Free Stuff from Uncle Sam

Why the government shouldn't be in the business of taking our money and then giving it back.

I just got a free golf cart.

Actually, it cost me $6,490—but the dealer, Colin Riley of Tucson, Ariz., points out that there's a $6,490 federal tax credit on such vehicles. Riley runs ads that say: "FREE ELECTRIC CAR … !"

Some consumers probably assume it's a car-dealer scam, but it's not. It's an Uncle Sam scam.

The tax code is outrageously complex and damaging in many ways, but it is made especially complex and damaging when congressmen use it "creatively" to manipulate us into doing things they deem "socially constructive." These are things that always bestow advantages on some politically connected manufacturers at the expense of others. After all, you were either planning to buy a golf cart or you weren't. If you were, the policy is unnecessary. If you weren't, you were induced to spend money on that product rather than something else. The unseen victim is whoever would have sold you the alternative product.

Such manipulation is at the heart of the entire "green" strategy.

The Wall Street Journal reports that business is busy taking advantage of the tax credit. "Is that about the coolest thing you've ever heard?" Roger Gaddis of Ada Electric Cars in Oklahoma said.

I thought "free" golf carts were outrageous enough that the publicity would embarrass Congress into killing the tax credit. I thought the media would be all over it. But even though Riley has received thousands of calls for cars—and sold hundreds—he hasn't seen much media attention. The Journal commented, "You can't blame a guy for exploiting loopholes that Congress offers."

In Florida, Tony Colangelo also sells subsidized cars. He said the golf-cart credit is good for politicians:

"It's all (about) going green. They want all those gas vehicles off the street. They'd rather have the electric than anything."

The golf-cart boom follows an IRS ruling that many golf carts qualify for the electric-car credit. A credit is better than a subsidy since you keep money the IRS would have taken. Still, it is an insidious form of manipulation used to benefit some forms of industry at the expense of others.

Colangelo says: "I never, in my entire life, got anything back from the government, and I've always paid taxes. Why shouldn't the people who worked hard for their money get something back?"

Because government shouldn't be in the business of taking money and giving it back! That just gives the venal cretins more power over our lives.

After I drove the car onto my first Fox Business Network show last week, viewers wrote in asking how they could get one.

But others got the concept.

Sirsickofit writes: "People, please stop asking for information on the golf carts. ... Stossel is trying to make a point!! If you purchase these carts you will be adding to the problems."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    That photograph is racist.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    It's also incredibly homo-erotic.

  • ||

    And sexist. And sexy.

  • Yeah, yeah, yeahyeahyeah||

    That joke isn't funny.

  • ||

    A free golf-cart!
    Thanks, Uncle Sam!
    You're the bestest!
    And thanks for the advice, John Stossel.

  • ||

    Fair enough, but why does Stossel ALWAYS go after liberal buggaboos and ignore the conservative ones like the endless subsidies for sports stadiums and "faith-based" initiatives?

  • Flyover Country||

  • ||

    thank you!

  • ||

    Considering the current liberal "buggaboos" (healthcare, cap-n-trade) are going to cost us trillions and a stadium cost only hundreds of millions - I think his attention is in the right place

  • ||

    Why? Why? Why? do you people always change the subject? Can't you just answer the question?

    Furthermore, why should we spend money on anything? Your argument - attempting to make a stadium look like a bargain - is a steaming pile.

  • monk||

    Everyone works for their best interest and it is stossels best interest to attack the "left" because that is where the money is at.

  • monk||

    Also, his show just started. We'll see.

  • ||

    Yes, it's so sad to see all the liberal commentators like Maddow and Olberman penniless and on the streets.

  • ||

    Intellectually dishonest, but I'll let it pass since you are technically correct. You are aware that Stossel is simply continuing the same career he's had all his life, right?

  • cmace||

    Reason on stadiums:

    If you put "stadium" in the search box at the top of the page then hit 'search' there's more.

    And I don't you can call the people who run the major cities republicans.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Brace for the Bloomberg response, as if he were really a Republican.

  • pmains||

    Your comment was refuted directly. Both John Stossel and Reason magazine have vocally criticized sports stadiums. There's really not much more to say than that.

  • crayon||


  • Gilbert Martin||

    Where is the proof that subsidies for sports stadiums are an exclusively "conservative bugaboo"? to begin with?

