Ever Wonder Where Your Local Property Taxes Go?

A Redding, CT non-partisan action group has created an on-line calculator to demonstrate how the town spends local property taxes. In the state of Connecticut nearly all local government is funded by one of the highest property taxes (taxes on real estate and registered vehicles, i.e boats, cars, motorcycles, etc.) in the nation.
Although the distribution of expenses in your town will not be exactly the same as Redding's, the calculator still gives you a general idea of what the budget requirements are for a typical town.

The calculator can be found at the following link:

http://betterredding.org/html/taxspending.html

One thing that is noticed immediately is that 71.4% of the town budget is spent on the public school. This is again typical of a Connecticut town. Connecticut spends more per pupil on public education than any state. Despite this spending, Connecticut remains in the mid-30's in standardized test scores, including SAT scores.

Thanks NABR for bring transparency to taxpayers with regards to local government spending.

Ban Baby Ban! A Short List of Items Banned by State Law in the State of Connecticut

Here is a short list of banned items, by state law, in CT. Some of the items may surprise you.

Banned:
- Sunday hunting
- Sunday alcohol sales
- Sale of alcohol past 9 PM
----------Just recently bumped up from 8 PM
- Incandescent light bulbs in state buildings
----------A mandate to require mercury filled, China manufactured, compact fluorescent bulbs

- Smoking in any public place, including bars

----------The states two mega-sized, mega-profit, mega-tax contributing Indian casinos are exempt

- Talking on a cell phone while driving

----------Listening to the radio is still allowed

- Gambling

----------Allowed in the aforementioned Indian casinos
----------Apparently the state run lottery is not considered gambling

- Fireworks

----------Legislature was duped into allowing "sparklers" a few years ago

- Hunting with a rifle on public land

- Driving without a seat belt

- "Non-healthy" snacks in public school snack machines
---------- No soda, candy, etc.
- Jarts
- Common sense----------Not really, but some times it seems like it

On the Docket:
- Transfat in restaurants
- Billboards along the highways
----------Even though the state of CT is a top purchaser of billboard advertising space

Bans Recently (within approximately 10 years) Lifted:
- Auto dealerships open on Sundays
- Radar detectors

Curiously Not Banned:
- Riding a motorcycle without a helmet
----------Seat belts, yes! Helmets, no!

-An open container of alcohol in a car

-Civil unions

Things that Should be Banned, but Are Not:

- Speedo's on the beach if you're male
- Wearing a blue tooth headset in public

Connecticut: Super-nanny of the nanny states.

Note: For some reason the formatting on this post is terrible. I tried, but the software would not let me fix it. I had to use these ridiculous dashes instead of bullets, and the spacing is all screwed up.

New Concept for Illegal Alien Problem -- Alternative to a Sanctuary City

You may have recently heard that the city of Hartford, CT USA has just passed legislation to make Hartford a "sanctuary city". What that means is that city officials are no longer able to ask if someone is a legal US citizen. The city basically turns a blind eye to illegal aliens. If an illegal alien comes to the Hartford town hall seeking some type of aid (welfare, etc), they will get it regardless of the fact that they are illegally in the United States. Apparently officials that have sworn to uphold the law believe they only have to uphold the laws they like. As ridiculous as the idea of a "sanctuary city" seems to any logically thinking individual, that's not the main point of this post. The recent legislative activities in Hartford made me spend some time contemplating the issue of illegal immigration.

What should be done with an illegal immigrant? In Hartford the answer is nothing, but that certainly does not seem like the right approach. It's so wrong on so many levels that I don't believe I should even go into further discussion here. I could write pages on why the "sanctuary city" concept is wrong. Some say illegal immigrants should summarily be pursued and deported. The argument is that they are law breakers, and the sovereignty of the US boarders needs to be honored. However, this iron fist approach does not seem right either. It's easy to say, but it shows no nuance. Proclamations like "round 'em up and ship 'em out" fuel the liberal fire of portraying conservatives as heartless, mean spirited, and uncompassionate. Besides, such approaches demonstrate no real thought on the issue. There are many hard working illegal immigrants that have achieved in this country. The US wrestler, son of an illegal immigrant from Mexico, that just won a gold medal in the Beijing Olympics comes to mind. For most people their families, specifically their children, are the most important thing in their lives. I can't say that I would not come to the US to try to give my family a better life if I were poverty stricken in Mexico.

