My problem with the left

The biggest problem I have with government generally and Democrats specifically is this: They don't ask me what I think, or why, or anything. They just tell me how I should feel about some "social injustice" and then tell me what they plan to legislate so that I can contribute to fixing the "problem" they've identified. And their "fix" always involves a tax on my earnings, or limiting the earnings of someone who has made a comfortable living in the "free market."


It seems to me like they think they're bigger than any problem anyone has, and that they're well able to fix any problem anyone has. In fact, they appear to believe that they are BETTER able to fix any problem than anyone else could ever hope to imagine they might possibly be under the best circumstances. Worst of all, they appear to think it's their job to fix my problems!


What they appear to not realize is that my problem is mine to solve. If they have a suggestion for me, I'd welcome it if they would first welcome my explanation of how I feel or think about something. 


But they don't, so I don't share with them anything about how I feel.


But I'll share it with you.


First (and I've said this before - just ask Shawn), the government cannot give anyone anything without first taking it from someone else.


Second: if the government legislates that health care is a right (it isn't), then that means that they are telling doctors that they do not have a right to choose how they'll use their expertise. They are in fact requiring doctors to provide health care (which is a "right" according to government) to anyone who needs it.


Okay; let's go with that for a minute: I have a right to the effort, energy, work, product, service of another.


Let's go one (not two, but one) step further: I have a right to your money. (According to the government, I do, if you make more than a certain amount and I make less than a certain amount.) And the government will take it from you if you don't freely give it to me.


Here's the problem with all this: The government defines me as a "victim" if I make less than a certain amount, and defines the wealthy as "greedy" if they posses more than a certain amount. But if I claim money that you've earned as my own and use the government to transfer that wealth, doesn't that make me greedy and make the wealthy the victims?

Obama predicts US unemployment will drop to its lowest since he came to the White House | Mail Online

Obama predicts US unemployment will drop to its lowest since he came to the White House | Mail Online:

'via Blog this'

Wasn't the unemployment rate supposed to never exceed 8% if he was permitted to do what he wanted with the economy?

For some reason, that question in my mind sparked another thought: since the current administration believes so strongly that new rules and laws and regulations and requirements and impositions are so effective when deployed in a vacuum, why don't they just make a rule or law or something that says unemployment must get below 6% by the election?

I await your feedback.

Taxes: Should we eliminate subsidies?

Can we just get one thing straight here? Corporations do not pay taxes. Individuals pay taxes. If the tax bill on a corporation is increased, the corporation simply raises retail prices to cover their cost of taxes. 

If taxes on corporations were eliminated entirely, prices would drop, sales would increase, and sales tax revenue would increase. For example: I recently purchased domestic round trip airfare. The advertised price was $119 each way (including over $16 in excise taxes), a total of $238. I bought four tickets. Total should be $952. Right?

No. You’re wrong. Added to the airfare was another $3.70 per segment per person in excise taxes. So for me alone, that would have meant another $18.50 in excise taxes (since there were five segments on the trip); for the four tickets, it meant $74. Add a Passenger Facility Charge (for our use of the airports) of $13.50 per person ($54), and a government-imposed “September 11^th Security Fee” of $7.50 per person ($30), and the $119-one-way fare turns into $1110 round trip for a family of four.  $170 of that is government fees and taxes ($224 if you count the facility charge as a government fee, since most airports are managed by local government boards or commissions). So between 15% and 20% of the cost of airfare is made up of government fees. This is after I've already paid a tax on earning that money -- Now I have to pay another tax to spend it! (More accurately, of course, the airline has to pay taxes on it, so they just recover it from me.)

Wait a minute! Why do I have to pay that? Shouldn’t the airline be paying that? Well of course, silly, and they do. They’re just the middle-man between your dollars and the US government treasury. They’re charged the fees; they recover it from you by including it in your airfare. And by itemizing the fees on your cost and payment summary, they make sure you know it isn’t their outrageous costs that are making it so expensive to visit your family across country. It’s the government.

