9/29/2009

What to do, what to do?

I could sit here a comment on government programs all day if that's what I wanted. And I will continue to list agencies and make comments, but what about options? What directions could be taken to help reduce or eliminate government interference and control? Do we all of a sudden all quit our jobs and go on the government dole or do we take up arms and storm the capitals? Each is the extreme, but we must go in some direction or another. Waiting for our representatives at local, state and federal levels to solve our problems is what got us in the fix we are in today.

It's said that when you're entering into a contract with someone you want to be the one who writes the contract. When you write the contract you set the terms. You define the words.

Our representatives farm out the contract (the bills) writing to people that are not elected by us. NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, people with their own agendas, write the bills that get presented to congress or our state legislators. Be it Cap and Trade or Health Care or Gun Control or a Value Added Tax, NGOs define the terms that we'll have to live with when congress passes a bill that is eventually signed by the President.

I guess the basic question is: Do we have to live by the law (contract)?

We used to be a country guided by laws. Now we are a country CONTROLLED by laws.

If we don't live by the rule of law then what? We live by the rule of man, anarchy. From moment to moment we don't know the definition of law because one moment George is in charge and has the guns and the next moment Barack is in charge and has the guns.

Remember when we "elect" a president we are saying: "We authorize you to use whatever force is necessary to achieve your goals". Hopefully those goals are the same as ours.

We can stand against those guns. It's been done before and can be done again. But, we have to be willing to think in terms of the future.

We must stop living in the past. We can learn from the past, but, don't dwell on it. Bury the dead and leave them buried. We have to live in the present, but, we must plan for the future. The future comes upon us quickly. Don't drive the car with your eyes closed, which is what we've been doing for a very long time. Sooner or later that disaster will happen. Plan, plan, plan. What are you going to do tomorrow? What are you going to do next week? How about next month, next year, ten years from now? The more we plan the easier it gets.

Every penny counts. I'm being literal. Save every penny, nickel, dime, quarter, dollar. Don't ever spend the change or the dollar bills. Put them in a jar or a can at least for a little while. While you're saving investigate. Look for the best use of the money your saving. The future is coming, plan for it.

9/22/2009

Ah, the U.N.

I don't know what good can be said about the United Nations.

It was created by and is sustained by despots. Rape an pillage are its favorite pass times. It will gladly take credit for others good will gestures. The U.N. believes in human rights only as long as they don't interfer with their plans. They hide behind children and the infirm. Corruption is not just second nature... We, the taxpayers of the United States, host this evil organization, pay most of their bills and are called greedy and uncaring.

More donations for "the needy" around the world are voluntarily provided by the people of the United States than all of the other countries put together.

Force the United Nations to leave this country. Stop all support and billions of dollars would be available for our own use.

9/21/2009

Department of Education

http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml

During the early years of Bill Clintons presidency the republicans managed to secure numerical superiority in Congress. They did so with the Contract with America. One of the items that was to be addressed was the Department of Education. Supposedly congress would eliminate the DOE with their superiority.

Why in the world would congress want to get rid of an agency that has the "best interests of the children" at the core of their existence? Well, of course, they didn't follow through and we're stuck with this monster.

Government run public education has turned into government run indoctrination of our children and grandchildren. The average cost per student is approaching $10,000.00 per year. The quality of education has been in decline for decades. Children cannot draw a picture of a relative that is in the military without taking the chance of being suspended for an improper action. Contact games in grade school such as tag or dodge ball are forbidden. In some schools there is no recess at all.

Federal agencies, bump

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

9/18/2009

I'm coming to the realization that the Constitution is only a museum piece.

It died around 1863. It was completely buried in 1913 and we have been living with a ghost since.

The rule of law in this land has barely been hanging on since about 1932 and I believe we will see its' complete and absolute colllapse in the next couple of years.

2010 is not going to make a difference unless Congress, somehow, is disbanded by a vote of the populace and replaced, lock stock and barrell with a new congress. Even the one man that seems to make sense, Ron Paul, must go.

Unfortunately, the Senate is more difficult to replace, but it too must go.

Our current system has cancer and we have been ignoring the blood that is being coughed up. There is no amubulance to take us to the hospital, there is no hospital. The doctor stopped making house calls decades ago because he couldn't get it through our heads that we had to make huge changes to our life style if we wanted to live a healthy life.

The tea parties are nice to see, but they represent our last gasps. We've been struggling for oxygen, but our blood was drained along time ago so there's no way to get oxygen to our brain.

