Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength

It is Warren Buffet redux. Yes, 40 millionaires have banded together as the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength and requested that their taxes be raised. When the Sage of Omaha proposed the same thing, I said he should just send the government a check. If these 40 want to pay more taxes, fine. Send in the money. The government will happily accept it and spend it. But demanding to have your taxes raised is also demanding that everyone else has their taxes raised.

 

These millionaires seem to believe what Joe Biden said: Paying taxes is patriotic. Hmm. This is a country founded on a tax revolt. Not paying taxes might be more patriotic. However, if they want to pay more, SEND IT IN and leave the rest of us out of your 'patriotism.'

Unreasonable Search?

The full body scan is coming to an airport near you. Yes, in reaction to the failed Christmas Bomber aka the Underwear Bomber, there are now scanners that will perform a virtual strip search. Have we not yet reached the point of unreasonable searches as defined by the 4th Amendment? Those who do not wish to suffer the indignity of the procedure or the 'harmless' dose of radiation may opt out and be sexually assaulted. Oh, it's just an 'aggressive' pat down, frisking like a cop might. However, if someone not wearing a TSA uniform were to perform such a pat down, it would be a clear case of sexual harassment. What is truly sad is that this is inevitably futile. The next bomber will have the anal cavity bomb (already used in Saudi Arabia). I can hardly wait for the TSA reaction to that.

This is yet another massive waste of resources for no benefit. We have a description of the perp and yet we search everyone. Imagine if a string of convenience stores were robbed and every cashier said it was a 'Middle-eastern man in his 20s or 30s.' The police then frisk every person they encounter - women, children, old men, etc. That would be crazy. And yet, that is what we are doing. We KNOW who is trying to blow up the plane but, to make sure no one feels singled out, we search every last person. We could cut 90% of the TSA if we just profiled. Heck, with the 90% cut of the TSA, we'd probably save more than enough to pay the lawsuits that would be filed.

October not so special

I have gotten the follow email a couple of times so far:

This October has 5 Fridays, 5 Saturdays and 5 Sundays, all in one month. It happens once in 823 years.

Close, but not quite. The last time that October had 5 Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays was 2004. That's a little shy of the stated 823 years. Before that was 1999. Then there was 1993. And 1982. And so on. Every time that October 1st falls on a Friday - on average about once every 7 years - it will meet the stated pattern. I am a little surprised that this is going around since the pattern should be obvious. Whenever any month with 31 days starts on a Friday, this pattern will occur. It's really pretty common. January of this year had the 5 weekend pattern and July of next year will have it.

Koran Burning

Ah, the double standard. Does not the Florida pastor have the legal right to burn the Koran? Should the president really be weighing in on the 'wisdom' of burning Korans? Now, obviously, it is insensitive to burn the Koran, in much the same way it is insensitive to burn the US flag. Or perhaps build a mosque where thousands died at the hands of Muslim men screaming 'Allah Akbar!' Some have pointed out that there is a clear difference between these. The President, Defense Secretary Gates, and General Petraeus have spoken out to protect soldiers from the inevitable violence that will occur in the wake of such a bonfire. Sounds like we are submitting to blackmail. Muslims riot when there are Danish cartoons of Mohammad, so let's not draw Mohammad. A Muslim killed a filmmaker who made a film critical of Islam, so let's not make films critical of Islam. Holland politician Geert Wilders is under threat of death for speaking out against Islam, so let's not speak out against Islam. See, we're to blame for all this violence committed by Muslims because we failed to 'respect' their religion. Blackmail. Imagine what would happen if, instead of putting a crucifix in a bucket of urine, it was a Koran. Wow, recall the violent reaction of the Christians to that one? Yeah, neither do I.

Though I oppose book burning, I think the pastor may be onto something. What if we turn the tables in this blackmail scheme. Either Muslims start behaving themselves or we'll start burning some Korans. Learn some tolerance. Don't be so thin-skinned. It is within their power to prevent Koran burnings. See, it's not the Pastor who is responsible for burned Korans but Muslims who fail to show 'respect' for American sensibilities.