Those who advocate elimination of all oil “subsidies” obviously do not have a clear understanding of economics. Research subsidies should be eliminated: Let the private sector absorb the cost of deciding what will provide the greatest return on investment. But tax provisions should not be eliminated. (In fact, if I had my way about it, those who provide America with the means of propelling our vehicles would have no tax burden at all. Nor would our soldiers.)

In the first quarter of 2011 alone, ExxonMobile earnings on operations in the US were $2.6 billion, but they paid over $3 billion in US taxes during that same period. Does that sound equitable to anyone? It doesn’t to me, either. (By the way: “profit” is different than a “profit margin,” which is different than “earnings.”) (hat tip: Neal Boortz)

Eliminating the California tax on each gallon of gas would reduce the price of each gallon sold in California by about 35 cents. Want more reduction in cost? Open up additional areas of exploration and collection. Want to see less air pollution as a result of vehicle emissions and better roads? Build toll roads that are self-sustaining. Want to see our economy rebound? Eliminate government expenditures that seek to equalize financial status among demographic groups.

And in case I wasn’t clear above, I am advocating massive elimination of government programs that take money from someone who has earned it for the sole purpose of distributing it to someone who has not earned it. Government’s proper role is limited to protecting me from predators. If they’re taking my income and giving it to someone who doesn’t work, I’d say that government has taken on the role of predator and that I’m the victim.

That’s my 2-cents worth. Your thoughts?

Snow?? In Minnesota??

Another foot-plus of snow since Sunday night. (It's now Tuesday morning.) When I got home from work Sunday, I had to shovel and snow-throw about 8" (about 16-20" deep just to get my vehicle past the plow-drift left at the foot of my driveway). Then again Monday morning, I spent about an hour shoveling, snow-throwing and (again) removing the 12"-deep plow-drift at the foot of my driveway. Monday evening when I got home I had another six inches to remove -- and, a plow drift almost twice as deep.

Tell me again: why do we live here?

I debated yesterday morning whether I should or should not drive into the office - the Interstate freeway I take to go to the office was like a pitted dirt road from snow and ice build-up. My family got stuck in a snow drift after hitting an icy patch on the highway. We've had ice-dams on our roof and leaks in our ceiling. We've gone through at least 30 lbs of salt on the path and steps to our front door. I have to drive 20 miles before I feel warmth in my car.

What is it about this place that is so alluring? Whatever it is (or was), it's losing its appeal.

Recent Response to an Ayn Rand YouTube video comment

I am conservative (not Republican, not Libertarian, but with libertarian philosophies), living paycheck to paycheck, paying off thousands of dollars of debt. I refuse to ask for government help BECAUSE for the government to bail me out, it has to first take money from [another]. If [one] wishes, [one] may contribute, but it isn't government’s role to force [one's] contribution. To do so makes [the one] a slave and me the master, makes me greedy and [the one] a victim.

Cloud Computing

I  don't want to boast that I'm a visionary or anything, but I really do think that cloud computing is the way to go, and I think most companies will be using it by this time five years from now (or less). And I think they'll be subscribing to clouds, not hosting their own. And to be honest (no disrespect for the work Google has done to pioneer the way), I think that people will have clients on their local machines that, when launched, log into their cloud account (rather than being browser-based services).


I use Evernote on Windows at work and Mac at home, and my iPod is synced to it. I use Dropbox, ZumoDrive and MobileMe, as well; all platforms are synced. So much easier than logging into Gmail on my browser, or Google Docs, though I am using those services as well, across all platforms. Yes, I have synced my iCal info with Google Calendars - or tried, more accurately. I was able to sync only one of my three calendars; the other two got errors.


Anyone new to this technology will go into this discussion asking, "What's in this for me? What's the compelling reason for change? What we have is working and, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' You're suggesting I fix something that isn't broken."

