Pay to Retire?

Okay ... my wife pointed this one out to me and ... well ... it's just too wrong to not say something about it. (BBC News Article)

For those of you that don't feel like following the link the basic premise of the story is that in the UK they are discussing a plan that would require all citizens to pay up to 20,000 pounds (at today's rate that would be $32,840) in order to pay for health care costs.

Yes ... that's right ... in order to retire you would potentially have to pay the government over 30,000 dollars and in exchange "a certain amount of social care would be provided free to everyone."

...

A "certain" amount....

Um ... yeah. I'll buy that ...

So why is this being considered? Because the current system isn't 'fair enough' ... you see 75% of the population has over the 23,000 pounds limit in their retirement savings to get government funding for their care. These people often have to spend their savings on their health care ... this is just not fair!

Wait a second ... let me get this straight ... 75% of the people have over 23,000 in savings, but have to spend that on their health care and that's bad. So the answer is to seize 20,000 from them when they retire in order to, um, pay for their health care. So instead of THEM having to spend their savings for it, instead the government is simply going to SEIZE it from them before hand; yeah ... that sounds like a perfect government plan. And I'll just bet that the service they get for that 20,000 is going to be the same as if they had paid 20,000 before this government intervention.

This type of plan will likely significantly increase the demand for the public care, and likely will not significantly change the supply of personnel to handle the public care. The obvious result of which will be higher costs to the taxpayer than the 20,000 pounds will cover (as governments seem all to adept at ignoring things that will increase the costs of such programs) and worse care for the elderly that need it. This will result in elderly care being rationed even more or higher taxes on the producers of the economy, most likely it will end up being both.

Here is a thought ... lets stop worrying about being 'fair' and put some thought into things. Okay ... it sucks having to spend your 20,000 on medical care when you get older, but does having the government take that 20,000 away from you really suck any less? Is having to 'spend most of their savings on care' worse than having the government take most of their savings to pay for care? Seriously ... on what level is this even remotely logical?

Okay ... admittedly the plan does say 'make payments up to 20,000 pounds' ... so it is assumed that people with less savings would have to pay less than that ... but realistically that doesn't make the plan any better ... it will still increase the workload and cost of maintaining that public care system, and I would be willing to bet that the income generated in the end will not match the increased cost of the program. It's just another way for them to take from those that worked hard, made good choices, and saved so that they can give it to those that were too dumb or too lazy to do it for themselves.

Maybe I'm just becoming a cold hearted bastard as I get older ... but I think that more often than not in life you get what you deserve ... what you earn. I don't believe that anyone has a right to the property of another and that property includes their retirement savings. They have exchanged a part of their lives for that income in the first place, they did the right thing by saving it so that they could enjoy their retirement, they made the right choices, exercised restraint in their spending during their working years to get to the point where they could retire and have some of those savings to enjoy. Now the government wants to come along and mandate that they pay a portion of those savings to fund health care? And predominately fund health care for those that didn't work hard enough, or save smartly enough (or at all) but now want to enjoy the same care as those who did.

Those that work for it and save deserve better lives and better retirements ... those that don't ... well ... you do the math.

Excuse me, Mr. President

I have to say that the President's foreign affairs abilities have been less than stellar lately. Iran is in turmoil over and threatening, arresting, and killing their own citizens because of an election dispute, and Obama stays virtually mute on the subject. North Korea threatens to launch a missile at Hawaii (and to wipe the US off the map if we start a way .... and doing anything so much as looking at N. Korea cross eyed will be viewed as an act of war.) and Obama says nothing.

Now, in theory he stayed quiet on Iran in order to not give validity to claims that the demonstrations were a result of outside interference. It didn't work, mind you, and the Iranian 'president' called Obama out directly stating that he thought Obama would be 'different' and not 'meddle' in Iran's internal affairs ... wondering where Obama's 'change' was now.

Okay ... so seeing that keeping quiet did not work out the way that he expected along comes the situation in Honduras. For those of you that haven't been keeping up with that story I'll give you a brief run down:

President Manuel Zelaya is upset that he's nearing the end of his term ... and by the Constitution of Honduras he can not run for re-election (the president having a 1 term limit defined in the constitution.) so he demands that a ballot be taken to open a constitutional convention to change the constitution.

The Honduras Supreme Court says - 'No, you can't do that, the Constitution specifically states that only the Congress has the authority to call for such a ballot.'

President Zelaya, however, doesn't like that answer so he says that he is going to go through with the ballot anyway, and his good buddy Hugo Chavez of Venezuela prints up all the ballots and ships them over to Honduras where.

The Military seizes the illegal ballots under order of the Supreme Court and Congress.

Zelaya gets very upset about this and fires the head of the Military ... the Supreme Court steps in and again tells Zelaya that he doesn't have the authority to do that. Zelaya reluctantly reinstates him to his position.

Zelaya, however, takes the ballots and announces his intent to distribute them anyway.

The Military (with the support of the Supreme Court and Congress) arrests Zelaya and Congress names an interum President until the normal elections. The replacement is even from the same political party as now Ex-President Zelaya.

To Obama, however, this is a travesty and the new government is illegal and should return to control to the ousted President, Manuel Zelaya.

Wait a tick here ... let me make sure I've got this right.... The President is over stepping his authority left and right and blatantly defying the court and congress .... but their arresting him (in accordance with the country's constitution) is somehow illegal?

Now did Obama just jump the gun because of the criticism he received for being slow to respond to the Iran and N. Korea issues ... or is there a deeper issue?

Does he not want people to realize that a President doesn't really have ultimate power over the universe? That there are limits to the powers of a President and that a President seeking to over reach that authority can (and should) be removed as necessary to maintain a legal sanctioned government?

I mean ... if the Supreme Court of the US were to step up and say 'Excuse me, Mr. President, you do not have the right or authority to seize control of private industry, it is illegal.' What, exactly would he do? And if he continued would the Court have the guts to enforce the law and arrest him?

Various Rambles

Yes, well ... I've always been a somewhat sporadic blogger and anyone that has followed this blog will realistically know that. There have been more than a few things over the last month that I've thought about blogging, but just haven't really found the motivation to actually write them down.

Which is a shame really, because now I can't remember what some of them were ... and I had some serious rants too. *sigh*

You all already know that I'm a computer gamer, and really a MMO addict, in fact I'm presently playing Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, Guild Wars: Trilogy, and EVE Online as well as Tale 4 of A Tale in the Desert. And while that sounds like a big bunch of gaming, I'm actually managing to play them all relatively casually and still do silly things like ... oh ... yard work and my job ... as well as write and play some RockBand 2.

That is, of course, not what I came here to write about.

I want to start by expressing my sympathy and support for those protesting the Iranian elections. They are fighting a fight that I believe most Americans wouldn't have the ... ahem ... intestinal fortitude ... to fight. While I certainly believe that the elections were heavily rigged, at this point that is not the issue.

The issue is the violence and oppression that the government has used in response to the protests. Lets look through the altverse and see what things would have looked like if, after the election results, the government had not tried to censor the media and not tried to use force to intimidate the protesters. You know what happens? The story goes away. Internationally the issue evaporates ... there's no story and shortly the issue of 'were the elections rigged' disappears because it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, who is elected matters to a degree ... but if protesters had not been shot at and/or beaten by government forces ... then the rest of the world would have largely shrugged and said 'well that's their problem' and proceeded to deal with whoever was in charge. A few countries might refuse to deal with the Iranian government calling it 'illegitimate' but that is fairly unlikely and would probably have been a short term protest as a way of showboating for political favor at home than anything meaningful.

