Talk about irony...talk about OUTRAGE! The ONE thing (ok, maybe one of a handful) that the Federal Government *should* be spending money on--and potentially liberal amounts of it--is the one area they're threatening to cut. Why does Obama hate the US Military? Why would he threaten the pay of the valorous men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day to protect this country and its values (what's left of them)? Why?
Why does he use our money and squander our childrens' future on bank bail outs, auto industry bailouts, other pet government takeovers where he has no Constitutional authority to intervene; as well as sweetheart deals for the big unions who have greased his political palms, and other corporate cronies (such as the cynically scapegoated Goldman Sachs--their reward is coming) while using those palms to smack down our troops?
Who can defend this O-BS?! Look, I'm all for Federal budget cuts. Across the boards! I'd like to cut most of those people down to ZERO! But the military?! When the average letter carrier in the post office makes $80K?
You want to cut spending? Start by repealing that boondoggle healthcare entitlement that's going to, single-handedly, bankrupt the nation. Try freezing ALL federal payrolls--in fact all government spending. How about some meaningful pension reform so these blood sucking bureaucrats don't work for the government for a few years and then retire on 80% to 90% of their working pay? Can anyone say, "Greece?"
If anyone is underpaid in this nation, and particulary those paid directly out of the US Treasury--the pocket of the people--it's our military personnel. Over the last few years, some corrections have been made and military compensation has begun to approach a respectable level. Don't let the Obama Administration ream the troops. Contact your representatives and defend military pay. After all, it's the RATIONAL thing to do. For more on this story click here.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Obama Art of Having It Both Ways
You gotta give the Obama Administration credit. What other President could preside over an INCREASE in unemployment and have the media lap dogs spin it as GOOD NEWS?! I remember when the unemployment rate under Bush rose from something like 4.4 to 4.9%. To listen to the media, you would have thought the sky was falling. I recall the reports. It was like Armageddon.
Not so with Obama. Today the unemployment rate is UP to 9.9%. just .2% below the highest level of this recession posted in October 2009. Yet, as far as the media is concerned--even on FOX News--this is a great day. Talk about the teflon magistrate! How does this guy manage to pull it off?! Only because his advocates own the press.
But there is a "legitimate" argument here. Here's the logic: Since jobs were added, more people were drawn into the labor market (looking for work) so the increase in the unemployment rate reflects the increase of people looking for work and not finding it.
Well, ok. Maybe so. That's pretty nuanced--something the main stream media works hard to avoid when "analyzing" conservative policies and players preferring broad stereotypes and liberal templates. (Witness the recent Arizona illegal imigrant enforcement act branded "nazi" by countless liberal pundits.) Bush would never in a million years been handed such a trophe.
So what's the real story--the rational one? For the past 3 months job growth has been inching upward. According to an AP article in the Daily Finance, a net 290,000 jobs were added to the economy in April. That follows a revised upward 230,000 in March and about 39,000 in February. So it appears the job loss trend finally bottomed out in January and in the last three months we've added over a half-million jobs! That IS good news. More people are working. And Obama deserves some of the credit. But not nearly as much as he'll claim.
Here are the caveats as I see them:
1. If the unemployment rate was 9.7% and it's now 9.9% despite the addition of almost 300,000 jobs, it's safe to assume that the 9.7% "official" rate is laughably deflated. Millinos of uncounted unemployed workers are sitting on the sidelines. Some estimate the real unemployment rate, when those who have given up and are no longer actively searching are added to the mix, at upwards of 15%. That's a shocking number and a HUGE indictment of Obama's failed "stimulus" policies.
2. About 66,000 of the new jobs--nearly a quarter of them--are temporary government (census) workers. 45,000 more were in leisure and hospitatlity probably reflecting seasonal trends. Others are doubtless seasonal or temporary in nature as well, such as in construction and farming. So how much of this job growth is in reliably permanent employment reflecting real strength in the private economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that employment in wholesale trade, retail trade, information, and financial sectors remained flat and transportation and warehousing actully fell suggesting that those vital areas of the private economy that offer the greatest hope for real growth continue to stagnate.
