Congressman Charlie Rangel announced his new tax plan recently. This plan is called a "reform" measure, but it isn't. What this measure essentially does is raise taxes on everybody. It would raise taxes by a total of $1.3 trillion (no that's not a typo, trillion, with a t). This would be the largest tax increase in American history.
Now, this isn't something you need to worry about, it has a trillion to one odds of becoming law. First off, Congress will not pass it, even though the Democrats control Congress, the moderate Democrats would never vote for this big of a tax increase. Even if they do somehow manage to get it through Congress, Bush will veto it. The only way this bill is relevant is that it shows what the world will be like if the Democrats get control of the White House, and strengthen their holds on Congress. If they gain congressional seats in 2008, then the moderate Democrats might be swayed into voting for this extreme tax hike and a Democratic president wouldn't veto it. When you couple this $1.3 trillion tax increase with the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, it would result in a total of $3.5 trillion in tax increases.
While they say that this tax burden would fall on only the wealthy, this is an old liberal trick that they always use to garner support for these tax hikes. Nobody ever bothers to realize that by overtaxing the rich, you're punishing success, thus encouraging laziness. They also never realize that when you raise taxes on the wealthy business owners, they then raise prices on their products to compensate, thus making everybody suffer. The people that come up with this stuff are either extremely malicious, or very short-sighted.
So this is what you have to look forward to if you elect Democrats, huge tax increases. Are we really surprised?
Monday, October 29, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Real Conservative
At the Republican presidential debate on Sunday night, the so-called "big-four" candidates spent most of their time attacking each other over the issue of who is the "real conservative." After listening to the debate and doing a little research, I've come to the following conclusion: none of them are. Guliani's positions on gay marriage (he supports a "domestic partnership" cop-out), abortion, and gun control are well documented, and definitely not conservative. McCain, while he talks a good game, has been the driving force behind such infamous legislation as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (which essentially restricts freedom of speech for 60 days before an election), and the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. Romney and Thompson, who at first glance appear to be conservatives, also have problems. Thompson voted against convicting President Clinton of perjury. Romney seems fine, until you realize his flip-flops on gun control, abortion, and just about everything else (I found a great article on this subject entitled "Romney vs. Romney".)
So if you're looking for a conservative Presidential Candidate, the "big four" are out of the picture. Then who is there? Of the eight candidates running (Brownback dropped out recently), there are only two conservatives, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter. So I support Huckabee for four reasons:
1. Of the two conservative candidates running, Huckabee has a better chance. Huckabee is running fifth in the national polls, and third in Iowa, which gives him a chance at winning the "first in the nation" caucuses, and as John Kerry showed us in 2004, once you win Iowa, you almost always get the nomination. Hunter on the other hand, is doing so bad he probably doesn't even know where Iowa is. He's doing equally bad nationally.
2. Mike Huckabee just got the endorsement of the toughest guy in the universe. For those of you who've been hiding under a rock for the last few decades, I am referring, of course, to Chuck Norris. I mean, with that guy's roundhouse kicks behind you, how can you not win. Seriously though, Chuck Norris is a really smart guy, if he says this is the best guy, he's probably right.
3. He's a fantastic debater. I don't know how many of you have seen the debates, but Huckabee rocks. They usually don't give him that much time to speak, since he's one of the "minor" candidates, but when he does talk, he's eloquent, funny, and very classy (he made a point of staying out of the mudslinging contest on Sunday night).
4. He's a real conservative. I can't stress this enough. Our country needs conservative leaders, ones who will stick up for America, and not let the liberals kill it. Mike Huckabee is that kind of leader. We need him.
So if you're looking for a conservative Presidential Candidate, the "big four" are out of the picture. Then who is there? Of the eight candidates running (Brownback dropped out recently), there are only two conservatives, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter. So I support Huckabee for four reasons:
1. Of the two conservative candidates running, Huckabee has a better chance. Huckabee is running fifth in the national polls, and third in Iowa, which gives him a chance at winning the "first in the nation" caucuses, and as John Kerry showed us in 2004, once you win Iowa, you almost always get the nomination. Hunter on the other hand, is doing so bad he probably doesn't even know where Iowa is. He's doing equally bad nationally.
2. Mike Huckabee just got the endorsement of the toughest guy in the universe. For those of you who've been hiding under a rock for the last few decades, I am referring, of course, to Chuck Norris. I mean, with that guy's roundhouse kicks behind you, how can you not win. Seriously though, Chuck Norris is a really smart guy, if he says this is the best guy, he's probably right.
