TINSTAAFL

A Facebook friend posted a status today cheering on all the "free" benefits that are taking effect for women looking to have their birth control paid for by people other than themselves. After some back and forth about what "free" means when talking about something paid for with tax money, a commenter (who shall remain nameless unless you are mutual friends, in which case you know who to shake your head at) made the following statement:

It has nothing to do with who pays taxes. It is forcing insurance companies to pay for those services out of the premiums that YOU Already pay them!!!! Why is this so hard for people to understand? We are now getting more services for the money that we pay into the insurance company. They make less profits because they have to cover more services for us! This is a very good thing for all of us!!!!!!!!

Note the liberal use of exclamation points, each one adding an order of magnitude to the comment's inherent truthfulness. Exclamation points aside, here was my response (unedited except for the correction of spelling errors):

It has everything to do with who pays taxes. The feds are setting up a national exchange to administer healthcare. Who pays for that? Taxpayers. Set aside for a moment the fact that this will allow the goverment to pick and choose favorites among healthcare companies. While the feds are allowing states to set up their own exchanges (which of course, must meet federal guidelines on how they are set up, which companies can participate, and how money is distributed), most are sensibly opting out. This will increasingly put the decisions in the hands of a federal bureaucracy.

Ever heard of a federal agency that didn't get bigger and succumb to budget bloat? Me neither. This will only increase costs, especially when you consider that by government mandate, people who don't pay federal taxes (and thus don't pay for the upkeep of this behemoth) will still be covered. Who will make up these costs? The insurance companies? No. Economics 101. When costs go up to a supplier, those costs are passed on to the consumer.

One way the goverment will be tempted to combat this is to enforce price controls on what doctors can charge for services. This is how medicare and medicaid work. It has led to an ever-decreasing number of doctors who will accept patients on those plans. A similar effect will occur if the price controls are instead forced upon insurers: fewer companies will enter into the market and many existing ones will drop out. At the same time, more and more people will be forced into this government plan as companies who today pay for healthcare as a fringe benefit decrease coverage or drop it all together, further exploding costs to the taxpayer.

Ask yourself this: are you aware of any government programs which costs has decreased, which budgets have shrunk? No. Because the definition of a budget cut has been changed at the federal level. When you or I think of a budget cut, It looks like this: "our budget was $1000. We cut it 10%. Now our budget is $900". At the federal level, it looks like this: "Our budget was $1000. We wanted to raise it 50%. Instead we only raised it 30%. Therefore, our budget was cut by 20%."

This will not end well.

It never ceases to amaze me that there are still people who believe the following:

1. Businesses don't pass their costs on to consumers.
2. Arbitrarily setting prices for goods will have no effect on the producers of those goods
3. It is somehow a good thing when a business has its profits shrunk or seized.
4. A government that can run up trillions of dollars in debt will have no problem containing costs.
5. The government can ever provide "free" anything to taxpayers.

Of course, my answer above didn't even touch on the other side effect of price controls: rampant fraud and abuse. Some of those doctors who don't stop taking medicare and medicaid patients instead find ways to overbill the system and reap profits off the taxpayer. If oversight and penalties were better enforced, even more doctors would drop entitlement patients.

For taxpayers, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.

Addendum: A later comment brought up the 80/20 rule in the law, that requires insurers to use 80% of revenues on "clinical services" in order to cap costs. Well, that's just another method of price control. And it leads to all the bad things mentioned above. Don't believe me? Then believe the feds, who have seen fit to grant waivers to entities that allow them to ignore the 80/20 rule.

Also, passing laws and then selectively allowing certain entities to ignore them: regardless of your political affiliation, shouldn't you be outraged by that?

The Tax System Explained With Beer

This is an oldie but a goodie. I honestly don't know who to credit for the original, but I received this in an email from a friend years ago and it just resurfaced in this post at Say Anything:

The Tax System Explained With Beer

Every day ten men go out for a beer, and the bill is $100. They wish to pay the bill the same way we pay our taxes, so it breaks down like this...

The first four men (the poorest) pay nothing.
The fifth man pays $1.00
The sixth pays $3.00
The seventh pays $7.00
The eighth pays $12.00
The ninth pays $18.00
The tenth man (the richest) pays $59.00

And that's what they decide to do.

These ten men drank in that same bar every day and were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day the owner approached and said, "Since you are such good customers, I'm going to reduce your daily round of beer by $20.00."So now a round of beer cost $80.00.

The group decided to keep paying their tab in the same manner. The first four men were unaffected. They still drank for free. But what about the other six; the paying customers? How could they divide up the $20.00 reduction so everyone would get his fair share?

