Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Election 2012, Health Care, Law, Politics | Tags: Chief Justice John Roberts, Senator Pat Leahy, Threats to the Supreme Court
The Obama administration has just signed a deal with Public Relations firm Porter Novelli to promote ObamaCare. The Democrats were just sure that everybody would love it once it passed and they “found out what’s in it.” The people did find out what’s in it, and want no part of it. So naturally we must be made to change our minds. It’s an election year, and another $20 million should buy some more votes for Obama.
According to the news accounts, the multimedia campaign is a way to educate the public about how to stay healthy and prevent illnesses. No thank you. A HHS official told Roll Call that the PR effort is meant “to inform the American people about the many preventive benefits now available …as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
Wasted effort. The administration has been trying to sell it to the public relentlessly since the day it was passed. HHS pushed Congress to quadruple its public affairs budget. HHS spent $1.4 million for an online search ad campaign designed to drive traffic to the ObamaCare website.
More than two-thirds of the public, including half of the Democrats surveyed — want the Supreme Court to kill at least the individual mandate, according to a recent IBD/TIPP poll.
The bill is a disaster. It was written with a complete lack of understanding of the American people. Americans don’t much believe in their lives being run by experts in Washington. We don’t believe in their experts, nor do we believe that they are experts. We’re an independent lot. We want to talk over our own health concerns with our own doctor. We don’t believe that our doctor should be told what treatment we can have by some faceless know-nothing bureaucrat in Washington.
Obama has been sending messages to the Supreme Court to let them know that it is not acceptable for them to rule ObamaCare unconstitutional. After all, it’s an election year. The left is trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy recently took the extraordinary step of publicly lobbying the Chief Justice after oral argument but before its ruling. “I trust that he will be a Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch” the far left Democrat declared on the Senate floor. “The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court.” The Senator does not seem to have a strong institutional sense of the proper role of a senator in regard to the Supreme Court.
He added that “Given the ideological challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the extensive, supportive precedent, it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce.” That one doesn’t pass the laugh test. How embarrassing, and how disgusting that a Chairman of the Justice Committee should forget his place and the fact that the Supreme Court is an equal branch, not subject to the partisan bullying of an old-time liberal hack.
They are threatening John Roberts with being portrayed a radical who wants to repeal the New Deal and a century of precedent. Such attacks on the court and the Chief Justice are really appalling.
Filed under: Freedom, Health Care, Law, Politics, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Cardinals Speak Out, Catholic Institutions, Obama Administration
Twelve legal challenges have been filed today by 43 plaintiffs against the ObamaCare regulation that requires health care plans to include abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization procedures. The University of Notre Dame was prominent among the challengers. Many religious institutions object on religious or moral grounds to providing, paying for and facilitating coverage for such procedures.
In addition there are several other institutions that have already filed lawsuits, with the Becket Fund for religious Liberty: Belmont Abbey College, Colorado Christian University, Eternal Word Television Network and Ave Maria University. Hercules Industries has filed suit as a family owned business that would be forced to violate its religious beliefs in February in Newland v. Sebelius in the U.S. District Court for Colorado.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has called the ObamaCare mandate an “unprecedented” violation of religious freedom by the federal government.
The case seems very strong that the mandate is in direct conflict with the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Aside from that ObamaCare does grant religious exemptions to the mandate to Muslims, the Amish, American Indians and Christian Scientists. Then there is the famous Supreme Court decision in Youngstown Steel &Tube v. Sawyer in 1952. The Court held that “the president may not rule by decree, conscripting private industry to carry out his commands. The chief executive may only execute laws passed by Congress, according to their terms. He may not make up laws of his own and then enforce them.” That would seem to squash this particular mandate, and Obama’s personal revision of it, quite thoroughly.
The plaintiffs have a lot to complain about. Freedom to practice one’s own religion is one of America’s most cherished freedoms. It is not about contraception, abortion-inducing drugs , or sterilization. These services are widely available in the United States, and nothing prevents the government from making them available. But Barack Obama may not decree that religious institutions must violate their beliefs. The first phrase of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” And only Congress gets to make laws. That is not a power of the Executive Branch.
