0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 5 Medicare & Medicaid

Both programs born from the 1965 Social Security Act, were signed into law by President Johnson has yet another attempt by our government to use tax payers money to cure society’s problems. This is my fifth example on how government fails us with social engineering attempts. After 45 years running, Medicare and Medicaid are running in deficits and are heading towards bankruptcy. The government’s own Congressional Budget Office warns that these two programs are unsustainable. When government gets involved two things will occur; the problem reoccurs every year, government has an excuse to exploit it for taxes and votes. These, the ones that interpret welfare to mean whatever they see fit, are politicians not angels of virtue, give them enough power without restriction and they will go on to abuse their position.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026974_Medicaid_Social_Security_medicare.html


http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/12/03/gvsc1203.htm

From cradle to grave the government with its good intentions breaks down the nuclear family. In this case we no longer have to worry about grandma or grandpa we just ship them off to the old folks home where medicare or medicaid will take care of them or in other words you and me. What happen before these programs, families took care of their own burdens. It seems only fair, they raised their kids so what's wrong with expecting a little help back.

These government programs also promote fiscal Irresponsibility. Government creates an atmosphere of dependence and creates the illusion that it would be impossible to save on your own. The government also, with these notions, treats us like children telling us that we could not make it without their help.

Is this true? What did people do before Medicare and Medicaid?

I know what did have to happen for survival, families had to stick together, people had to work hard and pass on buying those new pair of tennis shoes or having a TV none the less two or three in a household. Yes, the American family survived and had to alter their behavior to do so.

When you look at families and their elderly today how many instances can you point out to yourself where their priorities were misplaced. What kind of car do they drive? What kind of house do they live in? Did they make any sacrifices? You might tell me that is none of your business. My friends it is all of our business as long as people our using tax payers money and we pay those taxes.

- Micheal Garry

0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 4 The War on Poverty

When we talk about failure in our government to run programs, the “War on Poverty” may be the most expensive failure in its attempt to solve another of our countries problems with money. Trillions of dollars and 80 years later, the tax payers have not been told what they are getting for their money or what the measurement for success of this war is. I can assure you that the way things are, the system does nothing more than promote the behaviors that keep the people in their poor surroundings.

Can we really claim that we are winning this war? Every election year we ask for the same amount of money or more and the same problems are still there that were the last year, would you believe them none the less support their war. Liberals seem to forget that when it comes to the military and the amount we spend on war. What do we hear from them? We hear how much we are wasting on the war; at least this government spending is clearly stated as the responsibility of our government. The War on Poverty has no claim to the constitution or justification in taking wealth from one and giving it to another.

Liberals often use the word poverty to describe poor in America when election time comes and it’s time to justify spending in congress. Can we really declare a war on poverty when there is no real poverty in this country? If one has been injured, one does not die because there is no hospital near by or the hospital is only for the dictators of that country. If one is hungry, one does not starve to death because there is no such thing as a food bank or soup kitchen to go to. We cry poverty when people can not afford the latest pair of Nikes, when a person lives in squalor but, has a brand new car. What we call poverty is misplaced priorities by people who have chosen wrong. These impoverished still have Television, phones, cars, and a place to live. Do people in real poverty have these choices, I don't think so.

What the war on poverty has inadvertently done has made a casualty of the nuclear family, thus making it more difficult for people to rise above despair with no one there to raise them but a mother working and a welfare check. If you were engaged in a war that has cost trillions with the same problem each year and no real victory in sight, wouldn't you change your strategy of how you are battling the enemy?

The problem with this war is, it is not to defend anyone’s freedoms but does take away their wealth. Using the general welfare argument is disingenuous at best, because if you read enough of the founder’s opinions on general welfare it is clear that general welfare was not meant for politicians to use as a means of redistribution of wealth. Using the commerce clause is equally disingenuous for the commerce clause intentions were to have the Federal government referee between states where there were disputes in commerce. I am not quite sure how anyone could take the federal right of regulating trade between states has the right by congress to make laws to redistribute wealth. Remember, taxes for roads, police, fire, Military, etc... are not programs used to give towards one persons benefit by way of check. These taxes benefit all.

This war begs to ask the question, how do you justify a war on poverty that has no written goals, no written objectives, little to no oversight on its effectiveness, and no one to hold responsible for success or failure. All there is to justify the trillions of dollars spent in this 80 year war is; a road paved with good intentions, a nation in trillions of dollars in debt, and many liberals that feel good about themselves using others money, all in the name of “The War on Poverty”.

- Micheal Garry

0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 3 Fannie Mae + Freddie Mac

Not only do government programs fail to serve the recipients of others wealth, they also could have a negative effect in the private sector such has Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did. Fannie Mae has been in “business” for 72 years and Freddie Mac for 40 years, these two government supported companies played the biggest role of our most recent economic downturn and are broke. All these programs that are broke play by different rules than the private sector and are able to still exist, running huge deficits, at tax payer’s expense.

These programs, of course, are claimed to be for the welfare of others. At what cost do these programs stop being a benefit and become a burden on economical growth? A simple answer is to say, the program becomes a burden when you have a larger number of dependents than you have producers to support the programs needs.

