State C vs State T

Hypothetically:  Governors  of two states, (lets call one C and one T), jogging with their dogs along a trail. Coyote  jumps out and starts to attack dog:
Case 1 state C:
#1. Governor starts to intervene and then realizes he  should stop; the coyote is doing what is natural. 
#2. Call animal control. Animal control captures  coyote and spends $200 testing it for diseases and $500 relocating it. 
#3. Call Vet. Veterinarian collects dead dog  and spends $200 testing it for diseases. 
#4. Governor goes to hospital and spends $3500  getting checked for diseases from the coyote and getting bite wound  bandaged. 
#5. Running trail gets shut down for 6 months while  wildlife services conduct a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is  clear of dangerous animals. 
#6. Governor spends $50,000 and starts a coyote  awareness program for people who live in the area. 
#7. State legislature spends $2 million investigating  how to better handle rabies and how to possibly eradicate it. 
#8. Governor’s security agent fired for not stopping  the attack and letting the Governor try to intervene. 
#9. Cost $75,000 to train new security agent. 
#10. PETA protests the relocation of the coyote.   
Case 2 state T: 
#1. Governor spends $1.23 on a .380 ACP Gold Dot  Hollow Point and he and the dog keep jogging. 
God, I am glad I live in T.

What Do We Believe About the Role of Government in the economy?

The endless effrontery of this administration to force its policies down our collective throats, is ubiquitous. But even in a regime that is so unashamedly self promoting, the scheduled committee meeting to intimidate business into promoting the Obamacare and by extension the law makers who favored it seems egregious. And, yet, I have heard very little comment about this. Certainly not the outcry this planned abuse of power deserves.

From a story on FoxNews.com April 14, 2010. "Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has canceled a hearing intended to grill CEOs who took a charge against profits because of the health care reform bill. The cancellation came after they realized what everyone already knew - that the companies were required to do what they did because of accounting rules. Waxman and others had reacted with outrage and accused the companies of doing it - in essence, to make health care reform look bad."

The fact is that Obamacare ends a tax break that companies used keep drug benefits for their retirees instead of allowing them to go Medicare. The article then says, "The Democratic memo cancelling the hearing notes, 'These one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules. Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles as determined by the FASB, companies are required to take a noncash charge against current earnings to recognize a tax liability for the estimated future tax effects of a new law.'

It goes on to read, 'This noncash charge must reflect the entire present value of the loss of future tax deductions on the subsidy, and it must be taken in the period in which the law is enacted. Moreover, if the level of the impact is deemed "material" under SEC regulations, the company must file the report promptly following the triggering event, in this case the enactment of the law.'"

This is a naked attempt to coerce businesses to act in a fashion that would benefit the law makers who voted for this legislation. Citizens should be outraged about this. This shows a complete lack of ethics. Has it come to this in our history, that we are so cowed by our government that we blithely ignore the open bullying of private institutions for the "offense" of failing to make the government policy's look good? This was unadulterated extortion, should be met with public outcry and government employees whether elected, appointed or hired should be terminated if they attempt to misuse their authority for their own benefit.

What does this say about us a citizens? What does this say about our government? What does this say about our future.

Misinformation about the tax burden

"'We are over-taxed as it is,' Doris said bluntly.
'Well, let's talk about that, because this is an area where there's been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I'm going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have,' the president said." This is start of "The Washington Post" April 03, 2010 article entitled, "Obama's 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman's claim of being 'over-taxed'".
Poor President Obama imagine his frustration. Here he was taking his valuable time to enlighten the ignorant battery plant workers; when, all of sudden, he comes face to face with Doris and many others like her who are "mis-apprehensive" about taxes. But even when faced with such massive ignorance the President still donated 17 minutes to explain to Doris, the petty factors in her life are nothing compared with the national issues. So while, Doris was merely struggling to say feed her family or maybe pay her mortgage, the President was fighting to keep keep funding national expenditures while the national debt is growing. While Doris was working to repair her car or replace those worn tires, his administration was striving to see that insurance companies were not becoming too profitable. And while Doris was laying awake at night trying to figure out how to get a new or better job; the President's flight on Air Force One was practically destroyed by Congressional reports on government overspending.
When one looks down at the pathetically small lives of battery plant workers like Doris from the lofty height of Presidential peaks, it becomes apparent, that that the "tax burden" of battery makers is just another barrier to the President. We can all be grateful that he took 17 minutes out of his important life to correct Doris' misapprehension.

Health Care Reform - the Protection Racket

The Federal government is compelling it subjects to buy insurance. They have given the hoi polloi a choice to buy health insurance; not just any insurance but officially approved, US Government certified insurance OR pay a repressive fine. All of this backed up by muscle of the closest this country has to a secret police - the IRS. Basically you buy the government's protection for your health or they take what you have and pay themselves. The leg tingling, media is swooning with the originality of this concept. But this is not a new design. This is the classic "protection racket" that goes back to the very first gang thug that walked into a place of business or private home and demanded that the owner buy "health and fire insurance" to protect the establishment from burning down with the owner in it. Once the proprietor purchases mafia health and life insurance, the collector comes back every week to demand another premium payment. Their is no fixed rate, each extortionist determines the victims "ability to pay" and charges accordingly. In addition to the premium, the collector will also occasionally charge additional "penalties" and interest if the victim resists in any fashion. Does this sound familiar?
The classic "protection racket" is actually less insidious than health care reform. In the classic model, the collector only demands protection for the victim's own property. But in the health care reform the victims will not only have to pay for their own protection, but will also be compelled to pay the insurance for the "less fortunate". You are considered "fortunate" if the government has left you with any means to pay.
The current administration laughingly assures us that this way, at least, the law abiding citizens no longer have to worry about the profits that the insurance companies were making. They have an excellent point here as anytime the government (or the mob) becomes involved in a business, profits vanish! Wouldn't it be better to "worry" about the insurance companies' profits than bear the yoke of government protection.

The importance of being Wal-Mart.

It seems like every day the news is bracketed with new Wal-Mart story. Here are just a few examples:
• BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- A text message that's been circulating among Kern County's Hispanic community is causing some concern. The message claims that Wal-Mart gave permission for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to round up immigrants in its stores on March 20. The message adds to support the Hispanic movement by not shopping at Wal-Mart and to spread the word.
• YUCCA VALLEY — Two environmental groups suing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. settled this week, with the corporation agreeing to improve the energy efficiency of its planned Supercenter in Yucca Valley and donate money toward land conservation.
• COLUMBUS -- Police said a 68 year old man in a Wal-Mart store punched children with a key protruding from his fist and told investigators it was a thrill.
• The Supreme Court of Canada found for Wal-Mart and confirmed that a recently certified employer has no legal obligation under labor legislation to stay in business, and that a closure of one of its locations can constitute sufficient reason for the termination of the employees at that location.
Each one of these stories shows a kaleidoscopic view through a quintessential American institution. Wal-Mart has become the fabric that holds the tapestry of our lives. It amazes me that there was a period of time within my adult life time when hardly anyone outside of a few people in northwest Arkansas had ever even heard of Wal-Mart. When I got out of the service in 1970, I was hired as a part time employee to open Wal-Mart #26, I worked at night and on weekends while I went to school Monday through Friday. Fresh back from Vietnam, I had no idea that the “Wal” was actually the family name of the major owners, let alone that they would go on to become some of the riches people in the US. And the chain would become one of the most recognizable institutions in American life.
Given the relative short existence of Wal-Mart it is hard to imagine what a common frame of reference it has been become. Before Wal-Mart where did illegal immigrants stay away from to avoid the INS? I just don’t see the same level of impact if, for instance, illegal immigrants were avoiding Piggly Wiggle to stay away from a rumored immigration raid. And, if Wal-Mart had never existed who would be donating money to land conservation to assuage the sensibilities of enviro-activists? It seems doubtful that Stan’s IGA donating money for a new landfill would be quite so newsworthy. If 68 year punches children with a key in a Wal-Mart that is news; but a senile old man frightening children at Walgreen's; well, what did you expect? Without Wal-Mart it would be obvious that defunct employers could not provide jobs; but with Wal-Mart the people of Canada have to wait until the Supreme Court decides that once a business closes that is sufficient reason to terminate the former employees.
For better or for worse, the world as we have come to recognize it lives on, around, a through Wal-Mart. It gives scale to world events, it supplies a reference for human folly and paints the world in a uniquely American perspective. If the Walton family had not built Wal-Mart, we would have had to invent it, just so we could relate to today's society.

Everyone agrees that the health care system is broken?

One thing I hear over and over is that, "everyone agrees the health care system needs to be fixed". I don't. The problems with the health care system is one of cost not quality. Government programs always cost more and reduce quality. I really do not want to see some government run social experiment on health care with my family as the guinea pigs. It the politicians want to fix something, why not tort reform? If the health care industry could get the trial lawyers off their back, then medical costs would decline sharply. It is not only the direct costs, such as insanely high medical malpractice insurance premiums; but a much greater expense, defensive medicine costs. All those unnecessary extra tests and exhaustive record keeping so that so that health care providers can defend themselves from expensive malpractice suits.

Why play defense?

There are thirteen 9-year olds on our 7 man flag football team. The league requires that all players play either on the defense or on the offense for the entire game. Therefore there are 7 starters on offense and 6 starters on defense with one of the offensive players also playing defense. Assuming half the plays are offense and half the plays are defense, everyone plays at least half of the game. You think that would be a pretty equitable system. I coach the defense and the question I hear the most is, "when can I play on offense?" It does not matter how well or how poorly the player is playing, whether it is practice or in a game; all the defense drools with envy over the offensive players. In the last game our shut down corner intercepted a pass and took it in to the end zone for a touchdown. He came running over to the side where I gave him a high five and a pat on the back. "Good job, man", I praised him. He looked up at me grinning from ear to ear with the echo's of his team mate's cheers still pulsing through the air and he said to me, "Thanks, now can I play offense?" I told him he was playing offense he had just scored a touchdown. He looked at me like I had recently escaped from an asylum. He just continued on to the bench after giving me that nod that kids use when adults say things that make no sense to them. Clearly, in his mind what he had just done was NOT offense.
So why is it that playing offense is cool but playing defense is well a necessary evil, at best. Why do defensive players long to be offensive players? I think it is because offensive players have power. They know what play is called, they know what they are suppose to do and they challenge the defense to figure out what the offense is doing and try to stop it. Obviously, they are dictating the terms to the defense and it is up to the defense to try to react. Some how we have come to value the act more than the force that seeks so contain it.
Is this a metaphor for the society we will live in? It seems like we admire and emulate actors, musicians and celebrities that behave in the most debauched and depraved manner while shunning any conformity to standards of moral and decent codes. Is immorality offense and virtue defense in the modern world? Has the desecration of our founding principles and contempt for traditional values become the offense while morality and religion become defense?
Maybe that explains the way we have become. Everyone wants to be on the cool, hip, POWERFUL offense, challenge the stogy, weak defensive forces of morality, virtue and religion to try to contain them.