The Necessity of Proper

Well crap.

I've spent a good bit of spare time over the past week or so digging through government web sites. My intent was to show that the whole Constitutional argument for the power of Congress to create a new health care plan is based on the scoundrel's clause: that last line of Section 8 of the Constitution... the necessary and proper clause. I was planning on showing how that's exactly the same argument used to create Medicare and Medicaid. And using real life numbers, I was going to show how the last iteration was, in fact, not necessary and not proper.

And it's not like my opinion has changed. If I could have found consistent data, you would have seen some brilliant snazzy graphs showing the costs over time... the costs per participant and projected costs into the future. But the data is just inconsistent. What we do (theoretically) know is this: as of 2008 taxes no longer cover expenditures. That big nice trust fund of the original plan -- that big wad of cash that grows over time and provides for future claims -- is gone. Long gone. Medicare and Medicaid underpayments to health care providers over the years have driven up costs for all of us -- for those outside the plan -- and have created the current "health care crisis" that we all are arguing about.

I am amazed at how bad the data seems to be for this sort of stuff. You can look on multiple US government web sites and find multiple sets of numbers for the same statistic from different organizations. If they don't know how many people are in the programs and how much it costs, how in the hell do they expect to manage it? I am also amazed at the government's idea of numbers. If the enrollment for these programs grows at a rate less that it grew last year, it is deemed to be "shrinking." Growing slower is not the same thing as shrinking! What kind of math is that? Hey, my electric bill only went up 2% this year! It must be cheaper than it was last year!

So we'll continue to argue over whether Congress has the right to expand the program that is bankrupt. And this time we have the knowledge they didn't have then: We see how their previous programs have worked for us. The idea of expansion of a bankrupt program is akin to the thought that if Bernie Madoff just had a few more investors, his whole plan would have turned out a whole lot better. And just like Mr. Madoff: if you cannot explain the mathematics of how to expand coverage and reduce cost in simple 8th grade math -- you have no business investing in it.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas W. Elmendorf said it best when he testified before the Senate Budget Committee members on July 16 and said: "the federal budget is on an unsustainable path — meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run." What apparently was missing was where he must have said: "Now... go out there and expand!"

I shouldn't watch Infotainment

The hard hitting journalism of the Today Show's Matt Lauer amazes me. This past Friday they did a special appearance from the new Dallas Cowboy Stadium. Matt marveled at the enormity and the luxury of the world's most expensive football stadium. He went on at length with billionaire owner Jerry Jones. Mr. Jones talked about how "he built this stadium this" and "when we did that."

Never at any time was there mention of who really built the stadium: the taxpayers. Yes, this billionaire couldn't be bothered to spend ''his'' money. He needed to spend someone else's money. Oh, but there would be "countless amount of return for the city" is the argument. But ignored is that there is a countless return for Mr. Jones as well.

And no mention of the fact that the land on which this gleaming monstrosity sits was once a neighborhood where people actually lived. They didn't just wake up one morning and decide to sell their house for Mr. Jones's profit. No, their houses were, in fact, taken from them by force using eminent domain laws. You know the laws: the ones intended to allow for "the public good" of things such as highways and courthouses. And while arguments of property theft for building roads are dubious at best, stealing property for playing a god damned football game is just not justifiable by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh, but this neighborhood was "crime ridden" -- that's the story we were told. Yet the crime statistics for that area included the crimes that were occurring just across the highway from the new football stadium.... in the parking lot of Texas Rangers baseball stadium.

You want a big damn pretty stadium for your football team, Mr. Billionaire? Then build one yourself with your own money or the money of your investors. You want land to build it on? Then buy it at the fair market price. How do you determine that price? It's the price the owner charges and you will pay.

Hard hitting journalism indeed Mr. Lauer. I fully expect the next day he never even noticed the extra 2% tax on his fancy schmancy hotel room or the extra 5% on his rental car.

The right to health care

...or food or shelter or a job or really anything... I had intended to write a long ass sarcastic rant here... but the mood just wasn't there. I decided to go for simple... Here: Get it now?

Lessons from the middle III: 1/4 cup less crazy; 2 cups more content

In my continuing series of "Lessons from the middle" I've previously offered advice to both liberals and conservatives. In this bit of continuing education, I once again offer advice to those right of the center line. In this particular bit I refer to government health care. But as always: I beg you to generalize. It's about so much more than that.

Now I feel I should offer a few disclaimers right up front, just so I don't blind side you or mislead you. First off, I am vehemently opposed to any form of government run health care. (Remember: generalize.) I will also offend you by saying I am NOT opposed to some sort of rational euthanasia, assuming the person receiving said Chinese child is a willing and knowledgeable participant. I certainly believe people own their own lives and are the final arbiter on the use and disposal of said life.

