An empty threat from Barack Obama

A week ago, Obama said he would not campaign for any democrats who voted no on health care.

Just recently, he changed his mind.  Democratic strategist David Plouffe said Obama would certainly be campaigning for democrats who vote no, as well as for those who vote yes.  Obama certainly seems like a silly fist shaker. 

The bully pulpit is only effective if you keep your promises.  We’ll see what he does come November.

Who’s Got the Sense?

During the last two weeks of my fall semester, my sociology professor posed some political/social questions to the class.  One such question was; “should the government mandate a minimum yearly wage of $23,000 to full time workers?  Some money would be demanded from the places of employment, and the rest would come from increased taxes on businesses.”

Thankfully, everyone in my class disagreed with this theoretical proposition.  People were worried that the businesses would suffer too much from the mandate.  In order to pay some employees more, many people would be laid off.  This is of course an unintended consequence, but a very predictable one.  If only governmental officials had this kind of sense!  Instead, they think that we can spend our way to prosperity; that we can consume without first producing.  In fact, a 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill has just been passed through Congress and is on President Obama’s desk. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_spending

I think Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaks for all the big-spenders when he says, “Every bill that is passed, every project that is funded and every job that is created helps America take another step forward on the road of economic recovery.”  Is he listening to what he’s saying?  Every bill passed?  It doesn’t matter what it is?  According to this logic, Congress should spend 100% of the GDP.  They should take every single dollar that the people of the U.S. have earned and spend it on whichever cause suits their fancy.

But back to the original question…Unfortunately, quite a few members of my class added on an interesting opinion to their responses; they had no problem taxing the super rich and giving it to the poor.  Yikes!  This attitude is scary.  Their argument is; “they can afford it, so why not decrease the gap between incomes?”  And the answer is simple; “the wealth is theirs!”  Whether you think they deserve their money or not, no one has the right to take it from them.  This undermines the establishment of a moral society.  In the words of Francisco d’Anconia, “Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it.  Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune.  Money is a living power that dies without its root.”  If only government bureaucrats read Ayn Rand…

NASA Needs More of Your Money

  On October 9^th, 2009 the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite  (LCROSS) crashed into the moon in a search to find water.  The plan was to shoot particles into space from the force of the impact to be analyzed by another satellite that would determine if there was any water in the sample.  The total cost of the mission was 79 million dollars.  While the mission was successful, was it really necessary?

  According the US Office of Management and Budget, the 2007 NASA budget was 15.9 billion dollars.  Under Barack Obama’s approval the budget was raised in 2009 for 17.2 billion dollars.  The proposed budget for 2010 is 18.7 billion dollars.  And NASA is asking for even more in order to fund a manned mission to the moon by the year 2020.

  This money is going to a program that is completely wasteful.  Our tax dollars are being spent to blow craters in the moon and fund projects that are irrelevant to the American people.  How can the government justify spending billions of dollars on such a useless program?  Our money should not be spent on exploring space when our national debt is over 12 trillion dollars, and our budget deficit for 2009 is 1.4 trillion dollars.  We could be using that money for much more important things, like our own planet.

  Our government could possibly put some of that money into education, transportation, health care, and defense; or something that actually benefits Americans.  Pretty much anything would be a better cause than NASA. 

  However, the government does not have the right to take our tax-money and smash holes into the moon with it.  If NASA receives a budget cut (assuming the money is not put into another government program), that would mean more money where it belongs, in the pockets of the Americans who earned it.

 

You can read about the LCROSS here.  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/prelim_water_results.html

Not Your Money, Not Your Life: Part 2

Obama has stated that he doesn’t want government to take over health care.  Instead, he wants something “uniquely American.”  That is, a public alternative, paid for with tax payers’ money.  If people want to, they can keep their own doctors and keep their former policies.  This public option will compete with private insurers and keep prices down all across the board.

Well, it sounds fantastic.  How could anyone oppose such a great piece of legislation?

This is how:  when the government starts a program, it doesn’t have to worry about turning a profit.  It just has to make the program seem like it’s working.  So when the government creates a “public option” for health care, you can bet it’s going to be cheap.  A lot of people are going to go along with it.  Obama says private companies will compete, but how can they compete with a program that has a seemingly endless flow of tax payers’ money?

Private insurance companies will start to drop employees and go out of business.  Hospitals and organizations will have to start paying their workers less.  Doctors will leave their jobs in search of something that pays better.  Eventually, the “public option” will be one of  the only options. 

We’ve seen that government run health care just doesn’t work.  When people have to pay little, or nothing at all, for medical care, they’re going to take advantage of it.  In Canada you can get lots of treatments for free.  The catch is you may be waiting for your treatment for a few days…or weeks…or months.  People who would have been able to afford treatment may have to wait for an indefinite period of time before they can be seen.

