Pun Salad

I think the MSM has run short on synonyms to describe government agencies getting less than they think they deserve.

But more needs to be done, my friends, because…

Dominic Pino has some wise words for Independence Weekend: Americans Must Declare Independence from the Federal Retirement State. (NR gifted link)

Well, we know the story. Especially because I keep tiresomely harping on it. Skipping down to Dominic's bottom line:

Americans shouldn’t look to the government for sustenance at any stage of life. Voters should want to declare their independence from the federal retirement state on their own terms, before a fiscal crisis forces the issue, and politicians should want to restore to the people the power over their own personal finances. Yet in this supposedly populist age, the elites continue to lie about entitlements with, so far, no political consequences from the voters.

I know my state keeps electing the same liars, telling the same lies, every few years.

Also of note:

• A worthy debate. Skeptic hosts one about the future of America. First up is Mark Skousen, making The Case for a Free & Prosperous Society.

  In July 1778, during the American War of Independence from Great Britain, then-American ambassador Benjamin Franklin received a letter from a British official using the alias Charles de Weissenstein, hopeful that he would agree to begin negotiations for a peace settlement.

  Franklin wrote a lengthy reply but never sent the letter, stating, “Your Parliament never had the right to govern us, and your King has forfeited that right through his bloody tyranny.” Full independence was Franklin’s goal, but he took the time to outline his philosophy of an “independent state.” He wrote, “We purpose, if possible, to live in peace with all mankind.” He saw no need for “fleets or standing armies,” believing that “our militias … are sufficient to defend our lands from invasion.” Franklin argued there was no need to expand beyond a “small civil government” with “no offices of profit, nor any sinecures or useless appointments, so common in ancient and corrupted states.” He concluded, “We can govern ourselves for a year with the sums you pay in a single department,” summing up the role of the state in one sentence: 

  A virtuous and laborious [industrious] people may be cheaply governed.

  Today’s federal government is a far cry from Franklin’s vision of a laissez-faire state. As Thomas Jefferson presciently observed, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”

  Mark makes an urgent recommendation to start moving back toward Ben's vision. It's not impossible. But my inner cynic adds "… also not likely."

• But there's a counterpoint. And you probably wouldn't be permanently brain-damaged by reading The Case for Democratic Socialism. from Ben Burgis, a columnist from the real-deal socialist magazine, Jacobin. You know, named after the famed fans of the guillotine.

  The United States has long been one of the most antisocialist nations in the developed world. Socialist parties have been elected to power in many countries over the course of the last century. This happened several times even in the United Kingdom, a nation linked to the U.S. by history, cultural affinity, and a diplomatic special relationship. While the UK’s Labour Party has long since drifted to the political center, when it first became one of the country’s major parties, Clause IV of its constitution, drafted by Sidney and Beatrice Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, committed the party to:

  Secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

  No political force with similar goals has ever been a major part of American politics.

  You can probably guess where my sympathies lie. But (as if I needed to tell you) judge for yourself.

• Oh, and just a reminder. It's from Miranda Devine at the NYPost, passing along the latest from the CIA: Obama’s Trump-Russia collusion report was corrupt from start. Reporting on the early DC fireworks:

  A bombshell new CIA review of the Obama administration’s spy agencies’ assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump was deliberately corrupted by then-CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who were “excessively involved” in its drafting, and rushed its completion in a “chaotic,” “atypical” and “markedly unconventional” process that raised questions of a “potential political motive.” 

  Further, Brennan’s decision to include the discredited Steele dossier, over the objections of the CIA’s most senior Russia experts, “undermined the credibility” of the assessment.

  Of course, you should be open to the possibility that under President Newsom in 2029, another "review" will come down the pike saying this one was full of beans, the Comey/Brennan/Clapper stuff was totally cool, and…