Taking Statism Global

Having now poured stimulus upon stimulus into their respective National economies, and begun the long and arduous process of setting said economies on the road to bankruptcy, the leaders of the world's greatest economies have spent the last several days gathering to see if they could strike a deal to take their failed policies supra-national. And so they have. We are now set to get a new $1 trillion global stimulus package to complement the, now, $10.5 Trillion that the United States has already appropriated/spent on various bailouts, stimulus, and TARP projects over the last half-year or so.

(For those of you keeping score at home, our national GDP was $14.3 trillion last year - meaning that, if President Obama gets his wish and we do get a 'TARP II', we'll have kindda spent our whole, entire economy in order to, uh, save it. Because that clearly makes sense.)

Apparently TANSTAFL has been replaced as the one, hard-and-fast economic rule by a new one, which rests on a firm belief in the ability of deficit spending to cure all ills - the actual numbers be damned!!

As far as this new, global stimulus is concerned, its basically an extension of all the quasi-socialist/genuinely statist bullshit we've been getting here in the United States. We're going to give some more government bureaucrats the ability to regulate and restrict bankers' pay and bonuses - because, damn it, if some red-meat populism is good, more is even better. And nothing stokes populist fires (and poll numbers...) like hating on evil corporations, bankers, etcetera.

Nevermind that it's actually counterproductive as an economic policy.

Of course, having already gotten on the 'regulation' bandwagon with the banker stuff, it only made sense for these folks to take that a step further with other institutions. Thus, we are also going to get a new set of stricter and tougher regulatory policies for hedge funds and credit agencies. Because, again, nevermind the actual relationship between government regulation and economic growth, let's do it anyway.

We're also going to give more power to the IMF; because, clearly, what we need in order to solve these economic problems, and prevent them from happening ever again, is more input from international government bureaucrats whose own chain of command is somewhat murky. Finally, in this time of economic hardship and ballooning deficits, we're also going to take $100 billion and give it to poor countries; in other words, all the little tyrants running fake democratic countries in sub-Saharan Africa are having trouble in this economic climate too, so let's give them some cash.

And that's about it, more bullshit spending that inches us further away from a free-market system and transfers power and money from people to bureaucrats. Only this time, it's gone global. Change, indeed.

This Is Your Government...

...and this is your government on stupid. Ahh, yes, nothing like the sweet smell of government takeovers to start your week off right, huh? Indeed, having decided that Chapter 11 was too harsh for it to accept and that 'bailout' was its only option, GM now gets to find out the hard way what us free-marketers were warning them about all along - that public funding for your business also means public management of your business.

Not that the folks at GM have any illusions about what they're getting into though, Rick Wagoner was happy to go, and he'll take the $20 Million dollar retirement package that comes with termination of his job to go with him thank-you-very-much, and the new CEO has already said he knows that he's not going to be the one who's actually in charge.

The result is that President Barack Obama, the man who is a lawyer by training and a Law Professor/Community Organizer/Professional Campaigner by vocation is now fully and totally in charge of running, nay saving, the 9th largest corporation in the entire world. Oh yes, and he'll be accompanied in this task by a Treasury Secretary who can't properly fill out his tax returns and has an entire staff of people who are....yet to be appointed by the President. (And likely Congress too, but you really don't want us to get started on those fuckers right now.)

Anyone else really wish a guy like Mitt Romney, who, you know, understands this kind of shit, was President right about now? Of course, Mitt suggested, way back in December, that we shouldn't have bailed these bastards out in the first place because, shocka, by not making them file for Chapter 11 we were 'bailing them out' of the serious internal restructuring that they needed to do to remain viable. Instead, with bailouts, we would just be turning them into another welfare recipient (albeit an insanely expensive one).

Here's the thing though, as the nice little parting gift that former CEO Wagoner got helps to demonstrate, by bailing these assholes out we have subsidized their bad decision-making process. Instead of being forced to account for the $38 billion in losses they took last year by doing things like eliminating bad Union deals, cutting out their CEO's golden parachute, or generally figuring out what the hell they were doing so terribly wrong that it cost them $38 Billion, they're going to simply sit around and wait for whatever the government's next batch of instructions are. Moreover, how can we possibly blame them for doing just that?

Afterall, by giving them this bailout(/subsidy) we've now incentivized this corporate laziness; because now the company's money isn't coming from it's ability to sell automobiles, but rather its ability to grovel like a cheating husband at the feet of its new Government overlords. In other words, we're expecting this company to be able right the metaphorical ship despite having eliminated the incentives that might make it profitable again, and having turned its management over to people who have neither a direct financial stake in its future profitability nor the proper credentials to hold such positions.

Brilliant.

Of course, that, in a nutshell, is why the Government shouldn't run businesses - because their intervention, particularly on this massive of a scale, screws up the profit motive that is the driving force of capitalism. And honestly, if you don't understand why that's a bad thing (or why Capitalism is a better corporate manager than the effin Government), then you're either a hippie, a fascist, or a communist - in which case you'd be too far gone for me to give a damn about you at this point anyways.

Now, with apologies for all the cussing above, and in an attempt to make you feel even worse, here's the internet's newest viral video star, Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Party member of the European Parliament for England, on how, in addition to spending ourselves into oblivion, the Anglo-Saxon world now has to endure the additional humiliation of having the Germans and the French being the ones telling us that we must step away from the bailout trough:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(For those of you who have, sadly, missed out on the Daniel Hannan craze, please, for the love of God, go watch this short video of the speech he made eviscerating Gordon Brown (and bailouts) at the European Parliament last week. I promise it'll make your day.)

