Why Socializing America is bad

I have heard a lot of talk lately about socialism and the idea of nationalizing various aspects of America. I have heard how this group or that think it’s a good idea. I have heard how some think this is a direction America must take.

But in every case I am aware of, not a single one of those people promoting nationalizing whatever have lived in a socialist nation.

I have heard how great national healthcare can be. Yet thousands spend enormous amounts of money to come to America for our capitalist, market driven healthcare. Because it is the best in the world.

When it comes to banks and finance there is much the same kind of situation. People speak of redistribution of wealth. Evening the playing field. And placing ever more of a burden on the ”rich” while ensuring that the poor have no option beyond the Government.

Let me say something of personal experience to all of this. I have lived in a socialist nation. I am not from one, but I did live - not visit or vacation - in the old Soviet Union. I lived in Moscow and Tsbilsi. I have visited Latvia, and other parts of the old communist regime. So I have some experience in this debate. Far more than those in favor of nationalization.

The fact is that I witnessed the healthcare system firsthand. It was deplorable. When I had a tooth that was in severe condition I went to a local Moscow dentist. The room was filled with people waiting to see the dentist. When I signed in, the only question I was asked was if I was paying in rubles or dollars. I had both, and was told dollars were better.

I was ushered into the dentist’s office, ahead of people that had been waiting hours, within 5 minutes of entering the office. My first impression of the room was a white ceramic version of medieval dungeons I had seen on television. The equipment I saw around the room were working versions of equipment over 30 years old.

When the dentist confirmed that I had paid the huge sum of $20 American, worth more than 500 times the fee in rubles, I was provided an anesthetic. This was something that only the international cash paying customers received. Novocain. Not watered down or otherwise diluted, nor other lesser medications that regular citizens receive. And I had my tooth pulled. I was out of the office in roughly 30 minutes.

And every face in that room knew they could not afford and thus would not receive the same service I had just gotten.

When it comes to finance I prefer to look at the daily life of the average person. I lived in an apartment like anyone else. The cost was a $10 a month, or 1000 times it’s value. I had someone who shopped for meat and bread for me. That cost another $20 dollars.

I went out a few times to get food from the store myself while I lived in Russia. The lines were at least an hour long, just for general foods. The cold cuts were of a quality too low to ever be served in any American store. The selection of foods were minimal. The cost was next to nothing. But when I say the quality was low, I mean that some of the canned meats were the exact look, smell, and consistency of middle brand dog food I served my pets in California.

But it was enough to keep me alive. Though if you have ever waited for 2 hours in a line during a Russian winter, you would question how much fun life really is.

Mind you that 3 blocks from the office I worked at in Moscow, there was a McDonald’s. At almost any point in the year there was a line no less than 3 hours long (the longest I ever personally saw was 8 hours) just to get into that McDonald’s. They would let in groups of 20 – 30 people at a time. It was the largest McDonald’s I have ever seen anywhere, and I believe it is the largest in the world.

You could cut the line for all of 500 rubles, which was an inordinate price for the average citizen. Inside I could buy enough food for a family of 5 for less than the equivalent of $5 American. That same amount of food required that the people on the line, from across the USSR, had saved money from the entire family for a year, just to spend a vacation to get to this fast food restaurant. Many would leave McDonald’s and start the trip back home, the vacation starting with and ending in that one place.

When I took a cab ride to anywhere it was always the same. A cab stops and negotiation begins. Where are you going, does the cabbie want to go there, what time of day it was, were you paying in dollars or rubles, how much are you willing to pay. If all of it lined up, you had a ride. If not, you hailed another cab. And there was always another cab to be had, since only the rich could afford such a luxury on a regular basis.

I recall watching people getting on lines at 4am because the bread delivery had arrived. If you waited you might not get any bread and there would be no more. The bread was free, if it was available.

I recall walking into stores that were completely empty, because there was no food delivered yet and the shelves were bare. And I recall the lines when a delivery came, while the best meats were sold out the back of the store to those that paid far more than most could gather on a regular basis.

