One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began: ‘Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and—

“Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again.”

“This was a sockdolger…I begged him tell me what was the matter.

“Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.’

“I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.’

” ‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

“Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.’

“It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. ‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.’

“‘Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.’

“The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied; ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“If I don’t, said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. ‘This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

“‘Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.”

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

“‘Yes

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.”

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.”

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came up to the stand and said:

“Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. “There is one thing which I will call your attention, “you remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

ShareThis

Another Great T-Shirt   from intelligentdesign.  Appropriate for the election day today, no?

ShareThis

I’ve long asserted the biggest disservice to the American people has been to demonize the entire German population as being Nazi animals, when in fact there were many German citizens who fought against the Nazi takeover and suffered for their efforts. Many of their fellow non-Nazi fans didn’t believe what ended up happening could ever happen. Neighbors turning in neighbors; nationalist pride coming before freedom. These are things not too far from the lips of many flag waving American patriots — all for the cause of defeating the tactic called terrorism.

As for the video, now why would Congress need Rex 84? This is worrisome, to say the least. I’m not panicking or going all Idaho, but keep your ears open, folks.

ShareThis

ShareThis

A good joke on a very serious subject.

ShareThis

Above is a worthy discussion about the anti-consumer / pro big and connected business fraud that is anti-monopoly legislation with Ron Paul. While the video is some 25 years old, the content is perfectly valid today (if not also a testament to the consistency of Ron Paul since then).

A great myth perpetuated by those in government and many in academia is that absent regulation, the free market will do its utmost to increase profits via anti-consumer actions, with one of the biggest crimes being the formation of monopolies. As such, we endure day after day, year after year, ever more corrective reactions from Congress in the form of regulations that we are told will curtail the natural exploitative faults of the free market, thus improving the economy as a result.

Yet, when you dig just a little beneath the surface, you’ll find that’s an assumption built on a faulty premise. What you’ll see is that these many legislated regulatory actions are actually fixing the economic / market reaction to a previous legislated intrusion, and in many cases serve not to be pro consumer, but rather pro-big business and very much anti free market competition. These laws not only often fix prices artificially high (either outright or via anti-trade legislation), they flat out create massive hurdles — bureaucratic or otherwise — that serve as barriers to entry for legitimate free market competition.

A great example today is all the cries for further regulating the credit, banking, housing, and mortgage systems to “prevent further abuse and recklessness.” In reality, the bubble that is bursting was created by a money monopoly granted to the Federal Reserve and its many member banks, who are quite literally entitled to legally counterfeit. They call it fractional reserve banking, but in no uncertain terms the entire banking system engages in the constant and ongoing printing of money and credit out of thin air, which they in turn use to create loans and mega finance deals.

It was the artificial price fixing of credit and money well below the natural market rate that enabled and fueled the housing, mortgage, and credit bubbles into the stratosphere. Had the rate of money instead been free market controlled by a more honest currency, as demand for hot money loans increased, rates would have risen, nipping each of those bubbles in the bud. Instead, the printing presses of the banking system kicked into high gear and the bubble was off to the races.

Now that said bubble is in its corrective phase (yes, painful but natural and necessary to correct the massive clustering of errors it permitted), the Banking system wants to print more money and credit to bail-out the very problems their created thanks to their monopoly on money and credit. Meanwhile, our trusty servants in Congress are getting in the act by engineering stimulus packages while promoting even more legislation that will “fix the banking system.” Others want to regulate ratings agencies who failed to properly measure risk, failing to understand that prior regulation prevented competition from entering the market and restructured / bastardized the system into its current highly corrupted form. Yet the illiterate among us shout loudly from the rooftops, the Capital’s steps, or their media perches blaming “the free market” for creating this folly. Bunk! Absolute Bunk!

Alas, save for one or two in Congress — Ron Paul being the only politician getting any press, and now barely any at all — NOBODY bothers to address the real manufacturers and profiteers of the crisis: The massive banking cartel led by the privately owned Federal Reserve and its many member banks. Their highly lucrative monopoly is preserved, and so too are their highly important contributions and lobbying efforts that keep most of Congress firmly in power.

