You can't think for yourself when you work for the Federal government

Several hundred National Guard troops were flying back home from Afghanistan when they ran into the TSA at Indianapolis. As one of the soldiers described it, "That's where the stupid started."

The soldier said, "It's probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons. Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol. Oh, and our gunners had M-240B machine guns. Of course, the weapons weren't loaded. And we had been cleared of all ammo well before we even got to customs at Baghram, then AGAIN at customs."

Any sane person would be reasonably sure this contingent didn't include any would-be terrorists. Not the TSA.

One soldier had a Gerber multi-tool confiscated, and a TSA agent insisted that another turn over his finger nail clippers. According to the soldier reporting the story, "The conversation went something like this:"

TSA Guy: You can't take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I've had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You're not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I'm allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can't use it to take over the plane. You don't have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f--k out of here. I'll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns -- but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.

There, don't you feel safer?

Its not that the people at TSA don't want to do a good job. Its not that they are trying to do stupid things. Its just that you can't have anything as big as the Federal government of the United States and do anything with any degree of efficiency. So we end up with a one size fit all approach for the 300 million people that live in this country.

And that is why we have to keep the federal government as small as possible. That is why the founding fathers limited the government with the restraints in the Constitution.

And we wonder why it take 3.5 trillion dollars to run the Federal Government.

There are 30 million Christmas trees sold in the U.S. each year and if a small group of Christmas tree growers get their way soon the federal government may be tacking an extra 15 cents on to the cost of every one of those trees sold.

You say you did not notice anything about Congress passing a new Christmas tree tax? You have not heard anything about a Christmas tree tax for the same reason you have not heard about the tax on eggs, or pork or milk or 18 other agricultural products. These are not taxes approved by Congress, these are fees requested by industry trade groups, assisted by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and enforced by the Federal Government in a USDA program called Check-off programs

In 1996 Congress decided it would be a great idea to get involved in promoting agricultural products when it passed the COMMODITY PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND INFORMATION ACT OF 1996. Basically this bill gives the USDA authority to create programs (referred to as Check-off programs) that are administered by a board appointed by the USDA. This board can assess fees on a agricultural product and the money collected is used to promote that defined product. Recently there was flurry of news interest when reported that Dominos Pizza had joined with the innocently named “Dairy Management” to promote Dominos new pizza that uses three times as much cheese. “Dairy Management” is the USDA check-off program to promote dairy products.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. In 2003 The Pork Board’s brochure reported: “Check-off funds were used by McDonald’s nationally to market The McRib pork sandwich.” And through the Pork Check-off program, pork items are added to menus at Taco Bell, T.G.I. Friday’s, McDonald’s, Burger King, Applebee’s and other restaurants across America.

We are talking about some real money; a 2008 CRS (Congressional Research Service) report listed over 700 million dollars worth or check-off fees collected in the last calendar year.

• Beef, $80.4 million

• cotton, $83.6 million

• dairy products, $278.7 million

• eggs, $20.2 million

• fluid milk, $107.1 million

• peanuts, $6.7 million

• pork, $60.8 million

• potatoes, $8.7 million

• soybeans, $82.8 million

$700 MILLION DOLLARS!!

So basically here is how it works. A group of citizens decides the products they sell needs a generic marketing program. This group petitions the USDA to create a Check-off Program that will collect a mandatory fee from producers of that product. The fee is used by a board - appointed by the USDA - to run advertising and promotion campaigns for that product. Remember the “Got Milk ads”? How about “Pork the other white meat”? That’s right - paid for with Check-off fees (or taxes depending on how you want to look at it).

The supporters of Check-off programs say “it’s not a tax, it’s just a mandatory fee,.” A fee collected and enforced by the federal government, that’s a lot different than a tax I guess. The supporters say “it’s not paid for with tax payer money”. Well where the heck did the money come from? Does it fall from heaven? Does it grow on trees? Of course it is tax payers money, if it costs an extra 15 cents to grow a Christmas tree, that cost is going to be passed on to the consumer. Those 700 million dollars of check-off fees collected come directly from the tax payers just like sales tax or federal excises tax. All money at the start is tax payer money. And if you are foolish enough to think government taxes are paid for by a business and not passed on to the consumer, well even then it is being paid for by a tax payer. Christmas tree farmers are tax payers too. So they can call it a fee all they want to but it doesn’t change the fact that it is a tax, a ghost tax.

What a perfect program - No worrying about that pesky congressional oversight of spending or tax collection, no worries about budget overview or executive branch oversight. Although there is no vote among anyone but a few people in the USDA to start a check-off program the bill does mandate that at some time period, 3-7 years generally, a referendum will be held to determine if the producers of that product want to continue the Check-off program. Apparently no one thinks it is a good idea to ask the producers if the like the idea until it has been collecting fees (taxes) for a few years.

