Cliff's Notes

"... can't live off Social Security."

2011-12-18T07:01:00.000-08:00

I heard it again just this week.

An elderly friend was commenting on the changes in her government payments. Apparently her social security went up, but her Medicare costs went up. So, she's at the same level as she was last year.

So, she says, "Boy, you sure can't live off Social Security."

REMINDER: You were never SUPPOSED to be able to live off Social Security. It was a meant to be a safety net contrivance, to help insure that you at least has SOMEthing.

But, that's what happens with government hand-outs. It starts as a nice gesture; then it becomes an expectation; then it becomes a right; and, almost always, it becomes "not enough to live on".

*sigh*

Wisconsin's Act 10

2011-12-02T10:13:00.000-08:00

So, what's the ruckus all about?

In case you don’t live in Wisconsin, allow me to recap 2011 for you: Newly-elected conservative governor Scott Walker took office in January… and all @#%$ broke loose.

In 2010, Democrats controlled the governor’s mansion, and both chambers of our state legislature. They left us with a $3.2 billion shortfall for our two-year budget.

Then, as our state constitution dictates, we held our elections in November, and the people of Wisconsin spoke: We voted out the Dems. There is now a new Republican governor, as well as a Republican majority in both chambers of the state legislature. Whatever your thoughts about this election cycle, our democracy was working: elections were held, votes were cast, new representatives were seated.

To address our budgetary shortfall (in a recessed economy, mind you) our government leaders were faced with few options: 1) go into debt, 2) lay off lots of public employees, 3) raise taxes, or 4) pass a sensible budget repair bill, like the one Walker proposed. In-state, that bill is referred to as Act 10.

Act 10 passed. The budget was balanced. We did not go into debt. We did not lay off lots of teachers. We did not raise taxes. And, that was, apparently, when the sky began to fall for the Democrats.

Protesters flooded into Madison. Many of them were even Wisconsin residents. We (I live in Madison) (oh, and I am a state employee) have been treated to months of marches, chants, squatters, occupations (our protesters were “occupying” our capitol before “occupying” was cool), bull-horns, signage (oh, the glorious, genius, vulgar signage), zombie marches (relevance?), men in pink dresses, our best and brightest locking their heads to hand rails, etc, etc.

The one thread through it all has been, "Walker is evil, and he must go." The flame of rage has been fanned and fed steadily through the year. Protest singers still descend upon the Capitol every week (day?), their aggrieved intonations echoing through the marbled halls. Political buttons abound. One in three conversations on my bus seems to revolve around evil-Walker.

But… what’s it all about? What is it that has led the Left to such ballyhooing?

Allow me to recap the offending legislation. This Budget Repair Bill, Act 10, introduced four significant changes to the pay and compensation landscape of the public-sector employees. As a state employee myself, I thought you’d like to see a first-hand account of the real effects of this bill:

1) Act 10 stripped public-sector unions of their ability to collectively bargain on issues of benefits and pension.

Admittedly, I am not part of a union. So, I have no personal anecdote here. I only offer you a story related in an earlier blog. From a write-up in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, we find that, under the current Wisconsin public-sector contracts, it is common to find 56 year old employees retiring from public employment, making $50,000-plus a year. Read that sentence again: healthy, able-bodied employees, only 56 years old(!), RETIRING, earning $50K!!! That is a LAVISH, LAVISH, LAVISH retirement scheme… one that will NEVER be found in the private-sector, because it is so unaffordable. And, this golden-retirement is being funded by tax revenues, while our state faces $3.2 billion budgetary shortfall. That ALONE is sufficient reason to reign in public-sector unions. Multiply that out by a few thousand employees, eh.

2) Act 10 required public-sector employees to contribute to their own pensions.

Prior to Act 10, public-sector employees earned salaryX, and the state chipped in an additional 10% into their pensions. So, employees were really earning salaryX + 10%. That is important to remember when public employees say things like, “I could make more money in the private sector.” Really? I was paying nothing into my own pension; now, I am paying $256/mo, while the state continues to pay $309. Of course, this doesn’t address the significant issue that this pension is a “guaranteed benefit” pension, instead of the more-affordable alternative… a “guaranteed contribution” pension. I’m not sure just yet how to quantify the value of that benefit. But, it is significant, and it costs the tax-payers dearly. (If you don't understand the difference, let me know. I'd be glad to explain.)

3) Act 10 required public-sector employees to pay more for their health insurance.

For a very good family health insurance plan, I was paying $85/mo. Can you find that anywhere in the private sector? I now pay $208/mo, while my employer -- the state of Wisconsin -- pays the remaining $1,282/mo. A friend of mine runs a local business with a hundred-plus employees. He noted two points: first, I am still paying less than half of the percentage that his employees have to pay; second, my overall premium costs is greater than their overall premium costs. That means, I am getting a better insurance package than the private-sector, and paying less than half the cost. Again, this is good to know when the public employees start crying about their employment woes under Act 10.

4) Act 10 stripped unions of their power to forcibly extract union dues from its employees.

Before Act 10, if you took certain jobs with the state, you were REQUIRED to pay union dues. Regardless of your opinion of the union… regardless of your political leanings… regardless of your financial situation… you were REQUIRED (by the unholy alliance between the public-sector unions and their well-heeled political lackeys in the capitol) to see your paycheck drained every month to the tune of $30 to $40. That money went towards paying salaries of union officers, and for massive contributions into the campaign coffers of Liberal politicians. Now, under Act 10, those dues are no longer mandatory. All public employees have a choice whether to join the union or not. SIDENOTE 1: I think this is the most offensive piece of Act 10, in the eyes of the protesters. SIDENOTE 2: I thought “choice” was important to those on the Left.

That’s it, folks.

That is what the state-wide, months-long, nationally-reported furor is all about: controversially reduced collective-bargaining, reasonably increased pension contributions, reasonably increased health care contributions, and a moral correction of how union dues are collected. That's why they march, and scream, and demagogue, and cry, and swear, and demonize. That's why labor unions across the fruited plain have galvanized. That's why state senators abandoned their posts, and the Left has initiated efforts to recall governor walker as soon as the law allows.

When you remember that these measures were taken in the shadow of a $3.2 billion budgetary shortfall (biennial), I ask you this: As a tax-paying, self-reliant, red-blooded American, does this really seem to merit the apoplectic hysterics from the Left?

I think not.

On, Wisconsin! On, Scott Walker!

Conceal Carry

2011-11-22T06:30:00.000-08:00

The Wisconsin state legislature recently passed a law allowing permitted gun-owners to carry their weapons in a "concealed" way. Many on the Left have reacted strongly.

Personally, I can relate five different episodes in which Left-leaning friends have expressed anything from snorts of contempt, to real emotion-laden gasps of anxiety, when the topic of conceal-carry is brought up. These folks would have us believe that something really bad is happening (or is about to happen) here in the state of Wisconsin.

It drives me nuts.

Professors are anxious about students now coming into their classes to shoot up the lecture hall.

Coworkers are afraid gun-toting idiots will make the workplace a scene from The Godfather.

And, one friend is concerned that we're going to see a spike in violence on police officers, because... (following this strained logic, if you will)... now conceal-carriers will be more likely to go to bars, and drive around with a loaded gun. "So, what are they going to do when they get pulled over for a DUI?"

Why, of course, these gun-toting crazies are going to SHOOT THEIR WAY out of a DUI!!!! It's obvious!

All of these arguments reveal a very acute bigotry on the part of the Left.

Allow me to explain.

First, did you know that it has ALWAYS been allowable/legal to carry a weapon in Wisconsin, as long as it is out in the open? I could stroll down Main Street here in Madison, with a holstered six-shooter on my hip, and it would be perfectly legal. Logical Hurdle #1: Through all these years, were all these Lefties concerned about impending violence because of this gun-toting law? Has Wisconsin been a Wild West town?

Second, did you know that -- prior to passing this conceal-carry bill -- anybody could have walk into any of countless university lecture halls here in Madison, carrying a loaded weapon, and started shooting the place up? (Of course, this would have been illegal. And, it is still illegal. But, it could have happened, with or without the passage of this conceal-carry bill.) We all understand this, right? There is NOTHING preventing this from happening right now, all along, prior to passage of this bill. Logical Hurdle #2: Have all these Lefties been shivering in fear because of this fact? If not... then, why NOW? Why are they NOW afraid, unless they are more afraid of law-abiding, permit-holding gun carriers.

So, I pose the question: Why is it the Left is only NOW beginning to express fear and anxiety about spikes in violence?

The ONLY people who are going to change their behavior, with the passage of this conceal-carry bill, are law-abiding citizens who want the permission of their government to allow them to carry a gun. The crazies... the unhinged fanatics ... the mass-murderers who think God is telling them to shoot congresspersons... well, they don't need any law. They won't apply for a conceal-carry permit. They will do (sadly) whatever their crazy, unhinged, mass-murdering hearts want to do. The passage of this bill does NOTHING to increase the likely hood of them changing their behavior.

So, for the Lefties to express some form of newly-founded grief or anxiety with the passage of this bill, demonstrates their lack of faith in their fellow American.

Personally, I know of two people who have applied for their conceal-carry permit. And, I have absolutely NO concern about their behavior, or my personal safety in their presence. Nor, do I have any concern about the safety of my daughter in their presence, whether they are carrying concealed, or not. (In fact, I could pretty easily say that, at times, I would like to know that one of the good guys has a gun. That fact actually makes me feel SAFER.)

To be fair, I should couch that last paragraph in some disclaimers: I have no more concern for our safety, in the presence of a conceal-carrier, than I do when I am pulling up to an ATM at night... or when I am going into a gas station at night... or when I walk to my car at night, in the poorly lit parking lot of my church.

About this Occupy Wall Street stuff

2011-10-31T09:50:00.000-07:00

Little can be added to the blogosphere in analyzing the Occupy Wall Street movement. But, I must wade into the waters, because... well, that's what I do.

1) I laugh at the children who suggest Occupy Wall Street is "just like" the T.E.A. Party movement. But, I cringe at those who think they are both inconsequential.

2) I can't help noticing the similarities between Occupy Wall Street and the riots in Europe, replete with bandanas hiding the face. Why wear a bandana unless you are planning on illegal activity?

3) Have you heard about the complaints within the Occupy movements directed at the homeless who have infiltrated? Yeah, apparently the folks providing food for the Occupy protesters are resenting the arrival of the homeless, who take part in the benefits of the movement (free food) but don't offer anything of value in return. :)

4) How about you Occupy a Bath Tub.

5) Oh, and don't you love how they user their computers, and their mobile phones, and Twitter, and Facebook, to rail against big corporations... while sporting modern rain gear, footwear, and backpacks. Ahhhhh... the life of a brainless, self-righteous hypocrite.

6) Think of the man-hours that have been poured into this movement. How many thousands of hours could have been applied towards helping the poor.

7) Hundreds of encounters with police... and, to date, only one person has been injured by (allegedly) a canister being shot into a crowd by police. Of course, the Left sees this as some great tragedy proving we live in a police state. (How do you reason and negotiate with this type of thinking?)

8) It will only get more violent. The Left will be responsible. But, the media will turn it on the police. (The storyline almost writes itself.)

9) I've never gotten a job from a poor person.

Personal anecdote: government-funded health insurance

2011-10-10T14:32:00.000-07:00

Badger Care is Wisconsin’s version of a public-funded low-income health insurance. It would fall into one of those “safety net” categories… a last resort, provided by the public, for the needy. It’s not a fancy insurance plan by any measure; but, for many, it is their only option.

I have a friend who is on Badger Care. Or, at least, she will be until November, when her last dependent child turns 19, at which point she no longer qualifies for this public-funded coverage.

She was telling me about her saga recently.

First, in complaining about how the program was discontinuing her coverage, this woman expressed NO appreciation whatsoever that the state of Wisconsin had been taking MY tax dollars, and rerouting them towards her health insurance, for the past many years. No gratitude. None. Nada. Zip. No (apparent) understanding of (effectively) my generosity that was benefiting her… and (apparently) no appreciation for our state’s and our nation’s ongoing economic difficulties (as in, an impending $14 trillion in debt). All she could see was this fact: "They are taking away my health care."

Second, she told me that she was hurrying to get new glasses “before the coverage ran out.” That is exactly why health care costs go UP when government gets involved. For far too many recipients of public funds, these programs present a blank check for non-critical expenses. It’s not her money, so why show restraint? (Of course, one could argue that these her glasses are critical. Maybe. But, she did say that she “wanted to get glasses” that had a bi-focal element; her current glasses were just fine.)

Third, she told me, now that her kids were grown, and Badger Care was terminating her coverage, she was going back to school. (She is, self-admittedly, undereducated, and she’s been struggling with career/salary/opportunity for decades.) But, now… now that her “free”, public-funded health insurance has disappeared… now she is motivated to go back to school to better her personal situation. Coincidence? I think not.

Of course, I’m not a monster. Badger Care has been available for her, (single, uneducated mother, with two kids, with a dead-beat missing father) for years… and, I’m okay with that, in principle. I understand the need. And, I only debate the particulars and the administration of such programs; not their mere existence.

Nonetheless, I can’t help but think about the “enabling” aspect of programs like Badger Care. While the nameless, faceless, impersonal “state” is providing health insurance, why would she do anything (like, return to school, or learn a hard skill, or work harder/longer hours) to empower herself to become independent of this hand-out?

To be sure, this is a complicated topic. More complicated than this one blog. And, infinitely more complicated than the bumpersticker slogans of “Health care is a right”.

To reduce special-interest money in Washington

2011-09-05T16:20:00.000-07:00

To my dear friends on the Left: You can’t have it both ways.

You say that you want to reduce the undue influence that big money can wield in Washington, D.C. But, your actions belie the truth.

You see… the question we need to be asking ourselves is, “Why do companies and lobbying organizations spend gagillions of dollars in D.C. in the first place? What is it they are trying to accomplish?”

The answer is not difficult: They spend this money because they are trying to influence legislation.

When the Right hears this, we know that the right response is, “Well, reduce legislation!” Reduce the influence of government. Reduce the power in the hands of our elected representatives. That is, reduce the size of government – the laws that it can enact, and the number of agents and agencies acting on behalf of the government to carry out that law.

If you reduce the scope of just what falls under the jurisdiction of governmental control, you will most definitely reduce the amount of money that will be spent corrupting that governmental control.

Unfortunately, the Left thinks that the best way to douse a gasoline fire is by applying more gasoline. They think the way to reduce the corruption of money in government is by establishing additional (infinite) layers of bureaucracy in government: more laws, more regulation, more committees, more agencies, more agents.

They seem to say, “If only we could construct the perfect amalgam of power, people and resources, then we will achieve both governmental control and protection from governmental corruption.”

*sigh*

Not all legislation is bad. Some of it is quite necessary. But, we must shrink the amount of governmental control if ever we are to reduce the amount of special-interest money flowing into Washington.

And, for the record, we’re not just talking about Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Business. We’re also talking about Big Education, Big Labor, and Big Tort Law.

Of course, maybe that explains the Left’s willful avoidance of the underlying issue.

2011-08-02T11:56:00.000-07:00

Sucker-punched, again. (shakes his head) I’m sitting in a meeting with six fellow state employees. Someone remarks that we might need to further explain a recent purchase, “I mean, with Governor Walker slashing budgets left and right, and taking money out of my wallet, we need to explain why this is a necessary purchase?”

*sigh*

Believe it or not, I have an opinion about this little Liberal sucker-punch. (And, by “sucker-punch”, I simply mean, “out of the blue”, “unnecessary”, “unrelated to the topic-at-hand, and awkwardly inserted in an otherwise innocuous situation”.)

Point One: SHUT UP! What is with this Damn-the-Social-Protocols approach to modern-day Leftism?! And, yes, I will drop this at the feet of the Left. I live in Madison, Wisconsin, and I am inundated with this stuff. Is no place safe? The bus, the elevator, the hallway at the office, waiting in line at the grocery store, the dog park, overly-loud conversations at restaurants: Any place one might encounter another human being, we Conservatives have to be constantly on guard against the unsolicited political sucker-punch.

These vociferous Lefties either 1) are idiots, for assuming that everyone WANTS to hear what they say, or (much more likely) 2) they simply do not care what anyone else thinks. I'm not sure which is worse.

Ya see, I have an opinion, too. And, that opinion is every bit as strong as this Lefty’s opinion. But, I recognize that I live in a pluralist society with lots of people from different views and attitudes and ideologies. I understand that not everyone wants to hear my view. And, even if someone agrees with me, not everyone wants to talk politics in the office place.

Point Two: Let’s travel back in time: let’s go back 12 months, before the Big Bad Wolf (Gov. Walker) came took up residency in the Governor’s mansion. Back then, Lovable Cuddly Jim Doyle was governor. He enjoyed a Democrat majority in both chambers of the state legislature. You remember those days; the birds sang every morning, everyone rode bicycles, and we enjoyed idyllic autumnal temperatures nine months out of the year.

Back in that blessed time, would anyone have EVER prefaced a question with, “I mean, with Governor Doyle spending us into $3.6 billion biennial deficit, and raising taxes on businesses, why is this a necessary purchase?”

Would anyone ever have spoken up in a meeting, and attached that seemingly whacked-out editorial prefix to a business-meeting question? Ans: Of course, not. Partly because it would be political editorializing, and back then, everyone knew that such behavior is inappropriate in the workplace. But, also because it’s apparently PERFECTLY FINE to spend frivolously when the state is reeling towards record-setting deficits. (?!)

Anyway… had to vent. Thx for listening. I feel better.

Who really cares about needy people?

2011-06-29T10:59:00.000-07:00

The stereotype is as well-established as can be any bigoted misrepresentation of an entire class of people: Conservatives don’t care about poor people.

To be sure, I have had my struggles on this topic. I see that my life is quite blessed; I see need in my community; and, my wife and I frequently wrestle with how much of our income to donate to needy people. But, donate we do, to the tune of 10% or more (of our gross, if you must know). We’ve done that consistently for the 18 years of our marriage (give or take a couple months during two extended periods of unemployment).

It is beyond insulting to hear the Left preach about MY hate and contempt for the Poor. In fact, in light of some recent revelations about public employee benefits, I find it laughable that the Left still has the gall to throw rocks at my perceived callousness. Allow me to explain.

Let’s pick on a retiring Milwaukee County employee. He made the news a month ago, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel highlighted his retirement decision and plans. (http://www.jsonline.mobi/newswatch/123955564.htm)

To recap the details: The man worked for Milwaukee County for 30 years as a snowplow driver, and as a building and grounds maintenance dude. An honorable career. From all appearances, he was good at his job. In the face of significant changes being pressed by Gov. Walker and the Republican legislature, he decided to retire. It was “sooner than he wanted”. But, he felt it was necessary to lock in on the goods before the mean ol’ Republicans started raiding state pensions.

Although I grow weary of the hyperventilating over-reactions from the Left regarding just how far Hosni Walker will go to attack the working class (*sigh*), my biggest problem comes in the details of this government worker's retirement package. In short, this man will make $54,000 every year, for the rest of his life. He is now 56 years old.

Read that again, if you must: 56 years old, and he will make $54K a year for the rest of his life… without having to put in one more day of work for the county. And, that doesn’t include the reduced-cost, Cadillac health-care package afforded most government employees. Should he live another 30 years, this retirement payout alone will cost the taxpayers of Milwaukee county over $1.6 million! FOR ONE MAN… WHO IS NOT NEEDY by ANY stretch of the imagination!

(Before I proceed, let it be formally disclaimed: I bear no grudge against this individual. I will not mention him by name here. He did nothing wrong. He is just a very fortunate man, who was in the right place, at the right time. Now, he is set up like a prince (by the world’s standard). So, good on him. My aggression is directed at the institution that has enable this travesty.)

(Second disclaimer: In fact, when this employee opted for retirement, he was presented with, and actually accepted, a second option for how to receive his benefits. This other option was a “buy-out” option. Up front, he took a large chunk of money, [in excess of $300,000] which reduced his annual income into the $20K’s. But, rest assured, the actuaries on both the government side and the Employees Union side have done their job: Option A and Option B are identical in ultimate value. I opt to look at the $54K/yr for ease of discussion and for ease of wrapping our brain around numbers.)

Can you just sit for a minute and ponder the meaning of this retirement package? An able-bodied man, can now live off the tax-payer for (conceivably) the next 30 years (or more… my grandfather-in-law is 94)… making a wage that MANY in America would LOVE to receive in an actual job where they would be expected to actually work 40 hours a week. Does this retirement structure make sense to ANYone reading this?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t disapprove of ALL retirement programs. But, seriously!? $54K at the age of 56!!?? That is beyond absurd. Where can you find this in the private sector!? You CAN'T, because no company can sustain this kind of economic coddling. (Actually, we did see this type of cushy retirement structure in the Big Three auto industry for a few decades. And, the walls of that house-of-cards would have imploded a couple years ago, but for a massive, multi-billion dollar bail-out by the tax-payer.)

In fact (back to the opening point of this blog), when I mull over this retirement story, I can’t help but think about the truly needy. (Yes, I, the mean ol’ Republican, who hates poor people….) I have a friend from our church who has some serious developmental disabilities. He is in constant need of help (personal and financial). I would LOVE to see him get more money; my wife and I give as we can. But, we are constantly told by the opportunistic Democrats that the state of Wisconsin is having to cut funding to many of these aid-to-the-needy programs because Governor Walker wants to pad the pockets of the Koch Brothers.

But… what about this ridiculous retirement package for the 56-year old guy? Doesn’t that fit into the discussion somehow?

Can’t we, as a civil, compassionate society have a conversation about this? Is this guy really deserving of a fully-secured retirement package at age 56!? How many truly needy people could benefit from a better-administered payment scheme for a healthy 56-year old government employee? This is NOT helping the needy.

If the Left is TRULY concerned about helping the needy, then they must turn a critical eye to this example. The Left must see that this guy is just one of THOUSANDS of government employees who are poised to retire with similar million-dollar packages in the coming years. And, the Left must see the insanity of this financial mismanagement, and understand the long-term impact this will have on our state.

Unfortunately, I fear the Left can’t and won’t raise an eyebrow about this miscarriage of Reason because, sadly, they are not nearly so concerned about the needy as they would have you believe. There seems to be something else that they are more interested in, something they will fight to defend. But, it's NOT the needy.

Anti-Walker Zombies

2011-06-15T20:51:00.001-07:00

Last week (June 8, 2011) Governor Scott Walker attended a ceremony on the Capitol square here in Madison. The ceremony was held to honor our state's Special Olympiads.

Unfortunately, a gang of bozo protesters, who oppose Gov. Walker and the Republicans' recent legislative efforts, decided this would be a great venue to exercise their freedom of speech. They staged a peaceful stand-in... dressing up like zombies (what's that about?) and strolling right into the body of the ceremony. While Gov. Walker was addressing the Special Olympiads and their proud families on what should have been a fun memory-making day, these classless protesters walked in front of the crowd of attendees, and turned their back on Walker. (Ooooohhh... feel the power of the oppressed masses standing up to The Man!)

Of course, the folks on the pro-Walker side of the debate were completely outraged. This was a disgusting act, a violation of many general codes of decency and civic conduct. It was captured on videos, ripped by countless blogs, excoriated on talk radio, and has now been highlighted by a few worthy members of the national media.

As word spread, and the Right was getting more and more riled at the episode, a few notables on the Left began to distance themselves from the event. Even they recognized that this sort of thing won't play well outside of Madison, and that it might actually hurt their Power-to-the-People cause.

But, when we on the Right began holding the Left to account for this offense, virtually all members of the Left quickly began a song-and-dance routine about how "that's unfair", and "we can't take responsibility for the actions of a few".

My response to that is provided here for your entertainment.

I am sure many people on the Left disagreed with this tactic employed by that small subpopulation of the Left. Especially now, as the bad press sets in, and they're caught with shameful egg on their collective face, I am sure that NOW they want to distance themselves from the act. Of course, we will never know how each Leftie felt when they FIRST heard about the event (before it turned sour).

Unfortunately for the Left, regardless of their remonstrations and attempts to distance themselves from this recent Special Olympics episode, I am not entirely convinced of their contrition.

