Rich Liberals Champion the Poor to Maintain their Privileged Lives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 2nd, 2011

Per-Vote-Subsidy replaces Corporate and Union Money

Canada has a spoils system when it comes to public financing of political campaigns.  The big pile of public money ‘donated’ by the Canadian taxpayer is divided between the parties by vote.  The more votes a party gets, the more tax subsidies that party gets.  The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, wants to do away with these subsidies (see Harper vows to scrap per-vote subsidies by News Staff posted 4/1/2011 on

Currently, political parties receive a $2-per-vote subsidy, but Harper has long opposed the system, which was brought in by the Liberals when corporate and union donations were banned.

He said Friday that political parties already enjoy “enormous tax advantages” and taxpayers should not have to support parties they don’t support with their votes. Harper added that the subsidy only helps to ease the way for frequent elections.

Interesting.  Unlike the United States, Canada does not allow corporations or unions donate to political parties.  And when that ban went into place, the liberals brought in the per-vote-subsidy.  It takes money to win political contests.  And when you shut down two big sources (corporations and unions), that money has to come from somewhere else.  So the liberals decided to get that money from the taxpayer.  Fair, right?  I mean, without these subsidies, political power falls to the rich.  And that’s not fair, is it?

The Liberals are the Rich trying to Buy Political Power

When they banned corporate and union donations that left private donations.  From actual people.  So I guess we would have to see how that money flowed to see whether the per-vote-subsidy is fair and serves its purpose.  To keep the rich from wielding political power over the poor (see Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target by Patrick Brethour, Vancouver, posted 4/2/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

Data compiled by the website show that funds raised by the parties largely come from small donors, in amounts that would make few Canadian households cringe…

Take the Conservative Party in 2009, which raised… an average [per person] donation of $174.60…

The story is pretty much the same with the other parties: the NDP, with an average donation of $169.11; the Bloc Quebecois, average $102.63; Green Party, $123.21; and the Liberals, with an average of $239.23, the highest of the major federal parties.

Looking at the average per-person donation, it appears the liberal donors are richer than the conservative donors.  Kind of goes against everything the liberals tell us.  That conservatives are nothing but a bunch of rich fat-cats who want to use the poor as footstools.  Either that or conservatives are just cheap bastards.

The same picture emerges when looking at the distribution of donations by size. For the Conservatives, about 10 per cent of the funds raised came from those giving between $1,000 and the maximum of $1,100; conversely, two-thirds came from those giving $400 or less. The NDP were similar, with 7 per cent coming from the highest donated amount, and 70 per cent coming from donations $400 and under. The Liberals – who have fulminated against the perils of the rich controlling the political process – were actually the party most dependent on big donations, with 35 per cent of their cash coming from donors giving between $1,000 and $1,100, while sub-$400 donors accounted for just 38 per cent of the funds the party raised.

In fact, the Liberals outperformed among big donors, raising $3.2-million to the Conservatives’ $1.7-million. The Tories made up that ground, and more, with small donors.

And what do these numbers tell you?  Liberals rely on rich people for their political donations.  Conservatives rely on the little guy, the average working person who can barely afford to donate $200.  And the big corporations and the big unions pour money into liberal political parties.  In ‘soft ways‘ these days.  In Canada.  In the United States.  All around the world.  So much money that it was hard for the little guy to fight against it.  Leaving political power in the hands of the rich.  Much like the liberals say they want to prevent with the per-vote-subsidy.  But, in fact, that’s exactly what they want to do.  Leave political power in their rich hands.

You see, the crony capitalists and the snooty rich don’t like the little guy.  They like the good life that few can enjoy.  And sometimes they need special favors from government to continue that privileged life.  Which is why they donate to liberal parties.  But when they banned ‘hard money’ donations from corporations and unions, liberals had to scramble for other financing.  Because the majority of people don’t support their views.  So they need to ‘force’ donations through these per-vote-subsidies.  For it is the only way they can continue to rule against the will of the people.

The People who Supported Obamacare get Obamacare Waivers

It’s always about the money.  Whenever you’re confused about some political debate, just ask yourself this simple question.  Where’s the money?  Take health care, for example.  The goal of Obamacare was to provide everyone with high-quality yet affordable health care insurance.  Sort of like paying for a Big Mac and getting filet mignon.  Impossible, yes, but that’s what they told us. 

Big Business and the unions were all behind it.  Everyone (employers and unions) wants to dump their health care costs.  That’s why they were anxious for that public option.  Well, they didn’t get the public option.  Not yet.  First Obamacare has to put the private insurers out of business.  Once it does that then the government can step in as the insurer of last resort and, presto, they’ll get their national health care.  But leaves a costly problem for the here and now.

