Does an American worker who fails to live within his income, have the right to demand a raise from his employer to make up for the money he squandered? No? Then why do our elected employees in the government feel that they have that right? I don't care where you live. If you live in a state that is being mismanaged by Democrats and/or liberal Republicans, then you know what I'm talking about.

These politicians serving the people in all levels of government must have some kind of cajones to waste and squander our money, then turn to us and say they need more because they have run the state into serious debt. Spending with them is like a drug addiction. They are like drug addicts who spend all of their money on drugs, then come asking for more money to continue their habit.

Yet we keep voting for them because too many believe their lies - that the money is being spent on essential public services. The trouble is, socialist politicians have a very liberal view of what is considered "essential" public services.

My favorite quote from California Senator Tom McClintock is: "If it's in the yellow pages, government shouldn't be doing it." Tom is absolutely correct. Commerce in America is the job of free enterprise and the business community, not the government. Yet, for some reason, our government today feels the obligation to compete with free enterprise. We have no better example today than the drive for an ever expanding government healthcare program.

Your U.N. at Work
The Wall Street Journal

The General Assembly of the United Nations voted this week to elect Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann as its new president. Readers with a long memory will recall Father D'Escoto (he's a Catholic priest) as Nicaragua's foreign minister during the Sandinista regime of the 1980s. He's also the winner of the 1985 Lenin Prize. Only at the U.N. does that count as a recommendation.

The U.N. also voted to name the government of Burma – which otherwise has been busy preventing humanitarian assistance from reaching hundreds of thousands of its own needy victims of last month's devastating cyclone – as one of the Assembly's vice presidents. Only at the U.N. is this not considered an embarrassment.

If that weren't enough, a U.S. official was present for the vote – which was by acclamation – when the U.S. could have at least protested the choice with an empty seat. Nor did the State Department make any effort to offer an alternative to Father d'Escoto, who ran unopposed. Somehow, we don't think this would have happened had John Bolton still been ambassador.

Speaking after his election, Father d'Escoto called for greater "democracy" at the U.N. – an odd remark coming from a former servant of a communist dictatorship. He also called for the U.N. to take a stand against "acts of aggression, such as those occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan." That would be American aggression, not the Taliban's, the Mahdi Army's or al Qaeda's.

A former Lenin Prize winner as General Assembly president and cruel Burma as vice president – another sick joke from the U.N.