One simple question for this administration: What are you trying to accomplish?

Whatever your answer is, please keep in mind the following bit of wisdom that is taught to education professionals as well as business professionals: Behavior that is rewarded tends to continue, whereas behavior that is punished tends to cease.

It appears to me that this administration’s policies reward failure and punish individual accomplishment. That is the absolute antithesis of the liberty that once was the cornerstone of this last, best hope for the world. It is why the tired, poor, huddled masses who yearned to be free flocked to this country and willingly bled to defend her.

And remember whenever you utter that line about how we must be our brothers’ keepers that many slaveholders of the 19^th century believed that they, too, were doing a favor to people who otherwise would not be capable of caring for themselves. We know now how absolutely evil that philosophy turned out to be.

When I was a child, on the rare occasions when we went to eat at a restaurant, my father chose the restaurant. Why? Because he had the wallet.

Who pays, says.

When a manager wanted to treat my coworkers and me to a “thank you” lunch, she restricted our choices to the lunch menu. Why? Because she was picking up the tab.

Who pays, says.

When I take my kids out to eat, I often tell them they are only allowed to order water to drink. Why? Because I’m the one with the money.

Who pays, says.

When the federal government bailed out GM, the federal government insisted that the CEO needed to be changed. Why? Because they were footing the bill.

Who pays, says.

What can we expect to happen when the government pays for our healthcare? Is it possible that the entity that is paying for our healthcare might restrict our choice of doctors, restrict our choice of services, and limit the amount they’re willing to pay for?

If you believe in logic and rational thinking, then you must conclude that the federal government would definitely restrict our liberty in that area.

Why?

Who pays, says.

I found that out recently. I never suspected it. But when my son’s school sent home a note reminding us that it was time for additional vaccinations, I remembered that there was a clinic funded by the state that inoculates children at no cost to the parents. I did not hesitate to take him there. Paying for something that is offered for free is economically irresponsible.

I was asked to fill out forms stating why I wanted my child to receive the shots at the free clinic rather than paying for them at a doctor’s office. I had only a few check-box choices for my answer, and the only one that fit my situation stated that I am underinsured because my health insurance does not cover vaccinations.

Underinsured??? Really??? That’s news to me!!!

Here’s a bit of a reality check.

Net result:   Costs are unaffected for insurance company, costs are unaffected for covered policyholders, and benefits are no different than at a private provider.

Net result:   Costs increase for insurance company, costs increase for covered policyholder, and benefits are no different than at the free clinic.

So why is my insurance company vilified for being economically responsible to their policyholders and their corporate stakeholders? Because they’re an easy target. Insurance companies – and corporations in general – are expected to follow the example of our federal government. They are expected to spend more money regardless of economic circumstances in order to make life easier for their customers and employees.

Perhaps if they acquiesced, then the rest of the world would like them better. And in a short time, they would be asking for a federal bailout because of their irresponsibility. And they would again be vilified.

I am not a protestor by nature. I respect the rights of the public to elect representatives, even when I strongly disagree with them. This is America, and that’s how we do things. We must be supportive of the will of the people.

But I am a concerned parent; hence, my dilemma. Do I sit quietly and let the lesson of rewarding hard work be diminished by the actions of the government? Or do I speak out against the flawed logic of rewarding failure at the expense of success?

Let me emphasize that this is not a complaint about our current administration. It is an indictment of all politicians who support this flawed attempt at behavior management. It most recently began during the 2008 presidential campaign, before our current president was elected.

So why are so many people suddenly voicing their concerns so loudly now when we vented on a much smaller scale previously? We disagreed with the previous administration, and we voiced our frustration on blogs and radio shows, but we knew the administration would change soon. We vowed to honor the will of the people and give the new administration a chance to do what is right. Instead, we have found that the new administration has expanded the spending that was unchecked by the previous administration. Their rationale seems to be that the previous administration caused the problem by overspending, so they must overspend even more to correct the problem caused by the overspending of the previous administration.

Yes, it is that insane.

And that is why I, a man who tries to reserve all my spare time for family togetherness rather than political involvement, have decided to take a stand. With the full support of my wife, I attended the Houston Tax Day Tea Party, along with upwards of 8,300 others who signed in. I strived to come up with a clever sign that would capture the imagination of the masses. Instead, I resorted to this simple equation expressing the inverse relationship between government and liberty:

It’s the same principle that was used to decry the Patriot Act. That was perceived – and rightly so – as an intrusion on our personal liberties.  However, that was a response to a direct physical attack on the country, with the threat of additional severe attacks to come, and it proved to be a temporary – and successful – measure in protecting the citizens of this nation. The current spending plans are a promise to permanently expand governmental powers to enforce charitable giving by one segment of the population to another segment.