How's that Stimulus Working?

Back when the stimulus was being discussed, I said it was folly. It wouldn't work. It was like taking water out of one end of the pool, poring it back into the other end, and concluding that there was now more water. It has been a year and a half and the economy is sputtering. There is talk of a double-dip recessions. Gosh, all those smart people in Washington somehow didn't see this coming but yours truly wrote a blog on February 5, 2009 called 'Stimulus Stupidity.' How does that happen? Is it possible that my mere minor in economics can trump the multiple PhDs in Obama's economic team?

Much of economics is common sense. You don't encourage job creation by making it more expensive to create jobs. You don't encourage working by increasing the tax rate. Nor do you encourage work by constantly extending unemployment benefits. In order to spend money, the government must first acquire it through taxation; therefore, it is incapable of 'stimulating' an economy through spending. However, it could stimulate an economy by taking less money (i.e. cut taxes). The Obama Administration is doing the opposite of these common sense measures and is surprised the economy isn't growing.

Consent of the Governed

The majority of Americans did not want the Federal Government to pass the $700 Billion bailout in 2008. It passed. The majority didn't want GM and Chrysler bailed out. They were. The majority did not want Universal Health Care. It passed. In California, Prop 22 defined Marriage as one man and one woman. The State Supreme Court overturned it. So California amended the state constitution with Prop 8 to define marriage as one man and one woman. A federal judge has overturned it, concluding that it is unconstitutional. A majority are in favor of Arizona's law to enforce FEDERAL immigration law. A federal judge emasculated it. I have no doubt that the men who wrote and passed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (in 1868) would be astonished to learn that they had provided for birthright citizenship and marriage between people of the same sex. At this pace, Americans will cease to be citizens and become merely subjects. Perhaps that has already come to pass.

Government at all levels and in all branches has become too big and is verging on tyrannical. Judges routinely flout the will of the people because there is no recourse. Eventually, Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote in the Supreme Court, and what he decides will be the law of the land. That is terrifying! There is a reason that the Judiciary is the 3rd Article of the Constitution, not the 1st. It was viewed as the least important but now it has the final say, making it arguably the most important. The Founders would be horrified with this state of affairs.

Cultural Decay

Today I heard a rap song by Ludacris called Sex Room. Now, I don't normally listen to rap but I have been working at the high school and exposed to the musical tastes of teens. Of course, I must wonder if I have simply become an old man who thinks kids are degenerates and their choice of music reflects that. Something to ponder. Perhaps the lyrics in the 80s were racier than I remember, especially since I wasn't one to listen to much music even in my teens.

Yes, I am aware that sex has long been a staple of music. 'Afternoon Delight' and 'Strangers in the Night' are both about sex. There is talk of love, embraces, rubbing, and fireworks. The subject is clear but the wording is suggestive or oblique. Such is not the case with 'Sex Room.' Here are some selected lyrics:

"Leave nothing but your t-shirt and panties on."
"It's about to get real X-rated."
"Mirrors in the headboard, even got a cam-cord."
"Nipples hard as rocks."
"I'mma give you this dick to ride."
"Legs in the air, with your toes pointed."

There is the frequent refrain of 'in my sex room,' in case you are unsure what he is suggesting. Subtle it is not. There were many other 'songs' along the same line though this one was the most egregious. I have read/heard in the news for years about the sexual lyrics of rap but this was my first real exposure, made all the more powerful since a pair of teen-aged girls were listening without reaction. Where is Tipper Gore to rail against this? When these teens are my age, what sort of lyrics will be required to evoke a similar reaction to mine?

Object Lesson

Greece has reached the limit of borrowing. The country allowed for very generous retirements, universal health care, all that any Greek could want. Everything was just great. Sure, the debt grew year in and year out, but that was fine. Debt can be financed. Well, the bill has come due. Now, austerity is the word of the day and the country is going to have to spend within its means. Who knew? It's so unfair.

