Medicaid is a program for people who can't afford health insurance. Social Security is a program to provide retirement for seniors. Medicare is a program to give health insurance to seniors. Public schools is a program providing education for kids K-12. Smaller programs help the poor with housing and other basic needs. Now, congress is trying to make healthcare the next huge entitlement. As we slide deeper into a welfare state, is this a good thing?

A welfare state is when a country assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. At a minimum, it is a "safety net" with varying degrees of welfare. Some would say that its the middle ground between communism and capitalism.

The best example of a successful modern welfare state is Denmark. Citizens in Denmark have healthcare provided for them, retirement, education, and much more. Education is paid for all the way through graduate school. Studies reveal that Denmark people are happy with their system. They have low unemployment since 38% of the people work for the government.

The big negative to any welfare state is taxes. Denmark has the highest taxes in the world. They have a 25%VAT (Value Added Tax) tax. This is a 25% tax on everything you buy. Income tax is 40-60% depending on how much money you make. The automobile tax is 180%. Add the VAT and the taxes on a $10,000 car is over $20,000. Gas is $10 per gallon because of taxes. Not surprisingly, most people take public transportation or ride bikes to get around.

Before you think that the US can join in this fun, let me remind you of some differences between the 2 countries. Denmark is a geographically small nation with a total population equaling about half that of Chicago metro. Economically, they produce their own oil and export about 6 times more than they use. They don't spend much on military. In WWII they surrendered to Hitler in the first 2 hours of the invasion. I doubt they will be much help against any threat today.

The real cost of a welfare system is economic freedom. Most of your money will go to the government for redistribution to its citizens. People in the US want the benefits of a welfare state, but without the cost. We must be willing to sign over our checks to the government, trust them to provide good services, and submit to their decisions regarding personal issues. I oppose this and it explains why conservatives are against a national healthcare plan.

I also believe America is unique. Liberals despise that attitude. America has been the most successful capitalistic enterprise in the history of the world. Where would Europe be today without the capitalism of America? It provided the resources necessary for a victorious campaign in WWII and the Marshall Plan, paid for by Americans, to rebuild Europe after the devastation. If Hitler had won, where would Denmark be today?

We don't want any citizen to go hungry or live with inadequate healthcare. I believe the answer is capitalism. To get the full benefits of capitalism the government needs to start with tax reform. Instead of our complex, outdated, and unfair system we could do something like Denmark's VAT. Do away with all taxes and then establish one tax with no loopholes. It would be a consumption tax paid at the point of purchase of any product or service. Proponents of this "FairTax Plan" say that to pay for current government expenses it would take around 25%. As people and businesses prosper they will buy more and the government will have more money.

Honest capitalism should raise that standard of living for every citizen and even foreign business partners. Instead of traveling the world and apologizing for America, Obama needs another summit to study what made America great. Obama campaigned on the promise to grow the welfare state. Is this really what we want?

BY: William H. Watson
http://www.questionsbybill.com
Bill is a sales and marketing guru. Currently most of his work is in the area of online marketing. He has a bachelors and Master's degrees but his greatest education came from raising 3 kids. Now that they are grown his life's motto is "Safety Third"!

Democrats will do anything for votes.

For those of us who were Democrats through the period of JFK, LBJ and Hubert Humphrey it is sad to see the gutter politics now fully embraced by the Democratic Party.

Sadder yet how millions fall for this demagoguery, believing that receiving the rewards of the work done by others, and believing these dishonest politicians is the way it should be.

In 1996 when S-Chip was introduced, it was another new entitlement program. Even though there were much better private sector choices available-there still are-the original legislation at least had reasonable limitations meant to restrict eligibility only to children and those of truly low income families. It was also a bi-partisan effort.

Today it has much more to do with political posturing, demagoguery, and turning health care into a fully run government program.

This is the essence of being a Democrat. Keep giving government more and more power, creating more government dependency, expanding the nanny-state. Then when those with some maturity try to keep a semblance of sanity and to contain the $55 trillion dollars of debt we have now committed the nation to (see report GAO-07-510R, issued on March 21, 2007, by the Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker) vilify the grown-ups as heartless or worse, unconcerned about "the children."

This never-ending and disgusting class-warfare strategy has now become the trademark of being a Democrat.

The few remaining adults in congress who are responsible with the hard earned daily labor of those who pay for the onslaught of handouts, are under constant assault for following the constitution, while nanny state advocates practice legalized thievery with reckless abandon.

Redistribution is what gives Democrats power, it is how they hold power.

More and more of the middle class qualifies for a certain benefit, thinking each handout is essentially free, because withholding taxes obscure the daily confiscation.

What their hard earned dollars are actually doing is paying for more government workers and bureaucrats at all levels of government for those bureaucrats to redistribute.

That redistribution-in the hundreds of billions-goes mostly to high school dropouts, unwed mothers and those who have not persisted.

