I was reading the newspaper yesterday, and it talked about how the Obama administration wanted to start a spending freeze for parts of the budget for this next year to get the government's finances under control. It also talked about how he wanted to appoint a commission to investigate congressional spending. That got me thinking, "Isn't the House of Representatives our 'commission' on spending? Isn't that a part of their job. And for that matter, isn't there also the CBO and a myriad of committees that bills pass through in order to make sure they are sound?" I guess we've gotten to a point where elected officials are too busy doing things they weren't elected for that they don't have time to do their jobs the way they should.
For that matter, isn't one of the Presidency's major responsibilities homeland security? Why is it then that we need a whole new agency to deal with that? The list of redundant and unnecessary programs and agencies goes on and on. Why can't we streamline government just like you would a business to cut down on cost and waste? Oh, it's because the only thing some of these guys are good at is spending other people's money.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Separation of Church and State
I really would like to get people's feedback and comments on this one.
The other day I had a discussion with two liberal coworkers about high school sports. Apparently it's a law (or at least a high school sports association policy) in Alaska that they can't have any sports games or championships on Sunday. My two friends were telling me that it is discriminatory to other religions that have their holy days on Friday or Saturday. Their argument was that all days should be open for sports activities, and that way it would be most fair. By catering to the Christian majority, they argued, it is tyranny of the majority.
I brought up the idea that these sorts of things can't be all things for all people, but they might as well be as much as they can for as many people as possible. They said that by not catering to anyone they are being everything for everyone. I thought that was an interesting spin. By being nothing for anyone, they are claiming to be everything for everyone.
They threw in an additional argument that it wasn't fair for kids that they had known of in some rural towns whose board of education wouldn't allow sports teams to compete in local and state competitions on Sunday, which made it unfair for students who didn't believe the same way. This was a red herring, though, because we were talking about state-wide mandates, not local policies.
Does a state government have the constitutional right to cater to a particular religion? Is there a difference between establishment and catering? Does "freedom of religion" mean "freedom from religion?" Did the founders intend for there to be a complete absence of religious considerations in the public discourse?
The other day I had a discussion with two liberal coworkers about high school sports. Apparently it's a law (or at least a high school sports association policy) in Alaska that they can't have any sports games or championships on Sunday. My two friends were telling me that it is discriminatory to other religions that have their holy days on Friday or Saturday. Their argument was that all days should be open for sports activities, and that way it would be most fair. By catering to the Christian majority, they argued, it is tyranny of the majority.
I brought up the idea that these sorts of things can't be all things for all people, but they might as well be as much as they can for as many people as possible. They said that by not catering to anyone they are being everything for everyone. I thought that was an interesting spin. By being nothing for anyone, they are claiming to be everything for everyone.
They threw in an additional argument that it wasn't fair for kids that they had known of in some rural towns whose board of education wouldn't allow sports teams to compete in local and state competitions on Sunday, which made it unfair for students who didn't believe the same way. This was a red herring, though, because we were talking about state-wide mandates, not local policies.
Does a state government have the constitutional right to cater to a particular religion? Is there a difference between establishment and catering? Does "freedom of religion" mean "freedom from religion?" Did the founders intend for there to be a complete absence of religious considerations in the public discourse?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Entitlements
I think that a lot of the people where I live are wonderful. Many of them are very nice and welcoming. One of the biggest problems facing them, though, is the problem of entitlements.
I live in a small village in Alaska that is much like a reservation in the lower 48. The village is comprised mostly of natives, at about 95% of the population. When the Federal Government came into Alaska and started taking land, they dealt with the natives differently than in the lower 48. They bought the land for the estimated value it had to the natives and allowed the natives to keep a certain amount of it.
The money from the sale went to set up several regional corporations. The one serving the village where I live is called the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, or ASRC. Every native born on the slope is given a share in the corporation. It is my understanding that the shares can be bought or sold from there, just like any other corporation. This corporation wasn't hit hardly at all in the recent economic downturn. Consequently, the natives still get dividend payments of $5,000-$7,000/person twice a year.
