jump to navigation

Paying for Health Care Reform September 10, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, capitalism, Democrats, economy, health care, Income, Medicare/Medicaid, news, politics, taxes, welfare.
Tags: ,
add a comment

During one Town Hall meetings, President Obama said people like himself could pay for health care reform. That is, high-income taxpayers can afford high tax rates to help fund universal health care.

Thomas Jefferson held a similar view. He was critical of industrious citizens getting rich while others citizens were going without. He believed the wealthy should assist the less fortunate to achieve a livable income.

The difference between the views of Obama and Jefferson is not apparent. Nevertheless, there is a significant difference in their views. Obama adheres to a form of contemporary liberalism that has embraced the values of humanism, egalitarianism, and welfare socialism. Although Jefferson was more liberal than many of his day, he was nevertheless a rock solid natural law proponent. His values were characterized by traditional moral values, entrepreneurial capitalism, and natural rights equality. Stated more simply, Obama tends towards being a big government socialist while Jefferson was oriented toward being a limited government capitalist.

To Jefferson, the term capitalist meant entrepreneurs of small businesses including farms, repair shops, small manufacturers or craftsmen, merchants, and the like. Today, the term capitalism certainly includes owners of small businesses, but, in practice, most modern politicians favor a big business view. Internationalists, like Obama and most federal politicians, give their allegiance to supporting national, international, and especially Wall Street business. However, Jefferson, as did Adam Smith, opposed big business as a threat to independent “capitalists”. One reason was that they regarded big business as quasi-governmental entities, and so do many financial experts today.

The point is this: Obama, as representative of the Democratic Party, wants the more wealthy to pay for their welfare based benefits program for middle and lower income citizens. The obvious problem is high income citizens live off the productivity of lower income employees, taxpayers, and consumers. This is what early Americans like Thomas Jefferson were critical of. Why? As expressed by John Locke, property and productivity belonged to the property owner and worker. In other words, the means of production belonged to all Americans equal to their need and capacity.

Taxing for the limited functions of government was and is the necessary cost to security property and life as well as to maintain the freedom to pursue as much happiness as possible. Taxing for redistribution from the haves to the have-nots was regarded as robbery just as the low wage living was regarded as slavery.

One could argue that most businesses already pay their employees health care. They also pay into Medicare as well as into group health care. Employees pay a small portion of the health insurance costs. Why pay them higher wages?

The only reason to pay employees higher wages would be for them to pay 100 percent of the cost. This is true of all other government-initiated social safety net programs including social security, welfare, and ESEA (now called No Child Left Behind), and S-CHIP. Without poor wage earners, all of those programs would not be needed and would be more difficult to justify.

Those social safety net programs were all good ideas, but all became means to enlarging federal powers over American lives. Except for Social Security, most of those programs never produced the results that were sold to American citizens. Corporations whose revenues are in the multi-millions and billions often get welfare subsidies. Are not the bank and manufacturer bailouts a form of welfare? After billions of taxpayer funding, the ESEA program still has not closed the educational gap between children of poor families and others; it still has resolved the huge school drop out problem; add it still has not made American children’s globally competitive in math and science. One would think that over 40 years or 3 generations Americans would have achieved this goal. Then there is S-CHIP (State Children Health Insurance Program) that never has been used strictly to help the children of poor families. Why? Because the agenda of liberal bureaucrats always has been to complete the goal of making the middle class welfare dependents or good socialists.

Democrats justify their health care reform based on the millions of Americans without adequate health care. The majority of the uninsured are the working poor. Why are the working poor without health coverage? They are without health coverage for one of four reasons: (1) Their employers cannot afford to pay for heath care. (2) They cannot afford to pay their portion of their employers’ group plan. (3) Their spouse has sufficient family coverage. (4) They simply do not want to give any more money to insurance companies. Yet, every working American does pay into Medicare/Medicaid.

After paying for retirement age health care, the state often takes all of the possessions of those who paid into Medicare for years just for cashing in on the supposed safety net. That seems more like a big brother scam and not a safety net.