So the solution lies somewhere in between 100% deportation and 100% amnesty.

I'm here to propose a new concept. I'm not here to say it's the greatest concept, but it is at least a unique concept to try to address the issue. I have not worked out every detail, but the concept would be called socio-economic asylum. It's not a totally new concept. It's based off of political asylum that most western countries already offer. Political asylum is typically granted to people that are displaced or can not return to their native country due to issues such as civil war, or an oppressive government. The United States could grant socio-economic asylum to people that are not able to engage in the pursuit of happiness (or life or liberty) due to hopeless economic conditions in their native country. Here's how it would work: Once someone comes to this country (illegally), they would not have access to social services (welfare, permission to work, unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance, etc.) unless they apply for socio-economic asylum. In fact, they would not be guaranteed access to anything, including constitutional rights since the US Constitution applies only to US citizens. The requirement of applying for socio-economic asylum would need to be strictly enforced. No sanctuary. If you want services, you need to at least apply. This would do a couple of things. First, the government would have documentation on the illegal immigrants. No more guessing who is illegal, and how many are out there. Secondly, by agreeing to be a part of this asylum program, the government would have the opportunity to make special demands on the individual. Remember, this person has come to the United States illegally. In order to be granted amnesty for their crime it is not outrageous for the United States to put some demands on these individuals.
There would also be a process for people to seek socio-political asylum before coming to the US. If granted asylum, the follow-up demands from the government would be much less on these people because they do not have to work to achieve amnesty for the crime of coming to the US illegally.
First, the socio-economic asylum-seeker would need to prove that his situation was hopeless in his former country. You can not come to US simply because you want more stuff. Socio-economic asylum can only be granted if, through little fault of your own, you would not be able to improve your lot in life if you stayed in your former country. Second, you need to also prove how this would change by coming to the US. If you were living on welfare in some other country, you can't just plan to come to the United States because the welfare pay is better. You need to have a skill or some plan of how your circumstances could be improved by relocating to the United States. If you have a skill, you can not just come to the US to pursue your craft simply because the pay is better. For example, if you are a chef and your plan is to come to the United States and use your savings to start a restaurant, you would have to prove that a similar plan could not be implemented just as easily and effectively in your former country. You would need to give reasons. If the United States is going to take you in and provide this asylum, the government should have assurance that the aslyum-seeker is going to try in good faith to be a productive member of the United States. The idea is that the United States becomes a better, not a worst place for letting the person in. If the asylum-seeker's plan is solid, the government could possibly even provide some assistance in getting started, but that's open for debate.
Once the asylum seeker has proved all this, his socio-economic asylum application would be preliminarily approved pending further commitments. Within a certain time frame, these further commitments would include:

• Need to demonstrate progress towards getting off of social services.
• Need to stay "clean". That means, no illegal activity of any sort.
• Need to take English classes or demonstrate a proficiency in English. If you are able to teach yourself, that's fine, but you would eventually need to pass a basic exam.
• After getting established, need to commit to volunteer some minimal amount of hours to council other socio-economic asylum seekers through the process. Something like 2 to 4 hours per week seems fair.
• Need to be working towards eventual full citizenship.
  

If these stipulations are not met by a certain amount of time, the individual receives sanctions, and faces possible deportation. There would be a zero tolerance policy for the bullet regarding not engaging in illegal activity. That would lead to immediate deportation. However, if the illegal immigrant could make it though this process, they would first be granted asylum, then eventually possibly full citizenship.

A program such as this would produce a citizen that is ready to contribute and improve the United States, rather than drain it.

The flip side is that deportation would have to be strictly enforced for anyone that does not participate in the program, or refuses to meet the stipulations.

I'm not typically one for suggesting new government bureaucracy to address an issue. However, even the most fiscally conservative person has to agree that there are some problems that government is necessary to handle. Mostly, these illegal immigrants are trying to do the best they can to provide a life for their families. The United States provides political asylum, so why would socio-economic asylum be so outrageous to at least consider?
There are special circumstances that could fast-track a person in the asylum process. For example, a wife or child that came to the US to escape an abusive husband. Someone in need of life saving medical care that would not be available in their former country. People that are denied education. People that are victims of discrimination so severe that they can't work. These people move to the front of the asylum line, but be wary because the asylum-seeker would eventually need to produce proof other than just their word.