In other cases “pro competition” legislation creates a ramshackle set of rules that hamstring the particular sector of the economy so badly that the consequent market place is the consumer equivalent of some hodge-podge Frankenstein creature. The health care system in the U.S. is a prime example, where the heavily regulated byproduct — which is nothing but what’s left of the free market attempting to create something usable given the draconian rules governing it — ends up being a real disaster for consumers. Prices keep getting more expensive rather than cheaper, and the consumer continues to feel ever more compromised — which is the exact opposite of the norm in a truly free market.

Meanwhile, those major players that are most politically connected and capable of lobbying are the ones who dominate the industry, while the environment is so hostile to new entries that few bother to attempt to compete. The result? A defacto, legislatively-created monopoly for major hospital conglomerates, pharmaceutical companies, and regional health insurers. All levels of government get into the act, each exacting a toll to gain access, and each limiting the free market from doing what it otherwise might.

And, yet, these same politicians who soak up dolling out favors at the trough have the gal to blame the free market for being inadequate at providing good consumer products when what we’re all stuck with is a Frankenstein of their own making!

Meanwhile, the uninformed and socially motivated consumers and voters see the system only on the surface, and they demand change. The politicians are quick to blame free enterprise, and they propose more solutions to solve the problems created by decades of prior meddling. Meanwhile, steering the new legislation are the same ones benefiting from the old. They’ll have the economies of scale to deal with the new rules, while smaller players will invariably be knocked from the playing field. It’s always the same story.

This is a mess. Remember, if government forcing us into one of their solutions is the answer, you’re asking the wrong question! A true free market (one where businesses, industry trade groups, and other special interests are prohibited from hijacking freedom and economic resources in their favor) is naturally competing with itself to deliver ever more affordable quality to consumers. The natural tendency always is a better product for a lower price as entrepreneurs continually attempt to redefine efficiencies and opportunity in the search for profits.

If you want consumer driven solutions that please the most people, don’t force them into shoe-box solutions created by compromised politicians who are themselves experts only at politics and government. Let the market compete freely and openly, and then — and only then — will order start to be restored to an economy that increasingly is being exposed as systematically rotten to the core, having been slowly eaten from within by special interest parasites steering legislation in their favor.

ShareThis

Late last year Gisele Bundchen made Bloomberg News (and the Financial newswire, generally) by rejecting dollars in favor of Euros and other currency for her modeling contracts. Then rapper JayZ became famous for featuring fingers flipping through the “bling” of stacks of Euros — instead of the customary dollars — in an high profile music video. A week or so later India announced the Taj Mahal and other major tourist destinations would no longer accept the falling dollar, while tour operators in other nations like Peru and Vietnam have found the dollar is no longer as welcome by the locals as it was just a few years ago. Last week we were treated to headlines that signs saying “Euros Accepted” have been popping up through New York City.

With the theme now drifting to money management, one wonders what’s next. If the Fed’s policy of dropping interest rate and opening the easy money spigots is any indication, a lot more.

ShareThis

As a follow up to our recent post on Dr. Wecht’s trial, we thought a few examples would be in order. We can only imagine that the Defense is constructing, well… what you’d call a defense.

So in the flurry described above in today’s Post Gazette, what do we learn if we were in the Jury? Nobody complained. And, do we really know it was Dr. Wecth behind all this anyway? Besides, what’s the big deal?

Never mind using county resources and privately billing them, I guess.  “We will prove to you he is the best bargain Allegheny County has ever had,” defense attorney Jerry McDevitt told jurors Jan. 28 during his opening statement.

In other words, just shut up and accept the unseemly behavior as a worthwhile tradeoff.

Read the rest of the article and learn what else was going on.

ShareThis

Caliguiri’s intends to build on Herman’s comments — which meander around the greatness of Pittsburgh past and its vast, but untapped future. I figured I’d hit on a few of the ex Mayor’s son’s comments for some real critique to what amounts to nothing but the same old, tired “progressive” Pittsburgh thinking.

