custom ad
OpinionAugust 26, 2009

If we're hellbent on providing health care for an estimated 47 million uninsured Americans, then let's calculate the costs. Fair enough? Just keep in mind that this proposal is in addition to Medicaid, which already takes one-third of the total budget for our state...

If we're hellbent on providing health care for an estimated 47 million uninsured Americans, then let's calculate the costs. Fair enough? Just keep in mind that this proposal is in addition to Medicaid, which already takes one-third of the total budget for our state.

Also keep in mind that this proposal is in addition to Medicare, though lawmakers are planning to dip into the Medicare fund to help pay for this universal health care plan.

Keep your calculators handy.

Let's move on to Social Security. We're told this week that the Social Security reserve will kick in beginning in 2016 when more flows out of that fund than flows in. At the current pace, the reserves will be fully depleted in 2037.

So rest assured, there will be a change in the Social Security program in the not-too-distant future to generate more funds for our aging population.

Still got your calculator?

How about cap and trade? Lurking in the background is perhaps the largest single potential increase in costs to Americans in the form of a climate-change plan called cap and trade. The jury remains out on the eventual cost to each of us, but the numbers are astronomical.

And the national debt is clicking toward the $9 trillion level.

Insert new batteries in your calculator!

Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!

Every new administration in Washington, D.C., comes onboard with ambitious plans, as well they should. Some, however, come into power with ill-designed plans that do not take into consideration the eventual consequences.

By any definition, this administration is little concerned with consequences. It's all about the agenda. It's all about change.

Can anyone fast-forward a few years and tell me who is going to pay for this ambition? Aren't we headed to the point where the takers far outnumber the givers? If the government provides for all, who will provide for the government?

If you ask anyone to help someone in need, chances are you'll find ample people willing to lend a hand in countless forms. But when the government demands that individuals provide the needs of too many, at some point the takers milk every ounce of generosity available.

What happens when we reach that point?

I admire the millions upon millions of hard-working immigrants who come to this country to make a better life for their families. But I am growing weary of being asked to sacrifice the needs of my family to boost theirs.

I am generous to a fault with those who lack the resources to make it through life. But often there is a reason for their lack of success and I am not willing to give of my limited means to help those who choose to wait for others to help them.

What lurks in this administration is the mentality of a community organizer who faults the successful for their achievements while demanding more seats at the table for those who come with their hands out.

My calculator lacks sufficient zeros to arrive at a hard number.

What we need is a new formula and not more numbers on a calculator.

Story Tags
Advertisement

Connect with the Southeast Missourian Newsroom:

For corrections to this story or other insights for the editor, click here. To submit a letter to the editor, click here. To learn about the Southeast Missourian’s AI Policy, click here.

Advertisement
Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!