The one flaw in Mr. Thomas's argument is using the example of Sen. Alexander.

One problem that practically all schools which accept government money grapple with is the strings attached by those governmental entities. It should not be a federal law to teach more American history or civics (no matter how noble the intent) because education is supposed to be a local issue.

While the idea of an exodus from public schools is quite sound, a parallel effort should be made to back the federal government completely out of them and limit state government involvement to the largest extent possible. If schools are controlled locally, perhaps concerned and right-thinking parents can bring back the much-needed education in civics and...

Maryland, where I live, is a case study in how NOT to do a state budget. In 2007 our "illustrious" Democrat governor, Martin O'Malley (fresh off nearly destroying the city of Baltimore as mayor) raised taxes to fill a budget hole while at the same time spending $500 million to insure certain Maryland residents.

Needless to say about every three months the state has to figure out where to cut hundreds of millions of dollars to keep the budget balanced because of - wait for it - revenue shortfalls!

Maryland's General Assembly has been run by Democrats since the Civil War era, and while we're unique in that they by law cannot add to the budget the Governor prepares, they can cut from it yet they have no desire to do so....

While your analysis and history are spot on, you miss one factor when you say, "Without the unions and their money, no Democrat can win the White House and Democratic control of the House and Senate might slip away."

You forget the ready-made volunteer force made up of fervent believers in the cause who jump to the side of Democrats at the polling places and as campaign volunteers.

Never hurts to have a little extra walking-around money available either, and union dues paid by willing and unwilling workers alike make a good source for that too. Since the fox is guarding the henhouse now we have no idea how (and for what) Big Labor shifts its money around.

Michael Swartz
http://www.monoblogue.us

Voters have short memories, and the only crop of moderate Democrats in trouble are the hapless bunch who are running in 2010 from those swing states - it's doubtful the ones in deep blue states like Maryland or Massachusetts are at great risk.

Those are the ones who are writing the Baucus bill in such a manner to cushion the blow to their states (by having the federal government pick up more of the tab) or favored special interests (like exempting the "gold-plated" insurance plans unions provide from the luxury tax.)

Add in the ever-present pork spending Democrats make sure to include for their states and districts and they can buy votes with the best of Tammany Hall-style pols. Hey, if Obama can buy off senior votes by...

for Hal Donahue:

I'll presume to speak for the rest of us on the Right who have no problem with Wal-Mart taking initiatives to "green" their stores - obviously saving money on the maintenance and operation of their stores is in both their customers' and stockholders' best interests. When a company operates thousands of stores, a 5% or 10% savings on energy costs combined with a short payback time on energy-saving measures can add millions to the bottom line.

Having said that, though, there's a HUGE difference between Wal-Mart's initiative and the stance of Starbucks - which also operates thousands of outlets - openly advocating having energy savings by fiat.

Wal-Mart didn't wait for some government program to take...

Isn't the grand strategy of global warming (oops, sorry, climate change) activists one of depopulating the planet?

So by Newsweek wanting to cut their subscriber base in half - which I presume then would mean I wouldn't find it in every waiting area I frequent - it sounds to me like they are actually practicing what they preach and committing a sort of institutional suicide.

Watch them spin it as a means of lowering their carbon footprint.

Michael Swartz
http://www.monoblogue.us

Fortunately, I read the entire article so I don't have to point out that sales tax is collected on soda (or pop, if you prefer and hail from the Midwest as I do) in most states. It's also true for bottled water and diet soda, which in theory have zero calories and shouldn't be contributing to the obesity problem (setting aside any questions about the effects of aspartame.)

If memory serves, though, naturally occurring juices such as orange juice don't have a sales tax added yet have calories and natural sugar. Would that fall under the fat tax?

My theoty is this is all a smokescreen and another not-so-creative attempt to reach into our back pockets and vacuum even more money out of our wallets. But it's for our own good,...

While I know the Founding Fathers had an appreciation for the arts and culture, is it appropriate to spend over $150 million a year for this organization to elevate the Obamessiah while demeaning another, more true Messiah?

Not trying to start a First Amendment fight here, just asking whether taxpayer dollars should be subsidizing what the market may or may not call "art".

Michael Swartz
http://www.monoblogue.us