Things I’d like to see
Published Wed, Jan 4 2012 3:06 PM
Perhaps a better title is “Things I’d like to see but never expect to see”. That’s because while I think that these things would in the long run be good for our country the chances of my ever seeing them are extremely unlikely. Even so a man can dream, can’t he?
Eliminate Social Security and Medicare
Democrats are fond of telling senior citizens that Republicans want to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Republicans are fond of denying that. Me, I’d like to get rid of the programs altogether, at least at the federal level. If the states want to provide these “safety nets”, then let them, but I think we should stop making people in California pay for a safety net for people in Florida – or vice versa.
I’m well aware that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has said that these programs are constitutional. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t make a mistake, or rule in fear of reprisals or court packing. If you read the text of the U.S. Constitution and you study the history of the times you, like me, will probably not be able to find anything in the Constitution that justifies either of these programs.
But, of course, these programs are not going away any time soon. They suck up a huge portion of our funds, and that portion is going to keep growing. I neither expect to live long enough to see the benefits I’ve supposedly accumulated nor to live long enough to see these programs eliminated. I’m in my fifties too. By the time I should be eligible to receive benefits Congress will shift the goal posts again and I’ll have to wait even longer to start drawing them.
Eliminate the federal Department of Education
Even the federal government acknowledges that there’s no justification in the constitution for this one. If you go to the national archives web site you’ll find this little gem.
Q. Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?
A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the States.
In spite of this we have a federal Department of Education and unconstitutional laws like “No child left behind”.
I’d really like to see our federal government stop doing things there is no constitutional authorization for it to do. I just know though that I’ll never live to see it. People like to call Ron Paul a fool for advocating the elimination of this unconstitutional governmental agency – well, call me one too. I share this at least with Mr. Paul.
Eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency
This is yet another federal agency that constitutionally has no right to exist. For that matter the federal laws that accompany it don’t either.
Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t like pollution. I like clean air and water. I hate the smog that fills the air in the Salt Lake area. That doesn’t mean that it’s the federal government that should be deciding how Utah deals with this. The problem is in Utah – let Utah deal with it. As it stands now, the federal government actually gets in the way of Utah’s doing things.
And don’t get me started on so called “environmentalism”. A lot of people like to “appear” to be concerned but environmentalism is more show than go. We need someone like Jesus to come through the “green” movements tents overturning the money changer’s tables. Electric cars are touted as cleaner – tell that to the Chinese living near the areas where the rare earth minerals that are used to make the motors are mined and processed. And let’s face it – if CO2 is the problem, electric cars aren't really the answer since about half of our electricity is produced in fossil fuel burning power plants.
But, I digress.
There’s a whole lot more… but this ought to make a few people angry with me. Not only that, but it’ll give me a chance to write more later. If I get around to it.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1497
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2012/1/4/1497.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
pa responded with:
 | "There’s a whole lot more… but this ought to make a few people angry with me."
Well, I am angry at the same things that make you angry, so you aren't the one who is making me angry.
I will turn 61 on Friday, January 6. I remember the day decades ago when I received my very first paycheck and had to ask someone what "FICA" meant. My immediate response was that I would never see a penny of that promised money. The older I get, the closer the date of Social Security and Medicare insolvency gets to my retirement age. I still believe that my youthful prediction will be proven correct.
Something for you to think about, Perri (meaning, I hope you will write a post on it): People are hotly debating whether the individual mandate in Obamacare is constitutional. Haven't we already created and enforced an individual mandate for senior citizens? They are required to enroll in Medicare if they want to claim Social Security benefits. They are forbidden to buy private health insurance instead of Medicare (except some supplemental policies like those offered by AARP, with Medicare still being mandatory). They are denied equal protection under the law, as these laws apply only to persons over a certain age, not to the population as a whole. They cannot opt out or apply for a waiver. Wouldn't an individual mandate for Obamacare just bring the rest of us down to the same level with the senior citizens' individual mandate? If it's wrong for the rest of us (and I believe it is), then it's wrong for senior citizens who are forced to accept Medicare as well. What would happen if senior citizens were allowed to buy their own health insurance in a free market system? |
Perri Nelson responded with: Individual Mandate in Medicare
 | It's not really a mandate. After all, you could decline the social security benefits right? Then you wouldn't be required to sign up for Medicare and you'd be allowed to buy your own health insurance. That's the way it is with all federal "largesse". If you want that federal money, you have to put up with the attached strings. Just as schools that want federal money have to comply with federal rules regarding content, &c. If a school wants to be truly independent of all of the federal regulations around admissions, policies and the like, all it has to do is stand on its own and decline federal funding.
Ah, but those dollars are so enticing that people and organizations happily extend their wrists for the manacles. |
pa responded with:
| You are correct, technically and legally. But how many people will give up Social Security benefits that they were forced by government to subsidize for a lifetime? And since the market for primary health insurance for seniors is non-existent (or virtually so: the pool is so small that premiums cannot be affordable except for the wealthy), I wonder if a rogue senior could even buy a policy if he first chose to forgo Social Security and Medicare. And if he did have private insurance and developed conditions requiring medical care, then the insurer could raise the premiums to an unaffordable rate or even drop his coverage. Medicare won't do that; they will just offer everybody a lower standard of care. Taking an independent position, while it is what a free person should be able to do, is risky, costly, and perhaps even subject to government reprisal in some way.
My only solution is to postpone retirement so I can try to continue saving for the future and to avoid entering the SS and Medicare trap for as long as possible. However, I was shocked to learn recently that in a few years I will have to make formal choices about the size, shape, and fit of my manacles. If I make a bad decision now, it will have serious consequences in my later years, when I finally do succumb to the inevitable. (Yes, inevitable. I am not wealthy and never will be.)
Some people accuse seniors of hypocrisy for opposing any proposed cutbacks in their Medicare coverage. I haven't seen anyone acknowledge that seniors are denied the option to seek alternative coverage in a free market. Is it fair to criticize a group of hostages/prisoners/slaves (they aren't a free people, that's for sure) for clinging bitterly to what little benefits the government is willing to parcel out to them, in exchange for having robbed them over the course of a lifetime?
But, as you said, they happily extended their wrists for the manacles. I'm just wondering if we have any real options left, though. The government has so distorted the free market in this area that the individualist who would decline to participate would require financial resources that most of us do not have. And the failing economy, job market, etc. has made it even more difficult for those who are retired or approaching retirement now to fight against the machine. |
theMachiavellian responded with:
 | While we are on the issue of being unconstitutional, what do you think about Obama's appointed me of Corday?
I just read the Congressional Record and there in black and white, the Senate is in pro forma session.
They have not recessed.
Article Ii, Section II plainly says that only when the Senate is in recess may the President appoint officials without approval. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
| So, does the Senate have a quorum (51 present Senators, and there aren't enough Republicans to guarantee that)? If so then it's unconstitutional, but the Senate's only recourse is the courts. If not then pro-forma might as well be no-forma. If it comes to it though, whether the Republicans want to block his recess appointment power or not, The president can, under the constitution, order them to adjourn.
I don't like what he's doing, but unless something extraordinary happens it's likely to stand. |
Comments to this entry are closed.