My boss,

Cal Beverly, who is even more conservative than I am,

tossed my way an editorial that had caught his eye from

the Atlanta Constitution.

It got my

attention too.

I have been

an avid reader of the Atlanta Journal/Constitution my

entire adult life, and part of my preadult life. Sadly,

the only vestige of the former Journal that remains in

the now combined AJC is a slightly more conservative

editorial page... very slightly. Except for that, Atlanta

has been served for some time now by a single

ultra-liberal voice.

That's why

in our Friday edition we inundate our readers with

conservative columns. There are some great thinkers out

there, and you're going to be exposed to only a tiny,

select portion of that thought anywhere else.

Back to the

editorial. In all the years that I have been a reader of

the Constitution, I can not remember a single time when

the paper's editorial board expressed concern over too

much federal government spending, or the until recently

out-of-control national debt... until now.

In this

editorial, the Constitution actually uses the word

"spendthrift" to describe what the editors feel

is a grossly irresponsible use of tax money.

What is the

proposed government extravagance that is so great that it

has gotten the attention of this longtime defender of the

debt?

The

Constitution wants to prevent those spendthrift

Republicans from letting you keep more of the money you

earned, and the editorial comes right out and declares

that you are too stupid to be allowed to decide how to

spend your own income... the government must do it for

you.

Here's the

quote: "The Federal Reserve Board, under the

leadership of Alan Greenspan, was concerned enough about

the overheating economy to raise interest rates

Wednesday. Its goal is to take some money out of

circulation, and thereby calm things down a bit. The

Republican tax-cut proposal, if enacted into law, would

more than undo Greenspan's effort at fiscal discipline by

putting hundreds of billions of dollars into consumer

pockets."

Heaven help

us! What fiendish insanity... what satanic impulse could

have given those hate-filled Republicans the idea of

putting into consumers' pockets the fruits of their own

labors?

To be

truthful, I have wondered lately whether the liberal mind

set isn't right. Given the amount and depth of corruption

that has attended the current administration and the

disinterest with which this has been greeted by the

American people, I begin to wonder whether perhaps people

really are too stupid to handle freedom.

Maybe

monarchy, dictatorship, or a fascist state in which the

government makes all of our decisions really would be

best.

Not that I

believe that for an instant, but even if it were true, I

would fight with my last breath for a system in which

people are free to make their own decisions and spend

their own incomes because it's right. It's just right.

The

Constitution editorial correctly points out that consumer

spending has risen faster than personal income in recent

months, indicating that people are spending more than

they are making. Maybe we really do need for Uncle Sam to

be our Big Brother and handle our money for us.

Or, could

it be that this discrepancy between earnings and spending

might be attributable to the fact that taxes are

snatching away half of what the average family earns?

If we had

more money in our pockets, would we do the responsible

thing and save more of it, invest it wisely or donate it

to charity, or would we be irresponsible and selfish, and

use it to buy things we haven't been able to buy before?

The answer

is irrelevant. I hope you advocates of big government can

follow this difficult logic: It's not up to you to decide

how we spend our money. IT'S

OUR MONEY!

Having said

all of that, I have to back-peddle a little bit. The

Constitution advocates paying down the national debt,

going slowly on tax cuts until we get it paid off.

That's

pretty amazing. For 50 years while Democrat-controlled

Congresses have run up the debt, they've never suggested

paying off the debt instead of bankrolling yet another

group of pork barrel projects, but they have a point,

regardless.

We should

pay off the debt. Until we do, tax cuts should be modest.

It's entirely possible to gradually reduce taxes to a

reasonable level while paying off the debt, as long as

the good economic times continue... and if we let people

keep more of their income, they'll spend some and save

some and the economy will do just fine.

Meanwhile,

in the long run it will all be meaningless unless we pass

a balanced budget amendment. Otherwise, it's just a

matter of time before some future Congress decides that

sending money back to the home state for projects that

feed the largest campaign contributors is more important

than balancing the budget, and we'll be right back in the

soup.

You see,

Atlanta Constitution, reality is exactly the opposite of

your assertion that the people are too stupid and selfish

to handle their own money and the government must do it

for them. The government is too stupid and selfish to

handle any more of our money than is absolutely necessary

to defend us from attack and protect our individual

rights.

The people

should keep the rest.

<!-------------