To ‘pass’ CBO, they had to include some onerous requirements.  The new law forced everyone to buy insurance.  The insurers had to cover preexisting conditions.  And they forbade insurance companies to recover their full overhead expenses.  Suddenly affordable insurance was going to become unaffordable.  Or people were simply going to lose their insurance because they couldn’t afford the premiums that were necessary to comply with the requirements of Obamacare.  So many of those who supported this legislation want no part of it.  For themselves, that is.  It’s okay for us.  But not for them.  So they’re asking that the law does not apply to them.  Only us (see List of health reform waivers keeps growing by Jason Millman posted 4/2/2011 on The Hill).

The number of waivers the Obama administration has awarded for a provision of the year-old healthcare reform law grew by 128 in March.

With the new waivers, that means 1,168 businesses, insurers, unions and other organizations have received one-year exemptions from a healthcare reform provision requiring at least $750,000 in annual benefits.

Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to learn what was in it.  Apparently another 128 insurance plans learned what was in it this past March.  And they want out.  Like the majority of Americans.  Which really begs the question why Obamacare?  It isn’t popular.  They had to pass it quickly before anyone could read the bill.  None of the unions want it.  So why have it?  Because liberals want it.  And why do politicians want anything?  Follow the money.

The Free Market provides High Quality and Low Prices

Hillary Clinton tried to socialize our health care.  Now Obamacare is a short step from doing just that.  Because they said only government could step in and fix our health care system.  That the so-called free market had failed.  Really now?  Because that’s the one thing that has been missing from our health care system.  Market forces.  Doctors providing medical services for a fee that their patients actually pay for.  Not a third party insurance bureaucrat.  But the actual patient.  Until now, that is.  And that free market?  It works.  It’s providing a fully funded quality system that people of average means can afford (see High-end medical option prompts Medicare worries by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, posted 4/2/2011 on the Sun Journal).

Every year, thousands of people make a deal with their doctor: I’ll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need your services, and in return you’ll see me the day I call, remember who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.

But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul.

The spread of “concierge medicine,” where doctors limit their practice to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with doctors and longer waits.

People actually paying to see a doctor?  Imagine that?  Just like in the old days.  Before there was a health care crisis.  The patients are happy.  The doctors are happy.  And making a very nice living.  You can’t get much more of a win-win situation, can you?  Who could find fault with this?

The trend caught the eye of MedPAC, a commission created by Congress that advises lawmakers on Medicare and watches for problems with access. It hired consultants to investigate.

I guess the government could.  Big Brother is everywhere.  And he is looking at this free market solution.  And Big Brother is not amused.  People paying for their own medical care?  That’s a problem for those in government.  A big problem.

Several members said it appears to be fulfilling a central goal of Obama’s overhaul, enhancing the role of primary care and restoring the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet the approach envisioned under the law is different from the one-on-one attention in concierge medicine. It calls for a team strategy where the doctor is helped by nurses and physician assistants, who handle much of the contact with patients.

John Goodman, a conservative health policy expert, predicts the health care law will drive more patients to try concierge medicine. “Seniors who can pay for it will go outside the system,” he said.

MedPAC’s Hackbarth declined to be interviewed. But Berenson, a physician and policy expert, said “the fact that excellent doctors are doing this suggests we’ve got a problem.”

You see, one-on-one concierge medicine is bad because it lets doctors work freely with patients.  The government would prefer something along the current lines.  You treat patients.  And then we’ll think about paying you.  And how much we’ll pay you.  Like in the Medicare program now.  That way you’re our bitch.  But if you work outside the system, you and your patients will be free.  And we don’t like that.  Why?  Follow the money.

Follow the Money for the Money Never Lies

Politics is always about the money.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Because it takes money to gain and maintain political power.  Whether you’re running a political campaign.  Or supporting a campaign with your union dues in exchange for political favors (such as legislation that limits competition so unions can maintain their high wage and benefit packages).

Liberals are a minority of the population.  Wherever you are.  The majority of people don’t belong to a union or work for the government.  This majority has jobs.  They take care of their family.  And want Big Brother to leave them alone.  Union dues from a small percentage of the population can greatly influence elections, though.  They can’t donate directly.  But that money finds its way to liberals.  Liberals in the U.S. desperately need this money.  In fact, union dues have become so important to the ruling liberal elite that they created an entire new class of union-paying people.  The public sector union class.  Who has but one purpose.  To launder tax dollars from taxpayers to the Democrat Party.

The 2010 mid-term elections shook up the political establishment.  Conservative governors are fighting back against this new political class.  And the liberal left is attacking these governors.  Even President Obama sent activists to Madison, Wisconsin, to protest against Governor Walker as they voted to make their public sector workers live more like the rest of the people in Wisconsin.  This is why Obamacare is so important to the left.  Health care is 17% of GDP.  That’s a lot of money.  That’s why the public option is so important.  Why nationalized health care is so important.  Because of this money.  Liberals want this money to pass through Washington.  Where they can easily skim a little off the top for their political needs.  And to live well.  Without actually having to work.  Like that majority that pays all those taxes.

