John L. Overland, Jr.

18 August 2007

                                              Another Modest Proposal

                                        (with apologies to Jonathan Swift)

         Earlier this year when Exxon reported record profits, Senator Hillary Clinton stated that she would like to take those profits and use them to find alternative energy resources.  I understand that Hillary and her devoted husband Bill are millionaires: I would like to take their money, pay off my bills, provide more for my family, and rebuild a retirement account devastated by bad career decisions and over twenty weeks of unemployment.

         Fortunately for Exxon---and for the Clintons---such acts have a name.  That name is theft, and when I was a police officer I used to arrest people for that. So Hillary and I will have to find other ways for us to achieve our desired goals.  For me, that means being very careful with the money I earn.  I am not a wealthy man, and to make matters worse I now live in a part of the country where even the City imposes an income tax.  After paying into the joint account I share with my wife and after paying my creditors, I have to be very careful about whatever “discretionary spending” I can afford so I can put something into savings and retirement.  

          Likewise, there is another way for Hillary to finance her quest for developing alternative energy resources.  She can take the millions that she shares with husband Bill, form a corporation or other entity, and invest their millions in scientists, chemists, and other employees in her quest for alternative energy.  If they desire, the Clintons could invite other citizens who are concerned with saving the environment and who desire to find alternative energy to invest with them.  The capital provided by such investors would surely pay for many scientists, chemists, other professionals, and equipment in this venture.  Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio leap to mind.  I am certain that they would be delighted to invest in such an opportunity.

           Such entrepreneurship used to be the norm.  Someone might have an idea about a needed service, or someone might invent something useful.  Other people with money would join in and invest with the entrepreneur or inventor in the hope that the invention or service would make them rich.  Sometimes these investments worked but sometimes they didn’t.  In a world of risk and reward, people made choices, invested their money, and either reaped the rewards of profit or saw their investments vanish.  Within the successful companies, the more farsighted among the managers and directors kept up with even newer inventions or changes to their own established products in order to adapt and remain profitable.

         These principles also apply to those of us who are not managers or directors or CEOs.  For example, an oft-repeated mantra among the Left is their call for universal health care provided by the government.  This really means provided by us, the taxpayers, of course.  As an alternative solution I offer my own personal experience concerning the problem of health care in America.

          A couple of years ago I worked for an employer whose employee health care coverage plan worked like this: the monthly premium payments were paid partly by the employees and partly by the employer. A certain amount was deducted from our pay checks towards the premium payments, and our employer would pay a matching amount.   These combined contributions made up our employee health premium payments for the month.  The problem with our employee health system was that it depended, in large part, upon whether our employer deemed it necessary to make the premium payment for that month or not.  Often our employer failed to pay our premiums. I discovered this on two occasions when I needed to see my doctor.

         So what did I do?  Did I write my congressman and senator, or a letter to the editor demanding that government “do something” about my need for health insurance?  No, I decided upon a more radical approach:  I demanded that my employer stop deducting my co-payments  for these premiums from my pay.  I then called several insurance companies, found the plan that provided the services I wanted at premiums and co-payments I could afford, and purchased my own health insurance policy. Voila! My problem of having no health insurance was solved.  The difference is that, under my health care system, I was able to decide which insurance plan provided best for me and I paid for it with my money.  The Left proposes that we pay premiums to the Government instead, through increased taxation, and we should settle for whatever care the government deems appropriate.

        If, as so many of our friends on the Left are convinced, there is a need for universal health coverage, there is no need for them to wait for the outcome of Election Year 2008 to devote themselves and their (again, their) resources to solving the problem.  Presidential hopeful John Edwards, for example, cares passionately and sincerely for the poor.  He also has, by all reports, accumulated tremendous wealth.  A man of proven compassion, he desperately wants to redistribute the incomes of “the wealthy” to help the poor.  Because Edwards himself is very wealthy, there is no reason why he should not proudly set the example by devoting his considerable personal wealth to a trust or foundation to provide health care for the poor.   Likewise, Michael Moore, whose latest opus Sicko eschews the American health care system in favor of a system based on the Cuban model, could devote his considerable wealth into foundations or trusts to provide health insurance and care to the poor.