I haven't given up hope, that's not my way. Our government is dying and with it our way of life. We have to make plans, try to be as prepared as possible for what we will find on the other side.

The internet, while it lasts, can be a big help pulling like minded people together. Watch out because it can also help our enemies, that is what they are, keep track of us.

9/15/2009

A thoughtful comment on healthcare. Not mine.

Financial blogger Bill Frezza asked this question recently: "As the public debate over pending healthcare legislation veers into the surreal with angry voters who have never read the bill shouting at cowering Congressmen who have never read the bill, are you amused or frightened to see the debate becoming ever more shrill?"

Yes, it is both surreal and shrill, and prompts me to invent the portmanteau "shrillreal." But we should expect debates to get this way when they are waged around faith and promises, rather than facts or logic.

Yet we can cut through the escalating histrionics by asking one simple question. I will tell you what this question is in a moment, and then explain why it probably won't sway many people one way or another.

Since very few people except lawyers and vested medical interests have a true understanding of what is in the actual Obama proposal, most everyone else is getting shrillreal about what they think or expect based upon their conservative or liberal "faith."

For conservatives, it is faith in the belief that any Obama healthcare plan will bring us the dreaded socialism in medical care, After this happens, they believe death panels will send grandpa off the special facility where they make Soylent Green.

On the other side, the liberal faith is that Obama will bring order to our screwed up "free" healthcare system, because every other civilized country has national healthcare--which works perfectly great as film-maker Michael Moore has shown with anecdotes about Cuba. (I'm being sarcastic, if you couldn't tell.)

Both sides have their heads up their own backsides.

The first problem is the belief that we have a free market healthcare system. The medical industry is the most heavily regulated and controlled business in the US. Ask anyone in the medical care profession, and they can tell you about the mountains of paperwork required to comply with the mountains of regulation, compounded again by insurance company red-tape which itself is under the weight of a heavy regulatory thumb.

And this is to say nothing of the FDA, which has the most stringent, expensive and lengthy requirement for drug or medical device approval of any nation on earth.

Conservatives don't understand that we have de facto medical socialism already. Medicare and Medicaid are nothing if not socialistic institutions. And the cozy relationship between government and the HMO industry is nothing less than fascist. So Conservatives believe that we don't have medical socialism, and Liberals believe that the problems with 90% socialism will be solved by going the last 10%.

The real goal of any reform should be to bring about cheaper healthcare. So what will bring us that?

Let's divert for a moment for a little lesson in basic economics. The price of anything is determined by supply and demand. If supply increases--all else being equal--you can expect prices to fall.

If you are in doubt of this, imagine what would happen to the price of diamonds if tomorrow they started falling from the sky.

Conversely, if supply drops, or does not increase to meet rising demand, then prices will rise. So let's apply this to healthcare. Healthcare prices are rising because there is a rising demand for healthcare, but supply is not rising to meet it. So there is only one real question to ask about any proposed healthcare reform: How will it INCREASE the actual supply of healthcare?

Obama claims he wants to make healthcare "affordable." Is the Obama proposal a plan to increase healthcare, or simply redistribute the costs of healthcare?

No other question really matters, because all paths lead to the same destination. Stack the chips any way you wish, propose any form of redistribution scheme, in the end it will not matter if there is no increase in the SUPPLY of healthcare.

A government redistribution of healthcare costs will eventually crash for the same reason Ponzi schemes do: You must have an increasing number of people paying in to make up for the rising tide of folks demanding payouts. In fact, redistribution will accelerate the rise in healthcare costs. This happens whenever you separate the consumer of goods from the price of goods.

Look at it this way: Suppose the government started a program to give away free doughnuts. Of course, the doughnuts are not free, they are paid for by tax redistribution. But since I pay taxes according to my income, there is no cost difference to me between having one doughnut or ten doughnuts. Therefore, I have an incentive to consume more doughnuts rather than less to maximize the return on my tax dollars. And since everyone has this incentive, the demand for "free" doughnuts will rise until the government is forced to limit the amount of doughnuts one may have, or raise taxes to pay for the rising demand for doughnuts, or both.

In the meantime, private producers of doughnuts will tend to be driven out of business, thus reducing the supply of doughnut providers. There will perhaps remain a few small specialty companies that cater to the wealthy, but most remaining doughnut producers will be exclusive providers for the government.

