Congratulations, you’re in the top 5% on earners!

In his campaign for the office he currently holds, Obama pledged not to tax anyone but the top 5% of earners. Of the remaining 95%, he emphasized his pledge by saying they would not see their tax increase “not one dime.” Six months later, he has already broken his promise.

Earlier this week the House passed the Cap and Trade bill. This bill caps the amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that a company can emit into the atmosphere. If a company exceeds that cap, it must buy carbon credits from another company that has not exceeded its limit. Proponents of this bill claim that by capping the emissions and gradually lowering that cap we can save the planet from the eternal boogeyman of Global Warming.

Already the rational for the bill is falling apart. A suppressed EPA report requested by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., states that although CO2 emissions have increased in recent years, temperatures have declined. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/)
In fact, there is still no consensus that global warming is due to man-made causes. Furthermore, the last ten years have actually seen a global cooling, not warming. (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/01/no_climate_debate_yes_there_is/)

So why pass a bill that taxes emissions? In Obama’s own words:
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket . . . because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas, you name it . . . Whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, and they will pass that [cost] on to consumers…If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can, It’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.’’

As the cost of energy skyrockets, conservation will become a necessity for the poor, elderly, and young adults. The very people Obama and the democrats claim to be for! Businesses will lay off employees and raise prices in an effort to stay in business despite the huge tax increase. Many of these operations will be shipped overseas to avoid the legislation. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2009398877_cap-and-trade_is_this_climate.html)

As we lose these jobs to the emerging economies of high polluting countries like India and China, the net result will be more carbon in the atmosphere and fewer jobs for Americans. Everyone loses.

JibJab is Awesome

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

JibJab is awesome.

Socialized Medicine: Wrong for Europe, Wrong for America

Listening to Obama, one would think that Europe has a far superior healthcare system than the United States. Listening to Michael Moore, one would think our healthcare system even lags behind Cuba! What are we to do? All the experts agree, we are told. We need to nationalize healthcare. A national system of doctors would work together to deliver us the kind of healthcare Europeans and Cubans receive. Not only that but it will cost less than it does now. After all, you’re already paying for those who aren’t covered. Some say as much as $1,800 a year in healthcare costs that are passed on to you. So if we nationalize the system the healthcare will be better and cheaper than it is now, right?

Wrong.

The very premise of the argument falls apart under closer observation. Not only is the U.S. healthcare system as good as its European counterpart, its better.

According to a recent article in the Washington Times, Americans have better survival rates from both common and rare cancers than Europeans and Canadians. Not only that but we also have better access to screening and treatment for chronic diseases.

What about our seniors who supposedly stand to receive better care by the larger pool created by adding young and healthy people to the insurance rolls? The same article says Canada has an even greater disparity among treatments available for the elderly in a study of Canadians aged 16-64. In fact the same article states that the average wait to see a specialist is about twice as long in the UK and Canada. Some specialists who perform hip replacements or radiation therapy for cancer sometimes have up to a year wait.

But aren’t the people in Europe happy with their healthcare? The same article finds that More than 70 percent of Germans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and U.K. adults say their health systems needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."

But isn’t something as vital as healthcare better off with all the doctors working together? Isn’t healthcare above the competition of the market? What possible good could this competition create? According to the same article, the vast majority of all the innovation in health care in the world comes out of the U.S. health-care system. The same competition that drives every industry to improve their product or service also drives the healthcare industry to improve the quality of healthcare.

OK, so maybe our healthcare system is better but what about the people who can’t pay? Wouldn’t a system where everyone had access be better than one where some didn’t? Didn’t you say we’re almost paying two grand a year for these people anyway?

Certainly the healthcare system needs reform but we need to go in the opposite direction that Obama is leading us. Competition is already stifled by an insurance system that distorts the fair market value of the services rendered. In many situations neither the doctor nor the patient knows the cost of anything from a check-up to a life saving procedure. It often depends on the insurance a patient carries. In the cost of any visit with a doctor is built in the cost of an additional administration and all the paperwork required. This cost is passed along in the form of insurance premiums. No one would order a meal at a restaurant if the price wasn’t on the menu but this is what we do every time we see a doctor!

Sound radical? A price board in your doctor’s office? It could never happen, right?

