There’s a scene in the movie Fargo where our intrepid car salesman, Jerry Lundegaard, sits behind his desk while a customer berates him. It seems that they had worked out an agreement on the price of a vehicle, but when the customer came in to pay for the vehicle, Jerry informed him that it would cost more than originally stated. This scene ends with the customer angrily calling Jerry a liar before shouting: “Where’s my [expletive] checkbook? Let’s get this over with.”
I’ve come to realize that our government is Jerry Lundegaard. It’s always promising us a lot while delivering nothing. And we…well, we’re the customer demanding our checkbook so we can get this over with.
Taxes are a fact of life, more certain than death. And if we do not wish to live in anarchy, they are essential to the functioning of government. This is why Christ commanded His followers to “render unto Caesar.” Yet what happens when, after you render unto Caesar, nothing gets accomplished? What if you pay for services and they never materialize? In that case, you have the unjust theft of your money.
I live in Colorado Springs. Despite being a fairly conservative town, the Springs has recently gone through a budget shortfall. Not surprisingly, all the social services paid for with taxes are taking a hit. For example: snow plows are limited to “The Main Roads” this year (it took me a couple of snowfalls to realize that “The Main Roads” is apparently the proper name of a road somewhere and not the set of roads used most often in the city), potholes are going unfilled, streetlights are being turned off at night (and burned out bulbs are not being replaced), and the transit service cut over 70 jobs and reduced hours of operation, including cutting both evening and weekend service entirely.
So Colorado Springs tried to pass a tax increase late last year (it was defeated). Somehow, immediately after the bill failed, the city accountants “discovered” an accounting error—they had an extra $4 million they didn’t realize they had. I should point out that this was before winter set in, before the transit service was gutted, before the snowplows were sent off the road. The city had $4 million in funds that they had not expected. Obviously this would be a good time to pay for road repairs, or subsidize the transit service for another year, or any number of these social programs that government so touts before they take your money.
But of course this is the real world. The money was spent on a dog shelter, to restore trash pickup service in the America the Beautiful Park, and on the mayor’s “youth initiative” (which, apparently, initiates youths or something). Meanwhile, the snows came down and roads were not plowed. Large potholes formed. People hit these potholes and tore out the suspensions on their cars. But now they couldn’t ride the bus to work because service was cut, and thus firings commenced. But at least the unemployed can take heart knowing they can get a dog and trot around America the Beautiful Park with all the youths who are picking up trash. That is, if they risk hypothermia by walking there.
I suppose that the government misspending $4 million isn’t that big of a deal anymore. But the real kicker came last week when I turned on the radio and heard that the city was graciously allowing people to “adopt a streetlight.” That’s right, if you paid a measly $100 in a residential area ($210 for businesses), you could adopt your streetlight and the city would maintain that light for you.
I don’t know about you, but I feel honored to be allowed to pay for a service that I already paid for with my tax money. It warms the heart.
This, however, shouldn’t come as a surprise. It is the natural outcome of socialism. The problem with socialism, as Margaret Thatcher once pointed out, is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. And when you run out of their money, you have to cut your social services—the very justification you used to take that money in the first place. The only way to keep these services going is to resort to the free market: those who can pay for the services can have them.
Congress just passed the health care abortion of a bill. If you want to know what will happen to the health care system, just look at the streets of Colorado Springs. Services will be cut, but those who are wealthy enough to pay for their health care twice (once in taxes, and once on the open market) will be the only people who will still have those services. Everyone else will just have to deal with the darkened lights, potholes, and snow drifts.
If you want to know how I'm feeling, just listen to the soundtrack of the tv show, The Twilight Zone.
ReplyDeleteThis is mind-boggling and unbelievable. I can't really argue with Christians who think they should just start to withdraw from what's going on in this country.
From a macro-level, these 3 questions are painful:
(1) How'd we get here?
(2) What's gonna happen now?
(3) What's the future gonna be like?
Response at the individual and family unit level: bunker down, encourage other followers of Christ, and share the Gospel.
Thanks, Peter.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite bad arguments for Obamacare is the claim that we need universal heathcare since, at present, we have to pick up the tab for those who use the ER because they're too poor to afford health insurance.
But, of course, if they're already too poor to afford health insurance, then they will still be too poor to afford mandated coverage under Obamacare–in which case the same taxpayers will be picking up the tab under Obamacare.
I've found that this argument works well here in Colorado Springs, since the roads are getting so bad that everyone notices it. Although I must admit it's not quite as bad as Ukraine (my parents have shown me pictures where people have stolen manhole covers to sell for scrap, and then dropped trees into the hole so people wouldn't drive into it--this is why most Ukranians drive on the sidewalk).