But ... when you try to limit the media ... in this day and age of technology ... you are slapping them in the face and they do NOT like it. They will find a way to report what you are trying to hide, and they will make you look bad for making them do it. On top of that the images that are coming out of Iraq do not make things look good for the establishment. Meeting protests with violence will not settle the protesters .. you might terrorize them back into quiet lives but their protest will remain, and in dark, quiet corners it will grow.

Speaking of Terrorism it seems lately that our own American government is trying to 'redefine' it a bit. Not that redefining words and meaning is anything new in this country ... the definition of 'racism' for example has been broadened to the point of being meaningless. But now you have this question on a US Department of Defense exam:

"Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?"

1. Attacking the Pentagon
2. IEDs
3. Hate crimes against racial groups
4. Protests

The correct answer (for the exam) is #4 'Protests'

Now ... last time I checked the definition of Terrorism was:

"ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) - n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Now notice the 'use or threatened use of force or violence' a 'protest' does not inherently use or threaten force or violence ... yes they can sometimes become violent, but people in bars sometimes become violent as well ... are we going to start calling anyone that goes to bars 'terrorists' because drinking in a bar 'threatens force or violence'?

I mean, come on, I didn't agree with the people protesting against the war ... but I would hardly call them terrorists. Even the protesters that went so far as to block the driveway to President George W. Bush's Texas ranch, or some of the more extreme anti-war protests in California that shouted hatred and obscenities (and in some cases spawned violence) at recruiters at military recruitment centers weren't terrorists (loons maybe, but not terrorists).

Seriously do we want to expand the definition of Terrorism to include 'a person or gathering of people expressing a disagreement with an opposing point of view.' ?

Isn't that essentially exactly what they are doing in Iran right now?

Once we allow 'Terrorism' to include 'Protests' then now, or in the future, we open the door for the government to answer any and all protests with the use of police or military force ... arresting and imprisoning protesters for 'terrorism'. Is that a road that any of us actually want to consider going down?

"We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe." - Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

Material World

Looking at the current economic crisis ... and both government spending as well as the general consumer habits over recent years it can definitely be said that 'we live in a material world' as the song goes....

But what has taken it to the level that it has reached? Certainly throughout the ages people have sought a comfortable life ... but what was it, when was it, that the norm shifted from living comfortably within your means, to living extravagantly beyond them?

William Shakespeare once wrote "Have more than thou showest; Speak less than thou knowest." ('King Lear', Act I, Scene iv) ... and while iirc the context was a little different I think that the quote aptly applies to most aspects of life. Financially speaking a family that lived moderately within their means and set aside savings would, in fact, have more than they showed ... and more importantly would likely live comfortably and have a better ability to maintain that lifestyle even in lean times.

In part I think that this is simply something that the older generations have understood better than many of us do today. Face it .... in the grand scheme of things it wasn't that long ago that a lean harvest might well mean that some people in the village didn't survive ... setting aside today's plenty for tomorrow's want was something very real ... and was the beginning of drying and otherwise preserving foods.

Today, however, that never seems to be an issue ... I'd say probably 90% of the population of the US couldn't tell you if it was a good or bad year for the crops, even based on store prices. Part of the result is we don't think about putting things aside for tomorrow, and I think that has translated into our financial habits as well ... and now we're starting to pay the price for that.

Two other factors have, of course, contributed greatly to this lifestyle of living more extravagantly than perhaps we should ... television (and to a lesser degree radio) and credit cards.

Television and radio have, over the years become more and more inundated with advertising and at the same time more people have joined the audiences of these forms of media. We are constantly bombarded by advertisements showing us the luxury and 'cool' gadgets available. The shiny new cars, the great looking food, the new and beautiful appliances ... the result is, naturally, increased desire for these items.

Radio and print ads are less effective at this largely because the moving images of television are much more pervasive to the human mind; they are alive and, thus, much more real to us.

Credit cards take this desire built by the media and its advertising, however, and give it an outlet. You don't have to have the money to pay for that new iPod now, you've got plastic fake money! And there starts the root of the problem because too often people don't view credit as 'real money'; they don't connect the charge of the item to the money that they are going to have to pay later. Usually the considerably larger amount that they will have to pay due to interest.

Credit has, of course, been around for ages, but really it has only been recently that it has become so widely available. The result is, of course, that a lot of people have received credit that were not really prepared for it ... and in some cases should never have really had it. Combine that with the recent popularity of 'micro-transactions' that make it even easier to spend large amounts of money without realizing it and you have a recipe for disaster.

For those not familiar with the term Micro-transactions it is basically things along the lines of iTunes ... transactions for (usually) virtual items at low dollar amounts. Given the 'normal' cost of items most people don't think much about spending 1 or 2 dollars for something ... it's just a little change, it won't make any difference....

But then they realize that they've downloaded 300 songs in a month at $1.50 each ..... and that $450 suddenly seems like 'something'.

The same thing applies in DC ... it's just $200,000 for this program, that's nothing. But when you cram a couple of thousand of those into a bill and the price tag goes up fast...

The problem is ... this is not a sustainable situation in our personal lives and it's not sustainable in DC either. Sooner or later that money has to be repaid ... sooner or later the interest will bury us.

At what point do we reach critical mass? At what point does the fact that the Federal Government is competing with business for the same loan money completely demolish what is left of our economy?

At what point do we realize that what we NEED to do is stop the deficit spending and get back to a responsible method of accounting on a personal level as a society ... but also on an economic level as a country ... if we don't things will not go well for us in the long term.

Of superheroes and countries

As I was sifting through a site of collected quotations (The Quotations Page) I came across several great quotes ... filing many of them in a quote file for future use. One quote in particular caught my eye and got me thinking in a way different from the others.

"About Superman and Batman: the former is how America views itself, the latter, darker character is how the rest of the world views America." - Michael Caine

This got me to thinking about things and, in general I would say that Mr. Caine is probably right, but I'm not sure that it's a bad thing. (I'm not saying that Mr. Caine is implying that it is either though I think that some people would take it that way.)

Superman is an ideal ... an invincible shining knight protecting the world from evil and corruption and upholding 'Truth, Justice and the American Way.' Generally speaking I would say that is how many Americans like to think of the US ... though in many ways I think that the ideal of Superman is dead in this day ... but that's a ramble for another time....

Batman, however, is the detective, the gritty protector of the people who's not afraid to get his hands dirty to get the job done. He is unconcerned with how he is perceived as long as, in the end, he puts the bad guys behind bars.

And that is really the difference ... Superman is always looked up to by those that he protects, while Batman is feared or disliked by those he protects, though they would still admit that they are safer with him around.

And, yes, I would say that is probably a good description of how the world views the US ... many dislike or even 'fear' us for our ability and willingness to be proactive in defending ourselves and others, but they will generally admit that the world is a safer place as a result.

In all honesty I don't know that there ever was a time when the US was ever really Superman in the eyes of the world ... and personally while I think that Superman is certainly embodies the ideal of America ... I personally would like to see us more as Iron Man - self made, strong, and always improving ourselves. Sadly I'm not sure that the American Spirit has that kind of drive any more. Maybe these tough times will re-kindle the strength of what made us the great country that we are ....

