Fed up with politicians incapable of balancing budgets? Well, now state legislatures across the country want to take a crack at balancing your checkbook – whether you like it or not.

Paternalism – the idea that government must take care of adults because they aren't able to do so themselves – is the ideology behind the wave of politicians determined to limit how much and how often Americans can borrow money. By putting stringent restrictions on borrowing, these politicians would effectively ban the practice of short-term "payday" lending, no matter how many people use it responsibly in times of crisis.

For those who enjoy access to high lines of credit, these short-term loans – which essentially let customers borrow cash from their next paycheck – may be a bad deal. But many of the less prosperous don't have such attractive alternatives to the kind of loans that politicians like to demonize.

When news of the new "Amazon Tax" spread, most New Yorkers probably thought it just meant they'd have to start paying a little more when they ordered online merchandise. But the law, passed in Albany last month, is likely to have a far greater effect on small businesses than it is on consumers.

Critics of the new law say it is unworkable because tracking multiple sales tax rates is difficult - particularly for smaller retailers - while supporters counter that software tools are making this easier. But the reality is that Amazon and other merchants with affiliate programs won't bother adding the additional capability to collect New York tax; instead, they'll take the far easier step of blocking any New York-based site from their affiliate programs. The result will be a tremendous loss of income for the numerous small New York businesses now participating in affiliate programs.

If New York wants a larger share of online sales tax revenues, it should focus on making the state more attractive for online retailers to set up shop here, and improve enforcement of existing tax laws. Instead, the Amazon Tax will hurt New York's small online businesses and entrepreneurs, and ultimately may lower overall tax revenues, while strengthening New York's reputation as being unfriendly to small businesses.

Some economists object, saying people don’t change their spending habits on the basis of a one-time cash influx. Other economists say, “So what?” — banks will invest their savings, and that, too, will help the economy. Still others insist the bill will just “move money around.”

I’m no economist, so I’ll trust my government: For the good of the country, I will use my stimulus windfall for purchases I wouldn’t otherwise make. I’ve decided to spend $600 on video games. I’m a public-spirited guy.

In the spirit of patriotism, I figure I’ll need to grab the terrorist-killing Call of Duty 4, and that should take care of all my free money for the year.

I’ll have served my country well.

Here’s the thing to bear in mind about a survey saying 81 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track: Not everyone agrees what track that is.

Some people will say the country is going to the dogs because of the war in Iraq and an incompetent president.Others will point out America is going wrong by not deporting all illegal immigrants and erecting a Great Wall of Texas.

This week John McCain and Hillary Clinton both used the housing-market upheaval to offer a window on what their presidencies would look like. The contrast in philosophy and program is something voters should pay attention to.

Mrs. Clinton proposes a curious triumvirate of grey eminences -- Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin -- to sit down and in three weeks come up with a more comprehensive rescue plan. Yes, this is the same Mr. Rubin who, as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, oversaw the bank's reckless plunge into mortgage risk. And it is the same Mr. Greenspan who opened the liquidity floodgates as Fed Chairman and so helped to inflate the credit bubble. She got it right in choosing Mr. Volcker, but he's endorsed Mr. Obama.

Mr. McCain can be a little too righteous when he claims he would "not play election-year politics with the housing crisis." What he does seem to understand, however, is that most Americans are responsible borrowers who don't want to underwrite the losses of those who aren't. In that, he is politically smarter than Senators Clinton and Obama.