Political Hard Ball Threatens Your Freedom

You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask off the ol' Lone Ranger.

And you can't repeal the laws of economics.

Okay, it doesn't rhyme, but it's true, and that's just as important.

There are some headlines today that all have a common theme.

U.S. Threatens to Rescind Stimulus Money Over Wage Cuts (California)

Obama Budget Nixes Aid for Jailing Illegal Immigrants

U.S. Political Risk Grows in Financial Crisis

You can read the details for yourselves, but here's a quick synopsis of each story.

1) The State of California is bumping against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a powerful and increasingly suspect organization that has strong ties to President Obama. In trying to get control of its budget, California's legislature tried to lower the hourly wage of home health-care workers from $12.10 to $10.10. California may be out of money by July if it doesn't do several things to cut costs. The Obamatons are threatening to pull $6.8 billion.

This is hard-ball politics, pure and simple. Union protectionism versus budget responsibility. Compassion is not an issue here, but the laws of economics are. So is the issue of disenfranchisement, as the judgment of the people's elected legislature is being superceded by unions and federal bureaucrats.

2) Obama proposes to kill the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which spends about $400 million to reimburse states for jailing illegal border crossers, most of whom have committed crimes. As a senator, Obama supported this program. Now he sees it as a way to further other aims, including the attempt to bamboozle us as to his budget cutting credentials.

Border security is supposed to be a federal responsibility. We know it's a joke. Under Obama, the joke is totally on each state. Here the Obama administrations appears to want to use the laws of economics to reduce border enforcement by state and local governments.

3) Let's actually review some of what the UK Guardian writes:

Political risk is becoming a growing concern for investors in the United States as the government plays a larger and more controversial role in private enterprise because of the financial crisis.

State intervention in economic affairs is always closely watched by investors for what it means for their decisions on where to allocate money, although this is usually more of a worry in emerging markets than in developed economies.

Political risk is becoming more of a U.S. issue as some investors howl over what they see as arbitrary intrusion by the government in business affairs.

They view President Obama's restructuring plan for bankrupt automaker Chrysler as an attempt to subvert the legal rights of lenders and say lenders will also be unfairly targeted if the U.S. Congress passes a bill to rewrite bankruptcy law to reduce home mortgage payments.

The Chrysler situation was an attempt to put the union workers ahead of the legal rights of lenders who were guaranteed BY LAW first claim on the company's assets. This is hard-ball politics, and the American people are beginning to realize it.

You cannot do this and expect to pay no price, economically or politically. What happens when investors no longer play ball in America? Our economy completely tanks. There are enough risks right now with bloated federal budgets crowded out private lending capital and threatening to gut the dollar, without adding the political risk that at any given moment the federal government can decide to take over the firm in which you invested your life's savings.

This isn't just risky, it is wrong. In America we have enshrined the rights to acquire and develop property in our legal system. Our last two presidents -- Bush and Obama -- have shown us they do not believe in property rights. That's where the political price comes into play.

You'd better ask yourself pretty soon whether getting revenge on "the rich" and "big business" is worth trashing the lifestyle you enjoy and the freedoms you cherish.

You cannot have social freedom, the right of association, free speech, religion (or no religion) if you do not have property rights. They are all interlinked. Allow the government to usurp one, even if you think it's for the greater good, and you will find that the others crumble away.