Lesser of Two Government Evils

Which is better the man who carefully spends his money, and only provides the basics for his family or the man who wants to hand his family everything even if he has to take money that is not his to do it?

Why are a fiscal conservative view and social awareness mutually exclusive in American politics? George W. Bush looked to be the best of both worlds to some, but he spent at record levels and made no progress on many important matters of the day (immigration law enforcement, medical insurance reform).

>> A couple of quick tangents here that deserve a good rant. The immediate issue on immigration is not amnesty, guest worker programs, or any other policy change. The fat issue that no one wants to tackle is that illegal immigrants are here (wait for it) ILLEGALLY. Against the law. They have broken the laws of the United States long before they are employed, receive medical attention, etc. The crux of the issue is that we need to enforce existing laws (come on, Executive Branch, that is your job!). Then, if we find them lacking, unwieldy, or in some other way flawed, we can set about the standard process of changing them. But we shouldn't change that we don't enforce, or who is to say that we will enforce any changes to that law? We need to respect and enforce our own laws and take it from there.

Health care? Everyone is up in arms about "health care reform?" No, they are not. Again, the topic is miscast. Health care is the maintenance of body and mind. This includes the more narrow medical care. A trip to the doctor, a hospital visit, surgery all fall under medical care. At this moment, I don't know that people being denied medical care is a problem in the United States. Walk into the regional hospital ER or the designated medical center that provides medical care to those without any insurance and you will find people who cannot afford to pay for medical procedures receiving them. So let's not frame the problem as "access to medical care" or "access to health care" as the politicians do. People can get medical care. Rich people, poor people, all races and creeds, and even illegal immigrants are receiving medical care. "Access" is not the issue.

No, politicians are not discussing 'health care reform" at all. They are discussing medical insurance. More to the point affordability of medical insurance. What started as a risk-reducing financial tool to hedge your bet against some big medical problem wiping out the family fortune (not matter how small) has some how turned into a Constitutional right for every red-blooded person who steps on US soil. Absurd, right? I can opt out of my medical insurance at work, if that is my choice. This is not a right, but a benefit. I am grateful that my employer sees fit to be competitive and offer a medical insurance plan to its employees, but I understand that they shouldn't HAVE TO just like I shouldn't HAVE TO participate. I don't buy any extended life insurance through my employer, but they offer it. Should all Americans be able to buy life insurance through their employer? No, not any more than my employer should be forced to adopt the benefit plans of any other companies that offer on site day care, country club memberships, or flight vouchers to their employees. Somewhere along the road, the federal government has taken the freedom of a "good idea" and forced it on everyone turning it rapidly into a bad idea. I would use the example of how it is wise to save money, but it would be absurd for the government to force people to save money, but then two thoughts crossed my mind. First, Social Security already exists, such as it is. And second, I read yesterday that our federal government is considering starting a $500 saving account for every newborn in America (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Coming-Soon-500-for-Every-usnews-3217986354.html?x=0&.v=1). Once again, a good idea individually acted upon can lose much of its value when it is institutionalized. <<

This leads nicely back to the main point. If the government believes that everyone should save (a good idea), why must it turn a blind eye to the fiscal ripple effect of giving ever child born in the US $500. Aside from the cash outlay -- the less non-essential money in the hands of the federal government the better if you want the money handled well -- what about the social ramifications of this? Will some parents continue to produce children for $500 accounts? Will illegals stream across the border in even greater numbers at the prospect of their child being born in an American hospital for free and qualifying for $500 when they are here illegally when other legal immigrants and American citizens have to go into debt to pay for their own child's birth and a portion of the illegal immigrant's birth?

Our freedoms are being sapped away almost as quickly as our dollars and I don't see America getting any better as a result of either one. The current trend is to bite off so much more than we can pay for with social programs run amok. So again I ask, must social awareness be blind to the cost of "helping?" Must those who manage money well ignore those in need? I don't think these have to be two camps on two different ends of the see-saw, but I have yet to see a leader emerge who seems to get this balance right. As a whole, the federal government badly misses the mark. We need to vote the politicians out of office and vote in fiscally responsible leaders who care, genuinely care, about the people who put them in office. That is change we could all use.