What they would do...

Follow the logic on this one...

There's a wildfire raging in Colorado. As usual, it is requiring Federal and State firefighters, as well as some military assistance to fight. Based on arguments certain Congressional representatives have made... :-)

Eric Cantor: Would be okay allocating the funds to fight the fire if they were offset from some other source. Won't allow tax increases, so some other program would have to have its budget reduced.

Paul Ryan: Would allocate the fire-fighting budget to states as a block grant. So multi-state fires would be fought... How? Anyway, the states would use the money to buy - firefighting equipment? Or would they use it to lower taxes for businesses?

Ron Paul: Wouldn't have the money to fight the wildfire in the first place.

Michelle Bachmann: Would complain that people couldn't fight the multi-thousand acre wild fire on their own.


(Staggeringly, some people want to do that; they're obviously thinking that the water supply would be, at the very least, adequate. "Good luck with that..." is about the best I can manage.)

Darrell Issa: Would investigate the purchase of the firefighting equipment during the fire.

Jeff Duncan: Would pray for a resolution and seek to pass a Congressional Resolution condemning the fire for starting and then go on Fox News to complain about the Obama Administration for letting it start.

The problem isn't that these people don't think there's a commons - it's that they simply don't recognize that some problems need society to solve. Individuals simply can't, because the problem is too big and complicated.

Carolyn Ann

PS And here's food for thought: Utah has looked at, and discounted, trying to stop people from shooting guns in the wild because that happens to be a leading cause of wildfires. There was one that was started by a bullet's ricochet, and it ended up consuming something like 26,000 acres. But the best they can manage is "please consider be sensible". Seriously.