Benjamin B. Bursae: Musings On Subjects Economic and Political

Justifiable Terrorism?

2011-03-09T08:17:00.000-08:00

A friend shared this Washington Post article on Congressman Peter King and his apparent hypocrisy regarding the use of terrorism for obtaining political goals. I found the article to be quite thought-provoking. It definitely makes one think about how best to compare and contrast the IRA with Fundamentalist Muslim extremists.

An early point in the article reminds me of why I love the story of V for Vendetta so much, since that story also makes one think about terrorism and potential double standard one faces when condemning terrorism for an "objectionable cause" while elsewhere, if it's for a cause that's near-and-dear, celebrating it as a potentially valid (and effective) strategy.

I can kind of see King's point on the difference being the ultimate goal (that being the achievement of peace). On the surface, that would seem to be a difference between the two terrorist organizations. That being said, it's only a valid point if two things are true: (1) it really was the goal of the IRA's violence, and (2) it's not the ultimate goal of the Muslim extremists. Regarding (1), it's not clear that it was. King's statements could just be revisionist history from a "political power chaser," attempting to paint past deeds in a positive light. Regarding (2), I don't think we can say it's a definite difference with Muslim extremists, since it just might be the goal of at least some of them, if you define "achieving peace" as "finally convincing non-Muslim (Western) governments to stop interfering in their soverign affairs." That would be a peaceful outcome, and it might undermine such extremism (just as the Irish peace undermined the existence of the IRA, making it obsolete). Of course, if there are more sinister goals beyond "peace" for the Muslim extremists, then maybe there really is a difference and King is not just rationalizing.

All of this, though, is really beside the point when the man is going to hold a hearing that is, on its face, at least somewhat reminiscent of ugly stains on American history like McCarthyism and the process that led to Japanese internment camps. Whether or not his motivation is duplicitous and hypocritical with past beliefs doesn't change the inappropriateness of such hearings.

We Should Not Be Embarrassed

2011-02-11T10:33:00.000-08:00

Regarding a friend's sharing of an article where a British MP blasted Glenn Beck for being a bigot, many of his friends chimed in about how it's so embarrassing to us as Americans that Beck even has a show on TV. I don't buy this at all. In fact, it ought to be a point of pride for all Americans.

I think the fact that we even have people on TV who can espouse whatever views (dimwitted or otherwise) that they see fit is a positive for our country, no matter what opinion foreigners may have about the specific TV personalities. Our freedoms, like those of speech and the press, are what make our country great, and no American should be embarrassed. Because the TV personalities are not dictators forcing adherence among the citizenry to a specific agenda or dogmatic set of beliefs, we are all free to change the channel. That's not embarrassing at all. It's something to be celebrated. Hence why I would defend to the death the right of Keith Olbermann to spew his own brand of vitriolic hatred.

Responses I got to this seemed to be lukewarm at best. Some obviously took issue that I would lump Olbermann in with Beck. Apparently, if it's something they agree with, it's okay. But if it's rhetoric of the temperature but a different flavor, it's suddenly unacceptable and embarrassing. Is it ignorance that causes people to be so hypocritical regarding tolerance? Blind faith in "their side"? Maybe being a libertarian helps me out in this regard, since I am not dogmatically and staunchly invested in one of the two "sides," no ifs, ands, or buts, no matter what they are selling. I suppose I find it easier to call out people on either side on any given issue. So, I can very safely put Olbermann and Beck in the same category, since they both yell at the top of their lungs about what they think is the right path forward, dismissively denigrating any opposing viewpoint with generalizing platitudes, unhelpful insults, and divisive attacks. To a lot of people, Olbermann is incredibly bigoted...just not against the same people or ideas that Beck is accused of being bigoted against. Neither one helps achieve any semblance of progress or compromise on any issue. And above all else, they are both all about ratings and entertainment. They both make a ton of money off of the art of blowing a lot of hot air.

One commenter remarked, "Yes, freedom of speech is an amazing part of our country, and something to defend vigorously. But the lack of civility, sense, and regard for the truth is what's embarrassing. No one's proud of rabble rousing and appealing to the baser nature of fools." I told her she'd hit the nail on the head...mostly. We don't have to be proud, per se, of the specific TV personalities or the stuff they say. But one needn't be ashamed either, especially if it's not what one believes. The existence of the TV personality or of their opinion, for that matter, within our country does not necessarily make any categorical statement about any other American, other than those who would agree and make the same statements. And I'm guessing they don't really feel embarrassed. Either way, it's no skin off our backs. So don't be "embarrassed."

2011-01-18T09:09:00.000-08:00

Why We Need Government

This post at Cafe Hayek is excellent (link below). The answer that is provided by the biased government agency to the question of "Why we need government" is so ludicrous and ignorant of private property rights, market dynamics, the principles underlying the founding of our country, and other economically explicable phenomenon that counter its explanation that we would essentially be lost little children without government. It's well worth reading the comments section where readers offer their suggestions for a better explanation.

Why we need government

2011-01-11T05:47:00.000-08:00

Should NCAA Football Players Get Paid?

I know it has been a while...I am going to try to be better about getting over here to post a bit more. That being said, I had to share my thoughts on an article a friend shared regarding the paying of college players. The article is here. (HT: Dave Hebert)

And these are my thoughts on it:
Cam Newton (the subject of the article) is paid...a full scholarship. And I'm sorry, but $3,000 a year in extra expenses is a pretty paltry Stafford loan amount. So they graduate college with an education and $12,000 in school loans (and a chance at playing in a league with a minimum salary of $310K (2010)). Or, they leave early with the guarantee of being drafted into that league. Pretty sure that'll cover their expenses.

This author actually did the right thing in calculating per-player "earnings" but doesn't draw the right conclusion, imho. $17,000 per player is less than many tuitions these days (BCS Champs Auburn's out-of-state tuition is $21,916 in 2010-11). They are getting a bargain. Plus, they get exposure and a proving ground, helping them towards the potential big payoff in the NFL.

