Sunday, June 28, 2009
Throughout my young adulthood, which some would say, at 30, continues, I believed that I was a liberal based on the fact that I harbored no racist feelings, grew up below the poverty line, and didn’t believe that war was ever necessary and that the last time it was necessary was because a raving lunatic named Hitler had tried to take over the world. I saw the Berlin Wall fall on television and knew it was a big deal but didn’t know why. At the time of the first Gulf War, I became fascinated, as did my entire generation, as this was “our” first war and it only lasted 100 hours and any losses our military suffered, and they were few, were part of the cost of freedom for people we would probably never meet. As I have continued to grow, so have my views pertaining to the world we live in.
In 1997, I joined the Pennsylvania Army National Guard hoping to earn money for the college education that would give me the success—at that time translated to me as money—that I wanted to attain. It was a time of “world peace” and the upside of serving far outweighed any potential downsides. That decision put into motion my transformation. My basic training adventures taught me new meaning to the word “freedom,” an abstract term which, up until this time, had been defined for me by stories of our nation’s early revolution and the emancipation of an entire sector of our own population after our nation nearly tore itself apart. Entry into our military introduces each new Soldier to the true meaning of the word by effectively denying them any personal freedoms and doing it cold turkey.
Five years and a pregnant girlfriend later, 19 hijackers changed my perspective yet again. After watching the second plane fly into the World Trade Center, I immediately contacted my supervisor and went home to pack my bag and wait for what seemed would be an imminent deployment. Having the remote possibility of being shipped off to a foreign land to fight a war transformed into the sickening realization that my baby may be born without me there. While I was scared to death of that possibility, certain clarities were introduced into my life that morning. I began to pay attention not only to the world that surrounded my life, a selfish trapping that we, as humans, are all prone to, but to things that I had never even known existed, such as politics.
Being ignorant to the world of politics to which I was just introduced, the words “conservative,” “liberal,” “Republican” and “Democrat” had no meaningful definitions. These words were not only irrelevant to me at the time, but to a large extent remain irrelevant today. Many of the descriptive words we use are exactly what we claim to despise: stereotypes and/or examples of profiling. General George S. Patton was once attributed to say—and I paraphrase here—that “If everybody thinks the same thing, than somebody’s not thinking.” And yet, I found, and continue to find, that people readily accept these definitions of people as it suits their causes and despite their (feigned, perhaps?) offense at being lumped into such stereotypes.
In the interest of introducing to you, the reader, who I am and what I stand for allow me to, at this point, define “conservative” as I see it: Conservatives see government as a necessary evil, one that should be used with caution and intrude as little as possible into our everyday lives. Conservatives also believe that the individual can do more with their money and more efficiently than any government entity can, regardless of the political party in control. Conservatives have the highest regard for life, all life, and believe that with the proper motivation, anybody can do anything, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion or disability. Conservatives believe in many of the core principals of Christianity, even if they are (or, in my case, I am not) Christians and accept the fact that we, as humans, are all prone to failing the moral standards we set for ourselves and each other. Conservatives believe in a strong national defense. Conservatives believe in free speech for all without regard to race, religion, sexuality, minority/majority status, or income so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.
While this may appear to be an incomplete or general list of what conservativism is, it is important to realize that there is one more vital definition. While the word “conservative” is defined by The Oxford American Desk Dictionary (2nd edition, 2001) using words such as orthodox, cautious, avoiding extremes and fundamentalist, it is extremely important to note that the word “static” is not used.
The goal for this blog is multi-faceted. First, I, like nearly all others, believe that I am right and thrive on the challenge of bringing you around to see things my way. Secondly, and most importantly, I want to make a difference in this community, this nation and this world. Thirdly, I wish to give the opportunity to anybody who does disagree with me, to try to sway me and anybody else who holds my views. Finally, I wish to re-introduce the concept of critical thought to the masses. These initial goals can only be met through intelligent, thoughtful dialogue that is both respectful and honest. Without honesty—including being honest with ourselves—we deny ourselves credibility. Without respect for each other, there is no argument to be had.
Monday, June 29, 2009
With these familiar but sometimes forgotten words, the mission of a continent’s worth of farmers, bankers, teachers, lawyers, printers, preachers and various other persons from diverse social and economic backgrounds was begun:
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.
establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.
In my mind, there is no greater or more appropriate way to begin our time together than to examine the Constitution of the United States of America, as many of us have never either sat down to read it or, further, studied it in detail. I refuse to examine this document as a lawyer because I’m not one. I am, for all intents and purposes, a layman. I am who this document was written for. I am, by proxy, the person represented by the Continental Congress and when I read the preamble aloud, I don’t see the words “We the people” without realizing that there is no “We” without “me.” And you. And us.
So, what is the Preamble? What is its purpose? Upon examining the content of this famous intro, it appears to be a number of things. It is a mission statement. It is a dedication. It sets the tone for what is to come in the document and what is meant to be the end result. It is, in the end, a reminder of why this document was so necessary, listing the grievances, in general terms, that they had had with England and which they wished to never see happen again.
We, the people of the United States… As I sit down at my kitchen table studying this simple phrase—perhaps as a pious person would his or her Bible—I am struck by how powerful these first words actually are. Looking at the context under which they were written is simply astounding. It is nearly impossible for us to imagine what the framers of this text had to go through to even have the opportunity to begin this document and yet the first words they choose to write are rooted in humility. They chose “We, the people” not “We, the Congress” or “We, the affluent.” Regardless of the roles of women, blacks, wealth or even those who supported British rule, they identified themselves as little more than part of the whole, something that the people were definitely not used to seeing.
…in order to form a more perfect union… To my eyes, initially, this just gives us a reason why they would task themselves with writing this Constitution. However, the important words are “more perfect union.” What exactly is a “more perfect union”? It would be easy for us to assume that the important word in that phrase is more. At that point, anything would be more perfect than the rule they had just freed themselves, though. Instead, I believe that the most significant word is union. The unions between state and nation, people and government and, ultimately, the interdependence of the articles contained in this very document had to be mutually exclusive with the beneficiary of the result ultimately being the people, as it would be the people who made it all work. It is no coincidence that this was the first item addressed.
…establish justice… The second article was of equal importance. Justice in that day and age was administered on the base belief that suspicion was enough evidence for conviction. Corruption in a single man holding the proper station could, and did, result in the punishment of those with whom he held a grudge. The importance of ensuring the just and ethical treatment of the people by the justice system would be paramount to the success of this fledgling nation and its significance could not be overstated.
…insure domestic traquillity (sic)… Tranquility can be defined in many ways: calm, quiet, harmony, peace. Whereas domestic tranquility can only be defined in terms of each party in this newly established nation—represented as individuals, towns and states—treating one another with respect. Laying the groundwork for this domestic peace was essential for eliminating the bickering that would undoubtedly occur and result in weakening the foundations of the nation as a whole. “The key to any lasting relationship,” I’m pretty sure Dr. Phil would say, “is establishing the parameters of that relationship and clearly stating the expectations of each party involved.”
…provide for the common defense… Simply put, this would create a national military, which at the time included the Army and the Navy (despite Marine protestations, the Marines were part of the Navy). Obviously, given the fact that the British Empire was not happy about losing one of its most profitable colonies, this would have been very high on the list of priorities for the people. But a common defense, as promised, would be necessary for a number of reasons. A successful military operation can only occur when all units work towards a common goal. The goal of this new government would be to create a military that would centralize the command of that army under a duly elected representative of the people, ensuring the protection of the nation and the common citizen from all fronts.
…promote the general welfare… These four words provide the most debate in our country today. Why? The word promote has three basic definitions, two of which could be applied to this phrase: “to endorse or support” and “to advance.” If Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues were alive today, we would be able to ask to him to clarify this statement. Unfortunately that is not the case and we could, and do, debate this until the cows come home at which time the cows join in the debate. My initial inclination is to agree with the point of view that advancing the general welfare is what was meant. After thinking about it, however, I find that upholding the general welfare is more likely to be the intention of the Founding Fathers. I base this thought on the realities of the time and the wording of the document that set the stage for the formation of this country: The Declaration of Independence.
The entire basis for a free nation was centered about mankind’s inherent right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The general welfare of our country, and primarily its people, include these exact same principles. We all are born and are therefore guaranteed life. The liberties of the people would be ensured in this document, along with the Amendments to this charter, particularly the Bill of Rights, which were not only made possible, but would eventually follow. The pursuit of happiness, on the other hand, can only be obtained by the individual. Pursuit, I have found, has two possible meanings—a search or a hobby—but only one makes sense (HINT: It’s not “hobby”). Seeing as how happiness is a term which, for each individual can mean a multitude of things, it can be and was assumed that government cannot, and is, in fact, incapable of providing that for any individual.
The conclusion that I have come to, as a result, is that, while it is easy and completely natural to believe that “promoting the general welfare” is meant to be an active function of the government the support of that welfare would be more contextually correct. The authors of our Constitution had just escaped the rule of a monarchy which held that all personal rights and gains were subject to the King and his government. Assuming that they would then grant their new government the power to interfere with an individual’s pursuits just doesn’t fit with the other concepts which they were striving for.
The entire basis for a free nation was centered about mankind’s inherent right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The general welfare of our country, and primarily its people, include these exact same principles. We all are born and are therefore guaranteed life. The liberties of the people would be ensured in this document, along with the Amendments to this charter, particularly the Bill of Rights, which were not only made possible, but would eventually follow. The pursuit of happiness, on the other hand, can only be obtained by the individual. Pursuit, I have found, has two possible meanings—a search or a hobby—but only one makes sense (HINT: It’s not “hobby”). Seeing as how happiness is a term which, for each individual can mean a multitude of things, it can be and was assumed that government cannot, and is, in fact, incapable of providing that for any individual.
The conclusion that I have come to, as a result, is that, while it is easy and completely natural to believe that “promoting the general welfare” is meant to be an active function of the government the support of that welfare would be more contextually correct. The authors of our Constitution had just escaped the rule of a monarchy which held that all personal rights and gains were subject to the King and his government. Assuming that they would then grant their new government the power to interfere with an individual’s pursuits just doesn’t fit with the other concepts which they were striving for.
…and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity… Securing our personal liberties was the sole reason for warring with Britain. This final stated goal indicated the importance of not only maintaining a temporary hold on those newly obtained freedoms, but to ensure that future generations would continue to have and exercise those rights. Referring to “the blessings of liberty” was not only a reference to the religious beliefs of the authors, but to the good fortune of having those freedoms.
...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The conclusion to the Preamble truly is what it is. “Ordain[ing]” and “establish[ing]” the Constitution seems to be a bit of a redundant statement until you look at the time period. Ordaining has many religious connotations and the country at that time was much more religious than it is today, so to them this wording was probably significant. The key, however, is that it established and accepted this document as the law of the land, forged by men who considered themselves servants and subjects of the people and accountable to those people, as opposed to the other way around.
Monday, July 13, 2009
The 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution was enacted for a very specific reason. This amendment, limiting holders of the office of President to two terms, was passed by Congress in 1947, two years after Franklin Delano Roosevelt died in office. At the time, Roosevelt was in the beginning of his fourth term as President.
This fourth term was unprecedented for two reasons. First, no President had ever been seated for more than two terms to this point. Secondly, his pursuance of a third and eventually a fourth term was directly contrasted to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's mutual assertions that the office of President must not become a long-term appointment for fear of the fiefdom-like rulers they had just freed themselves of. Therefore, the political leaders of the day instituted the limitations on that post that exist today.
However, why do we stop there? What about Congressional leaders themselves? Why do they get a free pass? More importantly, what can we do about it?
There are many reasons why they were probably bypassed from this amendment. First, and most obviously, they wrote the Amendment. Naturally, they would excuse themselves from being limited in what they could do. Secondly, they could. The President of the United States is portrayed and viewed by nearly all citizens and media groups as the most powerful person in the world. In reality, the President can do very little without the approval of Congress. If you're wondering how this ties in, it's simple: name recognition.
The majority of Americans can tell you who the last four Presidents were but I'm willing to bet that they couldn't name more than four Congressmen outside of their own district, maybe even including their own district. Those who can name their representatives probably couldn't tell you what they've voted on in the past week, month or even year. This translated to a "plausible deniability" for those who vote for them each time around. The people who vote for incumbents on the basis of this deniability simply pander to those politicians and they know it. They know that if they do "just enough," defined as staying out of trouble and not straying too far from their party's mainstream, they won't lose the loyalty of those who vote straight ticket for their party. Furthermore, the possibility of influential seats on commitees that comes with time in grade are often enough to get those all-important fence votes.
