Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Representative Linsky Meets The Insurance Man
Will Rogers may have said he never met a man he didn't like. He would have hated the Tax Man though for there is never a revenue enhancement scheme a Democrat never liked.
Last Friday (1/18/13) Democratic State Representative David Linsky proposed an insurance scheme that would be forced upon all registered gun owners in the state of Massachusetts. He said on Friday, "...insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and made cars safer through the marketplace."
The idea is to create 'financial incentives' (there's that word again) that would reduce accidents and injuries related to guns. Conveniently the word death never enters the conversation. I wonder if the good Rep had one of those " I coulda had a V8!" moments when he realized that taking all the guns away had a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding whereas the old Liberal standby of taxing something to death is a tried and true standard operational procedure with a track record of success.
Here is how the scheme works.
After you exploit a crisis in the media and get the peasants all ginned up you enact legislation. It doesn't matter one bit if the legislation or the language of the legislation has anything to do with the crisis at hand.
Think 'earmarks', think 'pork'. Look at the Sandy Bill.
Then there is the money. Always follow the money. Insert some tug at your heartstrings language into the bill to fund 'awarenes' programs , or 'educational' programs and never..Ever...Forget the 'victims'. This is probably the most important ingredient.
Now all this has to be paid for. Right? Your getting warmer now!
Still trying to find the 'financial incentive'? Me too. Check the desk drawer, maybe Linsky left it there.
How does buying insurance for something we do not want and do not need a financial incentive? How does having my car insured give me a financial incentive? I still have to worry about all the other nuts out there on the road. They certainly don't seem incentivized. Think the illegal criminal gun owners who could care less are incentivized?
There are only two things in the state of Taxachusetts that are not taxed. Food and clothing. Everything else on the surface of the planet Earth is fair game according to the all knowing, all seeing eye of Bacon Hill. At night the gilded dome on Tremont Street opens up and the eye of Mordor sweeps across the countryside searching for the next revenue enhancement.
You buy a gun and it is taxed. Ammunition. Taxed. Lock-box for the gun. Taxed. Separate lock-box for the ammunition. Taxed. Permits, classes, certifications. Taxed. Taxed. Taxed.
Now the insurance man will be knocking on your door?...Priceless..
What's that under the couch?...Oh, I thought I saw the financial incentive roll under there.
The incentive comes from a lower monthly premium . If you show Mr. Insurance man you performed D: all of the above, you get a discount on your bill. Apparently not forced to pay such a bill in the first place doesn't count as a financial incentive.
It probably never occurred to Rep. Linsky that in order to obtain a firearms permit you have to perform D: all of the above anyway as per Massachusetts General Laws. It probably didn't matter anyways because we are dealing with Democrats here folks. Why enforce an existing law when they can just make up new ones.
I am sorry Representative Linsky, but it was not the marketplace that reduced cigarette smoking. It was the weeks of Senate hearings where (after taking PAC money for decades) tobacco companies were crucified before the public. The subsequent legislation resulted in higher costs to consumers, a complete ban on all advertising, payments in the billions to (you guessed it) the victims. Tobacco was forced to fund all the awareness and educational programs to keep teens away from smoking. The result is a Federal Law that has made criminals of teenagers who smoke.
While I am on the subject, try calling up your legislator and asking where these awareness and educational programs can be located. Good luck. They don't exist.
Nor was it the marketplace that made cars safer. It was Ralph Nader, the EPA, the NTSB, Highway Institute and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The rest came from government regulations.
In fact, all regulations have managed to create is higher costs and an economic model where the big fish eat the little fish. If you can afford the regulations (that you help craft) you win. If you are a small business (who never got invited to the hearings) you go out of business. Get it?
Lastly, lets not forget the hefty donations to your friendly neighborhood Political Action Committee. That is where the marketplace is Rep. Linsky. In Congress something somewhere is always being bought and sold.
Which reminds me. Politicians and business' don't take a dump without an angle. I wonder what Representative Linsky's angle is?
Glad you asked Christopher. Here is a link to his legislation.
According to this other link, he rates pretty low with small business owners and is a tax and spend Liberal. SOP for most Mass legislators. His ratings with gun owners and associated groups gave him a failing grade.
In the legislation he proposes he is adamant about his reaching out to gun owners in developing this gem yet the interest groups listed above give him a failing grade while most of his associations with urban housing development and pro-life groups can't say enough about him.
I think I just found the financial incentive.
As I have stated, the legislation doesn't have to have any relation to the crisis. Just raise the money, tax the consumers till they just stop buying something. This is known as attrition. Force citizens to purchase something they neither want nor they need, then penalize them for non compliance.
Where have we heard that one before?
....And That Is The Diatribe....