Monday, December 03, 2007

How To Catch Wild Pigs, And Why It Matters

Here's a snippet from an email that's making the rounds. This is not my creation; if its yours, please let me know so I can properly attribute it:

'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how To forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms- just a little at a time.

Remember this when you consider whether or not the government really should provide 'free' prescription drugs, or 'free' health insurance.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Which Candidate Do You Support?

I had forwarded to me recently a link to a web site that allows you to specify your positions on a range of issues, and how important those issues are to you, and then uses that information to match you up with the candidate for President who most closely reflects your opinions. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the calculations, but it seemed pretty accurate in my recent test run.

To check it out yourself, visit

Here's what it had to say for me:

My top choice candidate (based on matching my positions on issues) should be Tom Tancredo, with a 90% match.

Here are my next three:

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 88.10%
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 87.30%
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) - 86.51%

Interestingly, Rudy Guliani is all the way down at number 10 for me, with only a 62.7% match. I've always felt that I would only be willing to support Rudy if he was the nominee and we had to beat the democrat.

Go check out the calculator, and let us know what it says. You may find a few surprises.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

National Healthcare Insurance = Socialized Medicine

Following is a letter to the editor I submitted to my local newspaper in response to a letter advocating for John Conyers' HR 676, "The United States National Healthcare Insurance Act":

In a letter to the editor published recently, Mr. James Montgomery expressed a desire to hear from someone who does not support Socialist Healthcare in America. I'm pleased to grant his wish.

Let's be clear about terminology, here. Mr. Montgomery has written to support HR 676, a bill titled "The United States National Healthcare Insurance Act". This bill isn't just about insurance, however. The minute the government becomes the only payer of healthcare bills in America, the healthcare system has been nationalized. The U.S. government would set the prices, decide what procedures and treatments can and can't be performed, and control access to all healthcare. Enacting a single payer system is exactly equivalent to enacting Socialized Medicine in America.

Mr. Montgomery's letter purported to impart some "frightening facts" in support of his contention that government bureaucracy should control and ration the delivery of healthcare services in the United States. Let's address them each in turn:

1) "At least 18,000 Americans die each year from lack of healthcare coverage." - I challenge the supporters of Socialized Medicine to name just one person who has died because they were unable to receive medical treatment as a result of not having healthcare coverage. Just ONE. As we are all well aware, it is illegal for any hospital emergency room to refuse treatment to a patient because they are unable to pay. This is a bogus, unsupported statistic that is patently false.

2) "80 percent of Americans who lack healthcare coverage are families with one or more jobs." - Leaving aside the confusion in this statement regarding whether we're discussing individual Americans or American families, one has to ask: 'What point are you trying to make?'. I would expect its reasonable to assume that at least 80% of any randomly selected sample of American families has "one or more jobs".

3) "More than 50% of bankruptcies occur due to medical bills..." - Again, I ask, 'What point are you trying to make?'. Perhaps Mr. Montgomery would prefer that half of all bankruptcies occur due to identify theft? Maybe bankruptcies due to expenses from frivolous lawsuits are better, in Mr. Montgomery's eyes? The best healthcare in the world can sometimes be expensive, particularly in cases of catastrophic illness or injury. If anything, Socialized Medicine will lead to many, many more bankruptcies, as our taxes go through the roof to pay for the inevitable bureaucratic inefficiency and steep decline in availability and quality of healthcare services.

4) "Of all the nations, the U.S. spends the most on healthcare..." - This is an easy one. You get what you pay for. The United States has the best healthcare system in the world. People from around the world come here to receive top-notch care. Nationalized healthcare insurance would LOWER the quality of healthcare in America substantially, and INCREASE the costs. Ask yourself when you ever observed a government program and said to yourself: 'What a well-run, efficient, cost-effective program!'. I suspect you never have, nor have I.

5) "...the U.S. has the highest rate of people who believe their healthcare system should be reformed." - There's nothing about this statistic (assuming for the sake of argument that its true) that supports Mr. Mongomery's position. This only shows that people want a change; not what type of change they want. Count me as as one of those who strongly believe that the healthcare system should be reformed. We need to de-couple health insurance from employment, and re-introduce market efficiencies into the system by giving the individual to ability to shop for their healthcare services. Healthcare Savings Accounts are a fantastic example of how Americans can re-take control of their medical services.

6) "The spiraling costs of healthcare are negatively impacting American businesses..." - Yet another argument in favor of de-coupling healthcare coverage from employment, and putting the control back in the hands of individual Americans. This isn't in any way an argument for Socialized Healthcare. In fact, its an argument against, as the inevitable spike in taxes will have a much more negative effect on businesses than the healthcare expenses they're currently experiencing.

So there you go, Mr. Montgomery. I DON'T support HR 676 because I don't trust politicians to make my medical decisions. I DON'T support HR 676 because I've never met a government program that was efficient and well-run. I DON'T support HR 676 because I've never seen the government reduce costs for anything. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would destroy patient incentives to find the best possible prices and treatments. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would destroy physician incentives to provide competitive services and prices, and would destroy pharmaceutical companies' incentive to develop new drugs and treatments. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would result in stealing from your wallet to pay MY healthcare costs. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would inevitably lead to the deterioration of healthcare services in the United States.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Border Security First

Following is the text of a letter I just sent to my senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. I encourage you to contact your senators as well regarding the inadvisability of the amnesty bill currently being considered.

Senator Chambliss,

As a strong supporter of yours, I just wanted to contribute my voice to the overwhelming majority of Georgians who oppose the amnesty bill (and it IS an amnesty bill, call it whatever you wish) currently under consideration, and that you have indicated support for.

You were quoted in the Marietta Daily Journal as saying that you believed that Georgians supported the bill. We absolutely do not support that bill.

As you know, amnesty failed when it was tried last in 1986. The solution to the problem of illegal immigration is securing the border and making it difficult or impossible for illegal immigrants to find work. Nothing more, nothing less. If the border were adequately protected, and it was very difficult for illegals to find paying jobs, they would leave of their own accord. The objection that we don't have the resources for a "mass deportation" of 12 million people is a complete straw man. Its not necessary. Close the borders and make it difficult to find work, and they will deport themselves.

As a part of such a bill, legal immigration limits could be raised, and additional resources dedicated to processing those who are entering the country lawfully, to speed their progress.

Until the borders are demonstrably secure (not just the money having been spent), and the illegal immigrant population begins to fall, would it be responsible to consider any type of temporary worker program.

As I said, I am a supporter of yours, and I want to commend you on the strong stand you've taken in support of winning the War in Iraq, and on keeping taxes low.

Feel free to use this as a template for your own letter to your senators and representatives.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Monday, May 07, 2007

The Ant and the Grasshopper

This is one of those emails that periodically go around, but the story and moral here are so perfect, I just had to post it.


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold. MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast in life styles. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green." Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake. Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that in l992,Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case. The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood. MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

No Surrender in Iraq

Here's a petition from Please consider signing it and telling your friends about it:

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Voting For Defeat

Its important for everyone to understand that a vote in Congress for the resolution currently being considered that would express disapproval for the sending of reinforcements to Iraq is a vote FOR DEFEAT for America in Iraq. Such a vote will encourage our enemies, and give our friends pause about the reliability of America.

Its been said over and over. Defeat in Iraq would be a calamity, not only for us, but for the world. I can't possibly understand why it is that the Liberals in Congress want the U.S. to fail. Biden, Kennedy, why? Why are you aiding our enemies?

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Economic Freedom Strongly Related to Good Economic Performance

This one comes from the "Duh" file, but it bears repeating often that the most free nations are the best economic performers. A free nation is defined as one in which its citizens have business (regulatory) freedom, fiscal freedom, trade freedom, and freedom from government interference, among other freedoms. The beneficiaries of the stellar economic performance are all citizens of those nations, across income levels.

To put it another way: capitalistic societies perform better economically, and result in a better life for the poorest living in them, than socialistic societies. The more government interferes in the economy and lives of its citizens, even when its intentions are good, the worse off people living under that government become.

Here's the most recent Index of Economic Freedom report. There's plenty of detailed data to back up the findings of the report, which, as I said, should be self-evident to any critical thinker.

Following is a snippet from the Executive Summary of the report:

Economic freedom is strongly related to good economic performance. The world's freest countries have twice the average per capita income of the second quintile of countries and over five times the average income of the fifth quintile of countries. The freest economies also have lower rates of unemployment and lower inflation. These relationships hold across each quintile, meaning that every quintile of less free econo-mies has worse average rates of inflation and unemployment than the preceding quintile has.