I'm certainly not for the draconian rules that Pryor, et al. violated...they should get to keep and profit off their personal effects from their accomplishments. But I'm not going to feel sorry for these football players not getting "paid."

2010-08-09T07:58:00.000-07:00

Refreshing Conservatism

It pleases me so much to see such a learned Constitutional scholar as Ted Olson making the same case as I have repeatedly made regarding what's wrong with California's state constitutional amendment on gay marriage. He really holds his own in this interview on Fox News, and I love his response to the question of why 7 million Californians, why society, doesn't have a say as to who is allowed to marry. This man truly loves liberty, and it comes out in his vocal support of it in this case. Enjoy the interview.

2010-06-16T08:17:00.000-07:00

In response to an article by Maggie Gallagher re: Constitutional challenge to California's Prop 8:

But Maggie, there are Constitutional limits on what a majority of people can vote to do to a minority of people. You set up this entire argument based on the idea that the will of the majority is being thwarted and that the court in question in overstepping its Constitutional authority. But this line of thinking disregards the role the courts have in determining whether laws (and state constitutions and their amendments) are Constitutional, whether they infringe on the rights of the minority. In this case, they are determining whether the amendment in question violates any part of the Constitution.

By my read, a legit case can be made that it does violate the 14th amendment, insofar as the government involves itself at all in the doling out of favors and benefits based on marital status. By being involved in the doling out of said status and precluding a certain individual from said status thusly, it is discriminating. To me, this doesn't seem such a far reach for judicial review (and I am a strict constructionist, "original intent" advocate who deplores the judicial activism of the far left). If something is as plainly unconstitutional as Prop 8, it cannot be allowed to continue. And more generally, if any law infringes on the rights of a minority of people, the mere existence of the (even possibly overwhelming) majority voting for it does not make it Constitutional.

While there is a "core Constitutional right to vote for" any and every thing under the sun, that does not mean that whatever people vote for must stand as law, regardless of its own (un-)Constitutionality.

2009-08-31T12:01:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting article that breaks down the "number of uninsured" that is thoughtlessly being thrown around by liberals and the media. The nice thing is that it doesn't pass judgment on whether any amount of taxpayer-subsidized care is appropriate. It rather serves to clarify how many people are actually uninsured (and what categories they fall into). Nice apolitical economic piece, imho.

2009-08-10T07:54:00.000-07:00

Who is John Galt?

I found this article quite interesting, for a couple reasons. While not a member of the $250k+ club (yet), I'm smart enough to realize that taxes are soon enough going to be going up for me, too (hence why I started looking into tax shelters during last year's election). Not only does this article's advice on political protest make sense for anyone with a work ethic who doesn't want to be supporting a President who relishes enslaving them and throwing them under the bus of socialism ("From each according to their ability to each according to their need"), but it also makes financial sense for people to scrutinize their expenses and ask if something is really needed, now more than ever.

I know I have found myself actively choosing not to support this President's socialist agenda by holding back on certain purchases. Then again, no one can blame a person who has been needing a new car and can now get a helluva deal. Still, in searching for the answer to the question above, the answer can be found in all of us!

2009-08-08T10:57:00.000-07:00

"Opponents of Health Care Reform" ... Let's Rephrase That Now!

The supporters of Obama's ideas for health care reform really should keep in mind that just because others don't like Obama's or Pelosi's ideas of "reform" doesn't mean they are opponents of health care reform. There are other ways to try to fix some of the current problems with the system, especially ways that don't involve growing a behemoth socialist entitlement that (a) isn't affordable and (b) will fail like so many other examples of centralized planning.

I know it shouldn't shock me, but I read that liberals are honest-to-goodness attacking concerned citizens' reactions in the town hall meetings, labeling them as "becoming nasty." In reality, the people getting nasty are the leftosphere and liberal commentariat who can do nothing more than savagely attack the motives of people who care enough to show up, who simply don't want to see one group's ideas get railroaded down their throats without nary a mention of other potential options (and who are tired at this point of having hugely expensive bills get passed without sufficient debate, bills that address far-reaching and substantial issues).

But, I don't expect this to matter to people who think that their opponents are simply "opponents of health care reform" and who parrot Obama's talking points, dismissing any dissenting opinion as "bought" and "fake." It's absolutely sickening.

2009-08-08T10:52:00.000-07:00

An EXCELLENT article from Peggy Noonan in yesterday's WSJ!

Here is SUCH a good article from Peggy Noonan, that really captures how ridiculous, insulting, and divisive the liberals are being with their responses and reactions to actual concerned citizens who have myriad issues with Obamacare! I've even seen mindless, thoughtless insults spewing from members of my own family towards people who are simply concerned enough to want to make their voices heard.

Some examples: Janine Garofalo calls them "hickish d***hebags." My own cousin (who hypocritically professes to be "tolerant" of all but the "intolerant" yet will tolerate a person's intolerance if she happens to agree with that person) can only react by hurling labels at them like "dupes" and tries to undermine the power of their grassroots reaction to what's going on nowadays in DC by sheepishly following the administration's talking points and ignorantly referring to it as "astroturf." (Apparently she and so many other liberal reactionaries like her are oblivious to the actual historical grassroots origins of the conservative movement before it became linked with a particular party.) It's the same as the unconscionable reaction to the tea parties that have taken place this year. Apparently it's okay for them to protest redwoods getting cut down or the War in Iraq (both legitimate bases for protest, don't get me wrong), but people who dare protest against their own issues are only worthy of elitist insult and contemptuous dismissal. The liberal reactionaries don't seem to realize that so many of these people are the very key people who helped elect Obama by buying into his message of "hope and change" and who are suddenly very concerned with what their votes may have bought them. If they do realize it, they appear not to care as they hurl insulting epithet after insulting epithet.

This article captures some of the themes of Noonan's excellent book "Patriotic Grace," most especially a concern for the tone of the political debate over such important, far-reaching issues (in this case, health-care and/or the deficit). She has captured some of my own concerned reaction to the tone being set by liberals, starting from the top down. Obama purported to hearken a new political tone, an era of coming together. Way to set the example, Mr. Prez! Apparently, that new tone only applies if everyone agrees to go along with every little thing he and Pelosi/Reid want to push through. It's absolutely sickening, and I think the article really does a good job of capturing that feeling.

Again, click here to read the article.

Enjoy.

-Ben

2009-07-24T12:11:00.001-07:00

And here is an EXCELLENT article from Peggy Noonan on the healthcare debate. This is a must-read! And it even expounds on some points I was making to some friends elsewhere today (specifically, the idea of paying for the healthcare of people who don't make great lifestyle choices and the intrusion that invites when gov't (i.e., the taxpayers) is paying the bill). I pray she is right that the plan will be stopped altogether.

2009-07-24T11:16:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting article on Obama's recent missteps in commenting on the recent arrest of an African-American Harvard professor just outside his home.

I have to agree with this criticism of Obama sticking his nose into something he didn't fully understand. He should be using his pedestal in a manner consistent with his campaign speeches...to foster improved relations between police and the minority communities they serve, rather than to aggravate tensions. Isn't he the one who declared a post-racial America?!

2009-07-16T04:41:00.001-07:00

Over at Café Hayek, Russ Roberts has posted the link below to the org chart that shows how the Democrats' healthcare plan will work. And he rightly notes that our current system wouldn't look all that much better.

2009-07-07T06:32:00.000-07:00

Here is a letter I have written to my Congressman on the recent events in Honduras. If you agree with my point, please write your representative and Senators on this issue, too.

Mr. Wittman,

I am writing to ask, as one of your constituents, that you do what you can that is within your power to help the nation of Honduras fight against the authoritarian whims of its would-be dictator, Jose Manuel Zelaya. The press, world government, and Latin American states are all trying to stack the deck and rewrite the story about what's going on in Honduras. The simple fact is that the country is trying to abide by its own Constitution, and Zelaya continues to try to subvert the process to achieve his own ends. Honduras only allows one-term Presidents, and Zelaya tried to change that via referendum, but in an unconstitutional way. When that failed, he tried to forcibly push through the referendum process. The Honduran Supreme Court ordered the military to abide by the Consitution and disallow such a referendum. That is the side of the "military coup" story that folks like Chavez and los Castros don't want the rest of the world to know.

Please do what you can to ensure the U.S. shows solidarity with the lawful Honduran government and doesn't bow to the whims of this would-be dictator.

Respectfully,
Ben Bursae

2009-07-02T04:47:00.000-07:00

A friend forwarded me this article by Jesse Jackson in the Chicago Sun-Times. I am mystified and absolutely astounded that this man can honestly continue to serve as a spokesman for anyone.

Short review: This laughing-stock of a human being is honestly saying that discrimination against white males should be okay. That is literally what he is saying at the end of the piece. My assessment is, therefore, that he is truly a useless piece of human excrement!

Longer review: Jackson seems as bound by his tunnel-vision of U.S and human history as ever. He seems to think that blacks are the only group of people in this country to ever face any systemic form of discrimination (false). Worse than that ignorance of U.S. history, he comes to what can be described as specious-at-best conclusions regarding the rectifying of past wrongs against an entire race of people. He apparently hasn't subscribed to his President's vision of a post-racial America.

He summarily dismisses without any reasonable argument Justice O'Connor's assessment of the 14th amendment's applicability to a "group." His are the bygone and mistaken arguments for a system that only serves to perpetuate the judging of people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character...that white males could use a little system-imposed setback here or there. As if that is going to serve to heal the racial divide in America!

I pray that folks in the black community have already begun dismissing his loony rants and ravings as coming from someone who clearly benefits from race-baiting and hate-mongering. Jesse Jackson operates solely to increase his own power base, which is influence/control over others of his race. I pray they have already begun to reject that irrational and mind-numbing control.

2009-07-01T14:12:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to share a link to a facebook exchange between a friend and me on cap-and-trade that illustrates the closed-mindedness of so many liberals and "environmentalists" out there, who can't acknowledge dissenting opinions (or aren't aware that they're out there, thanks in large part to a liberal media). The ramifications of something as broad and sweeping as cap-and-trade are too big to allow liberals to do their typical shrill screaming and labeling of folks they disagree with. The debates need to happen...the debate on the science of this issue and the debate on the consequences of the socialist response to this issue (i.e., the cap-and-trade bill). Here is the link where you can hopefully read more of what was said between my friend Dave and myself. Take care.

-Ben

2009-06-25T07:45:00.000-07:00

Here is a recent exchange between a friend of a friend and me on facebook about this article by Robert Reich that conveniently (and blindly) ignores government behavior and the shortcomings of central planning while trying to lambaste critics of Obama's healthcare plan.

Me: Obama's plan is not a compromise when the government can then use taxpayers' money to knock the private players out of the market, thus becoming the only game in town. Private players have to use investor's funds and make smart business decisions in order to stay in business. Gov't gets to use taxpayer's money at a deficit to write off the bad business decisions that are inevitably made. Public/private hybrid is a shell game.

And socialized healthcare only "works" in the military because the military is an authoritarian organization, and because it is a really a relatively small-scale operation. If you want to see the effects of a nationalized healthcare system, go to Great Britain. It will scare you...at least, it should. You'll also see that those in power don't go to the same crappy hospitals as the lowly proletariat. Obama will never have to worry about waiting 8 hours in an ER with a kidney stone before being seen even once (like my mom did at a British hospital).

