Freedom comes in all shapes and sizes–and sanities. And so do families. As Tolstoy so wonderfully put it, “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” There’s a connection he’s making there between unhappiness and individualism–and between freedom and group identity. Unhappy families are uniquely messed up because the individuals in them won’t or can’t subordinate themselves to the collective will of the group. Happy families are boringly alike because borgs tend by definition to lack personality.

All of these ideas are brilliantly and madly at work in the new Spielberg-supported Showtime series, United States of Tara. Tara–played by the amazingly malleable Toni Collette–is a married mother of two who just happens to suffer from dissociative identity disorder. Her alters include a sex-crazed teenager named T, a Stepford-style 1950s homemaker named Alice, a spittin and chewin and cussin Vietnam vet named Buck, and an unnamed rainwear-clad prankster described by Tara’s husband Max as a “poncho goblin.” All of this makes for unpredictable and vibrant television–and for some fun, head-spinning reflection on the nature of freedom, of individuality, of happiness, of family.

And judging by the show’s title, that’s all intended.

Associated Press: WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy contracted at a staggering 6.2 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century, as consumers and businesses ratcheted back…

Act 53—the state law that put into motion the first disbursements from the gaming money for economic development projects—has already been the subject of considerable controversy because of the County taking first dibs on money intended for airport debt.

But the language in the act creating a “community infrastructure fund”, an $80 million stream “to fund construction, development, improvement, and maintenance of infrastructure projects” was overly broad. Now we begin to see the results of that language as grants and loans are made out of the fund, which has received $6.6 million thus far.

A retaining wall is infrastructure, as is a parking lot. But the fund has awarded money to Monroeville for promotion related to its convention center (funny how this would be infrastructure considering that Act 53 set aside three separate allocations for the Pittsburgh Convention Center and did not lump them in with the infrastructure language), a theater in the Hill District (again, work to the actual structure is here considered infrastructure), a fountain, and housing all received money from the Community Infrastructure and Tourism Board (there was no mention of tourism in the legislative language, but it is in the name of the board).

Don’t be surprised when, at the conclusion of the annual disbursements, the infrastructure of Allegheny County does not look much improved from the efforts of this money.

The most recent Franklin and Marshall College poll took the temperature of Pennsylvanians on the economy, the state budget, and the performance of elected officials. One of the questions it posed was on the Governor’s proposal to allow every other county outside of Allegheny and Philadelphia to raise its sales tax 1 percentage point for general revenue purposes.

An earlier blog noted that a Quinnipiac poll did not highlight the fact that the sales tax increase would only occur in 65 of the state’s 67 counties (if the Legislature passed a bill and the Governor signed it, county officials would still have to vote to implement the tax).

Here’s how the FM poll posed the question: “I am going to briefly describe some state budget proposals. For each, please tell me if you favor or oppose the proposal: allowing county governments to increase the sales tax by 1%”.

On the face of it, it looked like this survey missed as well. While likely not enough to sway the results significantly, not qualifying the question for respondents in Allegheny and Philadelphia means we don’t have a sense of what those folks feel about a sales tax increase in other counties—do they want others to “feel the pain” or are they generally opposed to tax increases? And are they suffering under the impression that their own sales tax might go up even more?

Getting viral on the internet is still pretty much a black-box enterprise. And of course, luck has something to do with it.

Prior to this over-extended 15 minutes of fame, Bentley economist Scott…

The Union Leader warns on its editorial page about the dangers of accepting money in the federal stimulus bill that will worsen New Hampshire’s long-term budget problem:

Gov. John Lynch has caught on to the scam that is the federal stimulus bill. He sees that some stimulus money would commit New Hampshire to higher state spending in the long run. He said on Monday he would consider rejecting that money.
The same day, he said New Hampshire should receive $50 million in Medicaid money from the stimulus bill by the end of the week. His office expects to include in the next state budget another $180 million in Medicaid subsidies from the stimulus bill. That money comes with strings that tie the state to higher Medicaid spending.

To get the Medicaid money, New Hampshire must agree not to eliminate any services or change eligibility requirements in a way that would reduce caseloads.

To get more welfare money, the state has to put more people on welfare.

To get more money for unemployment benefits, the state has to change its laws to allow more people to qualify for the benefits.

