Corporate Freeloaders

Enjoy your Tax Day!

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Recently I read a commentary by a civilian pundit (I don't recall her name) who said that civil rights isn't the main issue in repealing DADT, unit cohesion is. She mentioned that that she had never served in the armed forces, yet still stated this "fact" with confidence.

As a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, allow me to politely disagree.

Unit cohesion is the responsibility of the unit commander. Repealing DADT may or may not increase the challenge of that charge, but, by itself, will not affect it. That's not the issue at all, period. The issue IS civil rights.

In 1941, blacks were forbidden to enlist in the US Marine Corps. General Holcomb, the Corps commandant at that time, said, "If it were a question of having a Marine Corps of 5,000 whites or 250,000 Negroes, I would rather have the whites." According to Morris MacGregor in Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965, "Black enlistment was impractical, he told one civil rights group, because the Marine Corps was too small to form racially separate units." (chap. 4) President Roosevelt ordered the Navy to enlist black troops, and, under orders, Holcomb complied. Under Truman, desegregation continued, and the Korean War was, I believe, the first to see racially integrated units in action. When I joined the Marine Corps in 1979, 30 years after racial integration of the Armed Forces, one of the first scenes I witnessed in boot camp was a fistfight between a white man and a black man – which was, of course, racially motivated. And it wasn't the only one I witnessed. Nevertheless, the leadership I witnessed in the Marine Corps did what it had to do to make sure that, regardless of racial tension, the units worked together. To their credit, they did a pretty good job of it.

The point is that, in a democracy, the civil government takes precedence over the military leadership. The president – a civilian – is the head of the military, for the very good reason that the military should be placed in service to the civil and civilian purpose. As Roosevelt and Truman understood, it is the job of the military to do as the civilian establishment dictates, not the other way 'round.

To show how this basic tenet of democracy has been twisted, according to the Washington Post, three years ago John McCain deferred to the military: "A former war hero, McCain said he would support ending the ban once the military's top brass told him that they agreed with the change."
McCain knows (or should know) about unit cohesion, and he should have a good grounding in the Constitution and the American, democratic theory of government – yet he deferred to the military. The Human Rights Campaign uses the military brass's coming out in favor of repealing DADT as if that were relevant to the issue. And, as noted, the pundit who inspired this post believes that the issue is "unit cohesion," that effectiveness of the military is the concern; she has been so deceived by the recent deferral of civilian leadership to military leadership that she believes that order is correct.

Failure of unit cohesion in the military is not caused by the diversity of the members making up the unit. It's caused by a failure of leadership. It is irrelevant to the issue of repealing DADT, and where it happens, the officer (and/or NCO) in charge should be disciplined and/or replaced.

In fact, there is one issue relevant to repealing DADT: civil rights. DADT is a moral travesty. It is the ethical and moral obligation and responsibility of the civilian leadership of this country, the president and congress, to order the military brass to integrate LGBT people into the military. It is the duty of military leadership to see that it is done without compromising unit cohesion or mission effectiveness.

Believe me, they're up to the task.

“I Love My Country…

… but I fear my government."

So reads a bumper sticker I've seen on a bunch of cars lately, from trucks with matching pro-gun stickers, to beat-up VW vans with Grateful Dead decals.

Enough.

I love my country, AND I REFUSE to fear my government.

I have made plain my disgust and dissent from the direction our federal government is going multiple times in recent years, in writing letters-to-the-editor to my local newspaper and national news magazines, and in the archives of this blog. I will continue to do so in the future. What I will not do is hide in fear, or remain silent about things that matter. Life is too short, and too beautiful; Love is too powerful; freedom is too precious.

When I attended the University of Oregon, I had an opportunity to take a class on the Soviet Union under Andrei Sinyavsky. I made sure to fit it into my schedule. Sinyavsky was an old man then; it was only a year before he died. He didn't speak English. A team of Russian immigrants translated for him, sitting on either side and towering over him, a tiny old man with a white beard – who yet towered over us all. I never missed a single class session, and when I had the chance I shook his hand and gave him my respect. Since I'd already filled elective requirements, the class did nothing for my degree; it did a lot for my education.

Sinyavsky knew what it meant to fear his government. He spent six years in the Soviet Gulag for criticizing the government in writing published under the pen name Abram Tertz. That writing, and his trial, gave birth to the modern Soviet dissident movement, which led to the collapse of that regime – which he lived to see. I will never forget his presence, nor his example.