Introducing a "new" 22nd Amendment could take care of all Americans who feel their voice is no longer heard. If I were somehow elected to office, this is the first thing I, personally, would push for. This type of reform would vastly change the landscape of our political system in favor of the people, taking power away from those who would use redistricting to benefit their reelection hopes year after year.
As Glenn Beck points out (in Common Sense), Sen. Robert Byrd has been in his position for over 50 years...longer than Fidel Castro, longer than Henry VII of England, longer than Stalin, longer than Kim Jong Il. How can he say that he is still in touch with the needs of the people who elect him every cycle? It's insane to me.
A "new" 22nd Amendment limiting Congressmen/women to a number of terms, however, would not go far enough. One of my long-term pet peeves involves those who would temporarily abandon their posts to run for President or any other level of elected office, even if only at the primary level. My new Amendment would include provisions against this as somebody campaigning for one post cannot possibly do the best job for the constituency of his/her present post. They abandon that post and should, as a result, be forced from that post. If you can't do the job or no longer want to, leave the post for those who can.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The following anecdotes were inspired by conversations held in the writing courses which I have attended thusfar in my collegiate career. They are based on an actual exchange which I had with a fellow student in my first semester as a non-traditional student with the rest being thoughts which I have accumulated before during and after that time.
Liberal Taxation
Taxation, as viewed by liberals, has always taken on an outwardly empathetic approach to the plight of the poor. The distinction between classes is always pointed out to those who would pay attention, usually on the nightly news or in short segments on news networks. The problem with this view is that it neglects to mention the differences between how the classes got to their respective places in society. Taxing the rich to pay for the poor sounds like a great idea, one that I used to agree with. I used to agree with it because I never stopped thinking about it.
Taxation, as viewed by liberals, has always taken on an outwardly empathetic approach to the plight of the poor. The distinction between classes is always pointed out to those who would pay attention, usually on the nightly news or in short segments on news networks. The problem with this view is that it neglects to mention the differences between how the classes got to their respective places in society. Taxing the rich to pay for the poor sounds like a great idea, one that I used to agree with. I used to agree with it because I never stopped thinking about it.
Take this theory of "take from the rich" or, as Obama termed it, "redistribution of wealth" into the classroom and opinions change dramatically. The plan is simple: take everybody's grade at the end of the semester, average it and that's the grade the entire class would have recieved as a final grade. It's a simple formula that benefits the "poor" of the class, while punishing the more fortunate students. One can imagine the "division of classes" that would be created as these plans are introduced. Calls to the dean would have been constant and furious if the instructor introduced the plan as an item on the syllabus.
Of course the students who knew they weren't going to do well were all for this plan. They would get an automatic bonus just for not being as good as the others. Conversely, the other students would be pretty jacked up about being punished for either putting forth more effort, being more lucky or just having the subject come more naturally to them. To look at this circumstance objectively it's fairly obvious that this circumstance would be unfair. Furthermore it would be easy to deduce that those in the top tier of the class, grade-wise, would not try as hard and why should they?
This same scenario is true with Obama-nomics which will fail miserably as Americans thrive knowing that if they work hard enough, they can succeed beyond their wildest imaginations. Historically it is proven.
Charity Through Taxation
One of my classmates commented about not having a problem with our government taking money from our paycheck to give to those who need assistance or charity. This scenario can also be illustrated in the context of a collegiate environment.
One of my classmates commented about not having a problem with our government taking money from our paycheck to give to those who need assistance or charity. This scenario can also be illustrated in the context of a collegiate environment.
At the university dining hall, they might institute a policy where those who qualify recieve free meal plans from funds generated by charging students who don't qualify fifty cents each time they visit the dining hall.
The reality sets in when you realize what happens to that money each day. Before the cafeteria can hand over even one meal to one of the less-fortunate, they have to hire additional handlers for the new monies being collected: an additional employee to collect, one part-time accountant to keep track of that income, additional hours for the auditor to ensure the accuracy of transactions, a supplier and a manager/supervisor to oversee it all. That fifty cents that each person has been forced to contribute has been devalued to 14 cents as each of those new employees are union and the university has to not only pay for their wages, but the benefits that they require as a result of their contracts.
And so goes the real world. The government may take money from our checks to pay for programs for those in financial duress, but the majority of that money gets lost along the way. Fewer people can benefit from this program without the powers that be either increasing the rate that you must pay or decreasing the quantity or quality of the services that you have already paid for.
As I told my classmate, I'd rather donate the money to people I know need the help either personally or through the organizations I trust. Governments benefit from a certain level of protection from taxpayers in that there are no identities that are concrete, instead protected by the station which officials hold. But local charities are headed by people you can reach, that can be held accountable and will suffer given negative publicity. For that reason, local charities have to be far more responsible than your federal, state, and to a lesser degree, local governments have to be. And that is why I would prefer to give my money to them over the government.
For those who would say that nobody would take care of the needy if it weren't for the government, I staunchly disagree. The United States government donated $313million to tsunami victims, making them second in the world only to Japan. The American people, on the other hand, donated $18 million (according to usgovinfo.about.com). That amount would place them among the top 20 nations in terms of tsunami relief funds, 16th to be exact. To assume that Americans would not be as charitable to their own citizens if the government hadn't already assumed that responsibility is itself irresponsible.
--additional info to come--
--additional info to come--
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Back in the 2008 Presidential debates, John McCain boldly stated that what he felt was needed to right the economic ship, was to take a hatchet to federal spending. Barack Obama countered that the proper way to get a handle was not to simply hack and slash at waste, but to use a "scalpel." Having the gift of hindsight, I believe it is now safe to say that we needed both, but the hatchet would've helped more.
Since the new administration took over, our federal government has spent more money than it had in its entire existence prior. A national deficit for which President Bush was criticized so heavily for, and rightfully so, has quadrupled. QUADRUPLED! And that is if we believe the conservative, as in low, estimates. Yes, a hatchet would've been nice.
I have discussed in this column my beliefs that the key to governmental accountability is not solely President Obama's promised "transparency," but rather legislative reform with transparency built into the reform. I will continue to argue that the most important reform that needs to happen to preserve the freedoms we all enjoy will be to enact a second 22nd Amendment applicable to the legislative body until it happens. But there are another areas of legislative reform which desperately need attention.
In the past several months, many bills have been introduced which have included trillions of dollars in government expenditures. Of these massive spending bills, several have exceeded 900 pages of text. Therein lies the root of many of the problems with the legislative branch today. In some of these bills, mere hours were given for legislators to read, grasp and vote, presenting another opportunity for improvement. Additionally, hundreds of pet projects are inserted into the language of nearly every bill presented in an effort to "buy" votes of elected officials who may be on the fence or at least pretending to be on the fence so that they can bring home the bacon to their districts, ensuring the protection of their incumbencies.
