There's an old saying, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" that has a great deal of wisdom in it. Basically, the first part about borrowing is the warning that often when you borrow money, the lender has a certain stake in ownership in you. With that stake of ownership comes the strings and rules attached.
That’s why we should oppose the Arizona expansion of the Medicare system. In the end it will make us more reliant on federal money and subject us to federal intrusion in our state system. It will expand Medicaid to effectively 50 percent or more of the overall population, and push the limits of our stressed medical system.
While no one denies that the Medicaid system was not effectively acting as a safety net due to funding and legal issues, put the state at the whim of federal oversight is not the answer.
That's why the story printed HERE is of interest. Typically these things fall into the “big government’” category, Offbeat News, or something like that, but most people will miss the significance of the story.
Apparently there was a disagreement about the supposed theft of a few chicken nuggets at school lunch. One student claimed it was a trade, the other said he stole them. Now, I remember my school days and these sorts of disagreements happen all the time ("He stole my lunch!"). Normally the two parties were dragged into the dean's office and given the wagging finger and lecture about lunchtime etiquette and that's pretty much the end of it.
Not this time.
You see, the chicken nuggets in question were partially funded (if not fully) by federal dollars. And since the nuggets are designated 'free', the child in question- well, young adult- has committed a federal crime by stealing them (allegedly). In fact BOTH kids were guilty of a federal offense, since even trading or giving away the lunch is illegal.
So illegal, that they hauled the kid away in handcuffs.
Over some chicken nuggets.
The police chief up in Wisconsin where this happened stuck to his chicken protecting guns for a while, along with the moron school principal, and charged the child with criminal mischief under federal law, cited him, and issued a 170 dollar fine.
And you thought Sheriff Joe was tough on crime.
Public pressure, of course, forced the pair to drop the charges, but there is a more important issue here. The acceptance of public funds is the issue, and the painful strings that are attached to those chicken nuggets.
Dealing with the government is like dealing with the notorious HAL 9000 computer. It has no feeling, no compassion and frankly, not much common sense. That's what happens when you take money from a shark; it eventually rears up and bites your leg off. The reason it’s important to understand that is that we now have in office a cadre of do-gooders who are spreading money around like they are printing it in the basement. Whenever we accept these 'stimulus' dollars for projects, or agree to provisions of the health care bill, we are accepting more government control into our lives.
Imagine allowing HAL 9000 to decide when you need health care, or a new road built or services to be rendered and you get the idea. "No, I'm sorry Mr. Taxpayer, but I just can't do that right now".
Worse, the AMA has just codified obesity as a disease. There’s no telling what other voluntary actions may be labeled as diseases going forward; there’s no telling how government will respond, or at what cost.
States need to divest themselves of federal money, albeit this is a painful process. Individual citizens must no longer accept any kind of entitlements from government unless there is no other choice - such as Medicare. Accepting these monies will encourage the government to pay out more and make more decisions about how and where you live your life. State legislatures can do this gradually; it doesn't have to happen all at once. We got into this mess in dribs and drabs; we can get out the same way. Weaning the public off federal government entitlements certainly would not be easy, but in the end we would have a freer population and less likely to sign on the dotted line handing over more constitutional freedoms at the ballot box.
It's easy to imagine what will happen with health care for example. Eat 2 pounds of broccoli a week, or lose your health coverage. Lose 10 pounds or pay a hefty surcharge. Report to an annual physical or lose your plan—and lose enough people or if people don’t behave, federal funding is cut causing health care to decline for everyone.
This lobotomy is government ordered- after all you signed this form accepting treatment from this facility.
America is about freedom, not golden chains made of federally funded entitlements. Instead of our state encouraging cutting unnecessary programs, we simply went to the federal trough.
The government has already started down this path in havens of liberal thought like California. Over there they are passing laws to outlaw fast food chains, and the government talks daily about lowering the salt content in our snacks. I don't know about you, but I think it’s my decision whether or not to eat that bag of Doritos or instead eat some celery- don't you?
The argument is always the same- "well you people with high blood pressure are costing us millions". Take away those federal dollars and it sinks their whole busybody mentality though doesn't it? My argument has always been that those millions of dollars are the price society pays for being free, but that falls on deaf ears now. So we just shouldn't accept those checks from Uncle Sam any more. That guy is loan shark.
And if you think I'm exaggerating, ask a 15-year-old boy about the consequences of eating a federal sponsored chicken nugget.
Just don't ask him if you can taste it.