Book Burners

I work out at a local gym facility in a pretty left wing area of western Massachusetts. The weight room has a magazine rack so people can use reading materials while they use the cardio equipment. Gym members often bring in publications from home that they put in the rack.

One member always brings in the latest copy of "The Nation," which is an opinion publication espousing the "progressive" viewpoint. To give people a little variety, I often bring in the latest copy of "American Rifleman." The person who brings in The Nation always tears off the address information; I don't tear off the address information on the American Rifleman. That says something, but I'm not sure what.

The copies of The Nation stay around for a while until they're too old to be current. But the copies of American Rifleman don't because someone throws them in the trash almost as quickly as I put them in the rack. We all know that people on the left don't like to even think about viewpoints contrary to their own, let alone debate them. But preventing others from exposure to contrary viewpoints in this manner is just classic book burning. There are many historical examples of book burning. It's always done by those who think they're views are correct, and that others shouldn't be exposed to "heretical" opinions. I leave it to the reader to draw conclusions from this.

Jobs and Oil

How often can you solve two problems with one policy? The folks in Washington claim they want to do everything possible to create jobs. And they want to stop the enormous flow of dollars out of the U.S. to oil producing countries. If government (and its environmentalist partners) would stop impeding - and start promoting - nuclear power, we'd make a dent in both problems.

Health Care Reform

Whatever you think of Obamacare, it is clear that it didn't attack the biggest problem: out of control costs. That should be the number one priority of the new Congress.

There's an old adage applicable to the social sciences that says "never look for a complicated explanation when a simple one will do." Congress should apply that adage when thinking about health care costs. Here's a simple fix that would be a good start: Institute a $20 co-pay for Medicare. That would instantly partially accomplish three goals of handling the cost of government. First, those who use a government service should pay part of its cost (think admission fees to national parks). Second, there would be a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the governmental outlay for Medicare. Third, seniors would cut back on going to the doctor for the sniffles, which they do now all the time, as I can attest to from personal experience.

While we're on the subject of simple fixes, let's also change Medicare's silly and inefficient policy that allows reimbursement to the doctor only if the patient comes in, not if the doctor gives advice over the phone. That would also reduce our gasoline consumption.