Few people working for the government do it for evil purposes, and it misplaces blame when the employees are targeted for the poor judgment of management. Congress and the President created departments, agencies, etc., that ignored or bent the intent of the Constitution, leaving us with hundreds of thousands of federal employees doing work they never should have begun. Pare the role of government back to its Constitutional limits, but employ the best possible people for the jobs that remain. And—by the way—the statistics are useful only when used appropriately; the government has few people in the lowest paid industries: food and hospitality services. Compare apples to apples.

Sorry, “Mother of 4,” but you obviously haven’t entered a new relationship with the wealth of your lifetime being significantly more than your new spouse, plus new kids that will require years more of care. “Combining” assets isn’t about love; both parties have responsibility to themselves and their blood children that must be considered first. Once they are married, income and property earned during the marriage is split 50/50 is most states. What’s “fair” for the four kids is a choice of the four parents (assuming ex’s are still alive). Carrie is right—this will require a lot of work, and a pre-nup is about setting expectations and protecting everyone. Your ideal world may exist, but mostly for people who have nothing to lose.

Sorry, Bear, but declaring the individual mandate Constitutional would have impact lasting generations, and could extend the hand of our government into any and every part of our lives. Yes, it’s vitally important to end socialist expansion of our government by voting out the current crop of idiots, but it’s far more important to take away the tool Congress could use to enslave us to their idea of how we should live our lives.

Each GPS satellite transmits its own precise location and the exact time (to a tiny fraction of a second). Each GPS receiver compares many satellite signals and determines its location. Any relay, interference, delay or change to the GPS signal makes it worthless. Simply, GPS is a National investment that has and will continue to pay enormous dividends. Endangering that investment is truly a measure of the quality of our elected and appointed leadership. Bluntly, only a fool would propose deliberate and careless interference with GPS.

Cathy: just watched a great documentary called "Beer Wars;" it's on Netflix online or on DVD. One eye-opener is that the brewing and beer-distribution industry spends more on politics that gun and tobacco industries, combined. Why else would they need to spend this if it wasn’t to protect something that has questionable justification? The three-tiered system is nothing more than a protection racket.

Wow, that really clarifies things for me. Thanks.

Let’s have them all cite their authority. Congress can begin by citing the section of our Constitution they are implementing for every law, budget, authorization or allocation they propose. And departments and agencies that create rules and fees for citizens must cite the US law they are implementing. The ridiculous stretch the FCC is taking by creating rules over Internet access and access pricing is without legal authority. Congress needs to slap them back to where they belong.

Just follow the money. The billions spent by distributors and the big-three brewers to ensure limited competition and restraint of free trade is what this is all about. The issue isn’t that this is “alcohol,” since governments have found a way to tax the heck out of it--it’s about filling the wallets of politicians and monopoly industries. Why would my home state of Colorado limit grocery sales to 3.2% beer? Because Bud, Miller and Coors all make it. Want a craft beer or wine, go to a liquor store. Want that special wine you read about, or a craft beer made only in small quantities? Sorry, but your state and the producer state don’t have reciprocal shipping agreements, so no mail-order for you. This isn’t about the alcohol,...

roy: Back in the good old days (before this monster was passed), I was able to purchase insurance for my college kid when he turned 22 and was too old for my employee health insurance. I didn't need big brother to force someone to offer me this product. Had our fairy godfathers in DC not forced this charity on us, insurance could have remained a viable commercial product, just as life, home and auto insurance is. Not that it's a "right," we'll have to pay for every "benefit" legislated by the idiots in DC.

I would expect a father's parental rights to have equal weight to the mother's. In this case the dad went to court to have his daughter taught by someone other than the mother. I don't know the teaching abilities of the mother, but the fact that her beliefs and her ex-husband's are different has nothing to do with the overall quality of the girl's education. Simply, was the mother a good teacher?

It's too bad the judge chose to justify her decision with the words Thomas quoted. This decision needs context that we simply don't have in this article. The court didn't step in until the father chose to impose his rights.

I'm not impressed with this one, Cal. We deserve better from you.