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, everyone understands that they are being forced to pay for something they already paid for. So even my liberal friends have started to take my argument seriously when I point out, "This is health care in four years." It's one thing to talk about hypotheticals in far-off countries (you know, like Canada), to show how socialized medicine "works" over there. It's quite another to be arguing with a friend in a coffee shop and just say, "Step outside for a minute. See that pothole? See the two-inch wide crack running down the middle of the road? *THIS* is what social taxes get you." (And yes, you can have this conversation outside pretty much *EVERY* building in Colorado Springs right now because the decay is that universal.)
I look forward to seeing LibProts point their fingers at Conservative Christians and say that we are too negative and too doom-and-gloom in our perspective and attitudes.
ReplyDeletePeter makes a lot of good points. I think even many people who aren't conservatives will vote against the Democrats as a result of this healthcare legislation. People who don't have much concern about philosophical issues like the proper role and size of government or moral issues like abortion will be more upset by something like a decrease in the quality of their healthcare or an increase in its cost.
ReplyDeleteThese circumstances further underline the importance of working within the Republican party for now rather than going to a third party. The Republicans have a good chance of undoing much of what the Democrats did yesterday, and they seem to have the will and public support to do it.
Interestingly, this article says that problems in Colorado Springs are the result of trying to reduce government.
ReplyDeletehttp://firedoglake.com/2010/02/12/welcome-to-bathtub-america/
I take it yours is a different diagnosis.
Victor Reppert,
ReplyDeleteI fail to see where that article leveled any sort of argument in favor of its assertions. It read like the typical liberal fluff-piece where conservative rhetoric is mocked and ridiculed via misrepresentation and some question-begging analogy and all standard counter-arguments and facts are conveniently ignored.
Victor,
ReplyDeleteYeah, Firedoglake is such a reliable source and all. But the fact is that our sales and property tax rates have stayed the same since at least 2004. Thus, no one is "reducing" government.
It is true that we typically vote against tax increases in the Springs, but nullifying a tax increase is only a "reduction" in the mush that constitutes higher thought in a liberal skull. In other words, it's like saying a man who weighed 200 lbs in 2004 and 200 lbs in 2010 reduced his weight because everyone else increased from 200 lbs to 250 lbs during that same time.
The fact is, the city government is not using funds for what it promised to use funds for. So they lied to the voters, plain and simple. And when it finds a $4 million accounting mistake--a mistake, mind you, that if anyone in the private sector made would instantly make them unemployed (for that matter, just how the heck would a private company be able to stay in business if they had accounting errors of this magnitude?)--and then spends it on worthless crap that no one wants instead of on what they promised in the first place, then a bigger government is NOT the solution.
You'll also find that virtually everyone in Colorado Springs who knows about what the $4 million was spent on sees it as the city council shafting us for voting against their property tax increase last year. With "representatives" like these...
Matthew said:
ReplyDelete---
I fail to see where that article leveled any sort of argument...
---
That's because liberals hate Colorado Springs because Focus on the Family is located here. Colorado Springs is sort of the anti-San Francisco for leftists.
Paying for your own damned street light outside your own damned house sounds uber-capitalist user-pays, and not very social or socialist at all. Pff..
ReplyDeleteIf we have to pay for our own streetlights, then stop collecting taxes. We'll just hire a private firm.
ReplyDeleteCorruption is one area where bipartisanship reigns supreme.
ReplyDeleteVictor,
ReplyDeleteAre you including the Obama administration in that indictment? Care to name names?
Kim,
ReplyDeleteSteve already pointed out the first thing I would say in response. But secondarily, your point that it is capitalistic is valid. That's because socialism always fails and people have to resort to the free market (even if the free market happens to be the black market).
Amazing how that works. Man's natural inclination is toward capitalism. No matter how hard he tries to make socialism work, it always fails. There's a lesson in that for those who'd care to pay attention.
"If you want to know what will happen to the health care system, just look at the streets"
ReplyDeleteIf you want to know what will happen when heresy and apostasy aren't disciplined, just look at the effects of liberalism in the Church:
"The Religious Left, from “social justice” Catholic nuns and Protestant ministers to the Democratic Speaker of the House and president of the United States, have been incessantly claiming God’s advocacy of their healthcare reform. That’s no surprise, just as it’s no surprise that the press is not only not outraged but silently supportive. There’s nary a whimper, let alone howls, of “separation of church and state!”