Says Caliguiri:

” It is well known that Pittsburgh’s pension fund doesn’t match our pension liabilities, so why don’t we band together and storm the halls in Harrisburg and demand a fair solution? When my father was mayor, that’s exactly what he did. It’s time to demand sensible, progressive reform out of Harrisburg that will help Pittsburgh solve its pension crisis. It is not too much to ask Harrisburg to give us the tools to address this problem. “

Storm the halls of Harrisburg and “demand a fair solution?” What do the other taxpayers outside of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County owe Pittsburgh for its inability to manage itself prudently and balance its own books? What does some taxpayer in Altoona or State College owe to our region’s voters, who never met a free handout or big government union contract they didn’t like?

Mr. Caliguiri’s father might have been able to get away with stiffing the taxapyers of other regions for Pittsburgh’s wasteful ways, but that’s immoral. That’s spoiled child politics — spend yourself into oblivion and demand daddy bail out your butt? This is the mentality that has bankrupted this region, and one that sends businesses and bodies heading for elsewhere.

Can’t afford it? Too bad!

“The inefficiency of the Port Authority is a problem that must be addressed, but we should also consider what other cities and states already seem to know — that a strong public transit system can boost your economy. Let’s now plan how to extend our light-rail system to Oakland and the airport and how to pay for it. It’s not too much to ask, we just need to come together and make our demands heard by those that we elect.”

Let’s start by breaking the monopoly of the Port Authority and forcing it to pay its own way. You wonder why the dang thing is bleeding with inefficiency? Why its contracts and pensions can’t seem to make ends meet? Its a free lunch. They don’t exist! They yank money out of the functioning economy to subsidize bloat and graft and that which is not productively contributing to growth. Get out of the way, let the free market compete in taxis, buses, and trains. End all monopolies both public and private!

Continues Caliguiri:

Our outdated tax structure needs to be reformed to increase the livability for our residents and the economic competitiveness for our businesses. Why don’t we begin by creating a practical approach to what regional governance might look like? And while we’re at it, let’s cut the state corporate taxes that drive away our jobs…

The first sensible words of the piece. And yet we have this central-planning thinking follows:

…and explore every efficiency possible so that more of our limited resources are put to making every neighborhood more livable. It’s not too much to believe that we can create jobs here in Pittsburgh and improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods.

We don’t need more people in high places determining what jobs need to come, and how the neighborhoods ought to look. Chad Herman was all over that, quoting the great David Lawrence as if he made the city great. In case you didn’t notice, Renaissance I heralded a lot of action that lead to the decline of many neighborhoods, including the cauterization of the Hill District from Downtown. If he was so great, why did we need Renaissance II by Caliguiri’s father — which itself was another visual feast, but if we measure its success twenty years later you find more and more businesses closing shop and citizens heading elsewhere. The City was as bankrupt as ever by 2002.

When will we learn “if you build it, they will come” does not work when centrally planned?

Continues Caliguiri:

We all love our city and want to reclaim our stake as truly the most livable city in America. Remember, Theodore Roosevelt said that Pittsburgh gave a lesson to the rest of the United State because our actions spoke louder than our words. I believe that our time has come when we can once again teach the rest of America how to rebuild a city. I am confident that this same desire compelled Mayor David Lawrence to see Pittsburgh through Renaissance I and guided my father’s vision for Renaissance II. But now it’s our turn, so what do we do?

Roosevelt’s words were about the private initiatives of the City of Pittsburgh, not celebrating any centralized planning initiatives! In so far as Caliguiri is suggesting we cut off the local politicians from further driving the region into the ditch by confiscating the property of some and redirecting it to whomever they anoint, I’m all for it. But City Hall had nothing to do with what made Pittsburgh great 100 years ago.

No, back then it was free thinking leaders who were unbridled by meddling government middlemen. It has been those meddlers who, over the next 100 years, mastered the art of redirecting capital investment and grwoth away from compounding in the productive sector where it would naturally stay. Instead, these central planners worked to ply more and more resources from the engine of wealth creation, redirecting it to the politically connected — to special interest business deals and to special interest, uncompetetive (absent the force of government) labor. This newfangled “progressive” Pittsburgh that emerged as the 20th century moved on has led the country down the path to where we are today: a Country that cannot afford to buy what it makes because too many are parasitically bleeding their hosts dry / driving the costs into the stratosphere.