3. He's a fantastic debater. I don't know how many of you have seen the debates, but Huckabee rocks. They usually don't give him that much time to speak, since he's one of the "minor" candidates, but when he does talk, he's eloquent, funny, and very classy (he made a point of staying out of the mudslinging contest on Sunday night).
4. He's a real conservative. I can't stress this enough. Our country needs conservative leaders, ones who will stick up for America, and not let the liberals kill it. Mike Huckabee is that kind of leader. We need him.
A new element
You know, I ordinarily avoid copying stuff from other people, but this was just too funny:
The recent hurricanes and gasoline issues are proof of the existence of a new chemical element. A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named Governmentium. Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second to take over four days to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's Mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium...an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
The recent hurricanes and gasoline issues are proof of the existence of a new chemical element. A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named Governmentium. Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second to take over four days to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's Mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium...an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Good News
Good news everybody, over the last few days, many Congressmen came to their senses. In the vote today, the House failed to over-ride President Bush's veto of the SCHIP extension bill. Though the Democrats did get some Republicans on their side, they couldn't intimidate enough of them to get the veto over-ridden. This is a victory for the free market, and for small government, though not a huge one. After all, SCHIP still exists, though not in as large a form as it would have if the bill had passed. In addition, we still have have a huge failing Medi-Care system, which is also a very socialist program. So this is a step in the right direction, but we still have a long way to go to rid our country of socialism.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Treasonous Congress
There is currently a resolution in Congress that would officially declare the killing of Armenians in Turkey during WWI to be "genocide." This resolution, though seeming to be harmless and unimportant, is bordering on treason. Why? I'll get to that later. Let me just start by saying that most Americans already acknowledge that what happened was genocide, a Congressional resolution simply states something that we already know. So the resolution is a big, fat waste of time that could be spent on more important things. So what else is new? Congress always wastes time and money. But look closer, the Democrats wouldn't be working so hard to push this resolution through if it didn't accomplish something. So the question becomes this: What is their ulterior motive?
The only thing that this resolution will do, is anger the Turkish government. "Big deal," you say, "so what if we get some second-rate country mad at us." For most countries I'd agree, but this one, is slightly different. You see, out relationship with Turkey has always been somewhat tenuous, but at the beginning of the Iraq war, the Turkish government reluctantly allowed the United States to ship goods through their country. This has become a major supply line to bring weapons and other important materials to our troops in northern Iraq (by flying supplies into Turkey and then taking them by truck to the troops in Iraq). Our position is precarious enough as it is, but if the liberals start rocking the boat, Turkey could decide that they don't want our military in their country. The U.S. military, is extremely resilient, and would adapt to the new conditions very quickly, but until they did, this would result in increased casualties in Iraq, especially in the north, due to them being under-supplied. Even after the military did adapt, any other way of shipping to northern Iraq (through Kuwait, or directly into Iraq itself), would be slower and more expensive, thus hurting the war effort.
The Democrats would benefit from this because as casualties go up, public support for the war would go down, making it easier for them to justify a withdrawal. So in other words, since the Democrats couldn't get the votes that they needed to pull out of Iraq, they are using sneaky political maneuvering to get us out. That is wrong, and it is treason. But hey, what's a little treason if it serves your political goals? At least, that's what they think.
The only thing that this resolution will do, is anger the Turkish government. "Big deal," you say, "so what if we get some second-rate country mad at us." For most countries I'd agree, but this one, is slightly different. You see, out relationship with Turkey has always been somewhat tenuous, but at the beginning of the Iraq war, the Turkish government reluctantly allowed the United States to ship goods through their country. This has become a major supply line to bring weapons and other important materials to our troops in northern Iraq (by flying supplies into Turkey and then taking them by truck to the troops in Iraq). Our position is precarious enough as it is, but if the liberals start rocking the boat, Turkey could decide that they don't want our military in their country. The U.S. military, is extremely resilient, and would adapt to the new conditions very quickly, but until they did, this would result in increased casualties in Iraq, especially in the north, due to them being under-supplied. Even after the military did adapt, any other way of shipping to northern Iraq (through Kuwait, or directly into Iraq itself), would be slower and more expensive, thus hurting the war effort.
The Democrats would benefit from this because as casualties go up, public support for the war would go down, making it easier for them to justify a withdrawal. So in other words, since the Democrats couldn't get the votes that they needed to pull out of Iraq, they are using sneaky political maneuvering to get us out. That is wrong, and it is treason. But hey, what's a little treason if it serves your political goals? At least, that's what they think.