This punk-zombie-buffoon episode was simply the latest in a long line of events here in Madison over the past several months. Events that have frequently crossed the lines of social decency and generally-accepted rules of behavior. I'm quite sure the Left will dismiss each event (cited below) by dryly stating that, "Oh, that was some whacked-out fringe. We can't be held responsible for every crazy person that does something offensive."

I wonder why not?

From the beginning of this whole Madison-Budget-Repair-Bill protest, the Left has been engaging in and celebrating etiquette-shattering, decency-trampling behaviors. Why can't they take responsibility for yet one more manifestation of the very behaviors they have modeled and encouraged?

The Left didn't want the majority in the state legislature to exercise its democratic privileges of governance, so 14 state senators ran away like children and choked off the process. "Legislature runs only when WE say it runs," huh?

The Left didn't want to allow duly elected representatives from conducting state legislative business, so protestors obstructed government activities and frequently interfered with legislative processes. Democracy would dictate that you "get 'em the next time." But, such rules don't apply to the Left.

The Left didn't like fellow citizens donating money to the "wrong" causes, so law-breaking protestors invaded private property, obstructed business activity, and intimidated other fellow citizens from engaging in the free commerce. I suppose, for the Left, might makes right.

The Left didn't want to abide by the laws about protesting outside (because it's too cold), so protestors invaded and occupied the capitol, turning it into a half-way house. The Left is special, ya see.

The Left didn't want to obey police barricades, so they stormed the line, busted through the closed doors, and sneaked into the capitol through windows that were supposed to remain closed. That was against the law, but rules don't apply to the Left.

The Left wasn't content to simply carry protest signs expressing political views, so protestors drafted signs that refer to Scott Walker performing oral sex on the Koch brothers, and they created signs with pictures of hairy anuses with Scott Walker's face superimposed over the anal sphincter, and they carried signs comparing a duly elected governor to a cold-blooded murdering tyrant. That certainly violates a few standards of basic decency. (Remember, many protestors proudly brought their children to these events.)

The Left didn't like the Budget Repair Bill, so the Sec of State simply refused to sign it. It's not his place to refuse. But, suddenly, rules don't apply to the Left.

The Left didn't like the Budget Repair Bill, so they got a biased judge to make up some minor rules violation. Which, even if true, under any other circumstance, would have resulted in a simple fine. (At the final typing of this blog, the state supreme court decision was just announced: this lower-court decision was overturned by a 4-3 decision.) But, again, the Left is special.

The Left didn't like the Budget Repair Bill, so, instead of letting democracy roll along, and vote da bums out at the next election, they decided to subvert democracy by instituting recall petitions for reasons that fall well out of the scope of the original intents. No, the Left is not doing anything illegal. But, recalls have never been used for undesirable votes. But, again, rules don't apply to the Left. (And, before the counter-point is offered, we Conservatives are calling for three recalls on Democrat state senators. But, our motivation is not that the senators voted the wrong way. If you will remember, they didn't vote. We are pushing these recalls because the senators ran away, and abandoned their post. That was dereliction of duty.)

The Leftist teachers didn't like the Budget Repair Bill, so they went on strike, even though strikes are forbidden in their contract. (And, yes, it was an organized work stoppage. That was proven by the captured voice-mail from the MTI representative who was calling teachers and telling them what days to call in sick.) That constitutes an illegal action.
But, again, rules don't apply to the Holy Left.

These same Leftist teachers didn't like the rules about "calling in sick" for political purposes, so they procured fake doctor's notes. Because lying is okay when the cause is just.

The Left didn't like the idea of their opponents exercising free speech, so they sent death threats, threatened to blow up radio stations, obstructed the free speech of their fellow citizens by over-riding those undesirable voices with noise-making devices, and shouted obscenities at 14-year old girls. Again, common decency takes a back seat when the cause is right.

The Left didn't like the laws about public property, so they vandalized. I can't tell you how many anti-Walker bumper stickers I've seen on campus, on light poles, university buildings, in restrooms, hallways, parking garages. Sometimes, anti-Walker messages spray painted on private property. Now, we have vandalizing the headquarters of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. Yay. If it's anti-Walker, it's probably considered performance art.

The Left didn't want to recognize the just re-election (by the PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN!) of a Conservative judge to the state supreme court, so they dragged out a pointless (and expensive) recount that NO ONE expected would alter the final outcome.

So, back to this zombies-invading-Special-Olympic-ceremony episode: I ask, What is it in the above litany that would give anyone reason to believe that the Leftists here in Madison would indeed consider the Special Olympics as "off limits"?

Prior to the zombie-idiot demonstration, Capitol Police Chief Tubbs approached these zombie-idiots and informed them that this was a Special Olympics event, and that they should reconsider. But, they didn't care, because the rules of basic decency don't apply to the Left.

I wonder where they got that idea.

I am fully aware that many on the Left were appalled at this tasteless, classless episode. But, sorry to say for the Left, once you open a window, you have little control over the types of flying critters that enter.

You play with socially accepted norms of behavior... you fudge on a boundary here, you tamper with a code of decency there. Why on this good green Earth should you be allowed to abruptly wash your hands to the inevitable results? These zombie-idiot-invaders are simply doing what you've been doing for months. They're simply picking up your torch, and carrying it one stride further into the Realm of the Lawless.

Can't wait to see what happens next?

Pro-Walker Redux

2011-05-07T12:21:00.000-07:00

(Warning… much of this post is repeated content from prior posts. But, since I keep having the same conversations, and this stuff just keeps swirling around in my mind, it seems only fair to inflict it upon you again, and again, and again.)

Just this past weekend, I had another conversation with a Madisonian who hopes Gov. Walker gets recalled.

So, here’s a quick run-down of my friend’s three main criticisms/accusations, and my responses.

Accusation 1: Walker has been less than honest about this whole “strip the unions of power” bill. He didn’t mention it during the campaign. So (apparently) he shouldn’t be pursuing it now that he's in office.

Response A: First, remember… This bill only addresses public-sector unions; let’s not forget the “public-sector” delimiter. What happens in the private sector unions is of no concern to Walker or any of us Conservatives.

Response B: We humans are funny creatures. We frequently complain about politicians who too many promises during campaigns… promises which they can’t possibly deliver. Now, we are apparently complaining because politicians don’t unveil their entire legislative agenda. Some folks are hard to please.

Response C: Personally, it neither surprises me nor concerns me that a politician might have a big idea like this up his sleeve, and not mention it during the campaign. “Why!?”, you might ask. Answer: He would have known during the campaign that there is no way a bill like this could survive without a Republican majority in both houses of the legislature.

When Governor Walker’s campaign started, the Democrats had control of both chambers of the state legislature. All through his campaign, up until Election Day, Walker had no way of knowing that the Republicans were going to win control of both houses. Without that fore-knowledge, why in the world would he have mentioned such a divisive concept during the campaign?

That would be like me interviewing for a job at Company ABC. But, I tell the HR director, “Oh, just so you know, I kinda have my eye on a job with Company XYZ. So, if I you hire me, and then, I get a better offer from Company XYZ, I’m going to jump ship and leave you high and dry. But, for now, since I don’t really know if it’s going to work out with Company XYZ, can you and I go ahead with this interview process?”

Why would I do that? Why would I tip my hand? I might think about it. I might fantasize about it. Heck, I might even act upon it (by arranging for a clandestine interview with Company XYZ). But, I’m surely not going to say anything about it to Company ABC. That way, if Company XYZ doesn’t work out, I can go back to Company ABC, and make the best of it; no one has to know my heart was with Company XYZ.

I don’t doubt that Walker was thrilled to see the Republicans gain control of both houses of the state legislature. And, once he saw that consolidation of power, I’m sure that he jumped on the opportunity and moved quite quickly to get that legislation moving through the system.

Accusation 2: When being interrogated by the US Congress, Walker even admitted that there were no instantaneous savings to be realized by revoking most of the collective bargaining rights for public employees: “Walker actually admitted it! It doesn’t save us anything. This just proves that he only wants to bust the unions.”

Response A: Why is the US federal government interrogating a duly-elected governor about how he is executing his responsibilities within his state? Isn’t that the role of the voters of that state?

Response B: Let’s remember that public-sector unions didn’t exist until 50 years ago. 24 states in the union either don’t have ANY collective bargaining for their public employees, or have less collective bargaining for their public employees than we offer(ed) here in Wisconsin. And, oh yeah… federal employees don’t have collective bargaining powers, either. (And on a related note, President Obama recently instituted a pay freeze for two years for all federal employees as a way to manage unexpected budgetary shortfalls. Hmm. That's curious, isn't it?)

But, now you’re telling me these unions are sacrosanct, never to be threatened? Ugh.

Response C: Let’s say we have an obese person. Let’s say that obese person decides to lose some weight. And, as part of his efforts to lose weight, he decides to stop eating donuts. Using the same logic applied in this accusation, I could walk up to that obese man and ask, “So, Mr. Obese-man, how does NOT eating this donut make you lose weight?!” Answer: It doesn’t.

NOT eating a donut doesn’t MAKE you lose weight. “Hah! So, your stance on eating that donut is a farce! You SAY that it’s about losing weight. But, it’s not really about weight. You just hate donut-makers…(??? I dunno. My analogy breaks down there.) So, Mr. Obese-man, you should quit with the charade, and go ahead! EAT THE DONUT!"

No, by choosing to NOT eat a donut, the obese man is not going to instantaneously lose weight.

But wouldn’t it be more accurate to recognize that, “If the goal is losing weight, it is going to be harder to attain that goal if he continues to eat donuts”? Right? Can we agree on that?

Refraining from eating a donut does not make us lose weight; it makes it easier to lose weight over time. Cutting up a credit card doesn’t pay off our bill; it makes it easier to reduce our debt balance over time.

Similarly, by revoking collective bargaining for public-sector employees… that single act does not SAVE us money. But, it does make it easier for us to regain control over our budgetary imbalance. This happens by allowing the state, county and local governments flexibility in how they will respond to the inevitable down-turns in the economy (in exactly the way that was demonstrated by the President of the United States regarding his pay-freeze for all federal employees). If collective bargaining is left in place, that will mean that 60% of most local governmental budgets are automatically taken off the table of consideration for reform. In ANY business model, that’s crippling. It would be like saying, we’re going to fix the federal budget, but we’re not going to touch the Big Three (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). You can’t do it.

In fact, have you heard about the news fresh out of Milwaukee this week (May 5, 2011)? The Milwaukee Public School system is going to layoff 1,000 staff members. Why? Ans: Budgetary shortfall. Could they have saved some of those jobs by imposing a slight reduction in salary and benefits? Sure thing. (NOTE: That’s what happens in the private sector all the time.) But, collective bargaining prohibits tampering with the pay and benefits landscape. So, payroll is left untouched. Benefits are left untouched. Instead, we have to hack personnel… 1,000 layoffs! Of course, that means the workload from those laid off employees will get shifted to the remaining staff. Well, at least they still have a job, right? (That’s good, I suppose, as long as you’re not one of those poor, unfortunate 1,000.)

Accusation #3 (the last one for this post): I was exclaiming to my friend about the need for this aggressive reform. I stated, “There is no way the union will make these changes on their own. They simply will NOT give any ground on their compensation packages.” My friend rebutted, “That’s not true, Cliff. They made it very clear that they were willing to give in on the two major issues” (i.e. paying for a below-private-sector average on their retirement, and below-half-of-private-sector average health care) “So, the fact that Walker went ahead with this bill shows that he was only interested in busting the union.”

Response A: Let’s ask ourselves… Exactly WHY were the unions willing to accept these reductions in benefits? Was it not because Walker and the Republican legislature held a gun to their head and made it clear that they (the Republicans) weren’t going to be played like their Democrat predecessors? Was it not because the unions saw that public opinion was (finally!) turning against them? In these recessed times, the average Wisconsin tax-payer is seeing all manner of hardship in the economy: job uncertainty, pay freezes, reductions in 401K company-match amounts, increases in health care premiums. All the while, their state-employee counterparts were enjoying iron-clad job security, 100% employer-payment of a FIXED-BENEFIT retirement package, and fantastic health-care packages with employee-paid premiums WELL below national private-sector averages.

So, finally, the tax payer wises up, and begins turning a scrutinizing eye towards the unions. The new political power-players (Republicans) were resisting the union pleas for “justice”. So, sure! NOW the unions decide, out of the goodness of their ever-loving hearts, that they will give in on the concessions.

The honest fact is… They only accepted these concessions because they were against a wall. They had nothing to lose.

If we are to believe these unions are so magnanimous… so honorable… I’ll simply ask, Why didn’t they make the concessions on their own, two years ago, when the economy started to falter? (And, I’m not trying to say “two years” to pin anything on President Obama. I am simply referencing the time when the banking- and real-estate-bubbles burst.) Why didn’t these public-sector unionized saints step forward then, in a self-managing sort of way… with their pulse on the national economy, and voluntarily offer up the concessions that Walker and the Reps insisted upon in this current bill?

ANS: They didn’t make these voluntary concessions because THAT’S NOT WHAT UNIONS DO.

The single, irresistible purpose of the union (ANY union) is to first serve itself, and then to serve its members. That is true of all unions everywhere. Unions are NOT designed to keep one eye on the interest of their union members, and the other eye on the current economy. To ask a union to voluntarily police itself and give up any power or benefits is to ask a giraffe to be short, or a possum to be cute. It simply cannot be done.

At least, in the private sector, the unions have to battle with their natural enemy, i.e. Management. In the public sector, there is no such "natural enemy." There is no ever-present obstruction to the union. Instead, they have a political Opponent who can be all-to-easily swayed by the spending of tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

Which leads to…

Response B: Let’s say the unions give in on these concessions… and Walker backs down and leaves the unions in place with all of their collective bargaining intact.

What is going to happen in two years? In five years?

If we don’t disband the unions… or, as Walker’s bill does, strip them of most of their collective bargaining powers… what happens?

ANS: After another election cycle or two, a couple things will happen. First, we will likely see the pendulum swing on the political majorities in the state legislature. Maybe not both houses, and maybe not by much. But, eventually the Democrats will regain control of one or both of the houses.

Also, during that two- or five-year span, the national spotlight will have moved onto some new hot-topic news story. The good citizens of Wisconsin will have dropped their guard, having grown tired of the eternal battle with the socialist-state., and the quasi-marxist protestors.

So, with a return of union-friendly Democrats into our political structure… and with a general reduction of scrutiny over the doings of the public-sector unions… what do you think we might see happening… IF the public-sector unions were left in place? Hmmm…?

These unions, who right now, want us all to believe they are making their sacrifice for the sake of Wisconsin’s economy (by agreeing to the two primary concessions)… because of their intense awareness of the downturn in the current economy… what will that union do, when the winds shift, and the tempers cool, and and the spotlights are turned off?

ANS: They will do what ALL unions do. The Phoenix will rise again. The Beast will return. And, I can guarantee you that, before my daughter graduates from high school, (eight years) these public-sector unions will be back in full force, pounding the bargaining table, insisting upon the reinstatement of all these concessions. They will declaim the horrors of the previous X years. They will talk about how, “We paid our share! We made our sacrifices!” They’ll tell us about how it’s all for the children, or the sick people, or the poor people. And, any fair and just society would reinstate their AWESOME benefits package because they deserve it.

And then… we, the state of Wisconsin, are right back where we started.

No… I am sorry. I simply cannot trust the public-sector unions to keep a truly objective perspective for the rest of eternity, and to keep their union bargaining hounds at bay, and to be their own policing authority. Nor can I wait another 75 years for another political aligning-of-the-stars: We have a governor who is prepared to stake his career on doing this ugly deed now, and we have a number of Republicans in the majority of both houses of the state legislature who are already facing extreme heat for their unpopular votes on this bill.

It’s gotta be done. And, it’s gotta to be done now. Stand with Walker.

"I hope the government will help me out..."

2011-04-29T20:52:00.000-07:00

I was recently conversing with a Liberal. She works in a nice, relatively secure state job, like me.

She was expressing with frustration her perception that her “relatively secure state job” was being threatened by Governor Walker’s recent apoplexy-inducing bill. This job security (along with the much-less stressful work culture) was a large part of the reason she left her previous job higher-paying job.

She used to work for a local company. While there, she picked up some very nice computer-technical skills. There are many people who work at this same company… get the skills and the credentials… then, leave the company and head for the “consultant” circuit. As a consultant in this field, she could easily be making a plush six-figure salary.

After some of her Walker-critical remarks, I asked her whether she would consider the “consulting” route. She said, “No, I like Madison too much.” (You see, these consulting jobs can be a less-than-optimal life. Sure, you make good money. But, you usually work in a distant city. So, you spend a lot of time flying back and forth. It’s technically “free” flying, though, because the costs are covered by the hiring company.)

At this point, I have no beef with my Liberal friend. She’s allowed to have those attitudes and opinions. The decision about how to live, and how to spend her working years is her's to make. In her shoes, I would probably make the same choice, at least until my daughter was grown and out of the house.

But, she said something that kinda set me off. (I know. You’re shocked, aren’t you?)

As the conversation turned towards retirement and pension, she said, “Of course, I hope to save enough money to cover my retirement. But, if it doesn’t work out I just hope there will be some government program to help me.”

*sigh*

Do you understand what you just read?

In case it didn’t jump out at you, allow me to paraphrase: “I have a lucrative money-making skillset. With those skills, I could make a LOT more money than I am right now. But, I choose not to employ that skillset, because it would be an inconvenience to me. I would have to travel. I would have to work harder, and I wouldn't get the life of relative ease that I am enjoying here. So, I’ll opt for the easier road, and I’ll enjoy my days now. I will save what money I can. But, in case it doesn’t quite work out, I’ll let the government pick up my slack when I’m old and in need.”

THAT my dear friends is one of the things that is wrong with America. And, in my humble opinion, if that attitude is not curbed quickly, it will be the death of us all.

I’m sorry, Dear Liberal Friend, but there is not now, nor will there ever be, enough money in the federal treasury to help every single old person who didn’t successfully manage their wealth through their working years.

What she is describing here is not Socialism. It’s not even Communism. It’s WORSE. At least, in Communism, the state mandates the forfeiture of your assets during your “according to your means” working years, before you get to your consuming “according to your needs” retirement years.

This loosey-goosey Liberal economic dementia actually allows my friend to keep her current earnings… spend them on vacations, and concert tickets, and new computer technology and iPhones, and surgeries for her pets. THEN, when her retirement portfolio “doesn’t work out”, she just extends her up-turned palm to Mommy & Daddy Government imploring, “Gimme, gimme, gimme!!!”

Ugh, people. This is horrible.

When I challenged her, she said, “Well, don’t you enjoy your nice 40-hour work week? Don’t you enjoy your easy work schedule? And, not having to travel for your job?”

Sure… who doesn’t “enjoy” easy things? But, the question is, “On whom are your depending for your old-age security?” Are you depending on yourself? Are you working as hard as you can, doing everything to provide for yourself? And, if you fail, are you prepared to bear the brunt of that fate?

Or, are you expecting “someone else” to take care of you?

God help us all.

No, actually, people do NOT have that right.

2011-04-27T06:19:00.000-07:00

I was talking “gun rights” with an acquaintance of mine yesterday. We’re not close friends, but we see each other on the bus occasionally.

He’s a gun-owner, a gun-shooter, and a bit of an enthusiast. However, he is not a big NRA fan, and he falls on the Liberal end of the political continuum regarding some of the primary NRA-type issues (conceal carry, registration of firearms, gun bans, loopholes at gun shows, etc).

At one point, he said, “I understand the concern of the gun-show folks who say ‘It’s my right to own a gun’, and ‘It’s my right to carry a gun’. Sure, you have those rights.”

“But,” he continued, “other people also have the right to NOT be around guns if they don’t want to.”

Now, I knew the direction he was headed. And, since I’m not really one for confrontation, (especially with casual acquaintances in public situations) I just let the comment go, unchallenged… and the conversation kind of petered out after that.

But, what I wanted to say in response was, “No, actually, people do NOT have that right.” There is no right anywhere, implied or inferred, that suggests Americans citizens have the right to “not be around guns”.

I have a right to bear arms. You do NOT have the right to tell me to get that gun away from you.

Granted, in your home, you get to set the rules. And, many private businesses have explicitly declared, “No firearms.” As property-owning citizens, that is your right.

Also, you have the right to assemble. And, if you choose to assemble with people who do NOT have guns, that’s fine. That's your right.

Also, you have the right to come and go as you please. If you find out that I am carrying a gun, and that makes you uncomfortable, you can choose to excuse yourself from my presence. That is your right.

And, I do NOT have the right to stalk you, or hound you, or hold you captive (thereby forcing you to be around my gun).

But, aside from that… no, you do NOT have a right to always live and move about within a gun-free bubble.

Sorry.

There are Two Ethical Problems...

2011-04-19T10:47:00.000-07:00

I’m sure you’ve heard it before: “If we cut federal spending, sick kids will die, old people will die, sick old people will die, and – what the heck – all beloved house pets will be cooked and served up on silver platters to feed The Rich.”

The charge is as old as the hills: Conservatives are heartless. We (apparently) have no compassion. We do not care for poor people. We only have eyes for rich people. We are beholden to the Almighty Dollar, and hold the less fortunate in contempt.

We’ve heard it as recently as President Obama’s speech last week in response to Representative Paul Ryan’s hard-core debt-cutting budget proposal. In the absence of any alternative suggestions, the President insisted that this heartless budget pitted “kids with Autism” against “billionaires”.

If I could be Political King for a Day… if I had ONE game-changing message to throw into the national political discourse… it would be to force America to acknowledge that there is an equally valid charge to be hurled at my Leftist counterparts.

Maybe Conservatives are heartless about today’s poor. But, the Liberals are heartless about TOMORROW’s poor.

Even if I am the monster my ideological opponents wish me to be… even if I do shine the billionaire’s shoes with the hair of the homeless… we can’t ignore one biting fact: America is spending trillions of dollars she does not have.

And, if WE (that is, our current generation) don’t have the money to pay for all these programs… then who will pay that bill?

Answer: Our children.

And, if we are neglecting poor people right now... ($1.4 TRILLION per year in Medicare/Medicaid/Social-Security expenses, untold fortunes in state and local spendings, neglecting?)… what is going to happen to all of these programs when that $13TRILLION in debt hits the fan?

When our nation finally begins to grapple with that debt, what is going to happen to all the poor people THEN? Huh?

Like many people, my wife and I give a lot of money to our local church. That money goes to help a lot of programs, and a lot of people. But, I can most certainly envision a time when our finances might hit the fan… and, what will happen to our giving practices once that happens? Will we continue to give at our current levels? I can assure you we won’t. If I lose my job, or we have to start paying for unexpected medical expenses, or we see an impending move with all its incumbent expenses, or one of our parents comes to live with us, I can assure you our contributions to charity will be negatively impacted.

Why would the same thing NOT happen at the national level? When some future generation of Americans decides to get serious about tackling our debt, how can we possibly think that they will be able to continue funding ALL of their benevolent programs at then-current levels?

So… the next time you hear a Liberal talk about me and my fellow mean ol’ Conservatives, be sure to ask them why they’re trying to crush future poor people under the weight of all this unfunded federal debt.

A domestic analogy

2011-04-12T10:15:00.001-07:00

It appears that Americans are, at long last, beginning to wrestle with the undeniable fiscal crisis that confronts our great nation.

The T.E.A. Party has raced across the nation like a brush fire, advocating “reduced spending”. Libertarian candidates, preaching “reduced government”, have gained an increasing following across the country. The nation has recoiled in disgust at the numerous bail-outs of private companies with public funds. President Obama’s only serious legislative victory, ObamaCare, has been sullied and defamed from its inception because of the outlandish spending that it entails. Republican Representative Paul Ryan has posed an unthinkable budget, which trims trillions of dollars from our nation’s impending debt (to the accolades from many, across the political spectrum). Just this month, (Apr ’11) the House won an actual cut of $38 billion in federal spending. (Which accounts for just over 1% of the national budget.)

I hope and pray this attitude is real, and the enthusiasm remains intense.

Throughout much of the ensuing discussions and heated exchanges, there has been (at least) one undeniable trend: Speaking in very broad terms, Democrats think we should tackle runaway debt by raising taxes, while Republicans think we should cut spending.

Of course, there are plenty who think we should do both. But, the intensity of the opinions held by the individuals will support this generalization.

So, as our duly-elected federal legislators continue to joust with our nation’s debt, we are confronted with the question of “compromise”? In short, should Republicans and Democrats “compromise” on the competing approaches of “raise taxes” and “cut spending”? Should they look for middle ground – some tax increases, and some spending cuts? Is compromise always a good idea?

If you find yourself undecided on this matter, I ask you to consider the following.

Let’s construct an analogy from our personal lives.

If your household should find itself living beyond its means… that is, spending more money than is being brought in… you are, by definition, going into debt. And, with every month or year of this budget imbalance, you will go further into debt.

When you decide to resolve this budget imbalance, you have only two options: either 1) you increase your income, or 2) you decrease your expenses. Right? That’s really it. It’s a simple math problem: increase income, or decrease outgo. Failure to do either means that the budget imbalance persists, and your debt rises.

If you decide to attack the income-spending imbalance through option #1, (increasing your income) what does that mean? That would mean, maybe, taking on some overtime at your job… or taking a different job, that pays better… or taking an additional job… or, if one of the spouses is staying at home, maybe that spouse needs to get a job... or, if you have children, getting them to take a job to help out the family. This is pretty much it, though. There aren’t a lot of creative options (at this general-level discussion) to increase your income. Simply put, your household needs to earn more money, and that’s going to require more work.

If you choose option #2, to attack the income-spending imbalance by decreasing your spending, what does that mean? It would mean cutting back on some frivolous spending (eating out, full-price movies, concert tix, sporting events)… or cutting back on some nice things that are “good” but not entirely necessary (vacations, nice clothes, fresh groceries). Again, there really aren’t that many choices (at this general level).

But, what if you wanted to compromise? What if you want to both take on another job, AND cut back on spending? That sounds good, right? Very balanced… very compromising.

If you can make it work, bully for you.

But, in this personal-budget analogy, can you imagine a time when option #1… “increasing your income”… simply ceases to be reasonable? Can you imagine a time, when you’re looking at your daily planner, and your own personal energy levels, and you decide, “I just can’t take on more work. I’m already working two jobs, and I’ve worked every weekend for the past five months. I need a rest.”? You can’t take on infinite jobs. You can’t work infinite hours of overtime. And, there will come a point, where you can’t find that new, better-paying job. At some point, option #1 just runs out of potential. If you go overboard in pursuit of option #1, you’ll wind up killing yourself under the weight of all this extra burden. You’ll burn out. You’ll quit. You’ll walk away from it all. Can you imagine such a scenario?

At that point, when you have decided that option #1 is no longer feasible, what options remain to get your domestic budget-imbalance in order? Following the simple logical model laid out above, only one option remains: #2… cut spending.

It is very possible that, at the personal level, you have simply been spending too much money. Even though much of that spending may be good, and meaningful, and beneficial to the recipients… it’s just too much spending. I would love to take my daughter to Europe every year. My! Wouldn’t that be beneficial to her, to have that experience? Should could learn languages, and gain an appreciation of other cultures. But, if my household can’t afford it -- if we are going into crushing debt because of these expensive trips -- it is quite irrelevant how “useful” or “educational” or “beneficial” such trips might be.

And, at the national level, I am convinced that is where we are.

In the face of a looming $13 TRILLION(!) debt bomb, the options available to our legislators are either, 1) increase the federal “income” (that is, raise taxes, usually on “rich” people), or 2) decrease our federal spending.

It’s easy to look at the rich people in our society, and to say, “Let’s raise taxes on the rich”. To be sure, we’ve been saying that for decades. But, is there a point at which that option can be exhausted? Can we infinitely raise taxes on wealthy people? Is there a point where these rich people will tire of the tax burden and either cut back on their earning potential,(“If I earn more, I’ll be bumped into the next tax bracket”) or they’ll simply walk away (to another country)?

Whatever a “fair” and “just” tax burden might be, this fact remains. We (the US of A) are encountering some serious problems in producing the necessary tax revenues to resolve our budgetary imbalance. Even though rich people are being taxed one-third of their incomes, we are NOT increasing our federal “income” to compensate our spending. And, every month or year that we continue without the requisite “income”, (taxes) we are going further and further into debt.

And, that is true, regardless of how useful and meaningful much of our spending may be. I am well aware that most of our spending is for very worthy causes: the poor, the uninsured, the under-insured, the disabled, farmers, single-mothers, children with learning disabilities, neighborhoods that need revitalization. Who doesn’t want the “best schools money can buy”? Who wants people to die on the highways? Who wants prisoners to suffer miserably? Who wants the elderly to live in pain, when a joint replacement would immeasurably improve their quality of life?

Once again, despite the “goodness” of all these spending programs, if we cannot afford them -- if they are hurtling our nation towards inescapable fiscal ruin – we need to revisit all of these programs, re-prioritize, and find ways to cut our spending to bring this budget-imbalance under control, despite the pain it will cause.

This link is to a very powerful video-response to this whole issue.

As the video demonstrates, if you rolled up all the rich people in America, and take EVERYTHING they have, and take EVERYTHING from all the fat companies… you still won’t have enough to resolve our nation’s current debt.

If you are still undecided… Do you understand that? Do those words sink in? There is NOT enough money in the private sector to pay for all our national debt. And, President Obama’s spending plans compound that debt by a factor of three over the next 10 years!

We can no longer rely upon response #1 (raising taxes) to resolve our national budget imbalance. Our only option is response #2: We MUST cut spending. And, we must do it drastically and soon!

More on Corporate Taxes

2011-04-12T10:00:00.000-07:00

(This is a follow-up to my previous blog.)

I sent my previous blog to a friend of mine, for review. This friend is a business owner here in Madison. Below are his remarks.

===================================

Here's the real question: Who owns corporations? Of course it's the stockholders.

That's you, me, the teachers unions (yep, in their pension funds), Warren Buffet, mega-rich people, and middle-class folks. Many of these people don't own these corporations directly, but if they have a 401k, pension, or retirement plan, or own any mutual funds, then they are in effect part-owners. And that accounts for most of us. (And, most of us aren't the "evil rich".)

Sure, rich people own more stocks than the rest of us. They own more of everything than us, actually. So, I suppose you could make the case to tax the corporations higher just so we can hit that rich dude harder. But that is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Second question: What do corporations do with their profits? Well, they either pay them out in dividends to stockholders, or reinvest them in the business (or more typically some mixture of the two). And what happens then? The stockholder is taxed on the dividend, or taxed on the capital gain when he sells the stock! This is what is commonly referred to as "double-taxation" - the business profits are taxed at a top rate of 35%+. Then, when they are paid out to shareholders, those very same dollars are TAXED AGAIN. Is that fair? Not really.

It's also appropriate to note that right now the dividend and capital gains tax rates are fairly low. Some might say, "That's not fair!", since that's how a lot of rich people (as well as the elderly, mind you) make a lot of their money. But let's keep this point in mind: The capital gains tax represents the SECOND time the SAME profit was taxed. You don't ever hear a politician mention THAT, do you?

Which brings us to the final question: How is profit determined? And here's where it gets thorny. These days corporations can do LOTS of things to manipulate the "profit" they show, and one thing they can and will do is manipulate it to show the profit in the MOST DESIRABLE COUNTRY, for tax purposes. Part of our problem is that the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

That most definitely encourages many companies to claim their profits off-shore, (that is, paying corporate taxes to other countries) to avoid paying the more onerous taxes here in the U.S. If we were to reduce our rates, and simplify our tax code, a very sound argument could be made that more companies would return their profits to OUR shores.

Hey, I don't like that these corporations paid no taxes. But the problem is the system, not the companies. We have a system that is so complex, that allows the politicians to hand out favors to their buddies via credits, deductions, etc. (green energy tax credits, etc.) and all the big companies legally play the game. I mean, don't we all in our personal lives do everything we can to minimize our tax burden?

My desired solution is to simplify the system. Eliminate all the deductions. Set up a modest, lower corporate tax rate. And go from there. But until we do that, everyone - politicians and corporations - are going to continue playing the game. If you don't want the players to collect $200 every time they pass Go, then don't have that be a rule in the game. It's pretty simple in reality, but the politicians don't want to give up their ability to dole out favors and try to encourage or discourage certain behaviors through the tax code.

About those "corporate taxes"...

2011-04-08T15:10:00.000-07:00

Well, it’s been all over the news lately: General Electric (or Verizon, or CitiBank, or [insert name of uber-large international corporation here]) paid zero dollars in U.S. corporate taxes last year! Nada! Zilch! Zero!

I am no tax attorney, nor am I an officer in any organization (except the Wisconsin Chapter of the Krispy Kreme Fan Club). Nonetheless, the world will be a better place if I just offer my opinion. So, buckle up.

First, allow me a peripheral observation (to serve primarily as a distraction while I formulate the thesis of my response): Whenever this sort of "news story" comes up, I am always interested in “timing”. Why now? Did GE invent this egregious tax-evasive behavior? Has it been going on for generations? Is President Obama to blame? Or can this be pinned on former-President Bush, and/or the Republican House majority (who took control just four months ago)?

Or, might the timing have something to do with our nation’s (apparent) burgeoning interest in seeing our lawmakers take an axe to our national budget. (“Oh, the mean people want to cut spending, do they? Why, look at all these rich companies who didn’t pay ANY taxes last year.”)

Anyway, I think that is interesting. Now... to the meat of the topic.

To be sure, on its face, it seems completely horrendous… indeed, an insult to my delicate human sensitivities to think that GE, or Verizon, or CitiBank could get away without paying any “corporate tax” while raking in billions and billions in profits. It just seems so wrong!

Wrong, that is, until I look more closely. As I consider, I am increasingly convinced that what I see here is yet one more manifestation of the ubiquitous “tax the rich” psychosis that has so afflicted the Left. (See previous blog here, and here.) For the people who get really incensed by this “zero corporate tax” issue… well… I think the real root of their discontent is the thought that “the rich are getting away Scot-free”. (I’m part Scotch, by decent, so I can say that.)

Unfortunately, the notion that rich people aren’t paying any taxes because a corporation didn’t pay any taxes… that notion is completely false. Those mega-rich business owners, and corporate CEOs, are already paying WHOPPING taxes on their incomes, to the tune of 35%. That is to say… they pay OVER ONE-THIRD of their income to Uncle Sam, off the top. Plus, they pay sales tax (just like you and I), and because they buy a lot of expense stuff, they pay a LOT of sales tax.

And, all they get in return is vile bile from the Left, insisting they should give even more. Whatever the corporate tax rate may be, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or how much the individual corporate leaders (i.e. the "rich" people) pay in taxes.

It appears that some members of our society have come to think of the “corporate tax” as yet another way to stick it to rich people: “Let’s tax their income at 35%… AND... since they are so evil... let’s tax this entity over here that they call their ‘Corporation’.”

Of course, a reasonable mind can see right through this “corporation = rich person” silliness. The Left thinks that a corporate tax will hurt the rich person, causing them to "pay their fair share". But, it won’t. The corporation, by definition, is NOT attached to the rich person (or rich people). In fact, that’s why one chooses to incorporate in the first place… to create a legal separation between the individual and the business. When we tax a corporation, instead of taxing the mean rich people who happen to be steering the ship, we’re actually taxing the business itself.

And, to bring the thought full-circle, what is a business if not an amalgam of all the employees, the payroll, the products, the stores, the assets, the goods and services of that business.

If Company XYZ pays an extra $1 million in corporate taxes, only a small percentage of that money will come out of the pockets of rich people. The lion’s share of that $1 million will come from the operational budget of the company. To compensate for that lost $1M, the company only has so many options. It may reduce wages or benefits. Maybe it won't expand the business, or purchase new property, or construct new facilities. Or, the company may choose to increase their prices.

Ugh… it is a classic example of short-sighted, well-intentioned-but-poorly-informed political do-gooders trying to exact fiscal injury on those mean rich people… while failing either to understand or to respect the delicate web of a free-market economy.

I'm not sure what the "right" amount for a corporate tax. But, it is important that we understand what a corporate tax does, and what it does not.

Just do it already!

2011-03-24T18:52:00.000-07:00

According to Karl Marx, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” Religion provides assurance, security, answers and direction, in areas of life where nothing can be proven; all is founded on faith.

I have found a corollary regarding the Liberal attitude towards government finance: “Tax-the-Rich is the opiate of the Left.”

I was talking to a Liberal last week. We hit upon the topic of Wisconsin’s current tax-revenue shortfall, currently sitting at $3.6B for the next biennium. The first words out of this Liberal’s mouth were, “Well, if this Governor weren’t cutting all those sweet deals with those corporations...."

One can safely assume that the implication of this statement is, “If the governor would impose the right tax policy on businesses and rich people, then we wouldn’t have a tax revenue short-fall.” Hmm.

So, there it is: Tax-the-Rich. In fact, if you listen closely, Tax-the-Rich appears to be the universal panacea... the answer to all our fiscal woes. It shows up everywhere.

Q: How do we get our state budget under control?
A: Our governor needs to quit making sweetheart deals with the rich.

Q: Shouldn’t we cut spending?
A: No, we just need to make those rich people pay their fair share.

Q: Should we make some hard and unpopular decisions now to reduce our debt?
A: Why did he eliminate capital gains tax?

Q: How can we afford this new program, when we're $3.6 billion in the hole?
A: Corporations need to stop standing on the backs of the needy.

Indeed, Tax-the-Rich is the opiate of the Left. And the notion is built entirely on faith.

When the Left is confronted with the hard questions of the present reality, they simply take another toke on the Tax-the-Rich bong.

The Left needs to accept at least one very stubborn fact: There is no such thing as a Perfect Tax Cocktail on rich people.

I say this with confidence by observing recent history.

Here in Wisconsin, we had a Liberal governor for eight years (2003 – 2010). During the last four years, he enjoyed a Democrat majority in the State Senate, and for the last two years, a Democrat majority in the State Legislature, as well. The Democrats had complete control, and could have passed all the taxes they wanted.

But, they didn't.

Similarly, on the national level, President Obama and the Dems had control of the White House and the Legislature for two years. They could have passed all the taxes they wanted.

But, they didn't.

And, before that, there was Bill Clinton, with similar control of the US legislature for two years. Again, the Left was in control. They could have...

But, they didn't.

Setting aside, for the moment, the very legitimate and complicated argument about whether this Tax-the-Rich policy is wise, the fact remains: None of these Dems-in-Power scenarios produced the perfect combination-platter of tax legislation.

If Tax-the-Rich is such an obvious answer to our national and state fiscal problems... what happened? Why didn’t these Democrat mega-majorities get it done!?

Many Liberal apologists will insist that the blame for this failure lay not with the Democrat politicians, but with the Big Money interests that sway and pull on the entire political landscape. Or, maybe, the blame lay with the political process whereby politicians can undercut each others' tax proposals.

My response: So what!?

Whatever the reason for the failure to pass the requisite taxes... whether it be the evil influence of Big Money players, or corrupt politicians, or inept politicians, or conflict between competing political philosophies, or the fact that maybe macro-economics is just a little more complicated than is implied by the Tax-the-Rich meme... whatever the reason, the fact remains. Even when the Tax-the-Rich Party is in power, they still cannot seem to actually Tax the Rich!

Here in the state of Wisconsin, after decades of bickering about getting the rich to pay their share, we are still looking at $3.6 billion shortfall. Every day we fail act on that knowledge, is another day we go further into debt. And, with the current downturn in the economy, that slide into debt is becoming increasingly steep.

So, I put a challenge to the Left (and, to a disappointingly large percentage of those on the Right): Put up, or shut up.

If you can enact the Perfect Tax Cocktail, do it! For cryin' out loud, stop talking about it AND DO IT, already!! You've been talking about it for 40 years! Shut your pie-hole, and Tax the Rich!

However, may I propose a counter-offer? Until such a time... until you find the right politicians, and the right political climate, and the right alignment of heavenly bodies... until the perfect tax code has been put in place, and is raking in vast treasures of as-yet-unseen tax-revenue wealth... until this time, we need to put down the opium pipe.

The Tax-the-Rich delusion has played out, and is now see as the a false religion that it is.

At what point...?

2011-03-18T20:25:00.000-07:00

Are ALL political populations legitimate, and are all instances of political expression legitimate?

Further, can all political groups safely claim that all of their actions are legitimate... and therefore can the claim that any illegitimate actions that occur during their political gatherings are entirely outside the mainstream of their political group?

Or, is it possible that a political group, or at least one particular episode in that political group's history, has crossed the line from legitimate into illegitimate territory? There is a possibility that I am slightly biased, but these past four weeks here in Madison have really pushed my tolerance... have really stretched my willingness to cut people slack in this arena of "legitimate political expression."

There have been SO many episodes of ugly behavior on the part of the anti-Walker/pro-union forces that I am beginning to wonder whether it is honest to let them off the hook by saying, "Oh, that undesirable behavior is from a fringe element; it's not fair to paint the whole group with those bad behaviors."

Let's briefly recap: Failing to leave a public building during operating hours and setting up crock-pots and food warmers (like it's some kind of camp site), sleeping in public buildings, shouting and screaming in our capitol's marble/tiled rotunda for weeks on end, obstructing the order of legislative business, running out of the state to hold the state legislature hostage, surrounding and impeding movement of duly elected officials in the capitol, surrounding duly elected officials and shouting at them with electronically powered amplification devices, entering the capitol (after a hard-earned shut-down) through a window, choosing to open the window to allow protesters into the capitol after the shut-down, trashing public grounds, surrounding and rocking a bus filled with "opposition" politicians, harassing free citizens and protesting tax-paying business owners because they financially contributed to the "wrong" people, a few minor little death threats (that are supposed to be laughed off after the authors "explained" themselves), police officers failing to uphold the law, police and fire department unions sending threatening letters to tax payers who supported the "opposition" politicians, harassment and intimidation by union protesters all across the state, approaching and destroying petitions drafted by "opposition" political operatives, elected officials telling police NOT to enforce the law, politicization of the classrooms, teachers taking school kids to protests, teachers calling a "sick out", doctors handing out fake "sick notes" to help the teachers avoid repercussions of their "sick out" lies, vandalizing public and private buildings with spray-painted political messages (some vulgar), urinating outside the capitol, rushing past police crowd-control barriers.

And, I let's not forgot the signs! You remember... the signs held by protesters while marching around our capitol. If you've only seen television coverage of these protests, I am quite sure you have not seen THE worst signs. Not only would they sorta taint the "we the people, working class" image and tone that the popular media are trying to apply to the protests. But, many of the signs would require censoring for decency and broadcast purposes.

The signs you never saw on TV include images of Jesus flipping the bird, a photograph (not a drawing!) of a very hairy anal sphincter with a picture of Gov. Walker's head/face superimposed over the actual sphincter, uses of profanity in their signs IN BROAD DAYLIGHT knowing full well that children would be present, references to gang raping one of the attractive FOX News anchor-babes, calling Gov. Walker Hitler & Mussolini & Mubarak, calling Walker a douche bag, calling him a "used condom", employing predictable adolescent jokes on the surname Koch, putting Gov. Walker in gun-sight cross-hairs, one lady's sign remarked how she'd never been screwed by a governor before, one says "Walker blows goats", ...

Now, I am quite sure that most decent people would agree that these signs are "over the top". And, I am quite sure that many of the protesters would like us all to believe that these signs represent a fringe element of the anti-Walker folks. But, I will return to my opening questions: Are all political expressions "legitimate", and can they therefore dismiss all "over the top" instances as aberrations? Is it possible for some political groups to simply be "over the top"? Can so many signs, and so many instances of irresponsible, ugly, childish, and brutish behavior really be dismissed with a simple "oh, that's just a fringe group; we're not really like that"?

Does there come a point when the outsider is justified in saying, "No. I'm sorry. I'm not buying it. This is not 'fringe behavior'. This is too common in your ranks. It's too prolific. You hang with these 'fringe' people. You tolerate their signs among you. You lock arms with them. You allow your children to be exposed to their language. No. I'm sorry. You do not get to dismiss them simply because they are ugly and undesirable; you must own them now."

Granted, there have been thousands of sign-carriers. And, granted, I do not have a scientific measurement of what percentage of all signs were represented by this fraction of offensive signs. But, still! How many does it take until the protesters need to own them. I may not be the one telling the offensive joke about the gay man. But if I mingle with those joke-tellers all the time, and I humor them, and I do nothing to resist, deter, or chastise... well, at some point, I am complicit.

The Pain Has Just Started...

2011-02-17T19:07:00.000-08:00

A number of states in the Union are facing some serious budgetary concerns. Count Wisconsin among them. In February of this year, Pew Research recently identified 10 states in "fiscal peril". Wisconsin was #10.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=436547

This fact is largely at the heart of why newly elected Governor Scott Walker decided on some very strong actions to try to bring our fiscal house into order.

Of course, before the ink was dry, the hand-wringing commenced. Many have cried about the Draconian slashes, and the bleak future that bodes for the state.

I would like to respond to those concerns.

To start, let it be known, I agree: there will be some serious cuts to the budget.

However, as all this shakes out, as the dust settles, and we continue to separate the wheat from the chaff, we must recognize that this is not Gov. Walker's "fault". He's not the bad guy here. Neither, of course, are the state workers at "fault".

If anyone is to be labeled "at fault" in this whole ordeal, I would say that it would have to be me and all of my fellow-Wisconsin voters for the past, oh, 50 years.

You see, in my humble opinion, the root of the problem is quite simple: We (as a state) have been spending more money than we have been taking in. And, we have been doing this for a very long time. The state of Wisconsin is $11 billion in the hole right now.

And, the primary reason we are so far in debt is because we (the voters) have -- dare I say it? -- cared too much. We have had a soft place in our heart for countless programs, needy people, single mothers, kids with learning limitations, the homeless, farmers being undercut by Big Farm. We've loved our protected green space in cities. We've loved our libraries, and our museums, and our myriad special interest groups.

Over the past many decades, we have invented state-run programs and agencies to address these concerns. We have built state-owned facilities. We have hired state-paid staff. And, (as is the focus in the current hubbub) we have offered generous benefits to each one of those state employees. Benefits that dwarf what is found in the private sector.

In a vacuum, one could easily look at any one of these programs or agencies, and justify it. You could look into the eyes of hurting souls, and needy people, and innocent children who have just gotten a raw deal in life, or grown-ups who have made one bad decision... and you could convince yourself that any honorable, just and Christian society should support all of these programs.

But, there is one overreaching problem: We can't afford all of these programs.

We, the voters, have committed the state to these countless (well-intentioned) programs. But, we have failed to pay for them.

There comes a time when a fiscal entity (whether it be a family, a company, a state, a nation) has to look at the facts very plainly.

W-E C-A-N-N-O-T A-F-F-O-R-D T-H-I-S.

Regardless of how wonderful these programs may be, we can't afford them.

And, if we can't afford these programs, where is the money coming from? How can these programs persist? How are these state employees getting paid? How are those needy folks receiving state aid?

If we (the State) don't have cash on hand... or, if we aren't producing the necessary tax revenue to finance all these wonderful programs... Where is the money coming from?

The answer: (Are you sitting down?) It's coming from our children, and our grandchildren.

That's right.

We have committed the state to excessive expenditures.

We have failed to produced sufficient tax revenue to pay for them.

So, faced with this disparity, we have had neither the courage to cut these programs, nor the fortitude to raise our own taxes to pay for all the programs.

(Granted, there are many who would be more than happy to raise the taxes on other people, i.e. "the rich", to fund all these programs. But, regardless of whether this is good economic policy, the simple fact is that we are NOT doing that. We aren't bringing in the necessary tax revenue.)

Instead, we are simply borrowing against our children's futures... to make us feel better about ourselves! That is why I say it is OUR fault... the tax payer.

WE want to help all these people with all of these state-funded programs. WE feel sorry for them. WE have the soft spot in our heart.

But, WE aren't able to pay for it. So, WE are making our kids pay for it.

That is shameful. And, it poses a truly existential threat to our state.

It has to stop.

Gov. Walker is simply starting the ball rolling down the hill.

And, I am sorry to say this, too... but, it will only get worse.

If we are going to get our fiscal house in order, it is going to hurt for a very long time.

Even I, in all of my humble genius, do not fully understand just how much it's going to hurt.

It is time to take a swig of whiskey, and start ripping that band-aid off, now!

God bless us as we try to sort all this out.

