It's For Your Own Good

Seatbelts.  Helmets for motorcycle riders.  Driver's side airbags.  Passenger side airbags.  Infant rear facing car seats.  Toddler forward facing car seats.  Booster seats for children up to 75 pounds.  Side impact airbags.  All these advances made us safer when traveling on the highway.  The government mandated their use for the public safety.  The car companies were forced to make first seatbelts, then an increasing number of airbags, standard equipment on passenger cars and trucks.  Of course this increased the production cost of the vehicles, which is passed on to the buyer.  Most of don't have a problem paying for increased safety for ourselves and our families.  Especially when some of the cost is offset by a decrease in auto insurance rates.  Would the car makers have made these safety improvements without the government mandates?  Yes, they would.  Need an example?  How about antilock brakes.  Most cars today have antilock brakes.  No government was required.   The car companies touted the safety advantages of antilock brakes and the consumers were more than willing to pay the extra cost.  Insurance companies saw the benefits through reduced claims and passed the savings onto the policy holders who had the antilock brake option.  That's the way the free market works.  It might be a little slower than a government requirement, but that's the way our system is supposed to work.

Next example:  motorcycle helmets.  They are required by law in most states.  If they weren't, I believe most riders would wear helmets.  It's just the smart thing to do.  I remember in the early 1990's when the helmet issue was being voted upon in California.  Actor Gary Busey and rock star Billy Idol both did television ads against the law, promoting the freedom of choice.  Ironically, both were involved in serious accidents before the issue came to a vote.  Busey changed sides, but Idol did not.  When asked about why Billy Idol was still against wearing a helmet, Busey said, "he must have suffered more brain damage than I did."  Both could and should have done public service ads on the issue, but the market should be deciding the issue, not government.  And once again, insurance companies give a rate break to riders who wear helmets.  Safety and money are all the incentive needed for most people.  So what was the reasoning for making helmets, airbags, and seatbelts a government issue?  Money, of course.  See, a lot of people involved in accidents don't have health insurance or the means to pay for their own healthcare.  So that puts the burden on all of us.  We have to pay for their treatment.  So, obviously that means the government should require them to act in a responsible manner and wear a seatbelt or a helmet, or buy a car with airbags, and put their children in the appropriate car seat.  And we, the general public, bought the logic.

Next came helmets for bicyclists.  Same logic, adult cyclists aren't smart enough to take precautions, and parents don't care enough about their child's safety to require helments.  So, in many cities, the government steps in to prevent the smart part of the population from paying for the healthcare of the less intelligent. 

Now, with Obamacare, we will be truly paying for the healthcare of everyone.  If your neighbor goes to the hospital, you will be paying for his treatment through government mandated healthcare insurance.  So obviously it is in your best interest to keep your neighbor healthy.  Not just safe from accidents, but healthy.  Some cities are already going through citizen's trash to make sure there are no recyclables in the regular trash.  Is it difficult to take the next step?  City employees checking your trash for KFC bags?  Those double chicken and bacon sandwiches (no bread or lettuce) can't be good for your heart.  The government has to pay if you need a double bypass, so why can't they control your diet?  Again, if you think that's outrageous, just scan the internet for reports on the first lady's campaign against obesity.  No soft drinks in vending machines, first in schools, but now in city buildings.  Fries replaced by carrot sticks in Happy Meals, can the number one combo be far behind?  And do you really need cheese on that quarter pounder?  Does it really need to be a quarter pound?  I know, it's ridiculous.  It'll never happen here.  Or at least in a fiercely independent state like Texas, right?  Can't tell those Texans what to do.  They'll sell deep-fried Dr. Pepper and deep fried Twinkies at the State Fair.  D.C. won't be telling them what they can't eat.  Well, except in third grade, in the Houston area.  And only with really dangerous food like deep fried rat poison, right?   Or Jolly Ranchers.  Yes, I said Jolly Ranchers.  The evil third grader must have brought a truckload of Jolly Ranchers to school and got lectured by her teacher, right?  No, how about a trip to the principal's office and spending recess in detention, writing an essay as punishment for bringing a bag of Jolly Ranchers to school.  Oops, it wasn't a whole bag of Jolly Ranchers.  And the third grader didn't bring the candy to school.  She accepted one, ONE, piece of candy from a friend.

Still feel comfortable about where we are going as a country?  Gotta go, I smell bacon frying.  My neighbors may be calling 911.

Negotiating the Price

It's almost closing time at the bar.  The man at the end of the bar has had his eye on the brunette at the corner table for about an hour.  Now that the crowd has mostly left, he walks over to her table.  After a brief conversation, he asks the woman if she would like to go back to his hotel room.  "Absolutely not," she replies.  The man says, "how about if I give you $1000?"  "Well, ok."  "Will you go with me for $10?"  The shocked woman says "what do you think I am?!"  The man replies, "we've already established that.  We're just negotiating the price."

Mary Landrieu, the current senator from Louisiana, has actually made the focus of her campaign for re-election the fact that she has brought the state millions of federal dollars for projects in the state.  While the general public, and finally a few Republicans, are calling for smaller federal government, and less government spending, Landrieu and other incumbents are promising more spending for their districts.  Why would they be making such promises?  Pretty simple, the American voter has become the woman in the bar.  And our price is going higher and higher.  Instead of electing representatives that hold the same beliefs, the American voter has been electing the politician that promises to bring home the most goodies. 

The small problem with this practice is the cost.  The cost keeps going up.  The man in the bar went broke long ago.  But he is still handing over more and more cash to get us to go back to his room.  At first he was taking the money out of our purse.  Well, that worked great for awhile.  Then we noticed our purse was empty.  When we started to complain, the man said the only way we would get our share of our money would be to go to his room!  And we fell for it.  Again and again and again. 

So, how do we get out of this cycle?  First of all, consider our money gone.  We're not going to get it back.  Lesson learned.  Elect representatives that actually know the Constitution and take their oath seriously.  Let politicians know that we can't be bought for any price.  In other words, let them know what we are, or more importantly, are not.