Those recipients do not pay the price like those who have met their work deadlines day after day, week after week for years at a time, along with meeting other responsibilities. Those responsibilities are very costly, including high taxes for welfare benefits, the cost of which is now closing in on one-fifth of the federal budget.

Will we ever pay proper attention to the insidious nature of government. Suggest victimhood, create a limited program, promise low costs, knowing you'll fight to expand it later, watch it spin out of control, do more of the same.

Instead of listening to the U.S. Comptroller General's warning about the unsustainability of the $55 trillion of debt we are now committed to, from entitlements-most of it in just the last few years-another very costly one just pours gasoline on the fire.

George Bush's proposed budget, which became overdue on Oct. 1st already added a hefty $118 billion to last year's budget.

Democrats are trying to add an additional $23 billion, much of it downright pork.

When will this inevitable pattern of government confiscation spur enough adult behavior in voters to stand up to the insecure, nanny state crowd, which is ingrained with the non solutions of monstrously wasteful inefficient, dependency creating, government programs, no matter how much and how often these programs soar out of control.

When will the word insidious be understood?

How much Marxism will we accept before saying enough is enough.

By: Mick McNesby
Mick McNesby is a former tax advisor, consultant and negotiator. He was a frequent guest on political talk shows in Atlantic City, N.J., discussing the benefits of the lower cost of government. He can be visited at http://conservative-politics-infofind.com

James Madison once remarked, "with respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." In writing that letter to James Robertson, he reiterated the sentiments he shared with the nation in Federalist 41 where he denounced objections by the anti-Federalists to the term "general Welfare" being included in the Constitution because of it's presumption of an unlimited and open ended scope as without "color".

The fear of federally elected politicians being able to curry favor with their constituents by bringing home the bacon in the sense of tax dollars was why under the Constitution our government was given only limited powers to tax and spend. The founders knew that what have become known as "earmarks" would not serve this nation well and would corrupt the intent of limited government.

Why did Madison and the vast majority of Federalists say that the "general Welfare" clause was limited to the set conditions that followed? So that leaders of our government couldn't buy votes!

Over the years since however we have basically amended the Constitution through court orders and legislation (neither of which are means by which such action can be achieved mind you) to say to heck with all that nonsense! And we see where it is now getting us. "General Welfare" has come to mean anything and everything some politico in Washington can dream up.

What do we have today? We have Republican Congressmen from Alaska like Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young that are kings of pork barrel spending and who year after year take money home to their state for pet projects such as the affectionately called "bridge to nowhere" among many, many others.

We have people like Rep. Sam Farr, Democrat, CA who pushed for $25 million to benefit spinach growers to be added to an "emergency" supplemental spending bill. Must be some spinach "emergency" we are not aware of!

Then there is House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, Democrat, Minnesota who continues to send taxpayer dollars each year to mega-farms and giving 50% of the money for unconstitutional subsidies to just 4% of America's farmers.

Perhaps we should ask Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota under what authority of Article I, Section 8 he sought fit to secure over two million dollars in federal loans for the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad because they weren't making enough money on their own to pay for improvements and expansions?

Oh, but let's not forget Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who, if the truth be known, has more than his share of buildings in the state of West Virginia named after him because of all the money he has brought back to help build them. Not to mention that he has secured money for such unconstitutional projects like the "the Wood Education and Resource Center". $2.7 million of our tax dollars went to that to teach you and I about wood.

Thank God for government! I do not know how I would have learned anything about wood without this great organization! Honestly, the average American probably knows more about wood than anyone at that ridiculous place though. And those that have taken this money are no doubt busy studying the contents of Mr. Byrd's head apparently; a perfect specimen of wood.

And while we're in West Virginia, let's not forget about Byrd's partner in crime, Representative Allan Mollohan, who funneled $250 million dollars to non-profits which he himself set up. Conflict of interest? Or what about John Murtha? Ah yes, good old John ... the man has more money going to his district, which includes Johnstown, PA for "defense" projects that it is amazing there aren't aircraft carriers sitting in Laurel Ridge State Park!

And all the while, the people who these Congressmen represent as well as those of countless others with their hands in the proverbial "cookie jar" cheer. "What great things they are doing for our region!" they cry as they fawn over the money. And they empower our elected officials to continue to push for these monies year after year. And year after year we spend more and more on these earmarks at huge cost to the tax payers.

But that's ok right? Because the evil "rich" pay those taxes. And we know they are not paying their "fair share" right? And then we wonder why we are paying so much more for the goods and services we buy as these costs are passed on to us.

Meanwhile? These politicians are laughing all the way to the bank. Because they know you will keep voting for them as long as they bring home the pork and train you to salivate on cue. Yes, they've got us right where they want us.

By: J.J. Jackson
J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily. He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts and Evil Conservative T-shirts.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.

Take a break, have some laughs, visit our Lawyer Jokes pages.

For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.

From the Los Angeles Times written by Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer.

Shoring up levees, building reservoirs and purging pollution from the state's bays and streams may have been what voters had in mind in November when they approved billions of dollars of borrowing for crucial water projects.

