I'm an Ivy League grad navigating the corporate world as I watch this country self-implode.

My photo
New York, New York
I'm an Ivy League grad trying to navigate the corporate world as I watch this country implode.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Big Government is Not the Answer

We can all agree that there are worthy objectives written into the Obamacare legislation. Insurance companies cannot terminate your health coverage if you fall ill or lose your job. The elderly in need and children in poverty must be accounted for. These are, indisputably, noble and pressing goals.

However, each of these ends can be achieved within the private sector through targeted legislation. There is no need for a colossal overhaul of our current healthcare system, followed by the federal government taking it hostage. "Federal government" and "efficiency" are two concepts that simply do not mix. Even a state-by-state solution, as Mitt Romney suggested, would run far more effectively than a sweeping federal hijack. Each state could choose whether healthcare reform is necessary for them and, if so, how to cater and specialize it to the needs of their unique state. Lumping all fifty states together - when Texas and Hawaii could not be more glaringly opposite - is, simply, absurd.

President Obama is a "big picture" kind of guy. He wants to be the income redistributor, the guy who gives everybody "free" health coverage. So, what he will never understand - never - is that the federal government is simply not capable of running the nation's healthcare system. It simply cannot do it. And we have irrefutable proof: the chaos that is ensuing now that the highly touted Obamacare legislation has finally been unveiled.

With the impending implementation of Obamacare, the federal government will account for over 50% of U.S. GDP. Does this sound like a free market that has been founded on and prospered from capitalist opportunities? Or does this sound like a socialist system that is swiftly encroaching?

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

The Looting Government

The government consists of a gang of men. These men have no special talents aside from obtaining and holding office by raising campaign funds, pandering to lobbyists, and so on. They seek out groups who yearn for something that these groups themselves cannot attain, and this gang of men promises to give it to them.

Of course, nine times out of ten, that promise is worthless. But it is that tenth time that they make good on their promise, and they do so by looting others to satisfy their flock. And so, the government is no more than a broker in pillage. Every election is, in its essence, an advance auction sale of stolen goods.

This also posits a glaringly obvious question: why are these men, who have proven effective solely in politicking, deemed suitable to reform the economy and to create health reform? Shouldn't these specialized and monumental undertakings be assigned to successful businessmen, economists, and doctors?

Monday, November 11, 2013

Taxation or Theft?

Taxation is money stolen, but many would rather live with the cognitive dissonance of calling that theft: "taxation". It sits easier than admitting that your government will use imprisonment and violence against you if you don't pay them the money they demand.

Suppose that one man takes your car at gunpoint. You would say that that man is a thief who is violating your property rights. Now, let's suppose that it's a group of five men forcibly taking your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yep.

Okay, now it's ten men that hold you at gunpoint. But, before anything else, they take a vote. You, understandably, vote to keep your car. But the ten of them vote in favor of taking it. So you are outvoted - ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

What if we add specialization of labor into the equation? One man acts as the negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives, and so on. Does this make it acceptable?

Now the group is two hundred strong, but - after forcibly taking your car - they give you a bicycle. That's right: they do something nice for you. Is this still stealing? In fact, not only do they give you a bicycle, but they also buy a bicycle for a poor person. Is this even wrong?

What if the group has a thousand people? Ten thousand? A million? How big does this group have to be before it becomes acceptable for them to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?

What Could Go Wrong?

  • Written by a Committee whose Chairman says he doesn't understand it;
  • Passed by a Senate that hasn't read it, yet exempts itself from it:
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 2010;
  • Signed by a President who also hasn't read it, and smokes;
  • Administered by a Treasury Chief who didn't pay his taxes;
  • Overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese;
  • And financed by a country that is broke.
So, what could possibly go wrong?

"Liberalism is the art of standing on your head and telling everyone around you that they're upside down." -- Jim Quinn

Thursday, November 7, 2013

The Arrogance of Obamacare

It is fascinating, and I daresay vindicating, to watch the mainstream media finally - finally - reach a point where it can no longer defend the lies that Obama has told. The Affordable Care Act was destined to be Obama's legacy, so he blatantly lied to the masses in order to market and sell his legislation. The only alternative explanation is that he was entirely unaware of what his hallmark mandate would entail for the American public. Honestly, I cannot decide which scenario is worse - deception or incompetence by the leader at the helm.

