It’s easy to stand for freedom of speech, when the message delivered is admirable!

Standing for freedom of speech is easy, when the speech is not controversial

I am a resident of a Northwest Ohio suburb. The center of our metropolitan area is Toledo, Ohio. We had a Nazi demonstration in 2015 that was reported in the National Press. Most in our area did not welcome this demonstration. It brought bad additional and unwanted bad press to our area. It certainly was not a boon for local merchants or our local leaders, who were busy trying to court new industries and citizens for our area. This demonstration was inconvenient to say the least and certainly unwelcome by the majority of our citizenry, yet the march and demonstration occurred and for the most part without disorder. See Toledo Blade Article link

I was proud of our citizens!  We saw evil in our midst, but exercised true tolerance by allowing free speech.  We demonstrated that good can prevail over evil, when both ideals are allowed to be expressed and debated.  When the day was done no one died and the citizenry still agreed that white supremacy is an evil doctrine!

The demonstration cost our area financial resources (police resources and police overtime), which we did not have and  paid for a cause, which we not only did not support, but which most our citizenry condemned. I heard many residents voice outrage at the prospect of dedicating scarce local resources to protect this demonstration,yet it was done and it is important that it was. Why you ask?

I already mentioned that I and our citizenry do not support the ideology of these people. Yet I state categorically it is important that even unpopular and yes, even evil individuals are allowed to speak out. It is the right of free speech and the ability to voice differences in the public square that allow us as a nation to maintain our moral compass!  It is when we do not allow our vocal minorities to speak out that our moral compass is jeopardized!  If we only hear homogenous messages, we never have to ask difficult questions about our moral choices.

It is not the duty of the government or even local citizenry to suppress ideas expressed in the public forum. People are capable and do decide whether a message is laudable, laughable or even evil.  The opportunity to express a point of view that is unpopular allows for a public conversation.  It is through public discourse that public policy is properly formulated.

So was our President wrong to assert their was fault on both sides?  Was there violence from both sides?  See NBC News Link  Is it acceptable to bring weapons (bats) to a protest and cover your face in order to counter a demonstration by people that you believe are evil? Do you have the right to intimidate those, whose views you believe to be evil?    If your answer is yes, consider whether you are promoting a free discussion of issues.  (Who decides what is evil?)

Ask yourself will my answer allow me to speak, when my view is unpopular or in the minority?  (Roman Catholics consider what will happen to your rights to oppose current social mores, if violent intimidation of free speech becomes the new norm.  Remember, you are now seen as evil to many who promote gay marriage and abortion rights! ) Must any public official now rank the level of evil on each side  of an issue and express their ranking after any violent outbreak? (Remember your feelings are just that feelings Ask yourself this.  Are my feelings compelling me to stereotype everyone in a group?  Do I believe in guilt by association?)

Most demonstrations include some activist zealots and some merely interested attendees and all level of individuals between these extremes.  I doubt this demonstration was much different.  When the President said he thought there were good people on both sides, he probably was not wrong!  Yet he is vilified for not lumping all together because evil was clearly present.  (I guess stereotyping is fine as long as it is backed up by a liberal confirmation bias!)

Those who were merely interested bystanders or who believed an objectionable statute should remain maybe misguided by current social mores, but should not receive the same condemnation given to neo nazis nor should they be deprived of their right to speak their mind even if their viewpoint is objectionable to the majority!

Is there no benefit in remembering the mistakes of history in order to not repeat them?  Should their be a new American mantra “Expression which is offensive to any group must be eliminated because offensive speech is by its nature hurtful to someone.”  Anyone, who dares to hold a different view is our enemy!  (Let’s all welcome in the age of the ministry of information.  Perhaps popular media outlets should purge their archives of views proven incorrect over time. ) Death to the historic record!  Let’s all feel good today!

Freedom and exercise of free will can sometimes be messy!  People make bad choices!  Not everyone always agrees with the majority.  Do you not think there were some, who stood against the Nazi crowds in Germany?  Probably not many given the Nazi government’s propensity to eliminate all opposition, but had there been guaranteed free speech and public dialogue, perhaps the holocaust could have been averted or at least limited in scope.  The beauty of our country is that we protect the rights of all to speak their minds.

It is easy to stand for free speech, when the message is an admirable one, but much more difficult, when scarce resources are expended to allow those, whose speech we find objectionable even evil or when the protected speech violates our own basic code or morality.

Yet it is at these times that we must all rally to protect free speech.  It must be safe to express ideas without the threat of physical intimidation.  Our maintenance of our moral compass relies upon open and  free discussion.  Free discussion can not exist in an environment of intimidation.

Far too many have decided that we have free speech but any leader or individual’s speech must be parsed and then the parsed segments weighed.   If the parsed segments as interpreted threatens the strong feelings against an obvious evil, then the individual expressing such improvident views must be ostracized.  Does this scrutiny promote the idea of free expression or is this no more than the politics of division presenting itself in a different form?

Ask yourself: Do I support freedom of speech and free will only as long as it is easy?  Do words mean anything anymore or am I dominated exclusively by my feelings?  Do I suffer under a confirmation bias?

Allowing the exercise of free speech for those,who we regard as evil is the true test of whether a nation is truly tolerant.  May we always pass the test.  God bless America the land of the free!

Nurturing doesn’t mean “Supporting for life”

Republicans are portrayed as uncaring because they fail to nurture the citizenry from cradle to grave. Nurturing is not the same as supporting for life. Government cannot afford to support the able for life!

Republicans seem to lose the battle with the bicoastal masses because they are seen as “uncaring”. Uncaring has become code for unwilling to provide additional benefits or rights to the latest group identified as “oppressed” The oppression can be by individuals, corporations, government, politicians or all of the above. Republicans are perceived as heartless, if they don’t use government to nurture the less fortunate. Nurturing as defined by the bicoastal masses means support of individuals or groups for the duration of their perceived oppression. Many times this means support for ad infinitum.

Democratic politicians and academicians capitalize on these perceptions and label those with “non- traditional or non- nurturing policy” solutions as heartless or simply interested in promoting the rich. These groups create code words to emphasize the enormity of the uphill fight necessary to overcome their economic plight. Words and phrases like barriers, economic disabilities are used to emphasize the task faced by these groups are nearly insurmountable.

The fact is the downtrodden in our society may require financial assistance for a time in order to become contributing members of our society. I mention this group to emphasize that this is an extremely small group and there programs are already in place to assist these individuals. If these programs are failing, perhaps they should be evaluated and changed to better serve this group. It is a social safety net for those who can’t. The vast majority of individuals do not fall within the category of those incapable of taking care of themselves. It is the larger group of individuals capable of self support with the need for a boost that is the subject of this writing.

Indeed every parent with children approaching adulthood understands the dilemma faced by Republican lawmakers. The dilemma every parent faces as their child nears adulthood is the extent of the assistance provided to them. Parents are inclined to nurture even their adult children. When children receive too much assistance, they never learn to take risk and are frequently resigned to limited careers and perceive limited opportunity to advance. Parents worry about their children’s mistakes and after providing counsel must at times avert their gaze in order to allow their adult children to make their own decisions. Some of these decisions will be wrong and will have consequences. This is because we live in a free society. Individuals have free will.