And I recall the trading. A chit to get shoes traded for a chit for sugar. 2 of those could get you a chit for meat. And maybe 3 of those can get you a chit for vodka, which could get you a bunch of anything else.

All of this is not to say that the people were anything but fair and friendly. I never had a problem while I was living in the USSR. Well, except for the civil war and attempted coup. The people though were salt of the earth.

But when I listen to the talk of socialized this and that, from people who have never lived under such a way of life I shiver. I don’t like socialism, or communism. Not because of some ideology, but because I lived it. I lived it the best way possible and it still left me cold and miserable in a way that the worst winter storms and double pneumonia never could.

Ask anyone that has lived in a socialist or communist country. I’ve never heard one say that life was better there. And the person you ask can be poor as hell. Because the quality of life in America is about as good as you can get. Problems and all.

So I don’t agree with celebrities, far-left liberals, politicians and so many others that think the idea in their head will be better than the lives we live. But if you let them keep changing the laws, and experimenting with our lives, you will know what it’s like to have less than you ever thought you could survive on.

I can only hope I am dead long before that day comes.

Before you vote, questions you should have answered

The following is a transcript of the video. Just in case you missed something or wanted to quote and/or respond directly.

Over the next few days there will be a slew of television ads discussing the views of each candidate and why you should vote for them. Some will make sense to the one part of the public or another. But they are just polispeak and no decision should be made based solely on a 30-second ad.

Before you decide who to vote for in this critical election I suggest you think of these things:

In the last 20 months we have come to know Senator Obama, but do you know the relationship that exists with Bill Ayers today – He is an admitted terrorist and self-described anarchist without remorse as late as 2001 while he helped start Obama’s political career?

Senator Biden believes Obama will be challenged on the international stage if elected within 6 months, as he directly said. This is because Obama is inexperienced. Can America afford an international crisis while in a financial crisis and fighting 2 wars?

The major media is overwhelmingly biased in favor of Obama. They have used this bias to avoid asking tough questions, such that a plumber asked one of the hardest questions Obama has received in this election cycle. What has the media failed to let you know? And what will they receive as a benefit for this lopsided support?

The Government has not been able to balance it’s spending in over 40 years, which you and I do everyday. Considering that every department and agency of the Government costs more and runs less efficiently year after year, why would bigger Government cost less or be better?

After a century of running the post office, the Government still can’t get that right. What would make you think that they will be able to run the incredibly complicated task of healthcare better than delivering the mail?

We all want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to end. But how they end is important. If you think an immediate retreat is best, think of the 3 million that were killed in Viet Nam after America retreated there. More importantly think of the fact that Al Quida and Iran will use a U.S. retreat as a sign of weakness and fear of their radical beliefs, which would spur future attacks. How we leave is as important as when.

Senator Obama promised to take public funding for the race against Senator McCain. He backed away from that promise. Senator Obama promised to speak to America with McCain in at least one if not more town hall events. Again he backed away from that promise. What other promises is Senator Obama capable of backing away from?

Higher taxes on business sounds great, but small business creates jobs. Higher taxes means less money to hire or employ workers. With business slowing down, less money means more unemployment. Is your job recession proof, especially if business taxes are higher?

I don’t proclaim to know all the answers. I admit I support Senator John McCain. But that doesn’t change the fact that you should know the answers to these and other questions before you vote.

Vote for whomever you believe in, but know what you are voting for. Vote for a reason, not a 30-second soundbite. Vote because you love America.

I’m Michael Vass, owner of M V Consulting, Inc. and I approved this message.

The Presidential candidates are getting myopic

Energy, crude oil, and more energy. The Presidential race has taken yet another turn of late, ignoring the issues of last month and rolling on the bandwagon of the latest issue pushed by pundits and the news media in their quest for ratings. The 24-hour news cycle continuing to seek the latest item to get viewers to keep the channels glued on their programming.

Too bad for the American public though.