Economics says subsidized health care will suck, too. When the price for something artificially goes to zero (via govt subsidy), demand increases unnaturally. When you subsidize health care for people, people will go to the doctor for things they otherwise wouldn't consider to be "worth it." Hospitals become overcrowded, doctors can get overworked, you lose talent because some people who would've become would-be doctors don't see enough incentive in it anymore...these are all just some of the ill effects of a socialized system.
And regardless of all this, how can the title of this article say the critics are wrong and then acknowledge that their opposition is out of economic self-interest?! Who the 'f' is the author to decide that the subject critics already make too much money and should suck it up and make less? We owe the amazing technological advancements in our society today to the economic self-interest of the free citizens of the freest country the world has seen...take that away, and society regresses to the Stone Age (a la the Soviet Union and the countless other failed experiments in "socialist idealism").

C: I'd rather wait 8 hours than not be able to go at all. Millions of people can't even afford to go in the first place. I'd be willing to bet they'd rather wait in line for hours and at least be able to be seen.

I hear scare tactics from people all the time about "oh, go to Canada/Japan/Great Britain/etc. and see what you think", but I know people in Canada, and they say that their health care works, and yeah, they may have to wait sometimes for less common procedures, but they can still get them, and they've never had to agonize over the decision to take their kids to the doctor when they're sick.

Also, people wait here for appointments, too! My mom broke her foot and it was 7 weeks before she could see an orthopedist.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right, Ben (which I don't think you are). What do we do, then? Poor people just don't deserve to see doctors? You're really ok with that??

Me: C, you say "you're not willing to let people die...", then you and other like-minded citizens should organize an effective charity for these uninsured. If it's a popular-enough cause, it will be a raving success, and as private investors/contributors, you'll certainly have the incentive to get involved and make sure it is run efficiently so as not to waste your money.

When you use the government, you take everyone's money at the point of a gun and force your moral dilemma and judgment on everyone, which runs counter to the principles of liberty and freedom that this country was founded on. It is downright immoral to rob persona A's money (which is what person A earned in exchange for their life's work) and give it to person B without person A's consent. Liberals are always so "charitable"...when it's other people's money they're spending.

C: Nobody is taking my tax money at the point of a gun. The truth is, we live in a society, and as members of that society, we have obligations to one another. Should we privatize all schools, too? Why is it that we as a society see the real benefit that comes from providing public education, but not public health? The failed logic behind that ... Read Moreboggles my mind. Our society benefits when its people are healthy and educated. For the life of me I can't see why we WOULDN'T make healthcare affordable to everyone.

And the whole charity suggestion is flawed. People as a rule aren't charitable enough. They're selfish. They're only willing to part with their money when they have to. What if there weren't enough charitable donations to cover health care? Again, poor people should just suck it up and die quietly because they were unfortunate enough to get sick? Your lack of compassion astonishes me.

Me: The facts don't support your claim that my charity suggestion is flawed. Economic studies have shown that as overall wealth increases (for individuals and society as a whole), charitable giving increases. Don't pass judgment on my "lack of compassion." I have plenty. I give to a couple of different health-related charities (St. Jude's and Shriners). What I *also* care about, though, is liberty and allowing people to make the choice of whether or not to provide other people's health care for them. We Americans are incredibly charitable. More was given to private charity for the Indonesian tsunami relief as well as Katrina than the federal gov't provided. And the private charities do a better job (Exhibit A: FEMA). If we reduce the amount of taxes the gov't takes and increase everyone's wealth, there will be more disposable income for people to be charitable with.

... And it is the point of a gun when it's the government taking the money. Nobody can choose not to pay their taxes...the penalty is jail-time. That *is* taking people's money at the point of a gun.

There are far better ways to "fix" healthcare. First off, deregulating insurance companies in a number of areas would greatly help. Many regulations were put in place at the behest of certain insurance lobbyists as a form of protectionism against others in their own industry. The result is a system where people cannot buy insurance from a limitless number of suppliers...the supply is controlled via regulation, which then drives prices higher.

Also, another factor into high healthcare costs is the insurance that doctors/hospitals have to take out on themselves in the event they are hit with a malpractice suit. Getting rid of frivolous malpractice suits would help pull the pendulum out of that wall.

There are ways to make healthcare better without bringing about the ill effects of a socialist system. Relying on gov't to force everyone to be charitable is lazy and shortsighted, as it ignores the unintended consequences that come with all centrally planned systems.

And your argument about public versus private education is specious...the education system is sufficiently complex that it can't really be compared with the equally complex healthcare system. Yes, it's true that some basic amount of education for all benefits society. Then again, how many parents don't give a rat's ass about how their kid does in school since they don't see themselves as personally invested in it? I went to public schools, too...they can succeed. But many of their failures could be chalked up to a lack of competition. That is, public schools don't *really* have to compete with any other school system to get $. A parent who wants to pay to send their kid to a better private school still has to pay property taxes to cover local school system costs, in addition to the private tuition. I'm not advocating the complete privatization of schools (yet...still have to think more about all the options), but I can at least see how adding a privatized aspect to school systems (like school choice and voucher programs) would serve to benefit individuals and society as a whole.
The same thing goes for healthcare. Removing regulation on the system, which only serves to protect special interest groups, including doctors, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, who are already in the game, would take the system closer to perfect competition, which would result in better and cheaper healthcare.

For example, why does the FDA have a monopoly on what we can and cannot be prescribed? That's another HUMONGOUS reason why healthcare costs so much...the development costs of bringing drugs to market (along with associated costs like buttering up FDA officials) is huge. This is largely due to the regulatory beast and the risk of a drug not getting "approved" (companies have to make up for the losses they incur on drugs that don't get approved). Oftentimes, they just didn't schmooze the FDA well enough. Why can't a cancer patient who is terminal decide whether he/she is willing to try a potential breakthrough drug?? If anything, remove that regulatory function and open the market up to "certification" companies, who would provide the assurance about a particular drug.

An example of this in another industry is Underwriters Labs, who certifies that electrical devices have met certain specifications of safety and reliability. We could have those for drugs, and then people (and doctors) could decide what amount of certification they would require for their risk tolerance. One side benefit of this would be a better informed public.