Democrats are like modern day helicopter parents, who never want to allow their adult children to make their own decisions. They hover and provide constant support both emotional and financial. They never allow the bad decisions to be made or the consequences to follow, when bad decisions are made. They constantly emphasize the shortcomings of the system and its economy and how an individual can be oppressed and fail. Republicans are a divided party with some members hailing from bicoastal liberal states. Republicans are constantly battling both the Democrats and their vocal left wing, which wants government to support all individual decisions throughout their life with no consequences for bad decisions.

Democrats point to statistics that emphasize the small group (less than 20% that can’t afford or don’t wish to purchase healthcare) and see that as an example of the “heartless society” thrust upon us by the “mean spirited Republican majority”. Democrats see no place for individual responsibility. All are just feathers in the wind cast about forces beyond their control. They champion the causes of groups like those young adults under 26 still dependant on their parents and individuals, who choose to wait to purchase health insurance until after they are ill and make rules promoting these individuals at the expense of the all. Yes, Democrats, rules, quotas and your agenda are costly and hurt economic growth and thereby increase bad decisions and increase need.

Fortunately Democrats, Americans are a tolerant people, but this does not mean we need to celebrate everyone’s lifestyle choices or subsidize their financial poor choices. If you choose not to work or work in a field, which has low demand, then your economic prospects will reflect your choice.

It is not hateful to point out those life choices have consequences and should. Rather than champion extreme lifestyles and poor economic choices, perhaps both Republicans and Democrats should allow charities, families and charitable groups to help this small group of individuals over the short term consequences of their decisions. Individuals have the absolute right to choose how they live, but government does not have the responsibility to shield the individual from the consequences of their decisions or enable their continued bad choices utilizing subsidies from others.

Republicans need to cease to be apologists for all failure. Government does not replace family, friends or charity. Failure has a purpose. Failure is frequently a precursor of success. Ask any accomplished individual and they can provide a litany of mistakes from which they learned valuable lessons. These learning experiences frequently lead to later success.

Republicans stop parenting. Start governing. Governing does not mean standing place of parents. (Acting in loco parentis) Governing means that you allow individuals to make choices and understand some will choose badly. Freedom allows for exercise of free will and includes the right to make errors and learn from the errors and grow.

Federal Government: It’s certainly not family

It isn’t your mother or your father, a sibling or even a close relative.  Contrary to popular media descriptions, it isn’t your uncle either.  Government is not a replacement for your family.

It isn’t your mother or your father, a sibling or even a close relative. Contrary to popular media descriptions, it isn’t your uncle either. Government is not a replacement for your family. It doesn’t see you as an individual. It isn’t a replacement for organized religion and certainly should never be seen as a moral compass. It is the use of force by a legislative majority over the rest of us and should only be used for limited necessary purposes. It is a poor allocator of scarce resources. It is a very poor investor, yet the general public trusts it to make many life decisions, which affect the economy, the family and the individual.

Would you trust someone with your household finances, if they repeatedly borrowed in order to pay current living expenses? Would you trust a bookkeeper,who told you that you had money set aside for your old age, when all you had was a cabinet full of IOU’s? Would you trust a financial adviser, who proposed improvements to your property or additional property purchases, when basic maintenance on your existing assets was not occurring? If you answered no to any of these questions, then why do you trust government with your money?

Government continues to borrow for entitlements, which are really programs that provide basic living expenses for citizens. It is part of the never ending and always expanding “WAR ON POVERTY”. It is the longest running war in US history and there is no indication, we are winning. There is never an examination to determine if the programs provide increased opportunity and when evaluated; it is only with an eye toward increasing funding.

Are these programs efficient and effective? If they are effective, then why isn’t there significantly less program usage during periods of full or near full employment? Why were we advertising for additional food stamp recipients? Why is any cut in the rate of increase in these programs seen as an attack on the poor ratherthan a victory over poverty?

Would you continue to spend your personal money like this? If your answer is no, then isn’t it time to examine these programs and phase out these programs in favor of some which promote individual dignity and self sufficiency. and actually accomplish their purpose?

Should we continue to rely on ineffective government and continue to borrow and never have to do more than make token payments on the end bill? There is no pain. No day of reckoning. Why don’t we increase our use of charity to help the poor? Is it because charities know they have limited resources and allocate to the truly needy? Is it because promising programs insures representatives reelection and continued political power?(Remember politics is who gets what, when, where and how.)

What is the role of family both nuclear and extended, when a relative is faltering financially? How many times have you heard parents say: “I just don’t want to be a burden to my children?” Is that proper thinking? When is it not the duty of the family to care for its own, whenever possible? When does someone step up and say “The emperor is naked”? When do we acknowledge the lessons of history that communities, which fail to compete, go into decline?

Demand your representatives; both federal and state evaluate their spending. Spend your money like it is their own. The question a representative should ask is whether this spending is a necessary and efficient use of taxpayer funds for a purpose consistent with limited government. Why should government take on this responsibility?

Taxpayers please don’t fall for the advertising campaigns for increased spending, which tout that the spending is only so much per day or week to fund this program. This ploy has been used to fund never ending ineffective public policy, which starts at a certain amount then continues to grow and grow over time. Ask is this a valid use of the force of government? (Doubt this statement?
Ask yourself how many times you have felt your tax money was spent toward a purpose you would not support? Why do you pay? Legitimate use of force but forcenone the less,AKA taxes!) If this program is a good idea, can it be accomplished by voluntary contributions or by a charity? If no one would contribute to voluntarily fund it, why not? Is there an achievable goal with an end in sight? If permanent, will it afford individuals the opportunity to move onto a more productive life? Does the proposed program support increased life skills and self sufficiency?

Remember

Government is not a replacement for your family or your social support network.

Paying taxes doesn’t absolve you of your family responsibilities nor should the payment of taxes be used to assuage your conscience.

Families are responsible for each other. Where incapable for a time to provide, they should be required to “pay back” anyone, who provides necessaries for their members.
Existence of government programs doesn’t absolve individuals from helping their neighbors.
Federalism is the basis of our great republic and the any power not given to the federal government should not be exercised by it.

Killing the Golden Goose: An economic primer in free market capitalism for Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

When I was in college, back when Religion and family was still a mainstay of traditional society, I had professors singing the praises of Marxism and decrying the excesses of capitalism. They appealed to the softer side of human nature. They were appalled by the rise of the “corporate culture”. Every corporation was a predator, which disregarded the human being in a never ending quest for profit. Corporations you understand measure their success by profitability. It is their metric to measure their success. They saw the government as the only savior from this corporate plague. The force of government could intervene and by placing its finger on the economic scale insure the net worth of the individual was respected. All praise be to populism as long as it was the bicoastal populism at that time headquartered in the northeastern part of our country. The bi-coastal elite prioritized government entitlement programs over economic productivity.

