Ricardo J Gonzalez for a Better America

Would you take profits from McDonald's to subsidize White Castle? What about from the Bellagio to subsidize the Golden Nugget in downtown Las Vegas? Apparently the Illinois legislature would, and has done something very similar: it is requiring that Illinois most profitable Casinos give parts of their profits to subsidize the state's horse racing industry. Illinois' Supreme Court agrees, stating that "casino gambling has hurt horse racing revenue in the past two decades". The question I would want to ask is "So what?".


There are few things more un-American than punishing people for their success over the competition. What the government is doing here is essentially guaranteeing the privilege of certain companies, of their choosing of course, to profitability at the expense of the competition. The bill, which was signed in May of 2006, was described by Gov. Blagojevich:

“These bills will help protect the jobs of thousands of hardworking people who depend on the horse racing industry for their livelihood. They will also create a more level playing field that will allow the horse racing industry to remain competitive in Illinois,” said Governor Blagojevich.

I don't understand how punishing those who are successful levels the playing field, it simply tilts it in favor of the failures.

She swallowed a spider to catch the fly...

But here's the kicker: the reason the racetracks are unable to compete with casinos in Illinois, like they are in almost every other state with both forms of gambling, is because Illinois wont allow them to have slot machines. The Illinois Horse Racing Strategic Council offered this as an alternative to the burden placed on casinos, but it was rejected. If the real concern was to allow the horse racing industry to thrive as an economic booster for the state, then why choke them with one hand while feeding them with the other?

This is yet another example of the government abusing their power to solve problems they created to begin with. In not allowing Illinois racetracks to have slot machines, the government ensured that they would not be able to compete with other gambling establishments in the state. To solve the problem they created through this restriction, they're now punishing casinos (but only the most successful ones).


There was an old lady who swallowed a horse. She's dead, of course.

When hearing stories like this, I can't help but think of the old nursery rhyme: She swallowed the Spider to catch the fly, I don't know why she swallowed the fly.

Read More...

Summary only...

Will McCain pick an ultra-conservative governor half his age to be his VP? Now that we know who the presidential candidates are, I thought I'd focus on learning a bit more about the possible VP Candidates, starting with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Jindal is the American born son of Indian immigrants. He's had a fairly successful career in politics, including being a Congressman and Governor of Louisiana, and he's barely 37 years old. So what are his policies and what would Gov. Jindal bring to the table for the McCain campaign in November?


For starters, Jindal would help bring the ultra-conservative right wing of the Republican party back to John McCain, who is often accused of being too liberal by this constituency. Gov. Jindal might be able to help fix all that. While McCain gets a rating of 66% from the National Right to Life Committee, a pro-life lobbying organization, Gov. Jindal scores a perfect 100%. On many of the issues McCain is shady on, Jindal is willing to tout the standard party line: Pro-guns, Pro-Life, against flag burning, in favor of making the patriot act permanent, against gay rights, tax reform, and others. He has the view that Intelligent design should be taught in public schools schools. His positions on these issues has ultra-conservatives chomping at the bit to get him on the ballot, with incredibly positive reviews from Americans for Tax Reform, the Catholic League, the Christian Coalition, and even Rush Limbaugh who called him "The next Ronald Reagan".

I seriously doubt that Gov. Jindal would be the next Reagan, but the comment does show how enamored conservatives have become with Bobby Jindal. It seems to me that if he doesn't get this nomination, he's on the fast track to becoming the Republican Obama, going from virtually unknown to national political superstar in only a few years. I don't agree with Jindal on many of his stances, but after seeing some clips of him, he does seem to share that Obama charm, and he has quite a resumé, most notably including the reform of Louisiana's Medicare system.

Some people worry that Jindal's lack of Federal experience will undermine the claims made by McCain about Obama's unpreparedness. Other's seem to believe that his youth will help ease the concerns about McCain's age. For me, it is a question of whether his ideas and experience in reducing the size of government and the corruption within it, which he has had some success with in Louisiana, is enough to make me forget that he is about as socially conservative as one can get. In my experience, albeit limited, is that regardless of political rhetoric the size and scope of government is going to increase, not the opposite. This was true even with Reagan who is lauded for being a small government advocate, yet still increased the size of government by 60%. If not even Reagan could do it as President, I wonder if Jindal would have any effect from the VP's office. So are promises of smaller government, which probably can't be delivered, worth promises of less civil liberties? On the other hand, having Jindal in the White House might help lead to alternatives in the National health care debate that don't include a complete socialization of our health systems.

Will Jindal be chosen? It seems likely right now that he will. He's been actively campaigning for McCain and there hasn't been much effort to quell the rumors of his selection. His selection would probably be a small victory for economic freedom, and a huge blow to civil liberties should he make it to the White House.

Read More...

Summary only...

The loooooooong primary season is finally over. Today Obama is guaranteed to reach the number of Delegates and Superdelegates needed in order to receive his party's nomination. He will be the first African-American nominee for President of the United States from any "major" party. So what's in store for us in the up-comming months as Obama and McCain battle it out?