  • Flyover Country||

    It's not:

  • ||

    Yes, the new palace for the Orlando Tragic was mostly pushed by the Democratic mayor of Orlando with an assist from the RINO Orange County mayor.

    They're also favorites with the construction unions who are commonly associated with the left wing of the Democrats in spite of the cultural conservatism of their rank and file.

    Terms like liberal and conservative lose all meaning when it comes to pork, though.

  • ||

    Agreed. Where I live, it was a notorious Republican, Carl Pohlad, who lobbied for a Twins stadium for decades in flush times with a Democratic legislature. It went nowhere despite very persistent and heavy lobbying. It look a brief window of Republican power to make it happen.

  • ||

    The out of favor party always pushes against pork and corruption because they won't benefit from it. When fortunes change they develop a taste for pork and corruption.

    Where I am all the corruption is dems, as there is no GOP to speak of.

    In DC all the corruption is Dems.

    5 years ago it was GOP.

    As long as you see it through those blinders however you are part of the problem. Stop excusing 'your' guy.

  • pmains||

    Also, faith based initiatives aren't an exclusively conservative issue, either. Barack Obama campaigned on expanding them.

  • Burrow Owl||

    Does global warming...err.. 'climate change' qualify as a faith based initiative?

  • Chony||

    It most definitely IS faith-based.

  • ||

    no. you're stupid.

  • ||


  • ||

    Belief without evidence is by definition faith.

  • Chris||

    It is a folly to talk in absolutes. I think that the whole War on Drugs can be considered a Republican/Conservative hobby-horse, no?


  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Except Democrats are ALSO drug warriors, Chad. Charlie Rangel being one of them.

    Nice try, though.

  • ||

    How many hours will accountants and tax lawyers waste over that?

    We parasites hardly call billing hundreds of dollars an hour a waste, but point taken nonetheless.

  • ed||

    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers accountants.

  • Ska||

    Then who's going to help you pay the least amount of taxes? Accountants aren't writing the tax code you know....

  • ||

    "Is that about the coolest thing you've ever heard?" Roger Gaddis of Ada Electric Cars in Oklahoma said.

    Five minutes ago, I wasn't even aware this guy existed. Now I want to guy to his house and beat him senseless with a golf club.

  • ||

    guy go

  • ||

    Now that's what I call a Freudian slip.

  • Joe M||

    Thank god someone is finally mentioning the elephant in the room. Electricity comes almost exclusively from COAL. Burning refined gasoline is much cleaner than burning coal, especially with the most modern vehicles versus the ancient power plants. I wish the eco-tards could figure that out.

  • Zeb||

    Coal plants are still a lot more efficient than cars at converting fuel to usable energy. Electric cars would probably be more efficient than gas, but there are lots of cultural and logistical things that prevent them from being viable at this point.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Don't forget solar, wind and unicorn electricity.

  • ||

    '...unicorn electricity.'? Tell me more!

  • Al Gore the Science Guy||

    Unicorn farts transmit earth-friendly, free electricity... and they smell like fresh-baked cinnamon rolls. Much better than the ucky fossil fuels I burn in my limousines and jet planes.

  • ||

    Are you super serial?

  • Joe M||

    I bet if you calculated the ratio between efficiency(cost) and pollution, gasoline would come out on top.

  • ||

    You know, that seems unlikely. I surmise you're considering the transformation of coal to electricity at the power plant.

    But it's unreasonable to compare that to the gasoline engine, which is transformating gasoline directly to useful motion. If you want to compare apples to apples, you should factor into the coal plant's efficiency the significant transmission line losses in getting it from the plant to the final destination, then the inefficiency of the electric motor in converting electricity to motion, and, much more significantly, the substantial inefficiencies in storing the electricity in a battery and getting it out again, since the coal plant can't be turned on and off as the demand for electric power goes up and down.

    By contrast, the gasoline engine suffers from none of these additional, hidden, inefficiencies. There is no transmission loss (since the power is generated exactly where it's needed), no storage loss (since the power is generated exactly when it's needed), and only one step of conversion loss (because energy goes directly from chemical potential energy to kinetic energy, without a stopover as electrical potential energy).

    Really, if the world were presently running on electric cars fed off of a coal-powered grid, I bet "green" entrepreneurs would be extolling the efficiencies and benefits of this new-fangled "portable liquid-fuel" car, which did not require a huge network of wires, which solved the problem of the heavy and inefficiency battery, et cetera.