Monday, October 15, 2007
FairTax
As of late many presidential candidates have adopted the FairTax plan. In fact, just about all of the candidates on the Republican side do. Yet despite its growing popularity, there are still many in America who don't even know what it is. That is a shame, since it's one of the best tax reform plans out there. For a complete description of the plan read "The FairTax Book," By Neil Boortz and John Linder. The FairTax plan is essentially this: The complete abolition of the I.R.S., and the income tax, and its replacement by a higher sales tax. This would eliminate the need for a 60,000 page tax code that no one understands. It would not only eliminate the income taxes, but also payroll taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, and estate taxes. The sales tax would be high, 23% to be exact, but this would be more than made up for by the fact that the prices on goods would be much lower with businesses not having taxes eating into their profits. In addition, the FairTax includes a prebate given by the government to compensate for all spending up to the poverty line. I know that sounds complicated, but it essentially means that the government would send you a check every month that would pay the taxes on the items that are necessities for everyday life. This prebate would be based on a government estimate of how much spending in necessary per person and would be payed out to each family based on its size. The prebate could theoretically result in those who are living on the bare necessities to pay no taxes.
The good thing about the fair tax is that it fixes the worst problem in our tax system, which is that we punish people for their success. They worked hard to become rich, and now they have to pay a ton of taxes, whereas the lazy bum who never worked a day in his life pays next to nothing. We punish people for working hard, which of course, discourages them from doing it. The result of the FairTax, is that we end up taxing people for buying things that they don't need. The result would be that more people would be saving money, and less people would be going into debt because of their horrible spending habits.
The only real flaw I see in the FairTax is that, while it does eliminate the income tax and the tax code, it doesn't stop the income tax from coming back. That's the problem with all tax reform, it doesn't have the authority to permanently forbid a federal income tax. The only way to do that is by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. Short of doing that, there is always the danger that the politicians could vote to bring back the income tax at a later date. Then we'd have a high sales tax and an income tax, which would put us in a worse spot then we are now. So while the FairTax is a fantastic plan in principle, it will only be good as long as we can manage to keep fiscally conservative Republicans in power, because the instant big government liberals take over, they would begin rebuilding all of the bureaucracy that the FairTax tears down.
The FairTax crusaders, led by Neil Boortz, are slowly convincing more and more in the Republican party, and even a few in the Democratic party, that this plan is the right thing to do. Once they succeed in getting enough politicians on their side, the plan will become law, and the great FairTax experiment will begin.
The good thing about the fair tax is that it fixes the worst problem in our tax system, which is that we punish people for their success. They worked hard to become rich, and now they have to pay a ton of taxes, whereas the lazy bum who never worked a day in his life pays next to nothing. We punish people for working hard, which of course, discourages them from doing it. The result of the FairTax, is that we end up taxing people for buying things that they don't need. The result would be that more people would be saving money, and less people would be going into debt because of their horrible spending habits.
The only real flaw I see in the FairTax is that, while it does eliminate the income tax and the tax code, it doesn't stop the income tax from coming back. That's the problem with all tax reform, it doesn't have the authority to permanently forbid a federal income tax. The only way to do that is by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. Short of doing that, there is always the danger that the politicians could vote to bring back the income tax at a later date. Then we'd have a high sales tax and an income tax, which would put us in a worse spot then we are now. So while the FairTax is a fantastic plan in principle, it will only be good as long as we can manage to keep fiscally conservative Republicans in power, because the instant big government liberals take over, they would begin rebuilding all of the bureaucracy that the FairTax tears down.
The FairTax crusaders, led by Neil Boortz, are slowly convincing more and more in the Republican party, and even a few in the Democratic party, that this plan is the right thing to do. Once they succeed in getting enough politicians on their side, the plan will become law, and the great FairTax experiment will begin.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Not so noble Nobel
In the biggest travesty of justice since the O.J. Simpson acquittal, it was announced today that Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Apparently it was more than just rumors. This is a bad thing for several different reasons (read my earlier article), but needless to say I have lost a lot of respect for the Norwegian Nobel Commitee. This is a sad, sad day for mankind.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Start Over
Our public school system is a failure. There have been many attempts to fix the school system, the latest of which was "No Child Left Behind," which, though I normally like President Bush's policies, is a utterly ridiculous measure. "No Child Left Behind" not only didn't fix our old problems, it created new ones. The law causes teachers to focus all of their time on the kids who are stupid and/or lazy, while ignoring those who want to learn. This is what happens when government handles things that ought to be controlled by the free market. The quality of schools is dropping fast. If we had a free market economy in the schooling system, then competition between schools would drive prices down and quality up, instead of now, where the schools have no incentive to improve since they're going to get their obscenely exhorbitant check from the government anyway.