The Bill of Bills
Nine Hundred pages is a lot of reading for anybody. For Congressmen and women to be expected to read, process and evaluate this amount of information in a short period of time is highly irresponsible of any who would force that kind of expediency. The most obvious solutions, or combination of solutions, to this problem are as follows:
1) Limit the Length of Bills -- The simplest regulation that can be imposed on bills would be to limit the length which is permitted. If a law or spending bill needs nine hundred pages to be explained fully, chances are it is too complicated to begin with.
2) Provide Adequate Time for Consideration -- Obviously, for some legislation, abiding by word or page restrictions would prove to be time consuming or detrimental in its own right. In these cases, perhaps a more time-oriented approach would be more benefitial. Say, for every page a bill takes in length, 90 minutes is required before debate on the bill can begin unless the leadership of all parties in Congress agree to shorten this time. The same rules would apply to any amendments to bills.
3) Provide Standard Formatting -- The biggest problem that government watch organizations face is digging through proposed legislation to find the pork that is spread throughout the documents. One way to eliminate this would be that all monies spent have their own specific section in the legislation. Line by line financial accountability would ensure that each dollar spent through the bill was identified clearly and openly.
4) Limiting Cost Overruns -- All too often, estimates of cost for government projects far exceed the initial funding. To curb this, all legislation, regardless of issue should be limited to a minute increase in funding once the project has been passed, say 0.5%. Accurate forecasts of cost should be the standard, not the exception.
5) Limit Spending Through Tax Reform -- The United States government first assumed the right to collect income taxes on February 3, 1913 with the passing of the 16th Amendment. The first Tax Code, all of four pages, was enacted shortly thereafter, in 1914. Today's Tax Code has grown to a monstrously ridiculously mind-numbing 16,845 pages (if you include Congress's 3,387 page contribution). This fact alone just screams out for attention.
Enacting a non-adjustable flat tax, in the form of a new Constitutional Amendment designed to limit the broad implications fo the 16th while protecting the People, would force legislators of all parties to exercise fiscal restraint as the option of increasing revenue through taxation would be off the table.
As an aside, in my household, when our finances get tight, as they have right along with this current economic situation, we follow a certain pattern. First, we stop spending additional money. Secondly, we evaluate what costs we have in house that are luxury costs (such as cable, eating out, etc.), and we cut those costs. Finally, if necessary, we get additional jobs to make ends meet. The government, on the other hand, increases their funding first by increasing taxes, then worries about that other stuff, but only half-heartedly.
1) Limit the Length of Bills -- The simplest regulation that can be imposed on bills would be to limit the length which is permitted. If a law or spending bill needs nine hundred pages to be explained fully, chances are it is too complicated to begin with.
2) Provide Adequate Time for Consideration -- Obviously, for some legislation, abiding by word or page restrictions would prove to be time consuming or detrimental in its own right. In these cases, perhaps a more time-oriented approach would be more benefitial. Say, for every page a bill takes in length, 90 minutes is required before debate on the bill can begin unless the leadership of all parties in Congress agree to shorten this time. The same rules would apply to any amendments to bills.
3) Provide Standard Formatting -- The biggest problem that government watch organizations face is digging through proposed legislation to find the pork that is spread throughout the documents. One way to eliminate this would be that all monies spent have their own specific section in the legislation. Line by line financial accountability would ensure that each dollar spent through the bill was identified clearly and openly.
4) Limiting Cost Overruns -- All too often, estimates of cost for government projects far exceed the initial funding. To curb this, all legislation, regardless of issue should be limited to a minute increase in funding once the project has been passed, say 0.5%. Accurate forecasts of cost should be the standard, not the exception.
5) Limit Spending Through Tax Reform -- The United States government first assumed the right to collect income taxes on February 3, 1913 with the passing of the 16th Amendment. The first Tax Code, all of four pages, was enacted shortly thereafter, in 1914. Today's Tax Code has grown to a monstrously ridiculously mind-numbing 16,845 pages (if you include Congress's 3,387 page contribution). This fact alone just screams out for attention.
Enacting a non-adjustable flat tax, in the form of a new Constitutional Amendment designed to limit the broad implications fo the 16th while protecting the People, would force legislators of all parties to exercise fiscal restraint as the option of increasing revenue through taxation would be off the table.
As an aside, in my household, when our finances get tight, as they have right along with this current economic situation, we follow a certain pattern. First, we stop spending additional money. Secondly, we evaluate what costs we have in house that are luxury costs (such as cable, eating out, etc.), and we cut those costs. Finally, if necessary, we get additional jobs to make ends meet. The government, on the other hand, increases their funding first by increasing taxes, then worries about that other stuff, but only half-heartedly.
The fact that there is currently no way for the American people to keep tabs on their elected representatives is far and away the greatest travesty we are suffering from today. Fiscal irresponsibilities are largely covered up in every bill that is considered in Congress today. Lobbyists, despite political pledges, still bend the ears and persuade the votes of every politician, regardless of party, regardless of leadership position, regardless of tenure.
The changes that need to take place in Washington, particularly with out-of-control spending and pork-project insertion, will not take place with the current Congressional policies remaining firmly in place. The change that needs to happen can only happen if those in power are willing to or are pressured (by us through letters, phone calls, votes) into giving up some of that power. While taking a scalpel sounds more precise and efficient a means to accomplishing the goal of reducing wasteful spending, sometimes it's necessary to start with the hatchet.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Please indulge me as I adopt my 'personal voice' as my writing instructors over the past couple of years have called it: Health care in America sucks. I've had to pay the bills. Out of pocket. Over several years. After being assured that "it's probably just a virus that needs to run its course."
And now that I got that out of my system, let's talk of the "why's."
The problem is, in fact, rooted in two major areas of the health care industry and one area of the private citizenry. The first problem with the health care industry is that it is overly regulated. The second problem is that insurance companies have to adjust for the cost incurred on the medical professionals through other sources. All this while the citizens who demand adequate and cheap health care from those professionals have forgotten about what it means to take responsibility into their own hands.
