Once upon a time there was a Club with millions of members. Lets call it UNSTAM, the Unified Neopolitan Society for Terrific American Members. In its original bylaws, the governing body was given the mandate to defend the club from all enemies, and to promote the general well-being. At first, its dues were set very low. The Club had a standing Army, and the Members had a right to do pretty much whatever they wanted, as long as it did not hurt anyone else.
In its early years, the Members decided that comprehensive education was an important thing to do, so education for all was instituted. Some of the dues collected by the club were used to pay for schools and teachers throughout the entire membership. Later on, some of the Members saw that as people in the Club got older, some of them were unable to care for themselves financially and medically. Most of the time the older Members were being taken care of by their families and Churches, but some of the Members thought that since the Club did such a better job at education than the Churches had done, then the Club should take over the care and feeding of their older Members.
About this same time, some in the Club complained that the dues collected for the general welfare were being levied unfairly. Some members, they argued, were too poor to pay the same dues as the richer members. So the Club decided to not collect dues from the poorest members. Then, they decided to collect more dues from the richer members than they collected from the middle class members, because the richer members were, well, richer. Later, it was decided that the poorer members were staying poor through no fault of their own. The Club began collecting dues from other members and rebating or refunding those dues to the poorer members, even though the poorer members had not paid any dues at all. This was called, among other things, the Poor Person's Dues Credit. Some of these credits and subsidies were totally outrageous, but passed because some Club members did not vote, and those who voted were not educated about the issues, or more accurately, were motivated more by self-interest than the general welfare.
As time went on, the Club took on more and more responsibility for the happiness and welfare of the members. The Club members who made their living on the farm were starting to get poorer, so the Club gave them Farm Dues Subsidies. The children throughout the entire Club were not all graduating from Club schools with the same grades, so the Club created a Department of Education. Additional dues were collected from all of the Club members to pay more to teachers and build more modern schools. The new Department needed a national Secretary, and he became good friends with the teacher's unions. Dues were given to Universities for studies of all manner of social sciences, and Grants were given for experiments in every conceivable realm of society.
Unfortunately, as the Clubs expenses grew, they began to run a deficit. Some said they should raise the Dues on the rich, others said they should collect more Dues from every member. Still more members said they were paying too much in Dues, and could not afford an increase. While the debate on Dues went on, the deficit grew.
In the year 2000, a very conservative Club President was elected. He had campaigned on less Club involvement in people's personal lives and lower dues. But the very next year, tragedy struck. An evil land sent bad people to hurt the Club, and 3000 members died. The Club President decided to spend more on defense, and he waged war on the evil land. But he also created another Club Department, with a high-level Secretary and lots of bureaucrats to run it. He called it the Department of Club Security. But the duties given to the Secretary of Club Security were already being done by the Club Intelligence Agency and the Firm Bureau of Investigation. But the President said the new Department was necessary, so that the members would all feel secure.
Eight years later, a famine hit the land. Lots of people lost their jobs. Many grown children had to move back in with their parents. Many banks went out of business, because there was not enough money. Some major manufacturing companies, like Chrysler and GM, were on the verge of going bankrupt. Since so many of the Club members worked in the banks and in Chrysler and GM, the new President decided to bail out the banks and buy Chrysler and GM with money collected from the members in dues. But there was still not enough money. So the new President decided he would print some new money, and he hoped that with al the new money being given to the Members, the Club would survive the famine.
As things started to get better, the new President made a promise to the club members. He promised to find ways to reduce the deficit. He appointed a bi-partisan commission to study the issue, and to come up with ways to grow the economy and reduce the deficit.
Some in the commission said the Club should raise dues. Others said no, that would kill jobs; the way to do it would be to stop spending Club money on unnecessary things. When they were asked what unnecessary things they would de-fund, the commissioners did not know. They hemmed and hawed, and scratched their chins, and said the Club could stop spending so much on older people. Some of the older people were rich, they said, and did not need subsidies from the Club. Those older people should not be eligible for subsidies at age 65, they said; the new eligibility age should be 67. Oh, but the Club had already promised to take care of the older members, so the changes should not take effect until 15 years from now.
Many Club members got together and called themselves the HEAR party, as in Had Enough AlReady. The HEAR party wanted to stop printing money. They also were against raising dues. They wanted the Club to find cheaters who owed dues but did not pay. They wanted the Club to find people who received subsidies but were not eligible--they said the subsidies should continue to be paid to eligible Club members, but some were receiving subsidies fraudulently. This should stop, they said. The ideas of the HEAR party were good, but they did not go far enough.
