I have considered every aspect of this bill and although I think that right now it will not pay for itself, in the very near future it has a strong chance of paying for itself and even resulting in a surplus to go towards the national debt.  The vast majority of provisions in the bill will no doubt be costly, after all the intention is to ensure that everyone has adequate health care.  It isn’t cheap to insure 300 million people.  In reality, a large chunk of those 300 million will be paying for their own health care plus a little more to help cover the less fortunate, so I think that part will be a wash.  The part that really worried me was the administrative costs.  Yes, the bill proposes all kinds of things to ensure this program is administered as efficiently as possible.  Those of us who actually work in the government sector know better.  Few, if any government run programs are run efficiently.  I guess much of that is subjective, efficiency can be a fairly elusive concept to nail down. The bill we have made into law recently creates dozens of new federal agencies and will require hiring over 15,000 new IRS employees to manage certain monitoring and collection functions. I have not been able to find an estimate of just how many new federal employees will be hired so I am just going to guess and say its about one cubic butt load. For those readers unfamiliar with that term, I assure it is very large.

Those pesky admin costs really had me not liking this bill until I was reminded today of the Tanning Tax. Wow, this is what really put me over for this bill. I hadn’t thought much of the Tanning Tax recently since I had completely written it off as stupid and inconsequential when it was first proposed. I personally thought that the “Botox” Tax was a much better idea as a revenue generator since it would levy a tax on all elective plastic surgery. Living in Southern California, I can tell that this would result in a ton of annual money. No matter what the rate, these people will not give up their plastic surgery! Unfortunately, the “Botox” Tax was not included in the final bill. Apparently the plastic surgeons have a better lobbying group than the tanning salon owners. No big surprise there really. We still have the Tanning Tax though, and its inclusion is really the key to making this whole thing work. Will a ten percent tax on each and every tanning session pay for all the admin costs in this bill? Oh, hell no! But it doesn’t have to. And that is the real beauty of it all.

The justification for the Tanning Tax is fairly simple. People who use tanning booths are more likely to get skin cancer and thus should have to pay some extra fee in order to help defray the costs of treating those cancers later in life. To be honest, I have no idea how much a typical tanning session costs. I live in Southern California and drive a convertible, so I pretty much get my daily Vitamin D for free. Lets assume for this scenario though that the tax will amount to $2.00 per visit. If a person were to tan once a week for 30 years, that would generate $3,120 (not adjusted for inflation) in taxes. Now I am also not familiar with how much it costs to treat skin cancer after 30 years of UV exposure, but I think its likely more than the tax will generate. However, since these people will now be taking advantage of their brand new super whamodyne health care packages and seeing the doctor much more often, most of these cancers will be detected early enough that they can be excised right there in the doctor’s office for a mere pittance! That leaves the rest of that tax money to go towards paying the admin costs! A recent study shows that as many as 30 million people a year use tanning salons. Even cutting the total in half to account for people who only use them seasonally, this tax provides over $700 million a year! That will pay for a veritable army of admin types.

And it doesn’t end there. Once people realize what great revenue generator the Tanning Tax is, it will be easy to add in new taxes to pay for all those other risky behaviors. Tired of paying for other peoples weight related health problems? There’s a tax for that! Want to make sure Uncle Fred pays his fair share for laying around on the couch eating chips all day and then needing a coronary bypass? There’s a tax for that! How about stupid drivers that cut you off on the freeway? They are most likely going to use up more emergency medical care than you. There’s a tax for that! Studies show that unhappy people get sick more often than happy people. So you better turn that frown upside down buddy because there’s a tax for that to! The amount of money that we can generate using this amazing process is virtually limitless. How about skydivers? They like to claim that compared to the number of jumps per year, their accident rate is actually very low. That may be true, but if that chute doesn’t open and Mr. Jumpoutofaperfectlygoodplane happens to survive, he is going to be in the hospital for a long time. And besides, it just looks dangerous. YOU ARE JUMPING OUT OF A FREAKING PLANE FOR GOD’S SAKE!

Of course we have to work out all the details of exactly how to assess and collect these taxes, how much the rate will be, and a few other minor details but in the end it should be obvious that it is all paid for and we will still have funds left over. By my calculations (which I am performed in my bathroom with the lights off so nobody could see, and no I am not going to share the numbers with you) we will completely erase the national debt within 3 years. Yes, that’s right three short years. Damn I am excited. Being a liberal is so much more rewarding than hanging out with those stupid redneck tea-partiers.

So I am on your side now guys! Just as long as you are going to let me wear my gun to the next coffee party. What’s that? Oh, you’re uncomfortable around armed people… Well never mind then, it was a nice thought though.

Share on Facebook

Well, it is beginning to look as if you are going to get your way.  Under intense pressure from party leadership and organized labor, the last Democrat holdouts are about to buckle under and vote yes on the largest expansion of the Federal Government since the “New Deal”.  I can’t say that I blame them.  Faced with a virtually guaranteed no win situation, I guess I would probably go ahead and vote the way I really wanted to all along and hope for the best.  A “yes” vote only likely means getting voted out of office while a “no” vote means definitely losing party support and millions of dollars in contributions form Big Labor.  Pretty easy decision when you think about it.

At least this entire fiasco has made the voting public more aware of what their elected representatives are and are not capable of.  We have seen that the vast majority are incapable of simply voting their conscience.  And by conscience, I mean listening to the people that elected them and actually representing their best interests.  We have seen people that we trusted to make informed decisions vote on massive pieces of legislation that they could not possibly have had time to read and fully comprehend.  Even if you allow for a large staff reading the bill and thoroughly briefing said elected official, several votes occurred too fast for even that to happen.  Perhaps most importantly we have learned that parliamentary process is no more than what the party in control wants it to be.  There are no standards, only rules that can be twisted and changed to best suit whichever party has the power to make those rules.  This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike.

Before this issue was thrust upon us, the lines drawn between you and me were much less clear.  We have all been forced to view this spectacle through polarizing lenses shaded in the colors of Republican and Democrat.  I have always considered myself to be a fiscally conservative, constitutional Republican.  That definition allowed me the freedom to occasionally step into that not-so-clear zone between you and me and sometimes even meet you there for a cup of coffee and a nice chat.  That just isn’t so easy anymore.  It seems now that anytime I decide to venture into that fuzzy intersection on ideas, I have to go farther over to your side to get you to talk.  I just can’t do that anymore.

So, as we all sit here on the edge of history waiting for the American political landscape to change forever, I have one thing to ask of you.   When you begin to chafe under a 50-60% tax burden, when you can’t get that new cancer drug because it’s just too expensive, or you finally realize that maybe the government has gotten a little too big,  don’t let me hear you complain.   You can gripe and bitch all you want, I just don’t want to hear it.  If you can do that for me, then I promise I will never say “I told you so”.

Please don’t take this to mean that our friendship is over my liberal brothers and sisters.  We can still be part of each others lives.  I am sure we will find new things to discuss, new ideas to argue about and maybe we will even solve a few problems along the way.   And we will have many problems to solve.  Even if this current piece of government expansion fails, there will be other attempts.  We still have to come together in the never never land between our ideals and decide how our children will ever be able to repay the massive debt we have already bestowed upon them.  Our Grandparents are already remembered in the history books as “The Greatest Generation”.  I wonder how history will view our generation.

Your Conservative Friend,

Rich

Share on Facebook

From Article I -

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

From Article II -

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

So nowhere does the Constitution discuss the President writing bills and presenting them to Congress.   I really don’t care how others may interpret the above phrases either.  That is not how the Founding Fathers intended things and it is not how it should work.   There are many, many good reasons for the three branches to have separate and equal (at least as equal as possible) powers and we all know the reasons our government was established in that manner.   Remember, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I would also add that surrendered power is rarely returned without bloodshed.

Rich

Share on Facebook

Now since intelligence gathering is a vital part of waging war, the Administration reasoned that it could do pretty much whatever it wanted with regards to surveillance.   Having been in the military for longer than I care to admit, I agree with this assertion.  What I do not agree with is that it grants the Executive Branch the right to spy on United States Citizens without following the rules laid out in the Constitution and many, many lines of US Civil Code.  Others will disagree with me.  I have had many discussions with people who freely admit that they have no problem with the Federal Government listening in on their phone calls and e-mails because “I have nothing to hide”. 