***Update***

Irony alert: the new CEO of GM now says that Chapter 11 actually looks pretty good. It only took them a few months, a government takeover of their management structure, and a few billion taxpayer dollars, but at least they might finally be on the right track...

If At First You Don't Succeed

...then try, try again, right? And hey, if it just so happens to involve a few billion dollars of (yet to be earned) taxpayer dollars, well, so be it. Alas, while this attitude probably doesn't behoove folks like you and me, who will have to pay for all of these bailouts (plus interest!!) at some point in the future, it seems to be working out fabulously for the fine folks struggling to run AIG; who, it was announced today, are set to get a second round of bailout money from our Federal Government.

So, let's recap, shall we? Last fall, under the watchful eyes of President Bush and Secretary Paulson, we decided to sink billions of dollars in AIG because it was "too big to fail" and we needed it to turn around. Now, after we gave them all this money, they have come back to us to report $61.7 billion in 4th-Quarter losses, the largest loss ever reported by an American company. And, naturally, we decided it would be a really good idea to reinvest another $30 billion in this failing business.

Well, at least now we know why all the former Wall Street people now working in D.C left Wall Street - as the kinds of business decisions they're making on behalf of the government would have gotten them fired in the business world.

Seriously though, at what point does all this bailing out finally end? Hell, after we've gone in and bailed out AIG once, why shouldn't we go in and do it a second or third or even fourth time? Better yet, when do we reach the point where a company failing is finally less important than our government's checkbook failing?

Of course, such rhetorical questions help indicate the problems this kind of government intervention inherently entails; namely that, if you do it once, there's nothing to keep you from doing it again. Indeed, given the rationale that you used the first time around (i.e. 'too big to fail'), you're pretty much compelled, rationally at least, to repeat the bailout the second time around, too. Afterall, if it was too big to fail the first time, how can it not be the second (or third, or fourth) time around as well?

So how do we escape from this trap that our political logic has led us into? Well, as I see it, there are only two ways: either the company is fundamentally restructured so that it becomes, metaphorically speaking, small enough to the point where it can fail; or it ceases to fail and, once again, becomes a successful company. Unfortunately, by bailing out companies like AIG in the first place, the government makes it unlikely that either of these things will happen. That's because, through the bailout, the government has absolved AIG of its financial losses; losses which were incurred because of poor business decisions. In other words, somewhere along the line AIG took a risk that didn't pan out - which is o.k, because risk taking (and, yes, the occasional failure) is a part of business. Now, normally, AIG would be forced to take those losses, which would, most certainly, cause serious problems for the company.

Through the bailout, however, the government has decided to prevent AIG from having to go through the painful process of dealing with its bad business decisions. The problem is that companies, like people, aren't going to learn from their mistakes if they don't have to deal with the negative consequences of them. Screwing up and taking big-time losses are what cause companies to restructure and come up with a new business plan. Consequently, by using the government to bailout an AIG, you make it more likely that this company will fail again in the future because you've eliminated the gusto, if you will, of the market forces that would normally force it into severe restructuring.

And that, of course, means more bailouts - ad infinitum, I suppose - and also indicates to us that the bailout, like so many government programs that came before it, is self-perpetuating. Proving once again the validity of Reagan's maxim that government doesn't solve problems, only subsidize them.

All You Need To Know...

...about the stimulus, you could probably learn from this chart, right here:


Based on my reading of that chart, I get:

Reagan - more-or-less budget neutral: 0% change
H.W. Bush - same as Reagan: 0%/-0.5% change
Clinton - slightly budget positive: +4% change
W. Bush - slightly budget negative: -4% change
Obama without stimulus - slightly budget negative: -5% change
Obama with stimulus: significantly budget negative: -10% change

Either with or without the stimulus, President Obama has already negatively affected the budget deficit, as it relates to GDP (what Democrats bragged about during the Clinton years), to a greater degree than any of the last 5 Presidents.

To be fair, of course, President Obama hasn't had a full term yet, and both Reagan and H.W. Bush started out increasing these deficits but finished by decreasing them. However, in their worst years, Reagan and Bush, Sr. increased the budget deficit by 2% and 1%, respectively; Barack is not only working on between 5% and 10%, but is well on his way to creating the biggest one-year increase in the budget deficit over the last 30 years.

These new heights of deficit spending come, naturally, at the same time that the long term deficit is also reaching new heights (depths, really...), and the future costs of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are beginning to increase exponentially.

Now, I'm no economist, but I am a young, budding taxpayer - and I'm pretty sure all this means that I'm about to get screwed.

Done In By Google Earth?

I don't smoke, and I'm not totally sold on the need to end the War on Drugs, but this, nonetheless, kindda scares me.

Don't get me wrong, Google Earth is awesome (as well as addictive and time consuming); but the idea of law enforcement being able to use it to search people's private property seems, to me, at least, a really....bad precedent. I mean, theoretically, if the police want to come search my house, they need a warrant, and to get a warrant they need probable cause - meaning, of course, that, in order to search my property the old-fashioned way, the police would have to follow a certain procedure that still gives me, as a citizen, some degree of Rights protection.

However, to use Google Earth you just need internet access and basic computer skills - not a warrant. Consequently, the police could, theoretically, search my property without obtaining any kind of probable cause first. Of course, if they tried to use that evidence in court, they might find themselves in violation of the 4th Amendment. (Although they'd probably need a pretty decent lawyer to make such a case.)

In any case, the whole concept is way too Big Brother-ish for me.

I know Google has had some issues with Privacy Law in the past, and I realize that this happened in Switzerland and not the United States; but still, I tend to think that this kind of police work should be illegal. Afterall, telling the Judge "We saw it on Google Earth" really doesn't sound like a probable cause that respects people's Rights.

Whose Money Is It?