Senators Barney Frank, Christopher Todd, and Charles Schumer had much to do with the huge economic downturn. These criminal politicians with the help of other liberals in Washington, through extortion like methods, used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for social engineering. Offering people home loans they could not afford. Eventually, these loans were offered on such a large scale that once these unrealistic loans started to foreclose, causing huge losses in the housing market. This was done in the name of welfare and fairness but, eventually helped plunge us in the situation we are in now.

Many in the Bush administration warned that these loans and the practices of these two programs were not sustainable. Liberal after Liberal told Federal regulators that they were wrong; Gregory Meeks goes as far as calling regulators incompetent and along with Maxine Waters and other liberals claiming there was no crisis with housing loans in the housing market.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

If this was the private sector, the leaders of these programs would be brought up on charges of fraud and more. That is the beauty of government programs; they rarely are represented by the people and rarely answer to those that are not profiting in some way from them. We the people need to stop politician gravy trains like this, and get rid of this notion that government programs can correct all that is wrong. The sad reality is government programs line more pockets of the government, and take away more money from the producers that make this country the success story that it is.

- Micheal Garry

Saving Public Transportation or Prolonging its Failure?

Socialism versus Free Market has failed once again, with Public Transportation. The government’s answer is, pretty much admitting to it being a failure, to make new law (The Public Transportation Act of 2010) to bailout the problem and pass on the cost to the tax payer under the guise of preserving public transportation.

Where the problem begins is that, public transportation is competing with other forms of transportation (Cabs, personal vehicles, etc…). They are competing with the cost of what maybe cheaper to do. I calculate how much it is to pay for gas versus the fare to take me back and forth from work. With this competition, come the decisions that a normal company playing buy the rules of the free market would have to make regarding many costs of operation.

The costs of operation would include fuel, maintenance, and employee payroll. Has with all businesses in the Free Market, this formula depends on the right percentage of funds being allocated to each expense in order to compete and stay in business. The formula is where the problem is, the drivers, mechanics, and other operations jobs are union workers making a scale of pay that is not justifiable and out of wack with the percentage of other costs to run public transportation. This makes it harder to compete in the Free Market. Plus, being subsidized, eventually the money will run dry and more taxes will be needed and the cost will also be passed to the consumer because, tax increases will not be enough. The bus riders will only stand or afford so many hikes before seeking alternatives and you need riders to stay in business. Thus, bringing us to The Public Transportation Preservation Act.

This type of government solution through subsidizing with taxes and than, after the venture fails, using taxes to preserve it, is in part why we are in trouble now. This behavior does not reward success, it rewards failure by punishing those who do succeed with higher taxes to support those that don’t.

What should be done in this case and in many others? Much like innovation is born from necessity; innovation can be stifled by subsidizing failed and or out of date ideas. What if government decided to subsidize the horse and buggy business or Kerosene lamps when electricity was discovered? I personally think that Public Transportation's best bet for survival at this point is to leave it to the experts. Leave Transportation to people who know how to run businesses and compete to survive, privatize it.

The economy naturally expands and retracts, and with this comes new ways to do business and the old ways die. The economy is not in a vacuum, we can either try to fight innovation or we can adapt to it and build our businesses upon it. Government does not succeed in and should not attempt to create innovation, it simply should step out of the way and make an atmosphere where innovation is free to grow and thrive. It is only when government steps aside that we have been at our best.

Let us not use legislation to save a failure, let’s deregulate the market so that ideas can be truly free to inspire and grow our economy. To deregulate is not bad, we need to enforce the laws we already have to protect against wrongdoing in the private sector. Where we most need regulation is with our government.

- Micheal Garry

0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 2 - Social Security

Social Security, the most notable of the programs that came out of the “New Deal” in the 1930’s, had it’s start in 1935 has a good intended supplement for retirees by redistributing others wealth by force to give to others that did not save or have money. What they are not mentioning in government run schools is that, The Supreme Court actually struck down a large portion of the “New Deal”, ruling them unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not go far enough and the birth of Socialism began with the stroke of President Roosevelt's pen for much of the 1930’s.

Again, we will put aside the fact that it is wrong to take a percentage of ones money and give it to someone else because they did not properly save and manage their finances. What did people ever do before this? People today act has though people would be starving in the streets if it was not for Social Security. That is simply not true, like many other safety nets that are at the expense of others, people would be forced to take matters into their own hands and take responsibility for their own families. This would also serve has an incentive to live within ones means and keep families together.

What I can not put aside in looking at this program is the fact that it is giving out more money than it is taking in. Remember Bernie Madoff? Much like the Ponzi scheme he was imprisoned for, the Federal government does in the name of Social Security. Has a matter of fact, I think it might be worse. Social Security investors are being forced to invest into a program that promises a return but, the investor puts more in than they receive on return. The most generous predictions by the Congressional budget Office shows a decade until the system goes broke. Unless they bring more money in through more taxes or raise the age, this will surely only delay its end. I would say that instead of keeping Mr. Madoff in prison, The Feds should have him on the payroll.

So, 75 years of Social Security, how much longer does it take to admit failure? I say give real freedom of choice and let people decide what investments to make on their own. This idea is more in line with freedom than the way the system is now. There are risks to this idea but, when you look at the proven track record of failing government programs, privatizing Social Security sounds like a good bet.

- Micheal Garry