Obamaville

Obamaville

Patrick Petrie posted these photos on his Facebook Page. He has given me permission to share these impressions so that we can spread the message beyond the world of FB. 

First, a little background: "The Road To Serfdom" was published in 1944 by Friedrich Von Hayek. He was explaining how collectivism leads to tyranny. In his time, he used Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as examples. In our time, we have the United Nations and our own leftist thinking political leaders as examples. In the lead photo, you'll see that it refers to "Obamaville" but make no mistake: Obama is not smart enough or capable enough to lead us down the road to serfdom. We willingly walk that path when we continue to elect leaders based upon what they will do for us, how they will milk the government on our behalf. Healthcare is on the front burner right now -- healthcare based upon the premise of "please take care of me because I don't want the responsibility." 

We, the people, spend billions on entertainment yet we, the people, expect someone else to take care of our health. Someone else should pick up the tab when we borrow too much. Someone else needs to take care of our aging parents. And government, being staffed by helpful bureaucrats, is more than happy to oblige. You see, we ALL want to feel needed so when someone gets elected to office, they love to find needs that they can take care of. We ALL like to shun responsibility so our government just naturally gravitates towards collectivism. But, as Margaret Thatcher said: The problem with socialism is that sooner or later they run out of other people's money. 

But don't take my word for it -- here's a synopsis of TRTS which was originally commissioned in Detroit and published in Life Magazine. After looking over these photos, ponder the road we're on. This tent city is merely a mile marker on our road to serfdom. 

This is actually the second banner, the first, as well as the second, were removed by an unseen Obamacrat. The maker of the sign claims the original was commissioned by an individual who donates frequently to orgs. that benefit the homeless. The second was made at no cost. This pic was taken from the website ofKRDO Newschannel13 (Colorado Springs, Southern Colorado)

They do their best to feel at home. People in the community have done what they can for these people, bringing them clothes, non-perishable foods, firewood and even a few prepaid cellphones. Being a liberal community, these people have been highly criticized, yet they keep their camp clean. 

Having nothing with which to build a safe shelter in the open, many resort to staying under this bridge, heavily traveled day and night.

Notice the billboard...yes, there are many children in these 3 camps. I also draw your attention to the American flag just to the right of the billboard.

Photos and captions from the album:
"Obamaville" by Patrick Petrie

Here's the punch line: If you look over these photos and find yourself saying "Somebody needs to do something about this" then congratulations. You're on the road to serfdom. "Somebody" usually means "Some government agency" which means more planning, more control, more erosion of freedom. 

Debra Medina - My Impressions

Briefly, so you'll understand where I'm coming from: Once upon a time, when I was a naive youngster, I voted for Jimmy Carter under the impression that it just made sense to have a God fearing man as president (it took nearly 30 years to elect a worse president ;o). I didn't get involved in politics until a few years later when we started home schooling our youngsters. At that time, I got on board with Ross Perot and United We Stand. After a month or two of that, I figured out that I was in the wrong place, found some activists working to reform the Republican party and dove in. To give you an idea where I stand on the "conservative scale," I was a delegate to the '96 Republican National Convention. Our delegation refused to elect our sitting governor, GW Bush, as president of our delegation because we felt that he wasn't conservative enough - more about big government power than reducing government. I figure we called that one rightly. 

While I was trying to figure out how to spell conservative, Debra Medina was already diving in (please give me a little latitude -- I was indoctrinated in government schools and didn't really start my education till we started home schooling our youngsters). Anyway, Debra was busy learning about how life really works because she was raised on a ranch. Apparently, her dad taught her a few things about honor. She's careful about what she says because she knows she has to own her words. Something that's sorely lacking in politics of any era. 

I first met Debra a couple of years ago at our state convention. Keep in mind that the power structure in our party was put in place by folks like me. We worked hard to get "good ole boys" out of the system. But guess what, I, and many of my fellow warriors, let our guards down once we "won" the battle. The next thing you know, the leaders we put in place began to like it there. They didn't want to step down (thank God we managed to place, then keep term limits on party officials!). Our conventions evolved into a showcase for the "good ole boy" system only now, our people were the good ole boys. The order of business was arranged so that it was next to impossible to unseat the incumbent power structure. Deborah, not knowing that the folks in power don't have to obey the rules, became our point person to try and overturn this lopsided structure. Of course, it wasn't just her, but she was the point person and led the charge all the way to the court house. In the court house, she discovered that the judge knew who buttered his bread (we elect judges in Texas so judges pander to whichever party it takes to get elected). Anyway, she lost that battle, we lost the election for chair, and the sitting Chairwoman, Tina Benkiser, did a little victory jig across the stage just to make sure everybody knew that she had mashed this little hayseed into the dirt. I won't forget that. 

Well, Deborah still didn't know that she was supposed to sit down and do as she was told. What she knows is that power has to be tempered by truth and justice. You see, over the years, she had become a student of classic liberals (if you think "liberal" originally referred to Democrats then you have some educational gaps to fill). I'm talking about liberals like Thoreau, Locke, Mieses etc. True to her education, she is now standing on principles because they are right. She introduced me to the concept of how property taxes mean that we don't own our land (after doing my homework, I agree with Deborah). Deborah is brave enough to make the property tax issue a plank of her campaign -- which demonstrates another level of her character -- do what's right because it's right, not just because it's convenient. 

Deborah understands humility. She's in this race because it's a job that needs to be done, not because she wants power. She is responding to people who kicked, goaded, and begged her to take on the challenge. I think this is the sort of statesmanship that our founders assumed would exist: Do your tour of duty, then go home. 

Because of Deborah's foundation, we won't have to work so hard to keep her under control. Example: I was proud of our legislature when they nullified Gov. Perry's executive order for putting our young daughters on Guardisill. This is just plain off limits in Deborah's world view so it never would have happened. 