These are just some ideas that would work better than a socialist system. Sorry for the rant, but imho, socialism runs counter to so many aspects of human nature that have made us great. Bringing people down to the least common denominator is immorally repugnant to me, and that is ultimately what happens in socialism. Also, central planning results in inefficiency and corruption, among other ills I've mentioned. Why not hold Obama and Congress to a higher standard of thinking though healthcare system reforms that really make the system better and don't just lazily rely on the Nanny State to "take care" of us.

C: I'm leaving now to go to the park with my kids, but quickly wanted to say that I don't disagree with you that there are innumerable things that need to change in the current healthcare system, but I disagree with some of the things you're suggesting. I think if anything we need more regulation, not less. And absolutely we need to reduce the power of lobbies. Also, I'm not talking about the government taking over the entire industry. Honestly, I don't think anyone is, but it's something the right likes to throw around, along with the "socialism" fearmongering, to rile people up and scare them away from progress in this area. All I would like to see is something along the lines of an extension of Medicaid to a larger portion of the population. I don't think everyone in America should get free healthcare, but I think we need to make it realistically affordable. That's all. what we have now isn't working.

Yes, some people do give to charity, but it's to very targeted groups such as the Shriners and St Jude's, and primarily serves the needs of children with life threatening illnesses. It's the average kids who are falling through the cracks. It's also worth nothing that the Shriners are closing down a bunch of their hospitals due to lack of donations. I don't believe that if we did away with Medicaid, the American population would step up and donate enough to cover the costs privately.

I also agree with you wholeheartedly that we need to overall our torte [sic] system and stop letting people sue for malpractice at the drop of a hat. You don't know me, obviously, but I've been very vocal about that for years.
All right, leaving for the park now. Best to you.

Me: How is more regulation going to help anything? The current rules in the insurance industry are stifling competition, which means they are driving up costs. Adding more regulation just makes the system more prone to interference from politically connected lobbies and will elbow out newer competitors before they have a chance to get established and make their product available.
Like I said before, a public/private hybrid can only have one conclusion, and that's government takeover. Private companies can't compete with the govt's coercive power to take more and more "investment capital" to cover up for their poor business practices. And they can't compete with the "company" that makes the rules of the game. I'm not fear-mongering here, I'm simply applying logic and history (I'm also not "on the right," as I'm very much an independent).

I agree what we have now isn't working, but there are options that don't involve stealing from person A to give to person B or making people used to the idea of relying on the Nanny State to take care of them.

Best to you, too, Cheryl.

Also, just fyi, the Shriners *may* need to close some hospitals due to operating costs and donations, but part of that is also due to the economy, which is causing their endowment to not provide returns as much as in previous years. The Shriners Board hasn't officially decided how to try to combat the problem yet, though.

Also, one option they would like (billing third-party insurers for those who do have insurance) doesn't make sense for them yet because...... the convolutedness of the current regulations on the insurance industry. (Just sayin'.)

2009-06-24T04:32:00.001-07:00

Here is an EXCELLENT article from John Stossel of ABC's Dateline. It's nearly unfathomable how idiotic such an apparently intelligent person as Obama can be when it comes to the topic of economics. Enjoy.

-Ben

http://townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2009/06/24/the_nirvana_fallacy

2009-06-22T06:54:00.000-07:00

Okay, it has been a while since I have posted, but I am going to try to make it a much more regular thing. I have previously been posting articles and thoughts up on my facebook page, and I will now be using this forum for that primary purpose.

Here is a link on the upcoming July 4th Tea Parties. http://www.teapartypatriots.org/ The initial Tax Day Tea Parties were wildly successful, despite the BS attempts of so many elitist liberal pundits to disparage the movement. Their responses were offensive at best...I can't wait to see what they try to say about us this time. If you feel as strongly as I do about tax freedom and the wrongheadedness of Obama's "Big Government" tax-and-spend socialist economic policies (in a recession, of all times), then please try to attend one of these July 4th Tea Parties.

God bless.

-Ben

2008-11-17T11:14:00.000-08:00

Here is a letter I wrote to my Congressman on the proposed auto bailout. Yeah, let's go ahead and subsidize failure yet again! Enjoy.

-Ben

13 November 2008

Hon. Representative Wittman,

I am writing to urge you to strongly oppose the recent proposal put forth by Speaker Pelosi to use taxpayers' dollars to bail out the "Big Three" automakers.

I wrote you previously on the "Bank Bailout," urging you to oppose it, and I appreciate the way in which you listened to your constituents and voted against it both times. I submit to you that this bailout of the auto makers is possibly even "more wrong" than the bank bailout. At least in the case of the banks, there was some view (however misguided) that the economy could collapse without any Congressional action. Here, we are simply talking about large corporations that have been performing at a substandard level for a long time now, long before the timeline associated with the mortgage and credit crisis. There is no threat to the national economy if they are made to face the consequences of their past decision-making. In fact, if they were to ultimately fail (signaling a failure on their part to successfully adapt to the market), it is quite believable that other more successful car companies could and would step in to purchase the manufacturing assets of these companies, with little to no loss of jobs from the transition.

By granting these companies a bailout, Congress would be effectively taking money from Mr. Joe Taxpayer and giving it directly to company shareholders. There's no other way to look at it. This would be an unconscionable dereliction of duty by any Congressman or -woman charged with the power of the purse. Additionally, it is not our job as a society to subsidize poor management and performance. When a company cannot make a profit, its management and its shareholders should pay the price...not the American taxpayer.

Recent political reactions to the "economic crisis" are quickly causing more and more people in this country to get accustomed to the idea of the government "saving the day" (which it rarely succeeds at). The more this happens, the more palatable it will seem when people on the extreme right or left move to socialize more and more sectors of our economy and/or society. We will all wake up one day and realize that it's a Brave New World (not a good thing). The time is now to draw the line and stand up to those who would benefit from making people more and more reliant on the government (those people being the ones with the power to make the decisions for everyone else).