Well ... one can dream at least.

A beautifully (clouded) mind

Before I start this I'm going to define a couple of terms so that it is clear how I am using them ... these terms are often thrown around and used as political labels and, as with many words in the English language, their meaning is sometimes a moving target. To give fair credit I am taking these definitions from local Atlanta radio host Herman Cain.

Conservative - Person who believes in increased individual responsibility, decreased taxes, and less government.

Liberal - Person who believes in decreased individual responsibility, increased taxes, and more government.

Now ... some people that consider themselves 'Liberals' take offense to the 'increased taxes' part of the definition above ... but when pressed on how to pay for increased government spending they will almost all default to 'raising taxes on the rich'. Many of them will complain that they don't stand for 'decreased individual responsibility' ... and yet they will back programs such as Universal Health Care, Social Security, and Welfare, that take the responsibility for a person's well being out of the hands of individuals in favor of giving that responsibility to the government. Many of them will say that they don't want 'more government' and yet, they will go along with increased government spending, more government programs, and increased levels of government regulation in the markets....

Basically what they're saying is 'well it sounds so BAD when you put it that way.....'

Now ... on to the real reason for the rant ... my conversation a few days back with a liberal. I couldn't help but notice throughout the course of the conversation that any time I mentioned a fact, rather than disputing it he changed the subject. And THEN said that's the problem with 'you guys' ... you never give up and go all over the place.

o.O

I had to scroll back up through the conversation and make sure I wasn't loosing my mind, but there it was ... every change of subject was a result of him avoiding a fact or dodging a question. But somehow ... in his mind ... I was the one 'going all over the place'.

And when I made the statement that you "Can't spend your way out of debt." ... to him the only alternative was to 'continue to give 99% of the wealth to 1% of the country who happen to be friends....'

1 - 99% of the wealth doesn't go to 1% of the country. The top 1% of income earners in the country account for about 20% or so of the total income collected during the year. (That may be a bit off as I'm pulling that from memory but I'm pretty sure that it is under 25%) Yet if I recall correctly the pay about 35% of the income taxes that are collected for the year.
2 - That income is not GIVEN to them ... it is earned. You might not consider it work ... but they are getting paid for their knowledge and/or experience and most of them worked very hard to reach that level.

'but they aren't worth what they are paid.'

WRONG ... in a free market they are worth whatever someone is willing to pay them. People complain about the huge salaries of pro athletes as well, but it's the same dynamic ... if Team A is paying Player Z 10 million a year, and he becomes a free agent not bound by a contract, if Team B wants to hire him they are going to have to offer enough to make it worth the hassle of Player Z changing teams ... and it's probably going to be more than 10 million as he can probably make that by staying another year with Team A.

If Player Z tells Team B that he wants 15 million a year ... then they have a choice ... do they want him enough that they feel that he is worth 15 a year. If they say 'yes' and hire him for that .. guess what ... he's worth 15 million a year. If no one takes him at 15 a year and he lowers his asking price to 12 and Team C picks him up ... then he (and/or his talents) are worth 12.

Likewise these CEOs and the like are worth whatever these corporations have agreed to pay them ... that's the way it works. Sorry if you don't like that, but it is not the government's job to regulate what companies pay their executives (that is what the Board and/or the Shareholders are supposed to handle.) ... nor is it the government's job to tell companies what they can or can't pay their employees.

Then again ... we're getting into an administration that feels that it IS the government's job to manage the private sector ... and there in lies many of my problems with things.

In the end he 'tired' of our little argument and said that we didn't have any ideas other than continuing with the same thing we had for the last 8 years and that we needed to let the 'new team' have their chance to fix things.

The republicans screwed things up by not sticking to the definition of Conservative I laid out above and instead chose to grow government, increase spending, and basically act like Liberals. Sadly too many people fail to realize that the last 2 years the Senate and the House were run by the Liberal Democrats and things weren't getting better, they were getting worse ... the result is that they put DC completely in the hands of the liberals ....

It's like this ... we are driving toward a cliff .... and we need to change direction. Our driver, however, has just stomped on the gas and isn't showing any signs of turning except to get a better line on the cliff ahead .... he says that there is going to be a bridge there ... the government is going to build it for us ...

... Is anyone else looking for a parachute right about now?

The sky is falling!

I'm sure you've heard about it by now ... I mean it has dominated the news for over a week already. The H1N1 virus, more common called the swine flu, is the flavor of the month for health scares that ... based on how much media attention and coverage it is getting ... is going to wipe out the human race in the next year.

Um ... okay ... whatever.

Seriously, let's put this in perspective. The United States has a population that is listed as 306,353,082 people; we'll just call it 300,000,000 or 'over 300 million' will probably work just as well. The World Health Organization (WHO .... why do I always think of an old British Sci-Fi series?) has confirmed 985 cases in 20 countries worldwide.

Um ... 985 cases? Yeah we'll stick with the 300 million number. So if all of those 985 cases were in the U.S. we'd be talking about roughly .00033% (less than since I'm not including over 6 million people). That 985 cases are not all in the U.S., however. The rough worldwide population is 6.7 billion ... with a B.

So if my math is right we're talking about an illness that has infected roughly .0000147% or less of the worldwide population.

Admittedly this is a 'young' pandemic, being only 10 days old, but still we aren't talking about something that's burning through the population like wildfire either ... even in Mexico which has shown the heaviest concentration of confirmed cases (506 confirmed cases and 19 deaths or roughly a 3% fatality rate) we are still talking about a very small percentage of the population being infected.

Not to say that people shouldn't take reasonable precautions to avoid catching it, but I really don't believe that this is likely to balloon into something worthy of the extreme media coverage and hype that it has been getting to date.

I honestly feel that the media is making this into a much bigger issue than it is, and through their constant coverage they are, in fact, generating the panic that they are covering. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are intentionally trying to generate a panic over this flu ... rather I think in their hunger to find and report a story that they have a tendency to over dramatize the issue which creates a little fear. The media then reports on the fear, which in turn generates more fear and more news coverage....

On the political front a 'pandemic' like this and the panic (as caused and fed by the media over coverage) has a tendency to drive DC as 'justification' for Universal Health Care. The hysteria over the issue becomes an excellent vehicle for Congress to hook the wagon up to in order to lessen the opposition to the issue. 'You can't be opposed to government stepping into health care right now ... we're facing a pandemic! If the US Government doesn't step in by passing UHC this week we might never recover!'

Yes, I'm purposefully exaggerating there, but we do have a White House and Congress that doesn't like to 'let a good crisis go to waste.'

Is it serious? Yes, and people need to be aware of the dangers ... H1N1 is credited with the deaths of over 40 million people worldwide in 1918 (when it was known as the Spanish Flu). We have to accept that better medical facilities, awareness, and not being in the middle of trench warfare is likely to keep this from being quite the pandemic that the Spanish Flu turned into. (Not to mention that it's also possible (and even likely) that many of the 1918 deaths might have been incorrectly attributed to the virus.)

The other danger here is simple ... the more they blow this up now, when it's really not as big an issue as the coverage would have it seem, the less likely people are to get worked up about it later if it or another strain suddenly becomes a major threat to the health of the country ... There was the bird flu a couple of years ago, and the asian flu, and the SARS scare ... all of which certainly were dangers, but if I learned anything over the years it is that the more you cry 'wolf' over this or any other such issue (hurricanes, etc) the more likely people are to ignore it when the 'real thing' comes along.

The 'right' to health care

I'll keep this short ....

There isn't one.

You do not have a 'right' to health care ... it is not the government's JOB to provide health care. I will grant you that legislating that a doctor or hospital can not deny health care based on race or religious beliefs would be reasonable, but I believe that is already covered under existing laws.

Why isn't there a 'right' to health care ... because it is an individual responsibility. You are responsible for your own health care. For there to be a 'right' to health care then you as an individual (or us as a collective group) would have to have the ability to claim a 'right' to a portion of someone else's life. You (or we) would have to be able to say to a doctor 'you must spend your time to treat me.'

Time is the ultimate resource ... that is to say it is completely irreplaceable. If you claim a right to that doctor's time, you are claiming a right to a resource that they absolutely can not replace, ever. True ... you may only use a half hour this month, and another half hour a few more months later ... but you see ... if YOU have a 'right' to his time, so does everyone else. And ultimately that means that everyone has a 'right' to his time except the doctor.

The flip side is ... if the government has the power to claim the time of one person or profession (health care providers) then they have the power to claim the time of all people. That means a right to Electricians, Plumbers, Salespeople, and you.

'It can not be considered a right if someone else has to pay for it.' - Ayn Rand

One of the reasons that health care costs are so high, and also the reason that many emergency rooms are struggling lately is the cost of caring for those that don't have insurance and can't pay for the services. This causes two things to happen ... first, the hospital has to charge the other patients a higher price to cover the patients that can't pay (of course this has the ripple effect of causing more people to be unable to pay); and secondly, the hospital needs to get funds from the government to make up the difference.

Medical care is not free folks ... like any other business they have expenses. When you go see your doctor you are paying his salary, the nurses salary, the receptionist's salary, the electric bill, phone bill, water bill, office supply costs, equipment costs, etc. Admittedly you're only paying a percentage, but that is what you're paying for ... and remember that those salaries there are to reimburse those people for the TIME that they spend on the job. By claiming a 'right' to health care you are saying that you own that time and shouldn't have to pay for it ... it is your right.

There is no 'right to health care' listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights ... heck originally health care was taken care of completely by individuals ... then at some point, businesses competing for employees came up with the idea of including health care insurance as part of the benefits of the job as a means of attracting more and better employees (and/or paying employees less due to the money saved by coving their health care.) ... so what happened?

Those people that didn't get the jobs with the benifits ... who didn't want to take less money or who just didn't want to work harder to achieve that level of value to an employer cried 'foul' and eventually someone in government said 'hey ... you know ... I can get a lot of votes if I say that I'll make these big companies give their employees health benifits.' And sure enough ... they did ... and they passed a law saying that companies larger than X had to provide health coverage to all full time employees ... and then eventually the expanded on that ... and expanded on it again.

Until now ... you have a large portion of the population that believe that it is the employer's responsibility to GIVE them health coverage ... it's not their responsibility at all; it is something that is supposed to be given to them. And since it's something that should be given to everyone, why shouldn't it be the government that does the giving?

No ... in fact if government had stayed OUT of the equation all together we would probably have a lot better health system than we do already.....

Medicare and Medicaid ... the current government run health systems ... is that REALLY what you want in health care? Can anyone name one thing that the government does efficiently? All studies show that private market solutions with minimal or no governmental regulations produce cheaper, more efficient solutions ... and yet the people of this country seem more than happy to just throw more money at the government so they can get free health care....

On the one hand I want it to happen so that when it does go to hell I can sit back and say 'I told you' ... on the other hand I don't want to be here to deal with it....

The bipartisan 'change' in DC

Okay, I said before that I'm not going to get into a breakdown of Obama's 100 days. I did, however, run across a couple of articles that I felt were worth mentioning. First was the NY Post's 100 days, 100 mistakes
and the second was CNN's Bipartisanship didn't last long in Obama's first 100 days.

The first is a long article, but worth a read, the second has a few clips in it that I want to make a few points about.

Specifically that Obama and his 'unity would overtake partisanship' have done next to nothing to make that happen. During the campaign and in his inaugural speech Obama repeatedly stated that he would reach across the proverbial aisle ... and yet the 'stimulus' package that was passed by the House completely rejected any and all Republican ideas with House Speaker Pelosi refusing to even hear or debate most of them.

In fact, at every turn on every bill they have simply used the Democratic majority to steamroll through things exactly as they want them, ignoring any opposition or suggested compromise entirely.

And now ... as they set their sights on Health Care Reform they have invoked a new tool ... lets call it the 'Budget Reconciliation Gag.'

Basically President Obama included a line item in his budget for 'health care reform' .... so the Senate can pass a health care reform bill by a simple majority and ... here's the best part ... it can't be filibustered!

That's right boys and girls ... they can pass socialized medicine with a simple party line vote. They can completely gag the minority and do whatever they want ... and if they get it done before the 2010 elections there is NOTHING you can do to stop them.

That reason alone has 'lit a fire' under the Democrats to get a lot of the big things passed quickly and UHC and Pelosi's beloved Climate Change bills are the next things in the barrel to be pushed onto the American people regardless of if they are wanted or needed ... or for that matter if they are good for the country or not.

This is why the founding fathers of the country were suspicious of big government ... why they felt and why they wrote that government should be handled primarily at the state and local level. Because what is going on in DC most definitely effects me, my family, and probably many future generations ... but it will be decided almost entirely by people that I have no say in electing.

In the Senate I have access and some form of control to 2 votes .... 2 out of 100 ... in the House I have access to 1 ... of over 200 votes (I don't remember exactly how many seats are currently in the House of Representatives) .....

We need to take control of this country back people ... if we want our voices heard we are going to have to stand up and stand together like we haven't done in a long time ... the Tea parties were a start, but they have to be that ... a START .... we have to keep up the pressure ... we have to let them know that we're fed up with the spending (yes it started under Bush ... yes, Obama 'inherited' the situation (just as Bush inherited a recession from Clinton though people like to forget that) but doubling the spending in 4 months is NOT the answer to the spending problem ... it's the anti-answer.

We have to make our voices heard ... and the harder that they try to push us aside or gag us, the louder we need to shout. Because if we don't then the country we grew up in is going to disappear ... vanish into a world of mediocrity and government control, and in the end everyone will finally have the same thing .... nothing.

100 days

Actually I'm not going to write anything about President Obama's first 100 days in office .... if you want that there are going to be plenty of news stories and analysis columns out there with out me throwing in my 2 cents worth. I think most of you can probably figure out my opinion of how the present administration is going without me having to specifically spell it out.

What I am going to ramble on about for a bit is Janet Napolitano, the current Head of the Department of Homeland Security (or whatever the actual title is). Where in the hell did President Obama dig her up? I mean she starts off by issuing a report (that was first bounced but she decided to go ahead and make it public anyway) that in very broad sweeping terms called anyone who believed in secure boarders, owned weapons, and were white Americans 'right wing extremists' that needed to be watched as potential terrorists. Compounding that the report claimed that such organizations were increasing their activity and military personnel were at risk of being recruited into such organizations (and thus also needed to be watched).

Seriously? Yeah, the report is so broad with its definition of 'right wing extremists' that I could basically be considered a domestic terrorist. Isn't this FUN? I wonder if they've started the wiretaps yet.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm not saying that there are no groups in the US that are right wing extremists and I dare say that there are a few that are probably deserving of the term 'terrorist' and should be monitored closely by authorities, but when you make your definition and profile so broad that a good 50% or so of the nations population fit the criteria, it becomes meaningless and nothing more than a political attack on people who have an opposing viewpoint.

But Janet Napolitano wasn't done there ... no no no. She had to drag her office down even further with the following gem:

"(in reference to illegal aliens) ... when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil."

Civil? WRONG.

Crossing the boarder illegally is .... dun dun DA ... ILLEGAL and thus it is a crime. In fact the first offense is a misdemeanor, the second is a FELONY. If they did not immigrate into this country through legal channels then they broke the law, and every day that they continue to stay in this country they continue to break it. They may obey every other law perfectly (though many do not) but they are still willingly breaking the law every day and are, thus, CRIMINALS.

They may be perfectly nice people, but if they do not have a basic respect for the laws of this country then they do not have any respect for what this country stands for and they do not belong here. I don't care what the Head of Homeland Security says.

The day after

Well ... tax day is come and gone again. Hope everyone enjoyed their chance to write out a check and pay the government for their continued incompetence. Yesterday's rant was perhaps a bit cut short, but a power outage at the office really cut into my day, so I didn't get a chance to cover some of the things I wanted to. We're going to move forward though and discuss some of the comments I've heard this morning regarding the TEA parties yesterday.

"It's anti-government ... promoted by the right wing conservative Network Fox News ..." - CNN reporter Susan Roesgen

Now, I'd be willing to bet that had it been a Liberal anti-war protests then it would have been a 'gathering of concerned citizens protesting the atrocities of our military.' without any mention of 'liberal' or 'left wing' labels. But since it is a group of American citizens protesting the taxes that our government places on them then they are 'anti-government' and the protests are organized by the 'right wing conservative network.'

Where in protesting taxes is anyone saying that there shouldn't be a government? Yes, many are saying that there is 'too much government' sure, but that doesn't mean that we are 'anti-government' ... there is a vast world of difference between those two points of view.

Also, yes, there are a large majority of the protesters that are conservative in their views, but not all are 'right wing' and most of them would not realistically be considered 'extremists' by a long shot. Many are Libertarian or 'centralist' in their views and simply believe that they should be allowed to keep what they work hard to earn without fear of the government stepping in to take from them in order to give to someone else.

And no, she's not the only reporter that did this or will do it today, she just happens to be the one that I heard a sound bite of this morning on the way to work. ACORN (the far left 'community' organization that was under investigation for registering dead people to vote) said on the 14th that 'these protests are organized by a small group of fringe radicals dedicated to saying no.' And I'd be willing to bet that I can find similar quotes in the NY Times, LA Times, AJC, and probably on most of the national news networks.

Now, however, I want to move on to a bigger figure in this country and some of his statements yesterday. Specifically President Obama and his statement that "government that is working to create jobs and opportunity for them, rather than simply giving more and more to those at the very top..."

Wait a sec ... he didn't really say 'give' there did he?

I work for my paycheck .... and let me tell you it is a rare week that I only work 40 hours. And last time I looked at my paycheck the government hadn't given me any part of it ... in fact they had taken a pretty good chunk OUT of it. And you know what ... that's the same for everyone that works here ... including the 'rich' business owner.

I don't want the government creating jobs .... I want private industry creating jobs ... I don't want the government to take my bosses wealth to give to me (or anyone else) because if I want to earn more and succeed and I am successful I don't want them taking MY income to spread it around either.

I don't want the government to make everyone 'equal' by tearing down those at the top to make everyone equally poor ... I want the government to stay out of the way and let the achievers achieve and succeed and prosper so that the people that they employ and support through their success prosper with them.

I am not fortunate ... I did not come by anything I have from an unexpected source ... I've worked for every dime, every game, every TV in my house. I've made some mistakes, certainly, but I learned from them and made the adjustments that I needed to make myself more financially sound and secure. I work for what I make, and I make what I earn ... I want the government to get it's mits out of my wallet and let ME spend MY money as I see fit and on the things that I feel need to be supported.

It has been shown repeatedly that private charity can do more with less than the government .... and yet the government seems to feel that it is somehow their job to take that responsibility from us. Charitable donations are down DRASTICALLY since Obama took office ... why? Because he has lowered the tax deduct ability of those donations AND raised the tax rates ... so ... as a result ... government expects to have to step in and help cover that difference by expanding government assistance programs.

The only sector in this economy that is growing is Government ... but government doesn't produce anything all it does is spend money.

Happy Tax Day

Things are a little crazy at the office today so my time to ramble is a bit limited, but I didn't want to let today go by without saying something about the tax system in this country.

The fact that this system ever got passed is a testament to the shortsightedness of people.

'Well lets get a tax system that punishes success with harsher punishment for greater success. Even better lets take the money directly out of their paychecks so that they don't even get to have the money in the first place. Then, we'll have them spend hours and weeks of time to get their information together and file paperwork to make sure that we withheld the right amount so that we can give those that overpaid their change, and collect from those that underpaid.'

'To process this mountain of otherwise unnecessary paperwork we'll form a new bureaucracy and give them the power to call any citizen in to defend their tax paperwork with the assumption that they are guilty unless they can provide evidence that they are not; and if they can't then we'll hit them with massive additional fees and penalties.'

Come on ... does anyone think that this sounds like a good idea? Now admittedly it wasn't presented in exactly those words, but they were the effect.

We have GOT to do something about this absurd system of taxation in this country. At the very least the level of taxation needs to be dealt with before the country implodes. We are chasing jobs, and productive people out of this country like mad.

Wake up people and get active ....

Deep Six the Pirates

As I'm sure by now most of you have already heard, pirates have boarded a US ship, taken a crew of US citizens captive, and subsequently been thrown off the ship by the same US crew. Presently they are holding the captive of the ship hostage on a life boat that is out of fuel, floating on the sea.

The US has a navy ship in the area watching the situation and waiting.

The ship itself is now out of the area and headed to a safe port under escort. But what is the US response to this going to be? What should it be?

First, you have the company that owns the ship, Maersk Line Ltd., has asked that no military action be taken, and stated that they are willing to pay up to 10 million US dollars in ransom for the safe return of the captain.

I think that it is very admirable that they are willing to pay that for the safety of their employee, don't get me wrong. But do they realize that, at the same time, they are further endangering future shipping in the area, particularly ships of their line? This is not the first such attack where these pirates have seized commercial ships and held them for ransom recently .... it is, however, the first US ship and US crew that has been attacked. If the ransom is payed, it will not be the last.

Likewise there is the fact that these pirates have already gone back on one deal to release the captain. The crew of the ship agreed to release a pirate they had captured in exchange for the captain; when they released the pirate safely, however, the pirates refused to release the captain as agreed. So what assurance do we really have that the pirates in anyway intend to release the captain at all?

So ... let's weigh the options:

1 - We (or Maersk Line Ltd.) pays the ransom and the captain is released safely.

But, as above, we have encouraged the behavior by giving the pirates what they want, virtually ensuring that they (or another group who sees that it worked this time) will hijack another ship.

2 - We (or Maersk Line Ltd.) pays the ransom and once the captain is safely released we hit the pirates, killing or 'arresting' them.

