Attractive Nuisance

October 16, 2013

President Barack H. Obama

The Whitehouse

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC  20500

Dear Mr. President:

Your failure to secure our national borders has created a deadly “attractive nuisance”.  Innocent people have been lured by our lack of border security into attempts to navigate arduous and dangerous terrain, or by associating with human smugglers, in their pursuit for a safer and more prosperous life.  How many of these immigrants and family members have succumbed to the harsh conditions they encountered trying to illegally cross our border.  And how many have perished because they put their faith and their money in the hands of brutal and ruthless criminals.  You have created this tragedy through your dereliction of duty to your oath of office.

Let’s also consider that most of these illegal immigrants are decent, hardworking, and honest people doing what they must to survive.  But our porous borders have also attracted the worst elements of humankind who came to our country to exploit our wealth, our compassion, and our vulnerability to acts of terrorism.

You would prosecute me to fullest extent of the law if a child drowned in my unattended swimming pool that did not have a protective fence.

If, as you claim, compassion is more important to you than party politics, then you must make every effort to immediately secure our borders.  Otherwise, you should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law as an accomplice to negligent manslaughter as a consequence of willfully maintaining an “attractive nuisance”.

Respectfully,

Bill Monroe

HEALTHCARE: Private vs. Public

I’m anxious for a liberal to justify their preference for a government rather than a private sector managed healthcare system..

I don’t think anyone would dispute the fact the private sector built and continues to build this nation.  Nearly, if not all, the periodicly reported financial and economic metrics are specific to the private sector, not the health of government.  Yes, government has enabled the industrialization of our economy through tax expenditures in infrastructure, standardizations, and the establishment and enforcement of protective statutes.  But in fact, government can take very little credit for the enormous wealth and prosperity we have created.  Innovation, ingenuity, perseverance and determination are traits almost exclusive to the private sector domain.

So if our healthcare system was broken, why didn't we turn to the private sector for the solution?  I mean, haven't we seen enough examples of bureaucratic incompetence to last a lifetime?  Liberals would have you believe it is primarily the insurance industry which has brought down the most efficient and effective healthcare system in the world.  This is nothing more than obfuscation and misdirection!  The system became somewhat dysfunctional as a consequence of federal and state government regulations and their meddling in the free market, not to mention the incestuous relationship between the regulators and the industry.  And let’s not forget government run welfare programs, such as Medicaid and Medi-Cal, did more to corrupt the pricing of health services and insurance premiums than any other single factor.  And consider this, if insurance companies are truly gouging their customers, why aren’t these same companies the darlings of Wall Street and every investor in America?

Insurance is a pretty simple game.  Set the premiums at a level where the revenue stream covers the risk, the associated costs, and returns a reasonable profit to the investors.  This works for nearly every form of insurance except medical and for all the obvious reasons.  The key to universal healthcare is getting everyone, regardless of distinctions, to pay into a homogeneous system.  This means you have to eliminate all other regulators except one.  This is where government can play an important role.  Such issues as portability, uniformity, pre-existing conditions, deductibles, tort reform and healthcare for the poor and disadvantaged are all solvable issues with government cooperation, not government control.

I think liberals have three primary reasons for wanting government mandated and controlled healthcare.  First and foremost, a nationalized healthcare system is essential to controlling the behavior of the people.  Liberals really don't trust the common folk to make wise and informed decisions about their lifestyles and their healthcare.  And once government has secured this authority, it is easily justifiable to extend this reach into all other aspects of our lives with the primary and ultimate goal of eliminating private wealth and property.

Second, the thought that private healthcare organizations could profit from providing healthcare is simply abhorrent to the soul and spirit of a progressive liberal.  Never mind that profits are redistributed to the owners/investors (known as the people) but, more importantly, it is a sure bet the combined annual profits from all private healthcare providers would pale in comparison to the annual bureaucratic waste and fraud which is inherent in any government managed program.

And third, a universal healthcare system would require the states to relinquish their authority and control over medical insurance providers in favor of a federally regulated program and only one healthcare exchange.  Bureacracy entrenchment would render this an overwhelming task.  Liberals, as a general rule, avoid such heavy-lifting because they don’t want to be held accountable for all those displaced workers, most of whom are members of their constituency.  They favor circumvention and misdirection to avoid accountability, and even more so when the collateral gains are the primary objectives.