[So it may come as a surprise that some of the debt they authorized could be headed toward a bike path through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, or "water-accessible overnight accommodations" on Lake Tahoe. Or a museum in Los Angeles. Even an aquarium 100 miles from the sea in Fresno.

Proposition 84 was a $5.3-billion bond measure that the official voter guide said would provide borrowing for "Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements." Less visible was the fine print that allowed state officials to authorize millions of dollars in spending with limited constraints.

Lawmakers are now debating how to allocate the pot of money generated by the measure. Some are proposing bills to finance projects that may please constituents or, in some cases, campaign contributors.

Though most of the projects serve a public purpose, they also would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the state's indebtedness. And for every $1 million spent, taxpayers fork out nearly an additional $1 million in interest over 30 years.

"This was supposed to be about strengthening the levees and water safety issues. That was the context under which people voted for it," said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley. "If we really wanted a museum and aquarium bond, voters could have considered that. But that is something that may not have been approved, considering the state's current economic situation."

Voters are usually asked to pass bond issues for huge public-works projects too costly to be absorbed in the state budget. But promoters of bond initiatives often tuck in provisions that allow spending for unrelated projects.

Joe Caves, the Sacramento lobbyist who wrote Proposition 84, said promoters were not being devious by including spending for aquariums, museum construction and other such things. He said those programs made the proposal more attractive to voters.

"An initiative has to address a range of issues that appeal to a range of voters out there," he said. "Otherwise it doesn't have broad-based support."

Lew Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee, says he doubts that voters had any idea the money was going anywhere but big water projects.

"I think the people have been hoodwinked," he said.

It is up to state environmental and parks agencies to parcel out most of the bond money. But lawmakers have been working to ensure that certain organizations get a share.

Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Los Angeles) drafted a bill that would give the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the Huntington Botanical Gardens — two projects supported by the senator — an edge in grant applications. Those institutions could use bond money to fund construction and exhibits.

Ridley-Thomas said he believes that voters were "quite conscious" that millions of dollars would "be aimed at these sort of projects" when they approved the borrowing in November.

"Culture is important," he said. "Why do we have to view this as levees versus parks? In a state such as California you can have both…. This is an investment in our future."

Central Valley lawmakers demanded that a Fresno aquarium project also have a shot at the funds. Promotional material for the aquarium says it will be a world-class facility off California 99. Featuring a 2-million-gallon "oceanarium" filled with spotted eagle rays and hammerhead sharks, among other marine life, it would re-create the "ancient saltwater sea that once covered the San Joaquin Valley."

Biologists would raise marine fish and coral at the aquarium, and visitors could stroll through a rooftop garden with a panoramic view of the San Joaquin River.

Ground has been broken for construction, but millions of dollars are needed to construct all the buildings supporters envision. Ridley-Thomas amended his bill to include the aquarium, and backers of the project are confident they will get $5 million.

"People say, 'An aquarium in Fresno?' " said Tom Lang, executive director of the project. "But … we have to have these things closer to where people live. People can't be driving 100 miles to get to them. That adds to our state's pollution problems."

Other lawmakers besides Ridley-Thomas have drafted bills that would guarantee cash for their pet projects.

Assembly members Ted Gaines (R-Roseville) and Lois Wolk (D-Davis) propose using bond money to establish a "Lake Tahoe water trail to link access to the waters of Lake Tahoe that are available for navigation by human-powered boats and beachable sail craft, and provide for diverse water-accessible overnight accommodations."

The idea, being promoted by tour companies, environmentalists and paddling enthusiasts, is to create a network of boater-friendly facilities around the lake's 72-mile shoreline to draw kayakers, canoeists and sailors.

Another proposal, by Sen. Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch), an avid cyclist, would fund "The Great California Delta Trail," a network of biking and hiking trails "that would extend around the delta and would link the San Francisco Bay Trail system to the planned Sacramento River trails."

A staff analysis of the delta trail idea by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water questioned whether "planning for a recreation corridor" is an appropriate use of water bond funds. The committee approved the bill nevertheless.

Some groups may not need a backer in the Legislature, because language in the proposition appears to carve out money for them. Many of those organizations played a big role in financing the campaign to get the measure passed.

Among them is the Big Sur Land Trust, one of several modest-size nonprofits that spent $100,000 or more on the Proposition 84 campaign. Executive Director Bill Leahy called the contribution an "investment." He believes that his group will get $10 million to $15 million in bond proceeds to purchase land.

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, another $100,000 donor, is now raising money to build an 88,000-square-foot museum in Palm Springs. The bond proposal sets aside $100 million for some types of educational institutions, including those focusing on "the relationship of Native American cultures to the environment."

When will California voters learn, voting yes on a bond issue is the same as giving California politicians and special issue groups a license to steal?

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Legal Resources

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.

Take a break, have some laughs, visit our Lawyer Jokes pages.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.