Teachers Strike in Madison

2011-02-17T16:07:00.000-08:00

Well, for the moment, Madison, Wisconsin, appears to be the center of the US political world.

We're being discussed by all the major talk-radio personalities. We are THE article on the cover page of DrudgeReport.com, and ABCNews.com, and respectable billing on many other news sites.

"Why?", you might ask.

Because this morning, at least 15 school systems across the state staged a work-stoppage. (Teachers called in "sick".) The various administrators had no choice but to shut down the schools. For Madison schools, this was the second day. And, tomorrow (Friday) looks to be more of the same.

The more I think about this drama, the more frustrating it gets. I am increasingly convinced that we should do away with all collective bargaining for public employees... for this one reason.

When private-sector unions strike... when they decide, en masse, to walk out, whether to get the attention of mgmt, or to express their objection to any employment conditions, or to garner sympathy from the spectators... when private-sector unions strike, they have to weigh their strike against the costs of the strike.

And, in the private-sector, those costs can be real and damaging to the company. Which can, in turn, backfire and hurt the employees.

For example, if GM workers strike, that will slow production, slow delivery of products to the customers, hamper customer satisfaction, etc. If the product or service is compromised, the money-wielding customer gets to decide if they want to take their business elsewhere, say, to the Toyota dealership down the street.

Or, if GM workers strike, they run the risk of being targeted by management for closing the plant down, and moving the work to an area of the country that will be more appreciative of the high-paying jobs.

Those are very real potential consequences for staging a labor strike in the private sector.

It's like a high-stakes chess game: Labor vs. Management. Both parties having to consider their hand and weigh their options against the costs: "Is it worth it?"

I am all in favor of private-sector employees having those collective bargaining options to execute as they see fit. Just as I am all in favor of private-sector business owners have the power to manage their businesses as they see fit. Together, they represent the Yin & Yang of the free market.

BUT... such is NOT the case in the public sector.

In the public-sector, there is no "competitive pressures" to influence the deliberative process. I, as the money-wielding customer, (in this case, a tax-paying parent) can't decide to take my kid out of this public school, and stick her in another school. I can't decide to take a different bus to work. I can't decide to chose a different provider to get my license renewed, or to register my S-corp. Nope. All of those actions are safely ensconced behind the unassailable walls of their respective government monopolies.

Nor can the concerned Management really decide to shut down a school, or a bus route, or a DMV office. Those services are tax-funded; within the context of current law and policy, they MUST remain open.

No, in the public sector, management is hand-cuffed, and the customer is impotent in these public-sector work stoppages. The only ones with any power, is Labor.

That is a lop-sided distribution of power. I don't like it.

Madison Metropolitan School District has now forced my wife and I to each burn one vacation day. And, maybe a third tomorrow (Fri). I have no recourse... no way to respond to these work-stoppages.

There are numerous states in the union that manage their public education WITHOUT collective bargaining. I think it's time Wisconsin joined ranks.

The "Evils" of Big Insurance

2010-10-12T06:35:00.001-07:00

In a recent Facebook exchange, a Left-leaning friend made the following statement:

“I mean the whole mechanism that makes the free market go is self-interest, right? So, an insurance company is - by its nature - trying to give the least possible amount it can and get the most possible from its customers. They pay lots of really smart lawyers to ensure that they are paying out the least possible amount of money.”

My response is recorded below. I have edited this response for my blog post.

I believe that this comment from a Left-leaner highlights the primary difference between the two ideological camps on the issue of whether the health care system should be put under state control.

In this comment, my friend accuses the private sector insurance executive of paying attention to the bottom-line. He further asserts that this focus on the bottom-line distracts the insurance executive from doing right by the patients who are covered by his insurance policies.

I actually don’t disagree with my friend on this point. I am sure that happens; I am sure that, yes, the insurance company is going to protect its financial interest. And, one very effective way to do that is to pay out the least amount in coverage as possible.

That being said, I have two responses.

First, that’s no different than every other arena of the private sector, right? Every business owner has to find that sweet-spot where he can maximize his profits, while maintaining his customer-base.

But, many on the Left are not persuaded by this observation. Many on the Left think health care is too personal, too important to be left to the cruelties of the free market.

Ironically, those are the same reasons I think health care is too important to leave to the ham-fisted administration of a government bureaucracy.

Second, why is the Left so quick to believe that a government-run health care system is going to be any better at attending to the needs of the patient than a private-sector profit-driven insurance company? What is it about current government-run institutions that convince our Left-leaning acquaintances that individuals involved in the administration of these new federal health care programs are going to be any nobler?

When we dissect the original accusation (about insurance execs being too focused on the bottom-line), we have to ask, “What are their motivations for focusing on the bottom-line instead of the policy-holder?”

Is it not self-preservation? “If I don’t keep the profit margin up near X, then I’m going to be fired.”

Do members of the Left seriously believe that government employees are immune to such self-interests? Granted, maybe it won’t be “or I might be fired”… because, as we all know, no one ever gets fired from a government job. But, there are still plenty of other forms of self-interest that can affect the way a government employee executes the duties of his/her job.

When there is no fear of being fired, why would a nurse care about customer satisfaction, or answer the phone quickly, or ensure the scheduling of appointments is done accurately? When there are salary caps in place (which I believe is virtually guaranteed in the not-too-distant future of ObamaCare), why would a doctor ever see more than his/her quota of (I’m making this up) 15 patients a day? If a Madison hospital can’t pursue greater profits, why would it offer a specialized chemotherapy center, when it’s a lot of work to set one of those up, and, anyway, there is already one in Green Bay? (I left this out of my friend’s original quote. But, he also thought it was too difficult for the little guy to sue the big insurance companies.) As for lawsuits…? If you think it’s difficult for an average policy holder to sue a big insurance company, good luck trying to sue the government.

I liken a government-run health care system to public education.

My wife and I are dissatisfied with the current public education monstrosity here in Madison. We feel it is bloated and non-responsive to the parents’ interests and kids’ needs.

a) To be sure, there are plenty of capable and well-intentioned teachers and administrators. (The same could be said of most insurance execs.) And, to be sure, most kids come through the school system just fine. (The same could be said of most private-sector insurance policy holders.)

But, there are also a few pathetic teachers in our school system that NO ONE wants their kids to have. I contend that would be MUCH less likely to occur in a private-sector education structure. If I didn’t like the teacher, I’d take my kid and go elsewhere, and take my money with me. If “quality of education” is the highest priority of public education, how do such undesirable teachers persist? They persist because the teachers’ union protects them. This government-run bureaucracy is no longer focused on the kids; they’re focused on self-preservation.

b) A few years ago, my wife and I were involved in efforts to start up a charter school here in Madison. Charter schools present options for new and innovative educational models that could go a long way to improve our community’s educational offering, and (more importantly) improve my child’s education.

The establishment (i.e. the teacher’s union and the administration… government employees all) FOUGHT US EVERY INCH OF THE WAY. Until the plan died. And, I can assure you, when the proposal was finally rejected, no tears were shed among the government-run establishment. That’s right. These government employees… the very type of people that we are supposed to believe will be the answer to our profit-drive insurance exec… were NOT interested in my child’s education or my wishes. They were interested in one thing: self-preservation.

Of course, they would argue that they are doing what’s best for MOST of the kids. And, the insurance executive would argue that, by keeping payouts to a minimum, he is doing what’s best for the MOST of his policy holders.

c) School voucher programs are another example. Vouchers have EXCELLENT track records in numerous locations across the country. Yet, most government-run public education institutions are adamantly opposed to vouchers. Why? Because the professional educators… these PUBLIC SECTOR employees… have lost sight of the ultimate goal of their institutions: Seeing that every child gets a good education. Instead, they have hunkered down and taken a defensive posture to protect the status quo. They perceive vouchers as a threat to their strangle-hold on the education industry. They are more interested in maintaining their own jobs and their own power than improving the education of our children.

How are these attitudes any different than what the Left accuses the private-sector insurance execs of doing?

I’ll tell you how it’s different: The difference is that the public sector structure (public education) will NEVER change, unless it wants to. And, when it does change, it will only change in the way IT wants to change. Parents only have a say, if the INSTITUTION says they have a say. There are no outside pressures. There is no competition. (Sorry… private schools are not an “competition”. When private schools cost over $6,000 per year, it is only an option for rich people.)

Again, why any rational adult can believe that somehow, a government-run health care system would operate any differently…? Respectfully, it just escapes me. (Of course, the Left is mostly satisfied with public education; they won’t be persuaded by my above analysis. But, just understand that, every ounce of frustration that the Left expresses about the current private-sector Big Insurance… I feel the same about the public-sector Big Education. At least with private insurance, I have freedom and choices.)

Anyhoo… This ultimately boils down to a core “faith” issue. I believe that the free market, however imperfect, applies at least SOME force to keep the players honest (lest they lose customers). I further believe that a government-run health care system would appear to fix some issues, but would introduce a whole passel of new problems. Not the least of which is, once it digs in its claws, it will be virtually impossible to repeal so we can return to the less imperfect free-market choice.

When insurance companies deny coverage

2010-10-09T05:42:00.000-07:00

What to say about people who are being denied coverage?

When I hear the phrase "people denied coverage", my mind immediately creates three scenarios wherein such an event can occur. Let's explore each, and see where they take us.

Scenario #1: Average person Fred buys an insurance policy. This policy is a legally binding contract that requires the insurance company to pay for (let's say) an appendectomy. Fred undergoes an appendectomy. The insurance company then breaks the bonds of the legally binding contract by refusing to pay for the appendectomy.

If this is the situation referred to in the phrase "people being denied payment by insurance companies", that means the insurance company is most definitely at fault. They have violated the terms of a legal and binding contract. I support the use of Law to demand the insurance company be forced, at gun point, under threat of fine and/or incarceration, to reimburse Fred for those expenses.

No questions asked. Book 'em, Dan-O.

Scenario #2: Average person Fred buys an insurance policy. This policy is a legally binding contract. The contract covers a number of illnesses, injuries and dire medical conditions. But, the contract does NOT cover appendectomies. Fred undergoes and appendectomy. Fred now wants the insurance company to cover something that is not in the contract.

Now, this scenario is significantly different than the first one.

In this situation, the insurance company is a business. It is lawfully abiding by the contractual arrangements made between itself and its customer. To expect the insurance company to pay for an appendectomy, when it was excluded from the contract, would be no less ridiculous than me expecting a construction company to build a garage for me (for free), even though I only contracted for them to install windows... or, asking a restaurant owner to give me a dessert (for free) even though I only paid for dinner.

This second scenario is a case for charity, or welfare, or benevolence. But, it is no fault of the insurance company, no matter how unjust it feels in the pit of your gut.

I don’t oppose Fred getting assistance. But, such an obligation does not fall to insurance company. If Fred is unable to bear this burden, then it must be borne by all of us through our government welfare system. Leave the private sector insurance industry alone; let it run its business.

To use the coercive force of government to redefine the private sector, to attack lawful business, to engage in class-warfare (think “evil insurance executives”)… all to satisfy some people’s very subjective sense of social justice is a dangerous thing. I will oppose such efforts with every fiber of my being.

Scenario #3: Fred has no insurance. Fred gets diagnosed with a chronic illness. Treatment of this illness is going to cost a LOT of money. So, Fred, after the diagnosis, tries to "buy insurance" to help defray the costs. The insurance company cites a pre-existing condition, and refuses to sell an insurance policy to Fred.

If this is the scenario referred to with the phrase "insurance company denies coverage", well... I'm sorry to break the news to you. But, in this situation, Fred doesn't want insurance. Even though he is using the term "insurance", he can’t possibly want insurance, because insurance simply does not apply in this case.

Ya see, insurance is a product that is purchased against an unknown possibility. I MIGHT have an accident, so I buy automobile insurance. I MIGHT die unexpectedly, so I buy life insurance. My wife MIGHT get sued by a mental health care client, so she buys malpractice insurance.

All of these situations are unknowns. The “pool of insured” are a bunch of people who pay a little bit of money, to protect themselves against a possible huge expense. The system works because, as the actuaries will determine, a relatively small amount of people will actually incur that cost.

If someone tries to enter this picture with a diagnosis, the “unknown” component is gone. There is no “MIGHT” here. It’s not, “Fred MIGHT get cancer.” No, now it’s, “Fred knows he ALREADY HAS cancer. Fred knows he is going to incur freakishly large health care costs.”

Fred trying to buy a health insurance policy AFTER a cancer diagnosis, would be like a man whose house in on fire, deciding to run down to the State Farm office and trying to buy a home-owners policy, pay one premium, and think that the insurance company should now foot the bill for the whole loss. That’s ridiculous. That’s not the way insurance works.

That type scenario simply is NOT insurance. If Fred was not insured before the uncertainty becomes a certainty, then Fred doesn’t want insurance; Fred wants help. He wants money. He wants charity or benevolence.

Again, I am not opposed to Fred receiving help. Again, if this help must be provided, it has to be borne by all of us through our government welfare programs. But, we have to stop demonizing a perfectly legitimate industry (health insurance). We have to stop accusing them of doing evil, when they are simply providing a service, and trying to stay in business.

It’s late. I’m tired.

God bless anyone who has made it this far.

The Obama 29

2010-10-08T12:23:00.000-07:00

In my previous blog, I introduced a current event: The Obama administration has cut a deal with 29 companies, to protect them from the economic hardship that has been inflicted upon them at the hands of ObamaCare.

Allow me to now expand my genius and searing analysis this event.

First, simply to express my continued contempt for the bias that is inherent in the formerly-mainstream media, please imagine how the coverage of this episode would have unfolded under a Right-leaning Bush administration.

What if President Bush had passed a massive tax... and then exempted 29 favored companies? Just sit back, and try to imagine the fury... the rage... the 24-hour wall-to-wall coverage of the cronyism... the apoplectic rage from the Dems in congress decrying the corruption that is on full display. Just imagine.

The point of this blog is not to assert that President Obama is "also corrupt", or that his actions are "also immoral or unethical". In fact, I am pretty sure that the administration's actions here are completely, strictly political. It's called "damage control". The administration promised roses and rainbows. When reality delivers something less than roses and rainbows, the promiser offers some candy to keep the swill sweet for as long as possible. It's not pretty. But, it is a natural product of any government. And, we the people need to keep an eye on it... and keep it in line, voting accordingly.

For now, my point is simply that the formerly-mainstream media is painfully, obviously biased to favor the Left and would have crucified a Conservative administration for doing the very thing this Liberal one is doing. That, of course, is why they are hemorrhaging viewers and readers. Long live the New Media.

Now... more to my critical, cynical analysis of the actual event at hand.

Point number two: This episode highlights what should be the loudest clarion call to the American populace. ObamaCare promised to "help" the health care situation. The dreamers of this scheme (ObamaCare), and all its advocates, and all those who voted for it (many of whom are now campaigning for their political lives) promised us that ObamaCare would NOT have an adverse effect on costs. And, yet... here in Reality-land, after the bill finally begins to take effect, those same people seem surprised that government intrusion into the actuarial tables of private insurance firms might actually impact the bottom line. *sigh* The Liberals who supported ObamaCare are either blatant liars, or they are so ridiculously ill-informed about the way business works that they should be denied the privilege of ever serving in any important, decision-making positions. (And, heck. For good measure, we should keep 'em away from knives and scissors, too.)

While we're on this topic, I would like to point out that Conservatives all over the country knew that ObamaCare would drive up the cost of health care in America.

My third critique of this episode is another attack on the established formerly-mainstream media. (Although it might look like a personal attack on President Obama, it is not). Any observer to the right of Sean Penn is aware that this president of ours was effectively appointed by a lackey media, who could not wait (and could not hide their desire) to see the historic event of America's first black president taking office in the White House. They white-washed (pardon the pun) his past and ignored scandalous events that would have scuttled ANY other candidacy. He was polished and buffed and put on his pedestal. He was going to reinvent Washington. He was going to reach across the aisle like no other President. He was going to return this sad excuse of a nation, and finally escort us to our well-deserved glory alongside all the other mediocre socialist states of Europe.

Now, two years into his radical Leftist tenure, the honeymoon is over, the economy is crumbling, no one truly knows who this man-once-deemed-a-demigod really is, even though he has grabbed the American basket and jumped off the cliff towards a nearly irreversible Socialist state. And, in related news, the American people are on the verge of a monumental rebellion/correction/realignment to be delivered by our sacred vote on November 2, 2010. Again, any slightly-informed spectator knows that true change is a-comin' in November. And, it's bringing a baseball bat.

So, here we are, less than four weeks away from The Great Awakening of 2010. And, what do we see coming from the man who was going to heal the planet?... the man who was going to reinvent politics as we know it? Well, we see little more than classic, mainstream, predictable political maneuverings. He's scratching backs, cutting deals, having (presumably) countless closed-door round-tables. He's taking names, and numbers, and granting favors, and doing all those little things that politicians do to try to make himself look good ("We're so sensitive to the plight of the American business owner") and to save his failing and flailing hallmark legislation.

In short, President Obama is... (and, here, I want the attention of anyone who voted for him, and swallowed all that "hope and change" bilge)... President Obama is just... another... politician.

Did you hear me? That's all he is. He's just another politician; nothing more. No specialness (at least, not the kind that was sold to us). No greatness. Nothing to be lauded and acclaimed.

My fourth criticism... With this "List of 29" flap, President Obama has now created yet another ugly, perverse, corruption-prone relationship between the federal government (at present, his own administration) and the private sector. We have to ask ourselves, How did he come up with those fortunate 29 companies? Why weren't there 28 companies, or 30 companies? Was a relationship forged between the taxing body, and the entity being taxed?... some relationship that might carry with it some future, as-yet-undisclosed implications? What is to be said about future political contributions by those companies? Even if said contributions are honest and above-board, the appearance will now forever be in question.

And, what about additional companies who wanted to get on "the list"? Why were they excluded from the list in the first place? What are they going to have to do to "qualify" the next time the list if reviewed? (And, you know there will be a "next" time.) Will there be a continuing expectation of favors, in either direction? Ugh... you see where this is going, right? It's got mafia-style contamination written all over it: "We'll take care of your little problem, Mr. Smith. And, in the future, we may call upon you for a little assistance for one of our problems." (To get the full effect, try talking like a Godfather, and waving your hand nonchalantly.)

Finally, amidst all the language of this article, and all the endless drivel by bloggers (like myself) who don't know when to turn off the spigot... we must remember that this all started with an increase in insurance costs (instigated by ObamaCare).

The costs went up; there's no disputing that now; it's as plain as the very large nose on my face. These 29 companies complained. They received an exemption from the President's office that relieved them of the burden of paying the increased costs.

However, the underlying costs didn't go away with this Presidential pardon (if you will). The only thing that went away was the obligation of these 29 companies to pay for their portion of this government-instigated rate increase. The cost is still there. "So, where did it go?" you might ask. Those unpaid costs went the same place all government-caused unpaid costs go. They will be redistributed to the larger, non-exempt population. For those of you who voted for Obama, that would be you and me and (more accurately) our children and our grandchildren.

It's like a point being scored in tennis. If the ref made a mistake, that doesn't mean the point is simply taken away from Team A. It means that the point is taken away from Team A and IS GIVEN TO TEAM B! These increased insurance costs still gotta be paid... and someone is going to pay them. These 29 companies are just the lucky ones (for now).

And so it begins...

2010-10-07T20:17:00.000-07:00

The article found here is the first of what is bound to be a weekly (daily?) story as the layered atrociousness that is ObamaCare begins to reveal its ugly underbelly.

In the run-up to the passage of ObamaCare, we (the citizenry) were assured by all the Liberal mouth-pieces and the formerly-mainstream-media (but I repeat myself) that ObamaCare would help everybody.

They assured us that no one's premium would go up, and that everyone would be able to keep their existing coverage if they so chose.

This was said with sober look-you-in-the-eye confidence by the (Democrat) President of the United States, the (Democrat) Senate Majority Leader, and the (Democrat) Speaker of the House, and countless (Democrat) members of the media.

Conservatives across the land were shouting with all their might, declaiming these silly assertions as simple politically opportunistic pabulum. No matter; the bill was passed.

Now that the first phases of ObamaCare has begun to take effect... guess what. The forces that have come to bear on insurance providers, due to ObamaCare, have (as all Conservatives predicted) driven up the price of coverage. As the insurers raise their rates, large corporations are wanting to renegotiate the coverage they offer to their employees. But, (gotcha!) as soon as they try to do that, they fall under the ham-fisted control of the federal bureaucracy, and are now subject to all kinds of new regulations and obligations.

If they stick with their current plan, the big companies are confronted by massively increased rates from the private sector. If they try to change their coverage, they are confronted by intrusive, cumbersome regulations from the public sector. So, caught in bind, many employers are considering simply dropping coverage altogether.

To put a band-aid on the gaping wound, the Administration has struck a special deal with 29 very fortunate companies. These companies get an exemption, that allows them to by-pass the increased rates. Watch for my next blog as we explore the implications of this minor development.

All of this because the Democrats in congress just want to help people.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

This'll Tick Off the Libs...

2010-09-09T06:32:00.000-07:00

Here's a question for ya.

Is it really possible that Liberals are as proud of their last three Democrat presidents as I am (and most Conservatives are) of our last three Republican presidents?

I know, I know. To all Liberals, most Libertarians, and even a large number of Conservatives... Reagan, Bush (41) and Bush (43)... each had their own flaws.

But, seriously... even allowing those flaws to go unchallenged, for the sake of this post...

Is anyone out there ever going to try to argue that there are a preponderance of Liberals who will go to the mat for the reputations of Carter, Clinton or Obama... anywhere NEAR the way that most Conservatives will go to the mat for at least Reagan, and to a lesser degree, Bush (43)? And, even Bush (41)?

Bush (41) had a rather lack-luster, non-impressive single term. But, it wasn't an embarrassment. I'm not ashamed of him. He didn't bring dishonor to the Office, or the nation.

And, even those Conservatives who grimace at Bush (43) and his all-too-Liberal overtones (think "Compassionate Conservatism", Medicare Part D Expansion, No Child Left Behind, and various other massive increases in federal spending)... how many of those very same Conservatives will AT LEAST defend President Bush (43) for the class and honor and decency that he and Laura brought into the White House? And, his behavior, in his post-Presidency life... after the treatment he received by liberal war protesters, and the likes of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, has been nothing short of exemplary, all things considered.

It really is amazing to compare the two trios, isn't it?

First, we have the Joke-that-was-Carter... Yes, yes, he built homes for Habitat for Humanity: good for him. But, as a president, NO ONE has every suggested he was even in the top half of the rankings. Then, when you consider his slobbering love affair with Yassir Arafat, and the fact that he never missed a chance to stick a caustic, snarky, low-brow needle in they eye of the Bush (43) administration. Throughout the proud history of this nation, it has been the respectful tradition for former presidents to withhold public criticisms of their successors.

Until Trash-talk Carter, that is.

In my humble opinion, former President Carter has done as much to poison the well of public civic discourse than just about any other person. That alone makes him a repellent creature. THEN, the way he behaved during wartime... well, that just made him a Class-A jerk. (And, to all of you knee-jerk Libs whose only point in living is to misunderstand everyone who doesn't think like you... No, I don't resent President Carter for disagreeing with President Bush. It was the classless way in which he talked about President Bush, and questioned President Bush's motives, implied racism in the wake of Katrina and the T.E.A. party... and pandered to the likes of Michael Moore. Unforgivable, in my book.)

Then there was the embarrassing womanizing of Clinton. After eight years of residency in the White House, the man's primary claim to fame was that he brought vulgar barroom vernacular into the home of every God-fearing American. The Most Powerful Man in the Free World who answered questions about what kind of underwear he wears. The man who has left a trail of accusations by women (who were conveniently ignored by the formerly-formidable now-discredited pseudo-feminists organizations). And, like Carter, a man who has been WAY too mouthy in his post-presidency years.

And, now... Now! We see the once-Untouchable, the Chosen-One, the "One we've been waiting for", the man who would stop the warming of the Earth and the rising of the sea... Now, Barack Obama is free-falling to new depths of no-confidence among his formerly-adoring throngs, after demonstrating his administrative incompetence, and proving himself to be every bit the freaky Socialist that the supposedly fringe-wing Conservatives were clamoring about during the campaign. Unless he truly does pull a rabbit out of his backside, there is no way that his presidency will ever be separated from his big-government over-reach, $13-trillion debt and counting, appointments of Communists to unaccountable advisory (czar) positions, apologies to any foreign collective, bowing to Arab potentates, and blaming President Bush regularly for the unrelenting avalanche of ugly, borderline-New-Depression economic numbers.

