Saturday, January 9, 2010

Why I am a Republican and The Challenge for Conservative Leadership

I've been asked a handful of times why I consider myself a Republican even after the Bush administration's denial of fiscal conservatism and the party not representing the base for an extended period of time. It's quite simple, really, and I'll answer it in the format of the Michigan GOP's 2008 tear-off calendar...

I am a Republican because...in the 90's, my single mother worked 3 jobs, sometimes 4, and had the opportunity to work as much as she wanted and, thus, provide the lifestyle she wanted for herself and her children. This was made possible by Ronald Reagan (fundamentally changed America) and John Engler (unemployment was down to the lowest point ever under his leadership: 3%). These two leaders defied the establishment Left, reduced the burden of government, and freed all Americans to be as productive and wealthy as they wanted to. While Reagan's federal plans took longer to implement and longer to fade, Engler's were more direct and closer to home, making them quicker to effect change. In my life I have witnessed the success of these plans and their model of 'Opportunity + Freedom = Prosperity = Liberty;' I have also watched as the Left and their ideas infected both parties and have brought this nation, the one that accomplished so much in my childhood and prospered as no other nation in history, to its knees before the world.

The combined destruction wrought by the economic policies of Bill Clinton, Jennifer Granholm, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama is a terrible crime against the people of this nation and my state. Clinton's policies, held off to an extent by Newt Gingrich and his allies in Congress, inevitably have altered, and in the altering, tangled, the economic framework that brought our people so much liberty in the past.

Now, Michigan rots in its longest and gravest economic depression ever. Detroit, once the crown jewel of the republic, sits with 44.8% of its citizens unemployed. Of our state as a whole, more than one out of five people do not have a job. Two million, two hundred and ninety thousand of our neighbors, family members, friends, and former coworkers have been thrown into personal indignity by a government-run, government-decided, government-dominated system that does not work.

When we do find hours, we grab them and change our schedules and activities around them. It really is a fundamental change from the reality my mother raised my brother and I in through the 1990's. In the business she owns now, she's had to cut six jobs, six livelihoods, during this 'still-fragile recovery.' Our new reality makes us beholden to scarce work and, thus, less free to pursue our own interests. This government-altered reality seems to hunt down liberty and exterminate it wherever it can be found.

Instead of being enabled through opportunity and freedom provided by free markets, the elimination and over-regulation of those markets disables us and makes into pawns, bottom feeders, regardless of our level of income. While we run into trouble with our mortgages, property taxes, car payments, college bills, and utility charges, our elected 'leaders' continue to spend and spend and spend and spend, pursuing personal and political goals. They, then, seek to repeat the mistakes of the past and 'help' the economy by distracting us with a nice new paved road or train rides to Disney Land. Historical changes for the absolute worse just like this one repeatedly display the challenge for conservative leadership, a challenge met only somewhat by conservative leaders during the times of Engler and Reagan.

Conservatives have to find and nominate leaders who can build systems that are self-terminating when they've outlived their respect for liberty, but are sustainable in spite of the Left's attempts to bend them to their own devices. That's up to every one of us to ensure these systems get put in place for every one of our 513,000 elected offices. I, a lonesome blogger, dare you to prove your commitment to our principles and ensure that this kind of real change happens in your community. We can bring back that level of opportunity, freedom, prosperity, and liberty that both you and I have experienced in the past. It wont be easy, but think of the daily struggle of our troops who preserve this simple opportunity for us: we ought to do right by them and seize the day.




Share

Thursday, January 7, 2010

I was asked why I oppose the public option and what I would do to reform the MediTwins...


The public option would totally work for liberal goals...but I disagree with the goals and the metrics used to get to those goals.

The public option's main idea is to work as a 'baseline competitor.' For instance: do you seriously use the post office for anything? I dont. But its the 'crap' version of UPS and FedEx...Obama's logic with the public option seems to be that, if we've got that, the rest of the insurance companies will automatically be more efficient. Okay......no one's going to disagree with that 'efficiency' principle (1) and (2) the system already does that BUT FOR government roadblocks (like insurance companies not being able to sell between states...which makes regulation of them by the federal government directly unconstitutional right now, but who cares about that document anyway :( ).

Thus my disagreement comes: it costs way too much (it takes all the costly inefficiencies in the current companies, multiplies them, and centralizes them under one forced-increase-funded source...thus 'breaking' society like Medicare and Medicaid are now)...

...and it will inevitably expand into nationalized health care given the support single payer has from lunatics in DC (Historical example: AMTRAK forced out all other passenger train systems until Reagan cut off their tax$ support, thus realizing higher prices paid by riders...by then, traveling by train had gone culturally 'out of style' and few use it anymore...choosing cars and hurting the environment/whatever- same concept w/ public option).

If you want to lower the cost of medical care, you have to get rid of the 1940's concept of insurance. 21st century dental insurance is a perfect example: Aspen Dental in Holland, MI charges $30 for a cleaning. Small business dentists charge $60 per cleaning and have much more profit than Aspen. Aspen will not accept insurance while 'local' dentists draw those with insurance. Why? If you have to pay out of pocket, you care about the cost; having insurance with a set premium eliminates that care. This injects competition much faster than a MASSIVE and EXPANDING and HISTORIC and WHATEVER government program.

