From Uncle Monte...

For your consideration:

Once upon a time, on an acreage far, far away lived a kind and benevolent man named Morgue.

Sharing the acreage (laughingly called Lee's Last Resort (LLR)) with Morgue were his beautiful wife, Lee, and a large population of birds. LLR was covered in oak trees, which made good nesting grounds for the birds. There were 30 or 40 quail and about the same number of other birds of maybe 10 different species.

Being benevolent, Morgue began feeding the birds by spreading seed on the ground for them. Every morning the birds would come down from the trees and grass and feed on the seed Morgue had spread for them.

The birds no longer had a need to forage and the population grew. After a few generations (a generation is one year in the bird kingdom) the birds started to lose the ability to forage, they became dependent on Morgue's largesse.

Morgue noticed that the birds had developed a sense of entitlement; they were entitled to the seed provided by Morgue. If he were a little late in spreading seed in the morning, some would scold him. One particular species, which Morgue called rusty birds because of their rust colored cap, became so bold that they would eat out of his hand. If they found he had no seed in his hand, they would become very insistent, virtually yelling at him.

The bird population stabilized and they all lived happily ever after.

The moral of this story:

Whose fault was it that the birds became dependent on Morgue for their livelihood and that they lost their ability to support themselves by foraging?

Was it the birds themselves who had merely discovered a new way to support themselves? I don't think so. They had been conditioned over several generations to accept this new livelihood as their right.

Was it Morgue whose benevolence had caused the whole thing? I think so. Although Morgue probably didn't set out to make the birds his dependents, the result was predictable if he had only thought about consequences.

The analog of this story in human society is easy enough to see; LLR is a microcosm of America's society today. Starting with the New Deal and continuing through the Great Society to this date, the federal government has been providing the livelihood for a large segment of our population. Is it surprising that, after several generations, those receiving this largesse have become dependent on the government? Is it surprising that those people have come to feel entitled to the largesse? I think not.

Should we blame the third generation resident in subsidized housing in Chicago or the third generation welfare recipient in Washington for their dependency? I think not.

The blame rests on the statists who have owned this country since the Great Depression. I think most of them are motivated by feelings of charity much like Morgue was initially. I suspect, though, that some of them are motivated by a desire for power, for control over others. It's those power seekers who have been in control of the government for decades.

It shouldn't be surprising, then, that the dependent population has grown to the point where they can swing elections to those who promise to continue and even increase the largesse of the federal government. Let's not make the mistake of blaming the dependent population, though. The blame rests with the power seekers and their allies.

First: Stop the Train!

We have very important elections coming up in November and we need all the help we can get to make sure we support the right candidates. We want to find and support fiscally conservative, constitutional candidates so that the houses are split with 2 major minorities (establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans) with the remainder of the houses filled with 'We the People' officials. Think for a minute about this split in the Senate:

45 Democrat
45 Republican
10 We the People

If those ten were true, honest to goodness, red-blooded American patriots, how much bad legislation do you think would pass Congress? Theoretically, none! I don't know about you, but my heart would not be broken if no legislation was passed in the next session of Congress. This ratio would stop 'progress'. If we had even more 'We the People', we might be able to get this train in reverse and start peeling back some of this stifling legislation that has been growing on, and smothering, our Constitution. But even if we can only stop the train, we will be able to build our power. We have to stop the train before we can put it in reverse.

Jim

Why can't people comprehend these numbers?

The U.S. Economy is Unsustainable

Why can't people comprehend these numbers?

Healthcare Arithmetic - 12/23/2009

Senator Franken (D - MN) was on CSPAN tonight talking about how good the Healthcare bill is going to be when it becomes law. One of the provisions he pointed out was a provision that will force insurance companies to spend 85% of their revenues on healthcare claims. That sounds great! Now let's do some math. It is easier to comprehend when taken to a small element...

Year 1 - insurance revenues total $100 / insurance pays $85 / profit: $15
Year 2 - insurance revenues total $150 / insurance pays $128 / profit: $22
Year 3 - insurance revenues total $200/ insurance pays $170 / profit: $30
Year 4 - contract renewal time. Healthcare costs have fallen due to savings from the 2010 Healthcare bill. The doctors' group offers an actual cut in reimbursement charges to the insurance company; isn't that a switch!
Still Year 4 - insurance revenues total $150 / insurance pays $128 / profit: $22
Is that a likely scenario? I don't think so! Not only would an insurance company fight tooth-and-nail to keep the doctor group from reducing their charges, they would fight to have the group increase charges as much as possible, because with the 15% maximum profit, cost savings creates lower profit! Look at the numbers; higher costs = higher profit.

