from the MAY 2012 issue of The American Spectator
In March, as the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of President Obama's partisan health care law, the American people saw an event that could mark the end of bureaucrat-controlled health care. At the same time, just across the street in the halls of Congress, they witnessed a powerful reaffirmation of the American Idea as the House of Representatives passed the Path to Prosperity—a budget for the federal government.
The interconnectedness of these two events cannot be understated. Taken together, they have refocused a long-overdue debate about the proper role and scope of the federal government. This debate will undoubtedly continue in the months ahead and build to a crescendo in November, when the American people will have the opportunity to make a defining choice about what kind of nation we will be in the 21st century.
Perhaps no single issue crystallizes the choice before the American people and the contrast between the two parties more than health care. The differences between the President's bureaucrat-centered model and the model advanced in the Path to Prosperity, which champions choice, competition, and individual control, could not be clearer.
The bureaucrat-controlled approach to health care may have begun with the best of intentions, but it quickly ran into the same problem that it always does: bureaucrats are terrible at setting prices in a market economy. As the federal government's control over health care grew, bureaucratic mistakes started to cause serious problems. Government subsidies drove up costs; and health care became unaffordable for those who didn't qualify for them. As a result, rising costs now threaten to leave our children buried under a mountain of debt.
As it usually does, this approach called for more and more power to be ceded to Washington in order to solve this problem—and for the first time ever, the unlimited power to force Americans to buy something. The result was "Obamacare."
The President's health care overhaul is emblematic of the wrong way to address the problems in health care and Medicare. The law raids Medicare by nearly $700 billion to fund a new, unsustainable, open-ended health care entitlement. It creates a government panel of bureaucrats with the power to impose price controls on providers in ways that would result in rationed care and restricted access to treatments. It vastly expands an already unwieldy administrative state by creating 159 new boards, commissions, and government programs. It is built around the flawed assumption that bureaucrats, if given power over the marketplace, can curb rising health care costs by expertly determining prices and dictating treatment options to doctors and patients.
Ultimately, this approach transforms the relationship between citizen and state, leaving individuals increasingly passive and dependent on their government. Further, it substantially diminishes the quality of and the access to care, as future policymakers cut costs to meet budgetary bottom lines rather than patients' medical needs. There is no way for "experts" in Washington to know more about the health care needs of individual Americans than those individuals and their doctors know, nor should bureaucrats second-guess how each individual would prioritize services against costs.
The "fatal conceit" of the health care law stands in stark contrast to America's historic commitment to individual liberty and personal responsibility. And the Supreme Court's deliberations showed indications that the bureaucrat-centered approach is just not possible in America.
Our Constitution restricts the federal government to certain limited powers, and reserves all other powers to the states and the people. Our Founders trusted the American people, not an all-powerful federal government, to act in their own best interests. They trusted these actions would result in the greatest good for all. Their trust paid off: America became the greatest force for good the world has ever known.
Why is it that nobody has brought up the dozens of HIDDEN secret America destructional articles in this hideous bill "besides" the known illegal illegal articles now being presented? Do you realize that this bill is not just a "health-care" bill, it is also the first step in the destruction of the Constitutional America as we know it? This illegal alien Kenyan born Marxist Muslim "Manchurian Candidate" COMMUNIST is intent upon destroying America before he leaves office! BE VERY AFRAID AMERICA as the worst is yet to come!
Don't be afraid , lock and load and buy more ammo .I 'm tired of talkng . I'm going to ignore every law that I believe is unconstititional and I don't care if SCOTUS say's it is . I suggest to all who care about the preservation of our constitution do the same . I am not an anarchist I FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION ! I'm looking fwd to the first clown that comes around trying to enforce s510 which says we can't have our own food garden . AGENDA 21 ANYONE ? RIGHT.
joel: PLEASE! You can't say that without raising HUGE red flags to the idiots in charge! They can take that as a threat. Then they come get you, illegally as that may be. Makes no difference to them! At that point you are of no value to the cause.
Now, go to nebraska republic (one word) dot org and watch the video. This is the only way we will get the de facto government out of there. It MUST be peacefully done! Let me know what you think, rd6475 at hotmail dot com.
Very well put.
If the progressive left thinks that the Constitution is a living document, why on earth did they plunge a knife through its heart? The mantra of this so called progressive movement sounds eerily like the Communist manifesto. It seems they forgot the that an enormous difference lies between elected an anointed. Serving a constituency and self-serving are light years apart, they are not the ruling class unlike what they think.
I am concerned that a Romney/Ryan victory will be viewed by them as an affirmation of their world/business view. It will never occur to them that they were voted in JUST to get rid of Obama.