3. Growing Federal bureaucracies portend more jobs yet more trouble ahead. With thousands of pages of controversial new legislation creating hundreds of new Federal departments and bureaus, much of the forseeable growth in employment will be in the public sector -- concentrated in Washington. That's great for those employed but lousy for the rest of us paying the bill. Government workers produce no real wealth. Their earnings do go into the private sector, but all they are being paid must first come out of that same pocket in the form of either taxes or debt. This is not stimulative. It removes capital from the private economy confiscating, rather than creating wealth. Government debt also removes dollars from the hands of investors raises the cost of capital, and inhibits growth on the private side.
In short, except for the jobs directly being created by the Federal Government to meet bureaucratic needs (and arguably even then) Obama's fiscal policy has done and is doing more to inhibit economic growth than to stimulate it. His corrupt bail outs, misdirected blame, and unbridled government expansion and debt have left capital and entrepreneurship in America in paralysis. And that's the ONLY place from which real growth and real jobs can come.
Not so with Obama. Today the unemployment rate is UP to 9.9%. just .2% below the highest level of this recession posted in October 2009. Yet, as far as the media is concerned--even on FOX News--this is a great day. Talk about the teflon magistrate! How does this guy manage to pull it off?! Only because his advocates own the press.
But there is a "legitimate" argument here. Here's the logic: Since jobs were added, more people were drawn into the labor market (looking for work) so the increase in the unemployment rate reflects the increase of people looking for work and not finding it.
Well, ok. Maybe so. That's pretty nuanced--something the main stream media works hard to avoid when "analyzing" conservative policies and players preferring broad stereotypes and liberal templates. (Witness the recent Arizona illegal imigrant enforcement act branded "nazi" by countless liberal pundits.) Bush would never in a million years been handed such a trophe.
So what's the real story--the rational one? For the past 3 months job growth has been inching upward. According to an AP article in the Daily Finance, a net 290,000 jobs were added to the economy in April. That follows a revised upward 230,000 in March and about 39,000 in February. So it appears the job loss trend finally bottomed out in January and in the last three months we've added over a half-million jobs! That IS good news. More people are working. And Obama deserves some of the credit. But not nearly as much as he'll claim.
Here are the caveats as I see them:
1. If the unemployment rate was 9.7% and it's now 9.9% despite the addition of almost 300,000 jobs, it's safe to assume that the 9.7% "official" rate is laughably deflated. Millinos of uncounted unemployed workers are sitting on the sidelines. Some estimate the real unemployment rate, when those who have given up and are no longer actively searching are added to the mix, at upwards of 15%. That's a shocking number and a HUGE indictment of Obama's failed "stimulus" policies.
2. About 66,000 of the new jobs--nearly a quarter of them--are temporary government (census) workers. 45,000 more were in leisure and hospitatlity probably reflecting seasonal trends. Others are doubtless seasonal or temporary in nature as well, such as in construction and farming. So how much of this job growth is in reliably permanent employment reflecting real strength in the private economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that employment in wholesale trade, retail trade, information, and financial sectors remained flat and transportation and warehousing actully fell suggesting that those vital areas of the private economy that offer the greatest hope for real growth continue to stagnate.
3. Growing Federal bureaucracies portend more jobs yet more trouble ahead. With thousands of pages of controversial new legislation creating hundreds of new Federal departments and bureaus, much of the forseeable growth in employment will be in the public sector -- concentrated in Washington. That's great for those employed but lousy for the rest of us paying the bill. Government workers produce no real wealth. Their earnings do go into the private sector, but all they are being paid must first come out of that same pocket in the form of either taxes or debt. This is not stimulative. It removes capital from the private economy confiscating, rather than creating wealth. Government debt also removes dollars from the hands of investors raises the cost of capital, and inhibits growth on the private side.
