Friday, November 17, 2006

Conservatives are more generous. Like I been tellin ya ....

Read an interesting news story today:
Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More
By Frank Brieaddy Religion News

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about
to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him
nervous. The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in
the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious
conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of
charitable activities, irrespective of income.

This begins to address what I’ve always wondered about “advocacy” groups, causes or protestors. In TOS episode of Star Trek (Mirror, Mirror), a time-pressed Capt. Kirk hurriedly tries to convince the Alternative Universe Mr. Spock to start an overthrow immediately rather than wait hundreds of years for it to happen inevitably. "The illogic of waste, Mr. Spock."

Kirk's point was why waste time? Why wait for somebody else to do it? Kirk's point is instructive here to the present-day, "real" Alternative Universe (Lefties).

Which is easier, to continually –year-after-year-after-year – lobby, beg, moan, plead for funding from someone else or rally those that think as you do to address the problem as you see it? Then you’ll not run the risk of mean, nasty conservatives cutting budgets or blocking your initiatives.

Instead of going to all the trouble to organize opposition, staging events, funding lobbying campaigns, to get at public money, why not take collections, donate funds or profits from any number of revenue generating mechanisms known in this world and raise all the money you want (or can) and do with it what you want—like help the cause you believe in.

Why wait? Why wait for something to come from the public trough? Why “wait until next election”? Why “wait until we take back control….” Why wait “until we overcome”? If its so important, and if you (believe) you’re getting the run-around or somebody is stopping your funding—why wait? Go out and do it yourself. Foil their evil plot by not waiting for them to stop, give up or go away.

Want to stop forests from being harvested for lumber? Buy them off the people who own them & let them grow all you want. (And pay taxes on the land, or give it to a non-profit or charity.)

Want to pay teachers more? Take a collection from Hollywood, or The Village, or at this year’s Sundance – or better yet, whatever you were going to spend on Sundance only spend a fourth, at most a half – and spend those funds on teacher bonuses. I don’t think there’s any regulation that prohibits public school teachers from receiving gifts or grants or “bonues” from independent sources, is there? If it’s important enough for you to march in the streets hoping to get funding for “some day”, why isn’t it important enough for you to do something about it right now?

Want to help the homeless? Instead of teaching them how to safely eat out of garbage bins (True: Google "Dumpster Dining" and see what you come up with), how about the next time you sell that $20 million home in the Hollywood Hills, how about endowing a homeless shelter in your name and get a 2.000 sq.ft. single family house in the 'Burbs like the rest of us.

Think of all the money that's wasted on organizing plans to get grubby hands on someone else's money! How stupid is that?

Cut out the wasted time, energy and MONEY that’s aimed at getting grubby hands on the Public’s time, energy and money. Do something TODAY that really and actually helps those poor underserved constituents that you claim to speak for or serve. Don’t make them languish in their horrible conditions another day longer—do it yourself or get others who you can convince to help you.

And do it today. I can hardly wait.

Friday, November 03, 2006

How can $4 prescriptions be a bad thing? Just wait.

In case you missed it in the run-up to the midterm elections, a tremendous example of the consumer benefits of free market enterprise is at hand. While it’s possible that you may NOT have heard about it, a better guess is that most folks simply haven’t heard ENOUGH news about it -- in sufficient amounts and in several formats and venues -- for it to truly register.

Lukewarm news reports have been circulating since September about one of the most profound events in recent memory regarding national healthcare debate: Wal-mart has entered the generic drug supply business.

Almost immediately, competitors joined the fray, bringing not only more outlets for such products, but C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N to Wal-Mart’s gambit.

The reason you haven’t heard more about it is that opponents of the free market, American consumerism, and the usual lineup of self-appointed Big Government healthcare advocacy groups, special interests and the usual cabal of Wal-Mart haters (labor unions, Democrats, AARP, etc.), haven’t yet devised a response. But rest assured, after the distraction of the election is over and there’s more time to devise a campaign against it, you’ll start seeing more news coverage.

Then it will be a bad thing.

Take for example, the whole Medicare Part D Coverage advocated by President Bush and signed into law. Remember how much effort was put into defeating it (which didn’t work)?

Why would anybody who proports to be a big advocate of such entitlements work against something like this? OK, not to your liking... change it or add to it (if you can) later. Is it not important that at least some of our Medicare recipients get additional coverage? Must we wait until all get blanket coverage or nothing until then?

Sounds like either someone's afraid the pricetag will get noticed by somebody.

Recall all the media coverage about the program’s deficiencies, its registration complexities and confusion, and the looming reasons why recipients should think twice about signing up for it?
Since when has the Party of FDR or the news media EVER seen an entitlement program that they DIDN’T like?

This is the first one that I can remember EVER in my lifetime. (I’m in my 40s) Even though it helps an additional amount of people who aren’t already receiving benefits, if it’s not totally 100% free healthcare, it’s not a good thing. Wouldn’t you think that if this party really cared about people, if the program helped even one old person with their drugs, that the Dems would support it?

I guess the message is if the Donkeys didn’t give it to you, it’s not a good thing.

The pre-election Democrat Party funded ad campaign run in selected tightly contested districts about the poor old lady who attempts to pay for her prescriptions only to be informed by the kindly and caring pharmacist that she’s fallen into the dreaded gap of “Medicare Part D coverage.” HORRORS!

And what’s worse, “President Bush and his allies” made sure that Congress couldn’t negotiate with “Big Drug Companies” for lower costs. What can the old woman do? “There’s nothing you can do about it, . . . except vote for change in November.”

Nowhere is it mentioned, of course, that this little bennie alone will cost taxpayers $400 Billion (with a B) over 10 years. Still Not Enough.

Doensn't mention that without Medicare Part D she wouldn’t have had the prescription coverage in the first place and whatever she’s saved to date is money she didn’t have to spend.
Still Not Enough.

You see? $4 perscriptions aren't a very good thing after all.