Anyone viewing or listening to political advertising will be graced at the end of the ad with the statement “this has been a paid political announcement.”

Recently, I’ve become particularly annoyed with the use of the word “free” when it comes to programs, projects and offerings to the public that are underwritten in part or in whole by some level of government – or more correctly, taxpayers.  Whether it is a local library promoting a “free” senior literature program (in a San Diego case, it also comes with “free” care for other seniors in one’s care) given by paid staff or the federal government advertising the food stamps program, it is high time that we have some disclosure, or at least a reminder of who is paying the bill.

In California (and perhaps elsewhere), highway and bridge construction projects usually include a “Your Tax Dollars At Work” sign that includes the cost of the project.  And in those rare cases when a project is done ahead of schedule, a banner is plastered over the original sign bragging about it.  No surprise that we don’t see a “we’re late and over budget” sign in the other cases.

When talking about nationalized healthcare, it seems that too many people are caught up in the erroneous concept of “free healthcare” and a reminder that nothing is free is warranted.

With that, a modest proposal:

• For those programs that are completely taxpayer funded, the word “free” must be replaced with “taxpayer funded.”

• Subsidized programs must included some mention of the fact of the subsidization and the amount of subsidization.  For example, an Amtrak ticket of $25 that relies on a $25 subsidy from taxpayers any advertising must be stated along the lines of “Amtrak’s new special is $25 between Boston and New York.  The real cost of the trip is $50 and the other $25 is being paid by a taxpayer subsidy.”

• Advertising done by or on behalf of a government agency or program is to include “this program is funded by taxpayers.”

To make the point even more clear, it would be great to include the total amount being spent.  For example, “this program costs $25 million and is brought to you by the US taxpayer.”

Will all of this become monotonous because it states the obvious?  Perhaps, but too many people don’t think about it and need to be reminded just how many things they are paying for and just how ubiquitous government spending really is and just how much it is being wasted.

This is refreshing.  The Arizona state legislature has introduced HCR 2024:

A concurrent RESOLUTION

claiming sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the constitution of the united states over certain powers, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.

While not that familiar with it, apparently New Hampshire has already passed such a resolution.  Who’s next?

It’s about time the states started fighting against all the federal mandates and garbage.  Now, let’s get control of the states!

So, now Oprah wants to talk with Sarah Palin. Let’s hope Palin declines!

More on the story at Gateway.

Oprah’s ratings slipped when she campaigned for Obama. Let’s hope Sarah does not help revitalize them.

Sarah: Just say no!

A lot of head scratching has been going on with BHO’s record-setting fund raising activities. $150 million in September alone? During an economic downturn?

Perhaps some pieces are finally starting to come together and explain some of the less than honest activities.

From Free Republic (via Atlas Shrugs)

Somebody, high up, has access to millions of credit card, and possibly debit card accounts. This is how it works: An apparent charge appears on your account, then through the correction process, it disappears. An unauthorized charge delivers the funds to control of an intermediary, and the intermediary then reimburses the original draft on the account. The intermediary is a wealthy consortium of manipulators, who take the small contribution (always less than $200, so as to avoid the reporting requirements of name and occupation of the original source), thus providing hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of “contributors”, and allowing ineligible contributors to cover up their participation. It would take the research of literally thousands of these accounts to uncover the pattern of “mistaken” charges, and if these accounts are held outside the US, there would be no overview of these transaction by any of the authorities that govern these transfers in this country. The only check on this is to review your own account, and those who had their accounts used in this manner. If individuals or corporate entities are already supporting Obama, or the Democrat National party, or any of the 527s that are anti-Republican, THEY are not going to say anything.

See a more complete analysis at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/who-is-john-gal.html.

This would also help explain a $175,000 donor who didn’t even know it! (via Instapundit.

Still waiting for some crack journalist to jump on this one. Hell, one of them has to decide to be the next Woodward or Bernstein!