Of course this program is secret and thus we can’t really now for sure what the feds are listening to, but we do know a few things.  In late 2002, AT&T cooperated with the NSA and installed a beam splitter on the backbone in their facility in San Francisco.   A great feature of fiber optics is that you can split the signal with vitually no signal loss and send identical streams to different locations.  In the case of AT&T, one stream continues to its destination (your home or office) while an identical stream goes into a secure room (room 641a) and is processed by some very high powered servers.  Now, I do not know for sure that room 641a is still operating, internet chatter on the subject dries up around late 2008, but I see no reason why it and other rooms like it would not still be operating today.  It should also be noted that room 641a likely began operation in 2003, but was not reported until a whistleblower at AT&T broke the story.

Even before room 641a, the FBI was using a piece of software called “Carnivore” to sniff out e-mails.  Carnovore was a rather un-remarkable tool in that it was basically just a packet sniffer, what made it stand out was its ability to use various criteria to filter out what the person using it wanted to zero in on.  The FBI later abandoned Carnivore in favor of commercially available software and hardware from a company called Narus.  Coincidentally, Narus is also who builds the machines the NSA used (uses?) in room 641a.  If this little article about Narus doesn’t give you visions of 1984, then you should probably re-read that Orwell classic.  And don’t even think about giving me any guff about using Wikipedia.  This is a blog, not a research paper.  I am sure there is plenty more info out there on Narus, I just don’t feel like digging tonight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NarusInsight

Now, I understand the need for surveillance, and I understand the need for that surveillance to be secret at times.  We already have a system in place for that though, and its called FISA (Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act) and it allows officials to get warrants from a secret court and go monitor whoever they want.  Since its inception in 1978, the FISA court has awarded over 19,000 warrants and denied only 5.  So I think its pretty easy to get one.  As useless as this system is, at least its a system that keeps us a littel further away from the slippery slope that we are on.  For you Star Wars fans, don’t forget that Palpatines rise to Emperor really started when the Senate granted him all those “Emergency” powers…

Share on Facebook

The White House asserts that Fox is unfairly slanted to the right.  FOX acknowledge that many of their opinion based shows are conservative in nature, but their news segments remain completely unbiased.  To be honest, I do not watch enough of FOX News to be able to make a good judgement call in this one.  The few times I have watched FOX news, I have noticed that the news is delivered mostly from a conservative perspective but does not seem to be slanted in any specific direction.  I did watch FOX more than usual during the recent campaigns and noticed as many negative stories about Senator McCain as I did then Senator Obama.  Even so, if their news program are somewhat right leaning, why is the White House so upset?  Any television program has to garner ratings to stay alive and a News network is no exception.  FOX News fills an important gap that CNN and MSNBC ignored for years as they became more and more entrenched in pushing the liberal agenda.  FOX saw a need and filled it.  Based on recent ratings, this seems to be working quite well for them. As you can see in the link below, FOX is beating every other major news network by a very large margin.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-tops-cnn-msnbc-hln-combined-in-prime-time-monday/

The White House staff is a little upset also about the manner in which FOX conducts itself during interviews.  On a recent Sunday morning show, Chris Wallace actually had the audacity to call out a certain government administrator on certain facts.  Unlike other commentators this woman had encountered, Chris had actaully done some research prior to the interview and was ready with some difficult questions.  Wow!  Do they teach that in Journalism school or did Chris come with that idea all on his own?  White House Communications Director Anita Dunn actaully stated that she had never heard of any Sunday Morning news show host fact checking a guest.  Maybe she has been watching the wrong news shows.

The reality of it all is that people are naturally prone to fact check people that they don’t agree with.  If Anita Dunn does not want the administration to be fact checked then she should ensure she keeps her folks off of FOX and stick with more agreeable networks like MSNBC.  Again, I don’t see much of a problem with this.  If this administrattion continues to be this opaque vice transparent as they promised many months ago, they will likely find themselves looking for work like many of the rest of us in a few years.