First off, we should be hearing lots of claims about who will be the VP candidate for both parties. There are so many rumors about the Obama-Clinton dream ticket, but I can't see it happening. Hillary is going to have to do a lot of work to backpedal after all the negative comments she had about Obama in order to help him win the Presidency, and this might make her a liability. I can see the phrase "His own candidate for VP said he was ..." being uttered over and over, with small room for rebuttal. This would be an easy target for McCain's campaign. While many Clinton supporters have said they wouldn't vote for Obama, I doubt most will follow through when they're presented the option in November. Would she jump on the chance? Probably. Will she be offered it? I doubt it. The Obama campaign would probably benefit more from having a less known VP candidate, like Bill Richardson, or a less vocal one like John Edwards, than they would with Hillary because they wouldn't have to cope with the baggage of such a hard fought primary.

In the national election Obama is going to have an advantage over McCain, albeit a small one. With the current state of the economy, and no signs of improvement, I would side more with the candidate of "change" than one of "experience". McCain is trying hard to prove that "experience" doesn't equal more of the same policies, but for most voters I think that they're going to want as big of a change from George W. Bush as possible, and McCain doesn't offer that. McCain is going to continue to hammer away at Obama's lack of experience, and accuse him of bad judgment in international affairs. While McCain has a valid point about giving people like Amedinajhad a global stage being a bad idea, most people are saying they prefer the idea of trying diplomacy before we get into another war. So while McCain keeps saying "he's wrong" people keep saying "I agree with him", and there's no way this is helping Sen. McCain.

While I still haven't decided how I'm going to vote, I predict that Obama will be the next President of the United States. I think the election is stacked against the Republicans and McCain, there's too many people angry at the Republicans because of the perceived failings of Bush. I don't buy the rhetoric that McCain will be a third term, I think his voting record in the Senate, where he often votes against the party, proves that, but I think it will be a very strong argument in the minds of many Americans that have felt like the government has let them down in the past 4 years. At the end of the day my decision will be made on the basis of what I believe will lead to more liberty in my lifetime, be it voting for Obama, McCain, or maybe even Bob Barr. I will be looking more in depth into the two candidates in the weeks to come as I form my decision, so stay tuned.

Read More...

Summary only...

When Sen. Ted Kennedy says that he wants working families to receive the same level of health care coverage as "member's of Congress provide for themselves", does that include and-picking the best doctors in the nation? That's what Sen. Kennedy did today after his recent diagnosis with malignant brain tumor two weeks ago. According to the Boston Globe, "Kennedy and his family conferred with a constellation of top national cancer specialists" and chose Duke University's Dr. Allan H. Friedman. While Sen. Kennedy is recovering from his successful surgery, I have to wonder about the kind of treatment he would be able to receive under socialized medicine.

In the UK, who has had socialized medicine in some form for 60 years, the average wait time for a CT Scan would be about two and a half weeks. For a MRI, it's 7 1/2 weeks. In Canada the wait times average more than 4 weeks for a CT Scan. So, two of the countries that are often lauded for their "public health care", it would take from 2 weeks to a month to get a CT Scan to diagnose a Glioma. In contrast, a listing of Chicago area imaging services (MRI, CT, Ultrasound, etc) shows most businesses making claims of no more than 48 hours to get your appointment. This is just for one of the first steps in diagnosis of the tumor. The Fraser Institute reports average wait times of 18 weeks in Canada for "non-emergency" surgery. Sen. Kennedy waited less than two weeks.

While this is just one portion of the entire debate, it's easy to see that perhaps the ideal of "health care for all" is not as great as it sounds. Although almost 16% of American's lack health coverage, the average American is waiting 1/14th of the wait time of the average Canadian, where everyone is covered. It is because of our lack of a publicly funded health care system that we have this much quicker response, not despite it. For the vast majority of Americans that are covered by health care providers, we can already enjoy much the same level of service that Sen. Kennedy does. While we probably lack the resources to pick the best doctors in the country like Ted did, we still get a much higher level of service than our neighbors to the north, who deal with many hardships in trying to get services that we can take advantage of because they are practically forced to use the government's system.

While I mostly oppose government entitlement programs, such as one that would give health care access to the 16% of the population that lacks it, I can understand why people consider this to be a "basic need". However, I would be much more comfortable with a plan that helped those people get access to a private insurer, rather than forcing the entire country into a public one. One of the things that makes our health care, and our country for that matter, so great is the abundance of competition and the freedom of choice. When the government gets involved in health care, as it happens when it gets involved in anything, the available choices are likely to decrease. The government will inevitably be forced to cut the quality of health care that the top 10% are receiving in order to subsidize the quality that the lowest 16% receive. It also brings weight to the liberty-crushing argument that if the government is "paying" for your health care, then the government has the authority to force you to live a more healthy life.

I believe in the power of money as a great equalizer. It doesn't matter who you are, what you do, or what you look like; if you have money, you can get service. A free economy provides ample opportunities for people to get more money, be it through loans, charities, working harder or smarter, etc. By taking things like health care out of the realm of money, the only currency available to improve the quality of your services received is clout. You can't get a clout loan, or a clout job. You can't wash cars in parking lots with your church group to gain more clout. This means that people like Senator Kennedy will continue getting the best services in the country, while the people at the bottom edge of the clout spectrum, which I bet are the same who are uninsured now, will continue to get the worst.

Read More...

Summary only...