The money phrase from the Congressman is right up front:



Hear that? It's not your money - its Congress'. And they're going to do what they damn well please with it.

Incidentally, the Congressman claiming that the bailout money is the copyrighted property of Congress caucuses with the, ahem, Republican Party.

And these people wonder why they keep getting smashed in elections....

On Socialized Medicine

***The following is an article I wrote for a publication here at school. I thought I'd put it up here too, particularly since it deals with one of this blog's favorite topics. However, be forewarned, I ripped off a few lines from myself, so you might recognize one or two of the sentences.***

One of the most important, consistently discussed issues in American election-year politics over the past several years would, in my view, have to be that of Health Care. Furthermore, insofar as this particular issue is concerned, an increasing number of Americans seem to favor the introduction of some kind of “Universal Health Care” program. However, in my estimation, such a program is nothing more than a thinly-veiled offering of socialized medicine, and thus, like its counterparts in Europe, Canada and other ‘western’ nations, an inherently bad idea. Certainly supporters of “Universal Healthcare” want to differentiate their programs from socialized medicine – for they remember the catastrophic downfall of Hillary Care’s 1990’s inauguration – but let’s be honest, any system which requires hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and contains mandates for either employers, insurance companies, hospitals, Doctors, or regular folks is a socialized system. As, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one organization in the country which can grant such sums of money, without so much as a thought, and easily gain the compliance of the various actors mentioned in “universal healthcare” proposals.

No bonus points if you guess what it is.

Yet, putting the labeling deception of its proponents aside for a second, let’s turn to something that even the supporters of universal healthcare admit: these plans will cost money. No one is entirely sure where all of the money will come from, but they just assume it will be found. Never mind the fact that even the current government-run, but much less inclusive, Medicare and Medicaid programs are over budget and running out of funding. Never mind the fact that raising taxes on the rich or eliminating Earmarks would account for only a small increase in revenue; or that the government is already running a multi-trillion dollar deficit – we’ll figure it out.

However, as we sit on the eve of a massive $700 Billion bailout, we have to be, if we want to be sensible and realistic about our generation’s financial future, looking for ways to significantly decrease the amount of money that our government spends. Saying we can add this or that expenditure and still make things work out is about as reasonable as Napoleon’s decision to invade Russia. Nevertheless, as problematic as the financial burdens of this system may be, they are, in my view, the least worrisome of the three major issues that a socialized medical system brings to the table.

One of the major faults of a socialized medical system was perhaps best illustrated by Rudy Giuliani’s quip during the primary debates that Canadians would have nowhere to go for treatment if Americans were to socialize healthcare. While many perhaps saw this as an allusion to the waiting lines that often develop in places like Canada, it is more enlightening when thought of in terms of healthcare quality. Europeans and Canadians, despite the “free” nature of their own systems, often do come to the United States; because, simply put, the American healthcare system and its Doctors are more likely to cure them than their own socialized systems. Indeed, across the board in terms of things like cardiovascular disease and cancer, the United States healthcare system has consistently higher cure rates than its more socialized (or should I say more ‘Universal’) counterparts. And this is despite the fact that, due to skyrocketing obesity rates, Americans are, comparably, more likely to get these diseases in the first place.

In my mind, this has and always should be the goal of a healthcare system: to cure the highest possible percentage of the sick. Worrying about paying for an expensive cancer treatment certainly is a big issue, but receiving free treatment for cancer, in which the quality is so low that it won’t keep you alive, is a bigger issue. Thus, as any good capitalist will understand, they key to improving the American system will lie in our ability to reduce government interference in the Doctor-Patient interaction and to increase the competitiveness of the market. This combination will increase the quality of the services provided by Healthcare professionals and decrease the cost. Afterall, the highest quality healthcare in the world at a reasonable cost is a much more laudable goal than 100% coverage and inferior quality care.

However, leaving aside cost and quality for a moment, there is one other major, philosophical, problem with socialized medicine. Any “universal” system is also, as proponents will happily tell you, all-encompassing. It makes sure that the things you need are both done and provided for you. A fact which ultimately makes it another in a long line of ill-conceived, nanny-state programs that result in the removal a populace from its own sense of personal responsibility and the often times harsh realities of life (and its finances). When this estrangement between the individual and responsibility occurs, people no longer become accountable to the consequences of making a bad choice. Furthermore, by deferring such accountability and, indeed, personal choices to the government, you also defer an aspect of your freedom to the government. This is because the kind of freedom espoused and celebrated by our Founding Fathers becomes quaintly irrelevant if it comes without responsibility and consequences – as the concepts are inextricably linked.

This fact is why ‘Universal Healthcare,’ in addition to its terrific costs and inferior quality, is an unconscionable solution to the flaws in American Healthcare. For any system that's ‘all-encompassing’ is simultaneously all-controlling; and when crucial aspects of your life have government controls on them, you don't have near as much freedom.

Doing Stalin Proud

Well, it seems more or less official at this point, the Federal Government of the United States has decided to dip into the treasury fund your tax dollars and offer up $1 Trillion to help bail out all of these companies that have been floundering over the last few weeks. That's right, $1 Trillion - the same amount we've spent over the last 5 years fighting the War in Iraq - all in just a few weeks.

I know, not what you voted for either, huh?

Well, I was going to write a little blurb on why I don't like this massive bailout plan, but then I came across this audio of Judge Andrew Napolitano, of FOX News, ranting on this very topic. So I'll just have you listen to his rant instead - it's brilliant:



Indeed. However, before I go, let me just put in one quick word of my own. It should be noted that part of the reason all of these companies have been failing in the first place is because of the idiotic policy of what amounts to corporate welfare. In recent years, big American companies have gotten used to government bailouts - whenever they go just a little bit to far, the government is there to help them out, and make sure they don't totally collapse - what we're seeing this week is new only in the sheer scale on which it's being done. The problem is that by continually bailing out companies, big or small, the government creates a welfare net that these companies can (and have) come to rely on.