That said, I’m very leery of Caliguiri’s “we” since it sounds like just another version of the last 100 years of ever increasing collective thinking, which has done very little other than slowly bleed the region of its productive life, trading it for unfordable agreements with local labor and lots of debt. Who are we trying to kid here?

Continues Caliguiri:

Perhaps the real answer is that it is up to all of us, collectively, to lead Pittsburgh to our next Renaissance. I know that our best days are still in front of us; the only question that remains is who among us has the courage to take action and lead the way. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

Yes, it is up to all of us. But not a “collective” in any sense that it is led by some centralized authority who gets to force centrally planned solutions down the throat of those of us who have our own, private ideas of how to grow the regions. (Need we more Allegheny Centers or Lazarus deals??)

For that matter, it should not be any solution that pushes the tab for our pipe dreams onto innocent taxpayers elsewhere across the state. Nor the Unionized “punch in and out”, don’t do more than your job description / entitlement mentality that gifts hard earned resources to politically connected businesses and labor.

The leadership we need is the kind we never get: those with the courage to say “enough is enough” with the free lunches and central planned redistribution that is killing the region, but feeding a gargantuan parasitic infrastructure.

Too bad that ain’t gonna float any time soon. History shows that those who seize control of the political apparatus always bleed it dry. They’d as soon turn the region into a Third World kleptocracy as turn over their power and restore it to the individual citizens of the region. Only when they can’t keep going to Harrisburg or elsewhere to paper over their waste and corruption will local taxpayers and voters who support such garbage finally be faced with looking in the mirror and paying for their own lousy voting records.

Then, and only then, will they be left facing reality. Hopefully there will still be enough sane, free thinking go getters left in the region to restore order at that point, as this corrupted central planning parasitic class is no better than ex Soviet State socialists — where the people have forgotten how to not fleece others for their benefit, and never understood the importance of free markets, private property rights, liberty and freedom, to the creation of real wealth. They only know how to leach.

That much Pittsburghers of the late 1800s understood. I’m sure Teddy Roosevelt did, as well.

ShareThis

I’ve been following the case so far, and as best I can tell — Wecht appears pretty damned guilty of what he’s accused.

The defense appears to have the following as its rebuttal:

1. So he bilked a few grand here and there? What’s the big deal?
2. Isn’t all this a bit petty for the big guys at the Feds to be chasing?
3. This is local jurisdiction stuff, not Federal — it must be political!
4. His clients don’t seem to care they got bills padded with more than the actual costs, why should the Feds?
5. Why don’t you all just shut up and be grateful that Dr. Wecht graced your silly County with his presence?

What amazes me is how many locals are coming to this guy’s defense in letters to the editor and so forth. It goes to show how politics have worked in Allegheny’s one-party system for the last 70 years.

You see, in politics, to the victors go the spoils. Dr. Wecht is a winner of the correct party, and therefore we turn a blind eye at all his petty crime. The same way we turned a blind eye to the petty crime in the County Sheriff’s Department. The same way we accept, for sake of our Union Brotherhood, that government workers deserve to fleece the taxpayers no matter how bad the fleecing is — who cares if some sleep on the job, or goof off, or if a contracter pads the bills. We tolerate it because we know our brother, uncle or father got his job or contract through a family member or friend who was, perhaps, a ward chairman. So we like that patronage– knowing the right political crony can help get it done.

That’s just they way things work, Right? Wecht is just like all of us, Right? We’d do it too, if we could!

Folks, that’s slouching towards Kleptocracy. That’s how it’s done in the Third World, and why the Third World is perpetually stuck as the Third World. That’s exactly why the Feds are the only ones who can clean up local corruption and petty crime: Because the local system is too corrupted to fix it itself.

This local citizen does not mind Federal resources being used this way. Admittedly, I’ve been a big fan of Wecht over the years, and this is a real bummer. His challenging of the local authorities and BS has been a great asset to the region.

But that does not justify crimes. Too bad his office culture slouched to be no better than petty criminal, and for that he should pay.

As should the entire region for having such low expectations of it government authorities.

ShareThis