Home

Have we become mathematically challenged, or are we just too emotionally overcome?

Extract all the sensationalism of politics - who's right, who's wrong; what we should do, what we shouldn't do; what we have done, what we haven't done; who's to blame, who's not to blame. Just ask the basic questions of "What can we do?" and "What can't we do?" Approaching these questions with principles of math will lead to realistic conclusions.

For example: $(debt) + $(borrowing) = $$(liability); and $(spending) + $(borrowing) + $(debt) = $$$(liability)

These are the equations we're currently witnessing. They add up to tremendous liability for our children and grandchildren. Why is this principle so hard to understand? If we continue along this irresponsible path, we cannot possibly expect the outcome to be positive. These equations do not equal more individual freedom and will not translate into a better America for future generations. When the burden of liability is upon the American people, of debts owed to other countries and incredible deficits, the pursuit of individual liberty cannot flourish.

British MEP Daniel Hannan, made one of my favorite comments in the past nine months. While addressing Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he said, "You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt."

He obviously understands simple math.

We have become a society of impatience. We want everything now, and many believe we deserve everything now. This perception of entitlement is not what made this country great. Individual responsibility, hard work and risk-taking are the cornerstones of what built this great nation.

A current hot topic is that every individual in this country is "entitled" to health care. I suggest we apply a little math before we succumb to emotions and add dollars to the equations. If we start out with a certain amount of dollars for health care and we want to use these dollars for everyone, how do we possibly end up with better (or even comparable) health care for individuals without adding to the liability equation? Principles of math cannot support this concept.

One of the following essentially would occur: 1) health care gets rationed; 2) costs get dramatically reduced (perhaps by restricting payments to doctors, nurses and hospitals); 3) expensive procedures and medications are limited or denied; or 4) increase in taxation.

On the positive side, there are potential ways to streamline health care processes, devise incentives for personal health responsibility and increase competition to reduce cost. They all are excellent areas to explore because they have potential to subtract from the liability equation without decreasing quality of care.

However, do we truly want health care to get rationed or limited to us because of its cost? Shall we cover everyone at the expense of decreased quality for most? Conversely, adding to the tax burden of the producers in this country (businesses and working individuals) will only add to the liability. This is not the option we can pursue without "breaking the bank," especially while the economy is struggling, unemployment rates are increasing and deficit spending is out of control.

Let's not forget the lessons we should have learned. If you don't have the money, don't spend. If you don't save, don't expect it to be there later. If you borrow, you will be expected to pay it back. When we hear for the push to pass bills that no one has had the time to read and propose use of money for which they have not justified the source, you can be pretty sure they haven't taken the time to do the math. This is irresponsible.

Anne Lowe has been a part-time Steamboat resident for more than eight years and a full-time resident the past two years. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and obtained her doctorate from the University of Colorado. She is a married mother of three children and a grandmother.