Interestingly, nobody in the Club suggested what really needed to be done. They did not suggest real reduction in the size of government. Examples would be to dismantle the Department of Club Security, since its work duplicates that of the CIA and FBI. No, many Club members say; you just want us to be less secure. But I remember when we felt secure without a government department and a cabinet-level secretary.
There are other cabinet level departments that should be dissolved. Education, Commerce, and Labor have all outlived their usefulness. We have laws in place that mandate education, fair business practices, and fair pay and benefits; there is no longer any need for the government to promote these ideas.
The government should not tell us what kind of light bulbs we should use in our homes. The government should not tell us how much money a teenager should get on his first job. The government should not tell us how to package things we sell, or how to consume the things we buy. Citizens should be free to make their own choices about these things.
The best way to promote the general welfare, I think, would be to scrap all government agencies, departments, bureaus and contractors hired or created in the last hundred years. We should stop paying tax monies to NGO's, community organizers, unions and farmers. Once all the madness has stopped, then we could decide anew which entities were absolutely necessary and would die without government help. We could set new priorities for the 21st century, and move forward, unencumbered by outdated obligations.
It might be a whole new world. While some groups may try to exert influence for their own self interest, the whole population may just wake up and become engaged in the process. If everyone was involved, then the country's interest might outweigh the interests of a select few. Or it might just descend into chaos. We are too much used to the status quo to make any appreciable change.
That's just sad.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Outrageous Taxpayer Subsidies
Did you know that American taxpayers subsidize cotton farmers? Did you know that American taxpayers subsidize cotton farmers in Brazil? The next time one of your liberal friends asks "What programs would you cut from the federal budget?" as if ending any program was tantamount to taking food out of children's mouths, tell them you would cut the $150M a year we are sending to Brazilian cotton farmers.
American farm subsidies began during the Great Depression. Basically, it was to make sure that farm families did not go bankrupt, and disrupt the US food supply. But when the war came, and many farming families sold their farms to big corporations and farming conglomerates, the farm subsidies did not die. During the post-war boom, when the American economy was growing by leaps and bounds, the farm subsidies did not die. Nor did the subsidies die when the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its member countries voted to limit the subsidies paid by governments to their farmers.
Let me reiterate that last point. The WTO, of which the United States is a member, entered into a treaty, a multi-national agreement, to curtail most farm subsidies. Despite the agreement, despite the Full Faith and Credit of the US Government, Congress still voted to give farm subsidies to US farmers. This made other countries, who were abiding by the treaty, angry. Brazil cotton farmers were really mad. The US farm subsidies were making their cotton sell at a disadvantage on the world market.
So they sued. Brazilian cotton farmers and their Interior Secretary took the US to court, and won. The international court of the WTO found that America had violated their agreement to limit farm subsidies. The US appealed, and lost. We appealed again, and lost again. Then we did something very American.
We sent a delegation to Brazil to negotiate with the Brazilian cotton farmers. Our delegates explained how hard it is to kill a program once it is enacted by Congress. They said it might take years to stop the subsidies altogether. This was not a good negotiating position. The Brazilians didn't care about how hard it is for Congress to stop paying farmers. They just knew we were violating an agreement we had entered into with other cotton-producing countries.
So the US delegation offered to pay Brazilian cotton farmers a fee, a penalty of sorts, to appease them. Since the US Congress will not take up the Farm Bill until 2012, we offered to pay $150M a year to Brazil to help level the playing field until we could take up the issue and make changes. The agreement was struck in April of this year. Had you heard about it before now? Neither had I, until I heard a report on National Public Radio today. And although the NPR report did mention that the US taxpayer was now subsidizing cotton farmers in Brazil, it was not reported with any outrage or urgency. It was almost noted in passing.
Now, to those of you who might say that $150M is a drop in the bucket when compared with the total US Government annual budget, you are right. Compared to our trillion dollar debt, this is small time. But exactly where do you draw the line?
If my family signed up for every convenience advertised on television and radio, and didn't worry about the cost because it was always "just pennies a day", there would come a time when those pennies added up to such a sum that we could no longer pay the mortgage or the light bill. And that is exactly what our government has done with this settlement agreement with Brazilian cotton farmers. Instead of making the hard choices to stop subsidizing huge farming conglomerates at home, and abiding by an agreement made with the WTO, we opted instead for a convenient fee paid to a foreign government.