In short, except for the jobs directly being created by the Federal Government to meet bureaucratic needs (and arguably even then) Obama's fiscal policy has done and is doing more to inhibit economic growth than to stimulate it. His corrupt bail outs, misdirected blame, and unbridled government expansion and debt have left capital and entrepreneurship in America in paralysis. And that's the ONLY place from which real growth and real jobs can come.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
TARP recipients cut loans & boost pay...Surprise-Surprise!
And you thought capitalism was corrupt! Combine it with government largesse and voila! Corruption cubed! So the Federal Government first influences (some say forces) large banks to make more risky loans, then when the borrowers can't make their payments and the banking infrastructure begins to crumble under the weight, the government cries foul, demonizes the banks, and then bails them out with public funds effectively taking them over. Having escaped the natural consequences of their poor lending practices, the banks (with government oversight) use the TARP funds to shore up their balance sheets while tightening credit--who can blame them? Then they use their revived financial strength to pay their people more for their "pains." Everyone will blame them for that--justified or no. Finally, the government then demonizes them again for the sin of solidifying their structure in order to justify taking wholesale control or implementing suffocating regulations.
If market forces had been allowed to prevail, the banks never would have lowered their credit standards to begin with. Remember, government (public) "insurance" for higher risk loans coaxed lenders into those trecherous waters. Homebuyers would have had to have large/er down payments, better credit, and better ability to pay keeping high-risk loans out of the market. Banks would have seen fewer defaults and more solid balance sheets and profits. Yeah, fewer folks would have gotten into homes but they wouldn't be losing them now, either. And in the end, the economy would not have needed the "correction" it has now taken.
Sorry, it's NEVER rational to involve the government and "free money" into ANY industry. Regulation should be limited to protect consumers from criminal fraud, theft, and bodily injury (not risk) and government prop-ups should be outlawed. Ever. PERIOD. Businesses and industries who attempt to operate outside the laws of sound economics driven by demand, supply, competition, and value should fail.
If market forces had been allowed to prevail, the banks never would have lowered their credit standards to begin with. Remember, government (public) "insurance" for higher risk loans coaxed lenders into those trecherous waters. Homebuyers would have had to have large/er down payments, better credit, and better ability to pay keeping high-risk loans out of the market. Banks would have seen fewer defaults and more solid balance sheets and profits. Yeah, fewer folks would have gotten into homes but they wouldn't be losing them now, either. And in the end, the economy would not have needed the "correction" it has now taken.
Sorry, it's NEVER rational to involve the government and "free money" into ANY industry. Regulation should be limited to protect consumers from criminal fraud, theft, and bodily injury (not risk) and government prop-ups should be outlawed. Ever. PERIOD. Businesses and industries who attempt to operate outside the laws of sound economics driven by demand, supply, competition, and value should fail.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Why Obama-esque financial reform is a bad idear
I'm gonna admit right out of the gate that I haven't done much homework on this one yet. But I'll fire a quick couple of shots over the bow as to why I think Obama-styled financial reform is yet another loser for all of us.
First, risk in the capital markets is a GOOD thing. By attempting to insulate consumers and investors from risk, the same will undertake such investments more carelessly relying on the government to "cover their sins" and do the due-diligence for them. Once again, as with healthcare, welfare, unemployment and a host of other programs, shifting the responsibility from the consumer/investor to the government aka "society" at large will only result in more cost and potentially more problems. Keep businesses accountable to their customers and competitors directly with appropriate laws and enforcement against misconduct and the free market will thrive.
Second, Obama is a power hog. He wants to suck up top-down (executive) control of EVERYTHING he can get his arrogant, progressive little paws on--because, of course, father knows best. Eventually (maybe sooner than you'd like), the Dems will be out of power. Ask yourselves this, lefties: Would you want Bush to have that kind of absolute control? If you give it to the big Zero, you're giving it to the next Bush just as surely. This is yet another attempt to demonize capitalism to both undermine and control it.