To those on the Left... what bitter pills, these three characters.

How frustrating it must be for them to see such arguable presidential giants looming on the Right... (whether or not they are giants, the Conservatives are defiantly and vocally proud of Reagan and, trust me, President Bush (43) will only grow larger in the next generation)... while, on the left, we see shadowy, wilting mockeries... Carter, Clinton, Obama. Is anyone on the Left defiantly and vocally proud of any of these three characters?

No. I don't think so. Of the three, only one of these diminutive leaders will carry into History any significance. And, that, only because of the color of his skin.

Sad.

Caveat Emptor

2010-07-20T19:07:00.001-07:00

Caveat emptor – “Buyer beware”

This is possibly the first Latin phrase I ever learned. (It was a question on a trivia game that my parents bought for their four boys when I was 10-ish.)

“Buyer beware”… Simply put: When you buy something, be careful. Be wise and judicious. Ask questions; don’t assume anything. And, ultimately, take responsibility for your purchase.

To be sure, it is a very simple phrase, with many complex implications.

It is also a concept that is disappearing from the American free-market scene.

The other day, I heard on the news that congress will entertain legislation that would (ostensibly) protect the “buyer” from the ever-mean “seller”. This all-important piece of US federal law would require mobile phone service carriers to send an e-mail or text notification to their subscribers when the subscriber is about to exhaust their monthly calling minutes, and are entering into the inflated-rate range of extra minutes.

Alas. “Caveat emptor” is dead.

No longer is the “adult” owner of the mobile phone required to exercise such rigorous responsibilities as being aware of his own talking habits, and being prepared to bear the costs of his own actions (i.e. using excess phone minutes). No longer are such non-essential issues determined by free-market pressures (as in, “Why don’t you lobby the provider for this service?” or “Why don’t you threaten to switch plans if this service isn’t provide?” or “If you want this service, why don’t you PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!?!?”).

No, instead of all these non-intrusive approaches, some dimwit has seen fit to involve our nation’s highest legislative powers to INFORM YOU OF YOUR MINUTES USAGE!!!! Something tells me this is not the sort of service that Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Hamilton, et al, had in mind when they were risking their lives by breaking from Mother England!

Yes! The very same government that administers the funds for our national military forces… that ensures interstate commerce is flowing and feeding our national economy… that (incompetently) oversees all those federally-insured investment tools… that fights for equal rights for all Americans… and protects our rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Yes… that very same government is also contemplating sticking its nose into the national-security issue of… mobile phone minutes management.

We have traded the nation of Daniel Boone for the nation of Lindsey Lohan.

God bless America (but just don’t make me take care of myself… whaaaaaaaa!)

Reason #17: Unintended Consequences - Part C

2010-07-02T21:57:00.000-07:00

In 2008, our esteemed representatives in Washington, D.C., passed a bill that requires what is known as "mental health care parity".

In effect, this law dictates that, when an employer is offering mental health care coverage to its employees, as a component of its employee benefits package, those mental health care benefits must be equal to (thereby achieving "parity" with) the non-mental (physical?) health care benefits.

It's an attractive notion, right? Sounds good enough. We all would like to see everyone receive good mental health care. Yay, government intervention!

The problem is that, once again, this bill was passed with very good intentions... but with very poor analysis of the big picture, and a very poor understanding of the most fundamental of economic principles.

This linked article will tell you the whole story.

Woodmans Drops Mental Health Coverage

Woodman's is a Wisconsin-based chain of grocery stores. Before this bill was passed, in far-away Washington, D.C., Woodman's offered modest mental health care coverage to its employees. (Not an extravagant plan. But, it offered some mental health care benefits.)

However, this mental health care coverage violated the terms of the newly passed legislation. To comply with the law, Woodman's would need to significantly increase their mental health care offerings.

OR... (and here is where the term "unintended consequences" should be introduced)... in the face of this government-mandated increase in their operating cost, they decided that it would be better, for the fiscal stability of the company, to simply drop ALL mental health care coverage for its employees.

This, folks, is Reason #17 in my blog, of why we should be opposed to ObamaCare.

I do not doubt that the authors and supporters of the aforementioned bill had very good intentions. But, as always happens when ham-fisted government gets involved in the delicate world of the free-market, there is no free lunch. There are no political actions without equal and opposite reactions.

They raise taxes; companies relocate.

They raise licensing fees; fewer professionals get licensed.

They make it illegal to develop land with an endangered species; the land owner secretly kills the endangered animal to protect his primary investment.

They pass a bill (presumably) to INCREASE benefit coverage for the working man; companies DROP coverage for the working man.

It goes on and on. My advise: Every time you want government to do something good, just STOP. Seriously, stop and think... and think some more... and turn it all upside-down in your brain a couple times... and then forget all about it.

God bless America. And, happy 4th of July.

Socialism Explained Simply

2010-07-02T10:41:00.000-07:00

One of my first grown-up quasi-political episodes occurred in an Econ class at Purdue. The lesson was delivered in the form of a simple scenario. The scenario goes like this:

Imagine you're at a party, with 99 other people. Beer is being served at this party. (This was a class at a secular university, ya know. I think it's in most academic by-laws that all fictitious case studies must involve alcohol.) The price of each beer purchased, was, quite simply, one dollar: You want a beer, you pay a dollar.

The professor posed a couple discussion questions: How many beers would you drink? How would you determine how many beers you drink?

At it simplest, you would probably look at your wallet and say, "I have seven dollars. So, I will buy three, maybe four beers. That leaves me a few dollars for jello-shots at the next party."

After that discussion, the professor made an alteration to the party scenario. The original beer pricing structure was simple, and understandable: one dollar for one beer. But, now, he was going to change the pricing model: "When you want a beer, that beer will only cost you a penny."

The Econ classroom explodes in jubilation. "Woo hoo!!! Penny Beers! Awesome!"

"But," says the professor, "at the end of the night, before you leave the party, you and the other 99 attendees will sit down. And, each of you will also pay a penny for EVERY SINGLE BEER that was imbibed that night, regardless of who consumed that beer."

That quelled the cheering a bit, as the beer-obsessed minds started contemplating the math. "Hmmm... So, my beer only costs me a penny. That's good. But, Bob's beer also costs me a penny. And, Jim's beer cost me a penny. Hmmm... Something isn't good here. (But, still: Penny beers! Woo hoo!)"

Since you are reading this blog, you are obviously an intelligent person. Thus, you know that something strange will happen when this scenario shifts.

When this new penny-beer pricing model is introduced, you know that something very fundamental has changed.

Without seeing that dollar disappear from ones wallet, one loses a LOT of information about consumption, and costs. One becomes a little disoriented, a little disconnected from reality about the money that is actually being spent at the party. One looks around the room. One sees LOTS of people drinking beer. One knows that there are lots of pennies being drank. But, it's hard to calculate overall costs at any point in the party.

You see, under this new pricing model, two amazing things have happened to the economic decision-making process. And it is hard to overstate the effects these changes will have on behavior, because it is hard to know or anticipate.

First, my interest in MY OWN beer consumption decreases dramatically. In the original scenario, a fresh beer costs me a dollar. I could feel it, see it, and understand the impact. Now, under the penny-beer scenario, one of the biggest influences over my "demand" has been totally removed; a fresh beer costs me virtually nothing.

Second, my interest in EVERYONE ELSE'S beer consumption increases dramatically. Again, in the original scenario, if Bob and his buddies wanted to drink themselves into oblivion, so be it. That would be no skin off my nose. My only concern would be making sure that he doesn't throw up on me. But, now, at penny-beer prices, Bob's drinking has a direct influence on me.

So, let me pose a couple questions that you and your family can explore while sitting around the dinner table tonight discussing this blog.

1) How easy will it be to over-drink at this party?

2) How easy will it be to order a beer, that you don't really want or need... "But, hey, it only cost a penny, and I'm kinda thirsty."? Or, "This beer is warm, now. I want a cold one."

3) Related question: At the end of the night, how many half-drunk beers will be thrown out?

4) How much will ones beer consumption be influenced by the beer being consumed by others at the party? "Hey, Bob and his buddies are getting wasted. So, I'm gonna!"

5) If you were the beer provider for that party, which pricing model would you prefer? At the basic-math level, there is little to lose. Each beer still ends up costing $1. (One penny, from 100 attendees equals one dollar.) But, as the beer provider, which of the two pricing models is more likely to result in greater overall sales of beer?

6) And, this next question is very important to me, because it is less tangible. It touches upon issues of character, and community, and social moors. Here it is: How much will this new penny-beer pricing model cause me to judge my neighbor? Since my personal financial situation is effected by the behaviors of everyone else, am I not going to be tempted to stick my nose into Bob's business, and confront him, and tell him that he shouldn't be drinking "that much"? ("That much" being some arbitrary amount that I picked out of thin air, and decided to impose upon everyone else. All the while, I disregard the fact that Sue has an even lower threshold of "that much", and thinks that I am a violator that merits confrontation.)

In fact, to expound upon the point, under the penny-beer model, I could make a sound argument that I am morally obligated to challenge and confront Bob, and anyone else who behaves in a way that doesn't match my own ideas of propriety. Not only am I interested in how his drinking impacts MY wallet, but, I should be interested in how his drinking impacts my NEIGHBOR'S wallet.

When you think this through, you will see that this becomes a very ugly situation very quickly.

Folks, if you know me and my blog, you know where this whole thing is going. Personally, I couldn't care less about beer parties.

The whole purpose for describing this scenario is to extrapolate it, and make more significant analysis, and apply it to the Socialist tendencies that have been sweeping our nation in recent decades. Of which ObamaCare is the most recent, (best ever?) example.

I won't elaborate upon all the points/questions listed above. But, think about it.

Under ObamaCare,

1) Health care consumption WILL go up, and not just because millions will be added to the rosters of the insured. Consumption will also go up among those who were already insured.

2) Elective surgeries WILL go up. Non-urgent, unnecessary doctors visits WILL go up.

3) Treatments will be prescribed, and not followed; medications will be dispensed and not used; tests will be ordered, and not followed-up on; doctor appointments will be made, and skipped.

4) Unnecessary "preventative" health care measures will be taken, because it "doesn't really cost anybody anything."

5) Some unscrupulous folks in the health care industry are going to be rabid supporters of ObamaCare, because it assures them of revenue they would otherwise have to work for and earn.

6) The social fabric of our nation will change. There will be even MORE uncivil division between classes of people. The rich will be MORE contemptuous of the bad life-style decisions of the poor; the poor will be MORE resentful that the rich "aren't paying more". And, frustrated tax-payers will empower politicians to further stick their nose into private lives and to further hyper-regulate free-markets, in attempts to alter private behaviors, with the goal of containing costs.

It's not rocket science. Really.

The Liberal & "Health Care for All"

2010-06-30T13:19:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I examined one serious problem that we see occurring in modern-day Liberalism. Today, I examine a second.

Let's begin with a truism.

TRUISM: Rich people can afford more (and better) things than poor people.

No argument there, right? It's an undeniable fact; an immutable Law of (Capitalist) Economics. This fact is accepted by everyone, even the most ardent of Liberals. Rich people can afford cars, clothes, vacations, and fancy chocolates that many poor(er) people cannot afford. Period.

Now, let's explore this truism a bit.

The reason rich people are able to purchase expensive stuff is because... well... expensive stuff exists. And, (this is a very important component I'm about to reveal here... so, Liberals, pay attention)... the only reason expensive stuff exists in the first place, is because the providers of that expensive stuff want to make money. They want some of the wealth that is currently possessed by the rich people. So, they offer a product or service that the rich people want. And, the rich people pay a price agreed upon by the two adults in the room -- the provider, and the consumer.

That is what a free-market does: It allows a person with some form of material wealth to exchange some of that material wealth for a desirable good or service.

In a free-market economy, this process of wealth-transfer happens a billion times a day, at every step on the socio-economic ladder. It might be a poor person buying a pair of used shoes at Good Will. It might be me buying a new cell phone. Or, it might be Bill Gates buying a private jet. Whatever the particulars... someone with wealth is transferring his/her wealth to a seller, in exchange for some desired product or service.

That is a basic tenet of Economics 101. Yay, America! (And, yay, for most of the free civilized world.)

Now, with that truism tucked neatly in our belt, we need to introduce a very important corollary to the truism.

COROLLARY: Rich people can afford more (and better) HEALTH CARE than poor people.

Just because health care is more personal, does not exempt health care from the economic forces and pressures that underlie the first truism. That is to say, rich people can afford to buy more (and better) health care goods and services than poor people. That includes treatments, medicines, medical technology devices, surgeries, or, even, nicer hospital rooms.

While the average, modern-day Liberal is on-board with the broader truism, (rich people can afford more stuff)... many (most?) Liberals apparently do NOT accept the corollary (rich people can afford more health care). Mostly motivated by compassion (I presume) the modern-day Liberal feels that it "just isn't fair" that a rich person can get an MRI, when a poor person cannot. Or, that a rich person can have various surgical procedures, or access to cutting-edge medications that a poor person cannot.

Although I am a hard-hearted Conservative, who hates everyone who isn't exactly like me, I actually understand the Liberal’s thoughts on this issue. I sympathize with the Liberal's intentions and compassion. I mean, seriously... Who can argue with the Idyllic notion that every human being should be entitled to equal, complete, unfettered access to the same health care products and services?

However, this inability to accept the truism, as it applies across ALL commercial sectors, including the health care sector, is a major problem for the modern-day Liberal. And, since Liberals are currently in power throughout the Executive and Legislative branches of our government, their problem has become America's problem.

You see, the problem is quite simple: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

By contriving a tax-payer-funded program that will give health care goodies to everyone, (here, of course, I am referring to ObamaCare) without regard to the underlying economic pressures in the health care industry, one of two things has to happen. Either 1) this tax-payer-funded program will continue to pay current market prices for health care goods and services, or 2) this tax-payer-funded program will pay BELOW the current prices for goods and services in the health care industry, in efforts to control the budget.

There's no way around it; it's one or the other.

If we go with the first option, and our tax-payer-funded program continues to pay current prices, our nation will dig ourselves into some seriously new levels of freakishly catastrophic debt. (We're already headed for $13T debt, by 2015.)

If we go with the second option, and our tax-payer-funded program decides to pay BELOW market prices, it is hard to overstate the dire impact that will have on the health care industry.

Remember our analysis of the truism. The only reason many of those expensive products are available, the only reason they were invented in the first place, is because providers wanted a piece of the "wealth pie". If we now undercut those pricing structures, which ObamaCare has been advertised to do, there will be substantially less wealth floating around the health care industry. Less wealth, means less providers; less providers means less innovation.

When this happens, the bottom falls out of the health care industry. Sure, there will still be a supply; we won't lose ALL of our doctors and nurses and med-tech innovators. But the health care industry will no longer be able to attract our country's best young minds. Why become a doctor, and be subjected to intense government regulation and wage controls, when you can become a bio-geneticist and make exciting salaries, with a broad vivid smorgasbord of career opportunities?

Now, you might not care if this sort of restructuring occurs in the health care industry. Because you might think that only rich people can afford all those new, expensive products and services, so only rich people will be affected. If you fall into that camp, then you need to go back and re-read your Econ 101 text books.

Expensive markets attract players. Those players bring their own wealth-craving energies (greed?). Those players saturate the market with innovation. They improve processes. They improve product qualities. And, because of this capitalist activity, prices always come down. One day, EVERYONE can afford the once-outrageously expensive product or service. (Think: mobile phones, automobiles, shoes, fresh fruit from South America, computers, homes, cough syrup.)

That means, ALL of us, rich and poor alike, benefit from a thriving high-end marketplace of expensive products. Even in the health care industry, however unfair it may seem at any given period.

Alas! The modern-day Liberal can't abide the inequity in that kind of high-end marketplace. So, they enact ObamaCare to eliminate the inequity, i.e. "Health care is a right". In doing so, they unwittingly kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

The Liberal & the Minimum Wage

2010-04-25T07:04:00.001-07:00

I recently overheard a liberal discussing a book that “completely changed” her outlook on economics and the poor in America. Apparently, according to the book, it is very difficult to live in America while earning minimum wage.

Huh… That sounds like a feature article in the latest issue of “Duh!” magazine.

To say “You can’t live on minimum wage”, is sort of like saying, “You can’t cross the English Channel on a bicycle”, or “My radio doesn’t pick up TV signals”, or “This baseball doesn't taste very good.” That is to say, the minimum wage was never intended to be a "living wage".

When the minimum wage was established in 1938, it was never intended to establish a livable wage. Instead, it was conceived as a protection against the ubiquitous evil employer.

The liberals at the time thought the government should be involved in this free-will relationship between two human beings (the employer and the employee). The government arbitrarily picked a dollar figure, which was established as the minimum wage. By doing so, they declared this dollar figure to be the lowest truly honorable rate of exchange for another human being’s labor, regardless of skill or experience.

The jobs targeted by this law were the low-level, low-skill, low-paying ones. No society in all of the history of mankind would consider these jobs a living profession for an adult.

Unfortunately, 70 years later, a new generation of liberal has arisen in America, a generation who does not know or understand the logic (flawed though it is) of the minimum wage.

This new generation of liberal writes books which decry the horrors of trying to “get by” on minimum wage. They trash the US economic model because they are shocked… shocked, I say… that you can’t raise a family on minimum wage, or that you can’t put a kid through college on minimum wage.

Instead of focusing on the low-skill nature of the jobs, all these modern-day liberals see is, “Here is a human being, who is working 40 hours a week. And, this human being simply cannot make it on such a low wage. The government should do something.”

I was already opposed to the very existence of the minimum wage. Now, I am even more so. If everyone on the left would just stop for a moment and think this thing through, they would simply have to see my point. Is the current liberal conventional wisdom such that, EVERY SINGLE JOB IN AMERICA MUST PROVIDE A “LIVING WAGE”? Is that really where we are heading? Every working human being in America should be able to “live” on their income? McDonald’s cash register attendant? Border’s Books shelf stocker? A seasonal farm hand? Even though many of these jobs require virtually no skill or experience, even though many of these jobs are perfectly suited for either teenagers or retirees who just need some extra money, even though many of these jobs are temporary positions that a company creates just to get through spikes in their business cycle… no matter. Really?

Some of these modern-day liberals seems convinced that the power of the government should be employed to FORCE all employers to pay every single employee a “living wage”.

*sigh*

To hear this liberal talk about this stirring book, I have to believe this really is the way they think about the minimum wage. Why else would liberals be so moved by a book that simply states the obvious? It’s hard to live on minimum wage. Apparently to some of these liberals, this flawed logic is NOT so obvious.

Think It Through, People

2010-01-25T07:35:00.000-08:00

I heard it again, just this past Christmas: "I hate health insurance companies."

"Why?"

"Because they take advantage of little people. They try to avoid covering people when they need the help. Because they drop you if you miss one little payment. Because they change the language of the policy and refuse to cover something they promised they would. Because they are more concerned with profit than with helping people."

And, yet, this very same person (who so boldly pronounced this judgment against the health insurance industry as a whole) is PERFECTLY WILLING to turn over our health care concerns to the federal government.

Because, as we all know, the federal government is completely incapable of being corrupted, or losing its focus, or mismanaging its money, or hiring incompetent people, or protecting irresponsible workers, or... gasp... being more interested in maintaining their own payroll than they are helping the very people they were designed to help (think public education).

I'm sorry to break it to you, but the health insurance industry did not create "fraud and abuse". Any human institution is susceptible to this very ugly, yet very human behavior. Our goal, as the responsible adults in the room, is to weigh all the options, and institute the best structure to combat "fraud and abuse".

And, we have just a couple options.

1) We keep the activity (any activity, not just health insurance) in the private sector, where free-market companies have to compete against each other. Bad PR, such as that garnered from lying, cheating and stealing, results in a poor public image, which makes it difficult to retain customers, and stay in the game. Bad practices are corrected, because the company wants to stay in business.

... or...

2) We turn it over to the government, where there is no competition, but everything is run by a politician, or someone appointed by a politician. Bad PR, such as that garnered from lying, cheating and stealing, results in blow-hard politicians pontificating about the fraud, while they do little but appoint the next insider, who has lobbied for the position, and is now indebted to the politician. Bad practices are tolerated, because the payroll is pretty much guaranteed FOREVER. (When's the last time you ever heard of a significant cut in funding for ANY government project?! It just doesn't happen. Compare that against how many times you hear that we need to "pay more" for government projects.)

Sorry... there is no Eden to be had this side of death. We have to work with the BEST of various imperfect scenarios, all of which involve imperfect humans. The question is, what is the best imperfect way?

That 2,000 pages is just for starters

2010-01-20T11:09:00.000-08:00

As we waltz into the first of the year, and I begin bracing myself for yet another round of filing my income-taxs… I have had a minor epiphany regarding the two extant “health” “care” “reform” bills in either house of congress.

Think about this: These bills are STARTING OUT at 2,000 pages.

Can you imagine what they will look like in 10 years… or 20… after they go through the same meat-grinder that was inflicted on our tax code?

What will happen when the countless special-interest groups, and lobbyists get their mitts on the new “health” “care” “reform” laws? With the help of beholden politicians, they will be carving out special considerations for Subgroup-X, and Subpopulation-Y.

AARP will want a custom arrangement for its aged members.

Activist groups for minorities, and minority doctors, and minority-own medical-care business will want to be accommodated.

Of course, there will always be special consideration for the single mothers… and the parents of kids with various disabilities.

Most definitely, there will be significant intertwining of Obamacare with all kinds of tax rebates, and tax credits, and exemptions, and special allowances for low-income families, and families where the primary bread-winner has been laid off… for families currently suffering on COBRA extension.

There will be graft for the small-business owners, and the self-employed. There will be allotments for adults taking care of aging parents.

And, I’d be curious to hear some of the talking heads opine on the impact that “going green” will have on Obamacare? Will there be special inducements for hospitals to forego the “industry standard” medical supplies, in favor of supplies made from repurposed or biodegradable materials? Will the companies who supply these materials be certified, and will their certifications be administered by panels staffed with six-figure-salary government employees… Ambulances that burn bio-diesel… doctors that not only take care of your medical needs, but can encourage you to engage in “green” behavior because “what’s good for our planet, is ultimately good for our souls and bodies.”

And, how, exactly do the Obamacare supporters plan to address various pay-grades? At what point do we cut people off? How much of an income is “too much” to gain access to government-funded health care? How do we accommodate the cost-of-living differences between a poor person in Beverly Hills and a poor person in Warren, Ohio?

Will there be back-scratching between government-run health care, and free memberships at local exercise/fitness facilities? I mean, c’mon, we all need to exercise more. Much of our national medical treatment wouldn’t be necessary if people would just stay in shape. And, what about eating healthy, fresh foods? Fruits and vegetables? Shouldn’t a comprehensive “health” “care” “reform” program also be concerned with our intake… fresh, wholesome foods could combat obesity, which cause a large number of health complications.

Every March, when I finally sit down to do our taxes, I am just amazed at the way our tax code has morphed and mutated over the decades. No individual congress ever intended it to be so convoluted. And, yet, here we are. Each year, more well-meaning politicians carve out a little niche of the tax pie for their constituency, or some subpopulation de jour. Or, the politician sews on yet another little patch to cover a “loophole” that someone has exploited.

The net result… No one can understand their taxes. You can solicit five professional tax preparers, and they will each give you a different bottom line. Every American I know is disgusted with the code. And, there ain’t no goin’ back. There is NO “fixing” this beast of a tax-code.

Why don’t we realize that this exact same thing will happen with a government-run “health” “care” “reform” program?

Yes, We Can Lose Our Private Insurance

2010-01-11T14:07:00.001-08:00

Click here for an excellent dissection of Obamacare's claims that it will allow you to keep your own insurance coverage.

Remember, this was an Obama promise.

The Health-Care Lesson of the Doughnut

2010-01-11T12:54:00.000-08:00

I am attending a training session at the University of Wisconsin Hospital. At this moment, I am considering whether to purchase the doughnut under the glass counter at a coffee kiosk.