On the life issue, Deborah is a little bit to the right of the Pope. Instead of throwing in caveats about rape, incest, health or whatever she acknowledges that human life begins at inception and that life has the right to exist until its natural death. Her position is not just about saving babies and old people. A TRUE protector of life understands that it's not up to us to decide who lives or dies (except for capital punishment, which itself is in need of a makeover). When we understand that life comes from God, that should temper all our decisions related to fundamental rights. If the question of life is arbitrary, then EVERYTHING is arbitrary and that's the foundation (if you can call it that) of post modernism - another enemy of liberty. 

Probably the biggest reason that Deborah Medina is the best choice for Texas is we Texans. When she becomes governor, it will be because we Texans elected her. She won't have to mollycoddle big donors with deep pockets. When she's elected, the legislature will know that we Texans have spoken. The legislature will begin to respond to we Texans because we Texans will become the seat of power. I know this will take years and decades but she's getting the ball rolling. 

And one final note for now. . . Deborah Medina was living the 9-12 principles and values decades before Glenn Beck ever came along. She doesn't have to live up to his standards. He obviously has trouble living up to hers. Maybe she can school him a bit if he can keep his arrogance in check. Yet another reason why Medina is the best choice for Texas!

Rent & Taxes

One of Debra Medina's goals as governor is to eliminate property taxes. It seems that the conventional thinkers have a knee jerk, negative reaction to the idea but it's probably because they haven't thought it through. I haven't read much about the idea, pro or con, so I decided to do my own thinking and work through the concept just from what my personal impact might be. 

One argument I heard was that abolishing property taxes would adversely impact the working class. Let's look at that for a moment. First of all, everyone pays property taxes, working poor or not. Whether their income is from a welfare check, an unemployment check or a pay check, if a person shops at a merchant, any merchant, whether it's Wal-Mart or the local thrift store, they're paying property tax on the building and contents of that property. Every business has to pass along it's operating costs to its customers in order to survive. Usually, there will be a profit figured on top of the cost. In other words, a business makes money on property taxes and that money comes out of consumer's pockets. 

Here's another example: We own an inexpensive rent house, the sort that a $30,000 a year or so family might rent. $150 per month of our rent is what it takes to cover property taxes, without even figuring a profit or handling fee. That's $1,800 per year, or 6% of their income on property taxes. That's over 3 weeks pay just to cover the taxes on a property that they don't own. 

Government, even limited government, needs revenue so without property taxes, we would need to recapture some revenue. The number I hear is something like 14% or so. Currently, the state sales tax is around 6.25%  so we would be seeing an additional 7.75% on taxable purchases. I don't know if the current list of tax exempt purchases would be modified but I'm going to estimate that a $30,000 family might spend about 1/2 their income on taxable purchases. That's less than $1,200 so they've saved over $600 just on my property taxes (not to mention benefiting from lower prices at retailers who no longer have to pay tax on dirt). Not only that, if they're paying rent, the tax cost is the same regardless of how they manage their expenses. 

We would have to structure our government budgets so that it can retract with the economy since tough times would reduce sales tax revenues? Is that a bad thing? Wouldn't that be better than having a fixed property tax rate which causes property owners to lose their capital just because the economy is struggling?

This is as far as I'm going to go on this interesting installment. So far, sales tax is a win for the working class. 

Other ideas I want to explore:

Sans property taxes, would it be easier for businesses as well as private individuals to amass capital which would ultimately help moderate the economy's ups and downs?

Cities use property tax abatements in order to attract jobs creating businesses. Does this give us a clue about fostering a job creation environment?

When Texas capped property tax rates, taxing authorities began a rush to re-evaluate property values (just before the real estate bubble burst). Didn't they just create tax revenue out of thin air?

What if sales taxes were apportioned more to the cities generating them? Would that turn cities into consumers, rather than beggars?

What if there were sales taxes on property sales as well as tax increases on automobile sales and other capital investments?

Should we stop exempting churches and other philanthropic organizations from sales taxes?

I hope to explore these ideas and welcome your comments. 

Some pigs are more equal than others

Rationing exists in our current health care process and rationing will exist in any health care system operated by any government. This is a simple reality: When there is a limited supply, there will always be a method for rationing it. In a totally free market (our current system is nowhere close to fitting that definition) dollars take care of the rationing question. People with more dollars get more service. It sounds cold, perhaps even brutal, but that's the way it is. But a government operated system must also manage a limited supply. Instead of rationing based upon the dollars of patients, it's rationing will be based upon other economic factors. For example -- which makes more economic sense: Spend tens of thousands on a 10 week premature crack baby or spend tens of thousands of dollars on a kidney transplant for a 70 year old diabetic? Or, perhaps neither should get care and those dollars should be spent on a thousand healthy school aged children in order to assure they grow up to become productive members of society. Someone has to make a decision, someone is going to call that decision biased and unfair. Someone wins, someone loses. We can't have it all. 

As Democrat leaders scramble to push their system upon an unwilling body politic we get a glimpse of how the real rationing will take place. Observe the special deals made with various states in order to get a vote. Observe the special deals exempting union members from taxes on their free market insurance policies. Observe the penalties placed upon individuals who choose to have a better health plan, or no health plan at all. You see, dollars still rule the rationing process. Only now, it's dollars that are translated into political contributions and favors. Rationing will be decided by bribery. Rationing will be managed by a ruling class. 

You see, in the quest for equal treatment we will inevitably and irrevocably find that, just as George Orwell noted in "Animal Farm," some pigs are more equal than others. 

Laissez-nous faire!

The following is an extended quotation followed by a few comments:

Since "economic growth" is today's great problem, and our present Administration is promising to "stimulate" it -- to achieve general prosperity by ever wider government controls, while spending an unproduced wealth -- I wonder how many people know the origin of the term laissez faire?

France, in the seventeenth century, was an absolute monarchy. Her system has been described as "absolutism limited by chaos." The king held total power over everyone's life, work and property -- and only the corruption of government officials gave people an unofficial margin of freedom.