Since the ransom is not likely to be delivered to a lifeboat off the coast of Africa, however, you are most likely going to end up with a situation where the leader gets away with the cash and you catch the thugs he uses for muscle. Since those are relatively easy to replace (lets face it ... this isn't exactly highly technical 'skilled' labor we're talking about) you end up with all the disadvantages of #1 above, as well a having to deal with any captured pirates. With this administration these would likely be well treated and tried in US courts with full constitutional protections (including a tax payer funded defense), turned over to a local government that won't do anything, or turned over to the UN with the same results.

3 - Military strike/rescue - Use any and all means necessary to take out the pirates with extreme prejudice while attempting to rescue the captain.

A tough option that puts the poor captain in grave danger, no doubt about it. But as I've said in previous posts actions have consequences and you need to look beyond this one captain. I know it sounds cold and heartless, but if they get away with this you can expect more ... and sooner or later they will kill someone, possibly an entire crew.

I'm sorry, I don't believe in playing patty cakes with people that will threaten the lives of American citizens. Hit them hard, and don't let any walk (or swim) away. Find their base ship and put it to the bottom, if it goes into a port demand that the local government seize and surrender the ship and crew and make it clear that if they do not that we WILL take action if they do not. When they do not, hit the ship and send it to the bottom where it sits in port.

Send the message that messing with any ship flying the US flag is a very very BAD idea.

Thomas Jefferson dealt with a similar situation with the Barbary pirates early in his Presidency ... you know what his ultimate answer was to their demands to pay ransom in order to use the shipping lanes? He sent the navy over and bombarded Tripoli and lo and behold the shipping lanes cleared up ... not just for the US, but for France and Britain (both of whom had previously been paying the ransom) as well.

There is a time for diplomacy ... when someone is threatening you is not the time to appear weak.

Still alive and other random thoughts

Man ... I can't believe it's been this long since I last blogged. I'm not going to try and make excuses; I've had plenty of opportunity over the last 4 months to post, I just haven't felt particularly bloggy. Not that I've really been doing anything particularly productive in that time .... just letting myself slide back into my old lazy habits.

Likewise I'm not going to say that I'm going to get back to blogging regularly, though I do plan to try.

Well ... what can I say. President Obama is doing about as well as I expected. He is poised to grow the government more in 1 year than it has grown under Carter, Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. combined. He is setting up to push us forward into 'universal health care' and is slowly seizing the financial sector of this country. He is doing in 2009/2010 what, less than 30 years ago we would have run people out of the country for even suggesting.

Seriously, what previous administration would have had the gall to ask Congress for the power to 'seize control of troubled financial institutions whose failure could harm the economic situation' without oversight or approval by any other branch?

Here again we see the government grossly overstepping its bounds and trying to protect us from any and all forms of failure. Look sometimes we NEED to fall on our backsides and pick ourselves back up, it's how we learn and improve. This whole 'we need to bail out industry 'x' so they don't go bankrupt and harm the economy. The problem is, of course, that the bailout itself harms the economy ... and at some point those companies are, more than likely, going to fail anyway. Because eventually the government is going to go broke and it won't be able to bail them out and they will fail; and it will probably be a lot worse for everyone than if we just let them fail now and let a newer, stronger, company fill their shoes.

But that would be the Free Market solution to the problem ... and it seems that more and more people don't like that whole 'free' word and would like it replaced with 'government controlled'. Move to a 'government controlled' market and you don't have to worry about anything because the 'government' will have everything under 'control' and you can go to work happy every day in your government job with your government provided meals, and health care, and housing.

You won't have to worry about your house payment, the government will provide you the living space they believe that you need. No need to worry about your raise this year, the government will make sure you have what you need. Won't life be grand when all we have to do is let the government tell us what we want to be happy?

Wake UP people. This pipe dream has NEVER worked because it runs against the grain of human nature.

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. - Margret Thatcher.

A government big enough to give you what you want, is also big enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson.

People

... make me crazy sometimes ... okay ... most of the time.

The weather here has been .... dreary, to put it nicely. And yesterday it was a gray foggy drive into work ... and that was at one in the afternoon. And yet, with crappy visibility, wet roads, and poor driving conditions half of the idiots on the road didn't take basic safety precautions.

Look, I'm no angel behind the wheel. I generally speed slightly and there are times that I follow closer than I should. I don't always stop completely at a stop sign, and I have pulled through a red light (after sitting at it for 5 minutes with no other traffic visible). BUT visibility is everything. Half of these people didn't have their headlights on.

It was 1 in the afternoon, why should they use their headlights? They could see just as well without them.

Yes they could ... having them on or off made no difference in how well I could see. I know, however, that it made a HUGE difference in how well others could see me ... because I know how much difference it made in how well I could see a car that had their lights on verses how well I could see one with them off.

Drives me nuts ....

While it wasn't an issue yesterday ... people that drive in the fog at night, early morning or evening, and use their high beams also drive me nuts. Heck as it is I drive at night on a dark road with no street lights going home at around 11pm and even on a clear night I almost never use my brights, but I swear that there is a large portion of the driving population that believes that they have to have their high beams on all the time or they can't drive.

Ah well ... this was really a pointless rant ... just needed to vent a bit ... I think that the gray weather and dull nights at work are starting to turn my brain to mush.....

I'm back....

... again.

Wow ... this year has really blown by and it's December already. I have some more normal rambling to do, but for now I just wanted to catch up on the last several months.

September saw the launch of WAR a fantasy based MMO set in the Games Workshop Warhammer setting. As a long time player of MMOs, Painter of GW models, player of Warhammer Fantasy RPG (back in the day) and player of the GW tabletop games in general I was a natural to be interested. As this isn't really a game based blog I'm not going to go into a full review, but I was pleased over all, Mythic did a really good job (in my opinion) of capturing the feel of the Warhammer universe and creating a game that was fun to play.

During this time the wife and I also dove back into working on our art at Grimscale Studios and have even made prints available of our newer pieces. While I'd LIKE to say that this has led to a windfall of print sales and requests from major museums to display our pieces, it has not. But really we are just doing it because we enjoy the creative process and creating something that is visually interesting is our main reward.

Speaking of the Creative Process ... we also participated in the 10th Anniversary of NaNoWriMo. It was as frantic and exciting as ever with work being a major hassle. However, my biggest hurdle was my own dissatisfaction with how the novel was dragging. I went from being caught up and even a little ahead to falling way behind to the point that going into the final (thankfully long) weekend I still needed over 20,000 words. Thanks to some well timed 'motivation' from my wife I managed to finish at 51,309 words before midnight November 30th.

Which pretty much brings us to now ... I may have mentioned it here a couple of years ago, but a game that my wife and I have enjoyed is starting a new Tale this weekend. The game is an MMO but is unlike any other MMO I've ever played, and that is part of what keeps drawing us back. The game in question is A Tale in the Desert which will launch its fourth telling on Saturday the 13th of December 2008.



Part of what sets A Tale in the Desert apart is that it is a crafting/socialization based game rather than the normal combat focus of most games in that genre. My plan is to start up a new blog with more of a focus on games/art/music so I'll save detailed info on ATitD for there, but I'll post a link to that once I get it set up.

I plan to get back to writing here on a more regular basis again and I'm stocking up some rants and rambles to take the Path of Bones into a new year. "Change" is in the air now and 2009 promises to be an 'interesting' year ...