In the end, I am unable to complete the transaction.

“Why not?”, you might ask.

Answer: price.

This coffee kiosk was asking $1.60 for this piddly doughnut. And, if that price alone weren’t enough to choke a reasonable man, there was an additional barrier: I know this doughnut.

This doughnut is the very same doughnut that is sold at a gas station close to my home. I have purchased it many times. I know it well; I know it by sight. And, check this out! That gas station asks only 79-cents for the blasted thing.

That’s right! This little coffee kiosk is asking 100% more for that very same doughnut. (I couldn’t do it.)

This raises an interesting question, and invites a learning opportunity.

The question: “Why is this doughnut so darned expensive?” It is sold at another location for half the price. Why are these folks charging $1.60? What could possibly be the motive for that coffee kiosk charging so much for that doughnut, and thus denying me my rightful consumption of said treat?

If I were among the few Americans who actually support the draconian health-care "reform" bills that are slogging their way through congress, I would be predisposed to conclude that the only motivation for that coffee kiosk charging such a preposterous sum was nothing other than greed. Pure, unadulterated, scourge-of-humanity greed.

Greed of the kiosk owners. Greed of the employees who operate the kiosk. Greed of the bakers. Greed of the delivery folks.

According to this infected way of thinking, they are all greedy. The only thing they care about is the bottom line. In fact, they all hate me, their end-customer. This kiosk is not subject to any of the popularly-held laws of economics. The only thing that motivates the various parties in this supply-chain is greed: Only greed could explain the differential in the price of those two doughnuts.

Or, might there be a more accurate, more complete and more complex answer?

Might the explanation for the 100% inflated-price of this doughnut somehow include Supply & Demand, or convenience, or overhead costs, or profit margins?

Might the explanation have something to do with the fact that this doughnut was not made here, in the hospital? They obviously had to truck it in from some bakery somewhere. That involves labor and capital.

Might the explanation have something to do with real estate? This coffee kiosk was smack-dab in the middle of a mini-convention center. Highly populated; heavily patronized.

Might the explanation have something to do with the lack of competitive products in the immediate vicinity? What would happen to this price if Susie’s Sweet Shack opened up across the corridor?

However, to the leftists in our midst, all of these above arguments are moot. None of these basic rules of economics actually play into the price of that doughnut. Instead, the only possible explanation for the $1.60 doughnut is greed.

That’s their philosophy concerning health care costs, isn’t it? According to the liberal mindset, capitalism doesn’t work. Capitalism is just a front for greed. And, greed is what is causing the sky-rocketing costs of health care.

Greed of the doctors. Greed of the hospitals. Greed of the insurance companies. Greed of Big Pharmacy. Greed, greed, greed! Right?!

This is why, so the argument goes, we must allow the incorruptible Government to come in and “fix” the problem.

If this is “reality” for health care costs, then it must be “reality” for every private-sector market, whether doughnuts, or cars, or computers, or shoes, or newspapers. (Unless you believe that health insurance companies are the only evil companies in the private sector.) If the health care industry is not susceptible to free-market forces, then NO industry is susceptible to free-market forces.

Of course, such thinking is preposterous. Prices are not dictated by “greed”, at least, not in a truly free market. Prices are much more complicated than that. Prices are the result of millions of deliberative actions between the suppliers and the demanders, making decisions, assessing relative value, and trading assets for goods and services.

The price of that doughnut is the result of numerous market pressures and activities: raw costs, competition, supply & demand, overhead, availability, location, profit margins (among other factors).

Why must it be any different for health care? Why must doctors, hospitals, and health insurance companies be constantly accused of greed? Why can't they simply be players in a free-market, where costs are actually tangible manifestations of very complex economic elements and market forces?

Health care costs are “high” because of raw costs, competition, supply & demand, overhead, availability, location and profit margins (among other factors).

Now, as a disclaimer to my ideological opponents: I know that there are evil health insurance executives, as well as evil doctors, and evil hospital administrators, and evil opponents of the current health-care "reform" bills. These evil people honestly don’t care about the “little person”. Their only concern is the profit, the bottom line. These evil people merit our collective contempt and opposition.

However, I am equally convinced there are evil advocates of the current mania for health care "reform". I believe there are evil politicians, and evil lobbyists, and evil spokespersons for this ill-advised legislation, and evil Green Peace activists, and evil doughnut vendors.

Evil is not a product of the health insurance industry; evil is a plague of mankind universal.

There are a number of reasons why health-care costs are high. If "evil" is involved, it is only one component of a much larger matrix of causes. To marginalize the "evil" health insurance executive or the "evil" hospital administrator, our best bet is to pit them against other (less evil?) health insurance executives and (less evil?) hospital administrators. Let them compete for the hearts and minds (and dollars) of the individual customer.

To push for nationalized health care, is to trade the evil “greedy” private-sector master for an evil “greedy” government-bureaucrat master. (You don’t actually think the Government is immune to abuse and corruption, do you?) But, at least in our current private construct, we have the potential of voting with our dollars and rewarding the (less evil?) health care provider of our choice.

The Effects of "Soaking the Rich"

2010-01-07T11:16:00.000-08:00

Since our illustrious President has taken his rightful place in the Oval Office, we've been spending like a drunken sailor. Government take over of banks and automobile manufacturers, "stimulus" bills that have generated enough debt to dwarf all debt incurred in the first 200 years of our nation's history, continuing the war he said he'd stop, debt, debt, debt, etc.

So... In a recent post, I argued that the ever-popular "soak the rich" mentality that pervade the liberal-left is a boondoggle. (Although I didn't use that word; I should have, but I didn't.)

The reason "soak the rich" doesn't work... the reason that approach to public policy is fallacious is that, when you take money from rich people, (whatever your motivation for doing so) you simply prevent them from doing good economic stuff with that money... like spend it, save it, or give it away. All of these behaviors are good for the economy. Which, in turn, will help the poor.

I received only one reply to that post. The reply was from a liberal-leaning friend, who said, in effect, "You call it 'soaking the rich'. I call it 'finding ways to spread the wealth.'"

This friend obviously succumbs to the notion that the Government is a much better manager of your wealth than you are. According to this line of thinking, "You want to do selfish things with your money. But the Government is an infallible institution that will only do good unselfish things with your money."

He ended his comment with, "I wonder what Jesus would say."

Then, I open my current copy of National Review and read the following tidbits.

"... [T]he federal bureaucracy has added 13,000 jobs in the last year."

"... the number of civil servants making over $170,000 has doubled since the beginning of the recession."

"... the pay bonanza has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206 -- not including an estimated $41,000 in non-salary benefits -- while the average private-sector salary sits at $40,331."

That, my dear friends, whatever your political stripe... that is why you don't help the poor by soaking the rich.

The Government is just one more human institution that puts its own self-preservation over its do-good, feel-good mission. The Government is no better at morally responsible money management than the individual rich person. AND, the individual rich person usually actually contributes to the economy, instead of lives as a drain upon it.

You want to help the poor? Get Government OUT OF THE BUSINESS of taking money from the private-sector rich people and giving it to the public-sector rich people. Let those mean ol' rich people keep their money, (economic inequality is not sinful) and let them energize this economy: let them generate jobs; let them innovate; and let them drive down the prices on their competitive products.

That is the best way to help poor people for generations to come.

The fallacy of "Taxing the Rich"

2010-01-04T09:42:00.001-08:00

A number of recent conversations has revealed a common thread among the arguments of my leftist ideological opponents.

Almost, without fail, their answers for all social ills can be distilled to this one simple attack plan: Soak the rich. There is no injustice, no discomfort, no human misery that can't be addressed by taking money from the rich(er) and giving it to the poor(er).

In the off chance you subscribe to this line of thinking, you have come to the right place. Allow me to illustrate the foolhardiness of this idea.

Whether you be rich or poor, there are only three things you can do with your money. All three are good for the economy, and benefit society at large.

The first thing you can do with your money is spend it. That is certainly a favorite American pastime. Heck, we enjoy spending money so much that we often spend money that we don't have... and WON'T have for years and years to come.

Nonetheless, with moderation, spending money is a good thing. When you spend money, you generate sales tax. When you spend money, you transfer your wealth to a provider of some good or service. This allows them to pay their employees (which generates income tax) and to purchase materials from their suppliers (which generates more sales tax).

That is a trickle-down effect that is completely undeniable. If you happen to be a trickle-down skeptic, try going to the mall sometime without your wallet. See what happens? How do those businesses fare when you don't have any money to spend? Now, imagine if everyone went to the mall without their wallet. How long would it take before the mall closed down?

The second thing you can do with your money is save it. When you save money, contrary to popular leftist propaganda, it doesn't mean that you stuff it under the mattress and sit on your throne cackling maniacally at your obscene wealth while plotting how to steal that penny from the old lady down the street. Instead, a good steward of money (that is to say, every wealthy person in the world) will invest that money, and that, too, helps the economy.

Money which is invested (in stocks & bonds) acts as fuel for businesses that hire people and sell stuff. When I invest in Jimmy's Electro-gadgets, I am giving him some up-front money so he can get his business off the ground, and hire personnel, and construct a manufacturing facility, and purchase delivery vehicles. In exchange, I expect Jimmy to run his business well, and give me a cut of the proceeds, as his business flourishes.

The third thing that you can do with your money is give it away. We all know of countless benevolent programs that help countless people in all sorts of unfortunate circumstances. And, these programs rely heavily on the kindness of strangers; donors, big and small, who give from their abundance.

Again, donations to charities rise and fall with the economy. Which is to say, donations rise and fall with the levels of money that is in the hands of the citizenry. During every downturn in the economic cycle, there are corresponding stories about charities that are struggling to meet their budgets. That is another trickle-down effect.

And, that is it, folks: that is all you can do with your money. You can spend it, save it, or give it away.

Now, back to the issue at hand, "taxing the rich."

I will simply respond by saying there is no such thing as a tax on the rich.

However well intentioned, any tax on the rich, actually winds up being a tax (in essence) on the poor(er).

If you raise taxes on some oil tycoon, that simply means that he/she has that much less money to spend, save or give away. (Yes, despite popular leftist rhetoric, it is true that many rich people are wonderful humanitarians and philanthropists.)

Just ask yourself this question: When you raise, let's say, income tax on a rich person, what is the net effect of that increase? There is absolutely NOTHING he/she can do in response to that tax increase except reduce one of those three behaviors: He/she will either spend less, save less, or give less.

Sure, it feels good to think that you're sticking it to that rich guy. But, really, you're just preventing that rich guy from buying a yacht. Which means the yacht-builder gets less business. Which means the yacht-builder hires fewer people, or gives less in bonuses, or reduces his profit margin. Which means there is less money to trickle down into the local economy, fewer municipal tax revenues, and reduced donations to the local nursing home, or children's hospital.

Or, maybe, in response to the increased income tax, that mean rich person invests less. Which means young businesses have less start-up capital. Which means they can't hire the employees who were laid off from that auto plant that shut down last year. That means the host city receives less in corporate tax revenues.

Folks, can we all finally get it? The economy is a complex web of people, and wealth, and transfers, and cost-analysis, and personal decisions.

Simply because you do not LIKE the apparent inequality between the have's and the have-not's, doesn't mean that taxing "the rich" is good, nor does it mean that taxing "the rich" actually helps reduce the despised inequality. You canNOT tax the rich, in a vacuum, without effecting the entire system. The trickle-down does not cease to work because your intentions are noble. The entire economic system is adversely effected when you raise taxes on the rich.

Another Obama-czar that needs to be fired!

2009-12-14T18:49:00.000-08:00

[WARNING: This blog entry is of a very controversial nature, and it contains material that may not be appropriate for individuals under the age of 18. If you are, by chance, in that under-18 category, please, go somewhere else and find something better to do with your time.]

Now that we've dealt with that, please, go check out these two websites: (Just be sure to come back here.)

1) http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/kevin-jennings-teaching-your-kids-to-live-the-porn-life/

2) http://biggovernment.com/author/jhoft/ (This is a link to the author's website. Look for the series of entries that begin with the unsettling label "FistGate". As of 12/15/2009, there were seven separate blog entries.)

Now, if you don't have the time to peruse these sites, allow me to summarize.

Yet another member of President Obama's inner circle of confidants and advisers has a controversial past. This time, it involves our kids.

First, the character: Kevin Jennings. He is Obama's "safe schools" czar. That is to say, he is responsible for ensuring the safety of our kids in the public school system.

Second, the problem: In prior positions at the head of a gay-lesbian advocacy group, Mr. Jennings authored, endorsed, and executed a program that exposed America's youth to extremely explicit sexual material... all in the name of "education and tolerance".

And, many of us in the prudish realms of Morality Spectrum would be justified in arguing that some of the advertised and promoted practices were deviant, dangerous and just plain disgusting. (For example, see "fisting", "rimming" and "water sports". And, mind you, if you actually go "see" what these terms refer to in the world of depraved modern sexuality, I cannot be held responsible for any of your offended sensibilities.)

Mr. Jennings has demonstrated to children how to perform these practices.

Mr. Jennings has distributed to our underaged schoolchildren lists containing the names of local gay bars.

And, undoubtedly, Mr. Jennings has introduced many innocent, delicate children to disgusting, repulsive and very objectionable deviant sexual practices. As a parent of a pre-teen, my blood boils at the thought of someone doing this to another person's child. I consider such behavior abuse. (In fact, I would very much like to see some research that follows up with the parents of these kids.)

I won't bother to reinvent the wheel. The authors of the abovementioned websites have done a more-than-adequate job of researching and reporting the story.

The only reason I have chosen to cover this topic in my blog is because the mainstream media has chosen not to report any of this. (I know, big surprise.) If they won't do it, then we, the people, will have to do their job for them.

I apologize if you have been offended by the content of this blog. Trust me, I don't enjoy this topic any more than you. But, as my liberal friends constantly assure me: "If you don't like it, you don't have to view it."

To recap: Not only do we find this deviant and miscreant in President Obama's inner sactum, among his never-ending list of czars. Sadly, we also find that President Obama has the poor judgment to put this particular miscreant in a position of influence over the nation's children.

Mr. Jennings must be removed from this position.

Another reason to oppose ObamaCare: Netflix

2009-12-08T09:11:00.000-08:00

A buddy just bought me a very cool Christmas gift: a one-year membership to Netflix.

If you don't know about Netflix, it is, in essence, an on-line video rental company.

You buy your membership.
You log onto their website.
You find (and select) movies you want to watch.
And, Netflix sends them to you, via US Postal Service, one at a time. It's on a DVD.
You get to keep that one movie as long as you want.
When you're done, you return it in the enclosed, pre-addressed, pre-stamped envelop.
When Netflix gets one back, it consults your list of pre-selected movies, and sends you the next one in the queue.

No late fees. No late night, or early morning trips to a drop-off spot. It comes to your door.

How easy is that! How cool is that!

I remember the first video rental store I ever set foot in, back in early high school (1983-ish). It dealt with VHS and Betamax video formats. And, it was 9 miles from my house, in another town.

For years, I've dealt with the basic memberships... the membership cards in the wallet, the fees, the late fees, the frustration of some videos not being available.

But, now... now, I just do it all from home.

(And, I haven't even mentioned the newer technology of having the movie piped into your house over your cable or dish service. We don't have either, so it's a moot point for us.)

All of this, my friends... video rental via NetFlix... is another reason to oppose ObamaCare.

In case you don't follow my logic, please, read on.

Just look at what happens in a free-market system. When profit motivates, things get better over time. Things get cheaper over time. Poor people benefit over time.

Back at that first video-rental store, I remember the prices being $2 to $4 for each rental transaction. And, that was back in 1983/84. One could argue it was a rich-man's pastime to rent movies.

Since then, comparatively, the price has come down significantly. (Today, you're still paying $3 to $4 for a "new release".) And, now NetFlix comes around. This package that my friend purchased for me is about $9 per month. If I rent-watch-and-return as fast as possible, I might could watch 7 or 8 movies a month. That equates to $1 per rental transaction. And, that is with the hardware coming to my door. How cool is that!?

How did this happen? How did the prices of movie rentals stay at $3 for 25 years? And, how did it drop to $1 via NetFlix?

It's all because of the profit-motive, and the dynamic nature of the competitive free-market system.

At first, this commodity was only for wealthy people, who could afford the luxury of on-demand movie rentals. But, because rich people pumped a LOT of money into the system... the market expanded, more and more companies got into the industry, more and more technology developments increased the supply of the commodity. Then, as always happens in a free market system, after the supply increased to meet the demand, and the costs decreased.

That is simple, beautiful free market economics at work.

However messed up you think the US health care system is right now... however over-priced you think it is now... you can bet all your baseball cards that it will only get worse when you throw the 600-pound gorilla of government-run programs into the ring. Government-run programs are completely unresponsive to the fast-paced, dynamic, profit-driven nature of the free-market.

Government-run programs will invest in failed/failing concepts. Government-run programs will not be able to shift and reinvest in newer technologies. Government-run programs will not innovate. Government-run programs will hang on to old technologies and continue to force them onto their customer base. Government-run programs will resist change and dawdle while awaiting approval from their bureaucratic chain-of-command.

Our health care industry MUST remain in the hands of the free market.

Can we all agree...?

2009-12-03T18:24:00.000-08:00

As I struggle with this issue about how much to rant on my Facebook page, and how much I should relegate to my blog (here)... something dawned on me.

Part of my persistent frustration with the current political scene is the residual image-making that continues to swirl around President Barack Obama.

During the presidential campaign last year, he was championed by the mainstream media as some kind of a new politician... a new generation of political being... a fresh start... His political existence was the genesis of a new post-racial, post-partisan, metrosexual, young, redefining of the political players.

And, after these first few months of his presidency, I just want to hear a collective nod of agreement that all of that hype was... well... just that... hype.

President Obama is exactly like any politician that has preceded him, no matter ideology. He is slick. He is deceptive. He is hard-to-pin-down. He plays games with words. He wheels-and-deals.

And, again... hear me out. I don't doubt that Presidents Bush and Reagan and Nixon all did the same thing. I'm not saying Obama is any different. In fact, that is my point. He is NOT any different.

Since 90% of the reason he was elected is because the media was painting him as something different... something new and fresh... I just want to hear them say, "You were right; we were wrong." Is that too much to ask?

They were full of crap about this President. Obama is a weak leader, with ugly ties to ugly people. He has no accomplishments. And, he is the product of the same Chicago political machinery that produced now-disgraced governor Blagojevich.

If the left will simply acknowledge these things, I may not need to rant nearly so much. But, the longer they try to maintain the facade that somehow Obama is special...

... that simply demands that I continue my rants without easing up one bit.

More on ClimateGate

2009-12-03T11:00:00.001-08:00

This is a hoot!

Check out this link.

A week or so ago, one of the biggest scientific scandals was unearthed.

Emails at one of the world's leading climate study organizations were (admittedly) accessed illegally. This ill-gotten booty produced a treasure trove of scandal-ridden, indicting, damning material surrounding the so-called climate professionals whose incomes and status are affixed to the specious concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Many in the "know" are having a hard time explaining just how big of a deal this is... just how much this kind of exposure can do to unsettle the research communities. So, I have decided to use a play right out of the AGW-advocates' play-book. I have decided to declare a consensus. The debate is over. The issue is settled: This is the single largest scandal in the history of mankind!

With the exception of a few ideological mules, the entire sentient world is now watching the professional reporters and analysts dig through these reams of material. I am simply giddy with anticipation to see just how deep it goes, how broad its ripples will spread: Again, using a common phrase of the left, "Just what did Professor X know, and when did he know it?"

In the face of all this drama, Senator Barbara "please call me Senator, I've earned it" Boxer, of California (surprise), can only seem to raise her voice at those rascally good-for-nothin's that hacked into the e-mails.

There's some good ol' down home wagon-circling for ya. Just keep denying, Barbie. Keep denying.

Man, I am loving this.

My Personal Contact with the Social Safety Net

2009-11-29T19:33:00.000-08:00

In the past two years, I have found myself unemployed for two different stretches of time. All said, I drew, maybe, six months worth of unemployment.

Then, go back nine years, and I was unemployed for an entire six-month stretch.

That is important information as we examine a recent interaction with a friend of mine.

He is more liberal than I. And, knowing my history (outlined above) he has been surprised to hear my conservative take on the current Nationalized Health Care issue.

He said to me, "When I think about this health care plan, I think about you. You seem like you would be very much in favor of it. You've lost a couple jobs recently, and you had to buy insurance on your own. I can't imagine how expensive that must have been."

So... that sets the stage: Why would I, a frequently unemployed chump, be opposed to free (or significantly discounted) health care?

My answers are peppered throughout this blog. Read all the posts if you wish to absorb the Keys to Truth and Wisdom. (Oh, and you should read the Bible, too).

But, for this particular episode, I will focus on two reasons for opposing a nationalized health care plan, even though I seem to be very skilled at losing my employment.

First, why is my health insurance associated to my employment in the first place?

That's not a concept that's written in stone. It doesn't have to be that way. There is no logical reason why my health insurance coverage should be dependent upon my employment.

Unfortunately, we have become so accustomed to the notion that we don't even question it any more. Instead of giving me nationalized health insurance during my unemployed period, JUST BREAK THE LINK between insurance and my employment.

And, how do we do that? We first need to understand why any employer ever offers health insurance to their employees. Do the company-owners do it because they just really love their employees. No. They offer insurance as a perk of employment because they get a HUGE federal tax break for doing so.

If we get rid of that tax break (think of it as "corporate welfare", if that helps), then we will no longer see a connection between employment and insurance.

Once that happens, health insurance becomes a truly free-market product. Each American will be responsible for purchasing health care just like they are responsible for purchasing home owners insurance or renters insurance.

The reason our health-care costs are so bad is due, in part, to the intrusion of the federal government into the free-market system (by way of the aforementioned tax break). It makes no sense at all to say, "Oh, let's fix this government-induced problem by creating another EXPANSIVE federal bureaucracy."

Second, and this one is going to be a bit embarrassing to admit. But, it is true. And, it needs to be spoken/typed.

While I was unemployed, I was drawing over $300 each week in unemployment. If you do the math over four weeks, that comes out to $1,200 per month.

My mortgage payment is $1,240 per month.

So, my unemployment was paying my mortgage.

(Now, as a side note, many folks on the left end of the political spectrum might be tempted to accuse me of hypocrisy: "You rail against poor, needy people. But, you have no qualms taking the hand-outs when YOU need them." To which I say, "Yeah, well... that's what happens when unemployment insurance taxes are being taken out of my paycheck for yea after year. I've been paying into it. I just assume I am getting back the money that I've been putting into the system.")

So, in effect, my housing was being funded by a government program.

There is no doubt in my mind that I took full advantage of that cushion. My wife was working. We were able to "make do". That substantial government hand-out allowed me to game the system. There were weeks that I didn't try very hard to find a job... weeks that I specifically did NOT entertain certain openings simply because I did NOT like the job that was available... weeks that I was much more interested in hanging drywall in our basement than I was finding a job and getting off the dole.

But, all the while we were paying out over $600 per month in health insurance payments. Boy, did those checks hurt. Each time we wrote that check, my wife and I had a discussion, and it was a huge motivator to keep me on the hunt for a new job.

If, in the midst of this drama, you were tell me that the government was going to take care of health insurance for me and my family...

... let me be very honest here...

... Why on this good green Earth would I ever go out and find a job?

If a government hand-out was there that would pay for my mortgage, and pay for my health care insurance, why would I ever want to get off the couch?

It is a freaky thing to admit. But, folks, I was there. I tasted that malaise. I tasted that despondency. If Mommy-and-Daddy government was there giving me shelter and health care... and my wife were pulling in enough money to put food on the table... what else is left in life, and why would I ever exert myself?

Now, of course, most of us know that a life on public assistance isn't a very fulfilling life. Maybe some of you would go get a job because you need that sense of accomplishment... or you are too proud to live on hand-outs... or you have a more altruistic devotion to mankind, that you would rather give than receive.

If that is your motivation, good for you.

But, you should not give everyone else the same benefit of the doubt. Truth is, you might even want to be careful thumping your chest with such a noble statement. You never really know. And, it is REALLY nice having all that free stuff coming your way. It's a bit of an opiate.

