden Stimulus Plan.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of direct protest by American Colonists

demanding representation in the British Government.

They became known as the original patriots.

As the bailouts spiral out of control, we are forced to fund failed banks. With foreclosures on the rise, we are made the collateral of out-of-control spending. And, when the bills come due, the IRS knocks on the door of self-responsibility.

ENOUGH!

Join with Thousands of Patriots Across The Country!

We declare Our Independence from Big Government Bailouts!

Friday, February 27^th

High Noon

Hartford – State Capitol

12pm to 1pm (Meet Supreme Court – 11:45 AM, on front steps)

Enough with the pork!

We bring home the bacon and we want to keep it!!

Bring your Tea Bags, Protest signs, and American Flags!

Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism – Thomas Paine

Here is an interesting idea.

The town currently sells tax liens each year on properties that are 3 years or $10,000 delinquent in taxes. This sale helps the town recover uncollected taxes. The buyers are specialty companies who purchase these liens to collect the 18% interest they bear.

A municipal tax lien has a statutory life of 15 years which means that it has about 12 years left when the town sells it. That’s a total return of 216% if held until the end of the lien life and then recovered. Recovery options as the end of life approaches include traditional collections, foreclosure sale or sale of the lien to someone more interested in collection than interest gains.

The town sold about 820K in liens secured by desirable real property out of it’s 3.6 million or so in outstanding liens last year. Had the town “sold” the liens to the pension program instead of a private investment firm the town would realize up to around $147K in reduced funding costs each year and if the liens were held by the pension program for say 8 years before being resold to a collection company the town would realize up to $1.18 million in reduced funding costs. Imagine if the pension program bought the liens each year. This seems like an opportunity that is being wasted.

Of course this seems like a great idea to me but I could easily be missing a reality of the pension system which makes such a thing impossible.

$1.739 – Pinergy Oil Buyers Group – http://www.pinery.org

$1.909 – Dollar Wise – http://www.dollarwiseoil.com

$1.909 – Price Energy – http://www.priceenergy.com

So far I’m still happy with my switch to the Pinergy buying group. I’ve had one fill and two partials and saved over 15 cents per gallon off the prices of other discounters each time.

I’ve also been happy with Public Power & Utility (http://www.ppandu.com) as my energy generation supplier. It’s too bad I can’t get rid of CL&P as the delivery provider and their multiple annual rate increases. Do you recall last year they increased delivery rates on the claim that commodity prices had shot through the roof and so had their transformer prices? They got their rate increase, commodities crashed and we are stuck with the bill for their excess profits. Government sponsored monopolies are a bad idea and this is why.

For February CL&P will charge $0.12217 per kWh while PP&U will charge $0.1048 per kWh for a savings of 14.21% on generation charges with PP&U which translates into a savings of $22.58 in February for a household using 1300 kWh of electricity.

Mr. LeBeau expressed his disagreement with my analysis of his bills last night at the Lincoln Dinner in honor of Don Pitkin. While I did not think it an appropriate place or time for such a discussion I have invited him to make a response in an appropriate forum, this blog. A two sided conversation is almost always more productive and I expect that would be the case here. My invitation follows.

Mr. Lebeau,

I appreciate your patronage of my blog (http://brainflation.wordpress.com) and your disagreement with my opinions in regard to the legislation you have introduced this session. While I did not think last night’s dinner in honor of the many years of public service Don Pitkin has performed for the town of East Hartford was the appropriate venue to have such a discussion I do invite you to comment in the same forum in which you were critiqued. If you are interested in writing a response to my analysis of your bills I will gladly post it unedited on the blog.

In Liberty,

Jon Searles
http://brainflation.wordpress.com