Entitlement will be the death of us?

With federal spending ballooning and the top presidential economic advisor suggesting tax increases are looming around the corner, most responsible Americans are left wondering why should we pay more for what amounts to a false sense of social entitlement? March 18th I wrote about Mitt Romney's book "No Apologies". In that post, I mentioned the exploding costs of social security and the projected bankrupting of American due to Medicaid. To add to that economic insult, Obama's health care monstrosity will dump 30-50 million more people into the already insolvent Medicaid program. While this health care bill wins him short term gains among his base, it has signaled a death toll for future American economic prosperity.

The reason for this rant, is that today I saw advertisements targeting the elderly. This ad encouraged seniors to visit The Scooter Store in order to get their very own scooter. The best part of this ad, is that the scooter is completely free of charge thanks to Medicaid. The advertisement even had the audacity to say to prospective customers not to worry because there would be "no cost to you."

So, if the elderly patient doesn't pay, who does? Oh, that's right, everyone else will pick up the tab for this non-essential device. Sure it might increase the individual's mobility, but who is checking first to see whether the individual truly can not afford this device on their own budget?

I don't know about you, but I'm shocked at our contemporary mindset that is pervasive in popular media. When did it become expected that you should have whatever you want in this world, even if you can't afford it or don't earn it for yourself? Furthermore, when did we start embracing this sentiment that hard working people should have to support free-loaders?

You might have heard people argue that these entitlement programs are the moral thing to do. The next time you hear this mass coddling, tell them the Christian (or other religiously motivated) noble form of charity is based on helping those less fortunate to help themselves. Like a child, the moral way to help the needy is to provide them resources and tools so that they become self-reliant and no longer need your support. Because only in such an upbringing, will the needy acquired character, a work ethic and sense of personal responsibility. When that has happened, then the truly moral end will have been reached, which is that these men will have become uplifted through true freedom. So, the next time you hear this false morality justification of government entitlement programs, tell those pied pipers that what they offer is merely a modern form of slavery that fetters man in a perpetual state of dependency on the state.

Another Obama takeover of the private sector?

Under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is pushing forward with their calls for "Net neutrality." This policy agenda aims to restrict and regulate internet service providers (ISPs) from making business decisions on how to control their private sector communications networks.

The FCC would like to limit ISPs from making sound business decisions that balance consumer access with product quality considerations. One example is how ISPs, in particular wireless companies, have different service plans that vary in price given the amount of a consumer's data usage. Under Net neutrality, the FCC wants to prohibit this "discrimination." Instead, the FCC argues that all plans are created equal, thus people should pay a single rate for unlimited access. Does this philosophy sound eerily familiar to the health care movement of the Obama administration?

Although, the reality of the matter is that the FCC and the Obama administration have it all wrong. Broadband and other wireless access are limited resources in the sense that at any point in time there is a maximal usage capacity that is defined by the infrastructure that these private ISPs have spent their own capital to create. Therefore, because the network capacity is limited, these ISPs have marketed a product where the consumer pays only for what he uses and not for what everyone else is using. This fair policy based on stratified usage/cost plans is not corporate greed, rather a consumer benefit aimed at maintaining product quality. The principle for this is that as more people pay for higher usage plans, ISPs have more capital to invest in infrastructure improvements.

If the FCC and the Obama administration get their way, private telecommunications, wireless and cable companies may soon find that these new regulations become too costly and or decrease the product quality to an extent that consumer satisfaction is compromised. What happens then? The market self adjusts as consumers bail on sub-par plans, thus leading ISPs to increase prices in order to cover pre-existing network infrastructure costs. At that point you will most likely hear people say "look, the private ISPs can't provide cost effective free press access to the internet so the government should start to provide these services. Because after all, access to information is a right for all Americans." That's when we wake up one day with government controlled internet or state-run free press.

Before we get to this worrisome state of affairs, let's acknowledge how the status quo has been quite beneficial. Specifically, it has grown industries, made jobs and spawned new technologies. These FCC Net neutrality policies are nothing but another governmental intrusion that is simply a domestic form of industrial and economic sabotage. Let's face it, you can't stack the deck against industries and expect them to keep our economic engine going. In order to protect the prosperity of our nation, we have to fight government encroachment into sectors that freely respond to market, i.e. consumer driven forces.

If you want to stop this insult into our nation's economy, share this article and visit http://nointernettakeover.com/ before April 8th to petition these policies.