Greece is our future. The US is currently more than $12 trillion in debt, roughly 90% of GDP. Social Security and Medicare are doomed as all Ponzi schemes are doomed. While debt-ridden Greece has been instructed to privatize its health care, the US has moved to socialize it. Oh, but we'll do it right so that it works. The economic infeasibility of our current course has been obvious for decades and yet none have dared to change path. The iceberg is clear as day and yet, with health insurance reform, we have accelerated to ramming speed.

Arizona's Immigration Law

There is much fuss about Arizona's new law that allows local police to check immigration status. I am of two minds on this. The borders are the responsibility of the federal government, so one could say that AZ is usurping that power. However, the Feds have failed for decades to secure the borders and it is the states that pay the price. It is regularly reported that 10 million people are illegally in the United States. That is about 1 in 30 people in the country! The feds have demonstrably failed to maintain the border and now AZ has decided to make a move.

There is surely a political motive here. Governor Brewer is running for reelection and the law is overwhelmingly supported by the citizens of AZ. Even John McCain, proponent of Amnesty during the Bush Administration, has reversed his views in this election year. Suddenly, McCain has proposed a Border Security Plan that says nothing about amnesty or guest workers. Elections focus a politician's mind on what the voters actually want.

It is an amazing thing but if a law is not enforced, people tend to break it more often. I know, wild isn't it! Obama has complained that the new AZ law "undermines basic notions of fairness." Really? It's unfair that illegal aliens are held to account for their illegal entry into the country? You know, if the Feds did their job, this law would never have been introduced, passed, or signed in AZ.

Let the Market Decide

Spirit Airline has recently stated that it intends to charge for carry-on luggage, namely items that would be placed in overhead bins. Those items that could be stuffed under a seat (such as a purse or briefcase) would incur no charge. The thinking is that it will expedite loading and unloading of the plane, since fewer people will use the overhead bins. Is this a good idea? I don't know. However, if the policy was put in practice for a few months, Spirit could soon discover whether passengers are driven from the airline on account of the fee or drawn to it for the quick boarding and unboarding process. Ticket receipts will tell the tale.

However, the government just can't allow this. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) was incensed that the airline would dare to charge such a fee and that perhaps some legislation was needed to prevent airlines from trying to run their business in a way upsetting to Senator Schumer. At what point does a company cease to be private and merely become a pawn of government regulation? Let the company do as it will. It isn't as if Spirit is the only airline. Another airline could have a great ad campaign: "We don't charge fees for carry on luggage like some airlines." The problem will resolve itself without government intervention. But if government threatens regulation, Spirit might abandon its experiment and we'll never know if that might have been popular with many passengers.

Republicans Suck Too

Many think that since I disapprove of Obama, I must have loved Bush. The answer is a very emphatic no. Bush was, in many ways, a disaster. Whereas Bill Clinton announced that the 'era of big government is over,' Bush reversed course by expanding it again. There was No Child Left Behind, the Medical Drug Benefit, and uncontrolled spending that he allowed by shelving his veto pen for years. He signed McCain-Feingold! Bush was never a conservative. He, like so many before him, believed that charity was an appropriate function of government. Bush reversed the Republican success of 1994 with his 'compassionate conservative' view. The same Congress that had managed to balance the budget during the Clinton administration suddenly became a bunch of drunken sailors when Bush took over. Was that coincidence? I think not.

Even where Bush was good, it was a mixed bag. His foreign policy was an improvement over Clinton but he got entangled in nation building and couldn't clarify who we were fighting. Both of these remain problems today. We never set out to win the 'hearts and minds' of Germany or Japan, where we achieved clear victories. Hearts and minds is a strategy of the Cold War; escalation must be avoided lest it lead to nukes. That has not been an issue for two decades and yet we are still working on the hearts and mind strategy. Bush cut taxes - which is almost always good - but increased spending. He approved TARP and bailed out the car companies, paving the way for Obama's auto industry takeover and the $800 billion stimulus. He engaged in protectionism, albeit briefly.