If that were the only entitlement here, things would be different, I'm sure. The Federal Government and local government provides nearly everything else for them, also. Health care is basically free for natives. If they need to fly to Anchorage for treatment, they will help cover the costs. Nearly all of them are eligible for WIC and Welfare due to various conditions up here. Also, in school every student gets all of their supplies given to them, including a laptop. There are no fees to students for use of facilities, including the pool. And the list goes on.
Are all of these things in and of themselves a bad thing? No, in fact I think that helping people who need it is our responsibility as Christians. However, having everything handed to them has made the natives that I have met feel like they deserve everything handed to them. It has destroyed the initiative of many of them. It has made many of them irresponsible. Many of them, in fact, when they try to move out and do things on their own find it extremely difficult because they aren't used to having to be to work on time or pay the rent on time (people not paying rent for months at a time has become such a problem up here that there are elaborate incentive programs to get them to do it--and they don't get evicted because it's owned by the local government). They will often move back a few months after leaving because of the difficulty they faced.
This is the problem! Entitlements destroy initiative and personal responsibility. Some people would say that providing for the "Common Welfare" means that every person should have every need, and most of their wants, taken care of by the government. It is dehumanizing to rob people of their ability to provide for themselves.
I live in a small village in Alaska that is much like a reservation in the lower 48. The village is comprised mostly of natives, at about 95% of the population. When the Federal Government came into Alaska and started taking land, they dealt with the natives differently than in the lower 48. They bought the land for the estimated value it had to the natives and allowed the natives to keep a certain amount of it.
The money from the sale went to set up several regional corporations. The one serving the village where I live is called the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, or ASRC. Every native born on the slope is given a share in the corporation. It is my understanding that the shares can be bought or sold from there, just like any other corporation. This corporation wasn't hit hardly at all in the recent economic downturn. Consequently, the natives still get dividend payments of $5,000-$7,000/person twice a year.
If that were the only entitlement here, things would be different, I'm sure. The Federal Government and local government provides nearly everything else for them, also. Health care is basically free for natives. If they need to fly to Anchorage for treatment, they will help cover the costs. Nearly all of them are eligible for WIC and Welfare due to various conditions up here. Also, in school every student gets all of their supplies given to them, including a laptop. There are no fees to students for use of facilities, including the pool. And the list goes on.
Are all of these things in and of themselves a bad thing? No, in fact I think that helping people who need it is our responsibility as Christians. However, having everything handed to them has made the natives that I have met feel like they deserve everything handed to them. It has destroyed the initiative of many of them. It has made many of them irresponsible. Many of them, in fact, when they try to move out and do things on their own find it extremely difficult because they aren't used to having to be to work on time or pay the rent on time (people not paying rent for months at a time has become such a problem up here that there are elaborate incentive programs to get them to do it--and they don't get evicted because it's owned by the local government). They will often move back a few months after leaving because of the difficulty they faced.
This is the problem! Entitlements destroy initiative and personal responsibility. Some people would say that providing for the "Common Welfare" means that every person should have every need, and most of their wants, taken care of by the government. It is dehumanizing to rob people of their ability to provide for themselves.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Healthcare Part II
I little while ago, I read a letter to an editor that said we should “join the rest of the world” on the socialized medicine bandwagon. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?! I would love it if our communities, like some in Canada, raffled off medical services annually to those who need them. I would love it if the government raised taxes to pay for health care, then, like those who can afford it in France, buy my own health insurance to get treatment when I need it. I would love telling the “unproductive,” like the retired and disabled in England, that they are going to have to wait indefinitely while “productive” members of society get treatment. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have diagnostic procedures (MRIs, CAT scans, etc) rationed, so that hundreds of people go undiagnosed like in Canada and the UK? Hippocratic Oath, shmippocratic oath.
To illustrate, a man I student taught with had an aunt who lived in England who didn't have any immediate family and was retired. She got cancer, and her doctor knew about it, but he didn't tell her or diagnose it until after she died because she was "unproductive." It was a good thing that that doctor saved everyone so much money by not prescribing expensive, lifesaving treatment to someone who doesn't pay taxes.
Our current system is without a doubt the worst system in the world. We are due for change, and hope for that matter. Don't mind that the WHO(that is often critical of the US) in a recent report found that the US has the highest cancer survival rates of any other country in the world and that patients in America can expect the most prompt and relevant service of any other country in the world.