Compared to that, we live in radical freedom, with a government that is simply benign – even if it is foolishly driving over a financial cliff, and even though black men often have to fear the government that will harrass them for such "crimes" as running while black, driving while black, and so on. As for our state, county, and municipal governments, they provide so many valuable services that I treasure them. I have no patience for people who make a big show about fearing our government as if it were a fearsome totalitarian state. Its problems are legion, but that's not one of them - at least not yet. We are incredibly lucky to live in this country, sharing in a legacy of liberty and boundless creativity.

Regardless of the overwhelming power that multinational corporations appear to have over our government, our government operates with our consent. It is us. There is no us vs. the government; we are the government. That is part of living in a democracy, even a broken one like ours. If we feel disempowered, then perhaps we should look deep inside ourselves, and determine what matters. Because no one can take away our power without our consent.

How Unfair Is This?

Kristin and I were talking about divorce and Social Security the other day, and I realized that if we were to separate completely and get a divorce, she would not share in my Social Security benefits.

Okay, here's some background. Nine years ago, we decided to have children. We chose Kristin, as the genetic female, to be the birth parent and do the baby-nursing and primary childcare. (Actually, for the first two years of Trin's life, she was the primary wage-earner, and I was the stay-at-home parent – but the last six years she's been the home-worker while I've been the wage-earner.) As we place a high priority on family and children, and wanted to parent our children fully, we chose to make the sacrifices that would allow us to get by on one wage, perhaps with part-time help from the other parent on an evening/weekend schedule. This means we've done things like live with all four of us in a one-bedroom duplex, and getting by with one 20+-year-old Volvo with well over 300,000 miles for the past eight years, and sleeping on garage-sale mattresses on the floor. But as time passed, I slowly advanced my position until now I've got a really good job that pays pretty damn well. We liken it to a football team. I play the offense; I make the points (money).

Kristin, meanwhile, plays defense. She saves money. While caring for the kids, she takes care of the house, manages the finances (which are all completely shared), plans meals and shops accordingly, cooks cheap, healthy meals for us all, and plants, weeds, and harvests gardens in four different yards, saving hundreds and hundreds of dollars on groceries and giving us the best food available. In doing all this, she saves a hell of a lot of money, gives our children the best education possible, and makes homeschooling on one wage possible.

Who do you suppose has the most challenging and difficult job, and works the hardest?

If you guessed Kristin, move to the head of the class.

However, even though Kristin contributes as much if not more to the economic well-being of this family, when we fill out our income tax forms, nearly all of the economic benefits are assigned to me.

Assuming we stay together, that's no big issue. She'll share in my benefits when I die.

But if (like 50% or so of the couples in this great nation) we divorce – she gets nothing from mine. She gets to try to make it on the benefits from her tiny-to-non-existent income, and I get all the benefits from my considerable income – even though we are equal members of a team, and she sacrificed her income to benefit me, our children, and, by extension, our community and society.

You know? It pisses me off. The income I make is not my income, it's our income. There ought to be some legal framework that ensures that the combination of our efforts will yield equal benefits to our old age, regardless of whether our team stays together or not.

While our situation is same-sex, most equivalent situations are not; and as usual, the woman ends up with the short end of the stick. Another reason to tear down the patriarchy, and embrace the philosophy of feminism.

Oregon Ballot Measure 63

I honestly believe that this measure is the least understood and most harmful measure on the ballot. It would exempt all work on homes and farm buildings valued at $35,000 or less from permits. As usual with a Sizemore initiative, it is very poorly written; for instance, there is no system identified to provide a uniform valuation. How the $35,000-per-year is figured is up to the individual. Is that the amount added per the tax evaluation? Market evaluation? Cost of materials? The amount a contractor would charge? Apparently, it's up to the homeowner to decide, which means that it will, in practice, exempt work valued at far greater than $35,000. It is reasonable to assume that some people, especially unscrupulous landlords, will legally construct entire houses, over the course of two years, without permits – they'll be able to show receipts for $70,000 in materials, or less – but would you really like to live in that house?

Let's take a look at some winners.

The main winners are slumlords. Folks who own a lot of houses that they rent cheap to poor people and college students will be able to make additions and changes that enable them to rent more rooms without complying with basic standards for fire and life safety.