Louis XIV was an archetypical despot: a pretentious mediocrity with grandiose ambitions. His reign is regarded as one of the brilliant periods of French history: He provided the country with a "national goal," in the form of long and successful wars; he established France as the leading power and cultural center of Europe. But national goals cost money. The fiscal policies of his government led to a chronic state of crisis, solved by the immemorial expedient of draining the country through ever-increasing taxation. 

Colbert, chief advisor of Louis XIV, was one of the early modern statists. He believed that government regulations can create national prosperity and that higher tax revenues can only be obtained from the country's "economic growth"; so he devoted himself to seeking a "general increase in wealth by the encouragement of industry." The encouragement consisted of imposing countless government controls  and minute regulations that choked business activity; the result was a dismal business failure. 

Colbert was not an enemy of business; no more than is our present Administration. Colbert was eager to help fatten the sacrificial victims -- and on one historic occasion he asked a group of manufacturers what he could do for industry. A manufacturer named Legendre answered "laissez-nous faire!" ("Let us alone!"). 

Apparently, the French businessmen of the seventeenth century had more courage than their American counterparts of the twentieth, and a better understanding of economics. They knew that government "help" to business is just as disastrous as government persecution and that the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping it's hands off. 

Would you believe this is from an L.A. Times column? It was published in 1962, written by Ayn Rand. 

What was true in the seventeenth century was true in the 18th, 19th, 20th and remains true today. Whatever prosperity the U.S. of A. has achieved in its short lifespan has been in spite of the government, not because of it. Though there are myriad examples of "government help" I just want to mention one item to be watching for: The aftermath of the bailout/stimulus spending.

Over a trillion unproduced dollars have been created out of thin air in order to save institutions that are too big to fail. In conjunction with this "salvation," another trillion of "stimulus" has been created in order to keep the people working. The inevitable result of this action will be inflation and even though the Fed will attempt to forestall it, significant inflation will come. In fact, the first harbinger has already arrived and you can see it in the "good news" on Wall Street. 

Here's how it works: At the moment the bogus money is created out of thin air, it has the same purchasing power as the money that is already in circulation. This means that the biggest beneficiary of the phony money will be whomever gets to use it first. Wall Street and the bankers are very close to the top of the feeding chain so they'll get to take advantage of the funny money at full value, or near full value which means that the "fat cats" literally get the fattest prime cuts of the new money. But as this uncapitalized cash begins to trickle down through our economy, inflation begins to take its toll  because bad money (meaning money that is worth less) drives out the good money (capitalized money). 

And who gets stuck holding the worth-less money? You guessed it. . . we, the people. You don't have to believe me -- in fact, I want you to prove me wrong. Here's how to do it: Make some notes about pricing on a couple of dozen of your most commonly purchased items -- fuel, utilities, groceries, clothes -- whatever you think you need in life. Watch as the prices of these items climb. Your paycheck will increase too ( as will your taxes) but it will rise after your expenses rise, not before. In other words, we, the working people get caught with the worth-less money.  Compare your commodity notes in January 2011 and January 2012 and you'll see a significant erosion of the value of your dollar. Usually, this happens so slowly we don't even notice the robbery that's taking place but sometimes it's like an explosion. Either way, as the money inflates, the gap between the Wall Street "haves" and the Main street "have nots" will grow larger and larger. Count on it. As this government assistance progresses you can count on greedy capitalism getting the blame for "oppressing" the poor as the gap grows ever wider. Less prosperity, a bigger difference between the haves and have nots, and the government will say once again: "Hi, I'm here to help."  

That's just one reason why we should be collectively shouting: Leave us alone!

Now THAT is some serious job creation!

Well, it looks like I've been misguided in my disagreement with the socialist health care system that's being crammed down our throats. I should have thought of this before but I must have gotten caught up in the excitement that goes with having the IRS manage my health care (don't believe me? just read the bill and you'll see how much of the proposed health care system is actually managed by the IRS!). After regaining my composure, I've decided that I can live with that minor infringement because the collective health care system will create jobs. Lots of jobs. And we need jobs, right? Here's how it works:

According to the Adam Smith Institute, in the U.K., as of August 2009 the 6th largest employer in the world is the National Health Service - Great Britain's socialist health care provider. Their 1.3 million employees ranks them right up there with China's utility service (1.5 million), China's petroleum interests (1.6m) and China's army (1.6m).   1.3 million employees taking care of 62 million people. That's one health care worker for every 48 or so people. (Apparently it's still not enough since so many Brits choose to go out of country for health services). A similar ratio here in the U.S. of A. (or will we become the USSA?) works out to nearly 6.4 million jobs!  How could I have been so blind not to see the huge benefits for this socialized health care program? Why haven't Reid and Pelosi trumpeted this jobs bonanza? Don't they realize that with the stroke of a pen (along with some serious mangling of the constitution) they're creating over 3 times as many jobs as the world's biggest employer (Wal-Mart 2.1m).  

Just imagine . . . 6.4 million health care workers with the compassion of the IRS and the enthusiasm of the USPS.  It's time for my nightly gram of soma. 

Why the global warming debate matters.

I understand it if your eyes glaze over whenever you hear the term "anthropogenic global warming."  Only geeks and scientists spend time delving into the nuances of solar cycles, CO2, ice cores and the like. But here's why you need to at least a little bit about what's going on.

First, you want to follow the money (hint - look hereand here for examples). But this is just the tip of the iceberg (it's not the melting kind). For example, George Soros wants to get the International Monetary Fund involved. Then, there's a queue of nationswhich want to shake out a few more billions.  But these funds pale in the face of carbon cap & trade schemes which have already fattened Al Gore's coffers.