Third, here's another thousand-page bill that no one will read before it's passed and the consequences of which are unpredictable at best. Here's a suggestion: Identify the specific problem you wish to solve. See if the problem is already addressed in current law. If so, enforce it. If not, devise a rational, simple, common sense, bi-partisan solution and write a new law to fix it. Forget about "comprehensive" reforms. Solve specific problems one at a time. Leave out the earmarks and political horse trading. Pass a good law that everyone can understand and a solid majority can support.
Finally, Obama style statism (call it by whatever ism you choose) is a disaster for all except the rubes at the top; be they on the government or corporate side. It can only lead to more collusion between the state and the monied interests that the ruling party tends to favor. It means more big government intervention, more cost, more corruption, less efficiency, less profit, less innovation, lower quality, less responsiveness to the markets, more government dependence, less autonomy and independence, less opportunity for the regular guy, and more locked in power for the people who already possess it.
Whatever avarice you ascribe to capitalist corporate America, why would you ever think there's less of it in government?! The only problem is, public sector greed tends not to stop with the lust for riches. It seeks to control the lives and properties of others, as well.
First, risk in the capital markets is a GOOD thing. By attempting to insulate consumers and investors from risk, the same will undertake such investments more carelessly relying on the government to "cover their sins" and do the due-diligence for them. Once again, as with healthcare, welfare, unemployment and a host of other programs, shifting the responsibility from the consumer/investor to the government aka "society" at large will only result in more cost and potentially more problems. Keep businesses accountable to their customers and competitors directly with appropriate laws and enforcement against misconduct and the free market will thrive.
Second, Obama is a power hog. He wants to suck up top-down (executive) control of EVERYTHING he can get his arrogant, progressive little paws on--because, of course, father knows best. Eventually (maybe sooner than you'd like), the Dems will be out of power. Ask yourselves this, lefties: Would you want Bush to have that kind of absolute control? If you give it to the big Zero, you're giving it to the next Bush just as surely. This is yet another attempt to demonize capitalism to both undermine and control it.
Third, here's another thousand-page bill that no one will read before it's passed and the consequences of which are unpredictable at best. Here's a suggestion: Identify the specific problem you wish to solve. See if the problem is already addressed in current law. If so, enforce it. If not, devise a rational, simple, common sense, bi-partisan solution and write a new law to fix it. Forget about "comprehensive" reforms. Solve specific problems one at a time. Leave out the earmarks and political horse trading. Pass a good law that everyone can understand and a solid majority can support.
Finally, Obama style statism (call it by whatever ism you choose) is a disaster for all except the rubes at the top; be they on the government or corporate side. It can only lead to more collusion between the state and the monied interests that the ruling party tends to favor. It means more big government intervention, more cost, more corruption, less efficiency, less profit, less innovation, lower quality, less responsiveness to the markets, more government dependence, less autonomy and independence, less opportunity for the regular guy, and more locked in power for the people who already possess it.
Whatever avarice you ascribe to capitalist corporate America, why would you ever think there's less of it in government?! The only problem is, public sector greed tends not to stop with the lust for riches. It seeks to control the lives and properties of others, as well.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The Economics of Beer or bE-conomics
I found this on, of all places, a comment to a news article on Yahoo!. It's brilliant! Enjoy and understand...
A small lesson using our favorite American beverage... Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. (In case this isn't clear, it means that the "bottom" 70% of all citizens pay only 10% of all Federal taxes. Those in the top 10% of earners are paying almost 60% of the bill!)
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings) The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction (even though it's the smallest proportional break). Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. --David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
A small lesson using our favorite American beverage... Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. (In case this isn't clear, it means that the "bottom" 70% of all citizens pay only 10% of all Federal taxes. Those in the top 10% of earners are paying almost 60% of the bill!)
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings) The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction (even though it's the smallest proportional break). Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. --David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Monday, March 29, 2010
I Gotta Buy WHAT?!