Another clear winner is fly-by-night contractors. Knowing there won't be oversight of their operations, unlicensed or unscrupulous contractors will be able to undercut bids from reputable contractors, and their substandard work will be legal, even if it violates basic fire and life safety standards, or is structurally unsound. So sue them! (If you can find them.)

Large-scale farm operators will be able to make changes in buildings where farmworkers labor, eliminating regulation of fire and life safety standards from production facilities where these under-represented people will labor in worsening conditions.

Some homeowners will be able to save up to $1000 or so to make reasonable remodels or additions to their homes – and they'll do it with quality and care.

How about losers?

Firefighters are going to lose bigtime. Think about it. Would you like to enter a building without knowing whether it had been constructed to basic fire, life safety, and structural standards - or not? Or climb on a roof without knowing whether it had been remodeled with an undersized beam that's going to fail with a minimum of char? One of my colleagues has a sign in his cubicle: "God made building inspectors so that firefighters could have heroes, too." There's a good reason the fire chiefs and firefighters' unions are against Measure 63. Some firefighters are going to be injured if this measure passes. Others will die.

I'd say insurance companies would be losers, since they will experience a spike in claims due to substandard construction, but I've got a feeling they'll be proactive and start immediately raising premiums across the board to cover all the additional claims. They clearly won't be winners – they'll be dealing with a much less predictable market – but the big losers here will be homeowners with insurance.

Folks who live in or own property in flood hazard areas are going to be major losers. The only insurance they can get is underwritten by the federal government, which has strict standards. Without a permit review system to verify that construction in a flood hazard area is built according to those standards, the feds will withdraw flood insurance from Oregon. How much will your property be worth when you can't insure it?

Another loser will be reputable contractors. They'll be undercut by unscrupulous contractors, and, while their reputation may provide some assurance of continued work, in a tight market the loss of a job to a fly-by-night outfit could mean the difference between bankruptcy and solvency.

The environment will lose. Oregon has some pretty good energy efficiency codes. Throw them out the window.

Renters, especially low income families and college students, will probably be the biggest losers of all. Without any system to review and inspect for basic fire and life safety standards, such as egress windows and fire separation assemblies, they will be living in unsafe houses. Some of them will die.

I don't think saving a thousand bucks is worth it.

I make these claims based on three factors:

First, reason. When you really consider the ramifications of such a poorly written initiative, and look at winners and losers, it becomes clear.

Second, as a plans examiner, I have intimate familiarity with building codes, including the reasons for them, their shortcomings, and the mistakes people make in planning their remodels. I frequently see beams that are undersized, even grossly undersized. I see proposals to cut the webbings and chords of engineered trusses. I see bedrooms designed with windows too small for a child to crawl out of – even without windows at all. I see mistakes made by engineers – yes, they are human, too – rarely, it's true, but mistakes in math or in following load paths can be deadly. Frequently I see designers make changes after the engineering has been complete, which renders the engineered system useless. I see mistakes that have been missed by the designer, the engineer, the contractor, the homeowner, and me, which are caught by inspectors in the field. The code isn't perfect. The solution is to revise the code, not throw it out the window. Having another pair of eyes look at your project before and as it's built is the best and cheapest insurance you'll ever get.

Third, and most of all, I make these claims as the survivor of a house fire.

At around 11:30 p.m. on April 3, 2003, I awoke with my dog scratching at my bed, whining in panic. I looked out the window to see flames shooting from my neighbor's bedroom. I rushed to call 911, while Kristin grabbed our 3 year old and 6 week old sons and ran out of the house. Within seconds, just after giving the dispatcher my address, the phone and the power went dead and smoke poured into the hallway between our bedroom and the one exit door.

We lived in a duplex that did not have the 1-hour fire separation, nor the egress window, required by Oregon code.

Fires move with incredible speed. Look at the video of the Great White fire in the Station nightclub sometime. "It just -- it was so fast. It had to be two minutes tops before the whole place was black smoke." That's why so many people died. Had we not had a dog – had we awakened one minute later, our house choked with smoke and without power – at best we would have escaped through that tiny, high window in our bedroom suffering from smoke inhalation. We would have had to call 911 from a neighbor's house, so response would have been much slower. By then the fire would have broken into our apartment, and we would have lost much more than we did, perhaps everything. Very likely, in trying to save our children, one or more of us would have been seriously injured or killed.

All because of construction that did not comply with building code.