          The list of opportunities for such people to do tremendous good and provide much-needed assistance is endless.  Our earliest capitalists became philanthropists and gave generously of their own wealth to noble charities and causes, and therein lies the distinction:  where our benefactors of old gave generously of their own personal wealth and resources, today’s “benefactors” want to cure the ills of the world at anyone’s expense other than their own.  The Bill and Hillaries, the Al Gores, the Michael Moores, and the John Edwards’ of the world dream big, but whatever they choose to do with that which is “theirs” they do not choose to use their wealth to finance their philanthropic dreams. Such a position is consistent with every other socialist who gains power and is able to impose their will on an unfortunate people: historically, every prior Marxist utopia has had its Nomenklatura which enjoyed privileges unheard of by the great unwashed, and these brothers and sisters of proven compassion want, reasonably enough, to be the founding members of an American Nomenklatura. Thus, it is only reasonable that they want to invest in their grand schemes with my money, with your money, with anyone’s money but their own.

          It is time for us who still believe in liberty to fight back against these hypocrites.  The first step to fighting back means becoming economically educated, and the first step in becoming economically educated is to understand something very simple.  I call it “Verse One, Chapter One of the ‘Gospel According to (this) John’” and it goes like this:

                 There is no such thing as “government money.”  Every penny of it is

                taxpayer money.

            Once one understands this simple and universal fact, everything else becomes obvious immediately.  Too many people see government as the “great provider”, an enormous Santa Claus who exists to give us pretty things to eat, provide us with Social Security and health care, nice places to live, to pay our mortgages when we are unable to, and dispense “free” condoms to the masses.   But once one understands this basic fact, one sees clearly that the only way that the great Santa Claus can provide these great giveaways is by taking from someone else. It then becomes immediately obvious that, if each of us are paying anyway for “government provided” services and goods (whether health care or condoms), it makes infinitely greater sense for each of us to decide independently of government whether we really want or need these services and goods, and what prices we are willing to pay for them.

           Our would-be benefactors assure us that the poor and middle class would never pay the taxes needed to allow the government to furnish these goods and services, that only “the wealthy” would be taxed at such rates to provide these most needful things for the benefit of all.  Anyone who believes this is a fool:  ever since income taxes were first imposed, Americans have been promised that only “the wealthy” would have to pay.  As the years have passed and the days vanished since, the argument has evolved into something conveniently Clintonian: determining who pays income taxes in America depends upon how one defines “the wealthy.”

           Once one understands that there is no such thing as government money (because, again, there is only taxpayer money), the second step in fighting back is understanding that socialism (or liberalism, or “progressivism”, or other misleading label these people choose to hide behind) will inevitably make everyone equal only by making everyone equally poor.  That is because the only way government can provide is by taking away.  The more our own income diminishes under socialism, the more we will need from government, the more government will need to take. An ever-increasing cycle of dependency is created.

           The third step in fighting back is learning to think critically when listening to these self-appointed “champions of the masses” and challenging them quickly, sincerely, and harshly whenever they seek to chastise us for what they judge to be our lack of compassion.  This is easy to do because, once you realize that there is only taxpayer money, another fact quickly emerges.

          The United States has one official election day, which occurs every two years on the first Tuesday in November.  On that day our friends flock to the polls and vote for the candidates they feel share their commitment to compassion.  During the months preceding election day they probably will have also worked hard as volunteers for their candidates as well. After they vote, they are proud for having advocated principles which they hold dear to their hearts.

         But we also have another election day which, while an unofficial election day, is one that has a more direct impact upon each of us.  That day occurs every year on 15 April.  If you have time in the weeks before this Election Day and are able to, watch our friends as they scurry about, grabbing their expense sheets, their receipts, their financial records for the year, and in a heated frenzy rush to their tax attorney or tax accountant.  (Remember, however, that most of the people for whom our friends care so passionately must make do with more commercial tax preparers).  On this election day, the battle cries pouring from their throats is not “For the poor” or “For the children” but “Not on my dime.”