Keep these in mind the next time someone tries to tell you that skeptics and deniers are "in the tank" for big oil. Big oil has invested a paltry few million for research but if you dig a little further I think you'll find that, like many big corporate entities, they sprinkle a little on both sides in order to have friends in high places no matter who prevails. They're not ideological, just fiscally prudent.

But wait, there's more! Money isn't the sole reason scientists would sell out. Most would be offended if they were even suspected of selling out so cheaply. But give them access to power and now you have a recipe for compliance. If the U.N. prevails in this debate then they get to become the high priest of the world and the scientists get to be bishops. I can't totally blame them for not recognizing the path they're on since they study science instead of humanity.  Many have even convinced themselves that a trace gas like CO2 is enough to force the climate to change which just makes them even more useful as pawns in the hands of the power brokers. 

The bottom line: The earth may or may not warm but it will do so in spite of, not because of mankind (cooling is more likely and far more deadly). But when a world government tries to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator, the suffering of the people is guaranteed, rain or shine, hot or cold. That's one thing that is "settled science" throughout history. 

Are you smarter than a 6th grader?

Are you smarter than a 6th grader?

Peter, a 6th grader, with the help of his dad, scientifically demonstrates a major problem with our current temperature data collection system. Worth noting: Peter follows scientific protocol in that he explains his sources, and how he arrives at conclusions. Perhaps the CRU can take some lessons from him.

All we need now is some information about which temp sites are being used in the warming alarmists calculations. For more info, visit WattsUpWithThat.

count: 7371

Climate Simplified

Climate Simplified

We plumbers know that in order to solve a complex problem it needs to be broken down into more clearly delineated steps. Example: 

"I don't have hot water" will start a list of questions. . . is this problem every where or just in one faucet? When was the last time you had this problem? Electric, or gas? Circulator? Have you paid your utility bill. . . .you get the idea. Perhaps we can break down the human induced global warming conundrum into simpler, more digestible bites. 

• World temperature is complicated. If we're going to get good answers we need good data, right? And the more questionable the data, the less confidence we have in the answer, right? So, the fact is, nobody really knows what the Earth's temperature is. The job of sorting out thousands of data sources, some less reliable than others is just as much of an art as it is a science. If you want to see some of the artist's work, check out HARRY_README.TXT file. Mind you, I'm not throwing rocks at the programmer of the temperature calculating program. I've done enough programming of my own to know what  nightmare it can be to try to match up data from many differing and evolving sources. My main point here is to observe that there is an error factor in the data that climatologists are using when they scream "the Earth is warming, the Earth is warming!" How big is the fudge factor?  I don't know. Pick a number 1or 2 degrees? 5 degrees? I think your guess is as good as theirs but after all the data manipulations they're claiming a fudge factor of about 0.18 degree.  (I'm really trying to keep a straight face here. Don't make me giggle!)
• Just how big is the so called 'warming trend?'  Using this mishmash of data, the UN climate folks are claiming that the earth has warmed about 0.74 of a degree (give or take 0.18, or a fudge factor of over 24%). Whatever. So, let's stipulate that they're right. 0.74 degrees is supposed to be 57.88 degrees(c). So as a percentage, our temp would be just a shade over 1% higher over the past century. Hold that thought.
• Carbon (Atomic #6) is supposed to be the 6th most plentiful element in the universe. If you believe in the law of conservation of matter then you know that we have the same amount of carbon now as we've ever had. That's why we refer to "releasing carbon" rather than "creating carbon" when you fire up that SuperDuty diesel of yours. Carbon dioxide is great plant food and it's even very important to proper respiration in humans. It's considered to be a green house gas because it allows sunshine in but reflects radiated heat -- meaning that it helps our planet capture and use solar energy.  Carbon is said to make up about 0.038% of our atmosphere.Mankind is supposed to be responsible for about 3% of that 1/3% so figure our contribution to the pie to be somewhere around 0.0011% of the total greenhouse gases. But let's put that carbon foot print into perspective. . . 
• Water vapor is not counted as a greenhouse gas but in fact, it makes up about 95% of the whole greenhouse effect. I'm told the oceans evaporate about 92 quadrillion gallons a year (please don't tell congress about quadrillions!  In 2050 that will be our new budget!!). My calculator spits and sputters but I think what this means is that our supposed 28 billion tons of carbon is being dumped into almost 35 trillion tons of water vapor. In other words, try as we might, the best we can do is to spew less than one tenth of one percent of the total greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Makes you feel pretty insignificant huh?

So, here's my question: If we nasty humans are only capable of contributing less than a tenth of a percent of those nasty greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is it really reasonable to give us credit/blame for the whole global warming issue (if it exists at all?). Let's be reasonable. Perhaps there's another reason the earth is warming? The Arctic icecap thawed a hundred years ago. Where were we then? What about the sun?  I'm just saying that there's a good reason to be skeptical about what the U.N. is trying to foist on the world. But that's a whole other entry. To be continued?

 

Victory Garden Update II

Victory Garden Update II

We're gonna starve.

Yep, that's the prognosis. Getting a suburban garden to produce a meaningful amount of grub is just plain daunting. Perhaps it would be different without work, soccer, school and every other distraction you can imagine ('09 will go down as our worst year for distractions, that's for sure).

This is not to say that the garden isn't valuable. This experiment is an excellent way to observe how lifestyle choices affect our economy and ecology. Rather than get my hands dirty in the soil, I pursue other, more profitable work. This is the division of labor which Adam Smith refers to. But if the economic bubble bursts, our household will face a transition to different sorts of work, part of which will include more gardening. It's unrealistic to think that the garden would be enough but if the distribution system is struggling, it's very likely that a garden's return on investment will be significant.

I just hope the distribution system doesn't break too badly!

How's that Obama thing working out for you?

As you may know, I wanted to give this president the benefit of a doubt. It is beginning to look like I was being more charitable than many who succumbed to his smooth talk only to be disappointed by 'The One'. The fact is: Mr. Obama is a one term president. I suspect he will make Jimmy Carter look good (I voted for Carter, which then led to my entry into the conservative politics game).