Rich

Share on Facebook

Chris and I have both mentioned various statistics in our discussions on gun control, both on this blog in other conversations amongst ourselves and other colleagues.  We have all pretty much concluded that the statistics are relatively meaningless (at least right now).  Depending on what statistics are used and how they are intrepreted, a wide variance of conclusions can be drawn.  These conclusions are invariably affected by the biases of the persons doing the interpreting.  The end result is that one really cannot prove or disprove the effectivenes of an armed population as a deterrent to crime.  I would however argue that common sense tells us that an armed and trained individual is less likely to become a victim of violent crime than the converse.  Again, this is a matter of opinion and won’t solve the issue.  For these reasons, I have decided to focus my discussions on the roots and history of firearm ownership in this country vice the current debate.

The majority of the people in the anti-gun crowd really do not grasp the basic issue at hand and continually make statements such as ”Why do you need to have a gun?”  or “The reasons the Second Ammendment was inserted just are not relevant anymore”.   In response, I have a question for all of those people who feel the need to disarm the law abiding citizens of this country – “Why do you feel the need to take our guns away?”  Yes, I know, nobody wants to take the guns away right?  Wrong.

      “Senator, If I could have banned them all- ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ -I would have!”  Diane Fienstein 1995

In that statement, Senator Fienstein vocalizes the emotion that many of our elected leaders share – Fear, irrational fear.  I simply cannot believe the excuse that their desire to take away the right to bear arms is driven by a desire to lower crime.  Absolutley nothing backs that up.  We already have a plethora of laws and agencies designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who have shown that they cannot be trusted.  I must then conclude that this actually a fear of  the citizens having the means to revolt against the tyranny that they would like to impose.  That sounds a bit harsh.  I do not believe that anyone currently in any meaningful position of power intends to impose an outright tyrannical system in this country.  I cannot say that for those who will come in later generations though.  History has shown us that once we surrender a liberty to the government, we lose it forever. 

       “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”       Thomas Jefferson

Here is where the “Thats just not relevant anymore” argument always comes up.  Those who use this quote (or any of the dozens of other Founding Father quotes that say the same thing) are labeled as fear mongers and anarchists.  As I said before, I don’t think the current sate of our government will result in tyranny, but what of 50 years from now?  100 years?  Does it really matter how long it will take?  I believe we owe it to our children and grand-children to preserve for them the ability to prevent just such a thing from happening.

 I know that I said earlier we could not trust statistics, and I still stick to that statement for the most part.  I do want to leave you with this interesting tidbit though:  In New York City, Mayor Bloombergs push to rid the streets of illegal guns was widley hailed in liberal circles as a success.  In fact, the number of guns recovered from crime scenes did drop by 13% and the number of people shot to death dropped from 347 in 2007 to 292 in 2008.  The only problem with this whole line of thought is that from 2007 to 2008, the OVERALL murder rate in NYC increased due to an increase in knife related homicide.  Sounds like a murder problem and not a gun problem to me.

Rich

Share on Facebook

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/10/08/2009-10-08_guntoting_pa_soccer_mom_husband_found_shot_dead_in_apparent_murdersuicide.html

This whole story raises many, many questions and is going to be used heavily by the anti-gun left (it already is).  The point I want to make is that we can not take one isolated incident, sensationalize it and use it as an example of why firearms should be any more tightly controlled than they already are.  The fact remains that this was a domestic violence issue.  Simply because the woman who died was previously in the news toting a gun to a soccer game (within her legal rights in that state by the way) is no reason to point to her death as an example of how “crazy” handgun proponents are.  Granted, wearing a gun on your hip to a kids soccer game my show a poor grasp of social norms, this does not make the woman crazy.  The use of a legally owned handgun against another person in anything other than self-defense is still exceedingly rare, even in states with very loose gun control.  I am not going to delve into the statistics in this post, for now please feel free to look at the link below.  The data is from the Department of Justice and is not biased in any way for or against gun control.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

I’ll dig a little deeper into the stats in my next post.  For now, I should probably get back to work!

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook