Monday, September 17, 2007

The Bitch Is Back

Drum roll, please, Ladies and Gentlemen! For today is a momentous day in American history!

Yep, get ready folks, HillaryCare is back!

Because, prior public response be damned, The Socialist Revolution must go on!!

All that remains is for her to pull off this magic act of convincing voters that she is, in fact, sufficiently 'moderate' enough to be representative of more than just the people of San Francisco; thus enabling her to bring the re-birth of this great catastrophe to its full and inevitable conclusion.

God save the USA.

HillaryCare, naturally, had to come back with a bang, and so it did. Right out of the gate, she dove headfirst into the classic Hillary/Socialist position of outlandish ridiculousness. Don't believe me? Check out what she said about her proposed plan for 'Universal Health Care:'

"This is not Government-run."

No really, she actually said that. Honestly, the sheer laughability and idiocy of that remark could, by itself, stand alone as a testament to the idiocy of her program - but I just-so-happen to be in the Hillary-bashing mood, so I'll continue. This non-government-run program is going to cost the Federal government a cool $110 Billion (money which they obviously won't control - because it's not government-run. Really, I swear). I mean seriously, she thinks the Federal Government is going to magically drop $110 Billion smackaroos on something and not retain at least some degree of control over how that money is used?!?!? The implications of Government bankrolling, to any degree, a certain system are not difficult to determine. Just look at similar initiatives in our own country. In the 1960's, many Doctors signed on to the Medicare and Medicaid programs proposed by LBJ; they, at the time, believed it would not seriously infringe on their control of the manner in which they treated their patients.

They were naive.

Soon after the programs began, the Government used Medicare and Medicaid, specifically, and pay attention here Mrs. Clinton, the money they spent on those programs, to demand (and get) ever-increasing control over the Health Care system. In other words, even if the beginnings of Mrs. Clinton's program are in some way benign, they won't stay that way - that's not how Governments operate; particularly when money is involved. The fact is, Governments, unchecked, naturally grow and increase in size; and it's because they're trying to. Our job, as citizens is to try our best to stop feeding the beast, not serve it a five-course buffet.

But let's get back to that $110 Billion for a second, because, you know, that kind of money doesn't just materialize in thin air - somebody has to pay for it. Naturally, this means a tax hike; and not just any tax hike, mind you, but a tax hike on the rich. Indeed, she actually said, in no uncertain terms, that those better able to pay for health insurance should be forced to help those who aren't so able.

Steal from the rich and give to the poor - the classic Robin Hood mentality.

Of course, at the end of the day, Robin Hood was never anything more than a petty thief; albeit one who tried to absolve himself of his crimes by doing the Medieval equivalent of giving the booty to charity. Moreover, while Robin Hood may have felt like he had some higher moral imperative, thus causing him to give the money away, it is highly unlikely that a Government would feel a similar sense of moral purpose. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be a historical recording of a government that showed a more lasting interest in helping people than in helping itself.

The very term 'Moral Government' strikes me more as an excellent example of oxymoron rather than as a genuine historical entity. But hey, with $110 Billion a year on the line, why not let Hillary have a shot at reversing all of human history. It's not like its all that much money anyways....right?

Wasteful spending, increased taxation, and this, brand-new, benevolent government are all essential for any good 'Universal Health Care' proposal, but, to make sure you know she's serious, Hillary throws in some other goodies too. Like the part where she wants the Government to mandate that all Americans get Health insurance. Because, you know, whether you want to or not is irrelevant - when Hillary's Government decides what's best for you, you will comply.

Furthermore, since it's always fun to impose additional regulations on private business, Hillary is going to require (a.k.a mandate) all employers to offer some form of comprehensive Health Coverage to their employees. Sheesh, they're called benefits, and not necessities, for a reason! If you think health insurance is important, look for a job that offers it; but health coverage is in no way a mandatory part of an office business plan. It's simply one of the many tools a business owner may use in his quest to hire the best workers. The decision making should be left to employers and their potential employees - not the whims and beliefs of some self-anointed Queen.

In the end, one has to wonder how a program with all these 'mandates' can be passed off as "not government-run." Perhaps it's another one of those quirky Hillary things, but, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one organization in the country which can collect extra taxes from people and also force them to comply with the aforementioned policy mandates. No bonus points if you guess what the organization is.

The lesson, I think, to borrow from Shakespeare, is that 'that which we call a colon, by any other word, would still be as full of shit.'

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

The Right Man

These past few days, I've been trying as to watch as much of the testimony of General Petraeus as has been possible. During the snippets that I have caught, a few things have struck me. The first, and one which was, perhaps, not unexpected, was the degree to which many of the Senators and Representatives opposed to the war refused to listen to the General; preferring, instead, to do something akin to plugging their fingers in their ears and going 'la, la, la, I can't hear you!' like a bunch of third graders. In any case, it certainly is not the mark of a mature adult to hire someone to do a job for you, ask him to come back and file a report about that job, and then proceed to tell him that, while you think he's the best in the world at the job, you're not actually going to either believe or listen to any of the information that he reports back with.

Seriously, if you don't care what the guy has to say, don't make him come to D.C and give you a report. I mean, I know the only clock that politicians care about is the one counting down the time until their next re-election campaign - but I'd say the leader of multi-National forces in Iraq has a hell of a lot better things to do with his time than spend it blathering to a bunch of idiots with the maturity level of kindergarteners who won't give a damn what he says in the end anyways.