Now wait just a minute. You're telling me I HAVE to buy health insurance? Really!? But what if I don't want to? What if I don't need it? What if I can't afford it--or I have other priorities? Say I'd rather self-insure; pay as I go? You, my fellow citizen, are going to use the full force and power of the United States government to MAKE me buy health insurance because YOU think it's better for everybody? Who do you think you are? What if I buy it but you don't like the brand I buy or you don't think I bought enough? Will you make me buy more? What's gonna stop you if we open this door?
See, this is pretty extreme stuff. We're talking about the federal government walking into my home (or yours) and forcing me to buy something at the point of a gun. Hyperbole? No! Not really. Because to enforce this little gem they're gonna add 16,000 new IRS agents who will make it their business to verify whether or not you're writing checks to an insurance provider or receiving benefits through your employer or whatever. Then, if you're not, they'll have to have some kind of enforcement mechanism. They might take it out of your tax refund. Or if you owe no taxes or have no refund coming, they'll fine you. If you don't pay the fine they'll doubtless add penalties, fees, interest or whatever, and then, if you still don't buy the insurance or pay the fine, they'll have to attach your bank accounts, confiscate your property or send the police to haul you off to jail. They'll HAVE to or else the law will have no effect. Oh, but THAT would never happen! *wink wink*
So...is this cool with you? I mean, you're upset if the government wants to tap your phone if they deem it necessary to stop a terrorist attack. THAT bothers you. Is this any less of an invasion of your personal liberty and privacy? And while only those involved in nefarious activities should be apprehensive about being wire tapped, the healthcare police will now be surveiling EVERYONE to make sure we all have this one product that no one can live without! Or that it's unfair to live without. What?!
I'm a little amazed that so many Americans are yawning about the new, outrageous, unprecedented move on the part of the federal government to force citizens to purchase a product? No matter what the product is or what excuse they have for forcing you to buy it at the point of a gun. If you open this door, what's next? Birth control for people they don't think are fit to have kids? Diet pills for fat people? Dance lessons for the rythmically challenged?
And don't give me the argument about auto insurance. That's a straw man. First, auto insurance is NOT a federal mandate. It is mandated and enforced at the state level. Second, it is mandated in exchange for the privilege of driving as regulated by the several states. Third, you don't have to buy it. You can walk, ride a bike, bum rides, take a cab, or use public transit. You have a choice! And finally, it's clearly in your self-interest to purchase because driving is inherently a high-risk activity that carries a probability that you will, at some point, injure yourself or others incurring a financial liability that could be ruinous--the same kind of liability that drives most people to at least want health insurance.
Finally, the free market--yes, glorious capitalism--left unshackled by overly aggressive mandates, restrictions, and regulations A) has already given us the best healthcare in the world and B) will solve the cost and coverage issues with broader competition, TORT reform, innovative products and smart regulation targeted at specific cost and availability objectives. Comprehensive reform--a politically driven giant step towards the stated objective of a single payer system is not the answer for America. What say ye?
See, this is pretty extreme stuff. We're talking about the federal government walking into my home (or yours) and forcing me to buy something at the point of a gun. Hyperbole? No! Not really. Because to enforce this little gem they're gonna add 16,000 new IRS agents who will make it their business to verify whether or not you're writing checks to an insurance provider or receiving benefits through your employer or whatever. Then, if you're not, they'll have to have some kind of enforcement mechanism. They might take it out of your tax refund. Or if you owe no taxes or have no refund coming, they'll fine you. If you don't pay the fine they'll doubtless add penalties, fees, interest or whatever, and then, if you still don't buy the insurance or pay the fine, they'll have to attach your bank accounts, confiscate your property or send the police to haul you off to jail. They'll HAVE to or else the law will have no effect. Oh, but THAT would never happen! *wink wink*
So...is this cool with you? I mean, you're upset if the government wants to tap your phone if they deem it necessary to stop a terrorist attack. THAT bothers you. Is this any less of an invasion of your personal liberty and privacy? And while only those involved in nefarious activities should be apprehensive about being wire tapped, the healthcare police will now be surveiling EVERYONE to make sure we all have this one product that no one can live without! Or that it's unfair to live without. What?!