When I say that people will die will die as a result of passing Measure 63, it is, granted, only my opinion. But I make it with full confidence that I am right, based on experience, history, and reason. All to save a few thousand bucks and build whatever the hell you want.

It's just not worth it.

If you live in Oregon, please join me in voting against Measure 63.

Socialized Medicine? Let’s Do the Math (or at least make some conservative estimates)

With our health infrastructure crumbling, 50 million folks without health insurance, and a growing sense of urgency, you frequently hear about the evils of "socialized medicine." So I thought, let's take a closer look. Let's do the math, and see just how bad we'll get ripped off if we nationalize health insurance and adopt a single-payer insurance system like what France or Germany or Sweden or Japan or some other backward, socialist liberal country does. Sure and if we do, our health system will go right down the tubes and be like theirs, huh?

Oh, wait. Their systems are all rated LOTS better than ours. Though we do pay about 2.5 times as much, per capita.

For simplicity's sake, I'm just going to figure this as if we expanded Medicare to include everyone. After all, we've already got socialized medicine, which by law is required to try to make itself competitive with private insurance. This is tough, since Medicare operates at about 3% overhead, and private insurers operate at 12% t0 30%. So, by law, Medicare is not allowed to negotiate drug prices, it excludes a huge number of people based on age and ability, and they've got tons of complicated, stupid paperwork that drives health providers nuts and makes them hesitate to accept Medicare patients.

So, my employer pays about $6.35 per hour that I work into private health insurance. Under Medicare, I'd save, conservatively, 10%. (6.35x.1=.635) So, right off the bat, I get a 64 cent raise. Cool.

Then the math gets more complicated. For instance, I know that there will be 50 million more people with health insurance, but how many of them would be taxpayers? I don't know the details well enough – does that number include kids and workers, or just workers? Either way, it's going to spread the premium base, and so bring down the cost. Let's call it another 10 cent reduction in my share. Now I've got a 74 cent raise.

But folks that are uninsured now will have access to regular checkups and wellness programs, so overall emergency room costs will go way down. I don't know how to account for this mathematically, either, so let's conservatively take another 10 cent reduction in my share. And my raise is up to 84 cents.

And what if we allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices? I wonder how much that would save? I don't know, but it's bound to be significant. Let's say that savings reduces my share another 10 cents. I'm nearing a dollar! (And that's not even counting if we allowed Medicare to negotiate the cost of procedures.)

So what if the paperwork problem were fixed, which should be pretty basic since Medicare wouldn't have to exclude everybody who is young and healthy. That would reduce the costs to providers, so Medicare wouldn't pay as much – say, 6 cents.

Wow! A dollar raise! Just for socializing medical insurance!

What would your raise be?

And how cool would it be if every kid had health insurance? (Real cool, in my opinion.)

Of course, that doesn't account for the fact that the money I pay into Medicare taxes currently goes to cover the oldest, sickest people around – in other words, by adding young, healthy people to the premium pool, my current taxes would go down.

How would this affect health providers? Wouldn't they be totally demoralized by getting paid by a socialized insurance program? Doctors would flock across our borders to work in Canada and Mexico and …

Oh, wait. Yeah, they probably wouldn't. They'd just have an easier time with paperwork. (Believe me, any fix of this nature is not complete without fixing the Medicare paperwork nightmare.) And their liability insurance would probably go down a lot. So their overhead would go down, further reducing costs, and even if their pay got reduced through negotiations, the savings in insurance would likely mean increased take-home.

But you couldn't pick your doctor, right?

Why not? They're all getting paid by the same insurer. Seems like having a license to practice medicine automatically puts them into the preferred provider pool, which means you'd have more choice of which doctor to use.

But there has to be some downside to socializing medical insurance. Right?

Well, it would mean increasing taxes. My share of that would be $5.35/hour (worst case scenario). Which still leaves me a dollar per hour more in discretionary income. I'm actually okay with that. (Some employers might not want to pay out all of their savings on health insurance to wages. So, join a union!) Only Republicans are so anti-tax they'd rather spend lots of money on inefficient private systems and reduce take home wages than surrender their ideology.