$20.00 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everyone's share, the fifth and sixth man would each wind up getting paid to drink their beer.

The bar owner suggested they follow the principle of the tax system and reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, and they worked out the amounts each would now pay.

Now the fifth man, like the first four, drank for free... (100% savings)
The sixth man now paid $2.00 instead of $3.00... (33% savings)
The seventh man now paid $5.00 instead of $7.00... (28% savings)
The eighth man now paid $9.00 instead of $12.00...(25% savings)
The ninth man now paid $14.00 instead of $18.00...(22% savings)
The tenth now paid $49.00 instead of $59.00...(16% savings)

Each of the paying customers was better off than before, and now five of the men drank for free. But outside the bar, the men began comparing the amounts they saved.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20.00" said the sixth man. He pointed at the tenth man and said, "But he got $10.00!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he saved ten times as much as me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10.00 back when I only got $2.00. The wealthy get all the tax breaks!"

Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all! This new system exploits the poor!"

So the nine men beat the tenth man up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up, and the other nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when the bill arrived, they discovered they didn't have enough money between them for even half the total.

And that boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how the tax system works. The people who already pay the most in taxes will get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just might not show up anymore.

In fact they just might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who don't, no explanation is possible.

Music Diaries: Drinking and Driving (Rhythm)

I've been jamming once a week with Rob, one of the guitarists from dFrag (a.k.a. The Awesome Band That Played At My Wedding). This involves messing around with learning this new song or that one, sipping on whiskey, and generally having fun. This led to a conversation about the effects of drinking on one's ability to play a guitar.

I quantify it thusly:

Bluestem And The Fargo School District Should Just Go On Judge Judy Already

So Dave Olig, the president of the Bluestem Center for the Arts in Moorhead, has written a letter pushing the idea that the Fargo School District should "forgive" nearly $5,000,000 in debt. Hey, there's no harm in asking. It's the argument he uses to defend his position that took some brass ones. His argument is one I see people use on Judge Judy all the time. Basically, Olig asserts the "they should have known not to give us money in the first place" defense. Here's what he wrote:

"The Fargo Public School District provided millions of dollars in loans to a volunteer-only organization, with no assets, at a zero percent interest rate and no repayment schedule," Olig wrote. "While we accept our accountability, we believe that the Fargo Public Schools should also acknowledge its role in putting taxpayer dollars at risk."

Let's parse that passage, shall we? "We came to you with hat in hand, desperate for money. The Fargo School District used taxpayer money to make us a super sweet loan deal. Now I don't want to have to pay it back, because, like, I don't have any money. I know I said that I was getting a big tax refund check in April, but I used it to buy a handbag. And besides, this is really your fault because you knew I was broke when you loaned me the money."

All he forgot to add was that the District gave the money as a gift, Bluestem didn't really ask for it anyway, and besides, Bluestem did all sorts of work around the district and watched the kids and helped out with utilities when they could so really, they're even.

Dinner and Drinks: Seared Pork Tenderloin With A Mushroom (beef) Demi-glace (And Extra-Special Secret Bonus Recipe Inside!)

It's been a while since I posted any recipes (or much of anything, to be honest). No particular reason; I'm just a busy man what with fixing up the house, being a dad, fighting crime, etc.

However, I still try to find time to cook and this Friday was no exception. I like to buy those huge pork tenderloins that go on sale at the grocery store once every couple of months or so because, hey, five pounds of pork tenderloin for $7. I cut it up into smaller portions for freezing. Some of it goes into a bag marked "stir fry", but some of it I cut into inch-and-a-quarter slabs. Like a pork filet mignon.

Since it's been a while since I posted one of these, I thought I'd turn a double play (baseball season!) and let you in on a 100% original recipe for potato pancakes.

Seared Pork Tenderloin with a Mushroom (Beef) Demi-glace and Potato Pancakes

For pork:

salt
black pepper
chili powder
tarragon
1 tbsp olive oil

For potato pancakes:

4-6 medium potatoes
1/2 stick of butter (melted)
1/4 cup sour cream
1 tsp salt
1 tsp thyme
1/2 tsp garlic powder
oil

For mushroom (beef) demi-glace

8 oz mushrooms
2 tbsp butter
2 tbsp flour
1 1/4 cups beef stock
1/4 cup red wine
1 tsp salt
1 tsp tarragon

Note: I strongly urge you to read this whole post before starting. There's a lot going on and some of it should overlap if you want everything to come out at roughly the same time. There's also some stuff about oven-safe skillets and other things that may sound boring at first. But if you've ever put a skillet in an oven only to find out it was meant for the stove top only, you know it's important.

Season the pork on both sides with the spices listed. If you cut your tenderloins as thick as I do (again, about and inch and a quarter), be generous with the spices.