I recognize that the elections are over, and as such, there is no immediate consequence from not heeding the wishes of your constituents (as there may have been with the bank bailout). That being said, I am certain that other citizens like me will begin keeping score for the next elections starting now. In the meantime, I implore you to fight this blatant catering to special interests simply because it is the right thing to do. Thank you for your time and consideration. Have a pleasant day!

Regards,
Ben Bursae

2008-11-06T05:52:00.000-08:00

The Path Ahead

Well, that last letter to the editor never got published. I guess the Free-Lance Star was worried that it would reach too many people and open their eyes. Oh well.

Here is my latest submission, highlighting the fact that those of us who oppose socialist policies (and therefore will disagree with Obama's administration on a large percentage of issues) do not have to just sit round the campfire with the Obamaniacs, singing cumbaya while they systematically destroy our freedoms. We must lobby our representatives (state and federal) to provide opposition at every turn to freedom-destroying policies. Perhaps our state reps can have the courage to stand up to federal pressure. Maybe our Congressional reps can make the compromises needed to minimize the damage done by over-reaching federal programs. That is what we need. It's the purpose for our system of checks and balances -- so that a new administration is not simply given free reign to enact its programs. The checks and balances provided by Congress on the President (and by the States on the Federal) are currently the only means for the voices of freedom-loving Americans (i.e., those who didn't vote for Obama) to be heard.

The last part of the letter is another plug (as I will be trying to do as often as possible) for the FairTax - an issue we should all be lobbying for. Hope you enjoy the letter.

-Ben

Letter to Editor, Free-Lance Star

To the editor,

Just because Obama has been elected doesn't mean those of us who didn't vote for him have to just take his socialist policies lying down. I say this not because Democrats' hypocritical calls for reuniting to work together to achieve Obama's stated goals ring hollow given their own howling and obstructive responses to past Republican victories. No, I say this because this is why we have checks and balances: to limit the extent that one group can abuse the power invested in a particular branch of government.

We still have people that can help represent our interests: our Congressional and State legislative representatives. Now more than ever, we need strong Congressmen and women willing to stand up for freedom. We need State delegates courageous enough to fight ever-expanding and ever-abusive federal power.

Keep up on the latest issues -- on the latest big-government initiatives the Obama administration is trying to shove down our throats (and keep an eye on the ever-dangerous Pelosi/Reid combo, too). Then, lobby your Congressmen and women (write, call, meet, etc.) to oppose these attempts to expand the government's insidious grip over our lives. Petition our
State delegates to fight for States' rights and combat the federal government's overreaching policies.

One issue that needs (and should have) our widespread lobbying and support (now more than ever) is the FairTax. This is an issue that shouldn't pit Democrats versus Republicans, but rather ordinary citizens versus special interests. By reforming the system by which federal revenues are collected, we will achieve much greater transparency in our government's expenditures while at the same time implementing a much more progressive method of taxation that is better for lower and middle class taxpayers. Politicians won't be able to grant their political favors to special interests under the guise of targeted tax credits and deductions anymore. Write your representatives and senators to demand their support for the FairTax.

Very respectfully,
Ben Bursae
Fredericksburg, VA

2008-10-23T08:13:00.000-07:00

Obama, Taxes, and Socialism

Here is a letter I sent to the editor of the Free-Lance Star on this topic. We'll see if it gets published. Enjoy.

-Ben

Letter to Editor, Free-Lance Star

To the editor,

Since the media won’t report it, I feel it must be said somewhere. When will people wake up and realize Obama’s economic policies are socialist, plain and simple?!

Some say he only wants to tax the “rich.” Well, his tax increases will hit small businesses and their employees in a big way. While a large percentage of small businesses are smaller enterprises that don’t net large incomes, 95% of small business employees work for businesses that would be hit hard by Obama’s tax scheme. That means cutbacks in wages, benefits, and even jobs. This just makes more people unemployed and dependent on the Nanny State to take care of them. And that’s just income taxes. Everyone’s tax burden will increase when Obama reinstates the Death Tax, raises capital gains taxes, and reinstates capital gains taxes on any and all profits from the sale of one’s home (try to guess the effect on an already slumping housing market).

I encourage your readers to check out the FairTax (and not just the negative spin from special interests who benefit greatly from our current behemoth of a tax system; go to www.fairtax.org and/or pick up The FairTax Book and FairTax: The Truth). The important distinction to learn about is between the principles behind the FairTax and the socialist principles of our income tax system.

A progressive income tax is #2 in Karl Marx's list of ten necessary precursors to a Communist society. While taxes are inevitable, they should be fair. Someone once said, “If you want less of something, tax it." Income taxes effectively tax productivity (income is what we receive in exchange for our productive work), which limits the growth of wealth for ALL.

Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth?" Obama is clearly right in step with, "From each according to their ability to each according to their need." It’s pure unbridled socialism, which ultimately leads to serfdom for everybody and slavery to the State.

Very respectfully,
Ben Bursae
Fredericksburg, VA

2008-09-27T20:23:00.000-07:00

Let's Tell Our Congressional Reps to Vote AGAINST Any Bailout

This is the body of a letter I wrote to my Representative (Rep. Wittman, VA-1). It contains some of the key reason I oppose a taxpayer-funded bailout.

-Ben

26 September 2008

Hon. Representative Wittman,

I am writing to strongly encourage you to vote against any and all credit market bailout packages that are brought to the House floor. I understand the idea behind the Resolution Trust Corporation, and my problem with it is that it socializes the risk of all those bad loans, while the banks it helps get to privatize their profit. There is no reason why Wall Street cannot establish and finance their own RTC, and that is what they should do. If that is what is necessary, then that is what opportunistic investors will do. Some who support the government bailout note the potential for profit down the road. If there really is a decent chance for this, then there is no reason why private investors wouldn't form their own RTC. Also, what would the Congress end up doing with such a "windfall profit"? Give it back to us taxpayers? Not likely if Congress is still Democrat-controlled. It would more likely be used to fund more useless socialist programs.