Private companies should be the only option for health care.  Competing companies allow for the best treatments at the lowest costs.  A government option seems like a great plan, but it’s really just wishful thinking.

Not Your Money, Not Your Life

In order to raise more money for Obama’s extensive health-care system, Congress is planning on passing a bill that will fine Americans for not buying affordable medical coverage.  Individuals that don’t do what the government wishes will get a bill for over one thousand dollars.  Apparently, this idea is based on something that Massachusetts has already been doing.  It doesn’t make sense to me.  People should not be fined for refusing to get health insurance.  

Congress says that certain people will be exempt if they are too poor to get coverage, so anybody who has money will be required to get medical coverage or pay the fines.  Once again, the government thinks it’s being Robin Hood.  But Robin Hood didn’t steal money from those that had worked for it; he stole from those that had cheated and stolen money themselves.  When government takes from the rich and gives to the poor, they are righting wrongs that aren’t wrong at all.  Everyone deserves their own money.  Why should the poor take the money that the rich earned? 

Of course Obama is happy about this bill; he says it “reflects many of the principles I’ve laid out, such as reforms that will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and the concept of insurance exchanges where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick.” 

If insurance companies are forced to cover people that have pre-existing conditions, they are going to lose money.  They aren’t just denying sick people coverage because they don’t like them; they are trying to stay in business.  It’s unfortunate that people with pre-existing conditions have a tough time getting insurance, but it is not the government’s responsibility to step in.  Individuals should have the choice to help their fellow man or not.  I would certainly help out a friend of mine if he or she had a life-threatening condition, and I trust that this is the case for many other people.  However, man is not his brother’s keeper; he has no obligation to help people he hasn’t even met. 

This is a totalitarian action; big government is stepping into our lives.  Individuals should decide if they want coverage or not.  It is not the government’s place to come in and tell Americans how to live their lives.   Government is becoming more successful every day in convincing Americans that their money is actually our money. 

I see the contradiction.  I hope you do.  It is your money.  It is your life.

Obama’s Irresponsible Budget

Obama’s budget is available for viewing on this website.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html

It totals 3.6 trillion dollars.  I can’t even fathom that amount of money; even after multi-billion dollar stimulus packages and bailouts.  Does anybody else disagree with this prolific spending?  How can this happen in our country?  The government is basically telling us we are irresponsible with our own money, so they need to take it from us and put it to good use.

In Obama’s message introducing the budget, he states

“This crisis is neither the result of a normal turn of the business cycle nor an accident of history.  We arrived at this point as a result of an era of profound irresponsibility that engulfed both private and public institutions from some of our largest companies’ executive suites to the seats of power in Washington, D.C. For decades, too many on Wall Street threw caution to the wind, chased profits with blind optimism and little regard for serious risks—and with even less regard for the public good. Lenders made loans without concern for whether borrowers could repay them. Inadequately informed of the risks and overwhelmed by fine print, many borrowers took on debt they could not really afford. And those in authority turned a blind eye to this risk-taking; they forgot that markets work best when there is transparency and accountability and when the rules of the road are both fair and vigorously enforced. For years, a lack of transparency created a situation in which serious economic dangers were visible to all too few.”

 

I agree that there was irresponsibility in housing loans, but deregulation was not the cause of it.  Think about this; if a lender is free to make his own choices about who he gives loans to, won’t he choose those that he knows are most likely to pay them back?  Why would he indiscriminately give out loans?  Because there was government pressure to do so.

Obama also states that

“The past eight years have discredited once and for all the philosophy of trickle-down economics— that tax breaks, income gains, and wealth creation among the wealthy eventually will work their way down to the middle class. In its place, we need economic opportunity to trickle up. We need policies that will strengthen the middle class and create the conditions to spur innovation and sustainable economic growth.”

 

There are no facts to back this up.  Obama is implying that the Bush administration fully accepted the trickle-down theory of economics, which they clearly did not.  Taxes actually went up during Bush’s terms as president, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html and  there is no way anyone could consider his policies Laissez Faire. 

 

“It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or to generate long-term growth. Ours is a market economy, and the Nation depends on the energy and initiative of private institutions and individuals. But at this particular moment, government must lead the way in providing the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this severe and lay the foundation for future prosperity.”

 

We shouldn’t be depending on the government to create jobs that do not fall within the bare necessities of what an effective government should be.   Prosperity doesn’t start with the government handing out tax-payer money to companies that couldn’t even handle their own, and it certainly doesn’t start by spending 3.6 trillion on programs that may or may not show returns.  Now it is clear that Obama is trying to correct irresponsibility with irresponsibility.