The administration clearly thought that this fit right into their silly “War on Women” theme. They assumed that the Catholics would fall in line, and claims that conservatives were trying to deny women the right to contraceptives because they objected to taxpayers being forced to pay for something that women should pay for themselves at $9 a month or less, would emphasize how conservatives were against women’s health.
Notre Dame’s president Fr. John Jenkins stated firmly:
Many of our faculty, staff and students — both Catholic and non-Catholic — have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs. And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents. We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so.
This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives. For if we concede that the Government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions. For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements. If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name.
If this case winds up before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli will have his hands full trying to defend this governmental usurpation of powers.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Economy, Health Care, Law, Progressivism | Tags: Obamacare, The Catholic Church, The Contraception Mandate
You remember, the huge disagreement between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a ruling that all organizations would have to pay for health insurance that covered contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacient drugs for all their employees or students. Ms. Sebelius is Catholic, so you would assume that she would understand the Church’s position.
When Catholic Bishops made the Church position clear, the Administration rewrote the mandate to say that the insurers would have to pay for the drugs and contraceptive, but this was merely a matter of words, not fact, as the Church would still be paying the bill. The administration obviously wasn’t taking the Catholic position seriously.
Franciscan University has announced that they will no longer cover health-insurance at all. Before, the Catholic institution required all students to carry health insurance, those who did not have insurance were required to buy it through the school. PPACA additionally increased the mandated maximum coverage amount for student policies to $100,000 for the next school year. Dozens of Catholic institutions have insisted that they will not comply, but the Obama administration has not been concerned, figuring that they would fall in line.
Here’s where it gets interesting. ObamaCare uses Social Security’s language of the Internal Revenue Code to determine who is eligible for “religious conscience” objection to the insurance mandate. The law provides exemptions for adherents of “recognized religious sects” that are “conscientiously opposed” to accepting benefits from any insurance, public or private.
So—Muslims may claim a religious exemption that is denied to Christians and Jews. Islam believes insurance is haraam (forbidden) and likens insurance to gambling, so the religion is excluded from requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Others who fall into the same category are the Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists. But not Catholics nor Jews. Although the U.S. Constitution grants all Americans equal protection of the law — some Americans are more equal than others.
Max Baucus (D-MT),Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee indicated that the purpose of ObamaCare is as much about redistributing income as it is about reforming health care. Another fine example of the iron fist of leftist government putting income distribution and religious discrimination in the hands of ‘wise’ government bureaucrats.
ObamaCare has soared off on its own, completely unrestrained by the Constitution, logic, or common sense. The young are to support he elderly, non-Muslims are to support Muslims, and the Obama mantra of everyone having a fair shot, doing their fair share, and everybody playing by the same rules was just words, and thrown under the bus when not convenient — as is the norm for this administration.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Education, Health Care, Progressivism, Statism, Taxes | Tags: Dependent on Government, Government Can Take Away, Whatever Governent Gives
The Obama campaign came up with “The Life of Julia” to extoll all the wonderful things that Obama was doing for an ordinary woman throughout her life, by making her completely dependent on the government.
Republicans had a wonderful time mocking this scenario that was so ripe for parody and ridicule. Google has 2,700.000 entries just for the last 4 days.
One of the best was The Life of Zachary, her son, compiled by Nicole Gelinas of City Journal— imagining how the next generation will fare in the Obama administration’s scenario. Enjoy.
Like this:
Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Education, Health Care, Law, Politics, Taxes | Tags: Governor Scott Walker, Reform in Wisconsin, Union Thugs
EAGnews.org has produced an exclusive video report titled “Anarchy 101: How Wisconsin’s Left Embraces Chaos” disclosing who and what were behind the massive demonstrations, the occupation of the Capitol in Madison, and extreme tactics employed to stop Walker’s reforms from being enacted.
Remember the riots and the drums, the signs and the screaming mobs in the Capitol building? Lawmakers fled to Illinois to avoid voting on Governor Scott Walker’s collective bargaining law last year. The unions were enraged that government workers and union members were to pay 5.8% of their paychecks toward pensions and 12.6% of their health insurance premiums— a pittance compared to the average in private business.
Since Governor Walker’s reforms went into effect, the doom and gloom scenarios failed to materialize. Property taxes in the state were down 0.4% in 2011, the first decline since 1998. Wisconsin moved up four more places in an annual CEO survey of the best states to do business, after jumping 17 spots last year. The Governor’s office estimated that altogether the reforms have saved state taxpayers more than $1 billion, including $65 million in changes in health-care plans, and some $543 million in local savings documented by the media.
The school board president says the district saved $4 million as a result of last year’s reforms, including $2 million from pension reforms. Schools across the state saved an average of $220 per student because of the ability to introduce competitive building for health insurance. Unexpectedly, only 12% of Wisconsin voters say “restoring collective bargaining rights” is their priority.
The May 8 Democratic recall primary will determine who will run against Mr. Walker in the recall election on June 5. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the front runner, is focusing his campaign on jobs, education, the environment and safer communities. No mention of collective bargaining. Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk is heavily supported by unions, but her she has made only passing reference to collective bargaining.
The union reaction was so ferocious because the reforms reduced the clout of Big Labor over state and local taxpayers and the lost ability to milk taxpayers year after year, unchallenged.
Democrats and unions liked to claim that Gov. Walker’s recall campaign was funded by a few wealthy donors. The head of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin claimed that Mr. Walker’s “shady, under-handed and even downright criminal dirty tricks to deny democracy” are funded by “extremist groups.” The language doesn’t vary much across the country, does it?
“Unexpectedly” according to receipts filed by the campaign, the governor received contributions from more than 89,000 donors, and 87% of those individuals gave $100 or less. 22.000 of the donations were from Wisconsinites., but people all over the country sent in contributions. You can join them at ScottWalker.org Political courage is all too rare, and should be honored. Governor Scott Walker is a courageous man.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Education, Energy, Environment, Health Care | Tags: Capitalism and Freedom, Competition Creates Success, The Free Market
Once upon a time, in the first days of November of 2010, all that was right about the world was shattered by one of the biggest electoral swings in congressional history. Democrats are still trying to grasp what has happened.
Conservatives don’t particularly dislike Liberals, but they detest their ideas. Liberals detest Conservatives and don’t understand their ideas at all.
Conservatives believe that reality suggests we are all flawed human beings, who must be set free to learn from our mistakes and grasp for opportunity. We make a lot of mistakes, but we turn around and correct them, muddle through and do amazing things in the process. The great innovations usually originate in a single mind, not in a committee.
A transaction in the free market does not happen unless both parties find it to their advantage. Competition keeps prices low and fosters innovation. Competition increases the quality and choices of products and services. Competition is hard work for businesses, and they have to fight for customers. They have to keep track of what their competitors are doing, and find ways to innovate. Because it is hard, they lobby lawmakers to constrain the free markets in which they originally achieved success.
The most effective way to control capitalists is through competition, not regulation. Liberals are sure that rapacious big business will cheat customers, abuse workers and charge too much if uncontrolled. In the free market, who wants to be a customer of such a business? They’ll go where they’re treated well.
Liberals offer to control the forces let loose in the free market. But control is seldom evenly applied. Those in control will, because they are human, favor one business over another. Or they will favor the unions, or pick winners and losers, and subsidize a favored business while ignoring the competition.
Liberals are suspicious of competition. They have tried hard to stamp it out in the schools, eliminating winners and losers. Everybody gets a medal and nobody is a winner— lording it over the others. But if there are no winners, there is no point in trying to be best. It is failures that make us work harder to succeed.
President Obama said that “the free market is the greatest force of economic progress in human history,” but he didn’t mean it. No president in history has worked so hard to expand state control over health care, energy, the environment, the financial sector, education, and American business. If the free market fits into Obama’s vision of America, he hasn’t explained how.
Obama assumes that progress begins with the administration of government money to jump-start a business. Government investment will somehow foster innovation and create jobs and prosperity. “Government money” is not taken as seriously as is the money from the pockets of individual investors. If you run short, there is usually more government money to be had, because failure would make the giver of government money look bad. Individual investors do more due diligence in the first place, and monitor operations more carefully— it’s their money at stake.
Nobody ever said that the free market is easy. It’s hard, but it works. We have evidence over and over— from history, from developing countries, from our own successes and failures.
We are fallible human beings, yet we rise to opportunity. One fallible human being’s success opens doorways for many more. The United States of America has been a beacon to the world in demonstrating the freedom and possibilities of the free market, and more and more nations are growing and prospering because of it.
How very odd that in” the worst recession since the Great Depression,” we should forget the simple rules that made us Americans.
Like this:
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Health Care, Law, Politics, Taxes | Tags: Scaring Business, The Full Force of Government, Wielding Power
EPA Area Administrator Al Armendariz’s speech, captured on video, proposed the example of crucifying the first five people among the non-compliant to get everyone to fall in line. Supposed to be amusing. The video was quickly removed by the environmental activist who uploaded it. The White House is not pleased about the “crucify” bit. But what is important to notice, is not the immediate effect upon the non-compliant who quickly get in line, but the larger effect on the economy in general.
American business, Small Business Association, Chamber of Commerce, all the organized groups of small businessmen have complained publicly and privately about the fear and uncertainty created by government regulation and uncertainty about increasing taxes and healthcare mandates. Federal officials see that they have not added regulations for Widget Makers, or packaging people, or any of hundreds of different occupations and do not understand.
The Widget Maker, however, looks at the Gibson Guitar Company attack and expects that the next time it may be widgets. He sees no reason, no justified assault, other than a grasp for power. He reads about the waivers from ObamaCare being granted to unions and wonders how he can pay for sharply higher health care costs for his workers. You have a whole government with no understanding that small business is constantly worried about their ability to stay in business, get a business loan, and increase sales — and the government clearly informs him that they are not on the side of business, have no understanding nor respect for the free market, and no understanding of the problems that businesses face.
The Widget Maker watched when the government decided that the auto industry could not be subjected to our usually successful bankruptcy laws, and took over the industry, handing off portions to the unions and to Italian car makers, putting the separate businesses who were linked to the car companies out of business, and putting their own buddies in the executive suite. That told thousands of businesses across the country that there was no limit to what this particular government felt free to do. Time to hunker down and avoid getting noticed.
Preliminary GDP reports mean that the growth outlook for the second quarter is even worse than expected, and the ratio of Debt/GDP was 100.8%. Not a pretty picture, but the report is only preliminary and will be revised a couple of times, probably downward. Businessmen keep an eye on this sort of thing as well. Hope is all very well, but businessmen worried about the bottom line will take the risk of hiring and growing when the risk seems promising. The cost of hiring and growing has gone up sharply under the Obama administration. This administration has no clue that is the result of their efforts.
Like this:
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Election 2012, Health Care, Politics | Tags: Entitlements, Hiding the Truth, Medicare Advantage
“What if your President, your Senator and your Congressman
knew a crisis was coming? What if they knew why it was happening?
What if they knew what they needed to do to stop it from happening?
What if they had the time to stop it? And what if they chose to do nothing
about it…because they thought it wasn’t good politics?
“What would you think of that person?”
Those were the words of Paul Ryan in introducing his “Path to Prosperity” to deal with the problems of entitlements in our economy. President Obama claimed that Republicans “were trying to end Medicare as you know it.” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said “We don’t have a definitive solution—we just don’t like yours.”
Obama has been fairly transparent about his efforts to put off those things which might cause electoral difficulties for him — until after the election. He rudely overruled the EPA on its ozone rule until after the election (disastrously expensive for the economy). The Keystone XL decision, postponed (if approved would anger the Greens). The temporary tax cuts (go poof on December 31).