Maybe, Bernie Madoff’s real crime was learning and practicing the art of his liberal big brother.

The answer to the health care problem is not the enlargement of government or government run health care. It is reforming the political economy. If as President Obama, Jim Wallis, and others claim, the rich can afford to pay more taxes for health care reform, they could afford to pay better wage rates so that all American could purchase health care they and their families want. The cure for making health care affordable (reducing costs and increasing earned income) would solve many other societal problems tied to America’s political economy.

Advertisements

Faith Healing Government Miracles September 4, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Constitution, corporations, culture war, Declaration of Independence, faith, God, health care, Jesus Christ, liberals, living wage, morality, news, politics, poverty, truth, wages, welfare.
add a comment

Sojourner’s Jim Wallis is America’s leading preacher of faith healing. Unlike his charismatic brethren, Wallis is preaching faith in government. In praise of the benevolent overlords of health care, Wallis calls on us to believe in the liberal’s health care plan for miraculous healing. Like the healing ministry of Jesus, Wallis proclaims the federal government will save the poor from a woeful lack health care and poverty as well.

Actually, his latest sermon didn’t include deliverance from poverty by government or anyone else. The likely reason is that neither government bureaucrats nor big business has any plans of raising the poor out of the dependency on their big government savior. I doubt that Obama does either.

I know my comments seem to border on the edge of intolerant blasphemy, but consider Wallis’ words:

We are calling on people of faith to carry on the healing ministry of Jesus by making sure your political representatives understand that the faith community will be satisfied with nothing less than accessible, affordable health care for all Americans, built on a solid financial foundation. (emphasis added)

People of faith need to be the steady, moral drumbeat driving the debate and keeping our politicians accountable. This is a critical and long-overdue opportunity to fix a broken and inequitable system, which must not be derailed either by powerful special interests or by those, on any side, who just want to score political points. It is up to all of us to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Like Wallis, the United Methodist Church believes it is the government’s responsibility to provide all citizens with adequate health care. I have to ask; where in the Bible does it say that? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give liberal politicians in Washington the legal authority? Maybe they read the general welfare clause as being non-restrictive in such matters.

If so, why don’t they interpret it in a way that gives themselves the power to ensure that every working American earns a wage they can live on? It would be equitable for every working American to earn enough for a minimally independent life without welfare assistance. Isn’t it more important for individuals to earn enough to pay banks for a mortgage, pay GM for a new car every 3-5 years, to maintain clothing and housewares, to purchase government mandated new television and communication technologies, to buy healthy food, as well as adequate health care insurance?

The answer given by federal and state politicians as well as Wall Street funded corporations is NO unless you are fully dependent on Almighty Gov or on one of its Union bosses, AFL-CIO or NEA for example. One exception is if you have been blessed by fate with the right global market skills developed at the right university with a more marketable degree such science, computer technology, medicine, law, or business investment and marketing. Having been born or raised in the right family or have gained the right social connections helps too.

Wallis’ liberal propaganda jazzed up with religious hype makes right-wing theocrats look like Saint Theresa. At least she actually helped the poor, diseased, and the orphan. If as I suspect, Wallis is sincere in his effort to help the poor and needy; it appears he has wondered to far from the fold and has enter the den of wolves.

Jesus said, “The wolf comes to kill, to steal, and to destroy.” The gospel of government salvation has the serpent imprint. The glorious health care reform being evangelized to America will not only help those kept in poverty with paying for government’s health care insurance but it will insure the killing of the unborn and the useless elderly. The miracle healing promised by faith in government will also continue robbing many of an equitable income as well the freedom from the tyranny of dependency on government or quasi-governments such as Wall Street funded corporations. Many financial experts, economists, and even brave health professionals are claiming that the current government is destroying our economy, our better than all other national health care systems, and our future.

Jesus also said, “The truth will set you free.” The truth is Obama, liberals, and wayward Christians are not telling the truth. Read the dag-gone health bills and committee amendments. Then consider this: medical science can only assist the human body to heal itself. That is how God designed it. Only the Creator can actually heal the human body. He alone can reprogram the DNA or other aspects of mutated organisms that destroy normal human cells. Maybe one day, medical science will actually discover all of the Designer’s secrets, but until then, only faith in God for healing is warranted.

Sources: Sojourner, August 20, 2009; United Methodist Church News, August 19, 2009; John 10: 10; and John 8:32.

They Really Do Believe We Are Idiots August 14, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in children, culture war, Democrats, economy, health care, Left, life, media, Medicare/Medicaid, news, politics, religion, right to life, senior citizens, welfare.
add a comment

Liberal religious groups announced on Monday they are teaming up with President Barack Obama in a national campaign to counter the surprisingly vehement conservative opposition to his plan for overhaul of the U.S. healthcare industry this year. Organized by liberal-leaning evangelicals, some mainline Protestant clergy, and some Catholic groups, it will include Obama participating in a call-in program with religious leaders streamed on the Internet on August 19, prayer meetings and nationwide television ads.”

From “U.S. religious left wades into healthcare fight,” which appeared yesterday in Reuters.

When a reporter and/or media outlet is behind you, your vocal support for something or another is “passionate,” “caring,” even “prophetic.” When they don’t, that same intensity is “vehement,” “fueled by anger,” even (to quote Democratic congressional leaders) “unAmerican.”
Some of the same religious leadership that helped Obama navigate the political shoals last year are putting the band back together again, this time in an attempt to blunt massive grassroots resistance to health care “reform.” Let me talk about a few of the particulars.

If you believe a lot of the “mainstream” press, resistance is either synthetic, bought and paid for by those “opposed to health care reform,” ill-informed, and/or stoked in part (as Reuters put it yesterday) by “Christian and conservative radio,” and/or leaders of the “religious right.”

As you undoubtedly know from watching television or reading accounts, President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are fighting back.

The two-fold strategy appears to be (yet AGAIN) to marginalized anyone who wants an explanation of how they are going to square various circles, and to (yet AGAIN) stop talking about specifics (which always gets them into loads of trouble) and return to the kind of sparkling generalities that Obama specializes in.

That’s where the Religious Left comes in the form of something called “People of Faith for Health Reform and its “40 Days for Health Reform.” One of the usual suspects is Jim Wallis, who told Reuters that “his group’s mission is to keep universal health-care coverage alive as a ‘moral issue.'”

According to NPR, the division of labor goes like this. The Obama Administration has rolled out a website to contest “wild rumors” about its health care initiative and to “call out misinformation.” (Gulp!) So what is the role of this “coalition of progressive religious leaders”?
“Argue morality,” or, according to Liz Halloran, “more specifically, what members characterize as the moral and religious imperative of providing ‘inclusive, accessible’ health care coverage and the need for a civil discourse about the issue, says Jim Wallis of the progressive Christian group Sojourners, one of the coalition sponsors.” (Keep that “civil discourse” comment in mind.)

So, let’s look at the ad. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaBq0QeM3-8) True, there is one statement that is unobjectionable. A pastor looks in the camera and says, “God’s given us a spirit not of fear but of love and action.” But the rest of the ad is the usual us v. the “special interests” drivel that is the hallmark of those who insist you either accept the thrust of the Democrats health care “reform” sight unseen, or you want nothing.

The first statement in the 30-second ad tells you all you need to know: “Special interests in Washington are spending millions to block health insurance reform,” followed by “Killing reform will boost their profits.” In case anyone misses the point a moment later a woman opines, “The special interests are strong.”

However, thanks to NPR, there can be little doubt of the campaign’s real motivation. “According to Gordon Whitman of the PICO National Network, a faith-based community organizing group that is also one of the coalition’s sponsors, the group’s effort will focus on moderate, swing districts where ‘religion is significant to public life.'”

They really do believe we are idiots, don’t they?

Switching gears but to a related subject, there’s been an enormous amount written about “Section 1233 of the health-care bill drafted in the Democratic-led House, which would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years,” as the Washington Post described it. How much should we be worrying about this?

Let me offer the concluding paragraphs of “Facing the Challenge of Health Care Rationing,” a page one story in the July/August issue of NRL News, written by NRLC’s Burke Balch, JD. Mr. Balch, director of NRLC’s Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics wrote the following.

The House legislation, as reported from the Energy and Commerce Committee, contains provisions to promote advance directives like “living wills,” including:

1) Medicare reimbursement for consultations about “advance care planning” between health care providers and their patients when they enter Medicare, every five years thereafter, and if they become seriously ill;

2) requiring private and public health care plans to give potential enrollees the option to establish advance directives; and

3) a public education campaign, toll-free telephone hotline, and clearinghouse to promote advance directives and other advance care planning.

Advocates of such measures frequently cite the cost savings if, as they expect, this promotion results in more directives rejecting lifesaving treatment. “We refer to the end-of-life discussion as the multimillion-dollar conversation because it is associated with shifting costs away from expensive … care like being on a ventilator in an ICU, to less costly comfort care …,” said Holly Prigerson of Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. National Right to Life strongly encourages the execution of a pro-life advance directive, the Will to Live (see http://www.nrlc.org/MedEthics/WilltoLiveProject.html). However, the pro-life fear is that efforts to push patients and prospective patients to prepare advance directives may in practice become a means of persuading or pressuring them to agree to less treatment as a means of saving money. Moreover, governmental promotion of advance care planning must not include the “option” of assisted suicide. Especially in the Senate, NRLC is working to address these concerns through negotiations and, if necessary, by preparing amendments to be offered in the Senate Finance Committee and on the Senate floor.

It is critically important that pro-life citizens make their voices heard while senators and representatives are at home during August, and after they return to Washington in September. The contemplated restructuring of America’s health care system will affect the life–and death–of every American.

So here’s the scoop: The above critique of the Democrats’ health care agenda is that they want to save us all a lot of money by reducing our health care coverage, eliminating as many worthless people on Medicaid so that they can reduce the amount of money made by private health care insurers to increase the pay of cooperating physicians in their scheme.

I almost forgot an implied one: they will kill two or more birds with one stone–they will save us all money by making us wait for health care by putting us on long waiting lists to reduce our health care. The add bonus is costs will be further reduced because while some of us while waiting for health care will die. And, the double bonus will be that those of us who don’t die will develop the moral virtues of patience and endurance or long suffering.

By accomplishing all of that, they will be able to further justify giving themselves more raises in the future and maybe even helping pay for the billions in give-a-way money for keeping poorly managed financial companies and auto companies as well as foreign investors making more profits at all of our expense.

Yes, the logic of the Left is if you abort all of the worthless babies, worthless welfare poor, and worthless elderly folk–of course, according to their own preplanned consent–everyone can have a better, more profitable, and a good secular life. In the process, they may be able to save some of their prized socialist programs like social security and medicaid from going bankrupt.

What a wonderful utopia we will all live in now that the Left rules our world. We are commanded to now go and spend to support the cause for tomorrow we will surely die; they are planning on it. Oh, what joy it is to live in a planned society.

Source: National Right to Life, August 11, 2009 except for the scoopish commentary.

SCHIP : A Springboard to Fixing Our Political Economy January 14, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in children’s health care, Congress, Democrats, family, free market, justice, monetary policy, moral virtue, news, political economy, politics, Republicans, SCHIP, taxes, welfare, work.
add a comment

In a press release issued today, Republican Whip Eric Cantor offered to work with Congressional Democrats and President-elect Obama to revamp the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. He called on Dems to help the nation’s families provide quality health care for their children.

Seems like a reasonable goal that all people of all party affiliations could support, right? The problem is Democrats and their leaders promised to improve the middle class welfare prospects. That is what the conflict between the two parties has been about. Republicans like Cantor want to restore SCHIP to its original purpose: help low-income families who can’t provide health care for their kids–not adults, not middle class workers, nor anyone who already has insurance.

Now would be a good time for Dems to stop trying to make all Americans dependent on the federal government. They could do us all much good by actually fixing the political economy rather than stimulate to death.

The economy is already a rule based human activity of we humans. The first rule of Constitutional governance is less government is more liberty for everyone. This translated into terms relevant to a political economy means less bailout and more free market behavior. As financial advisors like Bill Bonner of Agora Financial, keeps saying, you can’t correct a credit/debt crisis by adding trillions more of the same. Can you help an obese man by giving him another helping of dessert, or cure an alcoholic by offering him free drinks? Of course not. The same applies to overspending, too much debt and bad credit.

In one sense, the underlying problem of the current economic depression is a moral one. More economic liberty without moral virtue regulating it produces much irresponsibility and corruption, which increases the dividends of injustice. Secularist may have great difficulty with a political economy that is strongly regulated by moral principles. Nevertheless, a morally self-regulated people would more likely regulate their own tendencies toward excesses, sexual and economic. They would be more apt to be less greedy and more just toward the less prosperous. They would be less likely to accept outrageous income at the expense of millions of fellow citizens. Persons not credit worthy wouldn’t get high interest loans. They would get a substantive economic plan to help them become credit worthy. Loan sharks couldn’t exist because greedy lawmakers and their corporate associates wouldn’t exist either. An unproductive vice like gambling wouldn’t have government backing because it would be much more difficult for corrupt politicians to openly justify preying on people with compulsive behaviors as a means to raise tax dollars. A moral economy would still reward entrepreneurs while assisting the less fortunate to work their way up to reasonable measure of economic independence. At least from the perspective of 18th century America, this would be expected because the primary source of morality is religion.

Helping poor families provide health care for their children should at best be a temporary aspect of an economy in which the principles of Jubilee are normative. This biblical law that makes helping fellow citizens through economic crisis to economic independence a legal obligation, should be the norm.

Punishing the poor with taxes, low wages, and high interest rates on loans they can’t afford is plain unjust.

Maybe God’s judgment is built into nature after all. The founders may have been right that it’s part of God’s natural law. It is apparent politicians can’t beat the system.

The State of America Under Obama in 2012 October 24, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, Barak Obama, children, Christians, Democrats, economy, education, energy, family, freedom, gay politics, health care, military, news, politics, poverty, religion, second amendment, taxes, welfare.
comments closed

The following is a letter publish in the October 22 edition of CitizenLink Daily. Because of its length, only a few excerpts are displayed. To read the rest of the letter click on more.

This futurist letter projects what will likely result if American government is dominated by Democrats and led by Obama. The social milieu that will result will profoundly effect ever part of life in America. That is why the Supreme Court, same-sex marriage, religious free speech, abortion, pornography, gun ownership, education, military policy, terrorism, health care, taxes, poverty, and publishing are all covered in letter.

Probably, the current economic crisis is regarded by most Americans as the most important issue right now. That is the focus of the excerpt below.

October 22, 2012

Dear friends,

I can hardly sing “The Star Spangled Banner” any more. When I hear the words,

O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, I don’t think I can still answer, “Yes,” to that question. We are not “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.

The 2008 election was closer than anybody expected, but Barack Obama still won. Many Christians voted for Obama – younger evangelicals actually provided him with the needed margin to defeat John McCain – but they didn’t think he would really follow through on the far left policies that had marked his entire previous career. They were wrong….

Many Christians who voted for Obama did so because they thought his tax policies were more fair and his “middle class tax cuts” would bring the economy out of its 2008 crisis. But once he took office he followed the consistent pattern of the Democratic Party and the pattern of his own past record and asked Congress for a large tax increase. He explained that the deficit had grown so large under President Bush, and the needs of the nation were so great, that we simply couldn’t afford to cut taxes at the present time.

And several of Obama’s economic policies have hurt the poor most of all because they have decreased production, increased inflation, and increased unemployment. Here is what happened:

Taxes: Tax rates have gone up on personal income, dividends, capital gains, corporations, and inheritance transfers. The amount of income subject to Social Security tax has nearly doubled. The effect on the economy has been devastating. We have experienced a prolonged recession. Everybody has been hurt by this, but the poor have been hurt most of all. In dozens of cities there are just no jobs to be found.

It turns out that the people President Obama called “the rich” were mostly not all that rich. They were just ordinary people who worked hard, saved, and built small businesses that provided jobs and brought economic growth. They were the people who kept inventing new and better ways to produce things and bring prices down. They were the people whose companies produced the goods and services that gave us the highest standard of living in history of world. They were the people who provided the competition that kept prices of everything so low. And the top 50% of earners were already paying 97% of income taxes collected by the U.S. government in 2006.

President Obama increased their tax burden so much that many business owners decided they didn’t want to work any harder when the government was taking so much away. “The land of the free?” Not for the most productive workers in the American economy. Just as nearly two million citizens in the decade prior to 2008 had moved out of California and New York when the Democrats had control and kept raising state taxes, many of these entrepreneurs have now moved their money, their factories, and often themselves, overseas. So many jobs have been lost that welfare rolls have swelled, and President Obama is calling for more taxes to meet the needs of those without work.

However, Obama’s tax bill still included “tax credits” for the lowest 40% of earners, who were said to “need the most help.” Since the bottom 40% were not paying any Federal income taxes in the first place, these “tax cuts” were actually a gigantic redistribution of income, a huge welfare payment, a way to “spread the wealth around,”35 as Obama had told “Joe the Plumber” on October 13, 2008.

When critics objected that Obama’s tax policies were leading to inflation and unemployment, he responded that our goal should not be merely to increase America’s materialism and wealth and prosperity, but to obtain a more just distribution of wealth, even if it costs everybody a little to achieve that important goal.

Budget deficit: The Federal budget deficit has increased dramatically under President Obama, in spite of higher tax rates. It turned out that increasing tax rates on “the rich” did nothing to reduce the deficit because the economy shrank so much with reduced investment that the total dollars collected in taxes actually decreased, even though most people’s tax rate is now higher. As numerous economists had predicted, higher tax rates in practice meant that the government took in less money. When reporters asked Obama why he still favored higher taxes on the rich when it brought in no more money, he replied that it was important that the rich pay their fair share.

Union organizing: “The land of the free”? Congress passed in 2009, and President Obama quickly signed, a “card check” program that nullified the requirement for secret ballots when voting on whether workers wanted a union shop.36 Now the union simply has to get signatures from a majority of workers in any business, and unions around the country are now using strong-arm tactics to intimidate anyone who stands in their way. Several industries are now completely unionized and prices of goods produced by those industries have shot up as a result.

Energy: World demand for oil continues to climb, and prices keep going up, but President Obama for four years has refused to allow any additional drilling for oil in the United States or offshore. Gas now costs more than $7.00 per gallon, and many Democrats now openly applaud this, since high prices reduce oil consumption and thus reduce carbon dioxide output. But working Americans are hit especially hard by these costs.

Nuclear energy would provide a substitute for oil in some uses, and could generate electricity to power electric cars, but environmentalist legal challenges have prevented the construction of any new nuclear plants, and the courts have been leaning so far in a proenvironmentalist direction that nobody expects the construction of any new nuclear plants for several decades, if ever. Obama keeps reminding people that we cannot guarantee that it will be safe.

As for coal, President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to implement strict new carbon emission standards that drove many coal-powered electric plants out of business. The country now has less total electric power available than in 2008, and periodic blackouts to conserve energy occur on a regular schedule throughout the nation. The price of electricity has tripled in some places like California, which also faces rolling blackouts during peak energy periods. The impact on our economy, and on the comfort of our homes, has been devastating.

(more…)

Obama fishing for votes: the art of bait and switch October 11, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, children, Democrats, family, health care, John McCain, Medicare/Medicaid, news, presidential election, Republicans, SCHIP, taxes, welfare.
1 comment so far

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary gives a two-part definition of the phrase bait and switch:

    1 : a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one
    2 : the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable

Obama’s accusation that McCain’s health care plan is a bait and switch tactic is a classic example of part two. He claims McCain’s health care plan promises a $5,000 tax incentive to American families for the purchase of any health care coverage of their choice while at the same time taxing American consumers health care coverage.

Obama’s accurate depiction of a bait and switch scheme is impressive. However, he fails the honesty test when he claims McCain would tax individual Americans purchases of health care coverage. Obama tries to deceive America by suggesting that the money raised under McCain’s plan would be given directly to insurance companies as a tax increase. But, after reading McCain online counter argument, it appears McCain proposes to redirect current income taxes of individuals and families to help pay for their health care. Redirecting current income taxes payments for health insurance is not applicable to the uninsured. That is why McCain also proposes a non-profit state-based program to fund adequate health care for the uninsured. Such a plan conforms to the Constitution’s ideal of state republicanism as opposed to national welfare socialism.

Underlying Obama’s health care plan is the typical ploy of liberals: Whatever they accuse their opponents of is usually what they are guilty of themselves. This is no less true of his plan for universal health care. He preaches help for the middle class just as liberals before him did for the poor. While helping the poor into welfare dependency, liberals increased federal power over both the states and the lives of the poor. Maybe that is why many poor Americans refuse to deal with the socialist welfare system including applying for the States Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) or other Medicare programs.

What Obama does tell the middle class is that much of his health care plan is based on ferociously non-bipartisan Democrats plan for SCHIP, which was originally a Republican program to help low-income parents provide adequate health care for their children. As all other welfare programs, it did not end up just helping poor children, but also adults and even middle-income wage earners. That is why Democrats want Obama in office. They need a liberal in office in order to make the middle class welfare dependents too.

How Democrats propose to pay for SCHIP is by greatly increasing taxes on tobacco. Studies by the Center for Disease Control reveal that a majority of tobacco users are among the low-income population.

I hope that you can see where I’m going with this. The Obama-Democrat Party plan is an even better at bait and switch than McCain. By comparison, McCain really has failed in his purported bait and switch efforts. Unlike McCain’s plan, Obama’s will lead to taxing the poor to pay for the children of middle-income families’ health care. Should most of the poor quit buying cigarettes and other tobacco products the federal government would have to raise Medicare taxes on all workers in order to pay for the additional SCHIP deficits.

The only reasonable conclusion is Obama and his liberal supporters have increasing the power of government and its benefactors over the American people in view. It may not be good for freedom and independence, but as CNN and WTOP reports claim, it would be cheaper than McCain’s plan at least in the short term. A WTOP report claims taxes under McCain would be several hundred dollars greater than under Obama for a family of four with an annual income of $100,000. Yet, that same family would get about $2,000 in tax refund applicable to health care coverage under McCain’s plan. CNN reports that the total annual costs of Obama’s health care plan would be $65 billion per year and McCain’s $360,000 billion. But again, once the federal government has to pay for all of SCHIP and most of the middle class health care, the annual costs would likely exceed those of the McCain plan.

I said most of the middle class would eventually be covered by federal health care because Medicare would be cheaper than private provider plans. That might even be the case with a more efficient and competitive health care market. As Wal-Mart put many local family retailers, a big federal insurance program would eventually put individual health care providers out of the capitalism business. Just as Wal-Mart offered products that were cheaper but not better, federal health care would not be better or more convenient, which has been proven by other nations with universal health care. Knowing how much more the federal government often pays for products and services it’s conceivable that government-run health care would eventually cost more than before.

The cost not calculable in dollars is the additional loss independence and freedom both of individuals and their states.

