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.

Good Friends Earn Their Own Money

Sorry, I know it’s been awhile.  I’ve been amazingly busy with work and such.  And I just got back from vacation on Wednesday. 

Anyways, something interesting happened yesterday.  I was going into work from the rear entrance, and somebody who was sitting his car called me over and asked if Jason was working.  I said that I would check.  Jason was working, so I sent him out to the parking lot.

I asked Jason what that guy had wanted and he said that it was his friend and that he had broken his toe.  The friend wanted to know if he could get a ride to the hospital.  I asked Jason why his friend had driven up to come find him instead of driving himself to the hospital.  He said the guy didn’t have enough gas and that he was always looking for an excuse for someone to drive him around.  The friend doesn’t have a job and he frequently asks Jason for gas money.

I said, “Sounds like he’s a good guy to have around,” and Jason just mumbled something like “Yeah, I know.”  Jason’s not the hardest worker around, but he doesn’t try to bum gas money off his friends.  He works for his own money.  Jason’s  friend doesn’t understand that in order to consume, he needs to produce.  This is what happens when people are placed in an environment where they can get by without doing anything.  They learn to “borrow” money and live off other people’s wealth.

Jason’s friend should remind you of what’s going on in politics every day.  Government officials believe that they need to redistribute wealth from people who earn their own money to people who either cannot or will not support themselves; to people like Jason’s friend.  One of the arguments that I keep hearing is that the rich can afford to be taxed more.  Therefore, they should be taxed more.  Or in the (paraphrased) words of Joe Biden, it is their patriotic duty to sacrifice their earnings to the greater good. 

I can’t find any logic in this idea.  Just because you think someone can afford to part with a few dollars doesn’t mean that it is right or moral for you to take money from them.  They earned it and they should spend it however they wish.  Now, hopefully they will choose to help a few people out with that money.  However, they should not be judged if they want to keep all the money for themselves.  It is within their rights to do so.

My Undeserved Raise; Courtesy of the Federal Government

On July 24 the American minimum wage will increase by 70 cents to an arbitrary rate of $7.25 an hour.  Since I work for the minimum wage, I’ll be seeing a fairly large chunk of change being added to my paychecks.  However, I don’t see the increase as necessarily beneficial to me, or to my fellow Americans.  

First of all, relatively few Americans actually work for the minimum wage.  I believe the number is less than five percent.  So already, we have a law that only benefits a relatively small amount of people.  Second of all, increasing minimum wage will increase inflation on the already struggling dollar.  

Perhaps Congress thought they were being nice and giving minimum wage earners a better shot at achieving the American Dream; but do the pros outweigh the cons? 

I’m going to have to say a most emphatic no.  Minimum wage earners are not the only people being affected by this law.  This law has huge consequences for business owners.  They have to pay their workers that 70 cents more and still make a decent profit off their product or service.  In order to do this at a steady rate, they’re going to have to make some cuts, or more likely, increase prices.  When prices increase, you’re going to see a decrease in customers, and when customers stop coming…well, you understand basic economics. 

Business owners should be free to decide for themselves how much they pay their employees.  You might say; “But they’ll just take advantage of their workers and pay them an unspeakably low wage.”  This is not very likely.  Competition between businesses will ensure that workers get paid fairly, without the inflation caused by a minimum wage increase.  If a worker is dissatisfied with one employer, he can find another that will pay him more. 

Letting businesses decide their own employees’ wages is a much more practical way to ensure economic growth.  Businesses will be free to grow, unrestrained by federal regulations. 

Do I really deserve this 70 cent increase at the expense of America’s economy?

Limiting Smokers’ Rights

The recently passed federal tax on cigarettes is entirely unconstitutional and immoral.  The tax on one pack of cigarettes increased from 39 cents to $1.01.  The government must see smokers as intrinsically stupid and harmful to society.  Many people that smoke want to quit and cannot.  Smoking is not just a relaxing ritual, it’s addictive and overpowering.  So why are taxes increasing? 

Well, it is true that when when the cost of smoking goes up, the consumption drops.  But it is not the government’s job to control peoples’ personal lives.  The government is supposed to be of the people, for the people.  All this tax does is polarize America.  Those who smoke, and those who stand up for individual rights, are pitted against those who think government needs to stop people from harming themselves.

Another reason people agree with this tax is that the money will go towards the federally funded State Children’s Health Insurance Program.  Nobody is going to disagree with helping kids, that’s not the issue.  The problem here is that money is being taken from the consumers and put to whatever cause the government sees fit.  We TAX PAYERS ARE NOT STUPID!  We can decide what to do with our own money!  In fact, I’d like to support children in need of Health Insurance.  Big government is exerting its control over our daily lives and it must be stopped.

This isn’t the only limit on the rights of smokers.  23 states have bans against smoking in most public places.  This number includes Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, South Dakota, and Wyoming recently added to the list.  The law in Virginia bans smoking in private bars and restaurants if they do not have a separate room and a separate ventilation system for smoking sections.  This is a private issue!  Patrons of restaurants understand the risks of secondhand smoke, and they choose to eat food where they want to.  If someone doesn’t like a restaurants policy, they are not forced to eat there.

Both of these policies will cost businesses and individuals millions of dollars.  The Government somehow believes that it is helping the people, but this perverse view should not be tolerated.

Banks with Integrity

Finally some good news related to all these government handouts; three banks(Iberia Bank, Signature Bank, and Old National Bancorp), that received TARP funding have decided to return the money.  The reasons they gave for turning down the money? 

The New York Signature Bank CEO said,

 The revised, expanded legislation included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, passed on February 17, 2009, adversely affected our business model and it became apparent that we should return these funds to the Treasury. The return of these funds allows us to continue to execute our business model, which includes the successful recruitment and retention of highly talented banking professionals throughout the metropolitan New York area.”

Finally, some common sense!  When the government dictates what a business can or cannot do, the business suffers.  Who would you rather have running your bank; someone with the experience and skills to do a proper job and create wealth, or a poorly organized government agency that claims to be serving the public?

For all these banks that got bailout money, the major decision is “Do we take the money with government strings attached, or do we risk spiraling downward?”  Well, obviously, most of them chose the former and sucked up billions of tax-payers’ dollars.  This kind of behavior among our country’s leaders needs to be stopped. It’s horrible that our government would even offer our money to private companies, but it’s even worse that so many companies took it.

Thank you to those who refused tax-payer money and took responsiblity for their own actions.