And we here in America already have wonderful models set up for this socialized wonderland! Isn’t it wonderful that Medicare only has a 30% fraud rate? That’s only tens of billions of dollars annually right now. And how about the treatment that veterans get. Some of them even get the treatment that they need and don’t have to wait more than a decade.
If the government were providing it, cost would definitely go down! You wouldn’t have to pay administrators, just bureaucrats. The government has proved how efficiently they can run businesses. Just look at the restaurant in the basement of the Capitol Building. It only runs a loss of a few million dollars every year.
To illustrate, a man I student taught with had an aunt who lived in England who didn't have any immediate family and was retired. She got cancer, and her doctor knew about it, but he didn't tell her or diagnose it until after she died because she was "unproductive." It was a good thing that that doctor saved everyone so much money by not prescribing expensive, lifesaving treatment to someone who doesn't pay taxes.
Our current system is without a doubt the worst system in the world. We are due for change, and hope for that matter. Don't mind that the WHO(that is often critical of the US) in a recent report found that the US has the highest cancer survival rates of any other country in the world and that patients in America can expect the most prompt and relevant service of any other country in the world.
And we here in America already have wonderful models set up for this socialized wonderland! Isn’t it wonderful that Medicare only has a 30% fraud rate? That’s only tens of billions of dollars annually right now. And how about the treatment that veterans get. Some of them even get the treatment that they need and don’t have to wait more than a decade.
If the government were providing it, cost would definitely go down! You wouldn’t have to pay administrators, just bureaucrats. The government has proved how efficiently they can run businesses. Just look at the restaurant in the basement of the Capitol Building. It only runs a loss of a few million dollars every year.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Healthcare
With the rising debate on a "public option" for health insurance, I've been thinking about a few things. There are very few people, I think, that don't think our current health care system needs some sort of adjustment. I am definitely one of those who thinks we need reform, although I fundamentally disagree with the current proposals in congress.
Many people base their arguments on health care reform on the idea that health care is a right. It is certainly not an enumerated right, and if they claim it is, I would like them to name the amendment it's contained in. It could very well fit into the 10th amendment, though. If we are to accept that health care is a right, what does that mean for the relationship between us and our government? The 1st amendment protects our right to assemble and worship how, where, and what we will, but I don't think I've ever seen a government-funded church building project. The 1st amendment also gives us freedom of speech, but I don't think I've ever heard of a radio station that gives each person their fair share of air time. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bare arms, but I have yet to receive my government issue sidearm. Health care may be a right, but that doesn't mean that government should provide it to everyone, it means that the federal government can't take away legitimate health care from its citizens (which under the current proposal, I'm not so sure it would fulfill this obligation of good government).
My major concern with the "public option" is that private insurers will not be able to compete with it. The public option would be subsidized by taxpayer dollars whereas private insurers have to do all of the mundane things of private companies like not letting expenditures exceed revenues. Also, a public insurer would happen to be a part of that entity that regulates the industry. That forms a conflict of interests and a high likelihood of corruption. In the end, there is little hope for private companies to compete with the government.
Many people base their arguments on health care reform on the idea that health care is a right. It is certainly not an enumerated right, and if they claim it is, I would like them to name the amendment it's contained in. It could very well fit into the 10th amendment, though. If we are to accept that health care is a right, what does that mean for the relationship between us and our government? The 1st amendment protects our right to assemble and worship how, where, and what we will, but I don't think I've ever seen a government-funded church building project. The 1st amendment also gives us freedom of speech, but I don't think I've ever heard of a radio station that gives each person their fair share of air time. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bare arms, but I have yet to receive my government issue sidearm. Health care may be a right, but that doesn't mean that government should provide it to everyone, it means that the federal government can't take away legitimate health care from its citizens (which under the current proposal, I'm not so sure it would fulfill this obligation of good government).
My major concern with the "public option" is that private insurers will not be able to compete with it. The public option would be subsidized by taxpayer dollars whereas private insurers have to do all of the mundane things of private companies like not letting expenditures exceed revenues. Also, a public insurer would happen to be a part of that entity that regulates the industry. That forms a conflict of interests and a high likelihood of corruption. In the end, there is little hope for private companies to compete with the government.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Evidence That Our Politicians Aren't Participating in Reality
I have stood in awe as I have watched the actions of the federal government over the last few months and years. Also, I am most of the way through "Cool It," a book by the "Skeptical Environmentalist" on global warming policy. It's astonishing the ridiculously large amounts of money that is being used in the least effective way. I'll explain.