News flash, Liberals! People in government cannot and will not agree on creation of an entitlement utopia. Government is flawed. It is extremely divided and will be for the foreseeable future.

We live in a country where, the citizens have a diverse system of values and by a slim majority still believe in economic freedom, although thanks to educational brainwashing, they are frequently unable to articulate this precise principle.

The principle of economic democracy, which is the cry of the social justice crowd, is simply a disguise for populist economic tyranny. (Exercise of governmental authority to limit economic freedom. Yes, government by necessity is an exercise of power over the populace,) they advance uniform business practices, which encourage an uninformed consumer, and which are in line with a liberal social agenda. Businesses can either adopt the desired policies and practices or face a prohibition of their business model. There is no room for initiative and product improvement or expansion through increased efficiencies. i.e. Let’s use 1938 wage and hour practices in today’s economy because a portion of the populace choose a union to represent them, so there can be no economic advance beyond this model. The primary method of advancing their economic engineering agenda is the corporate and individual income tax code. Doubt me? How many economic decisions are made solely based upon the tax code. When you start a new employment, think about the number of documents you sign because of the federal tax code.

The federal income tax code is based upon a flawed model. It punishes the very vehicles, which create wealth. Why don’t we tax only individuals (flesh and blood people), when funds are disbursed to them as income (money for their personal use). If income is used in a business for a business purposes, (a means to produce a product or service) it is moving and should be encouraged and not taxed. When it moves to an individual for their personal use, it should be taxable. The rich would pay more because of the progressive tax system. We could retain the capital gains provisions to encourage investment. We would encourage dividends. They are a good income source especially for those, who are too old to actively be employed as well as for those seeking to save for their daily lives. We would no longer view the corporation as a wealth store, which can be raided by liberal lawmakers to advance their entitlement agenda. This removes the hidden tax that plagues consumers of US businesses

Their promotion of their form of economic democracy is killing capitalism. It is akin to death by one thousand cuts. Their policies limit economic expansion and kill wealth creation and ultimately jobs. They assume a one size fits all approach serves the diverse US population. They espouse biblical principles to guilt the populace into complying with their collectivist ideas. Their mantra: corporations are evil and government is the answer to the corporate greed problem.

How do they guilt the populace? They point out that we are the wealthiest country in the world and never acknowledge that our wealth has established a standard of living, which is the envy of much of the world. They point to biblical teachings and claim that government should provide for all. They obviously forget that biblical teachings are directed toward the individual and not the government. Doubt me, see Mathew 22:21. Give to Caesar. Additionally, the free market offers opportunity for the individual through their effort (service) to give to others. We don’t need the government telling us how to best help our fellow man. Our creator gave us free will. If the right of free will is acceptable to him, it is also acceptable to me. There is room for charity. Charity is a voluntary giving versus government, which is enforced and imposed taking for a majority agreed upon endeavor. (Usually a moral compromise) Government was to be used as a last resort and for limited purpose) See the US Constitution enumerated powers provisions.

It is also popular they say something is a right. I.e. healthcare. Natural rights are not dependent on the services of others to accomplish. Who will you coerce to render care for those who cannot pay? Is it okay to require involuntary servitude to enforce this right? If the populace doesn’t produce enough to cover shortfalls, how is the shortage rationed in the population? The free market allow for rationing through price. It also affords opportunity to increase the country’s wealth thereby raising all. It is pointed out that some will get great amounts more. This is greed! Each person has the responsibility not the requirement to give back. This is free will. It works in this country. Witness our standard of living versus the collective society such as the former USSR.

What about European socialism? Our country has many diverse cultures. Many of the “success stories” surround cultures with a less diverse culture. Perhaps one size fits all is acceptable to their populace, but it cannot be imposed here! We as a people do not subscribe to a single set of values and this country permits one to give back as he or she sees fit and still we have a very high standard of living for all.

What about a minimum wage? Why should we prohibit someone from contributing because they seek less compensation? Is it better to have someone not contribute or to contribute and receive less compensation? Don’t different levels of compensation encourage increase in skill levels in order to increase compensation, if that is what is sought? No say the liberals you should be able to support yourself on a federal minimum wage! Maybe even a family of four without regard to your productivity and without regard to whom you exclude from the workforce by your imposition. “From each according to their ability and from each according to their need.” This is the cry of the Marxist populace clamoring to increase their rightful share of the pie. But who decides need and who decides the ability? This is Marxist utopian idealism, which doesn’t take into consideration differences in religious values, cultural norms or family values and even some might argue differences in work ethics. I refer the reader to the fiction “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand specifically the chapter about the socialist auto company experiment. Click the link to read a short excerpt. This excerpt is a thought provoking exercise about what happens, when needs exceed ability in a socialistic situation.

h2>Conclusion

Government involves use of force by a political majority over an entire populace. The US federal Constitution promotes a minimal use of this force for limited purposes.

The US population is diverse with different religious and moral values, which are not suited for one size fits all solutions.

Christianity does not demand government intervention. It requires individual action. If you believe in Christianity, then you believe in free will. Exercise of free will requires individuals to do unto others… If our creator saw fit to allow us to choose for ourselves how to live, why should we not respect the individual’s right to choose?

Minimum wage is a flawed one size fits all solution, which sounds good, but fails to account for differences in individual circumstances and discourages growth and economic inclusion by effectively barring some classes of workers from the workforce under the auspices of assisting the poor.

Corporations and businesses are vehicles to creating wealth. They are neither good nor bad; their practices are determined by their ownership. They can be great wealth creating vehicles or hoarders of wealth. Their judgment is left to the populace, who decide by their purchases. Their individual choices aggregate and determine business success. These choices taken together are vastly superior to any political choice made by government officials (Remember, politics is defined as who gets what, when, where and how.)

Healthcare Reform: More than simply redistribution of insurance cost!

1) Accept that life is not fair and government can not make it fair.

2) Accept that markets are efficient allocators of resources, which will reallocate human and capital resources to meet needs and allows for individual freedom and is not dependent on political power to meet those needs.

3) Accept that human systems are not perfect. There is a place for charity. Charity fills in the gaps or fills in during intervals between resource reallocations. Charity maybe individual,familial,or institutional. It is different from governmental programs because it is based upon a voluntary exercise of personal choice and not an exercise of majority power,

4) Accept that insurance companies are not the sole driver of cost. Health insurance is not and should not be equated to healthcare. Access to insurance does not equal good healthcare. Insurance companies are not inherently good nor are they inherently bad. Health insurance itself is not the sole answer to provision of adequate healthcare and it should not be treated as such.

5) Big government solutions are exercises of power and societal promises that even when outdated they are not rolled back and seldom evaluated in light of a changing environment.

How long will we persist in our belief that government can care for individuals from cradle to grave?  We continue to prop up  every failed government progam and deceive the public as to their long term sustainability.

Now we are on the verge of ushering into permanency unsustainable government health insurance for some unknown number of additional insured’s at the expense of all.  The true costs of this program cannot be determined.  (Congressional Budget Office (CBO)projections have proven themselves inaccurate.  See initial Medicare cost estimates as one example and Obamacare projections as a second example of inaccuracies) Democrats argue that the system would be sustainable with just a little more income redistribution and single payor solution just like the unsustainable medicare program.   (Perhaps the Democrats should campaign on a new more robust second coming of the VA Health system.)  The solvency of the Medicare trust fund is only guaranteed at 100% to 2024.

It is argued that this is the best system available because it removes the profit motive of the private sector. Please consider this.  There are already non profit options available in the insurance universe and when a government solution is adopted, it is seldom evaluated to determine its cost effectiveness or its sustainability.  Only a crisis precipitates second look at a program, then the program is reinvigorated with additional taxpayer funds, but never seriously scrutinized for efficiency and effectiveness.

Never is there consideration given to the lost opportunity cost, when adopting such  programs.  What do I mean by this?  Programs are adopted institutionalizing payment structures and distribution techniques available at the time of adoption,   This means a fee for service structure will be perpetualized in any health insurance solution.  Innovative cost and life saving measures will not be pursued, as long as a government subsidized consumer base is guaranteed to insurers and health care providers.

Insurance principles are supposedly built into the healthcare system except in instances, where the outcome is disliked by the citizenry or seen as “unfair”  e.g. Insurance is about many paying a small amount (premium) for protection against unlikely risk.  If the cost (risk)is guaranteed, it is no longer insurance.  It is redistribution.

Life is not fair and we can not wish and make it so, nor can we design a human insurance system to handle all circumstances without creating staggering insurance premium increases.  We refuse to allow those with chronic preexisting conditions to pay more in premium as required in the private insurance market,(even if the chronically ill potential insured’s have the ability to pay more) so we mandate acceptance at prescribed rate despite the built in additional cost of insuring these individuals.  This guarantee increases premium for all and prices many out of the market or provides coverage with obscene deductibles.

We demonstrate our distaste for the economic facts by characterizing any, who oppose this type of (health insurance) socialism as discriminators or haters, who wish others to go away and die.  Be honest!  This is a small group of individuals.  Most will be absorbed into a group plan through employment.  Some have the ability to pay increased premium or will be self paying.   Some will be treated in poverty programs and some may need charitable assistance.  Finally as a last resort, some may need assistance from a non insurance health assistance fund.  Why demand change to the entire health insurance industry to cover these relative few.  Please be honest and admit some of these individuals simply are not insurable for the same rate as the general population.  We may not like it, but it is not discrimination and it is an economic fact

We ignore the insurance principle of adverse selection, which states those most in need of benefits will flock to secure them especially, when available at an artificially low cost, while the young and healthy will simply assume the risk and move forward without coverage.   We attempt to overcome this hurdle by an employer mandate and an individual non insurance penalty.  The mandate so repulsive to many, so we push back compliance dates and minimize repugnant penalties in a dishonest effort to avoid electoral consequences. The penalty is so minor that many simply opt to pay it.  Meanwhile many potential insureds wait and upon receiving a diagnosis of cancer, diabetes (insert your chronic ailment here), then secure coverage post diagnosis and guaranteed future costs are spread over a small individual state market unfit to absorb the these extensive costs.  There is no urgency to sign up prior to need, when acceptance post diagnosis is guaranteed at the same cost.  Cost is distributed to the individual state market place raising the cost for everyone in that subgroup of insureds.

Remember politics is who gets what, when and how.  The market is the result of billions maybe trillions of choices made by individual consumers and families.  Each consumer or group of consumers acting in what they believe to be their best interest.  If a need arises, it is in the interest of someone or group to fill the need or the need maybe altruistically filled by voluntary giving.  (that’s right voluntary as opposed to entitled receipt.  Witness such charitable organizations as St. Jude’s Hospital, American Cancer Society and numerous other charitable non profit and individual healthcare benefactors.)  The private company or group in the private market is  rewarded for their risk taking by reaping a profit.  (not evil in fact frequently is distributed to shareholders including workers, who invest their savings in companies and insurance products.) Government planning and action can not better decide allocation of resources.  I would argue it never will be able to accumulate and weigh the number of variables necessary to replace the market.

Government muddles through! Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines muddling through as to achieve a degree of success without much planning or effort.  (Doubt me?  Consider many in government service positions are career employees (carryover employees, not true believers), which means during any administration they may not agree with the agency activities or even the  stated goals of any department or agency.  How much effort and planning should you expect from this group.  Then consider Congress, which seldom agrees on the means to accomplish any single objective and may not even agree as to the goal itself)  The result of all this cognitive dissidence is government muddles through its tasks and inefficiently utilizes resources and seldom, if ever accomplishes its stated purpose.  This is hardly an acceptable replacement model for any market, let alone something as important as the health insurance market.

So what is the answer?

1) Accept that life is not fair and government can not make it fair.

2) Accept that markets are efficient allocators of resources, which will reallocate human and capital resources to meet needs and allows for individual freedom and is not dependent on political power to meet those needs.

3) Accept that human systems are not perfect. There is a place for charity. Charity fills in the gaps or fills in during intervals between resource reallocations.  Charity maybe individual,familial,or institutional. It is different from governmental programs because it is based upon a voluntary exercise of personal choice and not an exercise of majority power,

4) Accept that insurance companies are not the sole driver of cost. Health insurance is not and should not be equated to healthcare.  Access to insurance does not equal good healthcare.  Insurance companies are not inherently good nor are they inherently bad. Health insurance itself is not the sole answer to provision of adequate healthcare and it should not be treated as such.

5) Big government solutions are exercises of power and societal promises that even when outdated they are not rolled back and seldom evaluated in light of a changing environment.

Conclusion

Repeal of Obamacare is a necessary first step. We can always tinker at the edges of the system and provide means for those, who fall through the cracks in the system. (While writing this blog entry, I was watching a news reporter state that preexisting conditions handled in high risk pools totaled 115,000 policies. This is not an unmanageable number and gives credance to the idea that many with chronic health conditions are covered under the existing group plans or covered under existing poverty programs or medicare for seniors. If there is a requirement to immediately address an unfulfilled need i.e. preexisting conditions. There is more likely to be a better solution, if it is addressed as an individual issue. You can more easily identify the scope of the problem and limit the solution. The issue is not better addressed in all encompassing comprehensive legislation. (What about a deal?) Some Democrats maybe moved to lend support to gain this coverage, since the signature Obamacare legislation would be lost to them.

If there is no essential benefits package, perhaps there will be no need to keep children on their parents plan well into adulthood and if there is such a need perhaps a small adjustment in premium could produce the same result without a permanent unpaid governmental mandate. Some individuals could secure catastrophic coverage and choose to self insure by savings for some smaller medical expenses rather then pay into a massive one size fits all government mandate.