The government may have good intentions in providing this valuable public doughnut service, but it has no profit motive to see that doughnuts are made in the most cost effective manner as possible.

And the profit motives are removed from the doughnut makers as well. They know the government will tend to buy a set amount of doughnuts, and they will settle into a production process that will meet the government requirements as cheaply as possible.

Innovation will disappear; there is no incentive for it, since it requires investment and risk taking. There is no consumer to lure away from other doughnut products, there are only government minimum standards to meet. Without innovation, doughnut making will become a static, backward industry, left in the dust by free market pastry makers with modern production techniques.

The cost of the free-market pastries will tend to fall, while the cost of doughnuts will tend to rise for no other reason that it will become increasingly costly to divert resources to continue to make doughnuts in an inefficient manner. Over time, the average person will regard doughnuts as "free," and a "right" to which he is entitled. That person will gladly buy pastries for mere pennies, but not be able to conceive that doughnuts can be provided in the same manner. He is separated from the cost of doughnuts, so the rising price per unit is only felt when government adjusts the doughnut limit, or when a tax hike is proposed by a politician. No one will really know the true cost of doughnuts in relation to anything else.

My little doughnut analogy is inexact, of course. We can do without doughnuts; we can't do without healthcare.

Liberals, upon hearing this, tend to ask the same question: If national healthcare leads to rising costs, how come so many other westernized nations have successful national healthcare?

The answer is: Are healthcare costs rising in those nations? If the answer is yes, then they won't be successful much longer.

This is more true for countries like England than for say, Canada or France. This is because England, like the US, is squandering its wealth on wars and attempts to occupy the world. But the others will fall eventually.

Also, "successful" depends on who you talk to. This is why the debate is mostly waged in terms of anecdotes. For every Stephen Hawking who believes he has gotten excellent healthcare in a national system, you can find another with a horror story.

We tend to give weight to whichever anecdote tends to support our "faith." But we don't get to ask the opinions of would-be Stephen Hawkings who died because innovative medical procedures were never developed. And this situation already exists in the US.

More people have died waiting for life-saving drugs held up by the FDA's draconian approval process than have ever been saved by the same's ass-covering caution.

Economic statistics show that--if we factor out inflation--virtually every single good and service has tended to DECREASE in cost pretty much since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

There are two big exceptions in the 20th century. The two exceptions are education, and medical care. Not coincidentally, these are two things very highly controlled by the government.

The simple maxim is: If you want less of something, regulate it. Any successful healthcare reform MUST provide for an increase in healthcare supply.

The Obama Administration is dimly aware of this, and has proposed incentives to increase the number of doctors. But this is typical of all government solutions: Break someone's leg and then propose a program to hand out free walking canes.

The only real reform must involve massive deregulation of the medical, drug and insurance industries. Conservatives reveal their hypocrisy by opposing Obama, but don't counter-propose any plan that involves deregulation.

"No," they cry, "we don't need socialism, we just need to stack the chips a little differently". In one breath they decry medical socialism, and then warn that Medicare and Medicaid shouldn't be touched. And this is why we are doomed.

Obama's proposals will lead to catastrophe, and various "restacking" proposals will lead to catastrophe, and doing nothing will lead to catastrophe. And a rollback is something Conservatives will not support because, at heart, they have as much invested in government control as Liberals.

But explaining this logic matters very little. You can explain to a gambling addict that the odds favor the house, and he can logically grasp that the longer he plays the more he'll lose. But compulsions and addictions work precisely because they are immune to logic, and the gambler will be compelled to play on little more than the faith and hope that a big win is right around the corner. It is only when he is broke and has hit rock bottom that the reality of his destructive behavior begins to translate into change.

And so explaining these will likely not convince the vast majority of people. It is only when we have hit rock bottom and start casting about for new explanations that the reality of our folly will sink in. And so these explanations are only futile in the present, but lay in wait to be recalled when we hit that bottom.

Most probably, some form of government alternative health option will pass, and then it will be a matter of time before private insurance providers are reduced to virtually nil.

Doctors will actually begin leaving the country, just as they did England in the 50's and 60's when socialized medicine was enacted. They will leave searching for freedom, because where government pays the bills, regulatory escalation will follow.

There will be less innovation and cutting edge treatments in the US, and there will be an acceleration in Americans traveling overseas for medical procedures.

