This is Viewpoints for Thursday, Oct. 20, 2016

‘Kudzu Principle’

The recent projected and anticipated changes in health care presented to the Macon Rotary Civic Club by the head of Navicent Health were very broad but lacking in reasoned evaluation. It made me think of the story I wrote, “The Kudzu Principle.”

The oriental vine kudzu was introduced in the southeastern United States in the early 20th century to address the monumental erosion problem on many farms and uncultivated lands. These vines proved capable to master and stabilize the land that was subject to dramatic erosion. This appeared to provide an excellent solution for parts of large, worn-out former cotton fields lying fallow due to the devastation by the boll weevil and for other cropless lands.

This approach, however, was not evaluated as to the possible long-term, uncontrolled growth of kudzu, resulting in unintended, dire consequences. Kudzu does what it does best: It grows indiscriminately, covering land and trees to the extent that nearby trees suffocate, killing trees and root systems that had held soil, preventing long-term erosion.

This illustrates that a product, law, plan or policy for an issue facing society can be introduced as a solution that on the surface appears desirable. However, one that is proposed without expansive vetting, short and long term, can be as problematic or worse than kudzu has been in the southern United States. The quick fix that our leaders sometimes perceive as necessary too often addresses their desires and needs over that of society/country.

The prudent person/group solves problems by being vigilant toward feedback warranting corrective action, relying on unbiased appraisal instead of the auto pilot created by the earlier group/generation intending to show that their solution was without flaw until near “too late.”

As I drive on Georgia’s rural roads, I observe “The vine that ate the South,” with devastating environmental consequences to the extent that kudzu has been placed on the federal noxious weed list. It makes me wonder how long the ACA will be allowed to adversely impact our national health care capabilities with its unintended consequences. The large health care insurance carriers walking away from ACA, large health care insurance premium increases and the potential catastrophic governmental subsidies under ACA, which will fall on taxpayers, makes one wonder if ACA is “the law that ate the federal budget” and marginalized our world-class health care system.

Regrettably, a governmental program, like kudzu, does what it does best: It expands indiscriminately sucking up more tax dollars.

Rape allegation

Some months ago, early in her campaign for president, Hillary Clinton was asked in a town hall meeting whether she believes that a woman who alleges that she was sexually abused or raped should be believed. Her answer was “yes, until such time as the allegation may be proved to be false.” My guess is that Hillary immediately regretted that answer, but it was recorded on video for posterity.

Several women have, over the years, accused Bill Clinton of sexual abuse and/or rape. Juanita Broaddrick was one of those accusers. She alleged that in 1978 she was raped by Bill Clinton who was at the time the Arkansas attorney general. The allegation was not some vague generalization of being manhandled or sexually abused. But rape. No one who has read the story can deny that the actions described were anything but. Broaddrick was at first reluctant to admit the incident, but beginning in 1999 she told it in graphic detail, and has since repeated the story on many occasions, including very recently.

The accusation has never been disproved — denied perhaps, but not proven to be false. So that’s the bind in which Clinton finds herself. I sincerely hope that the moderator at the next debate confronts her with her earlier assertion of believe-until-disproved and then asks her point blank if Bill Clinton raped Broaddrick.

Gadbois is right

Frank Gadbois is absolutely correct. The proposed Fair Tax is not fair. It is a value added tax. It will be in addition to existing sales taxes that individuals and companies now pay. A value added tax will be an added to doctor, dentist, barber and hospital bills. Also, it will be an add on tax to the labor costs of home repairs, auto repairs and lawn services, just to mention a few.

A value added tax will also be an add on to the purchase of a home, a vehicle and appliances. If an individual has to finance any of these purchases, the value added tax could be included into the monthly payments. Over time this could be very costly to the borrower. Providers who do not now collect a sales tax, such as doctors, dentists, barbers and hospitals, will have to hire someone to process the money received as a result of collecting the value added tax to the state. This cost to the provider will passed on to the consumer.

The proponents of the value added tax claim that it will eliminate the income tax. Does anyone believe politicians would eliminate a source of revenue? If this was a fair tax system, corporations would be in favor of it. Has anyone noticed that they are not in favor of this kind of tax?. It will affect their cash flow, and they will have to hire additional personnel to implement it.

Bad Christians?

I have been wondering about these so called Christians who are up in arms about Donald Trump and his foul mouth. I, too, do not like it, but do these people go to see what Hollywood puts out for them to spend hard-earned money to see and hear? Much of it is nothing but garbage that no Christian should ever go see and hear. Some of them are also guilty of watching pornography on their computers. But they do.

Hollywood is also criticizing Trump, and what they are turning out is just as bad. All of that sounds like hypocrisy to me. As Jesus said, “he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” My wife and I plan to vote for Trump because of the path that Hillary Clinton would continue to lead our country down that President Obama started. We are trying to elect a president, not a preacher. We can’t afford someone that has such rotten baggage as Clinton. I’m against having to pay for anyone’s abortion and of losing my freedom of religion. Trump has used some language that should not have been used, but please check Hillary’s background a little more thoroughly. Also check the Democrat’s platform against the Republican’s platform. Which one reflects your real values?

This story was originally published October 19, 2016 at 9:08 PM with the headline "This is Viewpoints for Thursday, Oct. 20, 2016."