How many of the other foreign aid line items in our federal budget are there for the very same reason? It is easier to pay a few million a month to keep them at bay than it is to reduce our bigger contributions to big political contributors. In other words, Big Farm Firms, like Big Pharma, or Big Oil, pay big bucks to re-elect their favorite Congressman every year. And that Congressman is afraid that if he stands up to his big contributors, then he might lose his job.
My heart bleeds.
American farm subsidies began during the Great Depression. Basically, it was to make sure that farm families did not go bankrupt, and disrupt the US food supply. But when the war came, and many farming families sold their farms to big corporations and farming conglomerates, the farm subsidies did not die. During the post-war boom, when the American economy was growing by leaps and bounds, the farm subsidies did not die. Nor did the subsidies die when the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its member countries voted to limit the subsidies paid by governments to their farmers.
Let me reiterate that last point. The WTO, of which the United States is a member, entered into a treaty, a multi-national agreement, to curtail most farm subsidies. Despite the agreement, despite the Full Faith and Credit of the US Government, Congress still voted to give farm subsidies to US farmers. This made other countries, who were abiding by the treaty, angry. Brazil cotton farmers were really mad. The US farm subsidies were making their cotton sell at a disadvantage on the world market.
So they sued. Brazilian cotton farmers and their Interior Secretary took the US to court, and won. The international court of the WTO found that America had violated their agreement to limit farm subsidies. The US appealed, and lost. We appealed again, and lost again. Then we did something very American.
We sent a delegation to Brazil to negotiate with the Brazilian cotton farmers. Our delegates explained how hard it is to kill a program once it is enacted by Congress. They said it might take years to stop the subsidies altogether. This was not a good negotiating position. The Brazilians didn't care about how hard it is for Congress to stop paying farmers. They just knew we were violating an agreement we had entered into with other cotton-producing countries.
So the US delegation offered to pay Brazilian cotton farmers a fee, a penalty of sorts, to appease them. Since the US Congress will not take up the Farm Bill until 2012, we offered to pay $150M a year to Brazil to help level the playing field until we could take up the issue and make changes. The agreement was struck in April of this year. Had you heard about it before now? Neither had I, until I heard a report on National Public Radio today. And although the NPR report did mention that the US taxpayer was now subsidizing cotton farmers in Brazil, it was not reported with any outrage or urgency. It was almost noted in passing.
Now, to those of you who might say that $150M is a drop in the bucket when compared with the total US Government annual budget, you are right. Compared to our trillion dollar debt, this is small time. But exactly where do you draw the line?
If my family signed up for every convenience advertised on television and radio, and didn't worry about the cost because it was always "just pennies a day", there would come a time when those pennies added up to such a sum that we could no longer pay the mortgage or the light bill. And that is exactly what our government has done with this settlement agreement with Brazilian cotton farmers. Instead of making the hard choices to stop subsidizing huge farming conglomerates at home, and abiding by an agreement made with the WTO, we opted instead for a convenient fee paid to a foreign government.
How many of the other foreign aid line items in our federal budget are there for the very same reason? It is easier to pay a few million a month to keep them at bay than it is to reduce our bigger contributions to big political contributors. In other words, Big Farm Firms, like Big Pharma, or Big Oil, pay big bucks to re-elect their favorite Congressman every year. And that Congressman is afraid that if he stands up to his big contributors, then he might lose his job.
My heart bleeds.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
What happens when children run society? Fiscal irresponsibility
When I was in high school, I had a job as a counselor in a summer camp. One of the things I remember doing was stocking the cola vending machines. The camp director could buy the colas in bulk (this was before Sam's Clubs made this task easier). The average retail price of a single cold soda was 35 cents. But the camp director set all of the machines to accept two quarters and not give any change. The reason he gave was that he did not want the grade-school campers to have to worry about putting in exact change, or forgetting their change in the machines when the soda was dispensed.
What do you think was the economic effect of the 30% increase in the price? There was no reduction in the number of colas sold. The kids didn't care what it cost. Their mothers had given them money to spend at camp, and they were going to spend it all, either on snacks or T-shirts. They didn't care.
To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, when I was a child, I spent like a child.
