Whether we’ll admit it or not, we are a communist nation. As such, no one is free to fail. No one is free to succeed either. In fact, no one is free at all. We are all pawns in the hands of the politicians - those proud men and women who tell us that they take our money for our own good. Since this country wasn’t originally intended to become a communist nation, these schemers still mostly have to steal our money on weekends.

At irregular intervals, the weekend also brings news of the latest installment of the incremental nationalization of the investment markets. This began several months ago with the federally backed and brokered buy-out of Bear Stearns. Over the most recent weekend this process reached an important milestone when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were transformed from fascist entities — that is, “public-private” partnerships — into fully realized, federally owned socialist organs.

Legendary investor Jim Rogers, as usual, speaks the unalloyed truth when he observes that the Fannie/Freddie bailout demonstrates that “America is more socialist than China right now,” with government redistributing wealth for the benefit of the politically connected super-rich. (That’s how socialism always works in practice, of course.)

Once again, to the surprise of nobody who has been paying attention, this development was praised by the presidential candidates from both wings of the Ruling Party. And as with all such socialist undertakings, the very first priority of the officials who seized Fannie and Freddie was to assure the apparatchiks that their jobs were secure.

Security only lasts until there are more parasites feeding on the hosts than the hosts can or are willing to support. Once that tipping point is reached both host and parasite suffer, and one or both die. America’s current political class on both sides of the aisle have made their careers on fostering the mentality of parasitism. No matter how useless you are to society, no matter how little you contribute, no matter how poor the decisions you make someone else will always be there to bail you out.

Unfortunately that is how America, the land of the free and the home of the brave (gag) have arrived at a national debt so staggering that it cannot be comprehended, even by the thieves who were instrumental in creating it. We are reaching the end of the balance between the producers and the consumers. Each massive bailout defrauds the American taxpayer and inexorably speeds up the slow decline of the behemoth known as American government. When the flames are licking their way up the walls of the Capitol building don’t say I didn’t tell you so.

TANSTAAFL

Of the three current contenders for the job of Thief in Chief, Hillary Clinton appears to be the most talented money grubber.

WASHINGTON — Propelled by her husband’s post-White House earnings, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s average net worth soared from red ink to $30.7 million between 2000 and 2006, the fastest financial climb among members of Congress who arrived without assets, a watchdog group reported Tuesday.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, reported a $27.6 million surge in his and his wife’s average worth from 1995 to 2006. Their worth rose over that 11-year period from an inflation-adjusted average of $8.9 million to $36.4 million, the ninth-biggest rise in Congress, the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation reported.

The Sunlight Foundation posted on its Web site the first-ever comparison of the 535 House and Senate members’ latest available net worth with their earlier disclosure statements. The forms don’t require any explanation for shifts of fortune.

Many members of Congress have added significantly to their wealth while in office, such as Sen. Edward Kennedy’s jump from an average net worth of $7.1 million in 1995 to $102.8 million in 2006. But because lawmakers are allowed to list their assets in wide ranges and exclude homes that can be worth millions of dollars, the foundation acknowledged that the data may create misimpressions.

Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama’s average net worth rose from $328,442 in 2004, when he was elected to the Senate, to $799,006 in 2006. But counting Obama’s and his wife Michelle’s pricey Chicago home, he almost assuredly has joined the Senate’s “Millionaire’s Club.”

Next time you hear the shrill, harsh voice of your fearless pantsuit wearing potential leader, remember that she lines her pockets from the same pot of gold that her health care plan will be paid for from - yours.

The bottom line has a lot to do with why someone like Hillary Clinton wants to be in politics in the first place. Any person with a poorly developed moral compass who thinks it’s perfectly OK to redistribute wealth by force would be attracted to the shining lights of Washington, D.C. where strangers argue over how much money to steal from the rest of us and skim cents from each dollar that rolls in for their own silk-lined pockets.

HIllary’s base salary is $169,300 per year. She must be a very savvy investor to have turned that into $30 million plus.

When you read articles that discuss government, taxation and the economy, it is important to take note of the tone of those articles. For instance, read a New York Times article called Weighing a McCain Economist by someone I don’t know named David Leonhardt.

Last week, Senator McCain laid out his economic vision in a speech in Pittsburgh. He talked about wasteful spending, but the newest, most detailed part of the speech dealt with a package of tax cuts that would cost about $300 billion a year. They would come on top of $350 billion a year in Bush tax cuts that Mr. McCain wants to make permanent. To put these numbers in perspective, the Iraq war has been costing roughly $200 billion a year.

When Leonhardt says “package of tax cuts that would cost about $300 billion a year” he is really saying that all that money belongs not to the individuals it will be taken from in the form of taxes but rather to the collective of bureaucrats and agents will will redistribute it according to their own particular agendas. Government does not bear the cost of policy changes. The taxpayer does. This fact is purposefully ignored.

What the budget office found, as study after study has shown, was that any new revenue that tax cuts brought in paled in comparison with their cost. This is why the deficit jumped under the last two tax-cutting presidents (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) and fell under the last two tax-raising presidents (George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton).

In the above sentences Leonhardt makes a contentious assertion without providing a single shred of evidence. He expects his readers to simply assume that what he states is fact - everyone should inherently understand that new revenues brought by tax cuts pale in comparison with the cost of those tax cuts! Silly peasants.

At least on one point, the concluding sentence, Leonhardt and I tenatively agree:

Instead, when you add up the numbers that have been released so far, you’re left wondering if he (McCain) is the least fiscally conservative candidate still in the race.

While I wonder who the least fiscally conservative candidate might be, I know for certain that not one of the three is a true fiscal conservative. All of them want too much of my money. All of them want to take economic blood from my veins and use it for the promotion of policies with which I strongly disagree. The growth of the federal government must stop if the United States is to remain a healthy nation.

John McCain can’t or won’t reduce the size of the federal government no matter how much lip service he gives the idea of doing so - he’ll be similar to George W. when it comes to spending reductions - there won’t be any. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a communist and will remain one as long as she has the hope of being the head communist and setting standards for all of us that she isn’t subject too. Barack Obama is a socialist full of grand visions that, under analysis, are nothing more than empty promises and pipe dreams.

In the end all three of these individuals firmly believe that it is just fine to take my money and to use it however they see fit. That is a basic issue for every net producer in this nation, and should be a call to political action. Write in a candidate! I know I plan on doing so.