27Nov09

25Nov09
"That government is best which governs least." – Henry David Thoreau

That statement is a little simplistic, but its simplicity makes it powerful. A light hand in government is preferable to a heavy hand where freedom is concerned. It's about striking a balance between two extremes, one of absolute freedom but total lawlessness (anarchy), and one of absolute law but total slavery (statism).
The sweet spot is where the state observes the rights of the individual, and the individual observes the laws of the state. Both freedom and law are maximized.

In logic there is an axiom called Occum's Razor:

"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. It hold that explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, and all things being equal, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one. Ask any programmer or engineer, the simplest solution to a problem is usually the most effective.

What constitutes simple government? It would be small for one thing, size adds to complexity. It would take into account human nature, rather than fighting it, so as not require additional philosophical constructs for justification. It would be based on natural law, principles so simple as to be self evident.

Evolutionary psychology shows us that the human brain hasn't changed appreciably in the last 500,000 years. Our spirit, like evolution itself, is still driven by competition and adaptation. Self awareness, individuality, property rights, specialized production, mutually beneficial exchange. All of these behaviors are inherent to humans. They are hard wired into us. What form of government holds these principles at its center?

Capitalism.

Our founders knew this, and in establishing our constitutional republic, they created a government based on human nature and in accordance with natural law. They created a capitalist society based on simple principles, not separate from the people, but made up of and run by the people.

But evolutionary psychology also shows us that human beings are envious by nature. We think of wealth in zero sum terms, because we have difficulty in perceiving the abstraction of net wealth increase. We forget about mutually beneficial exchange and assume that for someone to win, someone else must lose. Then when we see someone doing better than us, we feel we lost somehow, even though no exchange took place. We forget that real solutions originate with people and in the marketplace.

So we call for government to step in and right the perceived inequity. But every government solution expands government and increases complexity. A network of supports, subsidies and controls are created to support the solution, that create inequities of their own. So government offers a solution to their solution, until it cycles out of control.

Which is where we finds ourselves today, with a government grown beyond necessity, so large and complex that it dominates our lives. It's time to make life simple again.

Get your free copy of the constitution, read it, and tell your lawmakers to vote against anything that violates its principles.

23Nov09

It never fails.

Any time one begins in earnest a discussion of America's movement toward collectivism, in jumps some pseudo intellectual devil's advocate who's stopped suckling upon the government tit long enough to offer their two cents:

"Oh, think government health care is collectivism, huh? Well then I guess you don't want fire departments, or a police department. National Defense, you'd better give that up too."

Smugly self satisfied, they retreat from the discussion having offered their one and only point. Whether it's to set us back upon our heels, or imply collectivism's banality through association with trusted institutions, I couldn't say. But a clearly fallacious argument like that is little more than blood in the water to someone who knows what they're talking about.

I do.

You see our founders didn't just pull their ideas out of a hat. Our concept of individual right is based upon principles of natural law inherent to the human condition. These natural laws predate the law of man, and make it possible. They have been recognized throughout recorded history, and are exceedingly well represented in a work called "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. Our founders read Bastiat and knew the truth of his works.

You see there's a difference between collective action and collectivism. Collective action involves the rights of the individual being lent to the group, for a common purpose. Collective action is an extension of individual rights, not a replacement of them.

Individuals are granted certain rights under natural law. Chief among those right are the rights to life, liberty, and the right to possess property. These are the basic requirements to sustain life. An individual has an inherent right to defend by force his life, and by extension his liberty and property. To deprive him of any one of these would be to deprive him of the other two.

If the individual may defend his rights, it follows that multiple individuals may come together to support a common force to defend the rights of each other. The government may only do for us what we would do for ourselves, but choose not to, because collective right is based entirely in individual right.

Just as I can defend my home and property from fire or violence, I can instead choose to employ a fire department and police force to do it for me. However, just as my rights cannot supersede and nullify the rights of another, those rights of the group cannot nullify the rights of the individual.