Over-Regulation
A couple of months back, one of America's true entrepreneurial geniuses in the health care industry came up with a plan to do his part for the under-privileged and uninsured. Dr. John Muney, president of AMG Medical Group, started a program in September of 2008 that allowed clients to sign up for flat-rate care to the tune of $79 a month. In a short period of time, the doctor had signed up close to 500 patients, according to a May 7th Reuters story, which included "unlimited preventive visits and on site medical services such as minor surgery, physical therapy, lab work and gynecological care."
His actions, spurred by the increasing number of patients who were losing their jobs, along with their health care plans, was shut down by the state government, citing state and federal insurance regulations. According to the state, in order to offer this service, an additional $33 per visit would have to be charged in order for him to continue offering his service. Instead of being able to "bypass" the "abuse, fraud and waste" that he and every politician argue exist with insurance plans, Muney was being forced to participate in that problem.
In today's debate, our national Congress wants to eliminate that problem by becoming that problem. That would be a very novel approach. And, of course, that approach would prove that it is up to government and government alone to solve all of the nations problems and that, in the end, the entrepreneurial spirit which used to be so valued, is no longer appreciated.
After leaving the doctor's office, the next visit, for most, is the pharmacy where the evil pharmaceutical companies, whose goals are, admittedly to make a profit (much like JCPenney, Dairy Queen and Sony not to mention facebook, MySpace, Universal Pictures, NBC, your local zoo, travelling carnivals, furniture stores, the little old lady holding a garage sale down the street, and, oh, yeah, the lawyers and Al Gore), are waiting to gouge their next victim. Well, "victim" would be the word that politicians and fear-mongers (sometimes the same thing) would have you believe the drug companies make you. What is often said, but never accepted is that it takes, according to the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, an average of 4.4 years of clinical trials for a medicine to reach the shelves. And, of course, that's after the years of research that go into creating the medicines and all the costs that result. Oh, yeah, and that's only for the medicines which are given the 'fast-track' treatment. All others average 6.7 years of trials. It takes a lot of time and effort to be evil.
The Insurance Cycle
A few weeks ago on the local afternoon talk station, a nurse called in to defend the doctors of the nation. His argument was that, through conversations with the doctors in the hospital he works in, he has learned over the years that insurance companies do create much of the cost of medical care in this country. However, it is more rooted in the cycle that is created by two vastly different insurance types: health care insurance and malpractice insurance.
As he explained it, malpractice insurance demands that instead of undergoing the minimal number of tests to get a diagnosis, a patient must undergo the entire battery of tests that has become an automatic joke for those who have to partake in the joys of these tests. Of course, the insurance plans of the patient then have to pay for it, driving the average cost of a visit up, which in turn drives up the cost of the insurance premium for the patient. Then a mistake is made, either by a doctor, a technician or some other care taker and the resultant lawsuit and ruling increases the average cost of the malpractice insurance for all doctors and the cycle begins anew as the doctors have to adjust their prices to make up for their increased premiums. And the vicious cycle continues.
The Selfishness of the Few...or Many
The fact that I, too, have had to pay rather large health care bills does not make me an expert. But the fact that I did fulfill my obligation to pay for the services provided to me would appear to make me the exception to the rule, should we believe all the hype coming from the politicians today.
But if facts are facts, allow me to bluntly say something that we should all be thinking any time we hear a sad 'no-insurance' story. I often wonder, and aloud, if the people who are "demanding" they be covered by a nationalized health care system that I will have to pay for are doing all they can to help themselves.
Too many people in this country are more concerned about the things in this world that don't matter. Pictures of people being served by Michelle Obama in a shelter surfaced where one person is taking photographs with his cell phone. Personally, that makes me wonder what kind of television that person watches at home. Or, being a little harsher, why he was allowed to help himself to a meal there in the first place.
Current Struggles
The problems that a nationalized system present are getting more and more recognition and for good reason. President Obama has blamed Republicans for standing in the way of 'progress' which is the politically correct thing to do, in that that is what politicians are supposed to do, blame the other party. But the fact that the health care bill can't even clear committee at this point, in large part to some Democrats in committee, speaks volumes. It's a bad idea.
As Peggy Noonan, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed put it, an internal dialogue about the health care reform would follow along these lines:
Will whatever health care bill is produced by Congress increase the deficit? “Of course.” Will it mean tax increases? “Of course.” Will it mean new fees or fines? “Probably.” Can I afford it right now? “No, I’m already getting clobbered.” Will it make the marketplace freer and better? “Probably not.” Is our health care system in crisis? “Yeah, it has been for years.” Is it the most pressing crisis right now? “No, the economy is.” Will a health-care bill improve the economy? “I doubt it.”
And that's just the beginning of the questions that a responsible voter and tax-payer should ask. "What does this mean for the long-run," "How does this actually improve the prospects for individuals," and "Doesn't the government providing everything in our lives open us up for the government taking whatever else it is they want from us" are some additionally valid questions that are tough to ask and even harder to answer.
What of Abortion?
In the current form of legislation, the government would assume payment for abortions. That is scary in and of itself. Couple that with the fact that Obama has stated that maybe patients and their families should think about whether or not the care that they seek is financially worth it, and thinking beyond your personal beliefs on abortion, and it creates an even more frightening hypothetical, as one Sean Hannity caller pointed out:
The medical field has advanced to the point that we can tell if a child has any of a number of genetic or developmental defects well before it is born. So what if, as cost cutting measures that become necessary, or even before then, the government requires screening for these problems. They find out that a child will be born with Down Syndrome. What then? The government bureaucracy in charge of pre-natal care may decide that that child, because of their condition, would not be worth being born. While that seems like a cold, perhaps unfair, argument, is it? A case worker only sees a number. Isn't that the biggest complaint with current health insurance companies, car insurance companies, customer service lines for your favorite appliances? And can we honestly say it won't happen with this system?
In the current form of legislation, the government would assume payment for abortions. That is scary in and of itself. Couple that with the fact that Obama has stated that maybe patients and their families should think about whether or not the care that they seek is financially worth it, and thinking beyond your personal beliefs on abortion, and it creates an even more frightening hypothetical, as one Sean Hannity caller pointed out:
The medical field has advanced to the point that we can tell if a child has any of a number of genetic or developmental defects well before it is born. So what if, as cost cutting measures that become necessary, or even before then, the government requires screening for these problems. They find out that a child will be born with Down Syndrome. What then? The government bureaucracy in charge of pre-natal care may decide that that child, because of their condition, would not be worth being born. While that seems like a cold, perhaps unfair, argument, is it? A case worker only sees a number. Isn't that the biggest complaint with current health insurance companies, car insurance companies, customer service lines for your favorite appliances? And can we honestly say it won't happen with this system?
