Two more arguments against Universal Health Care

Universal Health Care...
Ahhhh....just think of how great that would be. Everyone receiving top-rate care for all types of ailments and illnesses. Everyone's right to be cared for being being properly righted, bleeding hearts all over the country are being properly inoculated by Big Brother...

So romantic.

But is the warm fuzzy picture in your head still warm and fuzzy if your heard-earned tax dollars were paying for a mentally ill patient's right to sex through legal prostitution?

I'm not joking, but it sure is funny!
from TimeLeader.com

"Denmark’s government ruled in 2001 that institutionalized citizens have the right to have sex and that caregivers must even take them to visit prostitutes. (Prostitution is legal in Denmark.) According to a January dispatch from Aarhus, Denmark, in London’s Observer, Mr. Torben Vegener Hansen, 59, who has cerebral palsy and lives at home on government assistance, is challenging the government also to pay for prostitutes to make house calls, claiming that he is unable to have sex manually because of his illness and must be accorded this “human right” by a service similar to the government’s meals-on-wheels program."

And all that is possible through the beauty of Universal Health Care

Another article came across my desk. This one discusses the complexities involved with booming biotechnology and how it puts some poor souls in the precarious position of having to make a decision between doing their job and standing up for their beliefs.

Two points:
1. Why is the government involved? To me this issue is very simple. Person A owns Material X, which Person B would like to have. Person B buys Material X from Person A on a mutually acceptable price. If both parties are happy, than why is government needed? In a real life example how about this:
CVS owns Morning After Pill. John wants to buy Morning After Pill. John buys Morning After Pill from CVS.
Pretty simple to me.....

Ok, let's make it complicated!

CVS owns Morning After Pill. Frank is a CVS pharmacist. John wants to buy Morning After Pill. Frank thinks Morning After Pill is evil. Frank can either a) sell Morning After Pill to John, b)look for a new job where he does not have to make such hard decisions or c) ask CVS if he could work there but not sell Morning After Pill. Then, it would simply be CVS owner/managemnt to decide the policy to set for employees like Frank.

Where is government needed in that example?
What if CVS (gulp) fires Frank who is just trying to live his life and make a living and put his beliefs into his career? O well, good luck with a new career Frank!

But shouldn't Big Brother step in and force these companies and people to do what's right?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because they can make that decision on their own! And if you think that CVS is wrong for firing Frank, then DON'T SPEND MONEY THERE!

2) Why is the government involved?

Simple Wal-Mart economics

This is a follow-up to my two recent posts about states creating laws forcing large private companies to spend an arbitrary amount of money on healthcare. The entire idea is based on the extremely faulty premise that politcians know how to run businesses better than businesses. Before I even begin let me state this simple fact:
Wal-Mart is a private business that people CHOOSE to spend money at where workers CHOOSE to work.

Steven Hanke wrote an interesting article about how this law will HURT low-income workers.

Basically, the law will force Wal-Mart to reconsider its plans to build a distribution center in the poorest area of Maryland, Somerset County, that would have provided 800 jobs. So, 800 people that do not have jobs will continue to not have jobs because of this law that is aimed at "helping" low-income workers.

What does this mean for Somerset's local economy?
(from the article)

"The center's 800 employees would have created an additional 282 jobs among "upstream" suppliers and "downstream" retailers and service establishments; all told, the center would have boosted county employment by 14% and private-sector employment by 20%.
Total annual employee compensation in Somerset would have risen by $46.5 million, or 19%.
Annual output (or "gross county product") would have risen by $128.3 million, or 19%.
State and local tax receipts would have increased by $19.2 million annually; this would include $8.5 million in property taxes, $5.6 million in sales taxes, and $1.4 million in personal income taxes. "

And those numbers do not even take into consideration all of the businesses that could have profited from the building of the enormous center! Contractors, builders, lumber, elcictricians, plumbers, land surveyors, window installers, etc etc etc.

And what happens when a business moves in providing a spike in the economy? Other businesses do business there, property values increase, jobs are created....and the cycle repeats and repeats..

That is until big government steps in to get a chunk of the action!

BB&T stands up for private property owners

Are you as troubled with the increase of eminent domain rulings? Governments all over the country have ceased private property and given it to OTHER PEOPLE!
http://www.boonvilledailynews.com/articles/2006/01/25/news/news1.txt
http://rismedia.com/index.php/article/articleview/13218/1/1/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/13689307.htm
etc
etc

Finally a large bank is standing up for the property oweners by refusing to issue financing on property purchases bought through unconstitutional seizures by big government.