As a result, these companies have become fairly certain that, if they screw up, the government will be there to offer a helping hand. Consequently, they can continue to take bigger and bigger risks, risks that they probably wouldn't take if they had to operate entirely on their own, which result in them getting into massive financial messes like the ones taking center stage this week.

It is, if you will, Corporate America's replica of the catastrophe of the European welfare state.

Just as increasing social services to the point of absurdity (a.k.a Europe) causes one to lose a sense of responsibility about one's own life, this kind of corporate bailout program causes companies to forget what it's like to have to be responsible for one's own decisions and to have to deal with the consequences of poor ones. Bailing out people who make stupid choices, be it the crack addict on welfare or AIG, is not a solid foundation for economic prosperity; it is socialism, pure and simple.

In fact, come to think of it, AIG et. al. are a lot more like that welfare crack addict than you might think - the only difference is that AIG's drugs are legal.

On The Deification Of French Healthcare

Great. Just when we're at the point in our Nation's history when, thanks to the two Democratic Presidential candidates, we might actually be unfortunate enough to get saddled with Socialized Medicine in the next few years, ABC has decided its time to try and re-introduce another round of deifying the French Healthcare system into the American media. Afterall, us idiots in the American proletariat might not be smart enough to, you know, buy into all this socialized bullshit, so we need to be shown just how amazingly-wonderful-awesome the French system is so that we'll be more willing to take that last step over the edge and into the abyss.

I chose the word abyss in that last sentence because, in fact, that's exactly where adopting a French-style Healthcare system would lead us to: the bottom of a very dark and scary abyss. But alas, Ms. Mary Cline, a freelance writer living in Paris, doesn't see it that way at all; which means it's time to examine her short article on French healthcare and dispel her of such bullshit notions. (Yes, we like to pretend that the people at ABC News might, actually, read this pithy blog. Just keep quite, and don't shatter our illusions of grandeur.)

The first and most obvious problem with Ms. Cline's assessment is her admiration of just how cheap, in many cases "free," visits to French hospitals and Doctors are. Sadly, this is, to an extent, true; at least for Ms. Cline. You see, Ms. Cline is not a French citizen; she's an American who just happens to be staying in Paris; which means that she doesn't really pay taxes to the French government, because she files her taxes with the IRS. Thus, while the system is "free" to her, it's really not. She is, in actuality, a leech on the backs of French taxpayers, who are financing all of her healthcare for her. If any of this sounds familiar, it should, as this is one of the biggest problems we have in the United States from illegal immigration - namely, that the illegals become leeches on all of our social services, which costs us more and more money, all while they, as undocumented workers, don't actually contribute anything to the financing of such programs.

But hey, considering we're running up deficits and that all of our big time programs are going to be going bankrupt in like 20 years, what better way to improve the American Healthcare system than to adopt a system which not only doesn't solve that problem but in fact exaggerates it?! Of course, herein lies one of the fundamental lies underlying the myth of the French system, that its money supply is somehow endless - it's not. The rising costs of this "free" and "cheap" system, are one of the reasons why France has a national debt which is some 65% of its GDP. In other words, it only seems cheap to idiots and fools like Ms. Cline, who have no understanding of how exactly it is that governments raise money to pay for such fantabulous programs.

(As a side note, its kind of funny that when talking about how wonderfully cheap French care is, she's giving the example of when she took her son in to get stitches; which, as we all know, is just a horribly expensive, outrageously difficult, and monumentally impossible procedure to do in our meek, stupid American Healthcare system.)

Then, after amusing us with anecdotes about her son's stitches experience, she regales us with some statistics which are, apparently supposed to make us bow down before the almighty behemoth of Socialized Medicine. First, she tells us that the French system is ranked number one, 36 spots ahead of the damn U.S, on the World Health Organization's list of best health care systems.

Ah, yes, because, as we all surely know by now, there is nothing on this planet as infallible as a rankings system devised by an organization that is a subdivision of the United Nations. They would never have an agenda. Nope, not the UN.

On a more serious note, it should be pointed out that the study Ms. Cline cites came out in June of 2000 (link here), so it's kind of outdated. But, more importantly, one of the primary means that it uses to measure the quality of the overall health system is how fairly the financial burden of medical care is distributed. In other words, this rankings system is inherently biased towards more socialized systems because these will, naturally, be more likely to have "progressive" (read: Marxist) mechanisms in place for income redistribution.

Next up, Ms. Cline attempts to throw around one of Socialized Healthcare supporters' favorite statistics: life expectancy. Because life expectancy is higher in France than it is in the United States, they argue, France has better healthcare. The argument, however, is false; and that is simply because other factors go into life expectancy besides just the quality of the healthcare one receives. Americans are much more likely than Frenchmen to be fat and overweight, a fact which significantly affects life expectancy, but is a result of lifestyle choices made by the individual citizens, and not their national healthcare systems. Americans have lower life expectancies because they make poorer lifestyle choices, not because they have worse healthcare.