The Palin Choice

McCain followed Obama's acceptance speech by announcing his Vice Presidential pick the next day ... I'm sure everyone has heard the name by now - Sarah Palin. Well ... I think that's a decision that took everyone by surprise, but I think it's a good thing and made for the right reasons.

Let's step back and take a look at this for a minute - John McCain turned the election on its proverbial ear with this announcement ... completely stealing Obama's spotlight less than 24 hours after he had accepted the appointment. It is an announcement that the democratic candidate still has not recovered from, and Palin is an opponent that Obama (and his camp) was completely unprepared for.

We'll start with some of her negatives -

She's young - Actually not a negative in a Vice President in my opinion, but people have called it a negative ... the Democrats, however, can't really do much with this as their Presidential candidate is only a couple of years older. Personally I don't necessarily consider Obama's youth a negative either except for....

Inexperience - Okay ... she is, in fact, inexperienced in the job of Vice President and in certain areas of federal politics ... again, in my opinion this is not a problem in a VP. Democrats are saying that it negates Obama's inexperience ... Ah ... not so fast there sparky ... experience is more important to the man in charge than it is for his second in command. The VP can learn from working with the President and as the VP has considerably less direct responsibility it is a job that lends itself to someone with less experience.

The Democrats keep saying that Obama has more experience from managing his campaign than she does from being governor ... well then what does Obama's campaign manager get paid for ... is Obama going to handle a President Manager to manage the office of the President if he gets elected?

She didn't write her acceptance speech - Well DUH! Reagan didn't write his speeches, Clinton didn't write his (or hers depending on which Clinton you're talking about) ... and guess what ... Obama didn't write his either. Political speech writers write political speeches ... the candidates (or elected official in question) may edit them a bit, add some of their own personal touches and personality to them, but the bulk of the speech is written by someone that got paid to do it.

She accepted federal earmarks that she claims to be against - This one has gotten a lot of play over the last couple of days with even Obama himself accusing the Governor of 'trying to re-invent herself' (hel-LO ... pot, meet kettle) ... the thing is, it's not an issue. First she has no control over the federal budget, and once allocated the money belongs to the state ... she couldn't exactly give it back. Secondly states should fight to get federal dollars for projects (more on this in another rant) so I don't feel that getting it is a problem ... it is up to the Senate and President to stop earmarks .... not the States.

If you want to look at her views on government budget you have to look at what she's done as governor of Alaska ... and that is cut the budget ... cutting $237 million, the second largest cuts in the state's history.

She should put her family first - Okay ... this one about killed me. The democratic party ... the party of women's rights ... of 'you can have a career and a family too' ... saying that a woman should basically stay home to take care of her family .... I feel like I'm suddenly in bizzaro world. Do they really think that people are that stupid? Do they think that the voters that they need to win over in order to win the election are going to be swayed by THAT? How about a discussion about the issues? Oh ... wait ... they can't talk about those people might become informed, and THEN they'd be screwed.

Is Sarah Palin perfect? No, I disagree with several of her overly conservative social views, but I'm less worried about that in a Vice President than I am about economic issues where I largely agree with her. She is, however, a fresh face in the race, someone not corrupted by Washington ... she brings a fresh view and a drive for cutting budgets and a strong record on ethics issues ... an area that I feel that Washington could use some shaking up on. She has certainly had the political fortitude to stand up against her own party when she felt it was what was best.

What do I think McCain's next steps should be ... he needs to link Obama to the last two years in Congress where the democratic majority has blatantly played party politics and refused to do anything on the issues; preferring instead to 'make sure that President Bush is seen as nothing but a failure' (I'm sure that's not the exact quote from democratic leaders in congress but that was the basic premise) ... all of which has lead to Congress' lowest approval rating on record.

McCain needs to point out the glaring holes (and recent reversals) in Obama's economic policies, while at the same time making the case, in 'layman' terms about his own policies. One of the key tactics of the democrats in every election is to play on people's emotion, fears and desires ... they do this very effectively ... the play on the fact that most Americans don't understand economics in the least and that any attempt to explain it will likely be considered 'boring' or simply incomprehensible.

McCain/Palin have a solid hold on the conservative vote ... but that isn't going to win them the election (just as the liberal vote will not win the election for Obama) ... the undecided voter and/or the moderate liberals (the so called Regan Democrats) are where McCain needs to focus ... show support for small businesses and show how the McCain policies will help protect them, or how the Obama policies will hurt them or leave them vulnerable ... point out that high corporate tax rates are hurting the American workers and consumers ... show how Ireland, by lowering its corporate taxes has attracted businesses, jobs, and how its economy is booming as a result. Show the increase in layoffs directly following the recent increase in minimum wage .... link Obama to the earmarks that he contributed to ....

Of course the challenge is going to be getting the media to cover such stories and prying people away from Hollywood Reporter long enough to actually get any of this through to them.

On Conventions and Campaigns

Well it seems that we're in the political convention phase of the election. Where all the Democrats gather together for a big pep rally behind their candidate for a week and then all the Republicans gather to do the same thing for their candidate. In theory this is where the candidates leave the generalities behind and get down to the meat of their plans for this country.

Right now the Democrats are getting ready to crown their king and hoist their war banners to carry their 'change' to the White House in November. They are, however, still a house divided with Obama and Clinton supporters sniping at each other as they point their fingers at McCain and sneer 'rich man' while watching images of Ted Kennedy on his yacht. (Not taking a shot at Kennedy here ... but the hypocrisy is so thick that it's blinding them.)

And Joe Biden for VP? Obama is trying to grasp on to his experience while he previously said that you did not need experience. Biden on the other hand is well known for saying that the office of the President was not one that you could learn on the job. Biden, like Obama is known to be a elegant speaker, but also like Obama he is known to not do well 'off the cuff' ... he is also known for being a left wing 'politics as usual' type of politician rather than an agent of 'change'.

Obama wants to let the generally called 'Bush' tax cuts expire, he has said that he wants to raise corporate taxes, he opposes new drilling, nuclear energy, and coal use, and he wants to increase spending on foreign aid and social programs (such as national health care and 'assistance' programs). The expiration of the tax cuts, and increase in corporate taxes, however, will not cover the costs of the programs that he supports, and when questioned about it had no answers as to where the additional money would come from.

When an interviewer mentioned the historical fact that every increase in taxes has resulted in lower federal taxes collected and a general slowdown in the economy and asked why Obama supported increasing taxes, Obama could only come up with 'to be more fair.'

Yes, it will be more fair .... more minimum wage employees will loose their jobs, unemployed people will have a harder time finding jobs. Yeah ... it will be fair, all right, as prices go up across the board to cover the increased corporate taxes, more companies will move out of the US in favor of countries like Ireland where the tax rate is already 20% lower than the US corporate rate as it stands. More foreign companies will be buying US companies (such as the sale of Anheuser-Busch in July to foreign InBev) and replacing management personnel with their own.

Certainly I don't claim that the Republicans have all the answers, Bush certainly allowed congress to dig this country deeper into debt.* They failed to effectively use their leverage in the first six years of "W"s Presidency to advance energy independence issues as well as Social Security and Tax reform. In part this was due to some of the dirty politics employed by the Democrats, but in general it was simply a lack of backbone on the part of the Republicans trying to 'reach across the aisle' to a party that wasn't reaching back.