There are other actions that would need to go hand-in-hand with the implementation of such a program. Employers would be severely fined for hiring non-documented illegal aliens. Authorities would need to proactively go after suspected employers of non-documented illegal aliens. Secondly, US boarder patrol would need to be improved. Third, a 100% deportation policy would need to be instituted for any illegal alien that did not at least apply for socio-economic asylum.
Once the potential illegal immigrants still in their home country know that the US is serious, they would not attempt to come to the US on a whim.

I'm not arguing that this is the best idea ever. It still would have a lot of details to be figured out. However, it's a much more compassionate approach to the 100% deportation crowd, and a much more practical approach to the 100% automatic amnesty crowd.

What are your thoughts and ideas?

Note: I just came up with this idea today, so feel free to let me have it.

Readers Bare with Me

I need to beg the pardon of Liberty Alert readers of late. I've been a bit under the weather fighting a sudden and pesky summer cold, so I'm not able to post with the frequency I would like.

Hopefully this week I will be as close to full strength as I can be to resume my goal of posting once every 1, 2 or 3 days.

Thanks for your understanding.

Gadsden Flag -- First Flag of the United States

Neil Cavuto is a New Liberty Alert Hero

I'm a little late to the party on this one, but Neil Cavuto of the Fox News Network has become my new hero for this week. Up to this point, I have not seen a lot of Neil, but the other day I happened to catch an interview he conducted with New Jersey Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone regarding off-shore oil drilling. Neil Cavuto totally whipped the floor with this clueless congressman. You can see the transcript of the interview here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,399384,00.html

Unfortunately I was not able to find a video of the interview. However, since I was so impressed with this interview, I searched for other Neil Cavuto interviews. Check out this one on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUsLLDClJRE

It's refreshing to finally see a reporter that does not take any bull from these double talking politicians.

I can't speak for Neil Cavuto's entire body of work, but these recent interviews really impressed me. I will be looking to catch Neil's show on the Fox News Network in the future. Neil's show is called Your World with Neil Cavuto. A link to the show is below:

http://www.foxnews.com/yourworld/index.html

Hartford, CT -- Local African American Leader Becomes An Apologist for Violence in City, Keney Park