Ms. Cline then goes on to discuss her experiences with receiving Breast Cancer treatment in both California and Paris and decides that her French experience was better. She makes this decision based on the how much more lax the French system is, mainly because they'll let her stay longer in the hospital. This conclusion presents two problems; the first is, obviously, financial (there's a $$ reason American hospitals don't like to keep patients longer than is necessary) and thus, was discussed at the top of this, now rather long, essay. However, the second problem with this conclusion is that it's based entirely on anecdotal evidence, and, thus in need of an important correction. You see, if Ms. Cline had bothered to do any real research on Breast Cancer treatment, she would have likely arrived at a different conclusion. She would have discovered that most all of the technologies and medicines that are used to treat Breast cancer were developed in none other than the American healthcare system. She would have also discovered that, despite the fact that American women are more likely to get Breast cancer than French women, they are also less likely to die from it. Meaning that, shockingly, the American system not only is able to take care of more breast cancer patients than the French system, but also more likely to cure the ones it gets.

Based on this data, the survival rate for breast cancer is 81.2% in the United States vs. 76.6% in France. (As an aside, even the raw numbers here indicate that American women are less likely to die from breast cancer (19 vs. 21.5); again, despite the fact that they are 9% more likely (101.1 vs. 91.9) to contract it - a phenomenal statistic.) Moreover, these statistics showing survival rates are even more impressive (at least for the United States) when applied across the board to all forms of cancer. Basically, the bottom line is that, while the Doctors in France may be friendlier and more accommodating, they're also less likely to keep you alive - which, in my book at least, is a hell of a lot more important than being 'happy' with the nursing staff.

Finally, Ms. Cline really gets me shaking my head when she pines about how her husband once had to wait "several hours" to be seen in a Manhattan Hospital because they couldn't track down his insurance company. This causes her to go on and assert that such a travesty would never befall one in Medical-Heaven-on-Earth, France. Indeed, she claims that

"There's no question you'll be treated in France. Everyone is."

Right, sure. Although, something tells me that the over 14,000 people who died in August 2003 in France during that fantastic heat wave would beg to differ. I mean seriously, you're bragging about this healthcare systems' ability to treat all of its potential patients when 14,000 people died on its watch, mostly from simple dehydration? Is it really that difficult to inject people with fluids and monitor them afterwards? Hell, I know how to do that, and all I have is basic training in First Aid - and I probably won't ask for you tax dollars if you come up to me and ask for help either.

Of course, there are other issues that Ms. Cline doesn't even mention in her article that I could bring up. I could talk about waiting lists, and how the elderly usually don't get seen (most of those heat wave victims were old folks), how under-skilled their Doctors are compared to ours, how our medical technology and equipment is superior to theirs, and, of course, I could go into even greater detail about the financial burdens of "free" French healthcare; but, at the end of the day, Ms. Cline makes perhaps the most eloquent argument against the French Healthcare system when, towards the end of her article, she comments on how it is "an all-encompassing cradle-to-grave system."

Indeed.

It is, ultimately, another in a long line of ill-conceived, nanny-state programs, designed to remove a populace from its own sense of personal responsibility and the often times harsh realities of life (and its finances). But by removing people from responsibility for themselves, you remove them from personal choice in matters of everyday life - afterall, how can you be trusted to make choices for yourself if you can't be held responsible for those choices? - and when those two things come together, the diminishing of both responsibility and choice, your personal rights and liberties are not far behind them on the path away from freedom.

Any system that's "all-encompassing" is simultaneously both all-knowing and, most importantly, all-controlling - and when your very health is being controlled (by a government agency, no less), you don't have near as much freedom.

Barack Obama - Elitist Snob

The best part about following politics is when one of these idiots running for public office slips up and actually tells you what they really think about the voters they're trying to woo, and you get to sit back and watch them try to deal with the fallout. And now, much to the pleasure of this blogger, Mr. AudacityOfChangeHopeSunshinePuppiesAndUnity, Barack Obama, has done us the courtesy of providing such a viewing opportunity.

To quote Obamarama himself from a fundraiser he recently held among his true kindred, San Francisco multi-millionaires:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Yes, small-town America, you heard that right - Barack Obama thinks not only that you're bitter xenophobes, but that your beliefs in God and your 2nd Amendment Rights are merely a crutch that you hold onto because, well, you're just too stupid to see how enlightened and wonderful the US of A would be if we were all just anti-gun, open-borders, atheists.

To be fair, you honestly can't blame him for thinking that religion is a crutch for bitter people; afterall, he did spend 20 years listening to that preacher of his who thinks that 9/11 was a government conspiracy to keep black people oppressed (or something like that). If I went to that Church, I'd probably associate religion with bitterness too. Which is really too bad, because, at its core, the true message of Christianity is one of the least bitter and most genuinely hopeful messages the world has ever heard. But hey, what would I know, I'm just one of those immigrant-hating, gun-loving rednecks who has to use the Christian faith as a crutch to help me overcome my bitterness. So I probably can't provide any real perspective....

As a side note, for your own enjoyment, it's absolutely hysterical that Obama included "anti-trade sentiment" as one of the things that us bitter rural people cling to, given that one of the major parts of his platform has been his stringent denouncement of things like NAFTA and the Colombian Free-trade deal. In other words, he's upset that they're holding the exact same positions as his campaign.

However, the real key, in my opinion, to Barack's remarks though is the part where he mentions guns; because this is, far and away, the most revealing and disturbing part of his comment. To Obama, guns are just a crutch that people lean on when they are bitter about losing their job - or, to turn that around and put it a different way, if everybody was happy, and the world wasn't so screwed up, rural folks wouldn't need or want guns. And herein lies the ultimate problem with Obama and the rest of the anti-gun lobby; to them, guns are not enjoyable or respectable or useful in any way. As far as they're concerned, guns are just things purchased by stupid rednecks with inferiority complexes because they either don't know any better or just have an innate desire to kill people. It never occurs to them that guns might actually be useful in deterring/preventing crime, or that some folks might actually enjoy hunting or taking a trip down to the local shooting range without having it give them the desire to shoot up their local high school the next morning.