  • ||

    If you really really wanna compare apples to apples then you need to take into account the costs of transporting the crude oil to the cracking facilities, the cracking itself - very energy inefficient - then the transport to the storage tanks, the cost of the storage, then the cost of transport to the gas station. Personally, I don't give a rat's patute since I'm a nuke fan.

  • ||

    There's also the cost of mining, extracting, and shipping coal.

  • ||

    "and only one step of conversion loss"

    Yes, but that conversion loss is like 95%. That is, an internal combustion engine only converts about 5% of gasoline's potential energy into kinetic energy and the rest is wasted as heat. A power plant is about 35% efficient.

  • ||

    Uh, no. But thanks for playing.

  • ChillyDogg||

    An engine is 20%. Still less than a power plant.

  • Geotpf||

    "Electricity comes almost exclusively from COAL."

    False; coal produces 44.2% of the electricity generated in the US. A lot, but not "almost exclusively".

    Source: (divide the 2009 year-to-date total of 1,322,341 megawatthours for coal by the 2,991,012 total megawatthours)

    "Burning refined gasoline is much cleaner than burning coal, especially with the most modern vehicles versus the ancient power plants."

    Also false (especially the "much better" part), although it depends on the pollutant. CO2 emissions in particular would be lower; some other pollutants may be higher.

  • A Tree||

    CO2 is a pollutant..?

  • John Tagliaferro||

    For you it's what's for dinner. To the hysterical left, it is the end of the world.

  • See the forest and the trees||

    If they keep me/us from our dinner it will be the end of the world.

  • Mary Stack||

    "But others got the concept" Glad to hear Mr. Stossel gets it too because he will donate his "car" to charity. Then again, he kept the cash from his government flood insurance buy out.

  • ed||

    It isn't hypocrisy to exist in the world that's available to you, as long as you work to change it. Stossel is on record as opposing government flood insurance, but he'd be a fool not to accept a rebate on his taxes used to finance such wasteful and stupid schemes. The hand of government is ubiquitous.

  • ||

    Really? At what point does one draw the line?

    How could it not be hypocrisy to say something is wrong and partake in it anyway?

    Which would be the more intellectually consistent position, claiming to favor all sorts of government wealth redistribution and taking every one that is available or claiming to be opposed to them and taking every one available?

    How could I take Stossel's claim that wealth redistribution is wrong seriously when he personally engages in it? He thinks it is a really, really good idea, but me first?

  • Mary Stack||

    Marshall, "How could I take Stossel's claim that wealth redistribution is wrong seriously when he personally engages in it?" because everybody does it. The validation behind it is his participation in the "Mine! Mine! Mine!" mentality is it somehow more pure because it is not in ignorance. The idea is that if you steal something with nescience then you are a slug but if you rationalize it then it is determined to be honorable.

  • PersonalJustice||

    Mary, your notion of hypocrisy, while common, is incorrect.

    Hypocrisy is not an inconsistency between a person's stated beliefs, opinions, etc. and their actions.

    Rather hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, opinions, etc. that one does not actually possess.

    While John's actions can be used as evidence of hypocrisy, they do not themselves constitute hypocrisy.

    Furthermore the point he is making in this article is not that it is wrong, legally or morally, for people to receive these sorts of "benefits" from the government, but that it is bad public policy for the government to engage in this manner of wealth redistribution.

    As John Stossel is not the government, he can hardly be reasonably charged with hypocrisy. Even under the incorrect definition that you were using.

  • Mary Stack||

    PersonalJustice,Interesting because I assumed it had the same meaning in french but I suppose at some point when something is commonly understood to mean a definition it becomes just that. In any case, Mr. Stossel has relinquished any integrity a person could have possessed when he says one thing and does another.

  • tarran||

    So if I, an anarchist, am opposed to government road ownership, and the government owns to road to my house, I relinquish my integrity by choosing to use it?

    Wow. I guess I'd better go starve to death.

    Before you argue that Stossel had a choice of not accepting government insurance for his home, the govrenment subsidies have crowded out private insurance wich cannot compete with the taxpayer subsidies (private insurance would be more expensive as it would accurately price the risk of economic loss).

    Thus, if you want to buy property near the ocean, your choice is a) buy government insurance, b) self insure (depend on savings to pay for losses).

    Which means that under your rubric a guy like Stossel who doesn't have the fortune of a plutocratic family like the Kennedies should live inland or lose all credibility.

  • Mary Stack||

    Tarran "Thus, if you want to buy property near the ocean, your choice is a) buy government insurance, b) self insure (depend on savings to pay for losses)." OR c) Do not buy ocean property because as an adult we sometimes have to choose do not what we want but what we should and should not do.

  • ||

    He's not participating in wealth distribution any more than an average welfare queen. The redistribution already happened.

    Similarly Ron Paul votes against every spending bill but then fights for earmarks for his constituency. It's not inconsistent in the least.

    The theft is what is wrong. You can't blame the victim for trying to recover some of what was stolen.

  • ||

    If I steal from you then you are not only allowed, but have a responsibility to recover whatever it is possible for you to recover.

    You exemplify the specious logic of the collectivist. By your logic no victim may ever do anything.

    You created an immoral system then whine when people refuse to be good little livestock? Sorry. Theft does not justify itself, and victims are not obliged to suffer being victims because you thieves don't like it.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Stossel isn't creating the wealth redistrubtion - the government is.

    It's like saying that someone opposes things like the social security system on principle should refuse to take any benefits from it.

    The person had no choice but to pay into it (and to pay taxes for all the other wealth redistribution schemes as well). Since he had no choice in that matter, there's nothing wrong with getting back whatever you can out of it.

    Most of those in the top 50% of income earners who pay most of the taxes (and Stossel would definitely be in that category) are in the paying end of the redistribution equation on a net basis - not the receiving end of it.

  • ||

    So if a few well dressed Italian men come to my place of business and demand "protection money" it is morally acceptable for me to have them do me "favors" because they had coerced money from me? You know, "I paid in"?

  • ||

    Nice analogy Marshall, comparing the "Taxman", at whatever governmental level, to an extortion racket. Don't pay protection your business gets whacked, don't pay your taxes you get whacked by going to prison. BUT the analogy stops there. If those nice Italian gentlemen you mentioned offered to rebate some of those funds back to you, you telling me you'd refuse? Barnum was right!

  • ||

    "I will do this favor for you, and one day, I will ask you to do a favor in return"

    Um, yeah, I think I might refuse.

    Tell me, why does the analogy end? It is filthy and wrong and evil for you to be taxed at gun point but fine and dandy for you to take funds from the theives who stole from you because...?

  • skr||

    b/c you are reclaiming you're stolen property?

  • skr||

    damn you spell check

  • ||

    Close but no cigar. If you want me to continue, fine. Those fine gentlemen whose name ends in a vowel have taken your money already, yes, at gunpoint just like our buddies at the IRS. At the end of the year their capo di accounting says that your business is "entitled" to a 30% rebate, and here is the cash. Knowing damn well that the boys will be back to play the game all over again next year, you say "no thanks, you just keep my overpayment as a gift". Yeah right, and I hold the title to both the Brooklyn and Manahattan Bridges, you in the market?

  • ||

    Sorry, 1 extra "a" in Manahttan, er mnahattan... oh damn you get the idea.

  • Mary Stack||

    Gilbert, so Mr. Stossel was required to buy ocean front property and he was required to buy a golf cart. Well then, he is not a hypocrite because of the special purchasing ocean property/golf cart statute.

  • ||

    Don't blame Stossel for trying to recover a small portion of the lifespan he has spent enslaved to the government for trying to recover some. He won't live forever, it's not like he can just spend some more lifespan to try to make up what you steal.

    Your theft justifies attempts to recover what you stole. Period.

    If you don't like it then stop created immoral systems based on theft. It's human nature not to want to be stolen from. The only and ultimate solution to your theft is more theft and a police state to enforce it.

  • Mary Stack||

    Ed, Yes it is "hypocrisy to exist in the world that's available to you, as long as you work to change it" but you made me think of a less verbose way to describe a person who does just that: politician.

  • ed||

    The only real escape from government intrusion into private matters, Mary, is to find that apocryphal cave and go live in it. But martyrs don't change anything for the better.

  • ||

    Stossel could afford one of these vehicles without taking money that had been coerced. He wouldn't have suffered for a moment had he paid himself or simply not bought.