Possible Solutions
Obviously, anything that I would offer up as a solution, would be rooted in little more than common sense as I see it. But I'll give it my best shot anyway.
Obviously, anything that I would offer up as a solution, would be rooted in little more than common sense as I see it. But I'll give it my best shot anyway.
Our government works best when it does nothing at all. This is why Congress has such a low approval rating, they never do nothing. So, what needs to happen, like with the Tax Code, is simplification (which is better than nothing while not actually being nothing, so everybody's happy). If a doctor's office wants to offer health care plans in an effort to assist those who need it, let them. Who better to judge, the person who deals with those he treats, or the agency which can only relate to its customers anecdotally?
Insurance companies can do the some of the same. I can buy liability auto insurance, like Ann Coulter says, but I can't buy "Emergency Room" insurance to insure against actual injuries and severe problems. Solve this by offering a middle of the road plan, something between the $400 a month for a family of four in good health and the $28 a month for a "catastrophic" plan that covers things like heart attacks and cancer. If I break an arm there's no getting around a visit to the doctor, but a common cold can be prevented and/or home remedied.
And then there is We the People. We can stop suing all the time if something doesn't go according to plan. Things happen in surgeries as a result of injuries. We need to reestablish the understanding that doctors are not evil and are not out to further injure us. If something does happen, cleaning the doctor's clock financially does nothing beneficial beyond the scope of increasing the cost for everybody. Sue, that's fine, but keep it realistic.
But for us, it doesn't stop there. We need to re-prioritize what is important in our lives. It's incredibly easy to fall into the trappings of what we think we should have in life materialistically. After all, it's alot easier to pay for something we want that it is to pay for something we have to have. Many of us loathe paying the electric bill every month but were more than happy to go out and buy that new Blu-Ray player a month and a half after they came out.
The sacrifices we all make in life are what give us an appreciation for what we get and the motivation to preserve what we have. No government program can breed or cultivate those for us. But a government can very easily take them away.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Recently, it has come to my attention, both in interpersonal conversation and the facebook community, that many of the people who are in favor of a government run health care system, be it insurance-based or government provided services in general, are very confused about those who disagree with this proposed solution. For this reason, I am offering a guiding hand to understanding those who disagree in part or in whole.
First off, those who oppose broad sweeping health care are not against healthcare for any of the following reasons: their unsatiable elitism, their utter contempt for those less fortunate than themselves, their racism that manifests itself in vocal opposition for all things Obama would ever lobby for, or their desire to watch other people suffer. To claim that these are the reasons for opposition to the health care program would be both a disservice to the discussion as well as a show of disrespect for those who may simply have a different perspective on the issue than you yourself (the arguer/name-caller) have. And this goes both ways. Those who desire a nationalized health care system are not automatically Socialists, welfare queens, lazy or irresponsible. The quicker we get off of this basis for argument, the quicker some intellectual progress can be made.
In an effort to show that I can see the "Pro" view of the issue, allow me to state what I see as the main points of this argument (If I'm wrong, by all means correct me). Those who are clamoring for the government to provide an alternative health care system, either need it for themselves, which is a completely valid reason to want this system, believe that the health insurance industry is consumed with greed, believe that we have a moral obligation to those less fortunate than ourselves and/or a desire to have as level as a playing field, economically, as possibly can be attained. All of these points can be considered valid, depending on your point of view on issues concerning the relationship between individual, government, capitalism, and even morality.
As a conservative, with strong emphasis on the word "conservative," but with the recognition that not all conservatives, as is the case with liberals as well, believe 100% of what all other conservatives believe, I believe that the role of the individual is the single most important role in this relationship. This is my primary reason for believing that a government-run healthcare system is not necessary.
That said, there are things that the government should do. Namely pass 'loser pays' tort reform to discourage frivolous lawsuits in medical cases. Also, perhaps a required jury pool of medical professionals, in conjunction with the standard jury for medical malpractice suits that could offer a professional opinion as pertaining to the specifics of each case. It seems to me that lawyers do a pretty decent job of policing themselves through the bar association, why not have a medical equivalent at some level.
But first, they need to break up the insurance companies if they feel they are too large to be challenged in a capitalistic way. The one power the government already has is to break up monopolies and yet they rarely decide to do so, even if it appears as though the consumer, whose protection was the motivation for the creation of such laws, is being abused. Capitalism is not failing in this industry, the government is and the only way to remedy that may be to give the government a kick in the pants and set the wheels into motion. Government wouldn't grow and the mechanism that is already in place would be allowed to operate as it has in the past.
That said, there are things that the government should do. Namely pass 'loser pays' tort reform to discourage frivolous lawsuits in medical cases. Also, perhaps a required jury pool of medical professionals, in conjunction with the standard jury for medical malpractice suits that could offer a professional opinion as pertaining to the specifics of each case. It seems to me that lawyers do a pretty decent job of policing themselves through the bar association, why not have a medical equivalent at some level.
But first, they need to break up the insurance companies if they feel they are too large to be challenged in a capitalistic way. The one power the government already has is to break up monopolies and yet they rarely decide to do so, even if it appears as though the consumer, whose protection was the motivation for the creation of such laws, is being abused. Capitalism is not failing in this industry, the government is and the only way to remedy that may be to give the government a kick in the pants and set the wheels into motion. Government wouldn't grow and the mechanism that is already in place would be allowed to operate as it has in the past.
One of the other things that I, as a conservative, firmly believe is that the government lacks the ability to carry out the original intent of nearly every endeavor it sets upon. Four and a half years ago, everybody was in a panic because Social Security was viewed as destined to fail and the worst pending travesty in the history of our nation. Nothing has changed since then, except maybe the timeline and the fact that it is no longer an election year. Social Security will still fail. The United States Postal Service is a financial disaster and has been for years. In fact, they are considering reducing the number of days they deliver in a cost-cutting effort. The VA Hospitals not only take quite a while for appointments to open up, but once you do get that valued appointment, you better bring a book to the waiting room with you. And while I've not had any bad experiences yet, as a former military member, I've heard plenty of horror stories of less than satisfactory service and results.
For those wishing to exonerate the current administration and the Bush administration of poor planning for new programs, I laugh. Many of the people in favor of a government-run healthcare system conveniently forget about Medicaid Part D, a nightmare of red tape that still keeps older generations and their caretakers up at night. Bushies want to forget it because it was his puppy and Oblamers want to forget it because it certainly doesn't help their argument.
This administration decided to run the "Cash for Clunkers" program and it was a huge success. A HUGE success. Unless you talk to the hundreds of dealerships across the country who are still waiting for the government to come up with the money to pay for the "Clunkers" as promised. And that's after they ran out of money for the program the first time and infused more cash (thanks, Mr./Mrs. Taxpayer!).
Here is an illustration (which I am very fond of for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that I really like to type "*"s) that WILL come to life should a "Universal" program come to fruition. Wal*Mart used to be heralded as a great company, both to shop and work for. They offered great deals to their shoppers and great wages to their employees. Sam Walton quickly become an American icon, having dedicated himself to delivering prices that were always lower than his competition.
But Wal*Mart got too big. Their customers started buying at other places because the Chinese made products offered by those other stores were cheaper. So Wal*Mart had to play hardball with their suppliers in order to stick with their core value: "Always Low Prices. Always." Eventually they drove the manufacturers that could no longer provide what they needed out of business, drawing the ire of the manufacturing base. In turn, unions, politicians and consumers all started to get angry, in that order. Wal*Mart is now resented, but something gets lost in all of this commercial mayhem: they did it for the customers, who demanded the low prices to begin with.
The point is that our government WILL end up the same way. People will show up for the low prices the government will offer. It will be wonderful. Except after awhile, people will realize that governmental red tape totally dictates their lives. Long lines of people will wait on "cashiers" who could care less about their problems will be in charge of the execution (no pun intended, at first) of their healthplan. People will grow weary of the irritation and begin to resent the source of the frustration. And if they should decide to go back to what was available before, they find it's too late. The "Five and Dime"s have closed because the competition, in this case the government, was just too much to handle.
For those wishing to exonerate the current administration and the Bush administration of poor planning for new programs, I laugh. Many of the people in favor of a government-run healthcare system conveniently forget about Medicaid Part D, a nightmare of red tape that still keeps older generations and their caretakers up at night. Bushies want to forget it because it was his puppy and Oblamers want to forget it because it certainly doesn't help their argument.
This administration decided to run the "Cash for Clunkers" program and it was a huge success. A HUGE success. Unless you talk to the hundreds of dealerships across the country who are still waiting for the government to come up with the money to pay for the "Clunkers" as promised. And that's after they ran out of money for the program the first time and infused more cash (thanks, Mr./Mrs. Taxpayer!).
Here is an illustration (which I am very fond of for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that I really like to type "*"s) that WILL come to life should a "Universal" program come to fruition. Wal*Mart used to be heralded as a great company, both to shop and work for. They offered great deals to their shoppers and great wages to their employees. Sam Walton quickly become an American icon, having dedicated himself to delivering prices that were always lower than his competition.
But Wal*Mart got too big. Their customers started buying at other places because the Chinese made products offered by those other stores were cheaper. So Wal*Mart had to play hardball with their suppliers in order to stick with their core value: "Always Low Prices. Always." Eventually they drove the manufacturers that could no longer provide what they needed out of business, drawing the ire of the manufacturing base. In turn, unions, politicians and consumers all started to get angry, in that order. Wal*Mart is now resented, but something gets lost in all of this commercial mayhem: they did it for the customers, who demanded the low prices to begin with.
The point is that our government WILL end up the same way. People will show up for the low prices the government will offer. It will be wonderful. Except after awhile, people will realize that governmental red tape totally dictates their lives. Long lines of people will wait on "cashiers" who could care less about their problems will be in charge of the execution (no pun intended, at first) of their healthplan. People will grow weary of the irritation and begin to resent the source of the frustration. And if they should decide to go back to what was available before, they find it's too late. The "Five and Dime"s have closed because the competition, in this case the government, was just too much to handle.
Of all the arguments in favor of government-run healthcare or healthcare insurance or end-of-life care or whatever whoever wants to argue in favor of, I have the most respect for the moral argument. Of course, anybody who knows anything about logical arguments also knows that this is the one kind of argument that is impossible to garner a conclusion. This argument is completely, as in 100% without question and beyond dispute, emotional. Who can argue with how somebody feels? It is for this exact reason, that morals have to be left out of this argument.
If you must know my moral feelings, I will oblige. My feelings have no more or no less validity than that of Joe down the road, Betty at the diner or that Papal guy in and around Rome.
If you must know my moral feelings, I will oblige. My feelings have no more or no less validity than that of Joe down the road, Betty at the diner or that Papal guy in and around Rome.
I believe that we have an obligation to those less fortunate than ourselves. Not to provide for those who can do for themselves, but rather to teach those who would LEARN for themselves.
I believe that, except for the God part, we were all created equal. In each of us lies the same amount of desire to be successful. That said, not all of us have the reqired amount of confidence or ambition to make that desire become reality. We're willing to except the creed in sports that "the difference between a good player and a great player is desire," but not in our own lives. That's sad.
I believe that there are some people who are lucky and some that are not so much. There are some that are hard workers and some who are better with a pen and paper. Some can play the piano. Some can fix them. Some people are lazy. For those who allow their fears to dictate their lives, those who cling onto preconceptions that the world is against them, those who can be held back by something as insignificant as an ignorant person's words, those who believe that life is so much worse off for them than anybody else because of their gender/race/sexuality/political persuasion/marital status/age/weight/zodiac sign/hair color/nose shape/accent/taste in music/physical deformity or hanidcap/bank account/car/intelligence, which has included myself at different periods of my life, I have no sympathy.
There are so many examples of people who have had a much tougher life than any of us today could even imagine. Martin Luther King, Jr. continues to inspire dreamers everywhere, years after his death. Helen Keller not only was blind, but she was a blind woman in a time where women were often not viewed as equals. Barack Obama himself, love him or hate him, grew up the half-black son of a white woman in a time when that would have been a near unspeakable taboo.
There is always somebody out there to help, provided you're willing to swallow your pride and ask for the help. Provided you're willing to fight your deepest-set fears and acknowledge that you need the help to begin with. They say the toughest part of getting over an addiction is to admit you have it. The same thing applies here.
But that's just my opinion.
But that's just my opinion.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Alright, so here goes. The alleged triumphant return of the, as of late, over-worked, over-studious, over-stressed, over-utilized, under-sleeping, under-nourished blogger has returned. Minus some of the subdued-ness, plus a little more of the cynicism. Really, it's a wash.
So lets take a look at what's been going on, shall we?