Now, as I mentioned, this advice is for those with only a right wing. (For those keeping track, this would be the ones that can only fly nowhere in counterclockwise circles.) Those in the left and center can move along. Have a nice day. Come back real soon.

Okay, now that we're alone, let me just tell you in plain English. You sound crazy. No, listen to me. You really do. You already know I totally agree with you on the whole government health care thing. I said that up front. And while we disagree on so many things, you should know this and know it well: you're attacking the wrong issues entirely. Instead of whining an moaning and bitching and complaining that the "Obama Plan"¹ is going to create government sanctioned euthanasia, you should oppose the concept of government health care. Between you and me -- isn't that what you are really opposed to? Arguing over the specific rules in a game of "let's eat poo" is really only going to change which end of the poo you bite first and how much you are going to have to consume. Let's for a moment just not care what's in the damn plan. Let's -- for one split second -- argue that the general concept that one man's ill fate (be it disease or self inflicted wound) is another man's servitude is just wrong. It's wrong for health care and it's wrong for subsidized bubble creating housing and it's wrong for clunker cash and it's wrong in general. Taking one thing rightfully owned by one man and giving it to another -- even "for the good of society" -- is wrong. Period. End of sentence. Asking for help is fine. Giving help is fine. Taking help by force: not fine.

Now, back to the euthanasia. Between you and me -- I sent the liberals home, remember -- we know that's not what is going on, right? If there wasn't "end of life counseling" then you'd probably bitch and moan that you've turned your back on the poor folks in hospice and say the plan is wrong (while admitting to the left that you think the concept of a health care plan is okay). And when you bring up the whole "you're killing old people" thing, you sound frickin crazy. Seriously. Batshit crazy even.

It's like Looie Gomer Pyle actually standing in front of Congress to argue gay marriage and saying "the Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." And while that may perfectly be the case of what the Bible says, it has no bearing on the law and only serves to ruinificate the shreds of credibility Mr. Pyle has left. There may well be a perfectly logical argument for opposing gay marriage, but toss one crazy rancid bone in the soup and you've got rancid soup.

So. Please: Content, not crazy. If you oppose something on principle -- say it. Use nouns and verbs and logic. But when you make a bunch of scary noise and scream with wild animal eyes -- it doesn't help your cause.

Now. Go oppose this crap in general. Don't pick it apart. Knock it down.

---




OCD footnotes



1. which is really Congress's plan with Obama as a pitch man.

Crash (the economy) for Clunkers

Generalization. People can't do it. Take a concept, apply it elsewhere in a different, possibly wider context. Why is that so hard?

Most of us remember how the Federal government spent the terms of 2 presidents pouring federal money into building the housing market "to help those that could not afford it." Most of this was done by convincing folks to borrow. And most of us can remember the outcome: The crash of the housing market that drug the entire economy down with it. Thanks a lot guys. You helped the poor a lot.

Now take that same idea and bolt wheels on it. We want to take a bunch of folks that have a car that is most likely paid for... and replace it with a brand new car that comes with payments. And we want the taxpayers to shoulder this burden. Convert one asset (a car) into 2 debts (one for the consumer and one for the government). Oh, and it's "for the good of the environment." Oh, please.

I've mentioned before the intrinsic value of a paid for car (or house or tractor or ....) And our wonderful government is trying to remind you that it isn't cash that's important, it's credit. Forget the whole "greatest generation" that worked hard to eliminate debt and reach retirement. Pay for it later. Save for retirement some other time. There's always social security to fall back on. And medicare. It's not your responsibility anyway.

We're told this will help the economy... by asking people to reach out and buy something they weren't sure they could afford.

And remember: it helps the environment. You know, because getting 4 mpg more is going to save the planet. Forget, for a moment, that it actually takes some amount of actual resources and even petroleum based energy to produce a car out of nothing. Forget that the ultimate in "recycling" isn't taking a car and crushing it flat: it's reusing it for as long as it is usable. Come on -- it's more "environmentally friendly" to drive a clunker than to smash it, throw it away and build a new one.

And let's not forget that the "wonderfully altruistic" concept of asking me to subsidize someone's car they can barely afford removes their old car from the marketplace. And don't forget that the old clunker was destined for someone that really couldn't afford a car. In "helping" the new car buyer, the end result is hurting the used car market -- where there are now fewer inexpensive cars for the poor folk to choose from.

Does anyone want to make a prediction on the amount of increase in repossessed vehicles in 3 years?