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.