We have a big government party; it is called the Democratic Party. They do an excellent job of being the big government party. There is no need to compete with them on that. Nonetheless, Bush seemed to think we needed another big government party, only one that was led by religious, rather than secular, values. Government is ill-suited to charity. Charity must be voluntary while everything government does is coercive.

I want a limited government that restricts itself to those powers outlined in the Constitution. Bush utterly failed to achieve that. However, given the option between the Big Government Party that is weak on defense and the Not Quite as Big Government Party that is somewhat better on defense, there isn't a lot of choice for those who want Small Government with strong defense.

Apre Moi, Le Deluge

“Addressing the country’s fiscal problems will require difficult choices, but postponing them will only make them more difficult." Ben Bernanke, Fed Chairman

Wow, that is amazing timing, Ben. Did this looming fiscal disaster only just occur in the last few days? No, this has been brewing for decades and this year Social Security pays out more than it collects. Last year's deficit broke a trillion dollars! The country has been on a glide path for fiscal disaster for a long, long time but now Ben suggests tough decisions need to be made. Where have you been for the last year, Ben, when the country was pondering a new entitlement that would exacerbate the problem? No, a month after President Obama signed the bill into law, Ben comes out and warns that the country can't spend like this. What, you only figured that out AFTER the bill passed?

If a private company practiced the fiscal shenanigans of our government, the CEO and board of directors would be sent to jail under existing laws. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that dwarfs Bernie Madoff but no one is going to jail. And Medicare is worse! Interest payments on the debt will quadruple in the next decade. This should be news to no one, especially not the Federal Reserve Chairman.

It was easy for FDR, LBJ, Tip O'Neil, and others to kick the bankruptcy can down the road. They all knew the disaster - if one ever came - would occur long after they were dead. Like Louis XV, they could indifferently announce, "After me, the flood."

Monopoly

Everyone agrees that monopoly is bad. When there is a monopoly, the buyer has no choice but to purchase that good from that only supplier. Consider the possibility of Mega Tire Company buying all the tire manufacturers. Bridgestone, Michelin, Firestone, Dunlop, and all the rest rolled into one giant tire company. Of course, under current law, the government would step in to prevent a monopoly. But what if they didn't? Ford, Chrysler, GM, and other domestic manufactures of cars would only be able to get tires from Mega Tire Co. What would Mega Tire do? Would Mega Tire keep their prices as low as possible? Probably not. Would Mega Tire be interested in the highest possible quality? Again, probably not. Why not? Well, the car companies have no other alternative. If Mega Tire produces shoddy tires at a high price, what are the car companies going to do? That is the problem with monopolies. Without competition, quality goes down and price goes up.

Now tires are only a fraction of the inputs that the car companies require to produce their product. There are several factors of production: Labor, Land, Capital, Entrepreneurship. Do any of these suffer from a monopoly? Land is plentiful and there are lots of landowners who would be glad of the rent. Capital is more scarce these days but there is no one bank that has cornered the market. Entrepreneurship is paid in profit, and there are lots of people eager for some profit. What about labor? Hey, look at that. There's the United Auto Workers. And there is no competing union. It looks like the UAW has a monopoly on labor.

It is interesting to note that the government approves of labor monopolies. In most states, membership in the monopoly... er, union is required to work in the industry; there shall be no competition. This monopoly has, over the years, demanded more benefits for less work. It is no wonder that GM and Chrysler went bust. However, since government favors this particular monopoly, it arranged for a reorganization/bankruptcy that benefited labor and penalized investors.

Monopoly is bad unless it is a labor monopoly, in which case it is great. It is so great that we have heard much talk on the Freedom of Choice Act, which would make it easier to monopolize... er, unionize labor.