Please understand: Mr. Obama will not be ousted because of his skin pigment. He will be ousted because of his poor leadership,  leftist ideology, his "politics as usual," and because he is just plain out of touch with the majority of the U.S. population (before you retort with "He won the election" remember that he ran the best presidential campaign in history against the worst presidential campaign in history. This doesn't mean he was elected because he was a better choice. He simply played the game better -- sort of like how MS Windows became the ubiquitous operating system of the nation).

I don't consider Mr. Obama to be evil any more than I consider FD Roosevelt to be evil. FDR had good intentions when he tried to manhandle the economy by controlling prices, wages and production. But his policies ended up destroying wheat in one part of the country while other parts of the country had food shortages. Good intentions with an evil outcome.

Which brings us to this current mess: We're still trying to recover from FDR's socialist security program which spawned medicare which spawned medicaid which spawned subsidized drugs and etc. And now, the D's are frantically trying to pass another health care power grab in a well intentioned but ignorant attempt to fix the problem spawned by the previous socialist policies. As long as we're on this path, the fixing will never end. I can't wait to see the economic power house created by a 70% income tax!

Back in the 1930's and 1940's there was an economist who predicted the outcome of FDR's policies. His predictions will also apply to the outcome of Mr. Obama's and the Democrat party policies. His name is F. A. Hayek and his seminal work is "The Road To Serfdom," first published in the U.S. in 1944. His book is fairly heavy reading but it is filled with quotable paragraphs. Here's an excerpt which demonstrates the futility of the path our Democrat leadership is attempting to foist upon us:

"Once government has embarked upon planning for the sake of justice it cannot refuse responsibility for anybody's fate or position. In a planned society, we shall all know that we are better or worse off than others, not because of circumstances which nobody controls, and which it is impossible to foresee with certainty, but because some authority wills it. And all our efforts directed toward improving our position will have to aim, not at foreseeing and preparing as well as we can for the circumstances over which we have no control, but at influencing in our favor the authority which has all the power."

What Hayek figured out is that the path of planning has only one possible route to take: Planning leads to totalitarianism. It's really simple to understand. Let's use the health care debacle as an example: A government plans to cover the entire population with a health insurance program. If the government allows people to choose which program to sign on to, there will inevitably be some who choose 'none of the above'. Most likely, those who choose 'none of the above' will be currently healthy, not needing health care at the moment. This causes problems to the plan because without healthy people in the pool the risk factors increase for the rest of the pool, driving up the cost of insurance.

To remedy the disparity, the planners pass a law requiring that everybody buy into a policy. But another problem pops up: Now that this new group is in the pool, they will begin to use more health care resources. "After all, I'm paying for it, I may as well use it." This makes perfect sense doesn't it? But with more people seeking services the planners are now faced with a shortage of health care providers. More laws, more policies are required in order to encourage or goad more people to become providers. The cost of doing all this recruiting and incentives pushes the cost of health care higher. Keep in mind that in financial terms, health care providers fall more into the expense category than in the asset category, meaning that health care providers don't produce much. Moving producers into health care reduces the overall production capacity, a cost that it much more difficult to calculate. More planning, more control is required to make the plan work and then, one day, we begin to realize that we are no longer in charge of the government, it is in charge of us.

The "free market" solution is to allow society to determine what it values most. We will vote with our pocket books and accept the outcome. The market doesn't work because it is morally superior to planning. It works because it pits individual greed and desires against one another, achieving a better equilibrium, a better distribution of resources. It's not perfect but personally, I prefer an imperfect free market over totalitarianism.  Planning seeks to achieve equality among the people but the only way to achieve equality is to lower the standards of all to the lowest common denominator. I prefer to allow those who rise to the top to enjoy their success, knowing that those who linger at the "bottom" are still better off than they would be in an egalitarian society. The debate, it seems, will never end.

Average American re: Ruling Class

In response to Boehner's letter to Charlie Rangle a commenter calling him/herself "Average American" offered this:

"It seems to me (average American) that there is a political ruling class in this country. People like Rep. Charles Rangel(D)NY have a separate set of rules that apply only to them.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel(D-NY) as chairman of Ways and Means Committee Mr. Rangel helps set tax policy. If anyone should know these laws one would think it should be Mr. Rangel.

When this average American sees our lawmakers break their own laws and are not held to the same standards one can only assume there are two sets of laws.

Mr. Rangel show the American people that there is only one set of laws. Resign your committee chairs, pay your back taxes along with the appropriate penalties and interest.

Sincerely,

Average American"

In this particular instance, Rangle is on the "D" side but there are plenty of instances where "R's" were in the wrong as well. It is important to note the theme of abuse of power. The more power we place in the hands of our government, the more it will be abused. I did not say "might" I said "will" because it is a fact just as well known as gravity. Our constitutional form of government is designed to limit power, not to consolidate it. Keep that in mind the next time you attempt to turn more of your responsibilities over to government control.

 

On The Socialist Railroad Engineer

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The battle for sanity has many fronts. President Obama is paying back political favors and buying political capital with $8billion tax payer dollars being funneled into his high speed rail scheme.  Rail has its place, no doubt about it, but in order for HSR to have a remote chance of serving a majority of taxpayers we would spend hundreds of billions . . . or maybe a trillion or so since that's the new "billion." Is that a worthwhile investment?

The scheme claims potential for tens of thousands of job created. Isn't it reasonable to think that the same amount of capital might create as many, or even more, jobs when used in other enterprises?

Should taxpayers be saddled with funding of transportation that the overwhelming majority will never use?

Is "Europe and Japan have HSR and so should we. . ." a good enough reason to spend more money that we don't have?

Is there even a glimmer of hope that subsidized (socialist) travel will ever earn a profit on its investment (buying votes and political favors does not count as a profit).