For the past 30 years or so, we've been bombarded with the myth that government efficiency is an oxymoron. It's true that government is typically incompetent and inefficient in producing goods and moving them around. But in fact government does excel in certain efficiencies, and one of these is insurance. Social Security, for instance, is an enormous program; yet it operates at under 3% overhead. Medicare is the biggest health care payer in the nation, yet it has by far the lowest overhead of any health insurance company. Continuing down our course of blind ideology to support a myth that the "free market" provides the best service in all situations and circumstances, while the data, both from our own nation and from the rest of the world, proves otherwise is worse than stupid. It's insane. When it means withholding health care from sick people and kids, it's cruel and unjust.

It's also very, very expensive.

Schroer Decision!

Way back in June, I blogged about Diane Schroer and the discrimination she experienced in trying to get a job. Well, a decision has finally been handed down, and the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia found in her favor. Very cool.

One thing I found interesting about the case was the statement below, taken from Dr. Weiss's blog post:

"Charlotte Preece, the decisonmaker, admitted that when she viewed the photographs of Schroer in traditionally feminine attire, with a feminine hairstyle and makeup, she saw a man in women's clothing. In conversations Preece had with colleagues at the Library after her lunch with Schroer, she repeatedly mentioned these photographs. Preece testified that her difficulty comprehending Schroer's decision to undergo a gender transition was heightened because she viewed David Schroer not just as a man, but, in light of her Special Forces background, as a particularly masculine kind of man. Preece's perception of David Schroer as especially masculine made it all the more difficult for her to visualize Diane Schroer as anyone other than a man in a dress. Preece admitted that she believed that others at CRS, as well as Members of Congress and their staffs, would not take Diane Schroer seriously
because they, too, would view her as a man in women's clothing."

I find this cultural assumption that your body defines who you are incredibly painful. It virtually makes me invisible. If you look at me and see a man in woman's clothing, you don't see me, you don't understand me, you don't believe in me. And that hurts.

I'm a woman in a man's body. That is very different. My clothing tells you that's who I am, as well as every other signifier I can come up with. Yeah, I know it's not perfect. It's like a big birthmark all over my face, or a hunchback. There's only so much I can change. And I'm very grateful that so many people see me for who I am, including one friend who didn't realize I could donate sperm for a possible pregnancy until she thought about it for a minute.

But I'm off the subject. I just want to take a minute to celebrate this landmark decision – another step forward for equal rights.

“Unregulated chemicals …

… were discovered in some of the base drinking water systems in the early 1980's. At this time, the Marine Corps is funding health studies to determine … whether or not there may be an association between exposure to the water and certain health conditions."

That information came to me yesterday in a letter from the US Marine Corps, forwarded by the IRS since the Marines don't know where to find me anymore. The Marine Corps is "actively seeking individuals who resided or worked aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune." They want me to call them up and tell them all about my health history.

My first response to reading it was fury. I felt so angry to be part of a scientific experiment, without my knowledge or consent – and I couldn't help but wonder if it didn't impact my gender dysphoria.

Now, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. Maybe it was accidental, or unintended, and there's nothing here but healthy concern for my well-being.

However, the United States government has a long history of using US citizens as guinea pigs in tests and experiments without consent or knowledge. Hanford. Gulf War Syndrome. The Tuskogee Experiment.

These "unregulated chemicals" were released on a Marine Corps base. Security is generally pretty tight in these locations, and I have a hard time believing that someone just came in and dumped some strange chemicals into the water, and nobody asked them what they were doing. The chemicals may have been "unregulated," but they were certainly known.

And if they were "discovered" in the early 1980's, why did it take them 25 years to notify me, or seek me out, and ask for my health information?

No. My Marine Corps colleagues and I were human guinea pigs in some chemical experiment, and now it's time to collect the data on long-term effects.

I'm not going to call them up and give them any.

At least, not willingly.

The letter ends: "We appreciate your support in helping us reach all former residents and employees as we want to ensure the widest dissemination of information to our Marine family." The cynicism drips off the page.

I felt a lot of anger at first, and some fear – what was in the water? How did it affect me? Those bastards! Etc.

Thank God for Kristin and her NVC magic. After the boys went to sleep, she came and we talked for awhile. I cried a bit, and got empathy and some other treatment she gives that gets to the bottom of feelings and needs. I unraveled the anger to find feelings of helplessness underneath, and she showed me how that anger empowers me by defying the helplessness. And I came out of it, once again, stronger than before.

I am not a victim. It doesn't matter what that experiment did to me, if indeed it did anything. I am in control of my own life, and I am coming into my own, with the power of nonviolence behind and in me. I'm making a difference in this world – a small difference perhaps, but it is there.