Whether they’re conservative or liberal, Wisconsinites can all agree on one thing:  We LOVE being from Wisconsin.  We love playing cardiac Russian roulette by gorging on cheese curds.  Nobody bats an eye when someone wants to be buried in a Packer jersey.  And we’re proud of the fact that the sub-zero weather gives us thick [...]

"Free people cannot be equal and equal people cannot be free."  I didn’t make that up, but it pretty well sums up the fundamental difference between those who believe in the power of individual freedom and responsibility to increase everyone’s prosperity, and those who argue that a more equal distribution of wealth will result in the greatest happiness for all…well not all but maybe the most.  Those people whose wealth is being redistributed probably won’t be as happy. 
We’re all born with different talents, ambitions, interests, luck, and a host of other circumstances that go into our relative success or failure.  Guaranteeing equal outcomes would require stifling or removing those things in some individuals and subsidizing them in others.  If you want to be free, you have to be free to succeed or to fail.  If you want to be equal, well, it’s the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" scenario.  And right now we’re seeing both sides of the equation being worked.  Success is being demonized and, as of this morning with President Obama’s new budget unveiling, taxed at an ever increasing rate.  Meanwhile trillions of dollars are being spent to reward those who have made bad decisions or were just unlucky.  That applies equally, by the way, to the banker who ran his business into the ground and the bozo who thought he could borrow his way to prosperity.
The key to note here is that people who see themselves as victims of the system or circumstances or whatever cause (other than themselves) argue for more sharing in the distribution of wealth and are willing to trade their freedom to succeed for equality with their neighbor.  It’s a milquetoast but comfortable existence where everyone can feel good about themselves, but not too good; at least not any better than their neighbor or some of their stuff would have to be taken away until things even out again.
On the other hand, people who believe in themselves are willing to trade equality for the freedom to use their talents, ambitions, luck and all that to succeed.  And when they fail they want the freedom to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and go at it again rather than becoming wards of the state…all the time knowing that when they do eventually succeed they’ll be able to enjoy the fruits of that success rather than being punished for their efforts.  And just as an aside, anyone who consumes the goods and services they provide will be better off for their efforts, too.
What’s amazing to me is that some people reading this will go away saying "Yeah, that whole milquetoast comfy thing sounds pretty good."  While others (most, I hope) will go away saying "Leave me alone and let me get at it!"  Unfortunately, the milquetoasts are winning right now, and they know that the only way they can truly succeed is to take freedom and responsibility from the rest of us.  It was happening in pieces before.  Now it’s happening in slabs.  Soon it’ll be too late to stop if those of us who just want to be left alone don’t pay attention and stand up for what’s right..

Ever since he was first elected to the State Assembly in 1998, Representative Mark Pocan has had a soft spot in his heart for the Wisconsin Taxpayers’ Alliance.  In May of 1999, Pocan charged the WTA with being a shill for Republican interests, earning him a nice little article in the Wisconsin State Journal, which [...]

Illustrating the notion of the “slippery slope” a panel discussion at the Mid-Atlantic gaming conference debated whether table games like poker and blackjack will be coming to Pennsylvania. Two slot parlor operators were in favor of the idea, noting that such an expansion would bring more gamblers, more jobs, and more state revenue from gaming.

The debate on table games actually goes back even further, and at a 2007 hearing of the House Gaming Oversight Committee, proponents posed the issue as a debate not over “if” but “when”.

Added to the table game debate is the concept floated by the Governor to legalize the poker machines that exist outside of the legal confines and oversight of the Gaming Control Board and are purportedly for “entertainment purposes only”. One of the legislators at the forum noted that the concept is “a major expansion of gaming in Pennsylvania, no matter how you slice it”.

It would only add to what is slated to happen within the slots framework: at the same forum the chair of the Gaming Board noted that this year there will be two new facilities opening in Pittsburgh and Bethlehem and two existing facilities, the Meadows Racetrack and Casino and Philadelphia Park Casino and Racetrack, slated to significantly expand. By that count there will still be more locations to open in future years at locations already authorized by the 2004 gaming law—one more racetrack location, two other non-racetrack locales, and still the possibility of two small resort facilities. With the possibility of table games and a whole new class of electronic gaming brought under the state’s purview, the landscape of gaming is only going to get bigger.