Opinion will be divided on national healthcare. Those who don't have insurance but only require basic treatments will sing its praises, interspersed with the occasional horror story. As healthcare consumption increases, costs will rise faster, and medical bureaucrats will have to make the same rationing and cost control decisions that HMO executives make now.

As this happens, people with long term chronic problems will begin to grope for any and every hope. There will be a huge surge in medical quackery to meet this desire for hope. Along with this, there will be an emerging blackmarket for healthcare. Unlicensed practitioners will perform procedures for cash in back-alley establishments where illegal abortions were once done.

The system will go bankrupt, possibly several times. It will be saved by the diversion of public money from other sources. But this can't last forever, and portions of the country will begin to rebel.

At the same time, the screeching of entitlement seekers will escalate. They will demand healthcare as a "right," even while major portions of the country fight to remove themselves from the system. It will contribute to waves of civil strife that are going to be provoked by a general decline in the standard of living for Americans.

Rock bottom is difficult to define. It will be reached when there is a consensus awareness that Americans are moving backward medically, and certainly economically, and that the promises made by Obama and the Congressional leadership are not coming to fruition. This might be within Obama's term of service--however long that ultimately is--or it might be a few years down the road.

The point is, it will come.

9/14/2009

This makes no Census

Talking about a program that should be scaled back... The U.S. Census is a Constitutionally mandated program. Done every ten years, it is to take a head count "enumeration" of every person in the United States. This requirement allows the representation in Washington D.C. to be adjusted accordingly.

There are a couple of problems to be solved. First, the Census has been expanded by Congress to include categories well outside the scope of simply counting heads. Now they demand to know how many toilets we have, how far we drive to work, how large is our house, how many televisions do we own, are we black, white, hispanic, asian, etc. (In my opinion Congress and government in general are the biggest reason the bigotry and prejudice still exist to the extent that it does.) Second, Congress arbitrarily decided to change the requirements for seating representatives by only allowing a small number of members. The Constitution clearly states that there shall be at least one representative in the House for every 30,000 citizens. By my calculations that means that there should be 10,267 representatives currently seated.

The House at some point decided that such a large number of representatives was impractical. With so many members there would be a glut of bills on the floor at all times and that nothing would get done. PERFECT! No Constitutional amendment was ever presented to the States for ratification. The average number of constituants that a house member represents is nearly 706,000. Not the kind of representation I'm comfortable with. This opens the doors for lobbyists and large corporations leaving you and I hanging in the wind. With a large number of representatives in Washington there would be far less influence peddling and more individual contact with you and I.

The current budget of the Bureau of Census is about 2.3 billion dollars. By scaling back the Census to a simple one question postcard I suspect that more than half of the billions of dollars could be saved. The number of people required to keep track of the population would be reduced dramatically. Labor is, of course, the most expensive part of any government project. A much simpler accounting would be less costly and not as likely to provide as many errors.

You and I would not be harassed by census takers because we opted to only answer one question on the census. The U.S. Postal Service would have a much simpler job delivering the census to and from the citizens of the U.S. We would not become the political rubber balls that now are bounced around by Congress and the President.

In the short run you and I would have fewer bureaucrats looking through our lives and in the long run there would be billions more available in the free market.

9/10/2009

Bureau of Indian affairs

http://www.doi.gov/bia/

This is another agency that has outlived its usefulness. With a budget in the range of 3.5 billion dollars this program has gotten way out of control.

In case you haven't noticed the "Indians" are no different than you and I. They are no longer a defeated people. They get preferential treatment in many areas. Judges have taken away private property and turned it over to "Indians" under the guise of "they were here first".

Indians blew it. They didn't adjust and they were overrun. That was early U.S. history. Today they have learned how to game the system just like anyone else.

If we took their budget and divided it amoungst the 2 million tribal members and told them that's it, you're on your own they would be forced to live like the rest of us. Indians have the same problems as the rest of us. Let them solve their problems like the rest of us.

Federal and state agencies bounce

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

9/08/2009

A few definitions

I dislike government, but I believe a small government is necessary. Obviously our government is anything but small. And, it is growing. Fighting the growth of our government is my goal.

I would like very much to see every government politician, agent and bureaucrat restricted to Washington, D.C. (at the federal level) or state capital (at the state and county levels), a double 20'-0 fence be built around each; razor wire mounted on top of the fence and armed guards posted at a lone gate preventing anyone of the above from leaving. All of the politicians, agents and bureaucrats would be required to carry an identification limiting their movements.