If a group of like producers want to voluntary get together and pool their money to promote their product I say go for it. But what business is it of the federal government to be promoting live Christmas tree sales at the expense of citizens making artificial trees? Or what about Pizza Hut having to compete against Dominos latest campaign when they have funding from the USDA? Why should a department of the federal government be collecting these ghost taxes to be used to determine winners and losers in our economic system? And how much money is really spent setting up administering and tracking these systems, someone is paying for reports like the annual CRS report.

I am not always sure what exactly the USDA is supposed to be doing, but I am positive putting the artificial Christmas tree manufacturers out of business is not it.

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." --Thomas Jefferson

"On Thursday the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced the federal budget deficit for 2010 will exceed $1.3 trillion. This is already on the heels of a 2009 budget deficit of $1.2 trillion and on top of a national debt of some $13.3 trillion. The word 'trillion' seems to have, almost overnight, crept into our standard economic parlance and by the looks of it is here to stay. And with the CBO's forecast of more than $6 trillion in federal budget deficits accruing over the next nine years from 2010 to 2019, many are logically wondering if the United States has effectively crossed, or is fast approaching, a virtual economic point of no return -- an economic Rubicon if you will." --columnist Matt O'Connor

This can only happen if we let it. This can only happen if we are too lazy or to disinterested to hold our elected officials responsible for their actions. Speak to your friends, speak to your neighbors, and write to your elected representatives. We have to convince those in Washington that if that will not return the government to a fiscally responsible path and back to a proper constitutional mandate we will find someone who will. This recent election was a good start but we cannot go back to our normal lives and just hope this congress will do the right thing.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing”, we cannot afford to be do nothing citizens.

11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month

On this day in 1918, at 11 am a cease fire was signed that ended WW1. Veterans day (originally called Armistice day) was founded to celebrate all the service members who sacrificed in that terrible war.

Please take a minute to thank a veteran, their sacrifice is what allows us to live in a country where we can have the freedom to express our views in forums like this blog.

And a special thanks to the Marines of 2/2 CAAT Black.

The more I listen to explanations from people supporting the so called heath care reform act the more I am confused. I have been following and recently blogged about an email exchange between a Wyoming group, Wyoming's Furture  (WyominghealthFreedom.org) and an official of the Wyoming Democratic Party. The exchange is concerning Wyoming's Future attempt to get a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing Wyoming residents the right to make their own health care decisions. Below in red are the democrat’s thoughts on why a citizen being able to make their own health care decisions is a bad idea. As usual I have interjected my thoughts to his thoughts (or maybe his lack of thought).

As a side note anyone concerned about health care freedom and especially those people in Wyoming should check out www.WyomingFreedom.org, an impressive grass roots organization with some really great ideas.

Our liberal friend writes (in red italics).

The troubles with Wyoming futures stated belief “that Wyoming citizens will make the decision that is best for them and for Wyoming” are at least three:

1. It assumes they have the information to make these decisions in ways that are best for themselves and Wyoming. Few people have time to read each insurance policy on offer from the insurance companies, or even if they have the time, have sufficient legal skill to parse the legalese and know what they’d be getting and what dangers lurk.

The #1 rule of anything Liberal, you’re just too stupid to do the right thing. So I cannot read my insurance plan and even if I could, I could not understand it? I have no way of knowing what danger lurks!! So if I am too stupid to read my insurance plan how will I know what to do under Obama care? Who will help me? Who will choose my health insurance? THE GOVERNMENT of course!

The government is smarter; the government understands the things that are really beyond our comprehension! The government always has your best interest at heart!

If I can’t understand my insurance policy obviously I have no chance of understanding the 2600 page Obamacare Bill? Apparently no one in the Congress has actually read the bill since Nancy Pelosi said ”we will have to pass it before we know what’s in it” and yet these are the people I should trust with my families health care decisions?

2. It assumes that they have the power to make these decisions in ways that are best for themselves and Wyoming, that isn’t actually the case. They’ve been at a substantial power disadvantage to their insurance companies and their choices are limited by what a few companies offer, which in many respects has been the same from company to company. If they want insurance from what is the best company they could choose, they have to accept the contract the company offers---what the law sometimes characterizes as a “contract of adhesion”.

2nd rule of anything Liberal, Some other group of evil citizens are conspiring to do something dastardly against you (the rich, Wall Street, business owners, bankers). Class warfare is the liberal’s best friend. Does it really make much sense that a business would do what is bad for its customers? That a business would do what would make its customers mad? Do you stay in business by not pleasing your customers? Now it is true that there is not much competition in the health insurance business but that is because of government regulations that stifle competition, Obamacare actually decreases the options for Medicare recipients(2), the law prevents insurance companies from offering more options, and the government’s argument is ”too many options are too confusing” (see liberal rule #1). So I am at a power disadvantage to my insurance company? Ever try talking to the federal government? I often ask my good liberal friend Rich how it is that all the evil people ended up running businesses and apparently all the benevolent people ended up working in the government? (see “if men were angels” in my last blog). A “contract of adhesion” (1) would most accurately describe almost all interaction with the federal government.