Life’s greatest question can be easiest answered by following the money.  For the money never lies.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How Long Can We Rob Poor Old Peter?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 3rd, 2010

How Much for Your Vote?

Imagine that you have 5 good friends.  You meet one day each week to relax and decompress over drinks and good bar food.  Let’s say each of you spends $20 on food and another $20 on your bar bill.  So that’s a total of $40 spent each week on a frivolous benefit you don’t need but enjoy.  Your spouse isn’t all that enthused but it’s only $40.  So you get a pass.  Because you work so hard to earn your pay that your spouse can’t begrudge you this little stress reliever.

So, each week, you each spend $40 for a total weekly cost of $240 (6 X $40).

Now let’s say Friend 1 loses his/her job.  You feel bad for your good friend.  You want to help cheer him/her up during a difficult time.  So you insist that he/she still joins you on your weekly stress reliever.  The others will split his/her tab.  So that’s $240 split 5 ways.  Each of the 5 now pays $48 each, or $8 more each week.  If you do this for 4 weeks, that’s an additional $32 out of pocket per month (assuming a nice even number of 4 weeks per month).

Let’s say Friend 2 also loses his/her job.  You insist he/she still joins your weekly gathering.  So that’s $240 split 4 ways.  Each of the 4 now pays $60 each, or $20 more each week.  If you do this for 4 weeks, that’s an additional $80 out of pocket per ‘month’.

Let’s say Friend 3 also loses his/her job.  So that’s $240 split 3 ways.  Each of the 3 now pays $80 each, or $40 more each week.  If you do this for 4 weeks, that’s an additional $160 out of pocket per ‘month’.

Let’s say Friend 4 also loses his/her job.  So that’s $240 split 2 ways.  Each of the 2 now pays $120 each, or $80 more each week.  If you do this for 4 weeks, that’s an additional $320 out of pocket per ‘month’.

Let’s say Friend 5 also loses his/her job.  So that’s $240 split 1 way.  You now pay $240, or $200 more each week.  If you do this for 4 weeks, that’s an additional $800 out of pocket per ‘month’.

Get the picture?  You’re generosity will eventually cost you a house payment. 

The lesson here is that the more generous we are with other people’s money, the more those ‘other people’ have to sacrifice.   Not the people collecting the benefits.  It’s always the same.  People always have the best of intentions.  But they only make things worse in the long run.

This is what is happening in advanced welfare states all over the world.  And in the United States.  It’s not the greed of Wall Street.  It’s our greed.  And the insatiable greed of Washington.  For our money.  So they can give it to people in exchange for their vote.

Learning from the Past

Trend analysis is an invaluable tool.  People use it to determine which stocks to buy.  Businesses use it to judge the results of past business decisions.  Why?  Because we learn from history.  At least when we choose to.  And that’s the problem with government and an entitlement-based constituency.  They refuse to learn the lessons of history.

The more generous government gets with other people’s money, the more demanding we get for government benefits, the trend is clear.  The worse the life of that poor, dumb bastard who still has a job gets.

And yet people persist in blaming the greed of Wall Street.  Thomas Jefferson warned about the corruption of government by Big Finance and we see it happening.  But we blame Wall Street.  Not Big Government.  Who received boatloads of money from Wall Street for relaxing the mortgage requirements and having Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae buy up all those risky mortgages (giving us the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession of 2008 – (to be determined)).  And a slew of other sweetheart deals they made with each other.

Or we blame the greed of the doctors, hospitals and the drug manufacturers.  Not ourselves for wanting other people to pay for more and more of our health care needs.  Or government for forcing doctors and hospitals to charge the private health insurers more to cover the costs they incur when the government discounts their Medicaid and Medicare invoices.  Or the lawyers for the huge cost of litigation they cause with their numerous lawsuits against the doctors, the hospitals and the drug manufacturers (so numerous that it’s a wonder anyone actually survives from using their products or services).  All which taken together provide fodder for government to take action to solve the ‘health care crisis’.

No, we the people need to point our finger at the truly greedy.  Government.  And ourselves (those who seek all those government benefits).

Give Pete a Chance

With that primer, now read America on the brink of a Second Revolution by Paul B. Farrell of MarketWatch.  It’s not necessarily a cheery outlook.  But it does note that things could get better if we had another Ronald Reagan.  And they would.  Speaking of learning the lessons of history, we all would do well to learn the very good lessons of the Reagan years.  Not the lies and misinformation put out by those in Big Government and the mainstream media.

You can’t keep robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Because eventually Peter will have no more money.  What about Paul then?  How will he get by when there is no one left to rob?  Well, stay tune, Paul.  You’re going to learn the hard way pretty darn quick.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,