Hostages, Homeowners, and Dishonorable Men

Unless there is a strong “draft Dale” movement somewhere on the horizon – and my wife would kill anyone who tried – I don’t intend to ever run for public office again. The advantage of such a situation is that it allows me the freedom to say what I want, both publicly and personally, and not worry about where the chips may fall.

Such is the case with hostages, homeowners, and dishonorable men. Got your attention now?

In the first instance, I realize the importance of rescuing American citizens who are illegally detained and/or imprisoned abroad. Sometimes it requires the Airborne Rangers or the Navy Seals to extricate them and sometimes there is a simple prisoner swap with or without monetary considerations.

However, if the people in question were warned by the State Department not to travel to a hostile country ruled by a USA-hating regime and they do it anyway, is it still our obligation to bail them out of their predicament? I haven’t formed a hard and fast position myself, but I think this question needs to be addressed in Washington DC, so we don’t continue to fly by the seat of our pants every time an American is taken captive overseas. Plus, if people knew that they might be held indefinitely by dictators and terrorists, maybe they would exercise more discretion when it came to their international travel.

In the second circumstance, I see people continuing to build homes as close to the ocean as possible… or in other floodplain areas. It must be nice to look out your large bay window and see the waves crashing against the shore or the pelicans swooping in to grab their evening meal. The same goes for constructing a house along the mighty Mississippi or other locations that are prone to flood on a regular basis.

Usually, when the first big storm rolls in and the house gets flooded, insurance companies and/or the federal government come to the homeowner’s rescue. But what about the second or third time? Who pays for the homeowner’s stubborn refusal to build on higher ground… just the person in question via higher insurance premiums or do all policy holders – and all taxpayers – combine to foot the bill? I am not sure of the exact answer but again, I would love to see officeholders at the state and federal levels address the situation before the next hurricane hits.

As for dishonorable men, I for one am sick and tired of having to pay for men who irresponsibly father – and I use that term lightly – babies out of wedlock. Knowing that Uncle Sam will pick up the price tag of the delivery room, offer free daycare, and cover many of the other costs of raising a child, they are free to procreate at will. The same goes for single moms, many of whom know how to work the welfare system like Antonio Stradivari played the violin in order to get as many free benefits as possible… all at taxpayers’ expense.

In all three cases, the question that demands to be asked and answered is: whatever happened to personal responsibility? If there are no negative consequences – and a lot of positive ones – for acting irresponsibly, where is the deterrent? Why not continue to rebuild in a floodplain as your property value soars if someone else pays the bill? Why not disregard State Department warnings if you know that, if things hit the fan, the U.S. Cavalry will come riding to the rescue? And why not engage in premarital or extramarital sex if hardworking Americans are going to see that my children are well-cared for?

In the latter example, I know the “it’s not the child’s fault” arguments all too well and yes, I remain conflicted myself. But at what point are we enabling irresponsible behavior and even subsidizing it?

Maybe the answer is similar to the one given by Lt. Commander Montgomery Scott of Star Trek fame. “Fool me once,” he said of a fake Klingon attack, “shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

In other words, maybe hostages, homeowners, and dishonorable men should get a one-time exemption after which they are left to fend for themselves. Some may call that insensitive, whereas others may call it tough love. The older I get, the more I find myself siding with the tough love crowd.

In the meantime, please allow me to close with two of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes that I think apply well to the questions at hand…

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

The Gipper also said the following: “Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

I sure do miss Ronaldo Magnus (translated Ronald the Great) as Rush Limbaugh used to call the best president of my lifetime.