I'm grateful.

But I'm still not going to call the Marine Corps up and give them any data.

A Constitutional Aside

I've heard a lot of people say that this country is one where the majority rules. I don't think it's as simple as that. I believe that our Founding Parents wisely established a three-legged stool of government to balance the convictions of the majority with the needs of the minority.

In high school civics class, I was taught that the purpose of the legislative branch of government is to make laws, the executive branch to enforce them, and the judicial branch to interpret them. I think this is really their roles, not their purposes – what they do, not the intent behind what they do.

The real purpose of the legislative branch is to establish the will of the majority of our citizens.

And the purpose of the judicial branch is to protect the minority from tyranny by the majority. In other words, to make sure that any law passed by the majority impacts all people equally; and that the majority cannot make laws that violate the rights of the minority.

This system doesn't work perfectly – the judiciary is too easily swayed by majority opinion or personal conviction – but often it works pretty darn well. A good case is California, where the California Supreme Court made the correct call in requiring that the laws of marriage apply equally to all people. That is the purpose of the court, doing what it is meant to do, doing what it does best.

Discussion?

Help Protect Marriage!

A message from HRC (Human Rights Campaign):

Dear Friends,

Do you want to live in a country that legalizes discrimination? Despite the recent California Supreme Court decision that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional, efforts are underway throughout the country to take away rights from same-sex couples.

I just joined thousands of others in showing my support for marriage equality for all. But recently, proponents of bigotry and hate collected even more signatures in an attempt to invalidate the California Supreme Court decision. Some people are even trying to add a same-sex marriage ban to the U.S. Constitution.

We are at a turning point in our nation's history and I'm hoping you'll join me in standing up against discrimination. Please sign the Million for Marriage petition and get us one name closer to showing that Americans overwhelmingly support marriage equality!

http://www.MillionForMarriage.org

Every committed couple deserves to enjoy the privileges and responsibilities conferred by marriage. Add your name to the petition and be a part of the movement to fight for marriage equality for all.

Thank you!

Of course, the folks supporting the ban on equal marriage are not really "proponents of bigotry and hate" – at least, not intentionally. They're just scared. I don't know how to help them understand that they are not endangered by allowing equal marriage for all. I suspect the best way is to show them that it just ain't that scary. In other words, to make marriage legal for any consenting adult who wants it, regardless of sex or gender. Really, it's doing them a favor. By relieving them of what appears to be one of their worst fears, they will live life with less fear, and hopefully more love.

And anyway, what business does the government have telling you who you may marry, so long as that person is a consenting adult? That is not an effective role for government.

The Nine Most Welcome Words in the English Language

Ronald Reagan once famously said, “The nine scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

But I never felt more grateful, or more relief from fear, than at 11:30 p.m. on 4/3/2003, when, less than three minutes after I called 911, a firefighter jumped out of his truck and said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” So many treasures were saved, smoke-damaged but salvageable, because of his quick action.

And I felt fine when my car broke down on a lonely highway, and a highway patrolman pulled up behind me and said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

I liked it, too, when I was researching something unfamiliar, and a librarian approached me and said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

When I was wondering whether the electrician wired my house correctly, or whether I’d have to worry about another fire, I felt relieved when a building inspector showed up and said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

And when the tornado swept through my town, and the FEMA inspector showed up and said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help,” what a relief that was! (Obviously, that was prior to 2001.)

When I wanted to know if the plans I had drawn up for my new house were structurally sound, I took them to a plans examiner, who said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

When I took my kids to the municipal pool, the lifeguard said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

When I needed a better job, I went to the public university (which I could almost afford, way back then), and every instructor said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

When I got laid off, the unemployment caseworker said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help,” and I got assistance in finding a new job and enough money to survive on while I searched.

Again and again, when I need information, or assistance, or education, or relief, I turn to the government. Park rangers. Clean water. Roads. Schools. None of them wanted to sell me anything. They just wanted to provide a service, and make my life a little bit more wonderful.

And I wonder: How can I get so many services, of such great value, for so little? Certainly not from the private sector. Less than 20% of my income goes to provide all this. Others, who make more, pay more. I’m grateful to them. I would so much rather have someone from the government, than a handout.

I think Mr. Reagan got it wrong. They're not the scariest words. Perhap, though, they are the nine most welcome.