In addition to the quality problems, our schools, in attempting to be "unbiased" and "tolerant," have become so left-wing that our history books are no longer history books, they're stories that have been rewritten so that they say whatever suits the liberals political purposes. Which means that we're raising an entire generation to be anti-christian, anti-life, and anti-gun. If you want to know why America is screwed up so bad, you need look no further than the public school system that "educated" them. And guess what? It's only getting worse.
We need to fix our school system. Not "fix-it" like instituting yet another pathetic reform plan. "Fix-it" as in kill it and start over. Start over with something completely different. Start over with a school system in which the free market reigns, and parents can choose where to send their children, instead of being stuck with a choice between the socialist public schools or home schooling (which isn't a choice for many busy American parents). Starting over is the only way, because the existing system is too far gone. So let's start over, and start over today.
In addition to the quality problems, our schools, in attempting to be "unbiased" and "tolerant," have become so left-wing that our history books are no longer history books, they're stories that have been rewritten so that they say whatever suits the liberals political purposes. Which means that we're raising an entire generation to be anti-christian, anti-life, and anti-gun. If you want to know why America is screwed up so bad, you need look no further than the public school system that "educated" them. And guess what? It's only getting worse.
We need to fix our school system. Not "fix-it" like instituting yet another pathetic reform plan. "Fix-it" as in kill it and start over. Start over with something completely different. Start over with a school system in which the free market reigns, and parents can choose where to send their children, instead of being stuck with a choice between the socialist public schools or home schooling (which isn't a choice for many busy American parents). Starting over is the only way, because the existing system is too far gone. So let's start over, and start over today.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Gore to be given Nobel Prize!?
According to a rumor that has been circulating, Al Gore is being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize because of his film "An Inconvenient Truth." This rumor could be just that, a rumor, but popular opinion says it's true. You know, it wouldn't surprise me if he did win, especially considering the committee's past history of controversial decisions. Still, just in case anyone has any doubts whatsoever about Gore's eligibility for the prize, let me explain why he shouldn't get it.
1. If a documentary is going to help you win the Nobel Peace Prize, shouldn't that documentary actually be true? It is clear to anyone who knows the facts, that Gore's movie is full of factual errors or flat out lies.
2. Even if his documentary was true, what does talking about global warming have to do with peace? I mean, I can understand an environmentalist award of some kind, but the Nobel Peace Prize?
3. If he does win the Nobel Prize, this will just encourage the left-wing fanatics who want him to run for president, and Lord knows that we don't need another round of recounts when he loses again.
4. If the Norwegian Nobel Committee starts handing out the prizes as political favors instead of on the basis of merit, they will render themselves irrelevant. I know this sounds like an over-reaction, but remember what happened to the Oscars? They Hollywood liberals started handing them out to their political friends, regardless of how good the movies were, and before long, it got to the point where nobody cared anymore. This would be a sad thing to happen to one of the world's most prestigious awards.
Once again, this rumor may just be a rumor, and, for the sake of everyone involved, I hope it is, but with the way our world's been going, it's probably true. Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his documentary would be yet another example of fantasy replacing fact, and I hope that his horrible perversion of truth doesn't win him this hallowed award.
1. If a documentary is going to help you win the Nobel Peace Prize, shouldn't that documentary actually be true? It is clear to anyone who knows the facts, that Gore's movie is full of factual errors or flat out lies.
2. Even if his documentary was true, what does talking about global warming have to do with peace? I mean, I can understand an environmentalist award of some kind, but the Nobel Peace Prize?
3. If he does win the Nobel Prize, this will just encourage the left-wing fanatics who want him to run for president, and Lord knows that we don't need another round of recounts when he loses again.
4. If the Norwegian Nobel Committee starts handing out the prizes as political favors instead of on the basis of merit, they will render themselves irrelevant. I know this sounds like an over-reaction, but remember what happened to the Oscars? They Hollywood liberals started handing them out to their political friends, regardless of how good the movies were, and before long, it got to the point where nobody cared anymore. This would be a sad thing to happen to one of the world's most prestigious awards.
Once again, this rumor may just be a rumor, and, for the sake of everyone involved, I hope it is, but with the way our world's been going, it's probably true. Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his documentary would be yet another example of fantasy replacing fact, and I hope that his horrible perversion of truth doesn't win him this hallowed award.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Why haven't you heard that . . .?