Working within the current concept of insurance, %-based premiums would have the same effect (to a smaller and slower degree) in the private sector as eliminating insurance completely (something we shouldnt do...free markets and all). If I have to pay 25% of my Allegra-D, I'd pay like $30; if I had to pay 25% of the generic, I'd spend $2.50 for the same thing. Right now I have a flat $5 premium for my script insurance...so I'm going to go with the hugely expensive brand version because I dont care about the cost. %-based premiums simply provide an incentive to lower costs across the board with little or no impact on Research and Development.

Second on the Public Option, research and development will DIE as private corps start to lower prices to the self insured. In a WAM BAM DO IT NOW government solution, theyll cut the most expendable thing: R&D. This means a world-wide dark age for pharmaceuticals (i.e. end up going with Galen's pre-Christ research in the 1700's...a dark age in pharma). No new drugs, no new medicines advertised on tv, nothing. (The US produces 85-90% of treatments/drugs in the world. Second is UK, third Japan)
_____

To reform M/M: first of all, privatize Social Security and put Medicaid back under the SSA. It was stupid to separate it in the 70's and has been an abject, dismal failure. When that's done, the people that take it over will immediately move to personal medical savings accounts for those under 30, and pay out for those who have paid in already. Third, I'd make Social Security optional so it and its new Healthcare Department have to compete with private life insurance companies...like it did in the 50's when it 'worked' (read: lost to private insurance co's...until we outlawed them. Reagan's 1964 GOP convention speech references SS failures).

For Medicare: take all of it and put it under the states. If you crazies really want wealth redistributed from those 'rich' places like Michigan to those 'poor' places like Texas (as it is now lol), youd continue the contributions. However, I wouldnt do that...let the states do it all. If they run it into the ground, it'll be much more public and much easier for people to fix them. It was public in the 60's when they ran their own welfare states into the ground...and you can hide it much easier in Washington...thus the political elite put it in Washington in the 70's...

There will also be more innovation in improving the system due to having 50 different ways of doing it. A large number of cases along a normal distribution works much better for improving systems than a SINGLE NATIONAL FIST way of doing things (see picture...the center or average quality/cost, in this case, will 'chase' the top dawgs toward higher quality and lower cost to the right)

...then we're talking about the first book I'm going to begin writing next year...on how governments attempt to create a 'present' (something that doesnt exist) within which to operate and fix things.




Share

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Capitalism, Feudalism, and Socialism

From Thomas Sowell: "Marxism is an ism that has become a wasm."

Socialists, ignorant of history, say that capitalism carries on feudalism (they really mean manorialism, but theyre too stupid to do their homework before mouthing off). However, they should note that capitalism is the direct opposite of feudalism. Capitalists seek to serve every need of a human being while Socialism, much more like feudalism, has historically sought to defeat the infinite dimensions of the individual and subordinate us to the state as solely economic vessels. Both socialism and feudalism do great violence to the spirit during this 'collectivization' and, thus, fail to provide, as Capitalism does, the greatest selection of highest quality goods and services at the lowest cost.

Instead of tracing a society's move backward to socialism and Daddy government by watching ideological policies, we are much better served by tracing the known effects. America since the 1930's has grown more and more socialistic (or more like its close brother Fascism which the Left Wing of the Democratic Party conveniently calls 'crony capitalism') and it is apparent in the effects. Under capitalism, the government would never have such strict control over labor (compulsory minimum wage, government enforcement of 'closed shop' rules, OSHA mandates, etc.) and natural resources ("protection" of coastal oil fields, imperial EPA greatly outstripping its legal authority and going WAY beyond protecting the environment). Further, under free capitalism, the government is not a legitimate investor, it has no authority to tell you what to buy, it does not run services, it doesnt make laws governing the use of products, warnings and nutrition information doesnt exist, among a number of other things you believe are good. Ask yourself this: how much more innovation could have taken place in the last 50 years if free markets were the laws of the land and not the socialist imperialism? How would we control our cars if the government didnt mandate the 1890's concept of 1 WHEEL, TWO PEDALS? How would toilets get rid of waste if the government didnt mandate the 1880's concept of swirling water? It's crazy to consider because a toilet which 'flushes' with __gal of water -and a car that operates on a way-too-simple control system- are second nature to us.

But that's socialism! It's socialism that causes societies to lack individual innovation and employment of individual skills just like the system that kept European and Far Eastern quality of life the same for hundreds of years...and it's socialism that threatens to do that to our world. We have to come to the understanding that, regardless of Socialist 'Newspeak,' their system is backward while free markets and private innovation are moves forward. There is great potential in people of my generation for a great national recognition of these simple truths.

We understand that the internet changes everything. We can communicate and disseminate ideas much faster than our parents' generation. For example, we know costly, unfair, established unions can be replaced with a Facebook group. There are all these little things that, together, can drastically increase our take-home pay while eliminating and thinning those entities which oppose liberty in our society...more older people just have to get on board in opposing 21st century feudalism.




Share

My Religious Views

I've been asked about what my 'religious views' are...

Put simply, the word "religion" has no meaning. It's far too general and, of course, my "religion" doesn't cause me to blow up buildings. I, rather, like the word "faith." My own personal faith and theology are topics for a not-so-late post, but please know that I try to derive everything I do from my faith.

On that note, check out this video...



Happy New Year :) I have a feeling that it will be a good year for us all :)

and

Prayers out for a quick recovery for Rush Limbaugh who was hospitalized with "chest pains" recently.