How Does Changing One Word Change the Meaning of a Sentence

I was reading an AP report about the special deal Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson received in exchange for his vote for the Senate's version of the Health Care Bill. From the article:

"Under the Senate bill the federal government will pay the entire cost of an expansion of Medicaid in Nebraska, unlike other states, which will have to start picking up a portion of the tab themselves after several years."

When we read this, it seems unfair. Why should Nebraska get special treatment? But look at the wording closely, and just for fun, replace "federal government" with "US Taxpayer" and see how it sounds.

Under the Senate bill the US Taxpayer will pay the entire cost of an expansion of Medicaid in Nebraska, unlike other states, which will have to start picking up a portion of the tab themselves after several years.

For even a few more laughs, change the same words to "hard working father of two that lives in Texas."

Under the Senate bill the hard working father of two that lives in Texas will pay the entire cost of an expansion of Medicaid in Nebraska, unlike other states, which will have to start picking up a portion of the tab themselves after several years.

This has suddenly become very real.

Mission Creep - They Can't Help Themselves!

The Political Machine

I love videos, because then I don't have to type so much! Sure this is from Fox (Glenn Beck), which means that 99.9999% of Democrats have already dismissed it, but whether it is sensationalism or not, it is true, and it is happening with Republicans and Democrats.

Please watch this. The quote by the gentleman being interviewed, who is a democrat, "Corruption is killing this country" seems to fall on deaf ears in this country. How is it possible that we don't know about relationships like this in both parties? Shouldn't things like this be the headline every day? I would think it would sell papers like crazy!

It is the system, not the party.

I have written in several posts that the problem we have with our government is not a Republican or Democratic thing, but a systematic thing. Our government has no incentive to be efficient or cut costs. In fact, it can be said the government officials and employees are have negative incentives to do these things. If a department becomes more efficient and doesn't use their entire budget, their budget is slashed next year. However, if they meet or exceed their budget, they can ask for an increase next year.

Why is it like this? Because unlike private companies, the government doesn't sell anything. They don't have to convince people to buy their products to produce revenue, they take money from us through taxes. A private company has to produce something with value, then convince consumers to purchase. If a company not efficient, it will go out of business. If the government is not efficient, it will tax, borrow and print money to get to breakeven.

A great article discussing this in more detail can be found here.

Anybody remember the SNL parody of Ross Perot? Dana Carvey impersonated Ross Perot. In a satirical commercial, Perot (Carvey) stated that based on the performance of the country, Perot would receive a "bonus" of billions of dollars. At the time it was funny. In hindsight, maybe Carvey accidentally discovered something that would improve, not increase, our government.