I am concerned that Romney/Ryan will not rescind all Obama EO's, replace ALL Obama appointees, or try to repeal all Obama-supported laws. Rather, they will try to "tweak" around the edges. After all, got to get along with the Dems. Must play the Washington game.
Romney/Ryan are running hard to the right -- for now. But, after the election they will go hard to the middle, count on it.
Our only option is our own party. And, no, we can't wait for six months, a year, the next congressional election, to "see" what Romney does. We must start laying the groundwork NOW.
Think about this: We can always vote with Romney IF we like what he does. But, if we keep "hoping against hope" for the best, compromising to "get what we can", playing the Washington game -- both we and the country LOSE!
I'm tired of being thrown scraps under the table, like a dog. I want to sit AT the table as an EQUAL!
Oren Long, Jr.
Oren, A lot of things you say are right minded and well intended. One of the things you say has me concerned about your cognitive abilities. It is all well and good to talk about the Tea Party being 'its own party' and I feel like, from the tone and frequency of your comments that somehow you have a veiw that you would play a major role there, but to actually execute a flawless transition to such a status now is an absolutely wrong headed idea. Didn't the Perot effect have any impact on your thinking? This election is not the time for it, and I believe that our changing the Republican Party from within is a far superior strategy than trying to split a conservative vote and , through the law of unintended consequences, see the birth of a Marxist State as the fruits of our stupidity. Remember, Clinton never got more than 42% of the vote, but it was a plurality in a three -horse race. I think most of us want no repeat of that lunacy. So please, be careful what you wish for. Oh, and by the way, we no longer sit at the table like a dog. They really pay a lot of attention to us.
A couple of things, here:
1. I HAVE NEVER SAID, "THIS ELECTION", EVER! I do not know why people can't understand that. I say that if and when we do it, it has to be right AFTER the election so we have time to organize, register, find candidates, etc.
2. I have been in administration. It is a NIGHTMARE! I am an old man with a farm to run, bad knees, and a small income. I have neither the time, inclination, nor the money to do it, period. To quote McArthur, "If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve". Any questions?
I am with Oren. I believe parties should clearly stand for whatever it is the members believe in.
Trying to maneuver, push, demand, petition, etc., to try to convince the Republicans to stand for something other than their own jobs, is kind of like doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A separate party that brazenly stands for limited government, the Declaration, the Constitution, and limited government, will draw more and more people as they learn that this is the only way to allow true freedom. We are only going to get part or a little of what we want. I stand with Oren. We need a 3rd party. Just because Perot lost his mind over his daughter's wedding and ended up looking like a lunytoon does not mean a 3rd party should and must happen. The time IS now. It is going to take a while.
Thank You for your support.
I still believe in what I said, but I have expanded into an area I think might have a more immediate impact.
Please read my blogs regarding sending money to Tea Party Command for dissemination to conservative candidates. Tell me what you think. Thanks, again.
Oren Long, Jr.
Dangling the purse strings by way of TEA is I think a good idea. I gave up on the Repubs about a year ago after getting surveys from the Republican party, and I would cross out half of their questions about what issues are most important, and write in my own, because they never mentioned the Constitution or arresting Obama. Every survey reminded me they are clueless. So yes, sending money only to conservative candidates is absolutely what we should do. Hopefully, Boehner, Reince Priebus and the other Rinos would be like dogs being jerked on a choke chain. My problem with 'hopefully' is that we are 'hoping' to change someone else's behavior and that is still a “follow the money” behavior we are seeking to reward. I would much prefer rewarding conviction and truthfulness and clarity. Priebus talks a good conservative game. So does Boehner. Then they leave out the Constitution. Then they give in to the teeniest amount of pressure by Reid and O. I personally think the Repubs will get it when we leave it. I have learned that the most overrated term in the entire English language is 'compromise'. Ryan voted for TARP, so did Santorum. Ryan voted for stimulus, Section 8 vouchers, Head Start, Patriot, Medicare Part D. On and on, and so the 'compromise' results in larger government, no matter what. I think I will never be satisfied until there is a party that has a Biblical world view. Biblical worldview does not cross over to humanist worldview for more 'feel good' government for groups of favored people. Santorum and Ryan are examples of this crossing over. Conservative on Sunday and with family. Not fiscally. A Biblical world view is a strict Constitutional ethic. No compromise. So... As Frédéric Bastiat's* pointed out in his seminal work: The Law and Economics: "For when people's true political aspirations are accurately reflected by their political parties, all will seek the common good." I seek that accuracy and clarity. We don't have that now. We won't have it even if we win.
I don't do any of this because I like it. I do it because the fate of the nation is riding on whether or not real Americans take a stand. Actually, I rather hate it.
When I retired I just wanted to sit on my porch, watch the wild critters, tend my garden, build my ships, and relax. Then came Obama.
So, I speak out.