People are acting like sheep to the slaughter because they've been taught over the last 80 years or so to never challenge a lot of socialist doctrines, like it's OK to redistribute income as long as you take from the rich and give to the poor. Nobody wants to be thought of as "unfair" so they give up their freedom (allowing themselves to be taxed, allowing their behavior to be dictated by health Nazis and the EPA, etc.) People need to be more assertive in challenging social justice and fairness doctrines that redistribute power from the individual to govt.

Check out Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed (in particular) and some of his other writings for discussion of the envy and jealousy which has been directed at certain groups (Jews, Lebanese, rich people) based on the concepts of exploitation by such people. Obama plays into this with comments such as the one about if we share the wealth we'll all be better off. "Inequality" is just a way for power-seekers to assert that they "know" what's best for the great unwashed and they "know" just how to redistribute rich people's money. This pernicious set of beliefs led directly to the confiscation of Jewish property by the Nazis and the ability of Nazi Germany to wage war. Loot-and-steal philosophy needs to end.

So, a few people will be canned and/or forced out, but nothing will get the money back that they threw away, plus that the GSA sits on buildings that haven't brought in rent for years. How about selling off excess Federal property or how about hiring management firms (at a market rate) to manage the buildings. That might reduce the GSA to a tiny organization dedicated to auditing the management firms they hire. Of course, there would continue to be abuses, but maybe it couldn't reach the ridiculous levels we see now.

I still want to see politicians such as Romney talk as straight as Dr. Walter Williams in his column today. But, it wouldn't work for any politician to do that unless he wasn't running for office. So, we hear some straight talk from Ron and Rand Paul and Paul Ryan, but the only one who takes no prisoners is Ron Paul and he's not running again.

As usual, Dr. Williams is correct. I know what we'll hear during the upcoming campaign -- nothing but glittering generalities (especially from Obama) about how candidates "care" and support a "safety net" and would never take away anybody's Medicare, unemployment payments, food stamps, tax exemptions. Voters don't want to hear that their "entitlements" are strangling the economy and nobody running for office is willing to take any action that would alienate any voters. It takes a 2X4 over the head to wake most people up but when it comes to economics most people yawn.

It's important to note the similarities between socialism, fascism and communism. Contrary to popular believe, these are all forms of statism or totalitarianism and only differ in degree and how far their perpetrators are willing to go to institute a police state, for enforcing any of these doctrines requires physical force. We have a kind of soft totalitarianism now in that there are whole groups of people who lobby the govt for largesse and receive it (with strings attached). Corporations curry favor with govt agencies and the legislature and the govt is glad to oblige them with more regulation and control. Power is the game and Obama is all into power.

Sure, it's too late, Judge. Libertarian thought has gained steam in the last 40 years, partly due to Ron Paul, but it's still a long way from even a large minority. Many people don't seem to see that if the govt supplies things you "need," then you lose the freedom to decide how to handle what the govt gives you. But, many people don't really believe in liberty--they want security and they want their hand held and they actually like it when they're told what to do. Cradle-to-grave socialism has a lot of adherents, especially when they can get someone else to pay for it.

Keep it up Ms. Rosen. You're alienating a lot of women who also stayed at home to make a marriage and raise the kids. You're not helping yourself by stating something that is so untrue -- that women who stay at home and raise kids don't work. Guess you never tried doing that, Ms. Rosen, or you wouldn't make such a statement. Since you are part of the Democrat hierarchy, you're alienating Democrats who don't believe what you have said. Believe it or not, some Democrats also stay at home to raise the kids and such people (and men can stay at home, also) have a pretty good grasp of economics because they go to the grocery store most days.

But, we're not given much choice. Ron Paul gets his views out there, but seems to offend many people. I've been a libertarian since 1964 and we're no closer to getting anybody elected than we were then. But, I'd have to vote for Romney because Obama would be such a disaster if re-elected. I don't think I gave up my brain and I hope you don't think you did, either.

Yes, I guess a lot of us are disgusted with both parties and their politicians, but when we have to make a choice (rather than stay home) I hope people will vote for Romney. We can't let Obama have another term because he might get two or more Supreme Court appointments and that would be disastrous. Many people won't bite the hand that feeds, and the biggest advocate of handouts are Democrats, so if half the people pay no income tax it's not in their interest to vote for somebody who wants to cut their entitlements. It's sad, but true.