So, You Want A Bureaucracy To Manage Your Healthcare

Why don't bureaucracies produce the expected results?  We've all heard of and experienced the gross incompetence of public and private sector bureaucracies.  Who hasn't been insulted and outraged by the bureaucracy you were required to deal with by some enterprise or government entity?  And when you add organized labor into the mix, it becomes even more frustrating, annoying and aggravating.  What is it about a bureaucracy that allows well-intentioned collaboration to become an unmanageable behemoth, consistently failing to deliver the expected results?

Let's begin with the individual.  Most of us, if not all of us, begin our journeys with hopes, dreams and aspirations.  However, it is truly the rare individual who converts those visions into a lifelong pursuit.  (In some cases, these rare persons unwittingly trap themselves in a bureaucracy, e.g., civilian and military pilots.)  The rest of us continue to fantasize while either conforming to societal expectations or simply allowing events and circumstances to determine our fate.  The difference between those that pursue and those that don't is the extent to which passion and determination fuels their energy and ambition, and keeps their focus on their pursuit.

Generally speaking, bureaucracies don't attract those with passion.  Bureaucracies attract those who seek safety, security, acceptance and approval, and who make career decisions based on immediate opportunities, personal needs, issues and desires; which pretty much describes the rest of us.  Consequently, the workforce of a bureaucracy is comprised of individuals who chose the default selection for a career.  It's not what they would do if they believed they had the power of self-determination.  Not exactly the kind of person essential to a culture of excellence.

Then, we put this person in a job that is routine, repetitive, and/or tedious.  The job offers little challenge after you’ve learned it, almost no fulfillment or satisfaction and does not encourage creativity or imagination.  This promotes increasing focus and attention on things unrelated to the task at hand but which provides a diversion from the daily drudgery .  Eventually, the thrill and anticipation of a new career are replaced by resignation, frustration, dissatisfaction and envy.  And for those grappling with serious personal issues, they become disgruntled and uncooperative employees putting increasing distance between themselves and those whom they serve.

For those with some semblance of ambition, and desire for recognition, achievement and advancement, a bureaucracy can be a pretty good place to fulfill those desires.  Bureaucracies need managers and administrators just like any other enterprise.  The question becomes, how to manage an ascending career without jeopordizing the benefits that brought them here in the first place.  The unintended consequence is management spends more time looking up the organization than looking down.  The rank and file soon realize management isn’t working for them and that they are being ignored.  Collective-bargaining is unintentionally invited into the organization and universally embraced even by those who never thought they would wear a “union” label.

All of this combines to create the ideal environment for a rigid and unchangeable structure.  Since creativity and imagination are not encouraged, and because job security is paramount, decision making introduces risk and invites complications.  Consequently, policies, procedures, standardization, rules and regulations become the order of the day, all in the name of efficiency.  Employees soon learn to serve the organization, and that serving the “greater good” affords much more safety and security than serving the individual.

The real issue lies in the expectations of those for whom the bureaucracy was intended to serve.  Simply put, the customer expects excellence without fault which, almost by definition, is impossible for the bureaucracy to deliver.  And while many private sector bureaucracies manage to overcome their inherent tendencies, there is not one example of a federal bureaucracy which has ever exceeded the taxpayers expectations in terms of efficiency, responsiveness and sincerety.

Three Issues with President George W. Bush

May 15, 2013

The Honorable George W. Bush

Office of George W. Bush

P. O. Box 259000

Dallas, TX  75225-9000

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you for your service to our nation and congratulations on the completion and dedication of your presidential library.  I look forward to my first opportunity to visit and tour this impressive historical facility.

Generally speaking, I believe your two-term administration was effective and the nation benefitted from your leadership, especially following the 911 terrorist attacks.  However, there were moments where I questioned your actions and decisions -- there are three specific occasions I wish to address.  I am hoping you will take the time to provide me with a more comprehensive rationalization for the courses you chose.  I have no right to ask for this nor do I believe you have to justify anything to me -- I chose to sit on the sidelines while you chose to get in the game -- I'm simply curious.