Anyway... we as a nation simply MUST keep our government out of this business of single-payer health care. It sounds like a grand, civilized idea. It looks really good on paper (all 2,000 pages). But, it will not work.

Now... if I were in that position, and then you

ClimateGate

2009-11-25T19:58:00.000-08:00

So, have you heard about this ClimateGate?

The big British clearinghouse of "global warming" propaganda has been found to be doctoring data, gaming the peer-review system, and (illegally) resisting court-ordered Release of Information requests.

This is a huge scandal involving one of the biggest authorities supporting this now-silly notion of man-made global warming.

But, in the first three days after this scandal was unearthed, Fox News is the only news outlet to cover the story. All the networks, all the cable "news" stations and PBS have all boycotted the story.

Hmmm... no bias here, huh? Nope. According to President Obama, Fox News is a disreputable agency, and it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with the sycophantic cable news shows.

Well, keep whistling while you walk past your own sarcophagus, my friends... keep whistling.

And I'm Supposed to pay for his health care...?

2009-11-18T12:09:00.000-08:00

The other day I was in line, chatting with a perfect stranger.

He was the perfect Madison liberal. Long hair, wire-rimmed glasses, scruffy beard, proudly sporting an untucked Oxford, with open-toed sandals.

At one point, we got onto the topic of health care here in the US. Of course, he had to inform me how horrible the system was here... how badly its broken... too expensive... evil corporations stickin' it to the little guy.

Not surprisingly, he was very unhappy with his current situation. He was self-employed, and had to pay exorbitant premiums for his individual health care policy.

"So, what do you do?" I asked.

"Oh, I raise goats in a co-op."

"Hmmm... what is that? How does that work?"

"Well, my customers can buy a 'share' in a goat, and is thus eligible for a 'share' of the goat's produce," in milks and cheese.

Interesting capitalist concept there...

He continued, "Yeah, I used to be a nurse... and I was a teacher for a while. But, I decided to quit those jobs and pursue a dream."

Well, kudos to him for pursuing his dream.

But, I'll ask you to ponder what he just told me.

1) He was a nurse. That means he has a degree. And, the odds are very good that he had access to health care through a former employer.

2) He was a teacher. That, also, requires an education. And, he DEFINITELY had a great health care package there.

3) He quit both of those careers to "pursue his dream".

4) And, now, I am supposed to subsidize his health care expenses because he wanted to "pursue his dream".

Well, guess what, friend!! I have a whole bunch of dreams. I have a litany of irresponsible behaviors I would LOVE to pursue. All I need is someone to finance it. Why don't I advocate for a massive federal program to FORCE you to underwrite my adolescent, self-absorbed journey?

Maybe, friend... just, maybe! You should have hung onto one of those lucrative careers and TAKEN CARE OF YOURSELF. But, no. Instead, you insist that I wipe your nose and change your diaper, while you're off on your 60's-era "self-discovery" trip.

You're a grown-up, now. Act like one!

I have no problem helping the truly needy in our society. But, I have a big, fat, hairy problem helping those of you who CHOOSE to screw up your life, and then are too immature to take ownership of those poor decisions.

Arghhh!

An Economy In Shock

2009-11-16T14:29:00.001-08:00

As a Creationist, I love discussing examples of the way God has designed living things. Plants and animals have a wonderful artistic science (or scientific art) about them. From respiration, to reproduction, to digestion, to ambulation, to defensive traits, to camouflage, to symbiosis... on and on. Biology is a study of Wonder.

One such awe-inducing topic (in my eyes) is the concept of "shock". Shock is the condition into which a living being will descend when that being has suffered some substantial trauma, injuries, blood-loss, or even psychological drama. Shock is a self-preservation mode that allows the being to focus on just staying alive.

Part of the telling traits of shock is that many non-essential biological activities just shut down. People can't talk when they're in shock. They can't stand up. They can't see. Their digestion slows to a virtual stand-still. If their ears can actually hear you talking to them, their body does not respond in any normal way.

All the body does is breathe and circulate blood: the two essential behaviors for staying alive. Breathe and circulate, breathe and circulate.

And, that is the point of going into shock: STAY ALIVE!

Arguably the most powerful force in a being's life is the urge to persist... to NOT DIE!

If the body heals, and rises out of this state of shock, the other systems will resume, and the being can go about its business of enjoying those less-essential activities.

As I dwell on this topic of physical shock, I turn my attention to our national economic situation.

During the campaign, those on the left were eager to claim that America was in a recession. Many made comparisons to the Great Depression.

Since President Obama has taken office, it would be hard to argue that things have gotten better. Debt has soared. The dollar has plummeted. Unemployment is over 10%. Consumer confidence has bottomed out. The real estate market is miserable. Gold has reached record highs. International economies are looking for some other monetary standard. Things are not well. These are all very bleak data.

In fact, one might argue that ours is an economy in shock.

And, what do we know about shock? What happens to all non-essential activities?

They're supposed to shut down.

You don't respond to shock by accelerating the non-essential activities. Yet, that is what we see the Democrats doing to our country.

Despite all the numbers mentioned above... despite all the symptoms of economic destruction that face our nation today... we have seen this Administration, and this House and this Senate trying so hard to take on more and more and more "non-essential activities."

From health care, to Cash-for-Clunkers, to automobile manufacturers, to Cap-and-Trade, and many others... and, now, most recently, regulating all train lines and subway systems... these yahoos in Washington just DO NOT GET IT!

The only way to pay for new programs is by taxing someone who is making money.

CUT IT OUT!!!

We're in shock. Shut down (or, at least, stop expanding) NON-ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES!!!

My first stab at a Libertarian debate

2009-10-02T20:48:00.000-07:00

I recently had a Facebook exchange with someone on the liberal end of the political/philosophical spectrum.

I, of course, completely dismantled him. (Honestly, it was kind of embarrassing.)

The topic we were debating was the legalization of marijuana. My opponent, being the liberal, was insisting that we have no right to dictate what he can or can't do to his own body. And, he was insisting that I was a two-faced Libertarian by NOT allowing him that freedom: Libertarians are all about "free will", right?

(DISCLAIMER: I'm not the most ardent of Libertarians. I label myself about 20% Libertarian. I tried to hold my ground in this debate, but I am sure that I failed to embrace some Libertarian creed and probably fudged over into straight Conservatism more than once.)

I did my best to explain that my resistance to allowing this man his freedom to smoke all the pot he wants should not reflect on the Libertarian perspective. First, I ain't the most ardent observer of that strain of philosophy. I maybe mark myself as 20% Libertarian. Second, in this debate, we are only seeing an incomplete picture of the Libertarian thinking.

When a Libertarian says "Do whatever you want, so long as you don't impinge upon my rights," he is saying that with an implicit understanding that there is another side to the coin: Not only should you be allowed to do whatever you want, but (here's the rub) you should also be obligated to bear the full weight of your decisions.

In action, that philosophy looks something like this: "You may smoke pot all you want. But, that might mean that you will lose your job. And, when that happens (as a direct result of your freedom to smoke pot), do not then turn to me with an open palm and request... nay, demand!... that I buy your next meal, and pay your mortgage."

When you make a free decision, you benefit if it was a good decision, and you suffer if it was a bad decision.

THAT is freedom. And, THAT is Libertarianism.

Unfortunately, we, here in 21st century America, are most definitely NOT that kind of society.

We have so many government-sponsored safety nets, no one is ever expected to bear the brunt of their own bad decisions. We have social security, unemployment insurance, bankruptcy laws, food stamps, subsidized housing, aid to women and children, disability, mortgage bailouts... Heck, we'll even pay for you to get OFF pot, after you realize that it's screwed up your life.

The list of such tax-payer-funded programs is almost endless.

All of these programs are, ostensibly, to help those who are in need. None of us want to see truly needy people living in squalor. And, I'm okay with that. That is what a good Christian nation does.

But... is it not also true that, because we have created these safety nets, we have a lot of people who have picked up bad habits and unhealthy lifestyles? They allow their behavior to be bad, or destructive, or antisocial, because they can. Because the negative consequences resulting from their bad behavior has been greatly buffered by all of these publicly-funded social safety nets.

(Mainly, I think about the people on welfare... who chose NOT to work at McDonald's, because they (what?) deserve, want, aspire to a better job... and, since they're able to draw unemployment for six to 18 months, why work?)

(Personal disclosure: I was there. Unemployed for six consecutive months, I earned over $1,100 a month in unemployment doing NOTHING. That was enough to pay our mortgage. Why work? I'll do some projects around the house, watch every movie I can find at the library, reorganize my baseball card collection, and... oh, yeah... sleep ALL THE TIME!!! All while I wait for that "right" job to come along.)

So, what is a Libertarian to do in a country so generous and benevolent as America?

Sure, we want to push for freedoms. But, so long as those safety nets are in place... so long as I am on the hook for all needy people everywhere... so long as my child's financial security is at risk whenever the welfare population grows... I have no choice but to put my foot down and start resisting our society's incremental listing to the libertine.

The legalization of marijuana, however you shade it, will normalize behavior that (we have been told since elementary school) can be destructive and disastrous. Since that destruction and disaster takes on the form of broken lives, lost jobs, addictions. Since the costs of that destruction and disaster will be borne by every tax-paying American, it seems that resistance to legalization is the only fiscally responsible position I can take.

Interestingly, I did offer one alternative for my liberal debater.

If, the a bill which legalized marijuana would include a rider such as this one offered below, I just might support such a bill:

RIDER: Any adult who purchases marijuana for anything other than medical use must sign a waiver. This waiver forfeits all future claims on any and all government-sponsored hand-out funds for the life of the adult.

If every pot user had to sign such a waiver, then I say, "Let's light 'em up tomorrow."

Of course, as soon as I posited that idea, the liberal debater called me "mean", and said that I was "scaring people out of doing something that I think is bad".

I said, "Yeah, so?"

Public school singing Obama's praises

2009-09-24T12:07:00.001-07:00

Alrighty.

What do y'all think about this one? This is good stuff, huh?

A classroom of public school children taught to sing songs of praise to the Greatness of President Barack Obama.

The school declares that this performance occurred during Black History Month.

So, forget the fact that he had only been president for one month at that time. Forget the fact that 46% of voting Americans voted against him. Forget the fact that he hasn't actually don't much of note, yet, except be a black man.

Forget all this... let's sing his praises, because, by simply being his awesome self, and by sitting in that awesome building, he is de facto worthy of our praises!!!

ARGHHHH!!!!

If you get nothing else from this video... if you are a liberal, and you can honestly look at this video and find nothing wrong with it, except that children were being videotaped without their parents' consent...

... if you get nothing else from this video, please, get this:

1) We conservatives are correct about our concerns for this growing "cult of personality" surrounding our Most Excellent Leader (formerly referred to as "President") Barack Obama.

2) We conservatives are correct in demanding school vouchers. The very fact that this "teacher" was incapable of seeing the possible wrong-ness of this whole man-worship situation, proves to me that she is incapable of making sound judgment. And, the fact that a person like her can make it onto any public school faculty, without this kind of thing being squashed, proves to me that the corruption and addlemindedness is thick, and runs many ranks up the public education administrative food chain.

3) We conservatives are correct in our observations of the double-standard that is borne by every freakin' member of the mainstream media (MSM). Can you go through the "what if" exercise with me? What if... this had been a song dedicated to our AWESOME President George Walker Bush!?!?! Hmmmmm... Would kids be allowed to sing this song, in a public school, on public school time? And, when the absurdity of that hit the fan, would not every single news agency with two reporters on their payroll be down in that town, and interrogating the buffoons that were responsible? But, that isn't happening now, is it? It is being completely ignored by EVERYONE except those nefarious Right-wing news agencies.

About Obama's "health care" speech

2009-09-14T18:30:00.000-07:00

Two things stand out regarding President Obama's health care speech last week.

First, I love his word choice. "It's time to stop the bickering."

To the ears and mind of our beloved President, the rumblings of discontent by 53% of Americans, as expressed through our vociferous and strident rejection of this whole Democrat-sponsored federal take over of our health care system... it's all just "bickering".

You see, it's not debate. It's not democracy. It's not two armies doing battle over serious ideas that will have far-reaching implications on the world's largest and freest democracy.

No, it's just "bickering".

Nothing says post-partisan quite like mocking and minimizing your opponents.

Second, did you catch his line about his "open door" policy?

And I quote...

"Now, this is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight -- Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open."

"But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it."

Did you catch that? Read it again if you have to?

"My door is open."

"I'm Mr. Reasonable."

"I'm Mr. Reach-across-the-aisle."

"But... I will not waste my time" if you want to kill this plan.

Hah!

What a joker! What a joke.

Regardless of your view on this topic, can we all finally agree that Barack Obama is just another politician. He's not going to heal the planet. He's certainly is not going to heal our racial or partisan divides.

He's just another opportunistic player. Just one of the 500+ movers and shakers that inhabit the nation's capital.

Nothin' too special, except that he is the first president who was not Caucasian.

President Obama and "our children"

2009-09-09T10:05:00.000-07:00

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/53712

This is why so many of us conservatives were concerned about President Obama addressing our kids.

The president prepares to address our children in school. We raise a little ruckus, because we don't know what he's going to say, and we don't trust him. We put the spotlight on him.

He knew he wasn’t going to be able to get away with politicizing his televised speech to school children. So, he released the text of the speech before he actually gave the speech. Sure enough, it was pretty tame stuff.

Then, like flippin' a light switch, with complete disregard for the parental concern that had been expressed across the nation just days before... when the cameras were turned off and it was just him, a microphone, and a gym full of high school kids, he starts trumpeting his health care reform claptrap.

Just amazing.

He is a politician. He simply can’t resist the urge to politicize his interactions with anyone... even the youth.

Now don’t get me wrong. Politicians are people, too. And, they are allowed to voice their opinions in a free society.

But, since when have politicians been allowed unfettered, political access to our kids in public school?

Did I miss that memo?

I don’t recall ANY time when any politicians have been able to assemble a school full of kids, without parents around, to espouse very partisan political views.

You can rest assured that my child will NOT be in a room with President Obama without me being present... at least not until she is 18.

When the top politician in the land goes in front of a bunch of kids plying his version of a very controversial issue, and he fails to allow for the opposing viewpoint to be expressed... that is when I become very defensive of my child in particular, and all youth in general.

(And, if you're snorting at me in contempt, imagining me as some freaked out, right-wing extremist, you need only turn the tables. How would you feel if President Bush had cornered the attention of some kids in a school and told them why abortion is wrong, or that military service is a proud and noble calling, or why the government should support school vouchers?)

Children, by definition, are not very well versed in all the complexities and intricacies of the adult world. Things are seldom as simple as portrayed by one politician.

For President Obama to tell kids that we need universal health coverage because we’re all just one paycheck away from disaster, without telling them about the economic disaster that will result from imposing universal coverage, and how universal health coverage has failed other countries, and how this entails the governmentalization of one-sixth of our national economy, and how the notion of “health care as a right” is a complete fabrication that has no basis in our nation’s founding documents... President Obama is being patently dishonest, and he is manipulating those students.

If President Obama wants to tour high schools, fine. Let him share the stage with someone of equal national footing who holds opposing views. Let each debater layout for the kids exactly what the concerns are... pros and cons. THEN you can really say that you're really showing the kids how America works. That this is a nation that debates large ideas.

Otherwise, he is an opportunistic demagogue that is now going after our children.

You think the townhall meetings have been tense this summer. Just wait until Joe Sixpack learns that you’re circumventing us parents to get at our children, and you’re using government-run public schools to do it.

Grrrrrrrrrr.

Reason #16: Whose responsibility?

2009-09-09T06:11:00.001-07:00

It's not the government's responsibility to take care of my mother when her health begins to fail.

Period.

Reason #15: What have you done for me lately?

2009-09-08T20:29:00.000-07:00

A while back, a friend (who is leaning to the liberal side of this health-care debate) asked me a question. In short, and I paraphrase: “Cliff, it’s easy to be a nay-sayer. It’s easy to shoot down President Obama’s health care reform ideas. But, what have the Republicans/conservatives been doing to fix the health care problem?”

I didn’t have much to say; I hadn’t really studied the issue. But, I conducted two minutes worth of a web-search, and I was able to locate a decent list of ideas, bills, suggestions, policy changes that have been floated by conservative voices. Some are very clear-cut. Some are a little more complex. Some have been around for a long time. And, some could be enacted immediately, with immediate benefits to we the people. I included links to these articles in a prior blog post.

For this post, I want to put the spotlight back on the Democrats and the Left, and I want to ask them the same question: What have they done to fix the problem?

What are their major accomplishments in the area of health care reform? What have they done to “fix” the problem? And, what evidence do we have that any of these changes have actually helped instead of made matters worse?

In fact, now that the Democrats are in control of the White House, and both houses of Congress… this would be a wonderful time to put forth some wonderful, broad-reach reform ideas. There are a number of things in the world of health care that are already heavily influenced by the government. Why not try tweaking those elements, and seeing what works? Change some tax codes here. Alter some regulatory policies there.

Instead, how does President Obama and the Democrats respond to this “crisis”? They go from zero to 60 in no-seconds flat. “We have a problem. The free-market has failed us. So, let’s enact a government take-over of one-seventh of the national economy.”

Seems kinda drastic, don’t it?

Is there really NOTHING else that could be done from a legislative stand-point? No other less-extreme measures that we might wanna try before enacting this massive, irreversible expansion of government?

“Nope! Sorry. The free-market has failed us. Only the government can fix all our woes, now!”

Add this to the fact that the Democrats have been trying to rush this legislation through before the American voters can fully understand what’s in it…? C’mon.

This bill needs to die a quick, merciful death.

Reason #14: Look how they snarl...

2009-09-01T10:13:00.000-07:00

This is a short installment. One more reason I am adamantly opposed to this pathetic, empty-headed nationalized health care concept being advocated by President Obama and the Dems…

Look how the heavy-hitting Democrats in Washington have responded to the massive grass-roots resistance that has blossomed across this great land.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi: Astroturf and swastikas

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NE): astroturf

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) : likens us to the KKK

Ya know, I'm certainly not fond of protesters who are screaming like madmen, complete with finger-jabs and bulging veins. But, part of me thinks, “What do you expect?” When honest, hard-working Americans show up to voice their disapproval of some political maneuverings… and the establishments responds with... “You’re a bunch of fakes.” “You’re a bunch of Nazis.” “You’re a bunch of racists.”

Dang!

If that were me, I might have blown a gasket, too.

The double-standard is undeniable and laughable, while being simultaneously chilling. Prior to the allied invasion of Iraq, protesters were heralded as the very essence of our national existence, the pinnacle of democratic achievement. “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” (Remember those bumper stickers?)

But, when protesters speak out against this massive governmental over-reach… they’re mocked. And, they’re not mocked by the marginal players… the talk radio, and Christian preachers. They’re mocked by the highest leaders in the opposition party… leaders who have enormous power over the very heart and soul of our republic.

If opposition brings out this kind of behavior in our progressive politicians… if opposition brings such difficulty into the lives of these pathetic souls… then opposition must be a very good thing indeed.

Let Nancy, Harry, and Johnny mock and snipe and snarl all they want. I look forward to seeing them fight for their political lives at their next election.

Reason #13: Down with career politicians.

2009-08-31T21:37:00.000-07:00

For the past few weeks, my blog has been devoted to addressing our nation’s curious mad-dash towards a nationalized health care system.

My next reason here is gonna be difficult to explain. It ties together a few random threads of thought.

But, let me try to explain.

First, I am conflicted on the issue of term-limits. (I told you they were rather random thoughts.) On the one hand, I love the idea of telling those career politicians to get out of Washington, stop taking those perks from the lobbyists, and go back home and get a real job. On the other hand, the voters already have the power to “vote da bums out”. Sadly, we don’t do it! So, maybe we deserve who we elect.

Second, I think congress has seriously overstepped its bounds. Especially over the past 50 years, congress has wheedled its way into so many sectors of our economy, and the free-market, and our private lives. Many of these tentacles of legislative activity are undeniably extra-constitutional, from farm subsidies, to tobacco legislation, to funding for the arts, to administration of public education, and (more recently) managing automobile companies and financial institutions. It’s just madness! It can’t be healthy for a representative democracy. If we must have governmental intrusions into all of this, the constitution would argue that much of it should be done at the state-level, not the federal.

Third, with all of these political topics… all of the legislation, all of the lobbying groups, all of the tax policy, and trade relations, and international diplomacy, and international monetary policy… Do any of us voting Americans actually expect our elected representatives to have a firm grasp on all of it? My US Representative (for better or for worse) is Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). Does she really understand the intricacies of the most complex tax laws, and foreign trade bills, and debt/deficit reduction policies, and agricultural subsidies, and how to manage Medicare/Medicaid, and etc, etc, etc? Does she really? And, don’t get me wrong; this is not a slam against her. This is a bipartisan analysis. Just go and ask your average politician how he/she feels about a subtle change in this item or that item. Can we really expect the average elected representative in Washington to have a firm grasp on all of this stuff? There are people who devote their entire professional careers to the study and advocacy of just ONE of these issues. And, our elected officials are supposed to cast intelligent, informed votes on ALL of them!?!?

Instead, doesn’t it seem more likely that these elected officials are voting according to the heads of their particular political party? And, I’m talking about pols on both sides of the ideological aisle. They don’t necessarily know how bill X will effect issue Y. They only know that “my higher-ups think I should vote in this particular way”, and “if we stick together, as a party, we can achieve ideological milestone Z”. That sounds a lot more reasonable than the “master of all domains” concept. And, as a representative democracy, that just sounds crazy, and slightly blasphemous to allow this to become the norm. I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever envisioned this sort of superficial democracy.

So… wrap all these issues up into one bundle, (term limits, federal over-reach, ill-informed politicians) and you have the foundation for my next “reason” against a nationalized health care system.

How many politicians are going to really understand all 2,000 pages of this bill?

How long would it take a politician to master this one topic? And, what about all the other topics?

And, if this hellish legislation ever becomes law… who are we going to elect next term? Across the nation… what type of candidates are we going to elect?

Isn’t it true… if we adopt this law, we (the electorate) will find ourselves seduced towards the candidate who can talk a good game on the topic? Right? And, who is that person going to be? Isn’t that person going to be the one who is already in Washington, and has had a couple years to devote to studying the bill? Aren’t we going to be impressed by the candidate who has had more time to learn all the many convolutions and the finer workings and the small print of this mammoth labyrinthine 2,000-page law? And, similarly, won’t we be less likely to elect the newbie… the non-professional politician… the fresh face? We won’t be as likely to elect a new person, because that new person won’t have as good a handle on this massive federal handout. A local-yokel businessman, who spends all of his time running his business, is not going to be able to challenge an incumbent, who spends all of his time reading 2,000-page pieces of legislation.

So… by passing this bill, we are enabling the professional political class to continue their long-term careers as Washington insiders.

In short, I think it’s fair to say, “If you want change in D.C., if you truly want to see things change, then we should not be passing this kind of massive legislation that would required months of uninterrupted study. The average person is NOT going to be able to put in that kind of time to challenge the Washington lifers.”

Thx for listening. I feel better.

Reason #12: Are you kidding me?!?!

2009-08-27T13:42:00.000-07:00

If you’ve not been paying attention to the headlines, please, notice this one.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821

As a nation, we are already headed for a $9 TRILLION deficit by 2020!!!!

And, that $9 trillion dollar deficit reflects a 28% increase from President Obama’s original projection of a $7.1 trillion deficit (which he announced just a couple months ago).

Also, this $9 trillion assumes two things:

None of President Obama's plans go over budget, and

None of the existing government-run programs will be plagued by any of those nasty ol' unintended consequences that always follow in the wake of government regulation, and wind up screwing up other sectors of our economy.

How can we even think about empowering the federal government to take on yet another massive hand-out program?

Reason #11: Unexplored options

2009-08-21T10:31:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, a friend asked me, "So, what have the conservatives been doing to try to fix health care?" I knew of two or three items. But, it wasn't a very impressive list.

It was a legitimate question, so I went on the hunt. Within 20 seconds, I found these articles (linked below). And, I will begin reading them.

I do not oppose health care reform because I love watching people suffer. I oppose federalized health care reform because I know the government will only make things worse.

Enjoy.