This entry will discuss race. Read on if you dare! It's a delicate subject, but one that Liberty Alert readers deserve to explore. If you want the news, you can go to CNN. If you want watered-down, low risk opinions, you can go to the op-ed page of your local newspaper. Liberty Alert tries to provide opinion not concerned with political correctness.
I recently played a round of golf at Keney Park golf course in the heart of Hartford, Connecticut. The golf course was fine. However, while trying to find the course I had to drive all around Keney Park. Keney Park is a series of forested and park areas, including ball fields, playgrounds, and a golf course. It is quite large and is split by several through roads. While driving through the park, in the back of my mind I physically feared for my safety. I passed by groups of people apparently just "hanging out" around parked cars. Yes, nearly all the people were minorities (African American or Hispanic). Young men with their pants sagging walked in front of my moving car apparently oblivious to the fact that I might hit them. It was a display of passive-aggressive (or maybe aggressive-aggressive) behavior to try to intimidate. As I slowly drove by in my business-casual clothes I thought I heard people shouting at me as I panned my head back-and-forth looking for the golf course. At the time, I told myself it was all my imagination. It was my prejudices as a white male from a mostly rural background that were making me have irrational fears, or so I told myself at the time. Anyway, despite the uncomfortable moments, I found the golf course and played my round without much issue.
Then came the news this week. Dead body found in Keney Park. I started investigating further. The week before: Woman sexually assaulted in Keney Park. I started to re-evaluate the thoughts and fears I had during my recent drive through Keney Park. Maybe my fears were not irrational at all. Perhaps my fears were not a by-product of profound prejudices. I'm sure there are African Americans out there that would argue the contrary, but the data does not lie. My instincts were dead-on. I'm a relatively young, and healthy man. Imagine how a woman or older person would have felt taking the same drive I did.
Perhaps by co-incidence, perhaps not, columnists in the local newspaper, The Hartford Courant, have recently written columns touching on crime in Hartford. One of the columns describes the fear of Hartford living. A white male authored this column. The second column discussed police prejudice, how Keney Park was an "underplayed asset" within Hartford, and how Keney Park was indeed safe. It's interesting that two different columnists for the same paper could have such different perspectives on the same subject. Something did not add up here.
The column regarding fear in Hartford was by well-known local liberal radio talk-show host and columnists Colin McEnroe. I describe Colin as a liberal not in a derogatory way, but as a fact. He does not hide his political tendencies. He is as openly liberal as Rush Limbaugh is openly conservative. The column by Colin printed July 27th was one of the most interesting columns I have read from Mr. McEnroe. You can read the column at the following location: http://www.courant.com/news/local/columnists/hc-colin0727.artjul27,0,3116101.column The title is "When the City You Love Starts to Scare You". The column explains how Mr. McEnroe moved to Hartford because he enjoys the choices and diversity of urban life. However, it goes on to detail instances of crime and police incompetence that have made his favorite city unlivable, even for a single, successful man without any family to worry about. At the conclusion of the column Mr. McEnroe explains that he will be doing what nearly all people of means have done in Hartford: He is moving out in 2 weeks. Who can blame him? Why should a successful, smart, generally peaceful person subject themselves to crime, violence, and fear? Still, it's sad. In his words, Colin McEnroe was someone deeply committed to city life. He put his faith in city life. He put his faith in the goodness of people. In the end, his faith was stomped upon by thugs, and well as a police department that seems to accept thuggery.
Just one week prior (July 19th) prominent African American columnist and also part-time radio talk show host Stan Simpson wrote a different column. I describe Mr. Simpson as an "African American" columnist because that is generally how he identifies himself. Most of his columns have to do with race, and his blog site, stansimpson.com, is dedicated to "the African American experience". He considers himself one of the leaders of the African American community. (Aside: Isn't it interesting that Caucasians do not have any "community leaders"? Caucasians do not consider themselves part of the "white community". You would never see a Caucasian running for president of the United States who's previous work experience included the job title of "Community Organizer", what ever that is! Ok, just an interesting sidebar. Back to the main point now.) I have enjoyed hearing his perspective through his radio show, and reading his columns. In his July 19th column Mr. Simpson laments that a new Hartford police officer considers Keney Park dangerous. The column can be read at: http://www.courant.com/news/local/columnists/hc-ctstan0719.artjul19,0,5984769.columnMr. Simpson states, “Anyone who has ever visited Keney to golf, watch cricket, play basketball or fire up a grill knows that it is safe.” Mr. Simpson goes on to criticize the Hartford police officers stating that the young officers lack “seasoning”. Hello! Talk about denial! Does the woman who was just sexually assaulted in Keney Park believe it’s safe? What about the family of the dead man just found in the park? I myself have driven through Keney Park and my instincts told me it was not safe. My instincts were supported by the recent crime headlines. Who better to know about crime in Hartford than a Hartford police officer? Then there was the column by Mr. Simpson’s colleague at The Hartford Courant (and I can assure you that Colin McEnroe and Stan Simpson know each other) explaining the violence that is driving him to the suburbs. In light of all these events, I spent some time considering how such a chasm could form between my perceptions (backed up by Colin McEnroe, and a Hartford police officer) and Stan Simpson’s perceptions. Are black and Hispanic people the only people who can feel safe in Keney Park?
I did some digging into crime statistics in Hartford. Hartford has way too many urban problems for a relatively small city. People may be surprised to learn that Hartford has a population of only about $120,000 people. Most people familiar with the city think it would be more. This is hardly a huge metropolis. It’s not even the biggest city in the small state of Connecticut. It is third largest behind Bridgeport and New Haven, which have populations around 120,000 to 140,000. Despite Hartford’s small size, murder in Hartford is nearly 5 times the national average! Overall violent crime is 2.42 times the national average. Compare that to the similar sized cities in the state of Connecticut, such as Bridgeport and New Haven. Bridgeport’s violent crime rate is 1.62 times the national average, and New Haven’s violent crime rate is .26 times (i.e. under the national average) the national average. That’s the real data. Then there’s the anecdotal data, such as my unpleasant drive through Keney Park, as well as the Hartford hit-and-run story. It made national news when the hit-and-run of an elderly man was caught on tape. The outrage came when nobody bothered to help the man after the accident. See the coverage at this link: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5013503
Hartford is too small of a city to have these big city issues. The mayor and the Hartford Police chief should be ashamed. Perhaps one might expect crime issues in cities with 1 million plus people like Detroit, Washington DC, or New York, but Hartford has unrealistic big-city expectations if the perception is that crime at this level is acceptable.
It might be tough to hear, but demographics are a big issue here. Nobody that has the means to move out would stay in Hartford. Colin McEnroe is a perfect example. Therefore, Hartford is left with an 80% minority population with an equally high percentage below the poverty line. African American leaders such as Stan Simpson cannot remain in denial. Keney Park is not safe. Hartford is not safe. Hartford is not a place that anyone with any other option would choose to live. Hartford is not a thriving community. View the hit-and-run video again as a reminder. Bill Cosby has been an outspoken advocate of accountability within the African American community. Leaders like Stan Simpson should stop being apologists for the disgraceful urban culture that thrives on intimidation, machismo, and violence. Instead of criticizing the police perception, perhaps leaders should advocate responsibility, accountability, and just plan politeness within the urban minority community. A city of 120,000 in the middle of the wealthiest state in the wealthiest country in the world has the potential to overcome these issues. Perhaps suburban people will have more interest in investing in the city if they are able to feel as safe passing through the city as a city-dweller would feel passing through the suburbs.