Last August, President Obama addressed a virtual gathering of 140,000 Religious Left individuals. He told them he was “going to need your help” in passing healthcare. Obama penitently invoked a period of “40 Days,” a trial of deliverance from conservative tormentors, from temptation by evildoers. He lifted up the brethren, assuring them, “We are God’s partner in matters of life and death.”
Like a great commissioning, in the 40 Days that followed the Religious Left was filled with the spirit, confidently spreading the word, pushing for—among other things—abortion funding as part of an eternally widening “social justice” agenda. The Religious Institute, which represents 4,800 clergy, urged Congress to include abortion funding in “healthcare” reform, adamantly rejecting amendments that prohibited funding. To not help poor women secure their reproductive rights was unjust, declared the progressive pastors. As the Rev. Debra Hafner, executive director of the Religious Institute, complained, federal policy already “unfairly prevents low-income women and federal employees from receiving subsidized” abortions."
Excerpted from: http://townhall.com/columnists/DrPaulKengor/2010/03/22/god_gets_his_healthcare_bill?page=full&comments=true
Do you think hospitals should be required to treat patients without insurance?
ReplyDeleteFor example, suppose an uninsured child is severely injured in a car accident, and it will cost the hospital hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat the child. Should the hospital be required to treat the child?
QUINT SAID:
ReplyDelete"Do you think hospitals should be required to treat patients without insurance? For example, suppose an uninsured child is severely injured in a car accident, and it will cost the hospital hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat the child. Should the hospital be required to treat the child?"
Suppose I answer a question with a question: should a hospital be required to go out of business? Should a hospital be bankrupted by unfunded mandates so that there is no area hospital to treat anyone's sick or injured children?
Should grocery stores be required to let poor people steal food from them? Should hotels be required to let homeless people stay for free?
ReplyDeleteThe hospitals that are private will maybe turn people away if their donations fall off. State run hospitals are subsidized by our tax dollars to pay for all those without insurance.
ReplyDeleteOh, maybe Rod Blagoyevich, John Edwards, and Eliot Spitzer among Democrats come to mind. We'll see who ends up being indicted from this administration.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm just skeptical of these "socialism versus capitalism" arguments. We socialize some things and we "capitalize" some things. No one wants to privatize the public education system (though we may want the law to protect homeschoolers). No one wants to privatize the military, the police department, the fire department, or the interstate highway system.
And I think there's a bit of a problem with the idea that private industry wouldn't waste that kind of money. Sure they would. Is Enron so soon forgotten?
The merits of capitalism are genuine, but fragile. If there is robust competition, then you get the motivation not to waste money. But you've got to find a way to stop monopolies and/or collusion in various industries, otherwise you get the "We don't care. We don't have to" attitude made famous by Lily Tomlin. Businesses will use child labor, or outsource labor to foreign countries that permit child labor and slave labor, unless someone tells them they can't do that.
The medical system in America, even after this is done, wouldn't be recognized as socialized medicine by people, who, for instance, lived under the French, British, Canadian, or German heath care systems. And when I talk to them, I don't hear the complaints about their system that we Americans make about their system. Not even Maggie Thatcher tried to dismantle the British National Institute of Health.
I think general socialism versus capitalism arguments oversimplify the issues. That is a criticism I would level at Michael Moore as much as I would level it at conservatives.
Steve wrote, “Suppose I answer a question with a question: should a hospital be required to go out of business? Should a hospital be bankrupted by unfunded mandates so that there is no area hospital to treat anyone's sick or injured children?”
ReplyDeleteShould the hospital treat the child at great expense to the hospital even if were not *required* to do so?
If the child were to die, do you think that there is a court in this country that wouldn’t award the parents of the child a large monetary judgment which would exceed the cost of initially treating the child?
QUINT SAID:
ReplyDelete"Should the hospital treat the child at great expense to the hospital even if were not *required* to do so?"
I see that you chose to duck my question. Here's the deal: I don't answer your question unless you answer mine.
QUINT SAID:
ReplyDelete"If the child were to die, do you think that there is a court in this country that wouldn’t award the parents of the child a large monetary judgment which would exceed the cost of initially treating the child?"
I don't look to the court system for moral guidance.
Victor said:
ReplyDelete---
No one wants to privatize the public education system
---
I wouldn't mind if it went that way. The United States public school systems are pathetic, morally inept, and only good at churning out ignorant fools. Private schools consistently out-perform public schools.
By the way, it wouldn't be that difficult to come up with a concept that would allow businesses to promote education. Trade schools, for instance, could be paid for by corporations who would hire graduating students because they'd know those students are competent.