Let's get the sauce started. In a saucepan, melt the butter over low heat. Once it's melted, whisk in the flour until smooth. Put the pan back on the burner and increase the heat to medium. Add the stock, wine and spices. Stir well and add the mushrooms. Use whatever kind you want. I had portobellas on hand, so there you go.

Once the sauce starts to boil, reduce heat and simmer. The sauce should thicken as it simmers, so stir frequently. If it starts to get too thick for your liking, add small amounts of beef stock until it reaches the desired consistency. The longer it simmers, the better it will be, so let it simmer on as you prepare the rest of the meal.

Now to the pork. If you have really thick tenderloins, pre-heat your oven to 350º. If your pork loins are more like pork chops, you can finish them on the stove, so forget about the oven.

Heat the oil in a skillet over medium-high heat until it just starts to smoke. Turn the heat down to medium, or be prepared for (1) burned tenderloins and (2) a very greasy stovetop. Immediately add the tenderloins to the oil, pressing down firmly for a couple of seconds. This will help make a nice sear.

Thick cuts: Cook for about 3 minutes on a side, making sure your sear looks good before you flip 'em. Once seared, move the skillet to the oven (make sure your skillet can be used in the oven -- if not, transfer the contents of the skillet to an oven-safe baking dish). Cook for another 8-12 minutes or until it reaches desired doneness.

Thin cuts: Cook until the sear looks good. This shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes or so. Flip when the sear looks good and repeat on the other side. Reduce the heat to medium-low and finish the cooking process.

Now onto the potato pancakes. A note on the potatoes: russets work just fine. I happened to have red potatoes on hand, so I used a few more as they're pretty small. Peel, wash, and grate the potatoes into a mixing bowl. You may notice that there is a lot of liquid in the potatoes. You can squeeze them and pat them dry with paper towels if you like. I've found that there's still a lot of liquid when it comes time to make the cakes, so I don't bother. But you do what you want; you have the power here.

Add all the other ingredients and mix thoroughly. I use my hands, but again, you do what you want.

Heat enough oil in a skillet to cover the bottom 1/2 inch over medium-high heat. When the oil is hot, take a handful of the potato mixture and squeeze out the excess liquid. Form into small cakes (they should be about the size of hockey pucks). Place in the oil and fry until the bottoms are golden brown, about 4-5 minutes. Flip and repeat. Once they are done, put them on some paper towels to soak up any excess oil.

I had a glass of a 2010 Cupcake Vineyards Malbec with this meal. Okay, I had a glass while I was preparing it too, and a glass afterwards to celebrate how well it all turned out. It was a lot fruitier than a lot of the malbecs I've tried, but overall it was pretty decent. Generally if I want something that fruity I get a zinfandel though. Still, for $11 it was not bad at all. Very smooth. I would recommend something a little spicer for this meal though.

One Week

So, MJ has increased her extracurricular activity load from "Soccer" to "Orchestra, Ice Skating, and Volleyball" in the last few months. Did I mention that soccer is starting again soon?

First she performed with her 5th grade orchestra at Moorhead High School last Thursday.








Then, she had a three-night run of her ice show entitled "The Best of Times" which may or may not have been sponsored by Best of Times Photography. She was a "50's" girl. It was her first ever ice show but she did great.



This weekend I'll be shooting some video and photos of her volleyball tournament in Lake Park, Minnesota.

If It's True Will I Get Reparations?

UPDATE: I forgot to throw a hat tip out to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit for the link.

An archaeologist at the Smithsonian Instition are championing a "radical" theory about the history of North America. Namely, that the long-held view (the "settled science" if you will) that the continent was first settled by travelers taking advantage of an ice bridge from Siberia about 15,000 years ago is wrong. As it turns out, about 40 years ago some fishermen found a mammoth tusk in Chesapeake Bay that had a blade stuck in it. The tusk was a bit older than 15,000 years.

But the mastodon relic found near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay turned out to be 22,000 years old, suggesting that the blade was just as ancient.

Whoever fashioned that blade was not supposed to be here.

Other relics have been found in the mid-Atlantic region, all found in soil that dates back to over 20,000 years ago.

There are problems with the theory, as even the author points out. Mainly that the dating is of the media in which the artifacts were found (the tusk, the soil) rather than of the artifacts themselves.

“It’s an indirect date,” Dillehay said. “You need a feature like a hearth or something that’s clearly human. But it’s still suggestive.”

It's still way too early to tell if the long-held view of the settling of North America is in any real danger. But wouldn't it be funny if one day the conventional theory is that Europeans had settled North America first and were driven out by (what later came to be known as) Indians?