I'm a little amazed that so many Americans are yawning about the new, outrageous, unprecedented move on the part of the federal government to force citizens to purchase a product? No matter what the product is or what excuse they have for forcing you to buy it at the point of a gun. If you open this door, what's next? Birth control for people they don't think are fit to have kids? Diet pills for fat people? Dance lessons for the rythmically challenged?
And don't give me the argument about auto insurance. That's a straw man. First, auto insurance is NOT a federal mandate. It is mandated and enforced at the state level. Second, it is mandated in exchange for the privilege of driving as regulated by the several states. Third, you don't have to buy it. You can walk, ride a bike, bum rides, take a cab, or use public transit. You have a choice! And finally, it's clearly in your self-interest to purchase because driving is inherently a high-risk activity that carries a probability that you will, at some point, injure yourself or others incurring a financial liability that could be ruinous--the same kind of liability that drives most people to at least want health insurance.
Finally, the free market--yes, glorious capitalism--left unshackled by overly aggressive mandates, restrictions, and regulations A) has already given us the best healthcare in the world and B) will solve the cost and coverage issues with broader competition, TORT reform, innovative products and smart regulation targeted at specific cost and availability objectives. Comprehensive reform--a politically driven giant step towards the stated objective of a single payer system is not the answer for America. What say ye?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Reaction to 15 Year Old's Abortion in Washington
This is a pretty sad and alarming story. A 15-year old child went to the health clinic at school and received a pregnacy test. When the test was positive, she was immediately "given a pass, put in a taxi and sent off to have an abortion during school hours all without her family knowing." Further, she was told that if she kept the abortion to herself, there would be no cost. Perhaps most alarming of all, this child was a pro-life advocate and her mother stongly objected to the school's handling of the matter, although too late. She was denied the opportunity to counsel her daughter who was undoubtedly confused and afraid at the time--in no position to make such a profound life-changing decision without the benefit of abundant advice. Read the full article here: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/88971742.html#IDCThread
Among the comments to the article were those who stated that the state acted appropriately because it has to protect children from abusive parents, and others who maintain that the state had the right to intervene because it will save health care and welfare dollars down the road. Interesting...
Here's my comment on the article:
This is shocking! So, because there's a chance that a given parent might react badly to a child who is pregnant, no other parents have the parental right or responsibility to counsel their children or influence their immature and/or potentially uninformed decisions? This sounds like a presumption of guilt towards parents--the assumption that children will be mistreated and need to be protected from the people who gave them life. (This innocent unborn would have benefitted from similar protection!) What other excuse is there for the secrecy? And how do you justify the bribe..."we'll pay if you don't tell?" Who did pay for this abortion? Who protected this child from the influence of the state that violated her core pro-life values? What kind of psychological, emotional, and spiritual damage is being done to her and her family? Sorry folks. This is an outrageous, upside-down perversion of terms like rights and protection. It's time to grow up, America! Start managing your own lives--and those of your underage children--and stop turning your responsibilities over to "the state."
Among the comments to the article were those who stated that the state acted appropriately because it has to protect children from abusive parents, and others who maintain that the state had the right to intervene because it will save health care and welfare dollars down the road. Interesting...
Here's my comment on the article:
This is shocking! So, because there's a chance that a given parent might react badly to a child who is pregnant, no other parents have the parental right or responsibility to counsel their children or influence their immature and/or potentially uninformed decisions? This sounds like a presumption of guilt towards parents--the assumption that children will be mistreated and need to be protected from the people who gave them life. (This innocent unborn would have benefitted from similar protection!) What other excuse is there for the secrecy? And how do you justify the bribe..."we'll pay if you don't tell?" Who did pay for this abortion? Who protected this child from the influence of the state that violated her core pro-life values? What kind of psychological, emotional, and spiritual damage is being done to her and her family? Sorry folks. This is an outrageous, upside-down perversion of terms like rights and protection. It's time to grow up, America! Start managing your own lives--and those of your underage children--and stop turning your responsibilities over to "the state."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)