But collectivism goes beyond what we could do for ourselves, to perform that which we would and should do for ourselves. That is the true meaning of collectivism. Beyond the emphasis on human interdependence, or the belief that group goals take precedence over individuals goals. Collectivists believe that the collective may possess rights which the individual does not.

It runs contrary to both human nature, and natural law. That's why no matter what you call it; Marxism, Nationalism, Socialism, Communism...it always fails.

Attending "The Making of America" seminar, presented by The National Center for Constitutional Studies.

19Nov2009
"When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it.

When a man spends his own money to buy something for someone else, he is still very careful about how much he spends, but somewhat less what he spends it on.

When a man spends someone else's money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about what he buys, but doesn't care at all how much he spends.

And when a man spends someone else's money on someone else, he doesn't care how much he spends or what he spends it on. And that's government for you. "– Milton Friedman

The progressive left likes to label the tea party movement as a bunch of tax whiners. They like to point out that the government has only collected 15% of Gross Domestic Product in taxes for Fiscal Year 2009 ($2.13 trillion), which is lower than the 40 year average of 18.3%.

That figure makes a nice talking point, but it's a red herring.

That figure uses the Keynes formula for calculating GDP, i.e. it includes federal spending in the calculation. The government has been on a record spending spree in '09, which artificially inflates GDP and makes the percentage of taxes collected lower in comparison. The real number looks something more like this:

Projected 2009 GDP of 14.25 trillion - 3.1 trillion in federal spending = 11.15 trillion in real gdp.

2.13 trillion in collected taxes / 11.15 trillion real GDP = 19.17%

Almost 20%, which is considerably MORE than the 40 years average. I don't care which side of the isle you're on, or which chamber of congress, our government loves to tax. Loves it. The Senate health care bill uses the word "tax" 183 times, and "taxable" 164.

Even so I think most people would happily pay what they do now, maybe a bit more, if they were confident that their money was being spent well. If they felt like government was lowering the debt, and keeping budgets under control to get the most use out of every last dollar.

But it's not. Our government is a bloated pig gorging itself at the trough of American productivity, and a messy eater at that.

A recent oversight report shows more than $98 Billion in wasted government spending for FY09,about 5% of total federal spending, a $26 billion jump from 2008. Let's look at some of the biggest offenders:

Housing and Urban Development: A waste of $1 billion, or 3.5 percent of the departmental budget. It's been attributed to the government granting public housing and rental assistance to those who should not have qualified.

Department of Agriculture: $4.3 billion in improper payments to give food stamps, and federal crop insurance, given to those who did not qualify or who received double payments.

Social Security Administration: $8.0 billion, or 1.2 percent much of it in disability payments, some of which were made to non U.S. citizens.

Department of Labor: $12.3 billion, wasted in providing unemployment benefits to people who did not qualify, or continuing payments after eligibility had run out.

Treasury: $12.3 billion shelled out to people who lied on their taxes to receive the earned income tax credit.

Health and Human Services: $55.1 billion, nearly ten percent of their budget pissed down the drain on fraudulent Medicare payments. But surely the new government option wouldn't have the same problem?

Sen. Tom Carper, chair of the Senate panel on federal financial management, believes that may be just the beginning as many government programs have yet to be evaluated. "It goes without saying that these results would be completely unacceptable in the private sector, as they should be in government, especially at a time of record deficits," Carper said.

This nation has no future if we cannot reign in government. Interest payments on our debt eat up 10% of the federal budget. Defense, Medicare, and Social Security are 60% of the budget. Yet only defense is regarded as discretionary. I have news for Washington, it's ALL discretionary. Entitlements are discretionary by nature, and our nation needs you to make the unpopular decision to cut them, even if it costs you your seat. If you don't, we'll find someone who will.

Call Congress at (202)224-3121 and tell them that a balanced budget and reducing the national debt take precedence over their political goodwill.

17Nov09

1 in 7 U.S. families struggled to get enough to eat last year, with 49 million Americans having what the government terms "food insecurity".