VAT

The balloon has been floated. The debt is so bad and so out of control that the US may need to institute a Value Added Tax, basically a national sales tax, in order to raise sufficient revenue to stave off bankruptcy. Amazing. Didn't Obama promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less that $250K a year? A VAT will raise everyone's taxes, no one exempted. Prices for everything will go up, even items supposedly exempt from the tax. For example, let's say apples are exempt. The trucks that deliver them aren't, nor will the gas that fuels the trucks be. As transport costs rise, the price of tax-exempt apples will go up. What happens when prices go up? Demand falls?

One should think of the economy as a race horse and the government as the jockey. The heavier the jockey (government taxes/regulation), the slower the horse (economic growth). Most of Europe has the VAT and look at the economic growth and unemployment numbers. It is not an example that the US should follow.

If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it.

Nuclear Deterrence?

There are now rules on when the US may or may not use nuclear weapons. Rather than allow the uncertainty to deter enemies, we have spelled out when nukes are appropriate. As it turns out, a chemical or biological attack would not call for a nuclear response, except in the case of a country that is not current on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So, you better watch yourselves North Korea and Iran! We reserve the right to nuke you. However, if Jihadistan isn't proliferating nukes, we will refrain from a nuclear response as long as attacks are limited to biological or chemical or just plain conventional.

This policy is preposterous. The whole point of a nuclear deterrence is to deter aggression. One does not then explain what sort of aggression is to be covered. Imagine Teddy Roosevelt walking down the street with his big stick. Who wants to mess with Teddy and risk being cracked on the head with the stick? Nobody. Well, now let's suppose that Teddy says he won't use the stick if someone kicks him in the shin. Do you think that will result in Teddy being kicked in the shin more or less often?

Western Europe was protected from Soviet tanks thanks to the potential nuclear response by the United States. The new policy declares that, provided the Soviets refrained from using nukes and were not proliferating, their tanks could roll across Europe and the US response would be limited to conventional weapons. That is a gamble the Soviets were much more likely to risk.

Obama has stated his desire to have a nuclear-free world. This is so painfully unrealistic that it is scary that the leader of the free world would express it. Pacifism is great until one warmonger shows up to enslave the pacifists.

If you want peace, prepare for war.

Precedent

It is a sad fact that once one person does it, it is that much easier for the next person to do it. Setting a precedent is the goal of those who seek change. George Washington served only 2 terms as president, setting a precedent. It wasn't until FDR, nearly 150 later, that the established - though not legally binding - norm was breached. The Congress understood that FDR had established a precedent and immediately sought to codify Washington's policy.

So it is with Health Care Reform. Requiring Americans to buy a product is a precedent. If it stands, it is only a matter of time before Congress requires all Americans to buy cotton balls or unicycles. As with FDR, this precedent must be overturned swiftly. A precedent that stands too long becomes 'settled law' which must not be questioned.

Abandoning Space

On March 10, President Obama canceled the Constellation Program. With this decision, the United States will no longer be able to place astronauts in space once the space shuttle is retired later this year. Just as China is working on a space program and even Hugo Chavez wants to team with the Russians for a launch facility in Venezuela, the US is throwing in the towel. We must now hitch a ride on Russian rockets, which I expect will be increasingly more expensive as they realize they have a monopoly on space travel. What will happen if they refuse? Perhaps Virgin Galactic will be able to taxi American astronauts to the international space station.

Obama has said that the US cannot afford the expense of the Constellation Program. Funding for the next 15 years was projected to be $217 billion, a little over one fourth of the cost of last year's Stimulus. And who knows how much Health Care Reform will eventually cost. So, yes, we cannot afford it but that could be used as a reason to stop all of the spending that Obama hasn't canceled.

However, this change has allowed NASA scientists the free time to help Toyota figure out their brake problem. Ah, I can just image all the kids with dreams of being astronauts and rocket scientists.

Social Security Flipping Point

When I was a senior in high school, I took a political science class. The instructor was Mr. Lindfors. One day, he called for a show of hands of those who thought there would be no Social Security when we retired. The result was a majority. Here, a bunch of 17 and 18 year-old kids knew in 1984/5 that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme which would rob us but never benefit us. And, unlike a Madoff-type Ponzi scheme, we were required to invest! Thanks to forced contributions, the system has been 'solvent' during the intervening 25 years.