This bailout goes against what conservatism is supposed to be all about. We should be showing the citizens of this country that they don't need a "Nanny Government" to take care of all their problems. As a registered Republican, it pains me to say this, but if I find that you vote for any type of bailout, I will be forced to vote for the Democrat running against you this November. You will have completely lost my trust to carry the conservative mantle.

Thank you for your time and consideration of your constituents' views.

Best regards,
Ben Bursae

2008-09-02T05:39:00.000-07:00

Here is a letter to the editor I recently submitted to the Free-Lance Star, regarding the initial coverage of Sarah Palin's selection as VP candidate for John McCain. More on this to come, for sure.

Letter to Editor, Free-Lance Star

To the editor,

I am writing to urge all of your readers (and my fellow citizens) to ignore the media bias and sexist banter being thrown about at Sarah Palin’s expense and find out for themselves what this woman brings to the table. Since her announcement as McCain’s running mate, the media coverage has been absolutely abysmal.

First, people who characterize Palin’s selection as McCain merely attempting to rake in disenchanted Clinton supporters are putting their own sexist beliefs on parade (or their own ignorance), as they are effectively dismissing Palin’s (and Clinton’s) candidacy as mere novelty. She was only selected because she’s a woman, they are saying. How about actually looking at the woman’s abilities and achievements?

On this note, I would advise ignoring the mass media outlets, as they seem enamored with focusing on the mundane – silly “scandals” like the alleged firing of Ms. Palin’s ex-brother-in-law. For one, this stuff doesn’t come close to selling strips of land from one’s front yard to campaign contributors (Obama) or plagiarizing speeches from British Members of Parliament (Biden), but that’s just an example of the media’s hypocrisy. One example where it would help to dig deeper than the superficial spin the media gives is regarding Ms. Palin’s “beauty pageant” history. While the connotation suggests dismissing her as a pretty face with no brains, the tone of the story changes greatly when one learns that she only entered the pageants in order to earn money for college, which she needed since both of her parents were “ordinary, working-class” people (a teacher and a school secretary). Coming from a similar humble background (enlisted military brat) where I had to apply myself in order to be able to afford to go to college, her dedication strikes a chord with me, and I imagine it would strike a similar chord with most people.

What the rest of the media (and many Obama-supporters, ironically) are harping on is Ms. Palin’s “lack of experience.” Here are a few observations I have made on this subject. First, Ms. Palin actually has more Executive experience than Obama, yet she’s only the nominee for the #2 spot. But we’re supposed to be comfortable with Obama’s lack of experience, when he’s running for the #1 spot?? This point aside, when one looks at the experience she does have, it’s pretty impressive what she has done in such a short time. She has rooted out corruption in the Alaskan Republican Party, successfully bucking the “good old boys” system while at the same time being able to work with both parties and get things done for the good of Alaskans. Her “inexperience” didn’t stop her then, and I doubt it would stop her now. Thirdly, as someone who prefers minimizing government intrusion in our lives, I would prefer that those at the top have as little experience as possible at creating those intrusions. She has demonstrated with her actions in office a similar dislike for government intrusion.

Her husband (non-college-educated) should appeal to the majority of Americans who do not have college degrees, and why shouldn’t he? College is not the “end-all be-all” of life’s educational experience. Both she and her husband share life lessons that most of us “ordinary Americans” (the ones clinging to guns and religion) have experienced (ask Obama or Biden when was the last time they shopped at their local grocery store), and what she may lack in “public service” experience she makes up for in “real world” experience.

From my read of her history, Ms. Palin seems a genuine throw-back to the true grassroots, conservative base that the majority of Americans share – this is what I urge your readers to consider when thinking about and discussing Ms. Palin’s selection as VP candidate.

Very respectfully,
Ben Bursae
Fredericksburg, VA

2008-05-12T04:28:00.000-07:00

Here is another editorial I wrote for the Free-Lance Star, published on 4 May 08, regarding Congressional Term Limits. Please write your Congressmen and Congresswomen to urge them to support an amendment.

To the editor,

I am writing to urge all of your readers (and my fellow citizens) to lobby our Representatives in Congress to propose and/or work to secure passage of a Constitutional Amendment establishing Congressional term limits.

This is an issue that any citizen should support, regardless of party affiliation. Congressional term limits can only have a positive effect on the responsiveness of our elected legislators, by establishing a set timeframe for them to attempt to deliver on promises. It will help deter politics as a career choice and bring the legislative branch back towards the citizenry.

For some nonpartisan history on the subject, Republicans pledged to establish Congressional term limits in their 1994 Contract with America, consistent with the overwhelming national desire to bring Congress closer to a citizen government. Congress has repeatedly failed to deliver (after all, the very people who vote on the amendment would be limiting themselves). It is time to let them know that we expect them to represent our interests in this matter -- not their own. Success of this effort is long overdue, and it is absurd that our Representatives continue to thumb their noses at the American people when polls show a greater-than-75% support for such limits.

Since the 1994 pledge, there has been some disagreement on what House term limits should be (three vs six), but an acceptable compromise has been proposed: setting a limit of three terms and allowing state legislatures to permit up to three additional terms if they so desire. Senators would be limited to two six-year terms.

We should all be calling on our Representatives to have the courage to speak up for this cause, propose the amendment with their fellow Representatives, work to secure the right amount of publicity for the issue, and vote to pass the amendment. Yes, there are other important issues facing our country, but this governmental reform would be a key first step to enabling progress in so many other areas.

Very respectfully,
Ben Bursae
Fredericksburg, VA

2008-02-09T02:27:00.000-08:00

Well, we've got one more day over here in London, and then we fly back. We're about to head out to see the Tower of London and Westminster Abbey, among other things. I'll post some photos of our adventures in London and Paris soon. Check back soon to see some of the really cool things we've seen over here!

