^[1]Camping out for nearly a month, yelling, chanting, and painting signs is apparently some people’s idea of a good time. But given all this time on their hands, and with just a little guidance, “Occupy Wall Street” protestors might really make a difference. They could, for example, help out this small-business owner.

Gene Mark has some creative action items for the protestors of “Occupy Wall Street.” In his witty Huffington Post piece ^[2], filled with good-natured sarcasm, Mark calls on the protestors to help his small business during protest down time. Trying to stay afloat in this low-growth economy and burdened with regulations, a complicated tax structure, and strong competition, his business would really appreciate a helping hand from this energetic group. He has jobs to fill and academic fat cats to slaughter, among other requests:

“…can you maybe study up on a couple of programming languages like C Sharp or Visual Basic?…The reason why I ask this is that my company does a lot of work with technology and we can’t seem to find skilled people to do the work that we have.…Would you mind dropping in on John Sexton, the President of NYU, who earns $1.3 million a year? I mean, if you’re going to protest greed, you might as well protest the higher education industry’s greed too. Because of the bloated administrations and tenured professors that have created this system, it’s going to cost me upwards of $55,000 per year to send each of my three kids to college.”

“Occupy Wall Street” protestors have an entirely different notion—giving more power to the government that bailed out the financial sector with taxpayer money and continues to generously distribute corporate welfare. According to Democratic pollster Doug Schoen ^[3],

“What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.”

Wall Street is the wrong place to occupy ^[4] if they’re truly concerned with corporate influence over government. The bloated government that has overstepped its constitutional boundaries is at the source of the crony capitalism they decry. (more…)

Listening to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) or reading The New York Times yesterday gave the impression that disaster relief victims were suffering from a lack of government aid.

“Without additional funding,” Reid ^{[1] [1]}warned ^[1], “thousands of people who have lost literally everything they owned will be forced to go without food and shelter.”

The New York Times, reporting from Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, noted ^[2], “Uprooted and desolate, hard-working people in this part of the country expect a bit more from their government.”

Yesterday, with Reid ^{[3] [3]}on ^{[3] [3]}the ^{[3] [3]}brink ^{[3] [3]}of ^{[3] [3]}forcing ^{[3] [3]}a ^{[3] [3]}government ^{[3] [3]}shutdown ^[3], the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced ^[4] that ^[4]things ^{[4] [4]}aren ^[4]‘t ^{[4] [4]}so ^{[4] [4]}dire ^[4]. The agency has $114 million on hand for the remainder of the week, enough to get through the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

So the agenda of the tax-and-spend crowd is now clear. President Obama created the problem by overusing FEMA on disasters ^[5] a record 222 times so far this year where federal aid was not essential. Then liberals manufactured a crisis and exploited disaster relief victims in order to keep expanding the size of government. What’s worse is that the some members of the media played along with it.

Not once in yesterday’s Times story does it mention the role of private charities in and around Tunkhannock. Yet a few phone calls by Heritage revealed that these organizations are doing yeoman’s work for flood victims. They’re playing a vital role that Reid and the Big Government amen corner completely ignored in the funding dispute. (more…)

Obamacare Has Arrived in the Supreme Court

Posted By Hans von Spakovsky On September 28, 2011 @ 11:00 am In Health Care,Rule of Law

First Lady Michelle Obama’s obsession with “childhood obesity” has bothered many since it began two years ago, especially those who think that White House nagging of parents should be reserved for more pressing issues. Now it is getting more serious, with food regulators starting to infringe on the free speech rights of advertisers.

In the latest upset, four federal agencies known as the Interagency Working Group (IWG) have delivered a plan to drastically censor food advertisers with products deemed to be “too high” in sodium, sugar, or fat that cater to any viewing audience between the ages of two and 11. These advertisers would lose key slots during some of America’s most popular shows, like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, and Glee—simply because the nanny state is “uncomfortable” with what they are selling.

The IWG, formed within the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to study childhood obesity and offer possible solutions, has gone far beyond their descriptive reach. Now, perfectly reasonable companies may be penalized severely.

The regulators plan to get away with this by disguising their rules as “voluntary guidelines.” In reality, the guidelines are anything but optional, according to food manufacturers affected by them. (more…)