It’s so bad that I have spoken to several people across the country that are just starting to pay attention to the candidates, only now starting to compare them. And most have little to no idea what the candidates have promised or said before. Even worse are those that think the candidates have this or that position because they saw a 15 second bit of polispeak on a news show, or a 30 second commercial of pure spin.

Thus most Americans are not asking why Senator Barack Obama has yet to attend a townhall meeting with rival Senator John McCain, an opportunity that he initially said “sounds good” and was looking forward to. To date he has not attended a single event.

Most Americans are not wondering what Senator McCain will actually do about the economy. Not just the energy issue but the whole economy. Everyone seems to have forgotten the fact that McCain has admitted his weakness on this subject and therefore deserves great scrutiny on his plans.

Everyone has put the nationalized healthcare issue on a back burner. When was the last time you heard either candidate explain how children will be sure to be covered during their tenure. Senator Obama has failed to explain how he will fund his program, or how he will ensure that it becomes the first Government agency to actually maintain its budget or be efficient.

And both candidate are really glad that the aging nation is no longer asking what is going to be done about Social Security. It’s still going to fail, and very soon. But with a growing population of retiring Americans, this critical issue has been tiptoed around and dance far away from. But our next President will HAVE to enact something to deal with the pressing issue during their 4 years in office.

Perhaps this is why both candidates are solidly in the mid-forties, statistically even, in all the polls tracking them day by day. Neither can get a majority of Americans yet, but then again the majority of Americans have only heard of one issue or another, and a commercial or 2. There really isn’t a reason to have a strong opinion yet, unless you have followed the candidates for a couple of years (like I and a few bloggers have), followed all the primaries and primary debates, are blindly Democrat or Republican, or a racist.

So since most people have no real reason to lean either way, and while the candidates are racing each other to get more centrist politically – with polispeak defending each turn in policy – I have to say that I think the first candidate to pick a Vice-President and to give a clear view of all their policies will win the election.

And I must add that this would be vitally important for Senator Obama. With the swooning support of the major news media and the ultra-liberal far-left wing of the Democratic Party he won the primary race. But that group of Americans is vastly far from what the average American believes on all the important issues. All the talk of momentum, young voters, and groundswells of support still can’t allow him to gain 51% in the polls (with the exception of a quick burst right after his ‘use the soldiers for political gain’ rockstar tour of the Middle East and Europe – was over 51% for 3 days).

And if you think I’m wrong, where is there a quote in the last 2 weeks, no let’s look at a month, actually go 2 months to find quotes on what the candidates will do about education.

The big point is this, energy and crude oil are important. In the last 40 years neither political party has made any moves to help the nation. Based on the current and potential cost of oil, either candidate Must make changes in our policies if elected. So note who said what they will do, but also ask what else they are willing to do. And perhaps you might want to ask them about the issues that the pundits and news media got bored with months ago. Or you can just search my blog.

Vote because it counts. Vote because it’s your right. Vote because after the election you can’t change the President.

Preparing for the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum - 12.1.2007.1

As the TV One webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum at 2:30 today approaches, I want to review some of the main issues that I think it will and will not cover. Overall I think that the candidates, of both parties, will seek to avoid a large number of issues most people really care about. Expect a good deal of deflection and moves to tangent issues rather than answering the actual questions posed. I doubt that it will be as obvious as the dramatic and highly covered yes, no, and maybe answer Senator Clinton offered on driver’s licenses for illegal aliens in New York State but I believe they will happen none the less.

First off there are the issues that the candidates will avoid speaking about. The issues are widespread and party specific. For the Democrats there is the fact that for 9 months of this year virtually every candidate vehemently stated that the surge in Iraq could not and would not work. They coupled the disbelief in the surge with they demands for immediate withdrawal of troops.

In the past couple of months, the most liberal pundits, reporters, and politicians have verified that the surge has in fact worked. Iraq is safer and more stable now than since Saddam Hussein was removed. Thus we have seen the debates and the public speeches of the candidates have moved from immediate withdrawal and failure, to a need to withdraw most troops (leaving an unspecified amount of troops for an unspecified amount of time) and failure, to not speaking about the subject at all as much as possible. Kind of funny how that went.

In addition Democratic candidates have moved into the subject of national healthcare as their primary talking point. Though all the plans are not fully explained, and the cost (upwards of 100 billion dollars at the least) has no explanation where it will receive funding from (extra taxes from the rich is the general answer. What is rich is a floating income number ranging from 200,000 at the top and 90,000 near the bottom).

For Republicans the key early issue was again Iraq and supporting the surge (and thus highlighting the Democrats willingness to retreat) and being against terrorism al la 9/11. After several months of each candidate mentioning how strong they are against terrorists they all have shied away from using the single greatest attack on American soil in past 60 years for their political gain (mostly).

The new line of discussion, now that the surge has been shown to be working and President Bush has mandated that surge troops will be slowly phased out of Iraq, has become illegal aliens. Each candidate has claimed they will resolve this issue, though there is no plan stated that will deal with the 12 million plus illegals that are in this nation right now, nor any that will be coming in the future. There are half thoughts of paths to citizenship, documentation, healthcare and deportation but no real plans. And lots of one-upmanship over who is tougher on the subject and who has the best past performance. Oh and there are arguments over who is more devoutly religious, and who can do more to prevent higher taxes. Again no real plans though.

So that is what they were all talking about, and what they want to discuss now. It’s a very short list. And yes I do realize they spoke about other things. But that was/is the focus.

Continued in part 2...

When it comes to national healthcare, who is really winning?

I find it interesting that when it comes to American Presidential elections, it’s possible to present part of plans that don’t work and score points in polls because your opponents plan is even less likely to work. Take the recent hot air being blown around by the 2 leading democratic candidates. Senators Obama and Clinton.

Both Senators are discussing nationalized healthcare. Both plans are massively flawed. Neither has worked out the details of the plan, not any serious estimate of the cost for the programs. Both claim that these programs will reduce cost and save Americans money. And they both think the other is just playing political games, seeking votes in Iowa.

I am no expert in national healthcare. I do know that there are many in national healthcare systems around the world that die while waiting for treatment or even examinations – for say breast cancer or other diseases – like in England and Canada. I know that some individuals like Michael Moore would have us believe that even the healthcare system in Cuba is better than in America. Yet Mr. Moore and people from around the world travel to America to get treatment and surgeries rather than stay in the nationalized systems in their own countries. And I know that as it exists today, America has the best healthcare in the world.

Knowing just those simple facts, and that millions of Americans don’t have health insurance, I pondered the accusations of Senators Clinton and Obama. Is there a difference? Can they make it better? Should this be a direction America should go in?

Well when you think about it, what does the government do well? Seriously. The one thing I have noticed in 40 years is that the government moves paperwork around better than anything out there. There is so much paper moving around (electronic or not) that we need other institutions just to manage the way we move the paperwork around.

There has never been a single issue that the government has been involved with that has simplified over the years. Take taxes as an example. Every election promises are made to simplify the tax code. Never happens. Can’t really. It takes perhaps thousands of workers in the government to process, check and re-check all the documents and write offs. It that committees to look for loopholes in the code and other committees to make changes so the loopholes close. Perhaps thousands are involved in making sure that there is no waste of taxpayer dollars.

Now imagine healthcare. One plan says that there will be 50 separate organizations, with paperwork that goes with that. In the other plan, if you don’t pay for coverage, you get fined. Both plans mean bigger government, with more workers, which inevitably means more taxes. And efficiency goes out the window.

So do you really want either plan? Is bigger government, less efficiency, and the likelihood of having the healthcare system become like Canada’s or England’s, or worse yet like the VA, worth it? In the end aren’t they both just puffing up their chests in the hope of getting elected?

**This can also be found at Presidential Race Blog, where I am a contributing author.**