2008-02-09T02:22:00.000-08:00

Just a quick note ... the letter to the editor below was actually published on 1/31/08. Here is a link to the letter as published.

2008-01-30T04:56:00.000-08:00

This is a recent letter I wrote to the Free-Lance Star (the local Fredericksburg, VA newspaper) regarding the proposed bill in the Virginia legislature that would extend HOV exemption for hybrid cars for another year. The provision is set to expire in July of this year, and it was originally supposed to expire in 2004.

To the editor,

There is currently a bill in the Virginia House of Delegates that would extend the HOV exemption for hybrid vehicles for another year (despite an original expiration of 2004). This affects a large number of people in the Fredericksburg area who commute up to the DC area. Those of us who commute smartly take vanpools or carpools, so as to reduce the number of cars on the road and to allow for a quicker commute. That is, after all, the whole point of the High Occupancy Vehicle lanes -- to encourage pooling of rides. This exemption for hybrids has the unintended consequence of clogging up traffic in the HOV lanes when vanpooling/carpooling should be rewarded with a faster commute for reducing the numbers of cars on the road.

From an emissions standpoint, hybrids operate completely on gasoline when in “highway mode.” Environmentally speaking, a carpool of three people is going to have a better effect than three people in separate hybrid cars. In fact, three 51-mpg hybrids will use the same amount of gas round-trip as one 17-mpg SUV with three people in it. We need to encourage carpooling and vanpooling, and the way to do this is to allow the hybrids exception to expire. The hybrid owners are also certainly capable of forming carpools with their more efficient cars.

We need to start demanding common sense from our state government. I encourage your readers to write letters and emails to our local delegates demanding that they vote against this exemption.

Very respectfully,
Ben Bursae
Fredericksburg, VA

2008-01-30T04:44:00.000-08:00

My recent commentary when forwarding this news story about the proposed "economic stimulus" package. (The only thing I can see it stimulating is my gag reflex.)

What this story does not say at all is whether the "rebate" is going to come out of next year's tax returns (the way the last one did), thus reducing next year's return by that same amount. Not much of a rebate if it isn't an actual tax cut. If so, are those people who get $300 despite having no income tax burden going to have to pay that money back, since they normally would not have even paid $300 in taxes throughout the year? This is utterly ridiculous. It promotes a nanny state mentality...and then there's the Dems complaining that unemployment isn't being extended. Like we need actual hardworking Americans footing even more of the bill for people who haven't bothered to get a job in 26 weeks to continue to sit on their asses. Yeah, that'll help stimulate the economy!! What stimulates an economy is more productivity...not less. Hence, the tax breaks for capital investments actually makes some semblance of sense, though I still have a problem with the government getting involved at all. They're only getting involved with that type of thing because they're already too involved as it is. And then there's Rangel (good old Rangel, who wants to reinstate the draft!) saying he cannot "accept" the resistance of President Bush and Republican leaders to including an extension of unemployment benefits for those who are without work through no fault of their own?!? Apparently, no one acts of their own accord anymore. Apparently, people don't choose where they are going to work, and thereby don't have to deal with it when their workplace cannot afford to continue to employ them. Apparently people cannot make a choice to go out and get a job. And apparently, people are *entitled* to live a life without risk, as the government is SO willing to spend *other people's money* to provide such risk reductions! But, this is the Party of No Accountability we're talking about here. This is the Party of Collective Mentality (yes, there is a paradox there, since there is no such thing as a collective mind), the Party of the Nanny State.

Also, while I don't agree with the rebates in any form, I especially disagree with the argument that says giving these rebates to the poorest is going to stimulate the economy by encouraging them to spend. The majority of people are going to use this money to pay a bill, rather than go out and buy something material. If anything, it would be people that are more well off who would likely use the extra disposable income to consume. The key phrase there is disposable income. Many of the poorest people don't have much disposable income to begin with. And, economics tells you that productivity will stimulate an economy, not consumption.

I grow sicker and sicker of the socialist mentality of so many "leaders" in this country. If you made it this far, thanks for putting up with my rant. I copied you all on this so that, in case this makes sense to you, it might give you some ammunition for writing your legislators to oppose this before it's too late. It's probably too late anyway. I'm done now. :)

2008-01-18T04:22:00.000-08:00

Here is an article by Mike Adams, a TownHall.com writer and blogger, that promotes a private program aimed at making teenage drivers better drivers. It is called Street Safe, and its website is here. It is a privately run solution to educating teenagers about the various risks of driving with the stereotypical teenage habits (text messaging, drinking, talking on cell phones, etc.). Please pass the word about this program, and if you feel like it, make a charitable contribution to this organization. It is privately run, so it will depend on donations, as well as individual and corporate sponsors.

2008-01-16T05:11:00.000-08:00

In (supportive) response to a 1/16/08 TownHall.com article by John Stossel ("Hating Free Enterprise"):

The common sense here is almost too much to take! ;) This article could apply in so many other areas of our lives. For example, getting rid of the monopolistic regulatory power of the FDA, making it at most a certifying authority (but not the ONLY one allowed). Why should they have the monopoly on deciding what is "right" for each and every individual?! If a person dying of cancer wants to take a risk on a potentially life-saving drug (and also potentially help others by becoming a case for its success), why can they not do it? Answer: Because the FDA hasn't allowed the drug to be used yet. If anything, make the FDA a certifying agency, like Underwriters Laboratories, who privately inspects and certifies electrical equipment (just look for the UL emblem). That way, if a person saw that the FDA had certified a certain drug, it might give them more confidence in the drug, just as people look for the UL emblem on electrical equipment. I'm sure private certification agencies could do the job more efficiently than the FDA, but since it already exists, why not take advantage of its existence while at the same time reducing the role of governmental interference in our personal lives?