The Dow Jones and the S&P both set records today. This is part of a strong upward trend in the stock market. The economy is booming. Yet you probably didn't know that until 5 seconds ago. This is good news, people ought to know. So why don't they?
Casualties in Iraq are down. This is also a positive trend, as American deaths have now dropped for several months straight, thanks in part to the troop surge. This is also good news. People should know. So why don't they?
The answer is easy if you look at it closely. Who benefits if the economy is bad? Who benefits if Iraq goes badly? The Democrats do. They can blame the Republicans, and exploit these issues to win elections. So when the economy does good, the liberals that control the media keep it quiet, but when stocks suffer it becomes front page news. In the same way, when casualties increase in Iraq there is a massive media blitz against the president, while good reports are ignored.
Even on the rare occasions that good news is reported, it is always vigorously criticized. The media, when confronted by the fact that casualties are down, question the reliability of the numbers (after all it's only the Pentagon who compile these statistics). There was never a question of reliability when the numbers where bad, but suddenly there are accuracy problems now that they're good. It's a similar situation with the economy. The stock market was the absolute economic authority when it was failing, but now that things are looking up, they caution us that it is dangerous to put to much faith in any one economic indicator. In other words, the media says, the numbers only matter if they help out our favorite political figures.
When we have such a blatantly biased media, it's hard to tell what to believe. We have trouble sorting through the muck and slime to try to find truth. The reason that the media is supposed to exist is to inform the public, not to dictate our perceptions, and yet that is exactly what it has become. It is full of liberal lackeys whose sole purpose in life is to make things out to be bad when it suits the Democrats' purposes, and then later to make everything look rosy when that is beneficial. It has nothing to do with truth, only politics.
Casualties in Iraq are down. This is also a positive trend, as American deaths have now dropped for several months straight, thanks in part to the troop surge. This is also good news. People should know. So why don't they?
The answer is easy if you look at it closely. Who benefits if the economy is bad? Who benefits if Iraq goes badly? The Democrats do. They can blame the Republicans, and exploit these issues to win elections. So when the economy does good, the liberals that control the media keep it quiet, but when stocks suffer it becomes front page news. In the same way, when casualties increase in Iraq there is a massive media blitz against the president, while good reports are ignored.
Even on the rare occasions that good news is reported, it is always vigorously criticized. The media, when confronted by the fact that casualties are down, question the reliability of the numbers (after all it's only the Pentagon who compile these statistics). There was never a question of reliability when the numbers where bad, but suddenly there are accuracy problems now that they're good. It's a similar situation with the economy. The stock market was the absolute economic authority when it was failing, but now that things are looking up, they caution us that it is dangerous to put to much faith in any one economic indicator. In other words, the media says, the numbers only matter if they help out our favorite political figures.
When we have such a blatantly biased media, it's hard to tell what to believe. We have trouble sorting through the muck and slime to try to find truth. The reason that the media is supposed to exist is to inform the public, not to dictate our perceptions, and yet that is exactly what it has become. It is full of liberal lackeys whose sole purpose in life is to make things out to be bad when it suits the Democrats' purposes, and then later to make everything look rosy when that is beneficial. It has nothing to do with truth, only politics.
Monday, October 8, 2007
One small step for Congress, One giant leap into Socialized Medicine
America we have a problem. Congress will soon over-ride the President's veto on the SCHIP expansion bill. Democrats are convincing Republicans that they will not win re-election if they do not support the bill. Unfortunately, they're right. On the surface, not supporting the bill seems absolutely heartless, after all, the SCHIP bill would give insurance coverage to children who don't have it. Democrats, in a diabolically clever political move have painted the issue as exactly that, the kind people who want to help the children versus the evil Scrooges who want them to die. But upon looking closer, one realizes that this is an inherently flawed bill.
First, the obvious, it costs $35 billion, that's right billion, with a B. $35 BILLION of taxpayer's money. Enough said.
Second, though insuring kids sounds great, what it represents, is yet another thing that the government is forcing on us. Should kids have medical insurance? Of course they should, everyone should. Not having you and your family insured is stupid and short-sighted. But I beleive in freedom, including the freedom to be stupid and short-sighted if you so desire. Now I realize that some of the children covered by this bill don't have insurance simply because their parents can't afford it, but that is what charities are for. You remember, charities, that's how poor people used to get help before the government started funneling money directly into their pockets. The fact is, Americans give millions if not billions of dollars to charitable organizations every year, chances are that at least one of them has money for this type of thing, if there isn't such an organization, start one.