Now if lil 'ol me can figure that out, don't you think them big guys will?

The moral of this story is one I've said before; when the federal government 'fixes' something, 'makes it better' or 'more fair', there are always unintended consequences. For instance, in the '70's, the Nixon administration 'fixed' healthcare by allowing the creation of HMO's, and we know the horror stories following that. So they incrementally 'fixed' all that with more and more regulations.

During WWII, Roosevelt 'fixed' wages (literally) and companies had to come up with ways to recruit good employees. One way was to offer health insurance. That did not end when the war ended, it was encouraged and expanded with:

• tax breaks for companies who sponsored health plans
• tax breaks for employees who enrolled in company sponsored insurance
• the creation of risk pools because of company sponsored health insurance, which is an advantage to the big corporations because they have bigger pools
• reduction of risk to the insurance company because most of the sick people don't have jobs
• none of the above for individuals and self-employed who try to buy insurance on their own

Ever since then, insurance has been tied to employment, so if a person loses a job for whatever reason, they lose their health insurance.

Then there's the Commerce Clause in the Constitution that Congress constantly perverts so they can pass unconstitutional laws (more about that in The Wedge below). Insurance is a valid instance where the government could use that clause for good. Instead of telling the states to allow interstate commerce as the Interstate Commerce Clause intends, they do the reverse! Health insurance cannot be bought from another state! I live in Arkansas and I buy my auto insurance from a company in Texas. I choose this company because of their rock-solid customer service. I don't even know if I'm getting the best rates, but I don't plan to change because I like the company and I trust them (USAA). It is my choice how much of a premium I place on customer service, rates, and all the other factors that influence my purchasing decisions. When I lost my job I didn't lose my auto insurance. It's not tied to my employment or my state.

When government 'fixes' something, it causes irreparable damage most of the time. Based on this blog post, I could fix healthcare with a ten page bill. Heaven only knows what that 2000 page bill is going to do. 2000 pages holds a lot of places to try to hide things. I better close this post now instead of waiting 'till my head is empty, otherwise this might be a 2000 page blog, then there will be no chance that the people in Congress will read it!

Bill Bulgier- September 21, 2009, 12:57 PM

President Obama's Speech Sept, 8, 2009

If I had children in preK - 12 I would keep them home on Monday and Tuesday, the 7th and 8th, because I do not know what he will say to the children, but from the instructions to the teachers, there is potential for an indoctrination session to take place; and I wouldn't put it past them/him because the general consensus is 'get to the children early if you want to help shape their thinking'. I want some answers ahead of time before I turn my kids' minds over to the government. Answers to questions like:

1- What is the purpose of setting aside so much time for the children to work, study, and discuss the president's speech?

2- Why do you want to know how children can help in schools? They are only between the ages of 4 and 12! Given the current debates on Cap and Trade, Healthcare, Bailouts, TARP, and the surprising and overwhelming showing of frustration by the general public in Town Hall meetings, is this really a questions of 'how can you take this propaganda home and tell your parents their stupid'? Or is this a long-term strategy to change the direction of thinking in the next generation?

3- How are the teachers supposed to steer the following discussion:

Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

Is what they say important because they are our elected officials and they determine the direction of our country? If so, I want to keep them home and teach them about the Constitution which specifically states that the rights belong to the people, not the government. I want to tell the children that it is much less important for us to listen to them than FOR THEM TO LISTEN TO US!

4- I want answers to these questions before they are asked of the children:
What is the president trying to tell me?
What is the president asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?

5- Instead of these questions going to the children:

Students might think about the following:
What specific job is he asking me to do?
Is he asking anything of anyone else?
Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

I might ask, "Why are the requests coming from the government to the people? Who works for whom?"

I like to keep things short, and I have too many questions for this post. Please read the communique sent to the teachers and school administrators and help me figure out what the goal of the president is. I have posted the communique in its entirety on this blog.