    It is called "putting your money where your mouth is". Refusing to have taxpayers buy you a golf cart isn't being a "martyr".

    How could he possibly hope to convince anyone of the rightness of his ideas when he does not practice them personally? How could anyone?

  • tarran||

    Hmmm, or he could be practicing showmanship...

    When a guy says, "I am a welfare queen" it gets attention n a way that saying "that guy is a welfare queen" doesn't. By participating in the looting and then doing a story on himself he deprives the looters from mounting a defense. There won't be rationalizations on the screen from soemone motivated to make himself look unscummy.

  • Mary Stack||

    Ed, I don't think the Libertarian philosophy needs martyrs but it sure as hell could use some clarity. If the republicans are the party of big business and the democrats are the party of big government then the Libertarians are the party of do as I say and not as I do.

  • ||


  • ||

    Libertarians - the party of bitching about how fucked up the government is, but doing nothing about it and praising Big Business and preaching that if we just get the mean old government to leave businesses alone and give shitbag bosses complete freedom then capitalism will create a utopia for us all.

  • ||

    the party of bitching about how fucked up the government is, but doing nothing about it and praising Big Business

    I'm against big government because I'm against big business. Big business depends on big government. In general big money depends on big government to suppress competition.

    Look at the entire history of the US.

    Look at the economic history of the world.

    Collectivists morons would ask us to ignore every single example in the world, economics, and human nature and tell us that if we make government just a little bigger this time it will surely used to help the little guy.

    You're a rube. The rich own government and you never will. The rich don't get taxed. They can move their money or move themselves. The spending is always going to be your burden, and it's mostly going to benefit big money.

  • ||

    "Libertarians are the party"

    We aren't a party. There is a libertarian party but many of us see it as flawed for various reason and do not participate.

    of do as I say and not as I do.

    Are you suggesting libertarians vote for bigger government?

    If you would be ethical and would have the greatest good for the greatest number then do as I say and as I do. Work against big government, against theft, against slavery, against treating humans as livestock.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    IF I live long enough to collect Social Security... am I being a hypocrite because I despise the very existence of Social Security, or am I being pragmatic by saying "well, at least I'll get back some of that money taken from me during my working life"?

  • ||

    It's actually quite simple:
    The older you get, the weaker you get.
    The weaker you get, the more help you need.
    Hence social security, medicare, etc.

    There are no old libertarians.
    At least none who live by the principles they claim to believe in.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    But don't you WANT people to die younger, crayon?

  • ||

    That's why everyone in Europe, Canada, and Japan are dead.
    Socialist healthcare killed them.

  • ||

    Nope but they do die more often from the same diseases than people do in the states.

  • ||

    Sure they do, buddy.
    Sure they do.

  • ||

    Not only is it higher it's much higher.

    There's a reason rich people come to the US to get treatment.

    But thanks for the opportunity to show how much you guys lie:)

    Here's a few examples.

    Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States.

    Breast cancer mortality 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom than in the United States.

    Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. than in the United States.

    Prostate cancer mortality is 457 percent higher in Norway than in the United States.

    The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher than in the United States.

    Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher in Canada than in the United States.

    Prostate cancer mortality is 184 percent higher in Canada than in the United States.

    Colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher in Canada than in the United States.

  • ||

    And there are no old Dems or Repubs either for both your reason of not living up to principles, but more important, there are none who live up to the principles their respective parties ORIGINALLY stood for.

    Don't try and feed me the crap about "living parties" like a "living constitution". When a party warps so far from the ideals that caused its establishment, then it is in reality no longer that party. By your logic, and my extension, 95% of the people are either a DINO or a RINO.

    Even us middle aged Libertarians acknowledge reality. If you want to try to change the rules of the game you must sit on the rules committee. If this means being imperfect but still trying to live up to our ideals, then we are not hypocrits, like you would have us believe, just human.

  • ||

    It's a sunken cost. There is no hypocrisy here. If I'm forced to buy something, even though I never wanted to buy it in the first place, I am allowed to use whatever I purchased. I am also allowed to use whatever discounts are offered that would lower the forced cost. What is hypocritical about that? It would be hypocritical if Stossel started mugging people on the street, or forced people to give him money in order to leave his studio, or wrote to his congressman asking for a tax increase to pay for a service he wants. But there's nothing unethical about using the product you've bought, no matter how much you hate the person who forced you to buy it.