Charity is a religious principle. As such, enforcing charitable giving by confiscating income from some (according to their abilities) and redistributing it to others (according to their needs) is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

I have always believed that paying taxes is a patriotic duty. Yes, I agree with the vice president on that issue. I do not feel that I am personally overtaxed, but neither do I believe that those who are more successful than I should be punished for their success.

Even my children understand the consequences of such actions. I must protect their Creator-endowed unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think I finally understand why conservatives are less effective than liberals at voicing our philosophy.

Conservatives want to live independently, working to achieve our own definition of success so we can support our families and the causes of our choosing. Liberals want to live in unity with one another, pooling their resources together to ensure that everyone has an equal level of some arbitrary definition of success.

So it only makes sense that liberals who enthusiastically depend on others are more effective at pleading their case together than conservatives whose fundamental desire in life is to be left alone.

How odd it is that liberals have been so effective at painting conservatives as a sort of moral police force who wants to ensure that everyone lives by conservative rules. From my vantage point, it is the liberals who want to enforce sameness in our behavior (smoking is bad, so it should be banned even from privately owned establishments) and sameness in our results (failure is bad, so success should be punished in a fruitless effort to eliminate failure).

And since liberals have been so effective at stereotyping conservatives, I should point out to you that I fit into an economic demographic that would lead most people to guess that I am a liberal voter. I live paycheck-to-paycheck. I say this with no sense of pride. However, as a conservative, I recognize that I alone am responsible for this. To believe my personal economy is the fault of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Congress, or any other individual or entity is to cede power to that individual or entity. I refuse to surrender my autonomy to anyone this way.

Conservatism is rooted in a strong belief in the power of the individual. I am responsible for my own success or failure, regardless of circumstances. Those who willingly relinquish this authority to others have no appreciation of the word “liberty.” Ironically, they label their philosophy “liberal,” which is the etymological cousin of “liberty” but has come to represent an entirely antithetical meaning.

So, in order to preserve liberty, conservatives need to adapt the liberal strategy that has proven effective. We need to band together to ensure that our freedom survives long enough for our progeny to enjoy it. Our ancestors did this for us. We owe it to their honor to pass their legacy on to future generations of free Americans.

"Give me liberty or give me a government program to take care of me.”

You can’t give me one without depriving me of the other.

Is the shooter guilty of one murder or two?

Roe vs. Wade effectively states that only a pregnant woman can determine whether the fetus inside her is a human life or a parasitic tumor. If she was on the way to a prenatal checkup to ensure that she and her fetus were healthy, she clearly thought of him or her as a baby human, which therefore should result in a double homicide charge. If she was on the way to have the fetus removed, she clearly thought of the fetus as a non-human mass, which therefore should not result in an additional homicide charge.

In both scenarios, the action committed by the shooter is the same. In both scenarios, the outcome of the action is the same as well.  So how can one action that causes one outcome result in two possible consequences?

That just doesn’t seem right.

Obama’s health insurance proposal sounds familiar. Now, I admit that this happened before my time, but I’ve heard stories from some of the "old-timers" at my company about a similar situation. Years ago, the company decided that they would discontinue health benefits for retiring employees.

Why did the company decide to eliminate retirees’ health benefits?

Because the federal government guaranteed that everyone would be covered under Medicare, and spending extra money on employee benefits was viewed as a waste.

Why were people upset about it?

Because they knew that private insurance was superior to the federal bureaucracy to which they would be subjected.

What can we expect if Obama decrees that all residents of the U. S. shall be eligible for insurance under a federal program?

See answer to the first question.

Pardon me, sir, but your true ideology is showing.

First, you reveal your belief that "when you spread the wealth, it’s good for everybody." Now, you speak of your intention to let everybody have a "slice of the pie."

In your mind, it appears that there is one great American pie to which some of us contribute according to our abilities and in which all of us share according to our needs.

In my mind, pie is not an entitlement. If I want to provide pie for my family, then it is my responsibility to earn that pie. And if my fellow citizens are suffering from a lack of pie, then it is my obligation to them as a human being – NOT as a subject of the federal government – to help them find a way to get pie.

We’re Americans, and we never ask others to give us pie. We make pie.