One small step for government, one giant leap for…

On March 31, 2010, In Academic, Domestic Policy, Economy, By Andrew Schwartz

The government monopolization of student loans should be a warning to every business in America. What began as a government incentive by offering discounted rates to banks who would promise to issue educational loans is now being vilified as ineffective—thus prompting further intervention in the form of private obsolescence favoring public ubiquity.

Any business that now takes a tax cut, tax credit, or some other discount for participating in a government agenda must follow the consequences to their logical conclusion. Our current government will—as it did with student loans—eventually portray your service as the intermediary to their benevolence, and argue for public socialization of your business.

This is already happening with the Health Care Reform law. President Obama knew he needn’t completely nationalize health insurance immediately; by acting as an innocuous intercessor, the path quickly follows to make them a frustrating arbiter, and then finally an oppressive master. They must only convince enough people that it is the private company that serves as middle-man, rather the government, to consumer benefits.

After all (their argument may go), why work for a private corporation, who skims off the top to line their CEO’s pockets while receiving tax benefits, when you may receive employment or benefits directly from their benefactor? Why purchase oil from Chevron when the government may provide it at a reduced price? Why sell shoes when the government may distribute them more fairly?

The real question all along, however, should have been, why was the government artificially propping up complementary prices through their initial intervention? Education tuition costs have skyrocketed since the government’s first involvement in distributing loans; health care costs have skyrocketed since Medicare, Medicaid, and forcing emergency rooms to admit patients; automobile prices have risen drastically since the imposition of stricter emissions and safety standards.

The nationalization of student loans will give more people access to education, the demand for college enrollment will rise exponentially, and tuition costs will necessarily rise in direct correlation in order to maintain order and population ratio on campuses. At that point, the government will intervene once again in the name of fairness, eliminate the educational middle-man, and nationalize college education.

Every concession of liberty is one more authorization of tyranny. By allowing the government to restrict the liberties of banks, schools, and ultimately the consumer in their choice in the loan market, we have given them the authority to control one more aspect of our lives. If any middle-man should be eliminated from business it must be the one whose responsibility it is to protect the pursuit of wealth, not the one who provides the path.

Tagged with: • • • • • • •
 
5 Comments
Leave A Response

Twenty-eighth Amendment

On March 22, 2010, In Domestic Policy, Health Care, By Andrew Schwartz

Over 3/4 of the United States have expressed an intent to block the federal government from mandating their citizens to purchase health insurance. Among these states is Virginia, and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, has vowed to sue to the federal government as soon as President Obama signs the bill into law.

Even if for some reason the Supreme Court allows this dastardly power grab, the news isn’t all bad. With approximately 40 states fighting back against the individual mandate, a new amendment to the Constitution may be possible. I, for one, offer the following language to be amended to our governmental charter that the Democrats have recently ignored.

Amendment Twenty-Eight:

Congress shall make no law that requires or compels on penalty of fine, fee, tax or imprisonment, any state or its citizens thereof to purchase any good, service, or participate in any agenda, that deprives them of life, liberty, or property.

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Faith in Government and the Alchemy of Humanity

On March 22, 2010, In Domestic Policy, Health Care, By Andrew Schwartz

We the American People, having entrusted our representatitive government to the 435 members of the House of Representatives, have just put our faith in the federal government to effectively regualte the priorities of individuals.

The final vote on the Health Care Reform bill has passed it, and now we have entrusted one sixth of our economy into the bickering and fickle hands of bureaucrats. To presume that this body of politicians–and succeeding ones–will hold fast to their word and not allow this program to spiral out of control takes more faith than any religion can ever demand.

The Argument No One Made:

The government is attempting to revive alchemy as a profitable science. While it is possible to turn base metals into gold, it takes much more energy, resources, and wealth than the final product is worth.

Assuming that this Health Care Reform bill does what it says, which is ultimately to allow more people to live longer, what then becomes of our Social Security? What then becomes of Medicare? Will America, with its increasing preference for prolonged life through government assistance, be hoisted by its own petard? These two programs have already cost much more than anticipated and are deepening America’s debt everyday. By the government’s newest intervention in subsidizing life, they have just multiplied their debt.

Rationing will be the only option once the government realizes its folly.

Tagged with: • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Two Fiscal Scenarios in Health Care Reform

On September 10, 2009, In Domestic Policy, Health Care, By Andrew Schwartz

(Ed. note: This is a variation of a similar argument presented below. It was rewritten to be brought in line with a college newspaper’s guidelines and demographics. Who knows? It might even be better… [published in the Mace and Crown, Sep. 9th, 2009])

The ongoing debate over Congress and President Obama’s attempt to fundamentally transform the health care system in the United States has become more and more heated as the issues present themselves. The proponents’ “altruistic” goals of universal coverage have been met by a fierce opposition, many of whose members fears are rooted in the perception that their current coverage or choices of coverage will be eliminated. Much of the evidence each side of the debate offers is purely anecdotal, and there is no definite way to be sure that a government option in health care will eliminate private insurers or reduce the quality of care. Similarly, there is no way to guarantee that costs and expenditures will go down under the new bill, nor is there any guarantee that all will be covered or treated. Nevertheless, each side will continue to blindly shout their support or opposition to this bill, forgetting there is a much more important and personal issue hidden within the bill:

Section 401 of bill H.R. 3200, the currently proposed legislation, states that any individual who fails to obtain “acceptable health care coverage” is subject to a 2.5% tax increase proportionate to the filer’s gross adjusted income, not to exceed the national average premium. What is the national average premium? Barack Obama stated in the final presidential campaign debate, “the average policy costs about $12,000.” This tiny section of the 1000+ page bill has the potential to affect every  individual. It also raises some very interesting scenarios:

Scenario 1:

Joan Day, a 22 year-old single college student with a part time job, has a gross adjusted income of $35,000 on her income tax return. Having rarely been sick, and never participating in dangerous activities, she declined to obtain health insurance because the cost—between about $2,000 and $4,000 a year—was  prohibitive to her desired lifestyle. She went the entire year without ever needing the medical expertise of a doctor or hospital and felt justified in her decision not to obtain costly and useless insurance coverage. However, upon completing her tax return, she realizes that she will not receive a refund from the IRS; rather she will owe the government money because of the $875 tax they will impose on her simply for not purchasing an unwanted and unnecessary commodity.

Conclusion: Not only will Joan be taxed by the government for living a healthy and responsible lifestyle, but her taxes will have been increased—a blatant violation of President Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

Scenario 2:

Fred Smith, married with two children and an expectant wife, is a successful entrepreneur who makes over $480,000 a year. He is adamant about not purchasing insurance due to a moral conviction; he would rather pay medical expenses out-of-pocket. His entire family receives an annual physical, which costs about $400 per year. One child broke his arm, which cost Mr. Smith an additional $3,000 in medical expenses. His wife will have a natural child birth at home with a certified midwife, adding another $2,000. Throughout the year, Mr. Smith will spend a total of about $6,000 in medical expenses. (An average premium would have cost about $10,000).

Because his gross adjusted income is so high, Mr. Smith will be fined $12,000 by the IRS for refusing to purchase insurance, despite having paid all outstanding medical expenses and incurring no further costs on society as a whole. Seeing this as a moral outrage, Mr. Smith refuses to pay this tax on the grounds that neither he nor his family received any unpaid service, and cites the religious exemption clause of the tax code. Nevertheless, the IRS determines that these claims are invalid and the religious exemption clause only applies to the Old Order Amish who refuse to pay Social Security taxes. This decision is eventually upheld by a court of law, and Mr. Smith, still refusing to pay the tax, is thrown in prison.

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Who is more like the Nazi Party?

On August 10, 2009, In Domestic Policy, Evolution, Foreign Policy, Racism, By Andrew Schwartz

 

Nazi Propaganda Poster

Nazi Propaganda Poster

Godwin’s law states (paraphrased) that the longer an argument ensues, the probability of one side accusing the other of behaving like Nazis reaches 1 (a perfect probability). Despite its humorous pretenses, this law has certainly been proven in the recent debate over health care reform. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) accused protestors of carrying swastikas; Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) compared their actions to “Brown Shirt tactics.” Prominent conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh, in turn made similarities between Obama’s health care logo and Nazi propaganda, and even made comparisons between the Nazi party and the Democratic party.

 

 

What makes the argument confusing is when most of us learned about the political spectrum in a publicly funded educational institution, we were taught that Communists are on the far left of the spectrum and Fascists/Nazis are on the far right. This is not accurate by any means if one accepts a more modern definition of the spectrum that puts increased government involvement on the left and less government involvement on the right. In other words, Communists would still be on the far left, but Anarchists would be on the extreme right.

 

 

But which party is more like the Nazis? Is it the left-wing Democrats or the right-wing Republicans. Where does fascism really lie? To shed light on this argument, I have listed the 25 point program adopted by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) Party, and compared them with modern-day viewpoints from mainstream political affiliations. Scores are tabulated at the end of each point.

 

 

 

1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

 

            Principles of self-determination is a very right-wing mindset, as is American Exceptionalism. However, the word “demand” (fordern in German) is a very authoritarian verb and would require a large-scale government to enforce, which is typically a left-wing idea. Nevertheless, the principle is right-wing. RW-1, LW-0

 

2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

            This assertion is politically benign, as it is only demanding the basic rights of a state. Its demand that the treaties of Versaille and St.Germain-en-laye be rescinded was an attempt to regain its standing as a legitimate country. Those treaties broke up the German Empire—which is important in the next point—and redrew the map of Europe; they forced Germany to accept guilt in starting World War I, a highly debatable attestation at best; they also limited the size of the army Germany was allowed to maintain. Point number two does not reflect any specific view on the political spectrum; it only wished to remove the implication of international subservience that Germany was currently under. RW-1, LW-0

 

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

            This appears to be a right-wing attitude, as that spectrum recently has been viewed as imperial and expansionist. However, this demand was an extension of the previous point. Germany wanted its land that was hers prior to World War I in order to feed (Ger. Ernährung) its outlying loyalists. Be that as it may, its smack of neo-conservatism forces a score. RW-2, LW-0

 

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

            Irrelevant in American politics. Some would argue that racism and anti-Semitism is a right-wing characteristic, but they do so on the assumption that Nazism and fascism are right-wing philosophies. Stalin’s Soviet Union killed more Jews than Hitler did, but that does not mean a left-wing Communist philosophy is racist. Despite common portrayals in mainstream media, no American political party can claim they have conquered racism nor accuse the other of harboring it. RW-2, LW-0

5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

 

           Allowing non-citizens to live within the political boundaries of a state is generally a left-wing position, as the seemingly popular opinion among the right is to deport all those who are in the country illegally. In regards to aliens with visas, neither spectrum in America holds any prominent posits on a different rule of law to which they must subject themselves. RW-2, LW-1

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response
Go To Top »