  • ||

    By accepting social security you implicitly accept coercion and the initiation of force.

    Principles or additional retirement money?

  • Mary Stack||

    Dirty Sanchez, neither. We all pay into social security for the purpose of receiving social security.

  • ||

    Perfect collectivist logic.

    If I try to recover some of what you stole then I am condoning the system by action.

    If I do not I am condoning the system by inaction.

    Sorry bud, if you steal from me I am obliged to take whatever remedial action I may have available.

    You don't have the balls to try stealing yourself. So you do it in the privacy of your voting booth.

  • Mary Stack||

    Heller, "no matter how much you hate the person who forced you to buy it." Fox forced him to buy the golf cart? What did they say? Buy it or we won't pick you up for work? I guess his wife forced him to buy the ocean front property. Hell, I didn't know that worked.

  • ||

    The government took the money. He didn't have a choice. Then occasionally they toss out a bone.

    Should he leave the bone for people who promoted the theft? Of course not. Better to try to mitigate some small bit of the theft.

  • ||

    That's illogical and immoral.

    Recovering stolen goods is the right thing to do.

    And he's making the case against theft.

    Barring taking up arms, what else would you have him do?

    As a practical political matter it's much better for productive people to recover resources so as not to encourage more dependence.

    In every way he's doing exactly the right thing.

  • Barry Loberfeld||

    From What About the Poor?:

    [I]f anything warps people's values, it's the social-democratic redistributionism that forces everyone to throw their wealth onto the table and then allows them to grab what they can. There's your "politics based on greed"!

  • ||

    Won't you only get back a percentage based on your marginal tax rate of your taxable income?
    Still a boondoggle, though I think a NEV would be nice to have.

  • ||

    Stossel lives in Tucson?

  • ||

    Well, dude is 62 years old.
    His monthly bill for Grecian mustache Formula is simply staggering.

  • ||

    "You killed Mathew Lesko ... He helps people get Free Money from the government! He's a good guy."

    "He was wearing punctuation on his suit! That's a total bad guy suit. If he's a good guy, why is he dressed like The Riddler?"

  • Kroneborge||

    That's why the Fair Tax is a good idea because it gets rid of all this income tax bullshit (course I'm a CPA so would take a cut in pay, but IMO still worth it).

    "If" we still need to do something about the environment after that, then the next best weapon is a net zero carbon tax.

  • ||

    You know, if even 25% us of tax-paying Americans refused to pay the IRS next year, all this would change in a heartbeat.

  • Barack Obama||

    Please, please, PLEASE... do it. I'm just itching to turn this country into East Germany Part II, and I need a good excuse to send troops into the streets.

  • ||

    Again with the John Galt fantasies.
    Why aren't you in a ditch in Colorado?

  • ||

    Nah going Galt is craziness. That's why unemployment is so low! So many employers are staying in the US. Good thing all this fascism makes businesses so confident about hiring and expanding!

  • Obey the Fist||

    OH NO! Everyone who buys golf carts is ripping of the taxpayers! This is going to crush the economy.

    Where was Stossel when the SUV tax credit loophole was assaulting fuel efficiency averages?

  • pmains||

    Laundry-listing. "Why aren't you talking about X when you should be talking about Y!" We can play that game all day.

  • ?||

    is anyone else thinking about getting one?

  • ||

    The system need to be abused to draw attention and be changed.
    Everyone should buy one!!

  • ||

    Solution: REPEAL THE 16th AND 17th AMENDMENTS!!!!!!

  • Dept. of Homeland Security||

    We're watching you, IceTrey. You're on our domestic terrorist list for that remark.

  • Craig||

    Congress makes life worse every time it meets...

    Agreed. Let's tell them to stop meeting.

    Government is a meddling presumptuous pain in the neck. The sooner we get it to stop manipulating us through tax laws, the better.

    Why beg the pain in the neck to be less painful? Just make it go away.

  • Ed hardy||

    As it is said that:There is no free lunch in the world .I like to go to shopping in the Ed Hardy stores. They are not free but not too expensive.

  • ||

    The rule of law is violated by Congress each time they treat one of us differently from another. I would say impeachment is in order for them and all judges backing up their insane, unconstitutiional 'laws'

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books.

  • nike shox||

    is good


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.