During that time, the government has been able to get away with excessive spending by 'borrowing' from Social Security Revenues. Social Security has generated more tax revenue than it spent, which allowed the Feds to spend the excess while placing an IOU in the Al Gore's "Lockbox." This year, Social Security has generated less revenue than it spent. Now, instead of spending the excess, the Feds must start paying back those IOUs. The timing could hardly be worse. The government has just passed a new health care entitlement that needs funding and finds that the magic income stream from Social Security has reversed course. Hard budget decisions must be made soon. Those decisions have been exacerbated by the passage of Obamacare, a program that will make Social Security seem cheap by comparison.

Social Security has an unfunded liability of more than $14 trillion. Sadly, it is in third place among America's unfunded liabilities. George W. Bush's ill considered drug benefit is number 2 at $18.6 trillion. Medicare dwarfs them both, having an unfunded liability of $75 trillion. This is economy-crushing debt. It has been coming for decades. No one can be surprised. But as long as it seemed to be in the distant future, no one wanted to fix the problem. It has been a political third rail.

This is understandable. Those now benefiting from these programs had to pay for the previous generation to receive the benefits. "I paid for it, now it's my turn." I get that. However, I am currently paying for it and will never get it. I have viewed that money as gone the moment it left my pay check. Now that the time has come to ween the public from this unsustainable entitlement in order to save the Republic from bankruptcy, we have instead added a new entitlement.

Corporate Costs for Healthcare

I have read many accounts of companies declaring skyrocketing costs for health care in the wake of the passage of Obamacare. Oddly, I have no sympathy for those companies. What has happened is that the government will no longer subsidize these companies through tax breaks. To me, that is a good thing. I don't like when government offers subsidies. It would have been better if the health care reform had removed all such tax breaks, notably the tax deductible status of health insurance supplied by an employer. If we got rid of that, there would be little incentive for employers to supply health insurance. People would buy policies for themselves, much like they buy car insurance, home owner's insurance, life insurance, etc. This would drive down prices. How? Everyone wants a $10,000 health insurance policy when the employer is footing the bill. Very few people want it when they write the check. Insurance would quickly transform to cover catastrophic health issues and not cover such things as the yearly physical or flu shot. Insurance is meant to cover the unexpected, not the routine.

Third party payer systems are the bane of cost containment. No one is ever as price conscious when spending someone else's money. Don't believe me? Look at the spending habits of the US Congress.

Engagement

President Obama campaigned on a policy of engagement with hostile countries, most notably Iran. Since his inauguration, he has tried to make nice with Iran and, as predicted by yours truly, it has come to naught. Oh, but since we showed that Iran was unwilling to engage when we offered the carrot, it makes us all that much stronger now that we must resort to the stick. Actually, no. The Chinese will not allow meaningful sanctions. Nor, in all likelihood, will Russia. The skeptics of Obama's strategy said that he was simply giving them a year or more to pursue nuclear weapons with no threat of action. Now we will seek toothless sanctions that will do virtually nothing to curb Iran's thirst for nuclear weaponry. Look what our sanctions have achieved against Cuba. As the Obama Administration will not use military force against Iran to prevent that nation from going nuclear and will strenuously urge Israel not to do so, it is now fairly certain that Iran will join the nuclear club. Won't MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) contain Iranian belligerence like it did with the USSR, especially since there is nothing Mutual about the Assured Destruction? Maybe. I'd rather not put it to the test.

Ahmadinejad has said that Israel must be "wiped off" the map. That will be much easier if he has some nukes. Is he just bluffing or should Israel take him at his word? The stakes could hardly be higher?