Two final questions to ponder: Does Stan Simpson live in Hartford? If so, why?

"Republicans get out of my bedroom! Democrats get out of my wallet!"

This was a great quote I heard today while listening to the Jim Vicevich radio show on WTIC.com. Jim is a Libertarian leaning Republican who has a radio show from 10 to 12 AM Eastern time on WTIC 1080 in Hartford, and WTIC.com. Jim has a great show. His views and core values regarding government are the closest to my own that I have found in all media (print, TV, radio, etc.). I recommend the show. I've put a link to his show further down on the right side of this blog. Jim also has a blog here on blogger at radiovice.blogspot.com. I have not had much time to explore his blog, but I hope to in the future.

I thought this quote from Jim summed it up nicely.

Just a quick post today because I think the quote speaks for itself.

Let's hear your thoughts, supporting or opposing.

Manny Ramirez Has Officially Jumped the Shark on Red Sox Nation

Note: On occasion, Liberty Alert will comment on events outside the world of politics, government, etc. These forays into other various topics will be occasional, and all fun. I've used this space before to discuss Manny Ramirez, so this entry is a sort of follow up to my previous entry.

OK, I've finally had it! I've been an apologist for Manny being Manny for a while now. I put up with the water bottle in the back pocket, the high fives while the ball is in-play, the bathroom breaks inside the Green Monster, the erratic fielding, the arguments with teammates, and even the phantom injuries. But enough is finally enough! In case you have not heard the latest, Manny Ramirez, perennial all star, World Series MVP, and future Hall-of-Famer has suddenly and mysteriously begged out of the last 2 games due to a supposed knee injury. What's worst is that his sudden unavailability came against the arch rival New York Yankees. The Red Sox have a $20 million team option on Manny next season that they have yet to exercise. Speculation is that Manny, who happens to be one of the top 5 highest paid players in the game, is unhappy with ownership for not yet picking up his option. Therefore, he is using this knee injury as the ultimate passive-aggressive revenge.
What does Manny Ramirez have to be upset about? Red Sox Nation has winced and looked away at all of the previous Manny-isms because the guy has produced at the plate. However, Manny has continued to show a lack of respect for his teammates, the Red Sox organization, the fans, and the game of baseball in general. In case you have not noticed (which I know that you have), Manny's production was significantly down last year. Red Sox Nation was able to look past it because Manny came through in the playoffs, followed by a decent first half this year. Regardless of his production, there comes a point when an organization and fan base needs to stand up for principles. Manny Ramirez is taking advantage of the good will of Red Sox Nation. It's a shame because he's one hell of a hitter, but he's finally gone too far.
I would not have said this a week ago, but I hope the Red Sox stand up and do not pick up Manny's option for next year. Instead of turning into a facsimile of the over-paid, over-arrogant Yankees, I would rather the Red Sox use the $20 million on a player(s) that cares as much about the team as the fans do. Let Manny be Manny somewhere else. What do you think?

Exercising Civil Disobedience While Paying Property Taxes

July and August is the time when vehicle property tax comes due in all 169 Connecticut municipalities. As if the property tax Connecticut residents pay on their real estate is not enough, like many states, Connecticut residents are also taxed on all registered motor vehicles including cars, trucks, campers, boats, and even trailers.