First off, I'd like to get Tiger out of the way. Seriously. This story means something to only a few people in this world. In short, that would be his family, his agent, his endorsers and anybody who owns/owned stock in his endorsers. Beyond these people, who cares really? It's not our business what anybody's doing behind their closed doors. Or the closed doors of hotels around the world. Yet the gossipers out there fuel this furor by constantly talking about it.
That said, if it were a politician who pulled a stunt like this (a la Bill Clinton, Mark Stanford, etc.), it should be a big deal. The difference between Tiger Woods and any politician is the role they play in our lives. Tiger is an entertainer and nothing more. Meanwhile, politicians are leaders who should be expected to hold themselves and be held by others to a higher standard.
And party affiliation does not make the offense lesser or greater. A Republican is not more of a hypocrite for cheating on his/her wife/husband than a Democrat would be simply because they tend to vocalize their religious beliefs more. Anybody who cheats on their spouse is still a idiot for doing it, regardless of race, creed, financial status, or color of their hair. As a matter of fact, let's add sexual orientation in there, too.
Moving on.
Recently a hacker broke into some extremely, ahem, sensitive files at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit and decided to release "his" findings. As it turns out, many of the theories cranked out incessantly by these "climatologists" were based on data that had been collected and destroyed, if that data had been collected at all. In some cases, the emails acknowledged that they were using faulty data and that the actual information that they had collected just didn't match up to what they had theorized.
For a good read, find all of the emails here: http://www.climate-gate.org/
The ridiculous part came after the release of these documents. Every politician should have been outraged to hear that they were duped by these false prophets of environment mayhem and disaster. I couldn't even begin to estimate the amount of money that this "movement" has cost corporations due to fines from the EPA, construction costs for changing environmental compliance standards, and more. But, no. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), has decided that the only true culprit in this scandal is the hacker. The whistleblower, if you will.
Nevermind the enormous cost to the taxpayer that environmental legislation presents, directly or indirectly. Nevermind that at the slightest hint of misinformation, from the previous administration, no matter the circumstance, all Hell broke loose and cries of "Bush Lied, Kids Died" came pouring down from the rafters. Nevermind the UN's heavy reliance on this organization to formulate its environmental plan for the world. Nevermind the fact that the CRU frankly ordered, via email, that certain data be destroyed before it could be turned over through the Freedom of Information Act (or, rather, the British version of it). The real culprit was the individual who wanted us, the people, to know it was going on.
It is important to point out that I am indeed for energy efficiency and a clean environment. But, above all else, I believe it is a quality of life issue, not an issue to be legislated. We, as a people, wouldn't give a rat's behind about the environment if we didn't have all the things that our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers worked so hard for us to have. If necessity is the mother of invention, government is the mother of red-tape and begrudging compliance.
So for this week, we have Tiger cheating on his wife, Tiger cheating on his kids, Tiger cheating on his sponsors, Tiger cheating on those who had invested in his sponsors, Tiger cheating on those he was cheating with, Tiger cheating on his previously squeaky-clean image, and politicians being politicians, or continuing to cheat as many people as they can in whatever way they can all the while painting a beautiful picture of themselves as stewards of the universe. Only one of these things truly makes a difference in our lives, yet it will get the least amount of attention.
So lets take a look at what's been going on, shall we?
First off, I'd like to get Tiger out of the way. Seriously. This story means something to only a few people in this world. In short, that would be his family, his agent, his endorsers and anybody who owns/owned stock in his endorsers. Beyond these people, who cares really? It's not our business what anybody's doing behind their closed doors. Or the closed doors of hotels around the world. Yet the gossipers out there fuel this furor by constantly talking about it.
That said, if it were a politician who pulled a stunt like this (a la Bill Clinton, Mark Stanford, etc.), it should be a big deal. The difference between Tiger Woods and any politician is the role they play in our lives. Tiger is an entertainer and nothing more. Meanwhile, politicians are leaders who should be expected to hold themselves and be held by others to a higher standard.
And party affiliation does not make the offense lesser or greater. A Republican is not more of a hypocrite for cheating on his/her wife/husband than a Democrat would be simply because they tend to vocalize their religious beliefs more. Anybody who cheats on their spouse is still a idiot for doing it, regardless of race, creed, financial status, or color of their hair. As a matter of fact, let's add sexual orientation in there, too.
Moving on.
Recently a hacker broke into some extremely, ahem, sensitive files at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit and decided to release "his" findings. As it turns out, many of the theories cranked out incessantly by these "climatologists" were based on data that had been collected and destroyed, if that data had been collected at all. In some cases, the emails acknowledged that they were using faulty data and that the actual information that they had collected just didn't match up to what they had theorized.
For a good read, find all of the emails here: http://www.climate-gate.org/
The ridiculous part came after the release of these documents. Every politician should have been outraged to hear that they were duped by these false prophets of environment mayhem and disaster. I couldn't even begin to estimate the amount of money that this "movement" has cost corporations due to fines from the EPA, construction costs for changing environmental compliance standards, and more. But, no. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), has decided that the only true culprit in this scandal is the hacker. The whistleblower, if you will.
Nevermind the enormous cost to the taxpayer that environmental legislation presents, directly or indirectly. Nevermind that at the slightest hint of misinformation, from the previous administration, no matter the circumstance, all Hell broke loose and cries of "Bush Lied, Kids Died" came pouring down from the rafters. Nevermind the UN's heavy reliance on this organization to formulate its environmental plan for the world. Nevermind the fact that the CRU frankly ordered, via email, that certain data be destroyed before it could be turned over through the Freedom of Information Act (or, rather, the British version of it). The real culprit was the individual who wanted us, the people, to know it was going on.
It is important to point out that I am indeed for energy efficiency and a clean environment. But, above all else, I believe it is a quality of life issue, not an issue to be legislated. We, as a people, wouldn't give a rat's behind about the environment if we didn't have all the things that our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers worked so hard for us to have. If necessity is the mother of invention, government is the mother of red-tape and begrudging compliance.
So for this week, we have Tiger cheating on his wife, Tiger cheating on his kids, Tiger cheating on his sponsors, Tiger cheating on those who had invested in his sponsors, Tiger cheating on those he was cheating with, Tiger cheating on his previously squeaky-clean image, and politicians being politicians, or continuing to cheat as many people as they can in whatever way they can all the while painting a beautiful picture of themselves as stewards of the universe. Only one of these things truly makes a difference in our lives, yet it will get the least amount of attention.
Posts