Third, this is just a prelude to something worse: Socialized medicine. For those of you who aren't up on politics, socialized medicine is when the government controls the entire health care system. This is bad for a variety of reasons, for one, government is notoriously inefficient. I don't want to have to wait four months to go to the doctor's office, while the doctor is trying to get the paper work past the bureacracy. Furthermore, the quality of care will get worse, as good doctors move to other countries where they can be paid more, and will have the freedom to do what they must to save a patient instead of getting it cleared with some government official. As if that wasn't bad enough, our tax rates would go higher than they already are. I could go more into the evils of socialized medicine later, but needless to say it's a very bad thing, and this SCHIP bill is the first step on this very slippery slope.
Yet in spite of this reasoning, President Bush's veto will be over-riden. It's not a matter of if, but when. At least the Democrats can be excused, they actually believe the garbage that they are saying, they think that big government and socialized medicine is a good thing. But the Republicans will help to over-ride the veto not because they don't know what I've just layed out, but because they care more about their re-election campaigns, their personal power, and their public image, than about what's right. They're afraid to look mean, and so they'll vote for a bill that will be the beginning of the end of our free market health care system, and twenty years from now, when people are dying because their doctors are ill-trained or because the paper work didn't clear in time for their life saving operation, then these politicians can take solace in the fact that they didn't look mean in front of the whole country. Meanwhile, the few who have the guts to stand up and oppose this bill, will lose re-election, because they didn't care enough about the children, or at least that's how it will be portrayed by their opponents. So write your congressman, let them know what you think. Who knows? It may not be too late to prevent the over-ride.
First, the obvious, it costs $35 billion, that's right billion, with a B. $35 BILLION of taxpayer's money. Enough said.
Second, though insuring kids sounds great, what it represents, is yet another thing that the government is forcing on us. Should kids have medical insurance? Of course they should, everyone should. Not having you and your family insured is stupid and short-sighted. But I beleive in freedom, including the freedom to be stupid and short-sighted if you so desire. Now I realize that some of the children covered by this bill don't have insurance simply because their parents can't afford it, but that is what charities are for. You remember, charities, that's how poor people used to get help before the government started funneling money directly into their pockets. The fact is, Americans give millions if not billions of dollars to charitable organizations every year, chances are that at least one of them has money for this type of thing, if there isn't such an organization, start one.
Third, this is just a prelude to something worse: Socialized medicine. For those of you who aren't up on politics, socialized medicine is when the government controls the entire health care system. This is bad for a variety of reasons, for one, government is notoriously inefficient. I don't want to have to wait four months to go to the doctor's office, while the doctor is trying to get the paper work past the bureacracy. Furthermore, the quality of care will get worse, as good doctors move to other countries where they can be paid more, and will have the freedom to do what they must to save a patient instead of getting it cleared with some government official. As if that wasn't bad enough, our tax rates would go higher than they already are. I could go more into the evils of socialized medicine later, but needless to say it's a very bad thing, and this SCHIP bill is the first step on this very slippery slope.
Yet in spite of this reasoning, President Bush's veto will be over-riden. It's not a matter of if, but when. At least the Democrats can be excused, they actually believe the garbage that they are saying, they think that big government and socialized medicine is a good thing. But the Republicans will help to over-ride the veto not because they don't know what I've just layed out, but because they care more about their re-election campaigns, their personal power, and their public image, than about what's right. They're afraid to look mean, and so they'll vote for a bill that will be the beginning of the end of our free market health care system, and twenty years from now, when people are dying because their doctors are ill-trained or because the paper work didn't clear in time for their life saving operation, then these politicians can take solace in the fact that they didn't look mean in front of the whole country. Meanwhile, the few who have the guts to stand up and oppose this bill, will lose re-election, because they didn't care enough about the children, or at least that's how it will be portrayed by their opponents. So write your congressman, let them know what you think. Who knows? It may not be too late to prevent the over-ride.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Outside Force
Newton's first law of motion states that "an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force." While Newton was speaking of objects in the realm of physics, this law also applies to societies. Our world, and specifically our country, is going downhill, and will continue doing so until someone does something to stop it. Newton goes on to state that "an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force." There are many people who are not acting out of apathy, or worse, out of fear of being labeled as an "extremist." News Flash: It is only "extremists" who ever change the world. What this world needs is an outside force to rouse the objects at rest, and halt the object in motion. Guess what? We can be that "Outside Force." We can change the world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)