Thursday, March 10, 2011


As soon as the government mandates that any good or service is a right, it means that someone is now obligated to provide that right. This is true in the case of Healthcare, education, monetary handouts like Welfare and Social Security, food, housing, whatever.

There are only three ways to do this:

1 Require that the cost of the good or service is spread amongst all taxpayers
Sometimes this can be justified, in that the cost of the good or service is borne by all, and is provided equally to all, with everyone paying, and everyone benefiting. This system is good when the cost to any one person is high, but everyone needs and has access to the service.

Examples of this include national defense,  the court system, or fire protection. Every person benefits, every person pays.

2 Require that the cost of the good or service is paid for by the provider, that is the provider must provide the good or service at their own expense.

At least a portion of the good or service is forcibly taken from one person for the pure benefit of another. Examples of this include welfare, social security, education, and medical programs. For example, the law forces Doctors to provide medical services for a set price. This system is sometimes confused with other plans, but it easily distinguished by the fact that the good or service is not provided to everyone equally. Welfare is not available to some based on income, race, or other factors, for example.
3 Require the person receiving the good or service to pay for it themselves. Some systems do offset a portion of the costs through user fees, but these are typically heavily subsidized by other means. A good example of a user fee supported mandate is the auto insurance that is required to operate a vehicle.

I used to be a supporter of the TEA party, until I realized that they are merely trying to shift the provider from one column to another. They still want the government to provide them with stuff, they just don't want to be the one who pays for it. They want government mandated schools, fire departments, and all the other hand outs, but instead of paying for it, they want to force others to do so, either by asking them to provide their labor at a certain price, or by making someone else pay a tax that they themselves want to be exempted from.

Even though the anonymous commenter doesn't want to post even a screen name, I will post the information requested:
 Instead of negotiating with government employees, the TEA Party of Wisconsin is passing a law that would require teachers to take pay cuts, and prohibiting them from even discussing the matter. No different that requiring Doctors to provide medical care at set rates under Obamacare, the TEA party (which is a branch of the Republican party) simply wants someone else (teachers) to foot the bill for education. I say, break the Dem/Rep stranglehold, and begin phasing out public education.

Closer to my home state of Florida, the TEA party is already making with the politics as usual:

Managed care health insurance companies — eager to shape legislation that could give them more access to 3.2 million Medicaid patients and an expected $21.6 billion budget — gave nearly $200,000 to the parties in the last quarter of 2010.

Political committees representing property insurers and individual companies gave the Republican Party nearly $60,000 as lawmakers prepared a proposal to loosen regulations that could allow rate increases and fewer requirements to cover sinkhole damage.

The sugar companies, Florida Crystals and U.S. Sugar — which donated $250,000 and $175,000, respectively — have joined other agricultural interests in opposing a new federal clean water mandate affecting nutrient runoff. They have urged the governor to delay implementing the rules.
Private prison operator Geo Group chipped in $82,500. Private companies run seven of the state’s 146 prison facilities under contracts worth $159 million and Scott proposes privatizing more to help reduce a $2.4 billion corrections budget.

Not only that, but during the campaign, TEA party gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott said that he would not cut the pay and benefits of police and fire. Four weeks after being sworn in, he proposes to eliminate the retirement plan for all state workers, cops and firemen included. Proving that the TEA party is comprised of a bunch of the same old lying politicians that will say whatever it takes to get elected that we have always had.

For those who think that such liars are trustworthy, remember that when he decides to turn on you for a few extra votes. Or have you forgotten Gillibrand already?


Anonymous said...

Please point your loyal readers to some evidence of this hypocritical aspect of the Tea Party philosophy.

sofa said...

"Refusing to work for someone because you do not agree with the working conditions is not extortion."-Divemedic, 'assembly' post

Everyone agrees. The Teachers chose to stop work. They are free to leave. Two parties disagree and each is free to go their own ways. No problem.

Yet the Teachers stay and demand money!
They disrupt the state, causing continued economic impact to parents and the citizens of the state (who are getting upset about the size of the bill for these union tactics).
That's the extortion part.

The bigger the cost for this lengthy disruption, the more Teachers will have to be fired. It's math.

Divemedic said...

You still didn't answer the post about the shoe being on the other foot. Until you answer that one, all the rest of your replies go in the trash can. It's my blog, my rules.

An answer means an answer. Not a link to some politician's speech. Here is the post: