So you want to advertise your business. You spend tons of money hiring talented professionals who make sure your advertisements are smart, clever, funny, attention grabbing and aimed at the correct demographic. You spend even more putting those ads up where you’re potential customers will see them.
But maybe, just maybe, you should be a little more careful about where they go.
The next time one of your fellow United Statists says “It’s a Free Country” show them this article.
And if they keep babbling, show them this one.
I don’t get involved with many political movements, because most of them are a waste of time and effort. One exception is Downsize DC. Their mission is very simple, and appeals to most people regardless of their political affiliation: They want to make the federal government smaller. In the meantime, they’re trying to slow its growth with a very simple, easy, and so far, effective grassroots campaign.
Their primary cause is the Read The Bills Act. The act is very simple - it would require that all bills be read, in their entirety, in front of a quorum of the house and senate. In addition the entire bill, and any amendments added to it, would have to be posted on the internet for seven days before it could be voted on. This would not only give citizens a chance to read the bills themselves but would eliminate the huge problem of last minute amendments added to popular bills and getting passed without debate. One of the most egregious examples of this was the Real ID act, which was attached to a military appropriations bill.
They have other causes too, and every one of them is concerned with making government smaller and restoring some of our lost liberty.
When you sign up with Downsize DC you’ll get a well written informative e-mail about twice a week, and a link that makes it easy to e-mail both of your senators and your representative (While writing this I misspelled “representative” and my spell checker suggested “reprehensive” as the correct spelling. That’s not too far off.) If the subject interests you you’re just a click away from sending a message to your congress weasels.
Each week congress passes hundreds of pages of legislation. Forcing our “reprehensives” to read the bills they’re passing will result in fewer bills, and the ones they pass will be shorter and simpler.
As a sample, here’s a recent e-mail I received from them, reprinted by permission:
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
Quote of the Day:
“Influence: In politics, a visionary quo given in exchange for a substantial quid.”
– from “The Devil’s Dictionary” by Ambrose Bierce
Subject: The drumbeat for a health-care monopoly
Have you noticed? Nearly every talking-head show on TV contains a plug for so-called universal health-care. Everyone, everywhere is being exposed to this message nearly every day.
Can you imagine, in such a climate, that we will not end up with some form of tax funded universal health care?
If we do, you can be sure of two things . . .
1. The resulting policy will be sold as a visionary step forward
2. The prices and terms of your health-care will be set behind closed doors
The so-called visionary quo will come in return for a substantial quid. The program will amount to the most massive system of corporate welfare yet devised.
Here is an important question to consider: How should the prices be set for health-care procedures?
We know how prices are set in a free market. Providers compete with each other to attract customers. They set prices at a level that will attract sufficient customers to turn a profit. But . . .
How do you set a price when there are no customers, plural, but only one customer, singular? If health-care providers do not have to compete for the business of their single customer, the government, how will anyone know how much to charge or to pay for a given procedure?
How will prices be set if there is only a single payer, who promises to pay for all procedures, no matter what? How will the government decide what to pay? The answer is that the price will be set in negotiation with health-care lobbyists.
But will it be the right price? The right price for what purpose? In a free market prices serve as signals to balance supply and demand. Higher prices send a signal that more suppliers/providers are needed. But what purpose do prices serve when there is only one payer and no competition?
One might assume that because prices will be set politically, by monopoly government, prices will rise dramatically. You might also assume that these monopoly prices will send a strong signal for more people to become health-care providers. This would be a correct assumption, in part, but . . .
Those high monopoly prices will come with strings attached. Regulations. Paper work. These burdens are another price, sending a different and contrary signal that says: “Do not become a health-care provider.”
Will these two kinds of prices be set in such a way as to provide optimal health-care? Who knows.
In fact, there is no way that anyone could know. This is why markets are so superior to centralized, bureaucratic, politically-managed, decision making. Market prices take advantage of decentralized knowledge that is simply unavailable to centralized government planners.
Fundamentally, in any given locality, and in any given transaction between provider and customer, there is only one price that is optimal for that situation. But there are an infinite number of ways for a price to be wrong, if it is set artificially by government fiat. This means that supply and demand will always be out of balance under a government monopoly.
This problem of price confusion was the fundamental reason the
Sadly, we are already more than half way to achieving a perfect state of price confusion in American health-care. Nearly half of all health care is already paid for by government, and most of the rest is befuddled by tax policies and insurance regulations that completely distort the natural relationship between supply and demand.
Example: Two weeks ago I went to an emergency room for a kidney stone. The bill was $7,304. Then my insurance provider negotiated the price down to $413. That $413 is not my co-pay, or the amount that applies to my deductable. It’s the full final price I will pay out of my medical savings account.
$7,304 vs. $413 — that’s a huge difference. Why was the first price so high? Why was the second price so low? What would the government have paid? What would the price have been in a free market? Who knows?
We don’t have a free market. Instead, we have a messed-up health-care system that politicians are using as an excuse to make an even bigger mess. It’s an old story. The politicians use their own failures as an excuse to grab more power. The resulting increase in resources politically diverted to “solve the problem” creates an even larger mess. It’s a vicious cycle.
For the most part, politicians don’t make these messes on purpose. They do it because the incentives are structured to cause failure. We must change those incentives.
One incentive that is driving us toward monopolized health-care is the constant drumbeat for so-called universal health-care. The politicians are living in an echo-chamber, in which they only hear one message repeated over and over. We must penetrate that echo chamber with a different message.
We provide you with a big advantage in achieving this penetration. Most constituents don’t communicate with their representatives, but you can, with just a few strokes of your keyboard, and a few clicks of your mouse. Use the tool that we provide, and you will have a huge edge.
So far, more than 600 Downsizers have sent 1,803 messages to Congress opposing any further federal funding of personal health-care expenses. That leaves nearly 19,000 Downsizers who have yet to take advantage of their power to make the politicians hear something different. Please use your power by sending a message now. {If this were in your e-mail box, that last sentence would be a link that would take you directly to their site where you could send e-mails.}
Of course, our current health-care campaign only serves to keep the problem from becoming worse, but don’t worry. It’s just the first step. There are other campaigns coming that will work to improve on the messed up system we have now.
In other news, nearly 1,400 Downsizers have so-far sent 4,197 messages telling Congress that they are “not afraid” of Islamic terrorism. If you have not yet taken your opportunity to instantly win the so-called “war on terror,” by not being afraid, please do so now. Your message to Congress will be something else they’re not hearing from other sources.
Please tell Congress you are not afraid, and ask them to stop being afraid on your behalf.
Finally, our ability to make Congress hear things they’re not used to hearing depends on growth driven by financing. Please make a contribution or start a monthly pledge to support our growth.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
Perry Willis
Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
- - -
If you lean to the right, lean to the left or walk down the middle of the road, if you’re a Republican or a Democrat or a Libertarian, if you’re anything other than a socialist, sign up for your free membershio at DownsizeDC.org.
And speaking of health care, the Moore Nonsense episode of the Quick Hitts Podcast is now available as an article.
The Mayor of Cincinnati won’t fire off a starter pistol to signal the beginning of an upcoming road race, because he doesn’t like the symbolism.
“I think the symbolism is just bad,” he said. “It’s just something I don’t do.”
The mayor says he’s going to blow a whistle instead.
Last year the city had 87 homicides, and this is his solution.
Pathetic, isn’t it? Starter pistols don’t kill people, people with starter pistols. . . no, that doesn’t work either. You can’t kill someone with a starter pistol unless you beat them to death with it.
One of the race’s organizers said “We’re just happy to have the mayor I don’t care if he wants to bang pots and pans together.”
What? Doesn’t she realize a cast iron frying pan makes a great homicide weapon? I’ll bet at least a few of those 87 homicides were done with kitchen utensils.
(A fiend of mine sent me this.)
Hillary Clinton goes to a primary school in New York to talk about the world. After her talk she offers question time.
One little boy puts up his hand. The Senator asks him what his name is.
“Kenneth.”
“And what is your question, Kenneth?”
“I have three questions: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan?”
“Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office?”
“And, Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?”
Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary Clinton informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess. When they resume Hillary says, “Okay where were we? Oh, that’s right, question time. Who has a question?”
A different little boy puts his hand up; Hillary points him out and asks him what his name is.
“Larry.”
“And what is your question, Larry?”
“I have five questions: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan?”
“Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office?”
“Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?”
“Fourth - why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?”
“And, Fifth - what happened to Kenneth?”
We name lots of things after people. In most cases they’re nouns like Gatling Guns, Graham Crackers, Geiger Counters or G-Spots. Lot’s of places are named after people. But very few verbs come from proper names, and most of them are negative. Lynching, Hoovering and Ponzi Schemes come to mind, but not much else.
I’d like to add another name-noun to our lexicon: Nifong. You nifong by accusing an innocent person of something and absolutely refusing to back down even when presented with overwhelming evidence of their innocence. The more obvious their innocence, the bigger nifong you are. (Ok, so we’ll use it as a noun, too.)
Mike Nifong attempted to destroy the lives of three innocent college students even though their innocence was obvious within a week of the accusation. As more time went by more evidence supported their innocence, but nothing would stop Nifong. A time stamped picture at an ATM proving that one of the accused was nowhere near the scene of the “crime” didn’t even slow him down.
It’s very rare for this kind of behavior to be punished but his actions were so egregious that even the government noticed. He was stripped of his position and disbarred. And as a final blow, a cherry of pathos to top his pathetic career, when he turned in his law license it had been chewed on by a dog. That’s right, “the dog ate my license.”
The mass media’s attempts to downplay Ron Paul’s increasing popularity have gone from amusing, to bizarre, to outright dishonest.
Fox News, which has regularly pooh-poohed Paul, went from merely editorializing against him to committing fraud. When they published the results of the Iowa Straw Poll, Paul came in fifth, with 9.1% of the vote, and Tom Tancredo was number four with 13.7%. Both beat Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. (All of them boycotted the event.) Fox responded by removing Tancredo and Paul from the list!
Fair. Balanced. Yeah, right.
As always, Congress Weasels are busy screwing smokers, and the latest round of molestation includes stronger warning labels. Farkers were invited to Photoshop what the new labels should look like, and some of them are pretty funny. Personal favorites:
James Bond on a pack with the warning “Smoking May Cause You To Be This Cool”
“Our product will eventually kill you. But at least it won’t nag you to death like a whiny, bloodless, shrunken girlie-man.”
On a pack of Van Gough cigarettes: Warning: Continued use of this product will cause annoying busybodies to nag your ear off…”
Find them all here.