ObamaCare slashes about $145 billion from Medicare Advantage, a program that is particularly popular with seniors. It allows about one in four to escape the traditional entitlement and choose a commercial plan. They had to cut expenses somewhere to make up for all the new free goodies they offered in ObamaCare, and they hated such market flexibility because they regarded it as a threat to government control. Obama’s budget counters estimate that the ObamaCare cuts will result in enrollment falling by half. The cuts were scheduled to begin this year. It is hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster than taking away seniors’ popular Medicare Advantage right before the election.
Lo and behold, Health and Human Services has a fund under a 1967 law that allows the HHS Secretary to spend money without specific approval by Congress on “experiments” directly aimed at “increasing the efficiency and economy of health services.” Doesn’t that suggest the ‘experiment’ of postponing something seniors are going to hate — until after the election? So $8.6 billion should cover it. That’s what you get when you appropriate massive amounts of money and turn it over to an agency without accountability for the way it will be used. It is, says the Secretary, “a demonstration project.”
Some cold hard facts: There are roughly 50 million people covered by Medicare — and baby boomers are reaching the eligible age of 65 at the rate of 10,000 a day.
The latest report from the Medicare trustees came out Monday. It is expected that the report will show the pace of cost increases has slowed to some extent. Contrary to the assertions of the Obama Administration in trying to gin up support for ObamaCare, the cost of health care had been declining for the past ten years. New medicines, new procedures were making medicine more efficient and more affordable. Nevertheless, the medical insurance program for America’s seniors is on a fast path to insolvency. It is going broke.
Medicare will run out of money to pay full benefits in 2024, five years earlier than previously predicted, according to the 2012 report.
That’s twelve years from now. Republicans have developed a plan that will preserve Medicare for those 55 and older, and will offer a new plan for those under 55 to provide the same kind of safety net. To repeat, Tim Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury says “We don’t have a definitive solution — we just don’t like yours.” Barack Obama called the Ryan plan “Social Darwinism,” and then he attempted to hide from seniors what he was doing — until after the election.
What if they had the time to stop it? And what if they chose to do nothing
about it…because they thought it wasn’t good politics?
“What would you think of that person?”
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, Environment, Health Care, Politics | Tags: Bill Whittle Explains, Just a Little at a Time, Overturning Your Rights
How do you overturn fundamental American rights without forcing people into the streets with protest signs, or even rifles? By doing it slowly… slowly…
Bill Whittle looks at how the Affordable Care Act and the National Defense Authorization Act threaten our First and Fifth Amendment rights and how both parties are slowly taking away the protections that guard us from the Ring of Power.
You know the story of the frog in the pot of water put on to boil slowly, slowly.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Health Care, Law, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Statism | Tags: Naive and Arrogant, Obama's Implementing It Anyway, The Affordable Care Act
The Obama administration is not going to await the Supreme Court decision on whether the Affordable Care Act should stand. They are busy at work to ensure that the president’s health care law is implemented. The White House has allocated half a billion dollars to the IRS to put ObamaCare in place. The Hill reports that :
The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.
The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.
The Hill also reports that the White House is spending other funding allocated under ObamaCare.
The law contains dozens of targeted appropriations to implement specific provisions. It also gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a $1 billion implementation fund, to use as it sees fit. Republicans have called it a “slush fund.”
HHS plans to drain the entire fund by September — before the presidential election, and more than a year before most of the healthcare law takes effect. Roughly half of that money will ultimately go to the IRS.
HHS has transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million this year, according to figures provided by a congressional aide.
How does the money get spent? There are all sorts of new taxes and fees in ObamaCare, and the IRS is responsible for collecting those as well as for enforcing the mandate. The IRS wants to hire 300 new employees next year, and has requested funding for another 537 new employees to administer ObamaCare’s new subsidies for low-and-middle income individuals to purchase insurance.
HHS plans 133 new ObamaCare-related rules as of last fall. Rulemaking related to ObamaCare legislation concerns more than 150 federal agencies, bureaus and commissions. Rules are changing faster than regulators can write them down. Administrators have granted nearly 2,000 waivers to the new regulations, and the long-term care program CLASS, has been dropped as unworkable.
Obama has demonstrated over and over that he has no respect for the Constitution, nor for the separation of powers. He considers the Court and Congress to be impediments to his plans that must be conquered. He has no intention of meekly obeying direction. He is the One, and he intends to get his way.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Education, Energy, Environment, Health Care, Law, Politics, The Constitution | Tags: Advisers?, Policy Makers?, The Czars
Law Professor Glen Reynolds tackles the mystery of all those Czars in the White House. There are a lot of them, and they manage mysterious aspects of the American economy without the usually required confirmation by Congress. Why are they there and what do they do? At least two — Carol Browner and Van Jones— self-identified as a socialist and a communist respectively, have departed. Are the Czars just advisers or do they make policy? Very curious.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Education, Economy, Health Care, Energy, Taxes, Capitalism | Tags: The Free Market, Obamacare, Everything is Changed
ObamaCare is in the lap of the Supreme Court, and in spite of all the analysis and dissection of motives and personalities, we don’t know what the justices will do. The battle has changed America, derailed the recovery, and changed health care in ways that we don’t really understand yet.
Traditionally, many doctors were pleased if their children chose to go into medicine. A family with many members in the medical profession was not unusual. Now physicians aren’t as happy with their chosen life’s work, no longer advise family members or friends to go into medicine, and according to polls are thinking about getting out.
Hospitals are consolidating, many are putting doctors on salary. Our hospital is developing satellite centers for urgent care, classes, outreach, while the hospital itself grows and expands. They are developing a different model, in reaction to ObamaCare and ObamaCare’s potential development in the future. I can’t say that I fully understand the ways in which it is changing, but it is different.
Business has examined their operations and ways of doing business in an effort to protect themselves from what the future might hold, in the light of what it has done so far. The body of regulation that has descended on companies has made them cautious, careful. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare. That, as Liz Peek suggests, should give the supporters of the legislation pause.
And for the rest of us, our health care has changed— no matter what the Supreme Court does. Are we stuck with the socialized medicine model that a vast majority of Americans hate? If it is not struck down, do we then engage in a tremendous civil war to get it repealed? If it remains, can we abide the endless tinkering it would require to make an unworkable law even begin to be functional? What were liberals thinking? Did they not understand that the American people…well, no they didn’t.
Liberals do not understand the American people, though they are Americans. They don’t understand human nature. They think they can fix it, so the people who disagree with them don’t disagree any more. In extremis, they speak of putting the’ far-right wing nuts’ in camps where they can’t annoy the better people any more. They hate to be disagreed with because they don’t know how to answer — except to call names.
They don’t understand the free market, because there are no guarantees. There is risk. There’s a reason why liberals flock to government work and to foundations. They can feel safe. The free market rewards people who take risks and face up to challenges. Life is a risk, and there is no sure security except in hard work and striving. We have safety nets, but what government gives today, it can take away tomorrow.
Obama recently said that in America, we are greater together, when everyone engages in fair play, everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share. That may be true, but in Obama’s America, the hard-earned dollars of taxpayers are turned over to union supporters, regulations are devised to shut down legitimate businesses, take away people’s rights to their own land, deprive people of their jobs. Ringing phrases come easy, but accomplish nothing.
Obama brags that he saved the auto industry, but the future was yanked away from hundreds of private businesses overnight—auto dealers with hundreds of employees were summarily put out of business. Bondholders, depending on a consistent flow of interest from their holdings in the car companies were guaranteed first call on the assets of a company in case of bankruptcy, were suddenly broke. Taxpayer money goes, not to governmental tasks, but to cronies— buddies who helped the president to get elected.
If ObamaCare is overturned, the world cannot be put back the way it was. Everything is changed, no matter how it all turns out — and not in a good way. Trust is gone or diminished. Security is damaged. And for what? Good governance is not a cheap political game — but you made it so.