One of the stated benefits of socialized travel is to push more of our population into major cities. It seems to me that the bigger the city, the more problems it brings so why would we want that?

Ultimately, all we're getting is more social engineering stemming from the "successful" (sic) track record of the "War On Poverty," "The War On Drugs," federal education system and more. Instead of being the engineer on a socialist train, our president should help our country get back on track by getting off the tracks.

Here's a pro rail article found on Huffington Post.

For balance, here's a counterpoint found on the Washington Post.

Simple Health Care Points

The health care debate is simply one battle front of a much greater culture war but we still need to make some sense of it. I don't like the way each side of the debate attempts to compare the best (or worst) of one option with the worst (or best) of the other option. For example, the socialized health care proponents like to compare our infant mortality rate with that of other developed countries to demonstrate that our system is failing to protect infants. The big problem with the data is that the U.S. is the only country which counts all babies as babies. In other countries, premature babies who die aren't counted as infants. They're simply dead fetuses which means the socialized medicine proponents are comparing apples to oranges.  This isn't difficult to understand.

Now all of us, and I do mean EVERYBODY, are pro savings. We all want to cut the costs of health care in our nation and we all agree that there are plenty of places where efficiencies can be gained. For example: Medicolegal (yes, that's a real word) expenses have been estimated to add as much as $178 billion  per year just to cover health care providers backsides. This would include redundant testing, in depth reporting and in many cases, simply having to over engineer the whole health care system. The $178 billion is there in order to protect the health care providers from multimillion dollar awards for costs, pain, suffering, and punitive damages resulting from a mistake. Considering these huge expenses, tort reform should certainly be a key facet of any health care reform.

But you won't find any mention of tort reform in the bills before congress simply because, according to Howard Dean, the congress people are afraid of making the lawyers mad. Stop me if I'm wrong but I thought health care reform was supposed to be for the people, not the special interests.  (Note: in the video clip, I suspect that the questioner intended to say 200 Billion instead of 200 million but I don't know for sure).

One of the big points for pro-socialized health care is that it would "keep the insurance companies honest."  Currently, health insurance companies hide behind government protection because they get to deal with employers rather than the actual consumers of their product. We would make a lot of headway in this arena if we simply allowed the same tax protections enjoyed by employers to be enjoyed by all taxpayers who purchase health insurance. This would help break the monopolistic protection the insurance companies have, exposing them to the sunlight of consumer preference. We might need to tweak some of the rules about pre-existing conditions - perhaps even appropriating some tax payer funds to reduce some of the exposure (if we insist on having government involvement). But nothing in our current debate even refers to this option which would actually improve responsiveness to the health care consumer in both pricing as well as coverage.

So much for stuff that's not in the debate. What about some of the really bad stuff that is in the bill that Pelosi and crew are trying to foist on us. I have read at least some of the bill, probably more than the average congress person. One thing I find disturbing is that this "public option" is joined at the hip with the IRS. The IRS shares your income tax information with the health care bureaucracy in order to calculate "affordability credits." But there's more -- it is the IRS that the health care plan refers to for its pre-existing conditions definitions (I'll bet you thought that our government funded health care plan didn't even have limitations on pre-existing conditions). This may come as a shock to you but figuring out how to comply and/or dodge IRS regulations is a multi-billion dollar industry which is a parasitic tax on business and individual alike. Is it reasonable to think that socialist health care will be any better when it is administered with the IRS bureaucracy?

The reforms also claim cost savings due to the scale of the enterprise, implying that government can do things more cheaply than the private sector. A lot of opponents try to use the Postal Service vs. Fed Ex and UPS. For me, that comparison is off limits because delivering a first class letter to a rural route in Homer Alaska costss far more than the first class stamp. You see, our constitution provides for a postal service as well as carrier routes because communication is vital to freedom. But you won't find health care anywhere in the constitution. But let's make a comparrison to another entity that our government takes credit for: Our education system.

Who is pleased with our educational rankings in the world these days? Are you a fan of "No Child Left Behind?" According to my socialist leaning friends, we need to spend more on education in order to "fix" it. Now, based on the track record of government spending, how long do you think it would be before the cry for more health care spending in order to "fix" our socialist health care scheme? This isn't complicated. Just open your eyes and look at history, recent history.

Speaking of money, let's talk about the check book. Our nation is over drawn and living on credit cards. Long before we treat ourselves to taxpayer funded health care we need to get our bank book back in balance. The congressional budget office has already said that there will be no savings to our economy by going the route spelled out in the HC bill. It will cost us money. And that's based upon the rosy estimates being bandied around. How long has it been since a government endeavor came in below budget? What do you think will happen when we flood the health care system with millions more patients while watching the flight of retiring medical professionals who no longer want to play the game.

If we're going to have a health care debate, let's put some real ideas out there instead of just arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I'm not sure whether our congressional representatives (either party) have the desire or the intelligence to sort it out. Which is the biggest reason why we need to step back. The free market, as ugly as it gets at times, has the unique ability to sort out massive and complicated problems if we just get out of the way and let it work. But I doubt it will get its chance because it seems that whenever we elect politicians they feel the need to control rather than enable. This will be our failure.
 

Lancing a Racist Boil

Here are the news stories that prompted this edition:
Louis Gates Arrest Report
President Obama Press Conference
Professor Louis Gates about the incident
Sergeant Crowley about the incident

I'm concerned about with Obama's "leadership" and the way he and his administration are overtly fostering racism. Beginning with his inauguration (final prayer -- "whites do what's right" , then statements by Holder, and now, leveling personal accusations against a cop regarding an altercation he knows little about, Obama is encouraging blacks to carry chips on their shoulders for unsuspecting whites to knock off. This is racism.