Free enterprise works wonderfully to increase quality and decrease prices. Why is it that the liberals apparently thinks it’s not effective with insurance? If a single or restricted insurance provider is a good idea then why not a single car company, or single grocery store, single source for TV’s? When you look at it as any other consumer good, the idea of a single source or limited source provider sounds so foolish is hard to see how anyone supports it.

3. It assumes that a decision that’s best for an individual is best for others in Wyoming. In fact, many Wyomingites and other Americans choose to remain uninsured, gambling that they won’t get sick or injured. When they do get sick or injured, the rest of us often end up paying, directly or indirectly, for their care. It’s reasonable for the rest of us, through government---which in a democracy is us, or at least our representatives---to require that they be insured, just as we do before allowing someone to drive a car. Of course, some people legitimately can’t afford health insurance for one reason or another---God knows it is expensive enough these days. But the new law provides them help. (Contrary to a lot of things I see repeatedly asserted, furthermore, this and other costs of the health reform are fully paid for and more by the bill. This Congress, unlike the one that passed the drug benefit for Medicare, made a good-faith effort to make it budget-neutral or better, as the President demanded. They held their breath to see whether the neutral arbiters at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office would agree. They did, saying that the bill would on net add to Federal revenues over the first ten years, then add to them much more significantly in later years.

#3 rule of anything Liberal, Some individuals must be sacrificed for the good of the collective, (and the government will decide which individual)

# 4 rule of anything Liberal One bad rule justifies another.

First # 3, I don’t think any conservative ever assumes what is best for one individual is best for another. It is the liberals who seem to take a one size fits all approach for so many things. Getting to select the health insurance that is best for me in no way impacts another citizen getting to pick what is best for him. Only when the government gets involved do we get in the trade offs, For instance, the employees at the company I work for must give up their HSA accounts so we can have a 2600 page heath insurance bill.

And # 4, the government passed laws that say, if my neighbor makes bad health care decisions, I must pay for it. And that is justification that I now lose my right to make my own health care decisions? If my neighbor does not change the oil in his car and the motor blows up; do I need to pay to replace his motor? If my neighbor falls asleep smoking and burns his house down; do I need to pay to rebuild his house? Explain to me again why I must pay for his poor health care decisions? If I don’t pay my taxes, the government puts me in jail, if I don’t pay for my health care the government says “no problem we will just have your neighbor pay for it”.

And finally the most laughable of all the liberal propaganda related to the health care bill, we will have more, better health care for less money. How does that work? Using the same doctors, the same hospitals somehow we are going to provide health insurance to 30-40 million people that do not have it now, provide the other 260 million people in the country with better insurance than they have now, and it will cost less! Now it is true under Obamacare health care providers are going to get paid a lot less in many instances(3). And under Obamacare insurance companies profits will be controlled by the government but how in the heck do we give 40 million people insurance with no cost increase? And think about this, if your boss walked in and said “we are cutting your pay 30% and we might need you to work a few more hours”. Do you think you will work harder or not quite as hard? Well that is exactly what the government has said to our health care providers.

The CBO report used by liberals to support the financial viability of this bill is a perfect example that you can prove anything with statistics. The study looks at the budget impact over the next 10 years. Only problem is Obamacare does not go into effect for 3-4 years even though many of the taxes and fees that are going to be used to help pay for it start now. So for the next 3-4 years the government collects money that will be used to pay for the bill but pays nothing out. Then starting 3-4 years from now it actually starts spending, of course the next 10 year look budget neutral because they have 3-4 years of funds to dip into to offset some of the expense. But try looking at the next 10 years. It is kind of strange that the bill that was so urgent Congress needed to rush it through without even reading it does not need to go into effect for four years. It is one thing to use the statistics that help your argument; it is another to intentionally miss lead the public to support your agenda.

In short, what WyominhFuture believes has the virtue of ideological purity, but is far removed from the realities of our actual lives. When those realities are taken into account, the actual freedom and security of Americans will be greatly enhanced by this new law. Wait and see.

And finally liberal rule of anything # 5 Trust me, it will be better, you’ll see. Actually what the writer describes as “ideological purity” is actually constitutional legality.

The constitution is not an ideology it is the law. I don’t need to wait to see the effects on my freedom; it is plain to see right now. As for enhancing my security, that has been the excuse for tyranny throughout history.

I would rather take my chances with freedom.

(1) Adhesion contract (contract of adhesion) n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained.

(2) http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11475251

(3)http://www.prweb.com/releases/MedicareSupplementPlans/7-22-09/prweb2656764.htm

(4)http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction_Noted.pdf