Actually many doctors have decided to stop taking insurance and have prospered. John Stossel recently reported on several doctors who found they could offer lower prices by cutting out the middle man.


The solution is to let the free market back into the system and reduce the number of claims submitted to insurance companies. Certainly insurance can still play a role. No one in a car accident or suffering a heart attack should have to play hundreds of thousands of dollars for life saving surgery. But do we really need insurance for when we have a case of the sniffles or need a yearly check-up? Let’s let competition reign and see prices fall. By shrinking the size of the insurance bureaucracy to only cover catastrophic cases we can reduce insurance premiums and make healthcare available to all Americans.




http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1547496.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/pardon-the-interruption/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3602626&page=1

Conservative Ideals

First, a little bit about me. I believe that conservatism, both ecomonic and social, is the path to greatest personal freedom.

Economic conservatism simply put means small government, keeping more of what you earn and keeping government out of your business.

Small government means following the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution. Any rights not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved for the states.

Keeping more of what you earn means low taxes. The people as a group forms the market and the market, when it is free of government interference, is the best way to determine what a good or service is worth. When people spend their money as they see fit it does the most economic good. People will spend and invest the money with an eye for economic value whereas government spends and invests for purely a political return. People in the market create wealth whereas the government only moves money from one pocket to another, tying up funds in a zero sum game.

Keeping government out of your business deals with regulation. Monopolies are rare things. If one company can make a good or service, many other companies can make that same product. Some can even make it better. This competition for customers leads to lower prices and higher quality than any other economic system we have. The Monopolies that do exist always do so with the government's help. Burdensome regulations prevent some companies from creating products. Heavily regulated industries such as the car companies, oil companies, etc. have had the bar of entry set so high by the US government that the cost of entry is almost unthinkable. This leads to cabals being formed by competitors who know that they can artificially increase prices above market value since no new competitors can enter the market. Noncompetitive industries also know that there is less of a need to improve the quality of goods or services that they provide. With the advent of free trade, companies that are not burdened by these regulations can undercut US companies. While this does reignite some companies to lower prices and improve quality, it may also drive US companies out of the industry if they find the regulations that once protected them from domestic competition hobble them against foreign competition. The best regulation comes from the free and fair marketplace-driven competition.

Many in the conservative movement would look to say that although these principles are correct we need the federal government to have this right not enumerated in the Constitution or we need more tax dollars for this program or more regulation in this or that industry. Just this once, or just in times of economic trouble. That government will grow today but shrink tomorrow. This is worrisome. Although it is easy to fund a new program, how many old programs ever are terminated? How many entitlements are ever rolled back? How many departments are ever disbanded?

The fear of being a Hoover, not responding to economic hardship of the people, is maybe the greatest fear among politicians. The old adage that if you don't know what you are doing, look busy is alive and well in Washington. But the government cannot control the market unless it controls every part of the market. Look at the old Soviet Union to see how well that works. The market is a balloon, squeeze it somewhere and it bulges out somewhere else. The government dutifully squeezes the new area but the problem continues in another section. This leaves politicians an endless game where they can look busy but doesn't help those affected.

Social conservatism means carrying on the moral legacy of our Founders. This is not the only reason to do so. Morality leads to a healthier society. Poverty, homelessness, and crime grow out of a lack of a cohesive family unit. All studies show fatherlessness is one of the greatest indicators that a child is at risk. Children who grow up without a father tend to be poorer, less educated and more likely to commit crime than children who grow up with a father.

Some of these problems are interconnected with economic conservatism. Does anyone really believe the welfare state has not decimated the family unit especially in urban areas?

One of the greatest goals of social conservatism is to create a stable environment for our children. Two consenting adults may do as they choose within the boundaries of the law but with children involved their personal behavior can lead to a lifetime of instability and tragedy to those they otherwise love.

No one is saying divorce or lesser immoralities should be legislated against. No one is saying a father must stay with a mother or vice versa under penalty of law. These are values that must be learned but are difficult to teach. Social conservatives must be like Ronald Reagan's city on a hill, we must lead by example first and legislate only when necessary.

Welcome

This is my first post, hopefully of many, to a conservative minded blog. I created this blog to voice my opinions about conservatism, current events and how best to further the cause of our Founders. If any of these things offend you, I made this website for you. If you support these things, I made this website for you. If you are indifferent either way about these things, I made this website for you.