"In over 500,000 families with children in 2008, one or more children simply do not get enough to eat. They had to cut the size of their meals, skip meals or even go whole days without food at some time during the year," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said.

One of the ways the government tries to deal with this issue is through federally funded school nutrition programs designed to provide at risk children with nourishing options from breakfast and lunch. Vilsack is asking lawmakers to reauthorize and expand school nutrition programs for an additional 10 billion dollars over the next ten years.

I'm the last person who'd want to take away a child's lunch when it may be the only nutritious meal they get all day. Despite the fact that such efforts are only thinly masked entitlements, and by definition a redistribution of wealth, it would not be right to punish a child for the shortcomings of their parents.

However, this is another example of government nanny mentality. School lunch programs deal with a symptom of the problem, rather than the problem itself. The main reasons hunger persists in America is the way we have come to think about food. We are largely removed from the cooking process, and even further removed from the means of production.

People can live quite well on beans, rice, and a few vegetables; staples that literally anyone with a job can afford, with no ill effects. That's how you get through when hard times come. Many of our grandparents did it during the great depression, but we think we somehow deserve more than that.

It's evidenced in the way we offer food assistance itself. Those who receive assistance in the form of food stamps, or more likely a government debit card (because shaming people into improving their lives isn't politically correct), will never be as well fed as those who receive assistance from a food bank or co-op.

Americans as a people are ignorant of the very basics of human nutrition, and cooking wholesome food. They buy convenience foods that are easy to prepare, but also expensive in relation to their nutritional density. These habits persist in the choices those on assistance make when shopping.

Private sector motives to create solutions, coupled with charitable organizations can do a better job of solving the hunger problem than government can. But if taxpayer funds are going to be spent, they would be better put to use in re instituting the old USDA commodities food distribution program that gave families surplus food, and in teaching people to shop for and prepare wholesome meals rather than pressing 'start' on the microwave.

The holidays are upon us, and it's the hardest time of year to have to deal with not having enough to eat. Please remember the spirit of the season and give generously to your local food banks.

The Food Bank of Iowa can be reached at (515)564-0330.

13Nov09
Social security is the single largest entitlement program in this country. It accounts for 21 percent of the federal budget, as much as we spend on national defense.

The Social Security system didn't set out to sabotage people's ability to plan for retirement, and chew away at American prosperity.

But that's exactly what it did.

An idea is only as good as its execution, which is usually where government fails. Universal Health Care will be just another albatross upon this nation as in a generation or two it outgrows its bounds due to increasing human lifespan (just like social security). It cannot be allowed to pass.

So what do we do? How do we satisfy those who claim our health care system is broken, and provide viable market driven options for the uninsured?

There are a lot of viable proposals floating around mostly untouched by the left. Tort reform, medical savings accounts, tax credits to purchase catastrophic coverage, tax write offs for doctors who provide care pro-bono.

You want to give consumers choice and competition?

There are 1300 insurers nationwide and while there's nothing keeping an insurer from establishing a line of business in every state, it's hardly cost effective for them to do so. Get the interstate commerce committee out of the way, and allow state insurance commissions to open sales across state lines as they did with auto insurance. You'll see insurers scramble to compete with one another on price and service.

The plan set forth by the Republicans is less sweeping than that of their Democratic colleagues, but serves to address the rising costs of health care in an effective and fiscally responsible way. It's not a perfect plan, but would prove less damaging to the American economy than Universal Health Care. The Congressional Budget Office confirms it will provide access to affordable coverage to millions, lower existing health care premiums by as much as 10 percent over 10 years while at the same time reducing the deficit by more than 68 billion dollars, without hiking taxes.

I'm no fan of Republicans. They profess to believe in free market principles, but abandon them at the first sign that they can increase their power by growing government. They're mostly cowards who'd sell their ideals down the river in the name of political expediency. But we as Americans had better embrace those cowards for the time being. It's up to us to steel their backbone until we can put a viable third party in its place.

We're stuck between those who advocate for socialism, and those who let it prevail from weak resolve. It's time to stop the ideological games, and let all who treasure liberty stand in unison against the rise of socialism in this country.

Call your Senator, your Representative, your President. Tell them that if they want Universal Health Care so much, they're welcome to emigrate to Cuba.

12Nov09

So you've had time to think about it, and you're not sold on the fact that Universal Health Care will be the end of liberty as we know it in America.

Well in addition to that, the policies just will not work as advertised. Congress and the Obama administration are selling you a bill of goods.

Here's why:

#1 - The government doesn't run anything well.

There isn't a single government program or agency that is run as well as its private sector corollary. The federal budget is a tableau of waste, pork, and outright graft.

One need only think of the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Postal Service, and the effectiveness FEMA to realize that these aren't the people you want in charge of your life and death struggle.

#2 - Taxpayers cannot afford to pay for this.

Budget neutral my ass. The left's "Free" health care is anything but free. Taxpayers will foot the bill with higher rates, and when it becomes clear that revenues are up against the Laffer curve, cuts in other budget areas (think national defense).

The most conservative estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for the Democrats health care reform proposals put the price tag around a trillion dollars over ten years. Medicare and Medicaid cost far more than the estimates at the time of their adoption, so it follows that the government option will overrun its budget as well.

Coincidentally, the Obama administration budget estimates a tripling of the national debt over
the same period. With the economy still on shaky ground, and the national debt spiraling out of control, we can't afford to take on a crippling debt just so someone will get re-elected.

#3 - Health care will become MORE expensive, not less.

Profit motives, competition and informed consumers have always controlled prices more effectively than legislation. Government option administrators will have little incentive to curb costs. While private insurers will be forced to compete with a government option, the government option will essentially have no competition. This only serves to further insulate consumers from the real cost of care and provide no reason for them to curb drug choices or numbers of doctor visits.

The legislation's ban on denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions will prevent insurers from bundling members with like risk levels into separate plans. This will cause premiums to skyrocket, and force as many as 120 million Americans off their current plan and onto the government option.

Also, apparently the trial lawyers lobby is just too strong, as neither the House or Senate bill address substantive tort reform. Already out of control costs of malpractice lawsuits will only get worse, as the government option exposes the government to legal liability and their deep pockets invite ever increasing litigation.

#4 - The quality of care will be reduced.

We've all heard stories of Canada's socialized medicine, and the trials of Britain's
National Health Service. The quality of health care available in America will be reduced as a result of the government option as patients are limited to government mandated "best practices" of care.

Private insurers will be forced to reduce coverage in an attempt to cut costs. Those on the government option will have less flexibility of care and may face extremely long wait times for treatment as drugs and services are rationed by the government. The government will have full access to the records of the patient, compromising confidentiality, and making it possible for political or lifestyle differences to decide who does and does not receive care.

#5 - It's too much, with too little thought put into it.

The current health care reform proposals are sweeping. Like Social Security, government entitlement programs come to be regarded as a "right" and later are virtually impossible to reduce or remove. It's Pandora's box, and once you open it, you can't close that door again.

But the only thing that really matters?

Like the progressive tax code used to fund it, the government option is a form of wealth redistribution and is coercive in its intent. The unfulfilled need of another does not constitute an obligation on my part, and they have no claim upon me or my property. To say otherwise is to champion the viability of socialism, and as I said in the first part of this series, that dog won't hunt.

11Nov09
Socialism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] n. - a theory of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the state.

Regardless of what a modern liberal tells you, the concept of socialized universal health care has its origins in socialist philosophy and is the holy grail of the American left.

The word socialist doesn't mean much anymore. It gets thrown around a lot these days. But I'm talking about real Marxists that are becoming more prevalent in our society, and in our government.

A quick glance at the economic platform of The Socialist Party of the United States shows us the direction of their thought. They'd like to raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour, reduce the workweek to 30 hours (but pay everyone for 40), give everyone 6 weeks paid vacation per year, and cap "maximum" earning at ten times the minimum wage.