I think that he, she or they are going to have to start using the convenience of cloud services before really seeing the benefit. 

I think most people see only a remote access solution (Citrix, VPN) as cloud service. That's fine, as far as it goes. But it doesn't come close to the "thin-client" model I think will have to be put into place for people to really see the benefit.

Anyway - just a random observation as I have been looking at the last week at a cloud services model for a local organization. My guess is that I'm just seeing the tip of the iceberg. I predict you'll see this take off in the next year or so and will become a predominant model in the next five.

I'm a Curmudgeon

Sometimes I get fed up with stupidity.

Oh, who am I trying to kid? ALL the time, I get fed up with stupidity.

People, as a general rule, are stupid. Oh, you can find intelligent people who have thought things through, who have developed a system based on principles. But they're rare.

(They're certainly not in government. The government rules by reaction. They do not legislate according to principle. If anyone in government ever comes up with a winning combination of principled legislation and reduction in costs for consumers and business, he or she will be immediately recruited away from his or her government role into private industry. The people who work in government, by and large, are following instructions created by reactionary legislation. They are not making positive change. And they lose money. Your money.)

Taxes, up. Spending, up. Entitlement programs, up. My take home pay: down. Do I have a say in this? Hell no. The government comes along with their reactionary legislation saying that someone else has a right to money I have earned. The consequence, MY consequence of that right, is that the government takes money I have earned and they give it to someone else.

Actually, I mis-spoke earlier. I do have a say; it's called voting. I vote for the people who advocate the lowest possible interference by government, the lowest possible tax, the fewest unions, the lowest social (i.e., entitlement) programs. Is that you? You're on my radar as someone to vote into office.

And, if that is you, you can kiss re-election hopes good-bye. (But at least you can make some progress toward reducing the size of government during your one term.) Let me know what you plan to accomplish during your only term in office.

ATLAS SHRUGGED!!!

Visit the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site!

Epic book. My fervent hope is that the movie makes the case as strongly (or more so, since a picture is worth a thousand words, and there are literally 30 "pictures" per second in a movie!) as the book did.

I've read the book probably four or more times - each reading is an investment in time. If you can check it out of the library and renew it a time or two, it's definitely worth the effort. It has the power to change your perspective on the entitlement attitude.

JEEZ It's Cold!

It's -9 F outside this morning! That's MINUS NINE DEGREES F! The car started, I let it idle for a few minutes, backed it out, and drove two miles before the temp gauge stirred. As soon as it got the slightest bit above the "frigid" temp mark, I turned on the heater. Drove 25 miles with my gloves and winter coat on, heater on high, and I was still cold when I got to work.

I was so focused on how cold it was I drove off with my daughter's backpack and lunch box still in the back seat. So guess what happened when it was time for my wife to drive her to school.

I lived in Alaska for almost two years, and don't recall ever feeling this same bite in the air. Maybe because I was living on Kodiak Island, and the sea tempered the air -- whatever: Minnesota winter this year is ridiculously cold.

The snow in my yard is about three feet deep. And of course it's accumulated on the roof as well -- and ice dams are building up and if we don't get rid of them, we start getting leaks in the roof. There are some places adjacent to my driveway where the snow mound is five feet high!

I don't ever want to live through this kind of winter, ever again.

The Health Care Issue

So I just don't understand Senator Harry Reid - he says he won't bring this bill to repeal "ObamaCare" to the Senate for a vote. Whatever.

But if you read the article (click the title of this post), it says over half the states are joining a lawsuit against ObamaCare.

House Representatives represent the People; the Senate represents State interests.

If over half the States are suing the Federal Government over this legislation, isn't Harry obligated to allow a vote?

I'm just sayin...

I'M BA-A-A-ACK!!

Well, I was gone awhile over to my MobileMe site. Didja miss me?

didn't think so...

All the reasons for the move away and the move back are on earlier posts (here or there); I'm not gonna belabor the point now.

Suffice to say I'll be posting here from now on.

P

I'm moving

I'm moving my blog over to my MobileMe account. (Hey - I'm working at an Apple store now, so that's the place for me!) Click on the title of this post to be redirected, or click here.

Thanks for your continued readership, though my guess is that these posts are more cathartic for me than helpful to you.

Who's Counting?

1. Read Thomas Sowell's latest column, here.

2. Contact your ERs (Elected Representatives).

3. Tell your ERs to get government out of health care provisioning.

4. If your ER listens to you and responds positively, vote them back into office.

5. If your ER ignores you and responds in a way that give government more power, fire them.

Raise Taxes to Pay for Health Care Reform???

Good Grief!

Read the article in this morning's Washington Post, then come back here to read my response.

Did you read the whole thing? Or did you get frustrated and give up in the first few paragraphs?

Fundamentally, the premise of this argument is flawed. It presumes I have a responsibility, an obligation to help my fellow patient, and it intends to legislate my contribution. I reject that foundation. While I do have a personal responsibility, one to which I personally adhere, to extend charity, neither the state nor Federal government has any mandate to force me to do so.

You can tell me all day long, till we're both blue in the face, that I'm selfish. Very well. I'm selfish. I earned my money. No one else has a right to it, least of all by legislative mandate.

You want to improve the infrastructure I use to drive? Fine: collect taxes or tolls when I drive. Want to protect me from enemies, foreign and domestic? Great: use my taxes to pay for an army.

Want to take money away from me, my family, our household and our life to give it to someone who habitually neglects their own family and life? No way.

Does that paint me as greedy? Am I without compassion for those "less fortunate" than I? Am I ignoring the plight of the "victims"?

I think those who take money from someone else are greedy, and those whose money is taken are victims.

All that said, how can those who teach economics write an article that ignores economic history? When tax rates are lowered, it historically spurs the economy and tax revenues actually increase. When tax rates are increased, revenues historically fall. And when citizens have more disposable income, they give more to charity, which does a MUCH better job of filtering out the scammers and leeches so they can focus on extending a welcomed helping hand to those who actually need some help.

Want to pay for an ill-begotten government program doomed for failure? Lower tax rates. Want to dramatically improve health care in this country? Get the government out of the way and let charities and health care facilities partner in the effort. Get the government involved when there's a violation of civil liberty, but not until then.

What crisis?

In the president's own words, the "vast majority" of Americans will be able to keep their current insurance, the current doctor. (This is correct, as far as it goes, but if the President were under oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", that "whole truth" part would cause him to stumble. "Vast Majority" will be able to keep their current care, all other things being equal, which is not reality. More in a minute.)

So back to the "vast majority" item: if we take the President's own estimate (final paragraph in linked item) of the number of uninsured, we're talking about roughly 15% of the current US population.

Fine. 15% is fairly significant. But wait; there's more. The percentage has remained fairly consistent for ten years (it was 15% in 1998 also). But ten years ago, it's estimated that nearly half of that 15% was uninsured for only a period of time (perhaps due to unemployment or some other factor), rather than chronically uninsured. So that means that really, only about 7.5% was chronically uninsured. Which means that 7.5% of the population was uninsured by choice (as I was recently, until a new employer's cost for insurance made economic sense for me to opt in to their plan).

Let's factor in today's higher unemployment rate, and let's say that 10% of the population is chronically without insurance. That's 30.4 million. That means that 90% of the current US population doesn't need fixing.

So, where's the crisis?

I know, I'm a cold-hearted son-of-a-gun, and I'm reducing this to logic, and I'm without compassion. But let's remember that if I'm not taxed to pay for someone else's health care (via the inherent inefficiencies of government administration), I'm free to contribute my disposable income to the charity I see as most capable of efficiently providing the emergency or long-term care needed by someone who can't otherwise obtain it, for whatever reason. (And yes: when my tax obligation was lower than it is now, I was in fact contributing more to charities with proven track records of successful provision to those in need.)

OK. So on to the "all other things being equal" section.

First, President Obama says, "If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan." (All other things being equal.) Now, check this link. (And note: there's that "vast majority" phrase again.)

Second, I've heard small business owners say in very public forums that their accountants have determined that the fine imposed by health care legislation for not providing insurance is actually less than the cost of health insurance mandated by the reform legislation being considered... in some cases, over $30,000 per month less. Here's what that means from an economic perspective: 70% of America's employers likely will consider (whether they act on their consideration or not) dropping their employees' health coverage, and opt to pay the fine. That means those employees will want to get the "public option" that President Obama does or does not want, depending on which day it is, or which audience he's addressing, or some other random factor. That means government costs go up. That means (in a Democrat administration) taxes go up. (In a Republican administration, taxes would go down, because Republicans, those right-wing hate-mongers, know that when you reduce the penalty for production, production and consumerism increases, and tax revenues actually go up.)

So if the President's health-care reform is passed, people will lose their current insurance coverage and doctor, and taxes will go up.

Not interested. Back to the drawing board.

First, quoting from MSNBC’s “FirstRead” article posted 8/20/09:

"...the president wrote a 1,200-word New York Times op-ed on the health-care debate, and it didn’t mention the words “public option” in it ANYWHERE."

Wonder what the President was referring to when he made his first point in the op-ed: "First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job."

Since he didn't use the words "public option", MSNBC believes he must not have meant this as a public option. Right?

Much of the President's op-ed was simply empty rhetoric: "We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs" and "we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors" and "reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable."

Great words. How will this all happen? More government intrusion into my life and your life (and yours, and yours), for someone else's benefit. You and I will have less control over dollars we earn; we will be less able to contribute to private and charitable entities that have mastered the work involved in meeting emergency and ongoing needs of those who, for whatever reason, are unable to afford the care they need at the moment.

We want a smaller government, not a bigger one. All I need for the government to do is stand back and let me do what I need to do. If someone (or some company) targets me in a predatory manner, let the government shield me from predatory behavior. It’s the government’s job to step in and protect me from those who would intentionally do me harm. It is expressly not the government’s role to provide a service in competition with private organizations. And face it: every time they try, they fail: USPS, Amtrak, Medicare, Social Security.

I certainly do not want the President to fail, unless his goal is to further infringe on my rights as a citizen. In that role, his intentions become at odds with my best interests.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you’ll always have the support of Paul.

Completed Staff Work

Check out this blog post (click title above). My kind of philosophy!
P

Thomas Sowell : Alice in Medical Care - Townhall.com

Thomas Sowell : Alice in Medical Care - Townhall.com

Shared via AddThis

Back In MN!

Greetings!

Have to say, the last year-and-a-third have been a great experience for me professionally. That said, I am so glad to be back in the Twin Cities - home each night after work, able to play with the kids, mow the lawn, work on the house, visit with the neighbors... very nice.

New position at Gillette is shaping up to be very rewarding: lots of room for process development here, I must say!

I'll keep ya posted.

Blessings, and 73s!

We're in Des Moines, now, the kids and I. Rolled in Friday night about 7:45 or so. Watched a movie while eating frozen (well, cooked, but not ordered out) pizza. Saturday called Mom and talked with her awhile - she's busy working on cleaning the house - then went to the Science Center (glad they have a reciprocal agreement with Science Museum of MN - kids had a BLAST!) and hung out at the mall awhile. Came back to the apt to do some spelling bee stuff and art work - Brennan is excellent at freehand stuff. Maura spelled probably 30 words, sounding each one out, and had great fun. Watched Monsters Inc, talked to aunt Barbara and Grandma H on the phone.

Back home Sunday - meeting Mom at the half-way point, maybe grab a little something to eat, then the kids and Mom go home and I'll be back in Des Moines for another work week.