The biggest problem with liberal education is that liberal educators don't care about teaching useful skills that would benefit people in the real world. Instead, they want to indoctrinate kids into deconstructing stream of consciousness, to learn about the politics of race-baiting, etc.
Of all the knowledge that I know, maybe 5% could be attributed to the public schools. I'd say a good 80% of it is attributed to the fact that my parents taught me how to read and took me to the library. Let me just share with you some examples:
Math
When I was ready to take pre-algebra in 7th grade, the school system put me into remedial math. They repeated this again in 8th grade. (The reasoning? There were not enough students in my class who could take pre-algebra, so EVERYONE took remedial math.) Then, as a Freshman, they dumped all of us straight into algebra. I happen to love math, but I could only get a C in algebra. By algebra 2, I was back to a B. In Geometry and Trig, I got As because by then I had defeated the steep learning curve dropped on me. By contrast, my sister hated math. She took half a semester of algebra, dropped it, and had to take remedial math again in college.
History
Every single American history class I took through all of high school started with Columbus murdering the natives and, if we were lucky, got as far as the Civil War. I *NEVER* had a history class progress beyond the Civil War. In World History, we never made it to World War I. Everything I learned about the Spanish-American War, the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam I learned because I picked up a book and read it. The closest we came to World War II was our class watched Schindler's List once.
Civics
Civics was a required class to graduate. I didn't take it (nor did I test out of it). I still graduated. What's that tell you?
Logic
Never offered as a class. After all, if they taught us logic, we'd be able to dismantle all the other baloney they were teaching us.
I'm sure I could come up with plenty more examples of the sterling successes that crown our education system. But if you can't already tell it's broken, there's not much point in my doing so.
Victor said:
ReplyDelete---
No one wants to privatize the military, the police department, the fire department, or the interstate highway system.
---
That could be because (go with me now) the military and police are the one thing actually put forth as a Constitutional use of government.
The proper role of government is to protect her citizen's personal freedom. That is, it protects our rights from foreign attack via the military, and it protects our rights from domestic attacks via the police department. But at no point was government ever supposed to protect us from the consequences of our own decisions.
Be that as it may, what you're doing here only serves to further my original point. What you tout as socialism is all the services that we're supposed to get when we pay our taxes. Yet when there is a budget crises, what get's cut? Military funding, police spending, fire department budgets, street repairs.
What never gets cut? The bureaucracy and their pay checks. No, those only ever increase.
You also said:
---
Businesses will use child labor, or outsource labor to foreign countries that permit child labor and slave labor, unless someone tells them they can't do that.
---
Yes, every businessman is Hitler and no one on Wall Street has any morality at all. Good one!
And it's not like boycotts don't work. Businesses will go where market pressure leads (all other things being equal).
By the way, in a free market, there are no monopolies because *ANYONE* can open a competing business and undercut the "big" businesses; thus, businesses have an incentive to keep prices as low as possible, because that *WILL* maximize their profits in the end.
But even putting that aside, there's only so much money you can make off rich customers. Suppose you have a monopoly on selling bagels. Sure, you could sell one bagel to a rich guy for $200, or you could sell 1,000 bagels for $2. Which one makes you more money?
There's a reason that companies that supply lots of cheap goods stay in business. Wal-Mart is never going to sell bottled water for $50 (unless inflation runs rampant) because they will always make more money selling cheaper goods to more people. The monopoly bogeyman is a fraud.
In fact, put it this way. The only time there could be a monopoly is on non-essential items. Essential items will, by their very nature, always be competitive (assuming, of course, the normal market--in a catastrophe, obviously people can price gouge; but that exception proves the rule). Non-essential items will have less demand, and thus fewer companies trying to compete. And when that happens, the smart businessman will seek to maximize profits (and that does *NOT* require maximizing the price he sells at, as I've mentioned above).
And if the company is run by an idiot, then no one will buy his non-essential product--or someone will step in and undercut him. Either way, the consumer wins. Just because it might take a few years to adjust to new technology, for instance, doesn't mean the government should step in and muck it all up.
Steve wrote, “I see that you chose to duck my question. Here's the deal: I don't answer your question unless you answer mine.”
ReplyDeleteTo answer your questions: No, I don’t think hospitals should be required to go out of business. And, no, I don’t think a hospital should be bankrupted by unfunded mandates. Nor do I think that hospitals should be required to treat patients without insurance.
However, given our legal environment, it seems like a “no win” situation for hospitals. If they don’t treat the uninsured, they oftentimes get sued. If they do treat the uninsured, they run the risk of financial hardship (or worse).
It’s not looking to the court system for moral guidance; it’s looking at the court system to determine the more prudent course of action.