Every single thing that this administration has told us about Obamacare has been false, indisputably so. Health insurance is now more expensive, not less. (That certainly undermines the "affordable" aspect of the Affordable Care Act, don't you think?) You cannot keep your insurance and you cannot keep your doctor, despite Obama's repeated reassurances to the contrary.

Only the arrogance of an overgrown federal government assumes that it knows what's best for all individuals, rather than these individuals knowing for themselves. Never you mind that each person has meticulously hand-picked his or her own insurance plan. We've carefully compared it to alternatives on the free and competitive marketplace. We've weighed the pros and cons as they relate to our personal situations and our family needs, selecting the plan that is best for us.

But how could we possibly know what is best for ourselves? Why, of course not. A sweeping generalization applied to the entire country - to all people across all fifty states - must be what's best for each and every unique citizen. Thank goodness that we have the all-knowing Obama administration to tell us what's best for us and our families, and then to graciously shove it down our reluctant throats.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Government Creates Nothing

The government creates nothing. Just think about it. All the government does is take away what other people have created and built and earned, and reallocates that money as it sees fit - and very inefficiently, at that. Before redistribution can even begin, this money seeps through the cracks. It is wastefully spent on needless organizations, inane studies, and the piling on of more and more bureaucratic red tape. This is how an overgrown government runs. This is how our government runs. At the very least, I think we can all agree that less IRS agents bankrolled on the taxpayer's dime would be a good thing.

If you take something away from Peter, and you give it to Paul, then you will always have the support of Paul. And herein lies the basic strategy behind the Obama administration. Entitlement programs have been allowed - or rather, encouraged - to run wild, growing and growing without restraint. Welfare, food stamps, and government assistance of any kind have reached unprecedented proportions, all while the criteria that one needs to meet in order to qualify for these programs is the most lax it's ever been. It is no surprise, then, that the Pauls are finally outnumbering the Peters.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

And So It Begins... (The Error in Obamacare Logic)

As the long awaited Obamacare overhaul begins to crash and burn, I must apologize, for I cannot help myself when I say: I told you so. But we are only at the precipice of what will undoubtedly be a painful tumble down a deep and jagged canyon. 

The key to understanding the current state of American politics is this: liberals believe that conservatives are evil, and conservatives believe that liberals are stupid. I, on the contrary, do not believe that liberals are stupid. In fact, they may be too enlightened for their own good. Their education, philosophies, and theorizing fuels their steadfast ideology. This, paired with their heated emotion towards politics, eclipses what many would consider rational reasoning.

Why of course, wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone could receive the healthcare that they need – the unemployed, the homeless, the undocumented immigrants? There is no disputing that. What a utopia that would be – no suffering and no heartbreak. But that, unfortunately, is where liberal logic stops.

What about the logistics? Healthcare is expensive, and somebody has to pay for it. So, they say, have the exuberantly wealthy pay. It won’t even make a dent in their wallets. Force the insurance companies and force the employers to cover everybody. It is the right thing to do, after all.

Wow, what a wonderful plan. That is, until you have to pay for it. Yes, you – you, struggling to pay for the mortgage, to pay for your children’s tuitions, even to pay for food on the table. Young idealists do not face these daily struggles, so they easily fall smitten to this fantasy of an overly compassionate and generous society.

The Obama administration’s strategy of spending and spending other people’s money will inevitably lead to a sobering outcome: they will run out of other people’s money to spend. With Obamacare advancing, it is finally becoming clear that the burden is falling most heavily on the middle class. People are losing their health coverage – the insurance that they have chosen, that they have liked, and that they have renewed. Premiums and, even more so, deductibles are and will continue to skyrocket, yet these increased costs will pay for insurance that is inferior to what they had before. It does not take a genius to understand that a sixty year-old, single man has no need to pay for maternity coverage. Yet that is what Obama’s “Affordable Care” Act mandates. Obamacare was marketed to the masses as a liberal wet dream. But now, as it comes into fruition, pesky logistics are jolting former supporters into a harsh, harsh reality.