 
I've had to deal with"race baiters" who assume that any criticism leveled at them is racist, even if it's a justifiable criticism. I think this is part of the reason blacks have higher unemployment - I have spoken to employers who have have steered clear of blacks with even a hint of that chip on their shoulder because hiring a race baiter opens the door to conflict and law suits.

President Obama will squandered his opportunity apologize to the officer and the nation. To the officer for leveling an unfounded accusation. To the nation for demeaning the office of the president (Imagine: the most powerful man in the world publicly accusing before an audience of millions, a police sergeant of acting stupidly!).

 

Louis Gates had the biggest opportunity to usher in healing. He should have publicly apologized to the officer as his actions clearly undermine the cooperation between law enforcement and the community. If Obama and Gates were to acknowledge that they over-reacted then they would be setting the stage for meaningful dialogue. Their admission that it is possible for blacks to foment racism just as much as any white supremacist would go a long ways toward resolving the race problems we have. This boil needs to be lanced.

I expect that some readers will say "you should walk a day in my shoes, I'll show you what discrimination looks like. . ." and I have no doubt that you have experienced blatant racism. But somebody has to admit that racism comes from the black community as well. In some cases it's incredibly overt. In the Gates/Crowley incident, it's obvious that Gates had a chip on his shoulder from the very beginning. Of course, he sees it differently and that's exactly why I think this can't be swept under the rug.

If you're trying to keep a plumbing shop running smoothly, the situation that our president stirred up might be a good conversation starter, especially if you sense that there are some underlying issues that are working against the team work of your crews. I don't recommend pointing accusatory fingers at any particular person/s. Instead, let the Gates/Crowley incident serve as the focal point. Here's the exercise: Read the police report and remove any reference to "black" by any party. What you then have is an incident where a citizen verbally attacks a police officer who is just doing his job. If the disorderly conduct continues, would the officer be justified in cuffing the irate homeowner? In some cases, I would think so, and it probably happens hundreds of time every day across the country where innocent citizens overreact to an officer. So, why does this time have to be about race? 

 

The way to turn this story into a positive experience is to use it to highlight the importance of personal respect to one another. Respect is color blind. When your crew builds respect for each other, there's no room for racism. You won't have to eradicate racism because it won't exist. I have listened to statements made by both Gates and Crowley. It's clear to me that Gates assumed that Crowley was going to be an oppressor. Gates also assumed that his helpful neighbor called the cops because he was black, and presumably wouldn't have called had he been white. This is where respect began to break down. Gates, being accustomed to treatment according to his lofty status as a professor and pal to the president, didn't appreciate being treated like everybody else. Then, the issue becomes a battle of wills. Crowley expected Gates to respect the badge so it became ego against authority and it ended badly. Note: I'm not saying that we should assume that a badge means someone is not a bad guy, I'm just saying that our preconceived notions go a long ways toward fanning flames unnecessarily.

Besides respect, we all need to learn not to take ourselves too seriously. When I make a mistake, I should own up to it. I don't always do that so it's an area that I have to work on. When race is injected into the situation, fessing up becomes even more important. If your pigment happens to be darker than that of some of your peers you can do a lot for the relationship and respect by admitting a blunder. Believe me, depending upon the area, some whites feel that they have to walk on eggshells around their peers of color because they're afraid of how a criticism can be misconstrued. (As I'm writing all this, the whole idea of specifying "color" is becoming absurd to me. . .why do we have to do that????) The same is true if you're so called white (pink, tan, whatever. . .). Be quick to own mistakes then they don't become fodder for misunderstandings later. This is especially true in situations where one person has some authority over another, color or no color. The boss should be extra quick to assume responsibility for errors. This earns and builds respect.

 

And one final, color blind note: A soft answer turns away wrath. Take the time to diffuse the heat before responding to an insult on your pride.

Life is an inalienable right!

A few things to consider before indenturing ourselves to the government managed health care:



Economics: I think we all agree that the "system" we now have would benefit from some tweaking. What system doesn't? But the concept that expensive health care makes our nation uncompetitive on the world markets is just plain wrong. The process of the free market generates wealth -- those health care dollars we pay fund myriad enterprises and as Adam Smith, economist, explains, every transaction has an impact on wealth generation. But governments can only do two things: Government can protect commerce (but not very well actually) or confiscate wealth. A government cannot create wealth. When a government funds something, such as health care, it can only fund it by using either a) wealth that has been confiscated from wealth producers (which is parasitic to the economy) or b) by printing currency (which devalues existing currency which is parasitic to the economy).



Freedom: The Declaration lists ". . . life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" among the inalienable rights of mankind. Governments are established in order to protect those rights. When a government body or committee gets to determine whether or not you get life saving treatment that government entity has usurped the right of mankind to make that decision. It make make economic sense to kill an old or unproductive person so that resources can be spent on more productive people but economics is not the whole value of life. Nobody said that freedom comes without cost so if we spend resources on keeping a "useless eater" alive that is just one of the costs of liberty. Make no mistake: Economics does play a huge role in life or death decisions. If a person desires a life saving treatment but can't afford it then economics helps to make the decision (just as it is not government's job to decide who lives or dies, it is not government's job to confiscate wealth from one person in order to give it to another). If a person chooses to sell the family farm in order to live another 6 months then it is their freedom to do so. But the bottom line is this: Life or death decisions will be made. It is not the job of government to make those decisions. Period.



The countable vs. the uncountable: It is relatively easy to count "uninsured" people. But how do you count the economic impact of confiscating wealth a nickel, dime or dollar at a time from the wealth producers of our nation? The cost adds up to missed opportunities, job opportunities that never materialize, wealth that didn't get created. That sort of thing is impossible to count so it loses the propaganda war. Make no mistake: When government takes from one class or group of people in order to give it to another class or group then it is usurping rights it does not have. And economically, it is as beneficial as scooping up water from the deep end of a swimming pool and dumping it on the shallow end. Don't buy the argument that "cheaper" health care will help our economy.