General Petreaus shouldn't have to waste his time on petty politics, he has something a bit more important on his hands - it's called a War.

Furthermore, I couldn't get over the gaggle of politicians who kept telling the General that they respected his integrity and thought the world of him - and then turned around and told him that the statistics he was presenting to them were incorrect, or that the information he was giving them was false. Now, maybe I'm just an ol'-fashioned Southern boy; but if you call someone a liar and accuse them of committing perjury - I think it's safe to say you've called their integrity into question.

On a different note, I must say, I'm damn glad that General Petraeus is the man leading our military in Iraq right now, these past few days, despite all the BS that has been laid at his feet by these politicians, he's handled himself with dignity and honor and proved himself not only to be an ingenious commander but an upstanding man as well. He had answers for all the crappy, politically-motivated questions that were tossed his way, and he refrained from stooping down to the level of the anti-war, vote-groveling politicians when he could have easily done so (and smacked them around a bit). Moreover, when he was asked about the inexcusable, newspaper attacks on his character by some elements of the anti-war movement, he responded simply by noting that generations of soldiers had fought to give those people the Right to say what they wanted - even if they are a bunch of stupid jerks.

Class and the ability to lead with one's actions instead of one's words are rare traits on Capitol Hill - and while the General may not have dazzled Congress with his example of supreme character, he may very well have made an impression were I'm guessing he would most like to, in the homes of ordinary Americans. Indeed, history tells us that Americans, as a whole, are typically much more impressed by silent leaders, like Washington, than they are by politicians up on their high horses, pontificating about what we should or shouldn't do. Let's hope the same is true this time around too.

I suppose we'll find out soon enough anyways.

Friday, September 7, 2007

Euros Discover How To 'Live' Even Longer - Pretend!

It's pretty clear, to someone like me, that incentives work - it's why I'm a Capitalist. But, as me or any other capitalist could tell you, part of the trick is not just incentivizing people, but incentivizing the right things. Take this story, for example. It seems likely that the woman had an excellent incentive: making some easy money. Usually, of course, one would expect the money to be earned through traditional, benign means (such as hard work) - and not by keeping one's dead Aunt mummified in the house in hopes of keeping her annual Government pension coming in.

Alas, such is the reality of Modern-day Europe and its socialist States: welfare programs are so huge and lucrative that they spawn instances like the one mentioned in the article. The sad thing about this poor Austrian woman is that she got caught after only one year - the Frenchmen who pull similar stunts usually squeeze out at least a few more years worth of dough.

Sadly, most Europeans (and by extension, their governments) don't understand the, rather simple, fundamental issue at stake. Government-payout programs incentivize laziness rather than productive labor; and as a result, actually make it useful to keep dead people around.

It's kindda creepy if you ask me.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Saving The Planet: One Tax At A Time

With Great Britain's continual build-up of inefficient social welfare programs, sickening political correctness over radical Islam, and recent retreat from the Military arena in Iraq, many American Conservatives might be wondering if the British people are beginning to slowly lose the political common sense for which they are known. Then, however, we read stories like this, which give us a slight bit more faith in our Allies across the Pond.

It seems that Britons have begun to accrue some doubt concerning their government's motives when it comes to tax increases aimed at offsetting carbon-emissions. You see, the British Government believes that part of its job is to help the British people atone for their 'sins' - and of course by 'sins' what I mean is 'sins committed against the almighty global warming gods.' So in an effort to pay for what amounts to a National CO2 offset, the British Government has decided to force its citizens to pay for carbon-offsets via taxation - because, hey, what better way for the government to solve a problem than to raise a tax, right?

Well, actually, its really taxes. But hey - details, schmetails.

Nevertheless, a new poll suggests that some 2/3 of Britons feel that their Government is using environmental issues as a front, and that behind this front they are simply raking in extra tax dollars. And, as it turns out, those 2/3 of Britons are right. It seems that the U.K Parliament is taking in far more in environmental taxes than it might need in order to pay for the Nation's carbon offsets.

The estimated cost of this off-set scheme? 11.7 billion Pounds. The amount of money the Government raked in in eco-taxes? 21.9 billion Pounds. A full 10.2 billions Pounds more than they actually needed.

(For us Americans, that would probably be, like, somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion, given the exchange rate and all.....)

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Needless to say, this system the British Government came up with to try and reduce Britons' CO2 emissions hasn't really done anything other than, well, swell the coffers of the British Parliament; and, hell, that's assuming that this whole carbon offsets-purchasing program isn't a big crock of bullshit to begin with. (Which it is.)

So, Americans, beware of the Global Warming doomsayers who warn of catastrophe if we don't increase our taxes on gasoline use; because the only thing that the government does to any great degree by increasing these taxes is increase its available funds - evidence the extra 10 billion Pounds sitting around Westminster Palace.

Finally, there's no question that we need to reduce our consumption of oil - much of that foreign oil serves as a financial lifeline for Islamists - however, the way to do that is most certainly not through increased taxation.

Besides, the idea that we (or our government) could buy 'indulgences' to atone for our sins so went out of style after the Protestant Reformation.


These Messages Brought To You Courtesy of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy