The liberal cycle of statism, at its core, originates from a government-induced problem.  When nobody is paying attention to an issue, liberals swoop in and impose a pernicious regulation or mandate on a private industry.  That regulation lays dormant for a number of years like a ticking time bomb.  Then, many years later, it blows up the industry.  Liberals summarily swoop in to accuse private enterprise of raising costs on the poor, and demand that their “solutions” be enacted.

Nowhere is this cycle more evident than with the health insurance industry.  During the 40s, Congress imposed wage controls on private employers, limiting the pay raises that could be doled out to employees.  This destructive and unconstitutional act led employers to look for other means of compensation to attract talent and reward productive employees.  This gave rise to the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance officially created in 1954.

In short order, most employers began paying for the health insurance of their workers.  This in turn distorted the market and tilted the playing field away from the individual. It also dramatically spiked the cost of health insurance by providing too much coverage and generating artificially increased demand.  This system also shielded consumers from the real cost of the coverage.  Hence, we are now stuck with a situation where those who don’t enjoy employer-provided coverage are holding the bag of higher costs – all brought to you by government’s infringement on the free market.

Conservative healthcare policy expert Avik Roy offers an insightful presentation on the inimical effects of government’s tendentious treatment of employer-based coverage at Forbes online.  Here is the thrust of his argument:

Read More →

The liberal cycle of statism, at its core, originates from a government-induced problem.  When nobody is paying attention to an issue, liberals swoop in and impose a pernicious regulation or mandate on a private industry.  That regulation lays dormant for a number of years like a ticking time bomb.  Then, many years later, it blows up the industry.  Liberals summarily swoop in to accuse private enterprise of raising costs on the poor, and demand that their “solutions” be enacted.

Nowhere is this cycle more evident than with the health insurance industry.  During the 40s, Congress imposed wage controls on private employers, limiting the pay raises that could be doled out to employees.  This destructive and unconstitutional act led employers to look for other means of compensation to attract talent and reward productive employees.  This gave rise to the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance officially created in 1954.

In short order, most employers began paying for the health insurance of their workers.  This in turn distorted the market and tilted the playing field away from the individual. It also dramatically spiked the cost of health insurance by providing too much coverage and generating artificially increased demand.  This system also shielded consumers from the real cost of the coverage.  Hence, we are now stuck with a situation where those who don’t enjoy employer-provided coverage are holding the bag of higher costs – all brought to you by government’s infringement on the free market.

Conservative healthcare policy expert Avik Roy offers an insightful presentation on the inimical effects of government’s tendentious treatment of employer-based coverage at Forbes online.  Here is the thrust of his argument:

Read More →

Many of us have taken it for granted that all Republicans would work for full repeal of Obamacare.  After all, not a single Republican voted for it.  However, it is always important to understand the reasons why politicians support or oppose a piece of legislation.

When you listen to many prominent Republicans voicing their disdain for Obamacare, you generally hear the following complaints: it raises taxes, it cuts Medicare, it contains death panels, it is 2,700 pages long – and most notably – the individual mandate.

The problem is that these are all ancillary to the crux of what is so offensive about Obamacare.  The overarching concern about Obamacare is that it harnesses the factors that have already driven up the cost of healthcare and health insurance, most prominently, the mandates and subsidies, and multiplies them to the nth degree.  The tax increases, Medicare cuts, and individual mandate are merely tools to fund those interventions.  Many Republicans never had a problem with them.  This is why they were never repulsed by Romneycare, which doesn’t contain tax hikes and Medicare cuts.  As for the individual mandate of MassCare, they contend that there is nothing wrong with a state mandate.

As such, it comes as no surprise to read these tidbits in Politico:

Read More →

Many of us have taken it for granted that all Republicans would work for full repeal of Obamacare.  After all, not a single Republican voted for it.  However, it is always important to understand the reasons why politicians support or oppose a piece of legislation.

When you listen to many prominent Republicans voicing their disdain for Obamacare, you generally hear the following complaints: it raises taxes, it cuts Medicare, it contains death panels, it is 2,700 pages long – and most notably – the individual mandate.

The problem is that these are all ancillary to the crux of what is so offensive about Obamacare.  The overarching concern about Obamacare is that it harnesses the factors that have already driven up the cost of healthcare and health insurance, most prominently, the mandates and subsidies, and multiplies them to the nth degree.  The tax increases, Medicare cuts, and individual mandate are merely tools to fund those interventions.  Many Republicans never had a problem with them.  This is why they were never repulsed by Romneycare, which doesn’t contain tax hikes and Medicare cuts.  As for the individual mandate of MassCare, they contend that there is nothing wrong with a state mandate.

As such, it comes as no surprise to read these tidbits in Politico:

Read More →

In Obama,s  attack on the Supreme Court, “a strong democratically elected congress”  

August 26, 2009Sen. Ted Kennedy lost his struggle with cancer, the “democratically elected” Senate seat in congress was vacant. Subsequently, Governor Deval Patrick’s enacted article II of amendment 48, The Referendum, II, declaring an emergency to enact the law allowing for an interim senator to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat and subsequent law andSeptember 24, 2009the law was amended by executive order.September 24, 2009, Paul G. Kirk, was appointed to occupy the Senate seat and NOT “democratically elected.” From other States there were allegations that the “democratically elected” process was corrupted but this was the most blatant wherein a Governor enacted partisanship over the right to elect representatives.      

In brief;  

So stated as evident, one person’s last wish, that of late Senator Kennedy that his seat be immediately and prejudicially filled. Consequently so enacted by Deval Patrick. Further that one partisan group also enacted to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges. Thereof, Part of the fist article 7.

At present are the largest ever federal tax increases and entitlement under debate in the U.S. Senate with a partisan majority rule at risk. 417Mass.406 In the first place, art. 7 speaks essentially to a right of the people to institute and change government…

Of part of the fist art.23, No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or duties, ought to be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people or their representatives in the legislature. No continues effusive representative preexisted for the reason of  illness, therein the merit of immediate disorder is negated. Thus the consent of the people must be upheld, that all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications, have an equal right to elect representatives, of the fist art. 9, thus consent of the people as paramount and no other.  

440 Mass. 309 In broad terms, it is the Legislature’s power to enact rules to regulate conduct, to the extent that such laws are “necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community” (citations omitted). Opinion of the Justices, 341Mass.760 , 785 (1960). [Note 12]SeeCommonwealthv. Alger, 7Cush. 53 , 85 (1851). CA No. 209-4078 failed to make safe and secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community.

The Tenth Amendment is a bit out of fashion these days.  It states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In light of the High Court’s evaluation of President Obama’s signature health care law, it is worth mentioning that the Tenth Amendment should have an important place in Twenty-First Century America.  The federal government has to have limits.  This isn’t simply a question of the separation of powers between the branches of the federal government.  This is a question as to how much power we the people will have through the local governments that we interact with most.  How much should they control verses Washington D.C.?

In any given month, we can attend a meeting where our state representatives will be present.  We can find city council members shopping at our local Wal-Mart.  These people are accessible and accountable.  These are the people that should be making some of the most important governmental decisions that will touch our lives.

The same cannot be said for Washington D.C. politics.  In Virginia, we will never be able to hold California politicians liable for infringing on our rights.  Nancy Pelosi pushed this bill through but will never feel the impact of it on Virginians.

The health care overhaul is a great example as to why the federal government should be restrained.  America is expansively diverse.  Many of the most prominent worldwide cultures originate in America.  Even within American, the values of the North are not the values we hold dear in the south.  Midwestern values differ greatly from coastal values.  When the federal government intervenes in telling our teachers how to teach, our employers how to succeed, our churches what is right and wrong and we, as citizens what products we must buy — we are going to have major problems.

The Tenth Amendment is the message from the Founders to us that Washington D.C. cannot do whatever they want to do.  The enumerated powers doctrine should be coupled with every other federal power to restrict the government.  Whether it is preserving health care freedom from the left or preserving privacy and due process rights from the right.  We all have a vested interest in ensuring that our government is not all powerful.

If the government is allowed to mandate the purchase of products simply because we live and breath, there really is no philosophical boundaries that the government can not exceed.  George W. Bush exceeded the boundaries of the Constitution through the wiretapping of American citizens and violations of Due Process.  Barack Obama has disregarded our freedom to choose to buy or not to buy a product and has ordered the assassination of an American citizen without Due Process of law.

Protecting our common rights isn’t a partisan issue.  Democrats should be just as willing to set aside the mandate as republicans.  As we see our rights shrinking, we can all agree that it isn’t just the left or the right’s rights that are being restricted.  It is every American’s rights that are under fire and every American’s rights that must be protected.

Nancy Pelosi: Good afternoon! I would like to introduce to the House our newest Health and Human Services Secretary, Ms. Bessie Puke.  She will be outlining for us today her newest plan to help improve our Health Care system.  Thanks for coming, Ms. Puke.  We appreciate how busy you must be.

Ms. Puke: Thanks so much for that wonderful introduction, Ms. Pelosi. Also, thank you for remembering  how to pronounce my name.  For those of you who missed it, it rhymes with puck, as in hockey.  I would appreciate it if all of you would remember that.

As you know, we have been trying since 2014 to implement our Health Care Plan, which in the past has been referred to as Obamacare.   One of our biggest struggles is ensuring that all our citizens eat properly and maintain a proper weight. This has been a very difficult task. Too many Americans are lax when it comes to their diets.  We have been able to prove time and time again that when an individual fails to follow our dietary guidelines, the rest of us pay a heavy price. Now, I know there are some who complain about the heavy cost of their health insurance, and that it can be difficult to pay those monthly premiums. I understand that the majority of Americans are paying as much as half of their income for their insurance, and in an effort to help defray the costs I have decided it is now necessary to further monitor what our citizens are ingesting.

To begin with, I must remind you of the outrage some of you expressed when we decided to provide free computers and free internet access to all our citizens.  If you remember, that created quite an uproar! There were constant complaints about how it added to the deficit, which I think we can all agree has now grown to such an extent that we shouldn’t even bother worrying about it. Our political opponents had a field day and tried to use that expense to claim we had simply lost our minds. Well, as I will show today, there was a method to our madness, so to speak!

As Health and Human Services Secretary, I will be implementing a new system to help us monitor the dietary needs of all our citizens. This exciting new plan will ensure that everyone in America will be getting the required 5 servings of fruit and vegetables at least three days a week. Even though this plan will cost us trillions, we all must keep in mind the trillions it will save us in the long run by having a healthier citizenry.

The problem is this: even though we have taken over the food services in all schools, retirement communities and hospitals, there is still a group of people who insist on eating as they please. This group, adults from age 25 to 65, are creating a real crisis by raising the health care costs of everyone else. This must stop, or we will continue to pay the price for their stubborn negligence.

Starting next year, we will begin a monitoring system using those computers we handed out last year.  Every family will be required to log in at 7 pm while they consume their evening meal – for some, it will be on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. For others, it will be on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.  We will have staff members log exactly what is consumed by each individual. In this way, we can be sure that our people are getting the proper nutrition. Now, I know, some of you will have objections to this new program.  I can help answer some of those objections right now.

For one, we must remember the true savings we will enjoy. We will have far fewer obesity-related diseases, such as diabetes. More of our citizens will be able to participate in the free gym memberships we already provide.  It will also help with other long term problems our nation is facing, like our high unemployment rate. Our monitors will all be unionized, ensuring they make an excellent wage and will never, ever have to worry about losing their jobs.   Others who might lose their jobs because of our monitoring system, like restaurant employees, will be first in line for these openings. Never again will they have to worry about pleasing the masses. And, of course, our subsidized farmers will be overjoyed with this program.

It will be noted that some people will try to game our system. Some folks just won’t listen and will refuse our attempts to do what is best for them. For anyone who is caught cheating, we  have a solution. As we all know, what goes in must come out. Stool samples will be required of those folks who persistently disobey. And, as an extra measure, those who think they can substitute stool samples will have a personal monitor to ensure their samples are accurate.

In closing, let me just say that I am grateful for this opportunity to serve my fellow citizens, and I look forward to implementing many, many more programs to keep us all healthy and happy. Thank you!

It is “unacceptable that HHS fails to maintain accurate financial records and fails to adhere to federal law designed to protect taxpayer dollars from mismanagement and waste,” Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., wrote in a Monday letter to the department’s secretary, Kathleen Sebelius.

(HT:Federal Times)

The USG may not appear to have a very tight wrap on how and where it’s dollars (expropriated or borrowed) get dispersed. This is particularly true when the US Senate has gone over 1,000 days without the benefit of an actual budget resolution instead of a legislative gimmick that relieves them of that responsibility.

However, in the street-level reality inhabited by people who actually handle government funds, tight and exacting regulations do exist. One very important one is The Anti-Deficiancy Act which is described below.

Read More →

It is “unacceptable that HHS fails to maintain accurate financial records and fails to adhere to federal law designed to protect taxpayer dollars from mismanagement and waste,” Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., wrote in a Monday letter to the department’s secretary, Kathleen Sebelius.

(HT:Federal Times)

The USG may not appear to have a very tight wrap on how and where it’s dollars (expropriated or borrowed) get dispersed. This is particularly true when the US Senate has gone over 1,000 days without the benefit of an actual budget resolution instead of a legislative gimmick that relieves them of that responsibility.

However, in the street-level reality inhabited by people who actually handle government funds, tight and exacting regulations do exist. One very important one is The Anti-Deficiancy Act which is described below.

Read More →

I don’t speak for all conservatives, but most every single conservative I know will gladly settle for Mitt Romney and support him over Barack Obama. Even the conservatives I know who right now are saying they could never support Mitt Romney will . . . when push comes to shove . . . support Mitt Romney.

The issue is that most conservatives, myself included, don’t want to settle for Mitt Romney. I don’t have a problem with him personally. He, his wife, and family are super nice people. But I think he is just wrong for this election and his positioning this year as a centrist when he positioned himself four years ago as a conservative is disturbing.

But at the top of the race we are confronted with two men who have two problems. Both are 10th Amendment issues and both are states right issues. And I think whether we like it or not, we should, as conservatives who believe the states should be engines of experiment, respect their right to solve problems in their states as they and their legislatures see fit.

You and I may not like Romneycare, but it was Mitt Romney and Massachusetts’ decision.

You and I may not like Texas giving illegal aliens in-state tuition rates, but it was Rick Perry and Texas’ decision.

Digging deeper though, there is a real and serious problem that distinguishes the two issues and gives me greater concern about Romneycare. And I’m afraid with so much pile on over the Texas immigration decision, it has distracted us from a core issue of Romneycare about which we should be more focused.

Read More →