Fast forward to today. President Obama was giving a speech on the radio recently, touting the benefits of his Health Care Plan. He pointed out that now young people can be covered under their parent's health plan up to age 26. A co-worker was surprised and pleased to hear this, as she has a son who was just released from prison, and he needs dental work. They were wondering how to get his extensive dental work paid for since he had no insurance of his own. Now she plans to add him to her family policy, and claim his dental treatment against our company's group health policy.
She asked me what I thought of the new policy. I need my job, so I didn't tell her what I really thought. I said it was nice that her son, who had a need, could now find a way to get that need met without a huge cost to the family.
What I really wanted to say was this is a huge cost to society. My insurance premiums are now going to go through the roof because your son can't find a job or pay for his own treatment. When Congress was debating this bill, the Obama administration put out the word that insurance premiums would go down as a result of this legislation. But after the bill was passed, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that premiums would go up as a result of the new changes in the law. So we were lied to in order to get this bill passed, and Obama can now cite this as a major accomplishment of his presidency.
Responsible adults have to bear additional costs so that children can enjoy a new government benefit. And in this case, the word "children" refers to persons older than 21 years of age, who are able bodied and should shoulder their own load and pay their own way. This is what happens when children choose the government. Remember that Obama was swept into office by a rise in first time voters, 18 to 24 year olds who have not had sufficient life experience to understand the consequences of government intervention.
Alas, it has always been thus. I remember when colas were 35 cents in a machine, 25 cents if you bought them at the grocery store. But then someone in the FDA decided that all edible consumables needed to be labeled with calories, fat grams, sugars, etc. This caused a huge cost to the cola companies and packagers. And they passed those costs on to consumers. And even though this was a one-time cost, the companies continued to charge the higher prices, because the consumers showed that they were willing to pay the extra cost. Overnight, colas went up from 35 cents to 50 cents. Today, a cola can cost from $1.25 to $2.00. Part of the price increase is from the government mandated FDA labels years back. But when is the last time you read the calorie or fat content on your cola can?
I am afraid the same thing will happen with the increased premiums on health insurance. Unless somebody rises up and repeals the health care reforms, then consumers will all take it for granted. They will not look at their paycheck stubs and notice that last year their insurance premiums were 30% less. Or if they do, they will not link it with the government reforms that caused the increases. We will still be like children--we don't care what it costs, we just want more sugar.
What do you think was the economic effect of the 30% increase in the price? There was no reduction in the number of colas sold. The kids didn't care what it cost. Their mothers had given them money to spend at camp, and they were going to spend it all, either on snacks or T-shirts. They didn't care.
To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, when I was a child, I spent like a child.
Fast forward to today. President Obama was giving a speech on the radio recently, touting the benefits of his Health Care Plan. He pointed out that now young people can be covered under their parent's health plan up to age 26. A co-worker was surprised and pleased to hear this, as she has a son who was just released from prison, and he needs dental work. They were wondering how to get his extensive dental work paid for since he had no insurance of his own. Now she plans to add him to her family policy, and claim his dental treatment against our company's group health policy.
She asked me what I thought of the new policy. I need my job, so I didn't tell her what I really thought. I said it was nice that her son, who had a need, could now find a way to get that need met without a huge cost to the family.
What I really wanted to say was this is a huge cost to society. My insurance premiums are now going to go through the roof because your son can't find a job or pay for his own treatment. When Congress was debating this bill, the Obama administration put out the word that insurance premiums would go down as a result of this legislation. But after the bill was passed, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that premiums would go up as a result of the new changes in the law. So we were lied to in order to get this bill passed, and Obama can now cite this as a major accomplishment of his presidency.
Responsible adults have to bear additional costs so that children can enjoy a new government benefit. And in this case, the word "children" refers to persons older than 21 years of age, who are able bodied and should shoulder their own load and pay their own way. This is what happens when children choose the government. Remember that Obama was swept into office by a rise in first time voters, 18 to 24 year olds who have not had sufficient life experience to understand the consequences of government intervention.
Alas, it has always been thus. I remember when colas were 35 cents in a machine, 25 cents if you bought them at the grocery store. But then someone in the FDA decided that all edible consumables needed to be labeled with calories, fat grams, sugars, etc. This caused a huge cost to the cola companies and packagers. And they passed those costs on to consumers. And even though this was a one-time cost, the companies continued to charge the higher prices, because the consumers showed that they were willing to pay the extra cost. Overnight, colas went up from 35 cents to 50 cents. Today, a cola can cost from $1.25 to $2.00. Part of the price increase is from the government mandated FDA labels years back. But when is the last time you read the calorie or fat content on your cola can?