This summer, the tax payers here at Liberty Alert (i.e. me) used the opportunity to let the town of Bristol, CT know what we really think of their tax collection. See the attached picture. Each tax bill was separately mailed with a special label for the tax collector on each envelope.

Now, I fully understand that the tax collector does not determine the tax rate or tax system. However, this small act of civil disobedience was done not just for the benefit of the tax collector. Those envelopes will be seen by multiple post office employees, and likely some town hall staffers on the way to the tax collector. The envelopes may even draw enough attention to get the mayor or some council members in the act. The point is, this small act of rebellion could get noticed, and help encourage some civil disobedience in others. Is it a bit childish? Perhaps. But, in the spirit of Henry David Thoreau, a little civil disobedience is a good thing. Humor and satire can be a strong tool to get your point across. I look at it more like playing a prank on a good friend. You like the friend, but it's fun to see them go through a little harmless suffering. Don't let the government off the hook. It's ok to give the government a hard time once in a while. The government is not above being harmlessly punked. Remember, the government should fear the people, not the other way around!

Incidentally, Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau is an American classic that I highly recommend. The essay inspired such leaders as Martin Luther King and Gandhi. It is a quick read, and can likely be found at any local library. It's a must read. Look for a future book review of Civil Disobedience on Liberty Alert.

What the US Government Should Do About High Oil Prices -- Nothing

Nearly everyone in the US is struggling with the high price of gasoline driven by the recent run up in crude oil prices. Rightly so. In the United States, gasoline is closer to a utility service than a luxury item. The layout of the country requires gasoline to drive the economy. Where in Europe their transportation infrastructure was built upon rail travel, the United States has the greatest car-based infrastructure in the world. To get to the point, the US needs gasoline. So naturally, when prices go up, people look for relief. The question to ponder is; should US citizens look to government for that relief?
The US exists in what is supposed to be a free market economy. A free market has proven to be the most successful economic system. When government gets out of the way, the natural ambition of people is able to thrive. One needs only to look at the recent rise of the Chinese economy after the government loosened the reigns and moved towards a free market system to see the power of a free market economy. A free market is intended to be just that: free. Free from government meddling. Given time, free economies have been able to correct themselves. The forces of supply and demand are powerful. Perhaps even more powerful than anything the US government can do.
However, it's an election year. Candidates love to make promises to people. Republican or Democrat alike rarely miss an opportunity to promise government action to alleviate any ill. And what is government action? Essentially it's spending money. What is government money? It's our money! Spending money to try to save money does not make sense, especially when you consider the device spending the money is the highly inefficient government machine. Regardless, this does not stop the pandering from politicians. I'm reminded of the old saying "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Government seems to believe that more government is the only solution to any problem. Perhaps even more troubling than the political pandering on the campaign trail is the citizenry demand for government action. The victim-mentality of a large segment of the population constantly looks to government to solve every problem. This fuel that drives the growth of Big Government. Unfortunately, the price of that fuel seems to be all too low these days. Let it be known that although the Democrats are synonymous with Big Government, the Republican party is hardly innocent of the recent build up of Big Government.
I urge people to have a little patience and a little faith. Understandable that can be difficult, but it's necessary. I'm right in the high gas price fox hole with the rest of you. But I have faith in the free economy. Without any government action whatsoever, the price of oil has gone down for 2 weeks in a row. Again, the forces of supply and demand are at work. The market could not sustain such high gas prices. People are changing their habits. Americans are using less gasoline. Demand is down. Prices have followed. All this with no government action. I'm hardly naive enough to believe that were are out of the high-oil woods. The price can certainly spike back up. It can continue to climb. And if that happens, the free market will again react. Technology will step in. New technology that we have not even yet anticipated would eventually come to fruition. It might not happen over night, but I have the highest faith that the market would certainly respond quicker and more effectively than any government action.
So, is there anything the government can do? Certainly there are actions the government can take to promote beneficial behaviors. First and simplest, they could reduce regulations on drilling, allowing for more drilling. This is a great example of how government intervention staggers a free market economy. Loosening the regulations would allow the free market to respond to the natural market demand. I'm also open to hearing about potential government economic incentives. Perhaps tax breaks on alternative energy companies or users. However, beware of government intervention in the free market! Ridiculous ideas like a "wind-fall profits tax" is one of the scariest things I have ever heard escape the lips of a politician. What's even scarier is that when those words were uttered, the crowd cheered.