 
Educate the public that the majority of Obamacare’s insurance increase stems from the welfare healthcare expansion. That is medicaid. Is this how we want to cover these folks long term?  Remember this expansion was accomplished by a massive federal assumption of the expansion cost. This can not be permanent. Medicaid expansion merely kicks the can down the road with no road map to permanently assist this group to get permanent healthcare. The need for help for this group should be realistically assessed. Perhaps funding could be sunsetted as innovative healthcare delivery models are advanced to provide more affordable care.

Demand your state governments remove impediments to healthcare delivery. Examine professional licensing requirements. Examine state medical curriculum. Make certain they address healthcare needs and are not merely justification for professional fee increases!  Modify your tort laws to decrease malpractice insurance expenses.

Think strategically Republicans. Time to man up

Republicans need to Man Up and learn to govern like winners rather than pandering to voters.

I have heard many commentators state that Republicans don’t know how to win. This is not true.  They simply retain the challenger’s mindset. They don’t act like victors.   Never has this been more evident than with the proposed healthcare legislation.

Republicans leaders have been in the minority so long that they have forgotten what you do, after you win elections.  This leadership group spent years passing bills to repeal “Obamacare”.  They placed a defund and partial repeal on President Obama’s desk in 2015, which was vetoed.

Now they have electoral majorities in both chambers of Congress and a Republican in the Oval Office and they have lost sight of their goal to shrink government involvement in the lives of the populus.  They worry about how Democrats will portray their legislation. They worry rather than message and educate.

Really, what about adopting a winning strategy!

Use the reconciliation process and defund Obamacare now!  It will only take 51 votes and it is ground, which was already plowed in 2015.  After defunding Obamacare,Democrats will have lost their signature law and you can realistically say you have reset the healthcare system.

Once you have defunded and reset healthcare.  You will be in a position with a good incremental healthcare change bill to pull some Democratic House and Senate votes by compromising on the timing of the phase out of some benefits in exchange for substantive market reforms.  This will lead the Democrats to compromises, which will enable Republicans to pass such important initiatives as universal interstate insurance sales as well as changes that will permit trade and other groups of consumers to purchase healthcare as part of an expanded group insurance market.(See Senator Rand Paul’s replacement plan https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/dr-rand-paul-unveils-obamacare-replacement-act)
An immediate repeal will encourage Republicans to take their time and avoid “the rush to do something” and “Comprehensive Legislation”, both of which have become the hallmarks of big government and known breeders of unintended consequences.

Take your time. Confront issues as they present themselves. Utilize feedback loops as you make small changes. There was never a great healthcare crisis and simply throwing public money at a problem does not solve it!

Don’t forget Obamacare was supposed to promote universal healthcare. How did that work out? If higher premiums declining insurance choice and increased dependence on the poverty healthcare program, medicaid, is your definition of promoting universal access, then Obamacare was a success. If not, then why adopt the same legislative formula,”comprehensive legislation”.

Simply redistributing wealth and giving the redistributed funds away for health insurance purchases does not lower healthcare costs. It does not increase the number of healthcare providers nor does it lower the costs of drugs or treatment. Republicans would do well to reset to the pre Obamacare situation, then implement small insurance changes. Look at methods to assist the states in their efforts to increase private healthcare providers and increase the availability of drugs for treatment. Trust the private market for once to meet demand. Remove federal regulatory impediments to provider service expansion. (Please see my previous post about the FDA)

I mentioned increasing providers. This is a task, which must be accomplished primarily by the states. Medical licensure is a state function. The federal government can provide much needed information about costs and education. The Feds can inform states of best practices to assist them in their efforts to increase the number of providers

The main point of this post is the Republicans don’t govern because they retain a “loser’s mindset”. Their actions remind me of one of the verses of the old anti war ballad, ” Where have all the flowers gone” Particularly the verse,”…when will they ever learn”

Yes, Republicans promise small government and free market solutions, but when the time comes to govern, they act like Bicoastal Democrats. Lite Democrats, but they act like Democrats just the same. They increase spending and government reach and have never seen a program they can’t sign on to, perhaps just at a lower level than your common “Bicoastalcrat”.

Republicans lack a winner’s strategy.  They learn from defeat only that some of their numbers can remain in power even after it.  Victory for them is a time for caution.  It is a time to preserve your gains.  Priciples take a back seat to voter pandering,

Now is the time to reset the healthcare marketplace and shrink government!

Don’t make the time-honored error of using comprehensive legislation to replace Obamacare. Act decisively! Defund, reset then bargain with the Democrats and only act incrementally. Use feedback to honestly judge whether your program is successful. The country deserves a free market healthcare alternative.

Please put the country and the economy ahead of your personal reelection ambitions!  Man up! Act on the principles that got you elected!

Just Repeal Obamacare

Repealing Obamacare allows the free market to develop innovative healthcare solutions.
It will allow the free market to provide financially sound ways to cover groups like 18 to 26 year olds.

It is a sound political strategy,which forces Democrats to the table and promotes inclusiveness.

It frees the Congrss to change focus and look at other outdated healthcare practices, which raise costs unnecessarily.

Recently we have seen the Republicans roll out their own version of healthcare reforms.  The new plan is not what was promised to voters.  This plan does not completely repeal Obamacare.  It creates a new healthcare entitlement utilizing a tax credit in place of the subsidy.  (Witness the problem that is the earned income tax credit.  Hardly a success for those advocating for individual self reliance and the free market)  While the new proposed bill will allegedly remove the one size fits all mandates of Obamacare, it fails to allow the free market to operate and to innovate to produce lower costs.

Why can’t we simply repeal Obamacare.

Our healthcare system was not broken, when Obamacare was passed.  There were areas that required tweaking to allow better access to health insurance in the individual healthcare market.  There was also a risk allocation problem with preexisting conditions. Senator Rand Paul has been proposing some free market changes to assist individuals with preexisting conditions and small businesses by allowing them to secure group health insurance by forming large consumer associations. (This is a free market solution to help spread out risk.  This would allow insurance companies to properly price their product to fit the group insured) These newly allowed insurance negotiating entities would consist of large groups of consumers.  These associations could negotiate for their members for better premiums and provide a diverse consumer base to avoid the adverse selection problem that has plagued the individual marketplace. (Adverse selection occurs, when a large group of sick people flood the risk pool and cause a death spiral for the insurance group because the cost of benefits paid out exceeds the available premium generated from the entire group.  Insurance is risk spreading.  If everyone uses all they contribute, then you merely have a payment transfer intermediary not a viable insurance risk pool.)

Who says the idea of keeping children on their parents plan until the age of 26 is a good idea?  Parents like the idea because it provides access to healthcare for their unemployed or underemployed children, or those, who haven’t yet found their way into the workforce at no cost to the parent.  It was embraced because it was the only game in town.

People want access to inexpensive health insurance for this group of young people,who frequently has less income to buy insurance.  There is however no such thing as a free lunch.  The extra cost of this insurance provision is  passed on to all and along with the other mandated services.

Twenty-six is  a full four years after many graduate.  This is pure legislative over reach.  If twenty-six is good, why not forever?  Will we ever require these young people to find their own way in the world?  Stop being helicopter parents and let the young seek their own way.  There are plenty of free market ways to cover this desirable demographic and allow for personal responsibility.  Please see some free market options below.

These individuals are as a group the healthiest in our society and are a desirable consumer for their own inexpensive catastrophic insurance policy.  Catastrophic insurance is inexpensive health insurance and was formerly available through Universities and other groups prior to the Obamacare services manndate.  Repeal of Obamacare with its coverage mandates will allow these individuals to buy catastrophic health insurance through their colleges, trade schools and other associations, especally ,if the Rand Paul approach to purchasing group insurance is adopted.

Since this is a desirable demograhic for the health care provider, it is likely insurance riders would become available to parents for this group for a minimal premium increase.  The young adult coud bear the cost of this inexpensive insurance add on.  This approach promotes personal responsibility and provides inexpensive insurance coverage for this group.  When joined with the ability to have health savings accounts, perhaps funded with help from their parents from birth, these solutions could provide for the young in the insurance market.

Finally, while it is widely accepted that the government is the provider of the social safety net, there remains a place in the healthcare for charitable giving.  Why?  Charity is the voluntary application of capital by the citizenry to help out their fellow citizen.  Charity is the ultimate altruistic act of an individual within our society in as much as it is not motivated by the use of government force (whether that is the dictates of the majority or the dictates of an individual be he beneficent or tyrannical.  There is a reason why we have a republic.  Protection is sometime needed from the whims of the many or the one.) Charity has a place in healthcare.

Let’s not forget a legitimate use of the interstate commerce clause.  It was established to prohibit states from setting up barriers to the goods of their fellow states.  It should be used to curb the excessive use of the state’s safety and health authority to squeeze out health insurance competition.  Many states tailor their laws to prefer some or one healthcare provider over others.  Some state laws by their requirements make entry into their market economically impossible. We must allow companies with adequate reserves to sell their products across state lines.  Reasonable reserve requirements will have to be closely watched to prevent out crony capitalism by state statute.

Congress must not assume health insurance is the sole reason for rising healthcare in the US.  Congress must look at the FDA and reform it.

The FDA needs to be overhauled.  While Democrats hail the FDA, as our savior, which keeps us safe.  It is also a political organization, which limits individual’s choice of treatments and makes political decisions, which raise costs and limit treatment alternatives for consumers.(Yes, I said political.  Politics is defined as who gets what, when, where and why.)  The decisions made by the FDA dictate, which drugs are available for use and for what diseases, they can be used.   Wherever possible the FDA, should be limited to serve as source of drug and medical practice information.  Individuals in a free society should have the right to treat as they see fit and doctors should have the ability to innovate.  Prohibition should be a last resort, especially when life saving treatments is involved.

Democrats will point to the decrease in safety involved in deregulation, but totally dismiss the costs to the individual of the bottleneck that is the FDA.  No one can measure the loss of life caused by the prohibition of innovation, which is caused by the FDA.  Democrats assume the consumer is stupid and must be guided by the expert in Washington.  If only these sycophants would realize this.

The emperor has no clothes!  There are and always will be snake oil salesmen.  There will always be those, who prey on the uninformed.  We already have fraud statutes, with both civil and criminal penalties to deal with these bad actors.  The ultimate answer to this type of slick operator is information and training.

Information about treatment success should be the task of the FDA, so the agency can provide the best uncensored information to the medical professional and the consumer.   Training new advice providing medical professionals should be the role of our educational establishment with the guidance of our state governments.  While I do concede there is a minor role for federal government here, Inspection and information dissemination not prohibition should be the primary government role.  Knowledge is the best social disinfectant!

The FDA should arrange studies and inspections to insure drug purity and provide information about drug treatments and adverse drug reactions. It should become the ultimate health care information provider  resource as opposed to its current role as the chief driver of drug expense and innovation limiter.   The Agency would facilitate and coordinate information about foreign drug agency approvals and adopt those recommendations, it finds to have been responsibly adopted.  We should establish its role as an information clearinghouse rather than an innovation bottleneck.

We must reject the tired clichés of the Democrats that Republicans are for less safety and dirty water and dirty air.  Democrats deny the new information age.  They stifle by their insistence on government control the creation of new jobs, which could provide pharmacological and new treatment advice.  Many in the medical industry believe Pharmacists are currently under utilized. Perhaps there is room here for an expanded role for them.  Doctors are too busy treating patients and can’t be expected to know all the latest information about new drugs and alternative treatments.  Perhaps we will even witness the creation of a new group of medical/pharmacological professionals to fill this new informational need.

This is the bottom line of this post.  Repeal Obamacare Now!  It is a sounder political strategy.  It would require Democrats to come to the table, if they want some of their ideas to be included in healthcare reform.  Trust and allow the people to solve healthcare problems through the free market.  The market will respond.

Remove old fashioned pre information age notions that only certain professionals can have valid opinions about drugs and alternative treatments.  Better utilize Pharmacy Doctoral graduates as well as those with other advanced bio medical degrees as information disseminators.

Make the FDA and inspection and information clearinghouse not a decider of acceptable treatment.  Adoption of free market principles will create a more informed and healthier society with maximum utilization of human and capital resources.

Hey Ohio, Capitalism starts at Home

Capitalism starts at the local level. The federal government is an economic macro player with large impact, but this fact does not excuse localities from acting in a manner that maximizes the creation of wealth through grassroots entrepreneurial activity.

One of the amazing universal lessons I learned from Social Psychology was that all groups in our society experience “Diffusion of Responsibility”.  This phrase is a technical way of saying “Someone else will take care of it” or if in the workplace “That’s not my job”.

The result of this failure to take personal responsibility is the delegation of our local duty to advance our community’s economic well-being to the federal government.  After all, the national government casts a huge economic footprint with many of its decisions leading to the creation or demise of entire companies or small communities.  (Doubt me, remember the dire forecasts for the demise of companies or communities, when defense contracts are threatened or military bases even rumored to be relocated.)  (See San Diego Tribune Article: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-military-base-closures-looming-again-2012may16-htmlstory.html)The federal government is an economic macro player with large impact, but this fact does not excuse localities from acting in a manner that maximizes the creation of wealth through grassroots entrepreneurial activity.

How does this apply to local capitalism.  Since and even during the national election, emphasis has been on creating jobs for our citizens.  Please notice the phrase “creating jobs” is not the same as generating wealth or increasing our gross national product.   Let’s start our conversation with a controversial statement. Creation of some jobs may actually impair real economic growth.  It is simply a method of wealth distribution.  Doubt me, witness China building empty shopping malls and unoccupied residential buildings.  Please review this article available at Forbes.com.(http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/07/20/what-will-become-of-chinas-ghost-cities/#70b1a2b0751b)   This is misallocation of resources on a grand national scale based upon the strategy of fulfilling a national plan.

Would it surprise you to learn that many US localities exercise this same economic folly?   It is done with the best of intentions and utilizes zoning laws as well as eminent domain to impose the vision of local elites upon its populace.  Why is it so widely accepted?    Individuals in our society seek to control their physical and economic environment. We are taught, since childhood the value of planning for the future, so it is counter intuitive to allow for the seeming chaos that is true capitalism.  Finally,the freedom that capitalism allows promotes uncertainty of outcome.

Residential and Commercial property owners seek certainty in their lives.  Property owners seek to grow the value of their investments by restricting the property rights of others.  How is this accomplished?  Use zoning laws to restrict competition by limiting the number of commercial sites available.  This is supply and demand at work.  If by using the force of government,  (government is majority force: witness the effectiveness of laws without consequence if you doubt this) you restrict the number of commercial sites available, then you raise the price and thereby the investment value of the already existing sites.  (fewer sites equals higher price.  More sites means greater competition and a lower price)  What is amiss here is the role of government in limiting the market by depriving property owners of use of their property as they see fit.

Does this mean there is no role for community control of its environment?  No, what it means is that the power of government should be used only in circumstances, where safety is at risk.  No property owner has a right to impose a real nuisance upon its neighbors.  This idea has been corrupted to mean that any use, which lowers property value is sufficient reason to restrict property rights.  We now have government elites crafting master plans for communities.  These are planned communities.  ( Sounds like well meaning Soviet economic planning and suffers the community with the same result.  i.e. ( use shortages, resource misallocation.)  When the local government is asked to select winners and losers, the result is no better than when the national government does so.  Why, because choices  made are based upon limited existing information and with built in biases.  Capitalism is based upon a  different idea.   Individual choices made in the property owner’s best interest will result in maximum economic benefit for all.  The net result of master plans is misallocation of local resources and lost opportunity for economic growth.

Why is this capitalistic idea so universally opposed by so many?  The answer is simple.  The community believes in control and planning has been promoted in all aspects of life, so surrender to capitalism is counter intuitive and threatening because it allow uncertainty.  Residential property owners fear that a “biker bar” or a “convenience store” will be placed on their block threatening the safety of their children or a factory or commercial property increasing traffic or other pollution to a dangerous level.  These are real concerns.  Coping with them requires creation of  a more flexible method of adjudicating nuisances.  Courts and lawsuits are too slow.  Zoning boards are too easily swayed against the proposed use in our modern democratic society.  Remember NIMBY (Not in my back yard) This is why here we have a limited republican form of government.  Democracy can be as tyrannical as any dictator.  It is merely tyranny by many rather than by a few or one.  (Please think about that!  The will of the many can be as restrictive as any despot).

Zoning laws must be crafted to be minimalist in scope.  It must impose use restrictions only when there are greatly increased (demonstrable)health and safety risks.  There will be errors as with any human system.

Why do I say greatly increased risk?  Consider how past break through inventions might be perceived today in our risk averse culture.  There would be no automobiles, if a risk free environment was sought.  Who would sanction high speed projectiles hurtling through population centers with a volatile payload.  (gasoline)  Remember all economic activity engenders some risk.  The only truly risk free life is conducted under a rock in a cave with limited human interaction.  (this assumes your cave and rock are structurally sound.  Life is short, measured in days, but certain and relatively risk free).

Sure, there are now and will be errors. Please remember the community can be damaged greatly not just by the results of economic activity.  i.e. car accidents or diminished air or water quality.  Some may even lose their lives as a result of lost economic activity.  The scope and extent of this loss by decreased economic activity is indeterminable and as such is dismissed out of hand.  i. e.( it is impossible to account for the number of deaths caused by the failure to mass produce a beneficial product i.e. a pesticide or more food).  I postulate that property owner’s right must prevail absent a showing of greatly increased risk.

This sounds cold compared to the liberal platitude, which states if it costs one life the risk is too great.  The fallacy of this statement becomes evident, when it is considered in historic perspective.  Consider the number of lives that would have been lost had this standard been applied to building projects, (Yes, people die in construction) automobiles ( a big killer) or electricity production.(ever hear of an electrical fire or electrocution)  So what is right.  There is not always a clear good or bad.  I am suggesting we weigh with a presumption in favor of the property owner’s rights.  That presumption of benefit from economic freedom can only be overcome by a demonstration of greatly increased risk to the public health or safety.  Wherever possible where real concerns exist compromises should be crafted to accommodate the use, while reducing the risk to the public.  (This is not an endorsement of the status quo, where property owners are subjected to community exploitation for more parks at the owner’s expense or outright seizure by the public of a portion of the property owner’s land in exchange for a use.  Demands should be directly related to the diminution of the demonstrated risk (not just perceived risk)(remembering that some risk will always be present.)

What will result from the absence of a master community plan is growth, which will inure to the community’s benefit.  This is controversial and I expect many parents and residential property owner’s will be opposed because this approach, while promoting economic growth also promotes uncertainty of value and use.  As I indicated earlier, certainty is always the easier path and economic growth requires risk taking.  Remember along with growth comes the many benefits of a modern society.  i.e. more food, more shelter and even cleaner air and water

Your comments are welcome, whether in agreement or opposed.  No judgement here!

 

 

 

East Coast Media (When you operate in a limited geographic and demographic sphere, can the public receive objective information?)

We just experienced the conclusion of the Presidential election cycle and the beginning of a new Presidency. Anyone, who reads this blog must have concluded by now that I am not a “Trumpeteer”. I am a conservative with libertarian economic leanings.
I spent the majority of my professional life in local government. As a result of my time spent in government, I am familiar with what I like to refer to as proximity bias. This occurs, when you spend the majority of your waking hours within an employment defined sphere of social and idealogical thought. As a result of your daily cultural confinement, you begin to to perceive others and the world based upon your professional goals and problems. Most individuals recognize this as a bias. It needn’t be bad or good either. It can become problematic, when it interferes with your world perception to such an extent that you can no longer report accurately to others what occurs in the world.
l am not nor do I claim to be a journalist, but like many, who embarked upon an educational path in Arts and Sciences, I took the obligatory journalism survey course. These classes seldom provoked strong curiosity within me, however occasionally an exercise or assignment stood out and proved to be of value in evaluating life’s events.
I had a task from a survey journalism class, which struck a chord with me. As with many true learning experiences, the task was not complex. It was simple actually and involved watching television news and logging content, content order and content duration.
News was different in the 1970’s, when I was an undergraduate at a midwestern university. News was consumed by watching one of the three news networks. My assignment was to watch the three news networks and log their story topics. I dutifully tuned in to watch the broadcast and manually flipped between channels logging the order and storyline from each network for future class discussion.
The class reported back with each network’s stories their order and duration. As a group we discussed our findings. We were all astonished by the similarity of news content as well as the similarity in broadcast order and even the duration of stories. This similarity was explained as journalistic professionalism. These editors and reporters had the nose for sniffing out the important story of the day.
The experience now tells me a different tale. We now have more sources of news than ever before, yet major news organizations across multiple media platforms all too frequently choose not only the same story, but all too frequently even weigh in using the same keywords. Can you recall the first time you encountered widespread use of the word “gravitas”? What about use of the terms “feckless”or “mainstream”. My bet is your experience is similar to mine. These terms weren’t originated as a result of casual Sunday evening dinner conversation, but became part of common parlance only after seeming constant bombardment with the terms on the network news broadcast.
These are fairly recent examples that come immediately to my mind. My guess is you could recite your own litany of terms and stories, which have been repeated ad nauseam, so that they now are now have earned a place in our community daily banter.
So how is it possible in a “diverse society” that we choose to elevate the same stories and sometimes even describe them using the exact same terms? Allow me to say after experiencing life in a government agency that I no longer believe it to be simply “a nose for news”. I also do not believe it to be a knowing left wing media conspiracy. It is I believe a proximity bias orchestrated by an elitist bi-coastal news, higher education and entertainment industry, which still dominates news gathering circles
This phenomenon is the natural result of the dominance of east and west coast universities as well as the bi-coastal location of news organizations. Individuals in these organizations share a common daily experiences and share common associations, which are foreign to many of us in the country’s interior. As a result of this “proximity bias” the public conversation is frequently centered on what many in the remainder of the country would characterize as “bi-coastal minutia”.
We live in a time when information is more readily available to all in this country. The coasts no longer should dominate and be “news central”unless the populace chooses to continue to consume their product.. Isn’t it time we ask what are we doing rather than what did President Trump or Senator Schumer do today? Isn’t it time to report the truly spectacular innovations that occur daily in our country yet receive very little attention as compared to the latest Washington Ad Hominem fresh from the popular social network site?
Think this proximity bias is restricted to the major networks? Listen to Fox News or Fox business then tell me there exists no proximity bias. Listen to the questions asked of guests. At their worst they sound as if they are pleading with their guests usually from DC to lead them from out of their ignorance to the promised land. This is a rewrite of history, if ever I heard one..
Our once uniquely proud and self reliant people now are captive,listening intently to dissociated east coast news readers beg our public servants to guide their subjects in their daily life rather than reporting the important life changing events occurring outside their coastal silos. They don’t even bother to research their questions anymore, so they don’t even know what to ask or where to raise objection. They precede their questions with the now seemingly universal”I’m no expert but…or I’m not an Attorney, but..”. As if this admission relieves them from their responsibility to do research. Hey media Associate degreed para legals do much better research. They continue to operate within their sphere of information, never truly questioning their own biases.

It is time this east coast proximity bias ceases and is replaced by reports of who,what, when,where and why.
If you agree or disagree, please let me hear from you. Add your voice to this discussion by commenting. This is not a test. There is no grade given and there are no wrong answers.

Tolerance does not require celebration or acceptance

There has been an emphasis on ”cultural inclusion”. It has been suggested that in order to be a “tolerant person”, an individual must accept and celebrate different (Non-traditional lifestyles and households) lifestyles. If you are not celebrating and encouraging different lifestyles, then you are labeled an intolerant individual and un-American. let’s set the record straight. The Oxford Dictionary defines tolerate as: ”allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with.- author’s addition -) without interference”. Please take note of the definition. It does not require one to celebrate the tolerated culture or lifestyle. Tolerance requires one to allow the culture or lifestyle to exist without interference. One need not promote or celebrate the differences. One need not allow special legal exceptions to promote or subsidize the culture or practice.

An individual is not a ”hater” because he does not believe in or wish to pRomote a practice or alternative lifestyle. An individual is allowed to believe these life choices are wrong or even sinful. Tolerance does not require acceptance or adoption of a lifestyle. I am tired of being told that we must celebrate single parenthood. This is simply not required to be tolerant.

Studies have shown that a two parent (father and mother) household is the best way to raise children. Yet we have insisted on denying the optimal way to raise children and chosen to promote and even subsidize single parent households as well as alternative lifestyle households. This celebration of cultural alternatives has become so prevalent that we now brand those, who choose not to believe in these alternative families as ”haters”. We have also silenced our clergy. We seek to use the power of government to compel acceptance. We have gone so far as to attempt to promote some alternative lifestyles as civil rights, which if denied are actionable through use of governmental force. Does anyone believe this is what our founders intended? Does anyone believe that a governmental entity should have to be involved to get a child supported? Do we need to have formulas and tax like guidelines in order to determine how to financially support our own offspring?

Obviously,those who choose to promote these choices have never had to listen to both minority and non minority men (now single fathers themselves. lament the fact that they had no father figure in their life. They have never had to hear the hurt in their voice as they spoke of life in a single family home. Don’t get me wrong.. They unanimously express love for their mother, but all express a profound sense of loss because they did not have the benefit of a loving father in their home. They all said they did not know how to be a fathers. Further they acknowledge that they have now put their offspring and the person they claimed to have loved in the same circumstance they suffered through by their absence. So the cycle continues and our self proclaimed “tolerant” society continues to celebrate single motherhood and maternal led families as if it is a new cultural norm. It is a “Women’s Issue”. They contend it is the only way women can be truly free. Meanwhile the pulpits of both the minority and non minority community remain silent. All the while society crumbles. Individuals, who could have made it financially together now flounder apart and the children continue to suffer. The politicians continue to promote programs now decades old, which purport to make government responsible for parenting. Does anyone believe these programs work? Does anyone really believe that government can replace a two parent home?

No one denies that some bad and even abusive relationships occur as do bad personal choices, but for society to continue to accept and now celebrate single parenting because some bad or abusive situations occur continues the curse that is passed down from one generation to the next. Monogamy and two parent homes must be promoted by our society. There must still be a place in society for selflessness. Life is not just about an individual’s quest for eternal bliss on earth. Life is sometimes very “real and hard” and actions do have consequences for both yourself and others. If you don’t believe that, sit in on a mandatory Court ordered parenting class.

So, I say parents tell your children, if they make children, they must find a way to live as a family and they have a duty to build a home and be a role model “for their children”. Government programs and support agencies can’t replace parents.

Actions still have consequences. SOS people, the act of sexual relations causes children. Let’s at least teach this much biology in our failing schools. Children still need two parents. If you are old enough to do the act, then you have to be old enough to take responsibility for the life you create as well as responsibility to assist the other parent in raising and nurturing “your” child/children. Pulpits can no longer be silent! The answer to procreation is not the extermination of our young, while in the womb or promotion of single parent unsustainable households,so the irresponsible pro-creators can continue in their quest for elusive happiness.

Yes, I have heard the stories of the young abandoned youth, now young men. Each would tell you of their sense of loss and many will do so, while condemning their own Offspring to the same fate by their absence.. Only we can solve this problem and it starts by understanding the real definition of tolerance. Yes, sometimes situations dictate that two individuals live apart for the safety of all, but that exceptional circumstance must not be allowed to dictate a cultural norm. Tolerance does not require celebration or even acceptance and certainly should never dictate creation of a new societal norm.

I want to hear your comments and experiences. Please share!