Sources:

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary Online

Southern Ledger October 4, 2008

John McCain’s Campaign Website

CNN News April 29, 2008

WTOP News September 16, 2008

Do Liberals Help the Needy? June 10, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, charity, conservative, Constitution, George W. Bush, giving, liberals, news, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), political economy, politics, poverty, Ron Paul, socialism, taxes, wealth, welfare.
add a comment

In a June 6 column published by The Economist, Peter Schweizer indicated that the richer and more powerful liberals are the harder it is for the needy to get any donations.

Many modern liberals like to openly discuss their altruism. Garrison Keillor explains that “I am liberal and liberalism is the politics of kindness.” But it rarely seems to turn into acts of kindness, especially when it comes to making charitable donations, wrote Schweizer.

To back his claim, Schweizer presents a who’s who of liberal stars including New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Al Gore, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John Kerry, Senator Ted Kennedy, Robert Reich, and Jesse Jackson. None of these champions of the poor and oppressed has given much if anything at all to any charitable organization. Schweizer looked at their income tax returns and financial statements.

Kennedy has been in Congress since the 1960s. He is the most experienced champions of passing federal law to help the poor, which in turn has helped the federal government to expand it powers. The long debated No child Left Behind version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act apparently never helped to close any gap between the poor and the other students. The rhetoric about underachieving urban poor, dropouts, and our kids uncompetitive underachieving compared to the rest of the world is the same old song and dance liberals and opportunists have repeatedly said needs fixing since the 1960s. What it actually means is give government’s public schools more money and more control over public education to the federal government.

This is nothing new. According to Schweizer,

The greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He is regarded by many on the left as the personification of charity and compassion, but FDR actually has a slim record when it comes to giving to charity.

Compared to liberals today, FDR was very generous. He actually gave 2-3% of his income compared to 0-1% given by the above-mentioned liberals.

The point is liberals are all talk. They don’t really care much about the poor. If they actually did, they not only would give generously to those in need but would also have changed the political economy making it difficult for poverty to exist. Of course, they would want to do that for several reasons: One, they don’t care about people they neither know nor want to know. Two, their power, prestige, and wealth is engendered at the expense of the poor. Three, actually changing the political economy would screw up the entire agenda of the Left.

Okay, liberals are no more generous are caring than many other Americans. So are we to believe the compassionate conservatives are any different? Schweizer’s answer is a resounding yes.

President Ronald Reagan … was often called heartless and callous by liberals. Unlike Roosevelt or JFK, Reagan was not a wealthy man when he became president. He had no family trust or investment portfolio to fall back on. And yet, according to his tax returns, Reagan donated … four times more to charity — both in terms of actual money and on a percentage basis — than Senator Ted Kennedy. And, he gave more to charities with less income than FDR did. In 1985, for example, he gave away 6 percent of his income.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have continued this Reagan record. During the early 1990s, George W. Bush regularly gave away more than 10 percent of his income. In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity. He was actually criticized by some liberal bloggers for this, who claimed he was getting too much of a tax deduction.

I suspect many of the reviled Right give considerable amounts of money to all sorts of charitable organizations, and not just to their churches. Referring to a Hudson Institute article, Ron Paul said,

American citizens voluntarily contributed three times more to help people overseas than did the United States government. This should not surprise us at all, as Americans are generous to those in need, whether here or abroad. There are so many moral, religious, and human reasons to help our fellow men and women in need. It is only when government gets in the way and tries to crowd out private charity that problems arise. (emphasis added.)

There are good reasons why the US Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced “charity” is not charity at all, but rather it is theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause it does not negate the original act of theft.

Besides sound research showing the 16th amendment to the Constitution was not legally ratified, our tax dollars should not be used to enlarge and empower the federal government at the expense of the poor or the rest of us. The federal government taking power not conferred upon them by the American people is not for our benefit. Robert Reich claims American major corporations are the real culprits impoverishing Americans. These economic leeches robbing Americans economic well-being make welfare programs necessary. In his book Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg says the situation was planned by New Deal liberals.