McCain, however, has expressed a desire to lower the corporate tax rates, make the 'Bush' tax cuts permanent, and cut 'pork' out of the budget. All of which would be very good things, not just for the 'rich' but for pretty much every American in terms of better economic growth and jobs. Can he deliver on these if elected? I think he has as much chance as Obama does for a lot of it, and since cutting 'pork' can be achieved through Presidential Veto that is, at least, something he can control directly without having to have it passed through congress first.

So why are so many Americans bouncing up and down waving Obama posters? Basically, ignorance. Ignorance of economics, ignorance of capitalist free market, ignorance of history and general social ignorance. No ... I'm not an expert on any of those factors myself, but I recognize that and look for more information to learn something about them. Most Americans, however, do not.

Lets take Health Care for example ... most people, through lack of understanding, and emotion, have come to believe that the only way to fix the system is through government. They see the fact that most people cannot afford health care (or insurance) and they believe that the government should come in and 'fix' the problem.

Now ... aside from the fact that it's not the government's job to make sure people have health care ... and aside from the fact that there are several ways to 'fix' the system that actually involve LESS government instead of more ... let me just ask you one question: Name one thing that the government has done more efficiently than the private sector.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone say how efficient or helpful a government office was? When was the last time you heard about a government project coming in on time and under budget? Now how often do you hear about government waste and inefficiency? And people think that the government can manage Health care effectively? Most of these people will complain about the clerks at the tag office, or that the DOT doesn't know what the heck it's doing, but national health care ... THAT will be different.

No, no it won't, it will cost the tax payers of this country much much more than it will be worth and the quality of care provided will be less than we have now. It doesn't matter how many facts or how much logic or evidence you give to these people it won't make a bit of difference, because they have come to see it as their right ... they are entitled to health care dammit and the government should give it to them.

Well ... I got a bit sidetracked on this rant ... but I think that the general point is still there. Sadly I think that the entitlement mentality of this country has just about reached the point where national health care is pretty much inevitable, unfortunately once it gets established ... like any other government program ... we'll be unable to get rid of it.

*-I have been gathering info on an article about the national debt over the years and while "W" certain made things a lot worse it wasn't as rosy under Clinton as some people would have you believe.

In our own hands

Okay ... a friend recently linked an article to me from CNN about a man in Texas that shot two people that had apparently broken into his neighbor's house. (CNN Story)

The article mentions at one point that activists were upset that the shooter "took the law into his own hands" .... Well ... for those of you that may have forgotten, the power of law comes from the citizens. It is both our right and our responsibility as citizens to uphold the law as well as to protect ourselves. Some of you might want to look over that last sentence again ... paying particular attention to the last two words 'protect ourselves'.

Now ... I'll admit that the article does raise some questions as to whether the shooter was really protecting himself (or his neighbor's property) given that it says that he shot both men in the back. But I have to assume in some regard that despite the apparent lean of the article the man did in fact act in self defence, or was at least able to convince a Texas grand jury that he was.

You'll hear that phrase 'took the law into their own hand' in any situation in which someone uses force (particularly deadly force) to protect themselves (or their property) or someone else. The truth is, however, that self defense is not taking the law into our own hands ... it's not just our RIGHT to do it ... it is our responsibility to do it.

Some people seem to believe that we're just supposed to let criminals break the law and then get the police to go after them. Bearing in mind that the police are, by nature of the law, unable to get involved until AFTER a law is broken. These people seem to essentially believe that it is the responsibility of Government to protect us in all situations .... well I hope you never find yourself staring down the barrel of a home invader's handgun waiting for the Government to come protect you.

The better armed and self defended the population is ... the lower the crime rate. This can be seen in several studies done over the last 10-20 years ... areas in which the laws are more lenient on gun ownership and self defense generally have less crime than areas that regulate these things more strictly.

Every citizen of this country has a hand in enforcing the law ... if less people chose to surrender that right to the government this country would likely be a much safer place to live.

Political Smoke

Okay ... it's an election year, so as can be expected in my line of work I've been seeing a lot of political garbage. We do a lot of post production work for various political candidates around the country in our little facility, and I get to work on most of them. As I've said before this has made me a tad bit jaded as can be expected ... it also helps me see a little more of the political smoke that these candidates blow in our face hoping to obscure our vision as election time approaches.

I bring this up because I just worked on a job for a candidate (who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty) last week that was all upset because his opponent (the incumbent) had voted against an increase in taxes to fix a bridge, and instead proposed allowing a private firm to fix the bridge and charge a toll to recoup the cost of the repairs over 5-10 years.

OMG ... we can't allow private companies to do things, people might get the idea that they are responsible and ... gasp ... can do things better than the government.

His statement that 'working people shouldn't have to pay a toll to go to work' will probably play well ... but it's just smoke. His plan, for example, is to add a 'temporary' 1% increase to the state sales tax to pay for the repairs over the next 5 years ...

Now I want to take a quick poll ... when was the last time that you heard of such a 'temporary' measure ending? I can tell you here in GA there was a big stink not long ago when ... after 5 years ... the temporary tax increase that was supposed to retire wasn't. Why? because the State government (much like the federal government) can't cut spending to save their own mother's life. They aren't going to lower taxes (particularly a sales tax) and loose that revenue stream ... they just come up with a new project to spend the money on .... like repaving sections of SR211 that they just completely resurfaced 2 years ago and that don't so much as have a crack in them.
In short ... under his plan the repairs will be finished in 5 years ... after which point they'll come up with some other justification for keeping the additional 1% tax. Chances are that the work done by the state crews will be inferior to the work that would have been done by the private firm ... will likely cost more ... and take longer to get finished (snarling up traffic longer).

Why do I say that? Simple ... Government has zero motivation to do things quickly or efficiently ... or correctly for that matter. In fact ... most government motivation comes from adding more jobs to the government payroll and, thus, increasing their own loyal army of government workers .... what government worker is going to vote for someone that wants to cut spending, cut government employment, or otherwise actually do the things that need to be done to actually get the government back under control?

Now ... could a toll on the bridge go longer than the set time? Not if the government does it's job in the matter. There is the matter that the people paying for the bridge repair would be the people using the bridge as well ... not some family on the other side of the state that may never even be in the city, much less drive across the bridge.

This goes back to the intended role of government ... and the fact that we've lost sight of that roll. The people that should be responsible for the maintenance of the bridge are, indeed, those people whose lives are impacted by the bridge. We've gotten so used to the fact that we pay for anything and everything in this country in some way, shape, or form, that we just accept that the government is going to take our money and use it to do things that we may not agree with in a completely different state, that we don't think a thing about the state taking our money to use in a different city ...

Likewise people feel that they are entitled to have their lives 'enriched' through the money of others in this country .... a lot of things that should be handled on a state or local level have been passed up to the federal government .... so instead of paying the State tax for the things that the State needs to do ... you pay a little to State and a lot to the Federal so that the Federal money can be fought over and divided up and then sent to the State ... causing, by the nature of such things, additional waste through additional payroll and time loss.

Why has it come to this? Simple ... this way we can pretend that our little city isn't paying for the 5 million dollars in road work ... we're only paying a portion of it and the Federal government is paying the rest of the bill ... of course in reality we're probably paying more than we would be if we paid for the whole thing ourselves.