Members of our government would be forced to test laws on themselves within the confines of the fences that they are behind for a period of twenty years.

Is it silly? You bet. Let's do it.


cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism
–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


so⋅cial⋅ism 
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


fas⋅cism 
–noun
1.
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


an⋅ar⋅chy 
–noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control
3.
a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Reminder

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies in CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Governments can be changed. It happens often throughout the world. Most often for the worst.

9/05/2009

Let's worm our way out

One of the aspects of government involvement with the old is their feeling that the young no longer want to take care of them. That, of course, is not the truth. Profligate spending by us means that we have lost control of our lives to others. The truth is the government is and has made it more and more difficult for the "tweeners" to support their parents.

So, where do we go from here?

Make room for your parents. We used to live in very small houses and still manage to put larger families in them. We often comment about how "mexicans" live with 15 or 20 people in one place. We don't need to go to that extreme, but it can be done.

Combine incomes with that of your parents.

Only spend the absolute minimum requirements. Pay off the credit cards, automobiles and homes. Make everything you have last longer and be multi-purpose. Save everything else! If you don't trust banks or stocks or your 401k or IRA then buy items that will increase in value. Gold and silver are a couple of options. If you happen to live with a few acres invest in livestock and simple farming implements. The simpler that you can live your life the better.

Learn how to plant. Can what you grow. Prepare cool dry spaces for the things that don't can well or that you'll likely use in the near future. Become familiar with killing and preparing your own meats. Rabbits and chickens are small and can live on smaller spaces. Goats and cows provide milk as well as meat. Horses can be used for transportation and pulling and meat, if necessary. Learn to tan hides and make clothes. If you live in an area of the country that grows cotton or sheep or even hemp cloth can be woven.

Learn to trade with your neighbors! Bartering has been around for thousands of years. Flea markets often times will barter rather than exchange cash.

9/04/2009

AoA Administration on Aging

One of the drawbacks of a longer life is relying on Social Security or pensions. In 1965 the Congress passed the Older Americans Act. Today the Older Americans Act has a budget of nearly 1.5 billion dollars. The Administration on Aging has offices throughout the United States (56).
Now I'm not "old", yet. Starting to get there, but not yet. My dad is certainly "old". He has some of problems associated with being old. He has retirement with a healthcare program that goes with it. I worry about him. That goes without saying.
Old age is certainly a worrisome time of life, but the Federal government has wormed its' way into the lives of all of us through our aging parents and grandparents. Medicare and Medicaid have budgets going through the roof; completely out of control. More importantly, the children and grandchildren are losing or have lost touch with their parents and grandparents. The culture and the life lessons that come with close contact with age and death are being lost. Our parents and grandparents have a much better idea of what it means to be responsible for your actions. They have seen life without the type of government interference that we see today. They better understand that without lifes hardships to "test our metal" we are becoming soft and subject to unwise decisions. (more coming)

Federal agencies

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

OK. I've attached a link to a list of government agencies. It's a place to start.
Pick one, read up on it and comment on what it does. Why does it exist? If the agency didn't exist what would be the effect? What steps must be taken to eliminate that agency?

Is there a way to eliminate one law or rule and thereby eliminate multiple agencies?

If the 16th amendment were repealed without an alternative means of income for the U.S. government I believe a large number of the alphabet would be eliminated in one fell swoop. Not a likely occurance, but one possiblity.

Basically, the House would have to propose an amendment to the Constitution. This amendment would be discussed and voted on. Assuming that it passes to the Senate the process would be similiar, discuss and vote. When passed it would be proposed to the individual states. Each state would then go through its' own process (most similiar to the Federal level). When three fourths of the states passed the amendment it would become part of our Constitution. Easy right? Yea, right.

Where to begin.

Where does it start? Small of course. What's to be fixed? Every aspect of the federal and state governments.
The alphabet soup of government agencies needs to be thinned out and eventually eliminated. In order to thin out and eliminate first they have to be identified. That's a task in and of itself. As fast as one might be identified more are created, often within the original.
I believe that almost all of the government agencies are technically illegal. If we are a nation of laws and that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution then it becomes a stretch of the imagination that any of the current government agencies are legal.

Beginning somewhere

I can ramble with the best of them so I usually don't write long winded comments.

The purpose, my mission if you will, is to bring people together to find practical solutions to an ever growing Federal government. I hope that practical methods will be developed to reduce the size, scope and cost of government.

Criticism is welcome. I require that it be civil.