There are many more arguments as to why government managed health care is not only an economically unsound idea, not to mention being unconstitutional. Watch this space for more to come.

Victory Garden Update - November

Victory Garden Update - nearly Thanksgiving

 

When I first started this victory garden project I was motivated from a couple of angles: 

1. I'm learning about choices. I am not what you'd call a environmental zealot. In fact, I argue that the global warming scare is just that: a hyped up over reaction to nebulous data being spewed out by man made computer models. Watch for cooler temps as the sun settles down for a quiet spell and you'll see what I mean. Besides all that, let's say the earth's climate did warm up a bit. Would fresh produce from Siberia be all that terrible? Colder temps are tougher on humanity than warmer temps so maybe a little warmer ain't so bad.  

But I digress. Even though I'm no climate zealot that doesn't mean I don't recognize the importance of being a good steward of our planet and our local resources. I'm experimenting to see how much effort it will take to harvest home grown food. Home grown food reduces lots of overhead items such as trucking tomatoes over a thousand miles. We need to choose more sensibly. A garden, for those who can do it, is a choice of good stewardship. 

2. Back when I launched this horticultural experiment I had an inkling that the house of cards we call an economy was at risk of having its table bumped. I didn't have a clue that it would be caving in before my first harvest or I would have started sooner! I'm glad we started when we did because I know a little more about what it will take if the economy goes further down the toilet. I don't anticipate another long and deep depression like we had in the 30's because I think. . . well, hope. . . that we're smart enough not to try to fix the economy with socialism like FDR did. Wait a minute. . . President Obama may try to spring another new deal on us so guess I had better start breaking ground on the next plot of ground!

Country first? Yes we can!

There will be plentiful pundit pontification about how Obama "won" the election or how McCain "lost" the election. The autopsy will be important to future campaigns but for now, it's time to find some common ground and move forward. I'm not aware of anyone that I know who supported John McCain in the primaries but by the end of the presidential race, I had developed a profound respect for the character of this true hero. I'm proud to have supported him with time and treasure. Has there ever been a classier concession speech? John McCain is a real man, a man to be admired by all.

But he didn't win. 

The people chose Mr. Obama to be president. I'll admit to being uneasy about having a liberal president but I am deliberately and soberly purging my misgivings about President Obama's character and his politics so that I can support him as much as possible. If John McCain has the mettle to support this former rival then should I attempt any less? Down the road, Mr. Obama will earn my support or my ire on his own but for now, I'm going to put country first and support my president.  Here are a few reasons why I will be as supportive as possible of our new president:

I sincerely want to relish the historic moment of electing our nation's first  _____________ (fill in your favorite racial euphemism here) president because this moment signals the end, or at least the beginning of the end, of the racial divide. Stellar individuals such as General Colin Powell and Secretary of State Condoliza Rice could have walked into the presidency but it would have been a hollow accomplishment, attributed to being put in place by "The Man." The community which cares about color and its stigma needed to bring their own representative into power and they did so, loud and clear. 

If Mr. Obama exceeds expectations by showing our nation true leadership then I want to join in the celebration. If Mr. Obama fails to deliver then we will share the disappointment together. I will not -- let me emphasize -- I WILL NOT claim high ground and say "I told you so" if President Obama stumbles because that simply leads to the wasted energy of divisiveness. Besides, my guys don't always get it right either.

I proudly voted for Jimmy Carter. He was going to bring honesty, integrity and overall good times to our nation's highest office. He delivered on the first two but turned out to be a pretty lame president. 

Later on, I didn't think Ronald Reagan could be a serious leader because he was, of all things, an actor! I missed that call too. 

Once I had figured out where conservatives should be working I supported Bush 41. Can you say "Read my lips. . . ?"

The Clinton terms were maddeningly frustrating as he stained the presidential office. But he did manage to deliver some good work, including much needed welfare reform, so I can't say that he wrecked the U.S. 

I campaigned for Bush 43. History will show that he is truly a statesman and I have been pleased with most of his track record. Except for spending money as if the government had a printing press. Make no mistake: I support our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq even though they've been a tough slog. 7+ years and counting since the last homeland attack, right? But gee whiz -- expanding unlimited entitlements to include prescription drugs sure doesn't sound like conservatism.  Bailing out bankers and stock brokers is not exactly conservative either. Maybe we need some more of Clinton's welfare reform? And Harriet Miers for supreme court? What was that about?

Speaking of Supreme Court justices. I'm very uncomfortable with Mr. Obama's ideology when it comes to federal court appointees but let's not forget that Justice Souter is a Bush 41 appointee. We'll just have to hope for the best. 

All of the presidents I supported managed to disappoint me in some way or another. And the ones I didn't support managed to get a few things right. The genius of our constitution is that we don't empower dictators. Our system balances power in a way that prevents any one president from doing too terribly much damage. So I hereby resolve to look for the right things in Mr. Obama's presidency and try to give him the same benefit of a doubt that I've given to the presidents I campaigned for. Am I concerned about Mr. Obama's philosophy? That's an understatement but let's remember that it was he who made the economy the focal point of this campaign. I think he knows that the free market has to help him get that job done so for now, I don't think Joe The Plumber has to worry too much about a tax hike. The economy can't handle it. Mr. Obama knows that even though he has a strangle hold on congress he doesn't dare irritate too many of us with scary items like government health care, gun control or the "Fairness" Doctrine. Keep in mind that 2010 is not long hence so congressional campaigning starts now. They're not going to jeopardize re-election by pushing too far left. President Obama may be a leftist liberal but we, the people, have enough power to keep him from being a scary leftist liberal. Come to think of it, he doesn't have to move rightward very far in order to align with some of our current crop of "conservatives."

Please don't misconstrue my position. I'm always going to campaign for more conservative leadership. But for now, I think our country needs to unite for the common good so I'm not going to cast stones just because my guy didn't win. Country first? Yes we can!