Peace Talks will never Succeed

I have long grown weary of all the talk on the Mideast Peace Process and how Israel is always making it more difficult to have peace. This is nonsense. The Palestinians will never agree to co-exist with Israel. They have stated their goal of the destruction of Israel many, many times. If Israel surrendered 99% of its territory, the Palestinians would blame Israel for ruining the peace process by not surrendering that last percent. There can be no peace when one party can only be satisfied by the destruction of the other party. This state of affairs is common knowledge and yet everyone claims to want the peace process to continue. Thus, I am always amazed when people I respect talk of the peace process as if it weren't a chimera. There is no peace process. There has never been a peace process. It is the Israeli Surrender Process. Those who desire the destruction of Israel are content to accept small gains (withdrawal from Gaza, withdrawal from Lebanon, etc.) while surrendering nothing themselves. I have seen the process for 25 years and, through various reading, discovered it has been ongoing since the creation of Modern Israel in 1948. Right now, the Palestinians may lose every battle but they are winning the war. If Israel still exists in 20 years, there will still be no peace.

Peace is easy. All you have to do is surrender.

Where is the Line?

If the Feds can mandate that every American must buy health insurance, then I ask what can they not mandate citizens to buy? If every American went to the gym every week, we would surely be healthier. That would cut health care costs. We all know that obesity is a problem. So, what is to stop the Feds from mandating gym membership in the name of reducing health care costs? Many Americans would just pay for the membership and never go to the gym so there would have to be some enforcement measure. The gym might be required to report the number of hours a member has spent in the gym each week. Hey, it's for the best. I could certainly use the exercise. The Feds recently acquired a couple of car companies. Wouldn't it be nice if Americans purchased cars from those companies? It would make those companies solvent again and help pay back the money the taxpayer spent. Let's mandate that every family must have 1 GM or Chrysler. Where is the line? What prevents the government from mandating that we buy an apple a day to keep the doctor away? If requiring everyone to buy an apple a day is over the line, why isn't requiring us to buy a far more expensive product?

When the People control the government, that's democracy. When the government controls the People, that's tyranny.

Health Care Fiasco

I am amazed and distressed that the health care reform bill is now law. All the talk of it cutting the deficit is nonsense as anyone with any sense of history must know. Social Security and Medicare have both far exceeded their 'projected' costs but this time we should trust that the government has accurately estimated the future costs of this new entitlement. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. This must be like the 45th fooling.

Let us ponder some of the 'great' things about this law. Insurance companies can't deny for pre-existing conditions. So, Bob shows up at Blue Shield and says he needs a heart transplant which will cost more than Bob will ever pay in premiums, even if he lives to 100, but Blue Shield can't deny him coverage. Well, that's not so bad. Surely, they have a cost limit? Nope, Blue Shield can't cut off coverage when a certain dollar figure it reached. Okay, well, that's only fair now that everyone is MANDATED to have coverage. The insurance companies will be rolling in cash thanks to that provision. Well, maybe not. Failure to buy insurance only incurs a $750 penalty, payable to the government, not the insurance company. So, unless the insurance companies are offering coverage for less than $750, many people - particularly the young and healthy - will opt to pay the fine. That means the sick will be draining the insurance coffers while the healthy are enriching the government through fines. Gee, where does that lead? Insurance is all about actuaries and the Feds have just made it illegal to make decisions based on the actuaries. This will not end well for insurance companies, which is the plan. When they start failing in a few years, government will have to save the day with a Public Option.

That aside, now was not the time to add another expensive entitlement to the federal budget. This year, Social Security is paying out more than it brings in. That is 6 to 8 years earlier than predicted. The debt stands at $12.7 trillion and is projected to add a trillion more a year for the next decade. Unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, and Prescription Drugs) stand at $108 trillion. Upon this already ruinous debt, Congress and the President have added a new entitlement. The numbers are dire:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

It doesn't take a genius to see economic catastrophe in these numbers. The spending will eventually stop. How it stops is the question: Bankruptcy or a return to fiscal responsibility?

The First Musing

Ever since Yahoo 360 closed, my blogging has fallen off the map. However, I find I have much to say. Therefore, I'm going to give this blog site a try and see how it flies.