-------

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDQ3YzQzM2YzZjA1NmFlM2E4YTM2ZTc0ZjFiYzM2YWY=

http://www.bookerrising.net/2009/07/health-care-reform-black-conservative.html

http://www.thenextright.com/ryan-ellis/a-conservative-blueprint-for-health-care

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl1124.cfm

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30601

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/conservative_thoughts_on_health_care_reform/

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/conservativepolitics101/i/HealthCareReform_2.htm

-----------------

This article was just plain powerful, written by a Brit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ian-birrell-why-i-dont-believe-that-the-nhs-is-sacrosanct-1775088.html

Like Jason or Dracula...

2009-08-17T14:37:00.001-07:00

Folks, the news world has been abuzz because of recent White House decisions to back-pedal on portions of this “nationalized health care” stuff. Headlines suggest “retreat”, or “changing his tune”, or “the public-option is not a necessity”.

To which I reply, “Hog wash!”

Like the monster in countless horror flicks, this beast won’t die so easily. Do NOT be lured into passivity. Do not go soft. Do not take your eye off the ugly, clumsy monster: As sure as Jason will rise and pull that knife out of his own chest, ObamaCare will rise again.

It is a classic political dodge to pretend to give up, then take the failed idea, relabel it and repackage it, and re-introduce it as a modified blah-ba-di-blah.

Don’t believe ‘em.

Government-sponsored insurance was only a portion of the overall plan. There are still many tentacles of governmental intrusion that threaten us: wage controls, manipulation of hiring practices, quotas, who can get how much of what... all are still very much alive. (I mean, if the federal government can get its panties in a bind over the hiring and promotion practices of firefighters, how much more so will they feel induced to micro-manage the administration of health care services and products: "I mean, we're talking life and death here!")

This topic is much too important to the Left. They truly believe they are going to achieve that which has never been achieved; namely, a Utopian society where all “poor” people will get all the medical care they want, without having to pay for it… and that all this can be done without decreasing the quality or increasing (substantially) the tax burden born by the rest of us and all generations to come.

Sounds familiar, huh? “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” Let that focus your attention for a little while.

Stand firm, and don’t give up the fight.

Reason #9: Abortion

2009-08-17T12:34:00.001-07:00

It really doesn't matter where you stand on the topic of abortion.

To fund the procedure with public money, that is "tax revenue", is just plain wrong.

Neither of the bills floating through congress have an explicit exclusion for abortion. And, if there is no explicit exclusion, I feel fairly comfortable that was done on purpose.

And, if you are one who condones spending my tax dollars to pay for an elective procedure that (I believe) results in the murder of an unborn child... then you, sir or madam, are a fiend.

Flagging myself

2009-08-16T20:23:00.000-07:00

If you haven't heard, a couple weeks ago, President Obama's White House announced a nice new Big Brother program wherein US citizens are encouraged to turn over contact information if their fellow-citizens are believed to be trafficking in "fishy" rhetoric about the proposed US nationalized health care program. I guess this topic is too important to have it derailed by a bunch of blow-hard, trouble-makers who don't know what they're talking about.

So, rather than put any of my friends and relatives in the awkward position of having to turn me in to the authorities, I have done it myself. My email to the White House is copied below. If I disappear in the next couple days, you might want to delete this blog from the History of your browser.

By the way, this e-mail contains a bit of a confession about my unseemly behavior. After reading it all, I hope you can still be my friend.

Blessings to the lot of ya,

Cliff

=============================
BEGIN "Flagging myself"
=============================

To the administrator of President Obama's big White House database of political dissenters:

It has been brought to my attention that the President of the United States -- the most powerful elected official in the greatest nation on Earth -- has deemed it necessary and appropriate to be informed whenever someone is spreading "fishy" information about the current nationalized health care scheme that is being cooked up by the President and other leaders in our Democrat-controlled congress.

Since I am a God-fearing, law-abiding, flag-flying, red-blooded American citizen, I feel it is my duty to turn myself in: I am a dissenter, and I have had a LOT to say in opposition to this egregious federal power-grab that intrudes so deeply into my personal life.

Although I will not admit that any of my commentary has in fact been "fishy", I will concede that the White House probably thinks it is. Since Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi thinks that all of us who oppose the plan are Nazis, and Senator Barbara Boxer thinks we're all fakes, and Representative John Dingell thinks we're all members of the KKK, I suppose there is a chance that you just might consider my views to be a bit "fishy".

My confession:

In recent months, I have had numerous e-mail exchanges and personal conversations with my friends and family about this nationalized health care program. (Am I supposed to submit their names, too?) During these communications, many of my comments contained sentiments that have been antagonistic to the notion of a nationalized health care program here in the US.

* I frequently referenced the numerous failings of other nationalized health care programs in the world.
* I frequently scoffed at the sense of urgency that is propelling this bill along at break-neck speed, even though it is rapidly falling out of favor among the electorate.
* I have constantly mocked the advocates of this program for declaring, with a surety that defies reason, how wonderful this nationalized health care program will be. I believe President Obama himself declared, "No one will be waiting in any lines." I'm sure that's what they said in Canada and England. And, yet...
* And, most recently, I have had fun ridiculing the logic employed by Senator Arlen Specter, who admitted he hadn't read the bill, but was still advocating it because we have to act fast, and Representative John Conyers who conceded that there is no real point in reading the bill anyway unless you have a team of lawyers to help you interpret the convoluted thing.

So, I am guilty of expressing great contempt for the bill, and for those who advocate for it but are refusing to allow public debate. Therefore, I humbly submit to your request for my personal information. It is provided at the bottom of this message. For your convenience, I have also begun to chronicle my complaints and concerns, and post them on my personal blog. It can be found at this web address: cjcunningham.blogspot.com. I will continue to add to it in the months to come.

For the record, my cooperation is due, in part, to my sense of fair play. I remember shortly after the 9/11 attacks, when we (the good ol' US of A) considered a Washington-based effort to collect personal information on US citizens who might be domestic terrorists. Although many American citizens considered it a grievous violation of our Constitutional rights for our government to collect that personal information, I thought it was a good idea, for the preservation of the State and the security of us all. So, now that the Democrats are in control, and they perceive a similar threat, I guess it would be hypocritical of me to resist this collection of personal information.

One last point, before I close: Please, do not misconstrue this email as either an apology for, or an admission of any wrong, unethical, malicious, or vindictive behavior. I am a free citizen of the greatest nation on Earth, and I am, and have been, exercising my Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. This e-mail is simply my good-faith effort to do my patriotic duty and meet the request of my Commander-in-Chief. Unless and until I receive a directive from President Obama himself, I will continue to exercise those rights.

Respectfully, but with the ideological resistance of every fiber of my being,

[I have deleted my personal information for this mass-distributed version of my e-mail, because I only trust the federal government with that kind of information.]

Reason #4: Government is part of the problem!

2009-08-14T07:36:00.000-07:00

(Posted August 14, 2009)
In a previous blog post, I mentioned how the government is solely responsible for the fact that our employers are offering health insurance to their employees. Now, before you get all excited, and shout out your praises to the government for this wonderful act of benevolent genius, read the rest of this post.

To recap that prior post, it is because of corporate tax breaks that employers are even remotely interested in offering health insurance as part of an employees’ benefits package.

As evil and hard-hearted as this may sound, I am convinced that this is actually a bad thing, and it is one of many reasons why health care insurance costs are so high for the individual. This association between employers and health insurance is as unnatural as it is disruptive to our national health care situation. As such, it must be included in any serious national conversation about “health care reform”.

Allow me to explain myself.

Let’s say you owned a bakery. All things being equal, which of the following two business scenarios would you prefer?

Scenario 1: You sell one doughnut to each of 12 different customers.
Scenario 2: You sell 12 doughnuts to one customer.

(Bear with me. This will make sense, I promise.)

Think it over for a minute. You run a business. You work hard. You try to optimize your time and your business activity. On a strictly business level, which of the two aforementioned scenarios would you prefer?

At one level, you could argue that the two scenarios are equal. I mean, the net revenue would be the same for both of these scenarios: twelve doughnuts sold is twelve doughnuts sold. Right? Or, is it? A thorough examination of the business transactions will make it clear that the two are not equal.

Consider all the surrounding costs associated to conducting a single sale… taking the order, punching in the order at the cash register, making change for the customer. Think about taking 12 orders versus one. Think about grabbing 12 little white waxy bags versus one box. Think about ringing up twelve different sales versus one. Think about making change 12 times versus once.

From a business standpoint, the answer is clear; the one sale of 12 doughnuts is more desirable. Bulk sales are always preferable to individual sales. In fact, bulk sales are so desirable that most business offer a discount when you buy in bulk, right? (Buy four tires for the price of three; buy two pairs of shoes, get the third at half-off; the price of a value meal is less than the total price of the items when they are purchased a la carte.) In most bakeries, a dozen doughnuts can be purchased for less than the price of 12 individual doughnuts. The dozen is discounted. That discount reflects the savings the bakery realizes in the bulk sale.

Returning to our discussion of health insurance, the same principle applies. If you ran an insurance company, which of the following two business scenarios would you prefer?

Scenario 1: One thousand customers come to your office to purchase individual health insurance policies.
Scenario 2: One business owner comes to you, wanting to negotiate a single group insurance policy for his 1,000 employees.

Although both scenarios result in 1,000 insured individuals, they do not cost you the same to administer. The one group policy would require a lot less overhead to administer than would the 1,000 individual policies; less paperwork, less labor, fewer telephone calls, fewer mailings. Just like with the bakery example, the group policy would be so much more cost effective, you (the insurance company) would likely be willing to offer a discounted rate to the business owner. This is a discounted rate that you would NOT consider offering to the individuals.

In truth, as it stands right now, the individual policy buyer (the unemployed guy, or the self-employed guy) gets virtually no purchasing power in the health insurance market. That is because the insurance companies are much too preoccupied with trying to win the big employer-based insurance policies. There is no incentive for the health insurance industry to pay any attention to the relatively few, and relatively high-maintenance individual policy seeker.

So, let's back it up and ask the obvious question: Why is the employer in this picture at all? Why is the employer trying to broker a nice, cheap rate of health insurance for his group of employees? That’s right: because the federal government has decided to stick its nose into the affairs of the free-market. While attempting to help people get health insurance, the government passed a law that helps some people (those employed by large employers). Unfortunately, this very same law unwittingly and irresponsibly imposes a rather harsh penalty on the rest of the people, arguably the people most in need of assistance (the unemployed, the underemployed, and the self-employed).

So, let’s connect the dots through all of these facts:

The government gives major tax breaks for employer-based health insurance.

To take advantage of that tax break, large employers get into the health insurance business… offering employer-based health insurance policies to its employees.

Insurance companies focus their energies on these large group accounts… and gives discounts for the group policies.

The individual policy holder is left out in the cold, with minimal economic say in the whole insurance market.

How very interesting. The government thought it was doing us a favor by providing those tax breaks to our employers. The government thought it would be good for all of America. But, in doing so, the government created another problem: higher premiums for individual policies.

Sorry. I don’t buy the notion that another massive federal program is the way to resolve our concerns about health care costs.

If you want to see immediate downward pressure on the cost of individual health insurance policies, I have a suggestion: cut down the tree at the roots. If you want to make health insurance more affordable to the individual man and woman, remove the tax breaks at the top of that chain-of-events. (If you need the motivation for something so desperate, think of this tax break as “corporate welfare.”)

If we remove the tax break for employer-based health insurance,

Large employers will no longer offer employer-based health insurance.

Instead of paying those insurance premiums, companies will pass on that money to their employees, in the form of increased salaries.

Employees will now have an extra (say) $400 per month (including both employer-paid and employee-paid portions of the premium).

Multiply that out over 100 million working Americans, (I’m guessing at this number… the specifics aren’t crucial to the point) and you have an extra $40 billion PER MONTH injected into the “individual insurance policy” market.

Without those massive group policies to pursue, the insurance companies will turn their attention to that massive influx of new cash in the individual policy market.

Almost overnight, we will see free-market competition driving down the costs of individual health insurance policies.

NOTE: A wonderful side effect of this action: This individual policy is now owned by the individual, and is completely portable. It is no longer attached to any employer. Lose your job, or quit your job… the coverage is still there.

So, if you’re concerned about the price of health insurance, here is one wonderful way to unleash the wondrous powers of the free-market system. And, it does NOT involve the expansion of the federal government.

I wonder why we have NEVER heard this topic discussed by these people so eager to create yet another massive new governmental program.

Reason #3: The free-market system is not broken.

2009-08-10T20:28:00.000-07:00

Many who support a nationalized health care program will argue that (paraphrase) “the free-market system has been tried, and it has failed.”

Thus their support for a nationalized health care system implies that the federal government will “fix it”. To me, that very notion is wrong.

“The free-market system has failed.” It sounds simple enough. It has a catchy feel to it. But, I don’t believe it. It is my contention that the free-market system has not failed, because the free-market system has not actually been tried.

Contrary to popular belief, the current health care system is not truly a free-market system. Instead, the federal government has already had its clumsy paws all over the US health care system for over 60 years. In fact, I believe that some of the current “problems” in our health care system are the direct result of governmental meddling. To suggest that further governmental meddling will fix the problem is illogical and naive.

Allow me to explain.

As we all know, most large employers offer health insurance as part of their benefits package, right? It has become part of the permanent landscape. “How do you like your new job? How are the benefits?”

But, have you ever wondered why employers don’t offer home owner’s insurance or renter’s insurance, too?

Think about it. They’re already in the business of providing medical, dental or vision insurance packages. But, they don’t offer home owner’s or renter’s insurance. Why not? All employees live in houses or apartments, right? Wouldn’t that be a nice perk? “Come work for us, and we’ll help you get cheaper home owner’s insurance.”

Or, for that matter, why don’t employers offer automobile insurance as part of their benefits package? If an employer is already offering health insurance, how hard could it be to add another nifty little perk to the package? Yet, for some reason, I have never heard of one single employer who offers automobile insurance. Why not?

While we’re asking these thought-provoking questions, let’s go one level deeper. Why do employers offer any insurance at all? How did health insurance ever become associated to your place of employment in the first place? It wasn’t part of the employment scene back at the start of the Industrial Revolution. And, today, it costs a lot money for a company to offer these health insurance programs.

So, why do they do it?

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but your employer does not offer you health insurance because you’re so awesome, or because your employer is just a really nice person. The only reason employers offer company-sponsored health insurance is because it saves them money.

Did you know that? It saves them money.

You see, it’s all in the tax code. If your salary is $50,000 a year, your employer has to pay (upwards of) an additional 15% of that $50,000 to the federal government in various payroll taxes. That means, it actually costs them $57,500 to hire you. You get the $50,000. The remaining $7,500 goes to the federal government. Multiply that out by 1,000 employees, and you are talking some serious money paid in payroll taxes every year.

However, the federal tax code has a nice little provision. Any dollar that is spent on your health insurance premium is NOT taxed (or at least not taxed as much). Stick with me here; this might be tedious, but it is unbelievably important. If your employer were to give you $1,000 in additional salary, it will cost them an extra $150 in taxes. But, if your employer were to spend that $1,000 on your insurance premiums, your employer will pay NOTHING in taxes on that $1,000. So, by spending that $1,000 on your health insurance premiums, (instead of giving the money to you, in increased salary) your employer saves $150.

That’s it. That’s the answer. That is why health insurance is offered by your employer, but home owner’s insurance is not. The government has manipulated the system, taking money out of your pocket, by dangling these massive tax savings in front of your employer. It would be fiscally irresponsible for your employer to NOT take advantage of these tax breaks.

So, there’s your government meddling. That is why I assert that the current health care system is not entirely free-market. The federal government has stuck its nose into the private dealings between an employer, employee and insurance provider. You, the employee, have very little say in the matter.

(Now, I could devote a whole write-up to the annoying fact that the federal government has to get a cut from your employer simply because your employer has decided to pay you a salary. But, in the interest of space and time, I’ll let it go. But, I reserve the right to return to this topic in the future.)

(SIDENOTE: While we’re on this topic of tax breaks… Let me note briefly that some people call these kinds of tax breaks by another name: corporate welfare. Corporate welfare are tax breaks which are given to large organizations when they follow government-preferred business practices. Aren’t we, as a society, supposed to be enraged about corporate welfare? I reckon that discussion will need to wait for another day, as well.)

Before turning over 14% of our national economy to the control of government, why don’t we have a serious, open, national conversation… led by those in the seat of power… about possibly revisiting this, and other current examples of government-meddling.

Remove the tax break, and let’s see what happens.

Reason #2: Ya gotta have competition!

2009-08-10T20:02:00.001-07:00

Why I Oppose ObamaCare... Reason #2: You gotta have competition.

To be sure, the current health care system in the US is imperfect (as is everything in this life).

But, one particularly beautiful thing it has going for it is good old-fashioned free-market competition. If I don’t like a doctor, I can go to another doctor. And, if I don’t like that second doctor, I can switch health-care plans. If a doctor is so bad that he/she cannot maintain a patient list, that doctor can be removed from a roster, and has to go somewhere else to practice medicine.

I can pick my clinics, my medicines, my pharmacies, my procedures. If some person or some product doesn’t meet my needs or expectations, then I can withhold my financial support from that person or product when I take my health care money to another provider. That is how a free-market system works. And, despite all the hand-wringing, and all the heart-felt cries of “injustice” and “unfairness”, the free-market system is the only way you (the patient) can exert any influence over the system.

As soon as any system is federalized, (that’s what a nationalized health care system is) as soon as decisions are being made by politicians or by people beholden to politicians, the consumer (that is, you and me) loses influence. We become statistics… pawns in the great Game. At that point, the only ones who will be wielding any influence will be the lobbyists and special interest groups… oh, and other politicians.

This fact is evidenced in every existing nationalized health care model today. Plenty of articles, essays and op-ed pieces have been penned by European or Canadian citizens, or by doctors and nurses in those system. Many of these folks have painfully illustrative stories about their own personal experiences with their nationalized health care systems.

As it turns out, nationalized health care hasn’t been the Nirvana that was promised. Once you get past the love-struck pseudo-analysis of these Workers’ Paradises that are offered up by the likes of Michael Moore, you will begin to hear common, repeated laments from the citizenry: long lines, poor quality care, rationing of medicine and procedures, absolutely zero customer responsiveness… all the typical traits of your bloated, impersonal, federal bureaucracies. That is what happens when competition is removed.

Why am I so confident ObamaCare will turn out this way? It’s just human nature.

Say what you will about the flaws of the current free-market system. But, at least now, when there are three hospitals in town, and they’re all competing for the love and admiration of the local population, there is at least SOME level of competitive drive, which is good for current and future patients. If you don’t like one hospital, you can try another one. (Of course, if you’re constrained by your employer-sponsored health care plans, you may not have that flexibility. But, you would if you owned your own insurance policy. That's another topic for another day.)

In a nationalized health care system, why would any hospital try to become the leading cardiovascular center in the Tri-State area? With a federal plan, there is no competing health care option? Do you think Governmental Hospital A is going to be competing with Government Hospital B to become the best organ-transplant hospital in the region? Or, the best neo-natal facility? Or, the best oncology center?

Why would they? Why would they try? What are you (the customer) going to do if they don’t? Are you going to go to “another” hospital? “Big deal. Go ahead. We don’t have any beds for you here, anyway. We’re over-worked. We have already capped out our government-dictated pay grade. Those folks at the other hospital get paid the same amount as we do, so go ahead… be a burden on their schedules, not ours.”

Is that what you want our health care system to become? Is that really better than what we have now? However flawed our system may be, it is still wonderful. And, it is wonderful because there is good, healthy competition at every level of the industry. Any improvements that are instituted must preserve this powerful free-market force.

Reason #1: This ain't airbags or chocolate bars.

2009-08-10T20:01:00.001-07:00

One of the difficulties with the health care debate in America is that it involves something so much more significant to our human existence than just about any other “thing” we consume. Doughnuts are nice, but they aren’t life and death. IPhones are nice, but you don’t have to get chemicals injected into your blood stream to be able to use them. Cars are nice, but you don’t have to take off your clothes to buy one. (If you did, you should go to another car dealer next time.)

No, health care isn’t like any other commodity that is moved around in our economy. It is special, and it is personal.

Now, some advocates of a nationalized health care system will say this is the reason we need government to be involved more than usual… because, (I don’t really get this rational) the government can protect me from bad choices, or bad people, or bad drugs. (? I guess… I don’t know.)

However, most of us conservatives would say the exact opposite: that this “specialness” of the health care topic makes it imperative that the government be kept far away from the decision-making process. This is MY health care issue, concerning MY body (or that of my child). Sure, by comparison, I don’t mind if the government meddles into the automobile industry. (“Fine, go ahead and make airbags mandatory.”) It may be meddling, but we expect some governmental meddling, and seat belts aren’t all that critical to the intimate aspects of life. But, when the issues involve decisions about who can make what decisions about my health or my daughter’s health… that should be ENTIRELY upon the shoulders of my wife and me! That is it. If I can afford… or if I have ANY motivation for doing anything unconventional regarding my daughter’s health (within some limits)… that is MY responsibility. Not the government’s.

Why, you ask, am I opposed to nationalized health care? Because health care is too personal to be left in the hands of a governmental employee, committee, agency, or policy.

ObamaCare: There ain't no goin' back.

2009-08-09T20:52:00.000-07:00

Here in the Summer of 2009, our nation is contemplating a monumental legislative action. President Obama, and the Democrats in congress, have proposed a bill that would, in effect, subject one-seventh of our nation’s economy (that’s 14%!) to the control and oversight of the government. This program goes by many names – “nationalized health care”, or “socialized medicine”, or the ever-popular euphemism (preferred by its advocates), the “single-payer system”. Whichever name you prefer, the result is the same: the government becomes inextricably intertwined with your health care decisions.

Many citizens from all corners of the country have taken to cyberspace to express their views on the topic. In the paragraphs that follow, I present some of mine.

As you read my thoughts, and as you conduct your own research and ponder the myriad issues that revolve around the health care debate, I ask you to keep one simple truth in the forefront of your mind: Once this bridge has been crossed, there is no going back.

There is no putting this genie back in its bottle. There is no un-ringing this bell. It is generally understood that, once government expands, it never contracts. And, that is going to be even more the case with something so massive, so powerful, so ideologically-charged, and so money-laden as a nationalized health care system.

Nationalized health care is “for keeps”. That means, five or ten years down the road, when it becomes clear that nationalized health care is a failure… that it is unmanageable, that the costs are out of control, that it created more problems than it solved… once we realize all this, it will be too late. There will be no way to ever return this slice of the economic pie to the private sector.

The President, and the Democrats in congress will no doubt try to allay our fears: “Oh, no, no, no. Our health care system will barely change under the current provisions in this bill. We’re only going to fix the parts that are broken.”

When you hear that kind of rhetoric, please, be skeptical. For starters, government does not have a very good track record of fixing things. Typically, they just make things worse for everybody at an equal level of “bad”. And, even if the advocates demonstrate a little restraint at the beginning phases of the program… while all the eyes and cameras are upon them… how long do you think it will last? President Obama is already on record stating that he prefers the “single-payer” system. And, he has already explained that it would take time to implement such a large governmental program.

Consider the thousands and thousands of pages that comprise our U.S. tax code. It didn't start that way.

In short, a nationalized health care program will result in all medical practices, procedures, technologies, pharmaceutics, personnel, facilities, insurance – in short, anything that can be remotely related to “health care” – these things will fall under the graceful management of the same people who brought us Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And, more recently, the same people who mismanaged a $1 billion “Cash for Clunkers” program that, within one month, overran its budget by 200%.

But, with this new mammoth program, we are talking about health care. Health care issues are as personal and private as it gets. Do you really want the federal government involved?

To be sure, our current system has flaws. But, every system has flaws. (That is the nature of humanity.) And, with all of its flaws, our health care system is still the best in the world. That assertion can be verified by a simple assessment: How often do people leave their nationalized health care systems in Europe, to get treatments here in the US of A? And, conversely, how many people in the US of A travel to, say, England for medical treatment? Or Canada? or France? By all means, let’s attack the problems in our current health care system. But, please, do not be seduced by the false promises offered by nationalized health care.

During this congressional recess, it is incumbent upon us all to do some serious homework, and communicate our convictions to our representatives and senators.