Great quote by BB&T CEO John Allison:

"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided; in fact it's just plain wrong,"

My Steelers Prophecy

I was just looking through archives of my blog, wondeing if any of my opinions have changed over the course of the past year, and I came across this prophetic blog!:

Monday April 25, 2005
Steelers Draft Picks
The Steelers will be back in the AFC Championship for sure. This draft was pure brillance by Bill Cowher and company! We added two big targets for Big Ben:6'5" 255 pound Tight End Heath Miller and 6'4" 202 pound WR Fred Gibson. Heath Miller was regarded by many as having the best hands in the draft, and Fred Gibson provides decent speed with his big frame at 4.55 second 40 yard dash.We filled the only void I was worried about. Ben has two big targets to throw to, the rest of the drast was a waste of time for the Steelers, because we have the best players in the league at pretty much every other position...including wide receiver. I'm just glad we have 2 more target for our young QB.Super Bowl party will be at my house next year.
posted by DOBBER at 2:01 AM 4 comments

Yes the Steelers are back and PAST the AFC Championship...but the Super Bowl Party will not be at my house since I live in Officer's Temporary Lodging Quarters on Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery Alabama!

When government fails, get rid of it!

I'm beyond tired of hearing about the failure of government in its preparation and response to Hurricance Katrina. First of all, where in the Bill of Rights does it make reference to government's role in the event of high wind and rain? I simply don't see the need for FEMA at all. I would argue against funding of any type of federal emergency services. (However, I will argue for all sorts of LOCAL emergency services)

Why do I argue against federal emergency services? Because they will fail every time! And even if all of the thousands of employees end up doing a great job....there will still be people and organizations that claim it did a bad job for some self-serving reason.

So Hurricane Katrina wreaks havoc on Louisiana, and in comes FEMA....

Now what's the consensus? If you judge by the news reports and talking heads condemning FEMA, I would say the agency failed. Now, the logical thing to do when something fails, is to cut it off, quit it, get rid of it.

BUT NEARLY EVERYONE WHO SAYS IT FAILED THINKS WE SHOULD SPEND MORE MONEY AND INCREASE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT TO MAKE THIS SUPPOSED PROBLEM BETTER!

Finally, I come across an article that makes sense.

Bridge over troubled money

If you haven't heard about the bridge to nowhere, you should read about it. But Republicans from Alaska would rather you didn't know about it, since your federal tax money will help build it. Most interesting in this article, which names Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) as Porker of the Month, is this little tidbit:

"Last week, Gov. Murkowski announced a $1.2 billion state budget surplus. He proposed spending part of that windfall to hire a public relations firm to counter the perception that Alaska politicians milk taxpayers."

HAHA! How about this idea: give them the money back!

And give me my money back while you're at it!

End Career Politicians' Careers!

All over the news is blah blah blah corruption in politics blah blah blah....

The OBVIOUS answer to that problem is make the government smaller, and don't allow them to have so much control over OUR money. That probably won't happen anytime soon....in the meantime...

This article by Thomas Sowell gives an interesting idea regarding a way to crack down on corruption in politics: Create a one term limit for all levels of office, with a minimum waiting period before politician can run for office again.

Fred Barnes, WTF?

I read about politics a lot, that's why I was super confused tonight while watching The Daily Show and hearing from Fred Barnes about his new book. The book sounds like a bore...President Bush is a renegade politician, he does stuff differently...yawn....

Here's why I was confused: Fred throws around labels like "Republican" and "Conservative" while talking about the current administration, when they are anything but. These days, with the current Republican agendas, if you vote straight Republican ticket, you basically believe in wealth redistribution and big government.

Frightening statistics from this Christian Science Monitor article:

"During the first five years of President Bush's presidency, nondefense discretionary spending (i.e., spending decided on an annual basis) rose 27.9 percent, far more than the 1.9 percent growth during President Clinton's first five years"

"the number of congressional "pork barrel" projects under Republican leadership during fiscal 2005 was 13,997, more than 10 times that of 1994"

"Certain trends have been favoring the left for the past several decades. In the early 1960s, transfer payments (entitlements and welfare) constituted less than a third of the federal government's budget. Now they constitute almost 60 percent of the budget, or about $1.4 trillion per year."

The Club for Growth

I constantly complain about the lack of guts in most of politics. Too many people/parties/groups/pundits etc etc just tow the party line. What I am constantly searching for, is a some type of club that (like me) does not care about parties and who is paying off who... just cares about limited government and growth. My colleague Travis tipped me off to the Club for Growth a while back and the more I read about them the more I like them. Recently, the Club for Growth endorsed a democrat in a state election. This "Democrat" is pro-education reform, supports the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and wants to repeal the estate tax... which makes me wonder what it is that makes him a Democrat...

Anywhoo, the Club for Growth proves that they do not represent a party by endorsing a democrat that is actually pusing an agenda of limited government, tax cuts, and free markets.

Check them out.

Victory for freedom!

In this day and age we must cheer every time the government gives up some power and we gain some freedoms, even when it is a touchy subject like physician assisted suicide. I believe the Court ruled wisely in allowing suicide assisting doctors to keep their licenses. Terminally ill patients are exercising their free will of a peaceful death before the painful torments of a disease take over their bodies.

If it worked in Maryland, let's try New Hampshire!

This article article is simply amazing! Before I joined the military, I flirted with moving to New Hampshire because of the free state project. I hear New England is a beautiful place to live. I'd been to Conway New Hampshire; and they do have a nice beach town in Portsmouth. Maybe I'll retire there to pursue the excitement of liberty and limited government. But I'm severely disappointed with New Hampshire, and it will go on my list of states that I'm currently mad at.

It seems New Hampshire lawmakers are threatening a lawsuit forcing all companies sized 1500 or greater (aka Wal-Mart) to pay an amount in health care benefits equal to 10.5% of payroll costs. This is 2.5% higher than Maryland. Does the simple fact that the numbers are different strike anyone as fishy? Hmm....why 8%? Why 10.5%? If this policy would be so good for workers, why not make it 13%? Or 55%?

BECAUSE POLICIES LIKE THIS ARE NOT GOOD FOR WORKERS!

Because if states enacted policies like these, companies would be forced to FIRE people! And firing people is bad for workers! Would you rather have a job, but no healthcare benefits, or no job and no healthcare benefits?

I know what you are thinking....You would rather have a job AND healthcare benefits. And since it would be better if all people had a job and healthcare benefits, then the government should just make it so! But when we rely on government, stuff fails. When we rely on us, we succeed.

The case of Liberals Versus Wal-Mart in Maryland

I was browsing random sites and blogs when I came across a great post at Neal Boortz's site. A law was passed in Maryland last week that says if a private company employs over 10,000 people, then it must spend at least 8% of its payroll on medical benefits! It seems that Wal-Mart, one of the most successful companies in the history of the world, and its employees cannot figure out how to run a business! Lucky for them they have the Maryland state legislature, which, of course, understands business much better!

Seriously though, why does the state have to step in? The interesting part of this debacle, is that Wal-Mart is the only business in the state that employees over 10,000 people! What a joke! This law, which is clearly un-constitutional, has been passed, in the meantime wasting taxpayer money, which only applies to one company in the entire state!

UGGHHH

People too stupid so Big Government passes law

I wonder what would happen to society if not for Big Government passing laws to protect us from us. I remember the wild wild days of the early 1980s, before the seat belt laws when all the dumb people kept flying through their windshields because they couldn't figure out that the nylon and metal belt shaped object hanging next to their seat would save their life! Thankfully, our elected lawmakers stepped in and signed seat belt laws so they would be forced to protect themselves from their own stupidity/forgetfulness.

Now it's 2006 and people keep on forgetting that smoking small objects filled with tobacco and poisons will kill them. Even worse, other people are killing themselves by the scores because they keep forgetting that standing near these people is hazardous! Even worse than worse, business owners keep forgetting to tell people that have come into their establishments of their own free will and spending their own hard earned money to stop this ridiculous hazardous smoking!

Well, laws are popping up all over the place to help the stupid populace from killing themselves and others, like this one in colorado. Basically it is just like all the other trendy smoking ban laws that are affecting something the government has no business being involved with: private establishments where people enter of their own free will!

On Saturday I was hanging out with a bunch of my buds in a sports bar in Atlanta called the The Pigeon Stool watching the NFL Playoffs. It was about 5 PM, and we were eating, drinking, debating politics, quizzing each other on Sports Trivia, etc, when I noticed that nobody in the joint was smoking. So I asked the waitress about that and she told me that the local law banned smoking in indoor bar/grills until 8 PM!

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What? Where do they come up with this? 8 PM? How arbitrary! Why not 8:15? or 12:37 AM? Obviously you can see how ludicrous these arbitrary numbers are that Big Government comes up with!

Please, someone comment that believes that lawmakers should decide whether or not people should be allowed to walk into an establishment and sit down and order a sandwich and a beer and enjoy a smoke. If the owner of that private company is okay with it, what is the big freaking deal?

In the words of Dave Chappelle, "Bloomburg made cigarettes $8 a pack! That's crack prices!"

And no, I dont smoke. Well, sometimes I'm intoxicated and i bum one...

At least we're arguing!

At least the argument exists. Even though public education is an Orwellian nightmare, at least some people believe that the average Joe could solve this problem better than Big Brother!
I was pleased to see this leading article at Reason online magazine today:

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306.shtml

And the debate over at three legged stool is heating up!

http://threeleggedstool.blogspot.com/2006/01/compelling-interest.html

I SERIOUSLY hope that by the time my grandkids (kids would be way too optimistic) go to school, there are some well performing schools out there for my kids to CHOOSE from! I know, I know, highly unlikely....

Making fun of Pat Robertson is fun

One of my political advisors, Trista, from Chapel Hill NC, sent me some great links from www.PatRobertson.com

It seems that Pat gets all caught up in the moment and says silly things like"

(talking about Hugo Chavez)
"I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it."

and then he has to post statements apologizing and explaining his very umm....UN-CHRISTIANLIKE statements!:
"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement."

(and regarding Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon)
"Sharon was personally a very likeable person and I am sad to see him in this condition. But I think we need to look at the Bible and the book of Joel. The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who “divide my land.” God considers this land to be His . . . Now Ariel Sharon who again was a very likeable person, a delightful person to be with, I prayed with him personally, but here he’s at the point of death. He was dividing God’s land and I would say woe unto any Prime Minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations, or the United States of America. God says “this land belongs to me. You’d better leave it alone.”

and he then makes this outrageous claim regarding people misunderstanding the previous statement:
"It is just remarkable how we get misquoted. You know you try to be rational in what you have to say but last night I was given editorials from the New York Times, Washington Post, the [Los Angeles]Times and assorted liberal newspapers that were just scathing in their denunciation of yours truly, and it was just amazing, based on what? False information. Things that I didn’t say."

And a newly discovered fantastic political website has a great satirical column regarding Mr. Robertson:
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2129

Pro-government schools/Teachers' Unions respond

If you have an opinion on School Choice, ESPECIALLY if you think education should be completely government run...plese commment here:

http://threeleggedstool.blogspot.com/2006/01/compelling-interest.html

Our rights to cable and internet

We Americans enjoy many rights. Our right arm. The right of way if your turning right and the opposition is turning left....etc etc

Apparently, we also have rights to cable TV and wireless internet!
Our friends in the House of Represntatives figured out an ingenious way to make about 5 or 10 billion more per year. Currently TV is beamed out magically to the populace via analog signals. These analog signals, air waves, are owned by the public (fed govmt). So they auction out bandwidth to for profit stations, non profit stations, emergency services, the liberal media, etc etc

But if all of those airwaves were instantly freed up, thats like 10 billion more dollars the feds can spend on wasteful projects! Of course, Congress claims the proceeds will go towards deficit reduction, which i think is highly unlikely no matter if the "tax and spend" democrats or the "don't tax and spend more" republicans take control after the 2006 elections.

So the House passed a bill mandating all TV stations to beam out their signals digitally by the end of 2008. But what will Grandma do with her 13 inch black and white set? No problem. Our always looking out for the little guy representatives thought of that. They set aside about a billion dollars of coupons for families that cant afford to buy digital to analog converter box from an electronics store. Like Mike Reagan (whom I first heard about this amazing story from) says: "are there really people who can't afford to set aside about $7 a year for the next three years so they'll have the money to pay their share of the subsidized price of a $60 converter box by December 2008?"
Those people certainly have worse problems than missing Survivor Season 26!

In similar Marxian logic, my colleague Travis notes the wonderful news from San Francisco where wireless internet seems to be a right to Americans! (See Jan 5th post)

Update in education reform battles

The washington post reports:

"The Florida Supreme Court yesterday struck down a statewide education voucher system that uses taxpayer money to fund children attending private schools, energizing the national debate once more."

A few years ago, Florida created a scholarship type program that allowed students at "failing" schools to attend either a higher performing public school or a private school of their choice. I am a huge fan of any voucher program, and as much school choice as possible. More choice equals more innovation in education; and more importantly more accountability for the schools. Yesterday the Florida Supreme Court deemed this program unconstitutional. I read the ruling, and it is!

The problem is this language residing in the Florida constitution:
"The Legislature recognizes that the
voters of the State of Florida, in the November 1998 general election,
amended s. 1, Art. IX of the Florida Constitution so as to make
education a paramount duty of the state."

Almost anything that becomes a paramount duty of the state will almost suredly be un-paramount in performance!

Well, back to the drawing board for us proponents of school choice...aka freedom.

I'm BACK!!

Hello everyone! I am back to the blogosphere after a seven month hiatus of living with no internet in ocean city maryland and montgomery alabama.