The war in Iraq went on far too long.  The "surge", in my mind, was more of an indictment on how the war had been prosecuted to that point.  I never got the sense from you or the Secretary of Defense that urgency was an essential element of your strategy.  (Urgency being the recognition that as long as you are fully-engaged in a major initiative, you cannot address other initiatives in a comprehensive fashion.)  I understand that nation-building is a slow, deliberate and arduous process; however, it just seemed that as long as there wasn't any real pressure to bring our troops home, other than Cindy Sheehan, you appeared content to sustain our prolonged involvement.  I'm not convinced it was ever about Iraqi freedom.  It was, more likely, another means of financially doping our national economy.  I believe the opportunity costs of this war will have as much influence on your legacy as any of your pro-active policies.

Illegal immigration is more than a human tragedy.  In my mind, it has the potential to destroy our nation as we know it.  Not because we don't have the ability or the desire to absorb another twelve million residents, but because it is now acceptable to disregard those laws which offend our

sensibilities, and it is acceptable for our elected officials to disregard their oaths of office.  The rule of law is the only thing that sets apart civilized societies from others.  I never believed you did your utmost to uphold the law of the land when it came to protecting our borders, or that you trusted the ingenuity, imagination, and creativity of the American spirit to solve the labor availability crisis.  I will never stop believing we could have found a way to satisfy our labor requirements without compromising the security and future of our nation.

I watched your library dedication television interview on Fox News.  Toward the end, you were asked about America's future role in foreign affairs.  I don't disagree with your position that we must not retreat from our historical prominence.  However, the success of nearly every human endeavor is a function of financial investment whether in the private, public, or non-profit sectors.  The prosperity of this nation once allowed us to heavily invest in those initiatives intended to make this a safer and better world for everyone.  We were once a generous nation driven more by virtue and ideology than by self-absorption and instant-gratification.  We once managed our finances responsibly which allowed us to lead and to respond immediately in time of crisis, and to challenge the bullies among us.  Sadly, this is not the case today.  Our growing demand for domestic entitlements, our grotesque national debt, and our continued disregard for balanced budgets, has literally stripped this nation of its teeth -- we have become a paper tiger.  How do you propose to be that worldwide force for good without the financial wherewithal to be the leader of the free world?

By now, you probably think I am woefully naive when it comes to matters of government and politics.  You may have concluded my altruistic tendencies have preempted my ability to grasp the nature of humans and the reality in which we exist.  But this I know -- aspirations are the energy of nobility.  If we are not aspiring for something greater than what we have become or have already achieved, then we are on the same course as every other failed society before us.

All the very best,

Bill Monroe

Gun Control

January 11, 2013


The Honorable Kenny E. Marchant
1110 Longworth House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Marchant:

Please tell me you understand the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting or personal safety.

Please tell me you believe our government is every bit as capable of subjugating the American people as any government in the history of mankind.

Please tell me you understand that our nation is one natural cataclysmic event or economic calamity from lawlessness and martial law.

Please tell me you believe the best defense against a tyrannical government and lawlessness is an armed citizenry.

Please tell me you reject simplistic, reactionary solutions to complex and troubling issues.

Please tell me you embrace the power of enduring principles over the path of least resistance and self-promotion.

Respectfully,



Bill Monroe

Embrace the Successful

The highest of all wage and income earners are unquestionably the most essential element of capitalism and free markets. It is impossible to have a robust middle-class and a vibrant economy without them -- period, end of discussion! While there may be aspects of this socio-economic group that we despise and disdain, to demonize and decry their success is tantamount to committing economic suicide. Taking the bad with the good is simply a law of nature -- eliminating the bad serves only to eliminate the good.


If you’re able-bodied and not one of our wealthier citizens, too bad, get over it! Your present status has nothing to do with the circumstances and events of your life or the actions of other persons. Acknowledge that you are where you are through the choices you alone have made. Your DNA might not contain the drive, passion, ambition or work ethic necessary to excel at, well, anything. Nevertheless, that reality doesn’t entitle you to quit, bemoan the success of others, or become a ward of the state. Or, your passion may have directed you to a calling for which the financial rewards are limited at best. Again, too bad, embrace your choices and seek the joy and happiness found in fulfillment of a dream. But please don’t despise others simply because their dreams don’t look like yours.