I am afraid the same thing will happen with the increased premiums on health insurance. Unless somebody rises up and repeals the health care reforms, then consumers will all take it for granted. They will not look at their paycheck stubs and notice that last year their insurance premiums were 30% less. Or if they do, they will not link it with the government reforms that caused the increases. We will still be like children--we don't care what it costs, we just want more sugar.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Customized Experiences Lead to Lack of Common Sense
I have determined that there is no such thing as common sense any more. Just the other day I was reading in the sports page of my local newspaper. A professional football player in Florida was at the home of a team cheerleader; he is 30, she is 19; the team has a rule against cheerleaders dating players, so she was referred to as his "ex-girlfriend". The couple was upstairs in her parents' house, in a gameroom, allegedly watching television. A man in a ski mask appeared, brandishing a gun. The gunman dragged the girl around by her hair, and struck her with his fist while the football player watched. When the gunman turned to pistol-whip the football player, the girl ran downstairs to get a gun. The gunman gave chase, and shots were fired. The football player shut the door, put a chair up against it, and jumped out of the window so he could "run next door to call police".
"This is wrong on so many levels," I commented aloud. A female co-worker responded: "Yeah. She shouldn't have had a gun in her house."
Huh?
Several weeks ago I wrote a column for the newspaper. I praised the efforts of local Baptist churches for getting involved in charitable work. The charity I mentioned was all about helping lower income families get food, clothing, shelter, and school supplies for their children. I commented that many have the mistaken idea that Evangelicals are all about sharing the Gospel, and not about feeding the hungry, like other more socailly liberal denominations.
The only letter to the editor published in response to my column was a woman ranting against giving tax-exempt status to churches. Did she miss the point, or did I?
And that is the point I am trying to make here. Americans used to have things in common, like families and community events. Barn-raisings and bake sales. As the electronic age was birthed, families gathered around their radios for news of the war. Later, we would all talk about the same characters on the same television shows.
Where has that sense of community gone?
There used to be something called "common sense", and it sprang from the same common experiences we all went through. Be nice to animals. Don't spit into the wind. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
But now, in the name of "diversity", we all have different cultures. With 400 channels, no one watches the same shows. Even with sporting events, over 100,000 people can show up for a Cowboys game, but ten times that many people in the DFW metroplex do not even know they are playing, and do not care what the score is. There are no winners or losers in children's games any more. You have to give out ribbons to everyone for "participation". You can't fail students any more; everyone gets a minimum grade of 50% just for turning in their work.
These different experiences have splintered us as a society. We no longer have a shared experience, therefore we are moving toward a time when we no longer have a shared purpose.
When will it all end?
"This is wrong on so many levels," I commented aloud. A female co-worker responded: "Yeah. She shouldn't have had a gun in her house."
Huh?
Several weeks ago I wrote a column for the newspaper. I praised the efforts of local Baptist churches for getting involved in charitable work. The charity I mentioned was all about helping lower income families get food, clothing, shelter, and school supplies for their children. I commented that many have the mistaken idea that Evangelicals are all about sharing the Gospel, and not about feeding the hungry, like other more socailly liberal denominations.
The only letter to the editor published in response to my column was a woman ranting against giving tax-exempt status to churches. Did she miss the point, or did I?
And that is the point I am trying to make here. Americans used to have things in common, like families and community events. Barn-raisings and bake sales. As the electronic age was birthed, families gathered around their radios for news of the war. Later, we would all talk about the same characters on the same television shows.
Where has that sense of community gone?
There used to be something called "common sense", and it sprang from the same common experiences we all went through. Be nice to animals. Don't spit into the wind. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
But now, in the name of "diversity", we all have different cultures. With 400 channels, no one watches the same shows. Even with sporting events, over 100,000 people can show up for a Cowboys game, but ten times that many people in the DFW metroplex do not even know they are playing, and do not care what the score is. There are no winners or losers in children's games any more. You have to give out ribbons to everyone for "participation". You can't fail students any more; everyone gets a minimum grade of 50% just for turning in their work.
These different experiences have splintered us as a society. We no longer have a shared experience, therefore we are moving toward a time when we no longer have a shared purpose.
When will it all end?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)