Does any of that sound remotely feasible? If so, you can stop reading now, because you've already been guzzling the kool-aid.

The Communist Manifesto was authored by two entitled young men intent on rebelling against their wealthy fathers. They had no practical experience. Had never worked a day in their lives. But they claimed the mantle of the working class and presumed to tell mankind how it should live.

Socialism relies upon the will of the producer to continue to produce without thought to the fruit of his labor, to support those who contribute nothing. It runs in direct opposition to human nature.

The consequence is that socialism doesn't work. It has a long record of failure, which limits discussion of its successes to the purely theoretical. It follows that most of its proponents confine themselves to institutions where ideas don't have to work to be propagated, government and academia.

Socialism talks a big game about fairness, but at its core is a sense of entitlement. The belief that society owes you something for being born. It is the philosophy of the spoiled trophy child, grown into adulthood.

That the myth of Socialism's viability persists serves as proof of nothing, save that there is no shortage of those who are ignorant of the facts, and ready to take on the banner that the previous generation was wrong about everything.

06Nov09

This story has been floating around the Internet for a while, the analogy illustrates how the velocity of money breaks down in a debt based system. Stop reading if you've heard it.

Times are tough in the East Texas town of Madisonville.

The hard economic times have the entire town relying on credit, just to survive.

One rainy day, a wealthy traveler passes through town, and needs a place to stay. He walks into the only hotel and lays down a hundred dollar bill on the desk, asking to inspect a room before he decides to stay.

As soon as the man walks up the stairs, the hotel manager snatches up the hundred dollars and runs next door to pay off his tab at the bar.

The bartender takes the hundred dollars and goes across the street to pay the liquor wholesaler for the two cases of whiskey they delivered last week.

The liquor wholesaler calls the the local prostitute to come pick up the hundred dollars he owes her, for "services" rendered.

After stopping to see the liquor wholesaler, the prostitute walks into the hotel and pays the manager for the rooms she's used in the last week.

Relieved, the hotel manager places the hundred dollar bill back on the counter so as not to arouse the suspicions of the traveler.

Seconds later the traveler comes down the stairs and says the sheets look as though a prostitute had a go with someone on them, picks up his $100 bill, and leaves town immediately.

Nobody earned anything. Nobody increased their standard of living. But the whole town is out of debt, and suddenly has hope that things will change.

This is how the government of the United States of America is being run. Are you scared yet?

04Nov09
Just when you thought the mainstream media was hopelessly in the tank for the left, ABC's satirical remake of the 1984 miniseries "V", takes aim at Obama mania.

Satire (sat-ire) n. - The use of irony, sarcasm, or ridicule in exposing or denouncing vice, folly, etc. Caricature, parody.

Satire has always been at the leading edge of political commentary. In its general usage, it refers to forms of speech in which vice or folly are ridiculed. It emphasizes the weakness of character more than the weak person, and is corrective in its purpose. It holds up a mirror to us, so that we can see just how silly we look.

The premise is that a race of aliens that call themselves "Visitors" come to earth, lead by a charismatic leader that captures the affection of all but a vocal minority of humanity, by controlling media coverage and refusing to be interviewed unless she is portrayed in a positive light.

The aliens profess to come in peace, bearing cultural change, technological advancement and universal health care. All the aliens wish in return is a few unnamed resources that we probably won't miss anyway, and the trust of humanity. The result is an instant cult of personality, a state of worship the main characters refer to as "devotion".

"We're all so quick to jump on the bandwagon," One character aptly puts it "A ride on the bandwagon, it sounds like fun. But before we get on, let us at least make sure it is sturdy."

Thinly veiled though it may be, the commentary rings true. It is like bread to the famished for an ever increasing segment of the population that's waking up to the reality of the socialist euphoria gripping America.

It may be my new favorite show. Watch "V" Tuesdays at 7 central on ABC.