No, in their minds, guns are bad; and if we just banned guns, we'd reduce crime to nothing. In other words, to Obama, guns are yet another example of something that, were you to just let him and all the other bureaucrats in Washington take care of, could be taken care of. It's very European, if you think about it; for, deep down, Obama believes he knows what's best for these rural voters. But why, you ask, does Obama think he knows this? Simple. In his mind, these voters are too blinded by their own damn bitterness to understand the 'reality' surrounding gun ownership, and thus unable to know what's best for them.

How very telling a glimpse into the deepest, darkest parts of Barack Obama's political soul.

Not only is it a revealing glimpse of the real Barack Obama, but it is indeed a reminder of why the man is truly unfit to be President, and just how far outside the mainstream of American political thought he is. It reminds of this because it highlights that Barack Obama is not an average American left-winger, but a European, Social Democratic one. The Barack Obama's of the world think that you and me are just a bunch of sheep who have gone astray and need to be led back to the correct path by a well-trained government elite who know what's best for us and will surely make things work the way they ought to. They are, more or less, Socialists.

Some of us, however (and in America, I think it's actually 'most of us'), still believe in what the Founding Fathers taught us all those years ago. We know that government is not best administered from the top down, but rather, from the bottom up; and furthermore, we know that, ultimately, people are better suited to make decisions for themselves, not their governments (especially one run by a one-term Senator and his favorite bureaucrats).

Indeed, in America, Constitutional and Natural Rights matter - too bad Obama hasn't figured that out.

Reality Punches Hillary In The Face - She Fails To Notice

You just gotta love listening to Democrats talk about the economy; I mean, even someone like me, who's economic knowledge is pretty basic, can find these huge gaping wholes in the very premises of their arguments. Exhibit A, today, is none other than everyone's favorite sniper-fire dodging, former First Lady, Hillary Clinton. Last night, in an appearance on Leno, she was talking about why she continues to keep on truckin' with this campaign of hers, and she told some sob story about a little boy who's mother makes minimum wage; and how she keeps on going on because she knows she can "really help" people like this mom.

(Here's the actual video. If you really feel like watching, the story starts at about 3:23 in; otherwise, I've summarized it below.)



Basically, this little boy told the Hildabeast that even though the Democratic Congress recently raised the minimum wage, his mother still wasn't making anymore money because - get this - they cut her hours after the minimum wage increased! After saying this, in almost those exact words, Hillary goes on, unfazed, to some new point - completely unaware of the fact that she just got smacked in the face by a perfect example of why raising the minimum wage doesn't work; and why it doesn't actually increase people's overall earnings.

You see, an employer already has a specific budget for employee salaries that is calculated into his overall budget; and he's not just going to increase that budget in direct proportion to every single increase in the minimum wage; afterall, he's trying to make money and turn a profit in his own right. Thus, a minimum wage increase leads to one of two outcomes in a typical workplace: either A) the employer will have their employees work less time, for the same amount of pay; or B) they will fire some employees and give those that remain higher pay, but with longer hours.

Most employers choose Option B) because it makes things easier for them, which is why increasing the minimum wage will generally cause increases in the unemployment rate. In the case of the young Hillary supporter's mom, it seems the employer didn't want to fire anyone, so he chose Option A); which, if you think about it, could be beneficial to this woman - if she were to use the extra time she now has to, say, get a second job. Working more! Now there's a sure-fire way to make more money! Of course, that's not how Hillary (or any welfare liberal, for that matter) sees things. Heck, she's probably already formulating some new 'free' handout, 'free' training program, or other ill-conceived piece of Legislation to 'solve' the problem.

Reagan once said the 9 scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" - but, personally, I think "Don't you worry, Hillary Clinton is here to help" sounds infinitely more frightening.

From The Department Of Duh...

Here's a real shocking story out of Great Britain, it seems that a full two-thirds of Brits who are about to be approaching their later, retiree years have no plans to save up any money to help pay for any of the medical care they might need in their old age. The even bigger shocka, the reason they're not saving is because most expect the government to just give them money when they need it.

What a surprise, raising a bunch of people on government handouts causes them to stop being responsible for themselves. Indeed, conditioning people to expect government welfare does, in fact, create a disincentive for saving (or making) one's own money. It's really not that hard to figure out, assuming you have a basic understanding of human nature and a little bit of common sense. I mean, would you save your money for retirement if you knew the government was going to give you whatever you might need anyways?

Alas, this is why, many years ago, Benjamin Franklin disliked the idea of public welfare - because he knew that people would just take advantage of the system and use it to avoid responsibility for their actions and futures. Plus, allowing people to live freely without having to seriously plan for their futures, and, instead, expecting the government to bail them out, creates nothing more than a nation of government-owned slaves.

Anything You Coerce, I Coerce Better

Finally, after months of silence on the issue, the bastion of this Presidential Election's socialist talking points, John Edwards himself, has risen to the challenge of proving to you, the concerned men and women of that 'other' America, that his Socialized Medi..., er, Universal Health Care program is several degrees of mastery above those of his closest rivals for the title of best able to mimic Eurotrash, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Of course, in differentiating his plan from theirs, Mr. Edwards was not trying to sling political mud. No, he was "[talking] about what we need to do for healthcare;" you know, to make it better for all Americans - because he's always looking out for you, the common man. It may be from the window of his $6 million, 28,200 square foot mansion that he's looking out for us common folks - but, rest assured, looking out for you he is.

Anyways, back to what he actually had to say about the good Senators Obama and Clinton's health care plans (this talking about them, of course, came after he said that he "[didn't] want to talk about them" - which really forces one to admire his brilliance at constantly speaking out both sides of his mouth at the same time).

Edwards' problem with Senator Obama's plan was simply that it did not sufficiently expand the role of the federal government; because, per Mr. Edwards, "it just does not cover everyone." And by gosh, who would want to be left out of all the fun and excitement that comes with Universal Health Care. Why, not covering everybody would mean that some people might not get to spend months, even years, on medical waiting lists! They might not have the pleasure of having to drive hundreds of miles to find a mere Dentist! And worst of all, they might miss out on paying the massive tax increases that would be necessary to support such a system!!!

Yet, we must give credit where credit is due; Mr. Edwards has hit on a rather important nugget of information here; as this marks the first time in many years in which Senator Obama has actually been to the Right of someone on issues of public policy.

Another stroke of genius from Edwards comes in his criticism of Madame Clinton's Health Care policy (which, for those of you who remember correctly, is, in her words, most certainly not Government-run). In this case, Edwards says that while her plan does have the proper mandates to force Health Care down all of our collective throats, she forgot to come up with a "way to enforce the mandates" - and hey, what good would big government be if it didn't have a massive bureaucracy around to make sure you did as you were told? Of course, Mr. Edwards' idea of enforcing his mandates amounts to making sure that "every time you come into contact with the healthcare system or the government you get signed up." In other words, if you show your face in public, we will keep tabs on you - like in a police state, only, in this case, it's to make sure you get free Health Care, which is a good thing, so don't worry about it.

No word yet on how he plans to deal with the first invasion of privacy lawsuit that gets slapped on him when he forces your Doctor to turn over all your private info to his government.

The amazing thing is, Edwards continually criticizes President Bush for wiretapping phone lines, calling it a violation of peoples' right to privacy. ("Pot, meet Kettle.....").

Finally, in what was, perhaps, the best part of Mr. Edwards' little talk about his Universal Health Care plan, he decided to take questions form reporters, presumably so they might help him clarify his brilliant plan to those of us living in the 'other' America. While doing this, one of the reporters asked him what would happen if someone didn't want to get involved in his Health Care plan. Mr. Edwards' response? I kid you not: "You don't get that choice."

Indeed. One could hardly think of a better way to so succinctly summarize the folly of Universal Health Care.

A Reason To Care

One would think that by now, given all the statistics that have been compiled and predictions that have been made on the subject, Washington politicians would have realized that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Welfare reform is an issue that needs to be brought to the forefront and dealt with immediately. Sadly, of course, they haven't, and our oversized, bloated federal programs remain on track to create a fiscal catastrophe in the not-so-distant future.

Thankfully (or rather, frighteningly), we have evidence of what will happen if we continue down this path towards Democratic Socialism. The evidence, of course, is Europe. We have the high unemployment rates in France and Germany, the horrors of Britain's National Health Service, and the stagnated growth rates in Scandinavia, all of which, understandably, should warn us of the perils of Democratic Socialism. Even more frightening than the consequences of such programs, however, are the solutions that one must implement if one refuses to downsize or privatize these massive programs in the face of a rapidly ageing population. The obvious one is to increase the tax burden on the young and force them to finance the handsome pensions of their parents' and grandparents' generations; and in Britain, that's exactly what they've decided to do.
This article, from The Times, reports a shocking new statistic: that British college graduates could lose up to one-half of their starting salary to taxation. What a terribly large amount of money to have removed from one's paycheck to help finance government welfare programs - but, unfortunately, this is what has to happen in Britain. With declining birthrates, increased spending on welfare programs, and increasing longevity, increasing taxes on the young is one of the few ways to make the numbers work. The reason is simple; one of the most profitable taxes, from a government perspective, is the income tax - and old people don't work! So, youngsters will begin to see less and less of their paychecks if the system is to be maintained.

There is, of course, another downside to this that any good supply-sider will have already recognized; and that is that drastic tax increases on your workers' paychecks translates into less disposable income. This, in turn, means that people will be less likely to spend money and contribute to the overall economy. In other words, as President Reagan proved, higher income taxes means less overall economic productivity and an all-around, weaker economy.

And that brings me back to the United States, a country where we still have the pleasure of deciding whether we want our future to be like Britain's (or France's, or Sweden's....) or if we want it to be, well, as American as it's always been.

It's hard to talk about things like privatizing Social Security; or to tell our Senior citizens that they just might have to endure a benefit cut; hell, these days it's becoming hard to simply oppose, outright, all forms of socialized medicine; but at the end of the day, these are the things that we need to talk about - and must do. Especially considering that the alternative is figuring out how to distribute a massive tax burden.

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.'

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.

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.

When Do-Gooders Attack

Here's a simple question for you: To whom does the ultimate responsibility for your own health fall? Stupid question, right? In a reasonable world, your own health would be your own responsibility. Indeed, unless you are a young child, you have the freedom to choose what it is you eat, how much you exercise, and whether or not you smoke cigarettes. On top of being able to choose what exactly it is you do to your body, you, theoretically, can also choose when and where you do these things. In Surfside Beach, South Carolina, however, that's about to change.

Earlier this week, in the name of everyone's health and well-being, 4 of the 7 members of the Surfside Beach Town Council voted to outlaw smoking in public buildings. Barring a miracle, this bill will soon become law when, assuming all Council Members vote the same way, the second vote on it (which Town Council rules require) comes on July 24. Those supporting the bill have cited both concerns over second-hand smoke exposure and concerns over violations of, to quote the Ordinance's sponsor Judy Tuttle, people's "right to clean air."

Whatever the Hell that is.

Indeed, ever since the world discovered that, much to our surprise, smoking something filled with an addictive drug was, in fact, bad for one's health; cigarettes and the companies that make them have become some of the easiest targets for the word 'evil' since Adolf Hitler. Of course, as so often happens in America, anyone and everyone's righteous anger over cigarettes is somewhat misplaced. No doubt, it's easy to pick on a company like RJ Reynolds because, hey, they make cigarettes, and cigarettes are bad for you, and cause health problems, and these evil people not only make them but have the gall to market them, as well; yet, at the end of the day, making a product and marketing it is what all companies do, even ones like Anheuser-Busch, whose products can be equally as bad for your health.

Furthermore, and more to the point, it's much easier for all these people to decry an evil company rather dealing with their Aunt, Father, or friend who consciously decided to pick up a smoking habit back when they were 18. Consciously was the key word in that last sentence. Everyone in this country who smokes, does so of their own free will and at their own risk. If anyone is to blame for the ill-effects of second-hand smoke, it's partially those who actually smoke the cigarettes. Yet, to make them the sole culprits would be both irrational and irresponsible.

As non-smokers, we choose with whom we associate ourselves and which public places we frequent. Consequently, if I as a person am deeply concerned about the effect which second-hand smoke might have on my health, then I should probably avoid dating someone who smokes or frequenting Sports Bars. The government should not be the one looking out for my health - if I'm not sensible enough to take that responsibility upon myself then I better be prepared to pay the price when I age. Nevertheless, by proposing this smoking ban, that is exactly what the Surfside Town Council is doing: making the government, and not the citizens themselves, partially responsible for people's health.

Egregious as it might be, however, the Surfside Town Council's willingness to create a Nanny-state and relieve ordinary folks of the responsibility of their own health is not even the biggest flaw in this particular piece of legislation. Indeed, the biggest concern, for those of us worried about individual liberty, arises from the ease with which the Town Council feels it can regulate people's right to do what they please.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way trying to support or condone smoking, but the fact of the matter is that smoking a cigarette is not illegal, thus leaving people free to do so. It may be bad for your health, but that simply does not give the government a right to regulate it. We have, in essence, a right or, if you will, a freedom to screw up our lives which is every bit as valid as the freedom we have to succeed and make something positive of our lives. We have the freedom to choose and must live with the results, it's simply not the government's job to try and hold us by the hand if we make the wrong choice. In a similar vein, since when can a government, at any level, step in and tell a private business, such as a restaurant, what they may or may not allow within the confines of their property? If a restaurant owner wants to have smoke-free premises, that's his choice, but it's simply not something that the government can mandate.

As American citizens we have been given a truly unique and awe-inspiring brand of freedom, but with that freedom comes responsibility and with responsibility comes consequences. These three things are inter-related and will be forever connected; thus, when any part of the American government, be it the U.S Congress or a simple Town Council, as in Surfside, tries to eliminate or alter one of the three they will do so to all three. The Surfside Town Council believes that it is a Government's place to step in and try to alleviate us of the responsibility to manage our own health and to try and eliminate the unfortunate consequences of others' poor ability to do so; what they have failed to realize, however, is that in doing so they are also compromising and eliminating some of these same people's freedoms - and that is most certainly not their job.

Those Crazy Brits

Q: What happens when big government gets between an Englishman and his cigarettes?

A: He uses his (classically British) sense of determination to get around it in any way possible; which, in this case, happens to mean turning his Pub into an Embassy for some remote Caribbean Island. (story)

20 bucks says that, by the end of this week, a cannabis joint near you will check into whether or not the Dutch already have an Embassy here in the U.S.

LBJ is your Big Brother

You know, a long time ago, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to one of his friends on the subject of public welfare. In this letter, Mr. Franklin acknowledged the idealistic potential for good that was present in such programs; nevertheless, he concluded the letter by stating that he would, in fact, be strongly opposed to such programs. Why? Well, you see, Mr. Franklin's feeling was that if the Government were to introduce welfare programs many people would try to take advantage of, and abuse, the system. Moreover, he felt that such programs would also cause people to become dependent on the Government.

Turns out, he was right.

Nowadays, over 70 years after the beginning of the New Deal, over 50% of Americans now receive a significant portion of their income from the Government. Yes, that's right, over half of the people in this country have become dependents of the Federal Government. For some perspective, in 1950, that number was around 28%. It hit its high in 1980, at 55%, started to recede as a consequence of the Reagan Revolution and has now started to rise again with the onset of the open-arms, 'compassionate' conservatism of President Bush. (Of course, Compassionate Conservatism is basically just liberalism with tax cuts - not that I'm complaining about the tax cut part, mind you, it's just all that....spending.)

Yes, believe it or not, the creation and installation of massive amounts of welfare programs, from Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid, has had exactly the effect that us Libertarian-Conservatives told you it would: it makes people less dependent on themselves and more dependent on the Government. I know, you're probably wondering why I have to spell all this out - but apparently, a whole lotta people still don't get it.

I mean, if freedom is defined as the ability to do your own thing (being independent), how exactly are Americans supposed to be 'free' if they don't even earn significant portions of their own incomes? How do you expect to be able to prevent a Government from becoming oppressive when half of its citizens depend on said Government in order to maintain their lifestyles?

And I haven't even mentioned the huge, massive, overwhelming deficits we're currently running trying to maintain these stupid programs.

I guess this is just further proof that guys like FDR and LBJ were complete idiots, as their social programs have, quite literally, given a 'Big Brother-esque' quality to the American state. The U.S Government has, since the left-wing revolution of the 1930's and the Socialist revolution of the 1960's, become the do-all, cure-all, and save-all for an unseemly amount of its citizens. Of course, that's not what Government is supposed to be. You are supposed to be responsible for yourself. Well, you were, until FDR and LBJ came along and said that it was really the Government's job to look after you.

I guess they got what they wanted.

Sad, really.