Politicians and pundits call for the developed countries of the world to save us all from global warming through CO2 reduction. Whether you believe humans are responsible for global warming or not, there are some serious problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, drastic cuts in CO2 production will cost, through actual spending and opportunity cost, trillions and trillions of dollars and it will delay global warming's effects by around 5 years. On the other hand, if the same money was being used for social issues, hundreds of millions of more people could be saved through research and development, 3rd world education, water sanitation, land protection and reclamation (for those areas that will be flooded), and availability of quality health care. In the end, less money would be spent or lost, and more money would be made.
Also, since when is it a good thing to go into debt? For that matter, how can the government justify a mere $1.5 trillion of additional debt for a health care option that likely run private insurers out of business, make our health care system similar to the FANTASTIC systems of Canada, UK, France, and others, and still leave most of those who need health care uninsured.
When I was in college, I was under the impression that contracts and property were some of those things the federal government couldn't just change or take away without just cause, warrants, or something along those lines. Now, the government is rewriting contracts and redistributing property and ownership to appease partisans. I speak specifically of the recent GM and Chrysler actions. The government gave disproportionate payouts and company ownership to the unions and gave the shaft to preferred stock holders, paying them out less than those who had ordinary stock in the GM bankruptcy.
When will people stand up to their government and let the rule of law and common sense reign?
Politicians and pundits call for the developed countries of the world to save us all from global warming through CO2 reduction. Whether you believe humans are responsible for global warming or not, there are some serious problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, drastic cuts in CO2 production will cost, through actual spending and opportunity cost, trillions and trillions of dollars and it will delay global warming's effects by around 5 years. On the other hand, if the same money was being used for social issues, hundreds of millions of more people could be saved through research and development, 3rd world education, water sanitation, land protection and reclamation (for those areas that will be flooded), and availability of quality health care. In the end, less money would be spent or lost, and more money would be made.
Also, since when is it a good thing to go into debt? For that matter, how can the government justify a mere $1.5 trillion of additional debt for a health care option that likely run private insurers out of business, make our health care system similar to the FANTASTIC systems of Canada, UK, France, and others, and still leave most of those who need health care uninsured.
When I was in college, I was under the impression that contracts and property were some of those things the federal government couldn't just change or take away without just cause, warrants, or something along those lines. Now, the government is rewriting contracts and redistributing property and ownership to appease partisans. I speak specifically of the recent GM and Chrysler actions. The government gave disproportionate payouts and company ownership to the unions and gave the shaft to preferred stock holders, paying them out less than those who had ordinary stock in the GM bankruptcy.
When will people stand up to their government and let the rule of law and common sense reign?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Democracy?
This morning as I was going to school, I heard on the radio the address of a website that shows the location of the houses of people who donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign from the recent election in California. It doesn't stop there, however. It tells how much each person donated and what their profession is, as well as their place of employment. If you are shocked and terrified for the future of our democracy, you're not alone.
What is the purpose of this site? There is only one reason that I can think of: intimidation and harassment. I hope that little more comes of this. It reminds me, though, of something from WWII Europe. Are these left-wing-nuts really so arrogant as to think anything they do is well and good while right-wing people can never be wrong? What they are doing is fascist! They are intolerant towards other's beliefs and values. They aren't satisfied with the turnout of a democratic elections, so they have resorted to undemocratic methods of fighting their fights. That was a campaign promise of Hitler. One that he kept.
What is the purpose of this site? There is only one reason that I can think of: intimidation and harassment. I hope that little more comes of this. It reminds me, though, of something from WWII Europe. Are these left-wing-nuts really so arrogant as to think anything they do is well and good while right-wing people can never be wrong? What they are doing is fascist! They are intolerant towards other's beliefs and values. They aren't satisfied with the turnout of a democratic elections, so they have resorted to undemocratic methods of fighting their fights. That was a campaign promise of Hitler. One that he kept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)