Two Cows... Political Analysis (unvarnished, uncompromising, unapologetic)

First published October 31, 2009
All rights reserved.

Problem:
Of course, any serious discussion about national healthcare should start with the obvious question: 'Why is everybody getting sick?' But do Obama, Pelosi and Reid start there? Nope. Instead, they talk about who will pay for the nation's healthcare as everyone gets sick. But look at Obama's solution for his own family: an organic vegetable garden on the White House south lawn. Prevention for his own family, but sickness and healthcare bills for the nation. Did Obama, Pelosi or Reid ever tell us why we are getting sick and how we can get healthy? Don't expect it. A sick nation is easy to manipulate and control.

Solution:
Happily, the solution to the nation's healthcare woes is simple and inexpensive: help people's bodies heal themselves. To find out why the nation is getting sick and how to correct the problem, visit:
http://www.squidoo.com/BewareOfFoodAdditives

Questions:
Why don't congress and the president use the same healthcare system they expect the people to use? Why does the Federal Government even allow toxins in our food supply? Having taught the U.S. Constitution for 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School, does Obama remember that healthcare is not one of the Federal Government's enumerated rights, and therefore the 10th amendment clearly dictates healthcare as a responsibility left to the states and the people, respectively?

Problem:
OK. So there's a financial crisis: no liquidity (even AAA-rated companies can't get an overnight loan) and no confidence on Wall Street (the stock market is cratering). So what does Washington do? In September 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke lead an effort to prop up financial firms by using $700 billion to purchase toxic assets and bad debt. In October 2008, Paulson even forced taxpayer money onto banks that didn't want it. In spite of the bailouts, regional and small banks continue to fail throughout 2009, largely due to bad mortgages.

Solution:
Incredibly, there was a simple and cheap solution to the financial crisis and Henry Paulson knew what it was. Keep in mind, previously, Henry Paulson was Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. One of the services Goldman Sachs offers is underwriting and coordinating initial public offerings (IPOs) for companies. Paulson would have immediately thought of capitalizing and spinning off several new banks, because IPOs was his old line of business. The government could have taken $50 or $100 billion, capitalized a bank, hired a CEO and made an IPO. Wall Street would have loved investing in new banks with absolutely no toxic loans on the books, instilling confidence in the stock market. The liquidity crisis is averted as decent companies can once again get overnight loans to make payroll. And the taxpayers get all of their money back as the IPO revenue goes straight back to the Treasury. You can even re-use the same money and spin off a number of banks in this manner. The only expense is the investment banker's IPO underwriting fee. Crisis averted. Don't listen to anybody who says 'it's not that simple'. It is that simple. Make them explain why not.

Questions:
What happened to the bailout money? Was it paid back? Was any of it stolen? Were these loans or gifts? Why didn't Paulson implement the new-bank IPO plan? Didn't outgoing president Bush or his advisers think of this plan? Why wasn't it brought up for the country to debate? Was it discussed and dismissed for some political reason? Why did new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner continue to allocate $350 billion in bailout money instead of spinning off new banks? Didn't Obama or his advisers think of spinning off new banks? While we are at it, was anyone tried and convicted for falsifying loan ratings or selling dubious loans, which helped create the crisis in the first place?

Almost seems like Bush never left office. Have you had enough 'Change you can believe in'?

Problem:
Some workers are required to receive H1N1 vaccinations - like it or not (e.g. healthcare workers, teachers, etc.). This makes no sense to me. If the vaccination works but you don't get vaccinated, are you putting anybody at risk who was vaccinated? And if the vaccination doesn't work, it doesn't matter who got vaccinated and who didn't. Whether they are vaccinated or not, healthcare workers can still pass the virus from patient to patient if proper patient-contact procedures are not followed. And parents can vaccinate their children without regard for others at the school who are not vaccinated.

Solution:
Each person has the right to decide whether they will be purposely exposed to live or dead virus via injection or inhalation, without pressure, threats or undue influence from their government, employer, etc.

Questions:
In October 2009, the U.S. government warned people about a possible 2nd wave of swine flu in December or maybe March. How would they know the virus will spread again a few months later?! And why is the government so focused on this flu when the seasonal flu has caused far more deaths?

Problem:
Having just wasted an hour running around the house and the office switching a dozen clocks back to standard time, I can assure you there are no savings in Daylight Saving Time (DST). Missed appointments caused by the switch to DST are problematic and unproductive. The touted energy savings are a joke. Official studies regularly contradict each other. And any businessman that knew they would save energy just by opening an hour earlier in the summer wouldn't need the government's approval to do so. But the additional loss of life and limb that occurs twice a year due to accidents caused by less sleep on the Monday after a DST switch, and traveling home from work or school after the sudden switch to earlier darkness makes the whole concept unacceptable.

Solution:
Follow most of Australia, South America, Africa and southeast Asia and eliminate DST.

Questions:
Can you think of any reason to keep DST?

This section is inspired by 'Parable of the Isms' by Anonymous. The phrase 'If you have two cows' is a parody on the simple examples traditionally used to explain basic economic theory. Here, it depicts a scenario where you own two cows and shows how you would fare under the various socioeconomic/political ideologies. This section is also the inspiration for the name of the lens: Two Cows.

Socialism: If you have two cows, the government gives one to your neighbor.

Communism: If you have two cows, the government takes them and you milk them for everyone.

Marxism: If you have two cows, the cows take over the farm and milk you.

Fascism: If you have two cows, swelling with national pride, you ride the cows into battle.

Nazism: If you have two cows, swelling with national pride, the government shoots you and THEY ride the cows into battle.

FDRism: If you have two cows, the government hires one cow to milk the other, putting you out of work.

JFKism: If you have two cows, the government vows to put cows underwater within a decade.

LBJism: If you have two cows, at odds over milking procedures at a distant farm, the government sends the cows into battle.

Nixonism: If you have two cows, the government wiretaps the cattle gate to obtain bovine secrets.

Carterism: If you have two cows, the government prohibits the white cow from disagreeing with the black cow.

Reaganism: If you have two cows, the government spends $100 billion to make your cows stealthy.

Clintonism: If you have two cows, the government eschews machines and secretly milks your cows by hand.

Bushism: If you have two cows, noting the superior marbling in right rump roasts over left rump roasts, government deciders mandate 'no cow left behind'.

Capitalism (unfettered): If you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull.

Capitalism (fettered): If you have two cows, the government requires you to sell your cows on credit to neighbors who can't afford them, and guarantees the loans. All of the new cow owners default, but they keep the cows and the taxpayer covers the loans. The government criticizes your 'predatory tactics' and 'unfettered markets', vowing to 'replace selfishness and greed with responsibility and fairness' (see Obamaism).

Obamaism: If you have two cows, the government gives one to your neighbor and one to a commercial farm. You pay capital gains tax on the 'sale' and new cow owners get a tax credit for buying feed. With the new farm bill, your neighbor also receives government subsidies if they don't milk the cow. But now YOU have to buy milk and beef and you pay much higher prices due to the shortage. Sadly, the milk and beef aren't as good because government regulations require commercial farms to inject the cows with antibiotics and growth hormones, making you sick. You can't seek medical care because you couldn't afford to keep your health insurance when your cows were taken, and the government won't cover you because, being self-employed, you don't qualify as an 'at-risk' individual. Lacking insurance, the government fines you for your 'selfish failure to contribute'. Clearly a malcontent, your name is added to a 'watch list'.