Like many liberals President Obama places too much stock in his own plans and places way too little in the American people. America has created more wealth, freed more people, and overthrown more tyrants than any other nation to ever exist. Amazingly, this was all done without Barrack Obama as president.

On December 16, our president told ABC news that if his healthcare plan is not passed America will go bankrupt. Whatever happened to Mr. “Yes we can.” The reason for his dire projection is Medicare and Medicaid spending. Mr. Obama proposes that we transfer these broken programs into a new program that will oversee the healthcare of all Americans, claiming this as the only way to keep down costs. We remember all the government programs that so effectively kept down costs in the past. There was . . . well . . . what about . . . perhaps . . . Ok, so no government program has kept down costs. Instead, the record of bureaucracies is out of control spending and poor service. This means the president of this country claims that unless we spend more government money and interfere in the lives of more Americans the United States in doomed and the federal government will go bankrupt.

This president has shown he has a very limited play book. When attacked, use the race card. When overcome with bad press, take action to distract the media. When optimism fails, switch to fear. What this country cannot afford is more of Barrack Obama’s good-money-after-bad policies. Whether it’s healthcare, bailouts or ‘stimulus’ checks, all he offers is more of the same—freedom is bad, government is good, responsibility is to be avoided.

I case you don’t recognize that the plans of the liberal junta include expansion of government to an unprecedented degree, consider the 111 new government programs and bureaucracies created by the latest Healthcare bill released in the House of Representatives. To see a full list go here.

I will limit myself to mentioning a few with my own personal remarks. The numbers correspond to the above list.

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
Because the Social Security Trust Fund has been such a success.

4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
Just what we need, an administrative program to simplify administrative programs.

6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
Since you will ultimately lose your healthcare choices, why do we need to administer those choices?

7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
Because we do not have enough unelected bureaucrats.

11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
We can always use another trust fund for Congress to plunder.

12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
Can you say “unfunded mandate?”

14. “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)
A public option will be needed after they bankrupt the entire industry.

15. Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)
Bureaucrats are popping up like mushrooms after a bad rain.

16. Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(b), p. 215)
Special account for all the wealth they will be redistributing.

17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
Because the other government telephone advisory systems have been so popular.

23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
Who better to teach independent living than a government liberal bureaucrat?

24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
Comparative Effectiveness Research? I’m more effective than you.

25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
Of course you need an ineffective commission to research effectiveness.

26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
Another one! Sheesh!

27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
I can hit both of these with the same statement: Because the federal government has such a reputation for improving performance and assuring quality in other programs.

33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
They have such a stellar record at preventing fraud.

34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
The head Bureaucrat-in-charge.

39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
More trust funds. Can’t you just see Pelosi salivating over all that money just lying around?

41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
This will be needed because the new government health care program will squelch all other innovation.

42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
They don’t even try to put the word ‘trust’ in this one.

43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
No one will want to spend their own money to become a doctor when profit is illegal.

44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
See above

45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
See above

51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
Money, money, money!

52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
Huh!?

53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
Now they’re just getting silly.

58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
Isn’t Government Quality Improvement like military intelligence?

59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
What’s a secretary of Health Information without an assistant?

60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
Kids-with-Condoms program. When that fails you only have to miss third period to have that abortion.

61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
Who needs high priced doctors?

64. “No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza” demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
It’s for the children!

65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
‘No Child Left In-uterus” program.

69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
To undo what years of welfare has created.

71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
For those who make it past the abortoriums.

74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
Because fat is not your program, the government should pay for it.

86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Women’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
Because more women vote liberal.

94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
There is no better arbiter of best practices in medicine than a bureaucrat.

95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
This will be needed because of all the shortages this bill will create.

97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)
These last few will be needed because of the poor performance of that little known government healthcare program: Indian Health Services.

The latest evolution of the health care monstrosity slinking through the Capital is just as dangerous as earlier versions. The House is considering a version that would supposedly allow doctors to negotiate prices with the government instead of the earlier plans that included set prices that amounted to price controls.

Price controls are a problem because they are historically unrealistic and, over the long run, produce shortages. When a company is forced to sell an item at a price below the cost of production, distribution, and profit they stop producing—resulting in a shortage. Price controls also cause shortages through overconsumption. Thomas Sowell in Basic Economics (pg 29) tells of wealthy people who did not even live in the city holding on to apartments covered under New York’s rent control laws. This reduced the number of apartments available for the poor who were supposed to benefit from the laws.

When one of the agents is the government, negotiated prices are price controls with a less offensive name. Control is negative and implies a use of force. Negotiation sounds warm and fuzzy, sitting down over coffee and biscotti, and seeking what is best for both parties. In order for a negotiation to be effective, and balanced, each must have something to offer and negotiate from an equal footing. When one agent is far more powerful than the other, negotiation quickly gives way to demand. How is anyone, other than a separate sovereign nation, to negotiate with the US government? This is not possible because the government will set the terms of the negotiation. This will quickly degenerate to hidden price controls along with the resulting shortages.

What our healthcare system needs is a healthy dose of free market economics. Our system has been under the boot of big government for too long; Mr. Obama and his cronies in the Congress want us to believe the solution is adding the other boot.

Though it may sound like a bad, old joke, it is actually today’s news. Senator Olympia Snowe, from Maine, has once again crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats in favor of government healthcare. Many have referred to Senator Snowe as a moderate Republican, but this is not the proper term to describe her. To call someone a moderate implies that they stand in the middle on issues between extremes and seek to find the best way to work with the right or the left. Moderation connotes discipline and thoughtfulness, but political moderation is not what Senator Snowe practices. Since Arlen Specter left the party he pretended to support for years, Senator Snowe is now the turncoat-in-chief.

Of course, the Democrats are the one delivering the punch line in this joke. They are claiming a victory for the president, hoping it will shield moderate Democrats who have been forced to stand against this program. Senator Snowe has always danced to the left’s tune. I wonder if she realizes that today is National Coming-Out Day and those hiding their feelings are being encouraged to come out of the closet and express who they really are. Senator Snowe, it is time you came out of the closet and accept that you are a Democrat; you are not a moderate but a hard-left statist.

At one time the federal government was seen as limited. Now under the liberal junta currently running this nation the states are being reduced to branch offices of Washington. This was never envisioned by the founders who saw our nation as sovereign people in several sovereign states joined together and pooling part of their sovereignty in the federal government. King Obama and his Hip-Pocket Congress are working to sieze control of American lives and the American economy far beyond anything King George would have imagined. If you think healthcare has a problem now, wait until it becomes a government program–emergency room meet Post Office and DMV.

Max Baucus of Montana is hard at work trying to force his healthcare bill through committee and onto the floor of the Senate. If he succeeds we could have a new healthcare system in this country before long. Of course the new system will take care of few if any of the old problems and simply create higher taxes and more government red tape.

As an astute politician Max understands that sometimes compromise is needed to pass legislation. Some changes made to his proposal should get serious attention from those of us who will foot the bill for this program. He has offered changes to the number of people being subsidized to pay for coverage and the penalty for not getting coverage has been lowered.

The Baucus plan will provide subsidies to families and individuals to help defray the cost of getting insurance. This subsidy is available to any family making under $88,200 or any individual making less than $43,230. Of course when we look simply at the dollars one can see why this would be offered. Neither figure is a huge income these days, because the cost of coverage can run to 5 digits for some families. The problem is when you consider what portion of the population will now be subsidized. According to 2005 census figures, this would cover 80% of American households. If Max’s plan goes through 80% of Americans will have their healthcare costs subsidized by the Federal Government. Is anyone silly enough to believe that this will not require higher taxes or cuts to other spending? This is simply an effort to buy support from the American people. By casting wide the net of those on the dole Max hopes to get more people supporting his proposal.

The next problem doesn’t seem like a problem at all. It can almost be spun as a fix to a problem I already addressed. Max’s plan to require all Americans to buy coverage or face a fine is obviously problematic. In recognition of this Max had lowered the fine for not having coverage from $3800 to $1900. This is recognition that many will defy the plan and admission that the purpose is not to defray the costs to the system of uncovered patients. If the system were enforceable and truly for the purpose of getting Americans covered a higher fine makes sense. By lowering it Max is admitting that his plan will quickly make many previously law-abiding Americans into criminals. What will their crime be? Choosing to spend their money elsewhere.

For most people a few months is not very long. A child thinks of this period as an eternity, but an adult facing a wait of several months is a different story. By the time we reach adulthood we learned to wait. We have also had things we wanted put off for months and observed how quickly that time passes. Even with the relative shortness of a few months a lot can happen in that time period.

In nine short months a fertilized egg becomes a fully formed human being. The transformation from single cell to sentient intelligent being is an amazing miracle to consider. Compound that complexity with the quickness of the process and awe is only natural. The mother feels her bond grow daily as her child develops; a father’s first experience of the child is at birth. Just as the bewildered father finds himself bewildered by miracle that has changed him from man to father and feels mixed emotions as he realizes the weight of his new responsibilities, a society can find itself overcome by the changes wrought in a few months by a misguided agenda.

The last few months of US history are a perfect example. We have seen changes in the land unforeseeable only a few years ago. I still remember the days when the media was bemoaning the destruction of the Democratic Party and declaring that the whole country had taken a sharp turn to the right. With the leadership of the American Triumvirate (Obama, Reid and Pelosi) we face a brave new world—not so brave, and if you listen to Solomon, not so new.

Over the last few months the following has come to pass under the leadership of the most left leaning president and Congress in history:
• American’s largest auto manufacturer is majority owned by the federal government.
• The President of the United States has removed the CEO of a major corporation.
• The financial industry is under the heavy hand of the fed.
• Major segments of society are being managed by Czars, not one of them elected.
• Veterans who served their country have been labeled potential terrorists.
• A government website has been established for reporting opposition.
• The government is poised to expand its control of our healthcare.
• War has been declared on the entire health insurance industry.
• Members of previous administrations are being criminalized for policy differences.
• Business is being attacked with higher mandatory wages and proposed new requirements.
• Our children’s wealth has been spent before the children have earned it.
• Government debt has risen to unprecedented levels.
• Art and education are being suborned to speak in support of the president and his policies.
• Our economy is being sacrificed to the new religion of Global Warming.

As if this isn’t enough, imagine what a few more months will bring. Already, in 2010 taxes will increase without any action by the Congress or President. This automatic tax increase will kick in when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. It will be spun by Obama and the boys as not being a tax cut, but if your taxes are one amount this year and nearly double next year what do you call it? It is a tax increase and it will be Obama, Reid and Pelosi’s baby.

Some used to be say, “One election doesn’t matter; how must damage could be done in four years?” If the last few months are an example every election counts because the damage done can be irrevocable. Mister Obama, “I’ll keep my current health coverage, my current income and my current freedoms; you can keep the change.”

Privacy between a doctor and patient is sacred in this country. It is illegal to share information with anyone the patient has not designated including the police—with a few exceptions. However, if Montana’s Max Baucus gets his way in the healthcare debate your doctor would become an agent of the police, at least in the enforcement of one federal law.

Like many of the current proposals on healthcare, the Baucus plan forces all Americans to purchase health coverage. Your employer might provide it, but if not, you would be required by federal law to purchase it yourself. This means that choosing to be uninsured will no longer be an option—find a job that provides it or find a way to pay for it.

On the surface it sounds good that all American’s will have coverage and it would solve some of the problems of the industry, but at what ultimate cost? Several problems would arise out of this requirement.

First, let’s look at the enforcement nightmares. Like all laws, this one is only as effective as the ability to enforce it. No matter how good a law sounds on paper, or in sound bites, if it is unenforceable there is effectively no law. Many who support this requirement compare it to mandated auto insurance, but there are some glaring differences. For one, there is the issue of opting out. If I want to avoid buying auto insurance I can choose to not drive. I can shop and work close to home or live in a community with mass transit. Either way I have a choice if I don’t want to fork out the money for auto insurance. Another difference is the issue of enforcement. In states where auto coverage is mandatory you show your insurance when getting your car inspected or registered. You also display proof of coverage when pulled over for an infraction or, in some states, at random check points.

With health coverage you will not have random check points to check insurance cards—we hope. The only option would be to report violators at the point of service. The doctor, hospital and clinic will be responsible for this. So instead of taking care of your needs, medical personal are converted into agents of the state. One may argue that checking for and reporting insurance noncompliance would be in the interest of the doctor because by this they can ensure a higher percentage of patients paying their bill. Part of the cost of health care is the number of people who opt out of coverage and choose to use the emergency room as their family physician because they can’t be refused care for an emergency. Requiring everyone to get coverage would handle this and supposedly reduce costs. What this will actually do is discourage those without coverage from seeking medical care even for true emergencies. In many communities hospitals and doctors are forbidden to report alien status. This is to protect those who are here illegally. It is assumed that if seeking medical care will get one’s illegal status discovered would keep those who need care from seeking it, endangering people’s lives and health. This is being overlooked in the case of mandatory coverage. So it is alright for the liberals to tie the doctor’s hands when it comes to reporting alien status, but then the doctor will be required to report anyone, including those here legally for not having coverage. People without coverage will be less likely to see a doctor for treatment until the danger is high enough to offset the cost of discovery.

Another problem is the negative impact to employer provided coverage plans. Most people with coverage provided through their employer pay a portion of the cost with the remainder paid by the employer. If everyone is required to have coverage the employer is empowered to transfer more costs to the employee because they have no option but to purchase coverage. They can choose to pay more though the employer or pay much more directly to the insurance company selling the policy.

Neither will this requirement reduce costs to the consumer. It is true that mandated coverage will reduce medical costs impacted by care for the uninsured. Providers will no longer set charges assuming a certain number will not pay. For example, suppose Doctor Jones knows that providing x level of coverage to n number of patients with appropriate profit requires c dollars. If Doctor Jones knows that 10% will not pay then he either finds a way to operate on less or increases by 10% his charges for those who d pay to offset the non-payers. By lowering this pool of non-payers through mandated coverage it is hoped that this transfer will no longer be needed. This will of course reduce the price of care, but only to those paying the bill—the insurance company. This decrease may lower premiums, but don’t forget that all Americans will be captive customers of the insurance companies. If they want to see the doctor without fear of being reported they must pay for insurance. Does mandating insurance lower or increase premiums? When anything is mandated those who provide it are able to demand higher prices for it, because opting out is no longer an option.
Finally, the greatest threat from this mandate is what it will do over the long haul. As people get tired of being forced to pay for insurance and accept more government interference in their health choices, the calls for a public option will grow. If you can’t convince the American voter to accept plan A just pile on more requirements until plan A becomes attractive. Those in the middle, squeezed because they don’t qualify for a subsidy, but can’t afford the cost of the coverage they are forced to buy, will begin to clamor for the system that has been planned by the left all along—a one-payer system with government control over the medical industry. Don’t be fooled. This effort to mandate health coverage in place of a public option is just one step to forcing government control of the health industry down the throats of the American people.

“This is America, the richest country in the world.” I hate that saying! I hear it often from those on the left, usually in defense of some half-baked plan to care for another down-and-out segment of society or to “give” some other entitlement to “all Americans.” There are two problems with this idea.

First, America is not rich. At least not America as the left usually defines it. You see the left sees the government as the great checkbook in Washington. They don’t understand that the government has no money and no source of producing it. I’m not talking about printing money because they can do that, but those greenbacks are only a symbol of someone’s tax burden. All wealth in this country is created by those who produce products—meaning anything of value: widgets, services, information, et al. The government pays for nothing and provides nothing. All they can do is redistribute wealth by taking it from those who earned it (and therefore deserve it) and give it to those who did not earn it (and therefore do not deserve it). The government does this through coercion. They come to your home or place of business and require that you report exactly how much money you have made and give them a proportional amount. This is acceptable when one considers what the government does appropriately. When the government spends seized money on the military it is protecting all of us from enemies. When they spend this money on police they are protecting us all from those who would steal and kill. Entitlements are a different story.

Government efforts to champion the poor by providing for the have-nots would be fine if they spent their own money, but all their money comes from us. They must first coerce it from the rightful owner before they can give it to another. Of course they take their cut off the top to finance the bureaucracy. This is actually theft because the person taxed loses money that he earned and gets nothing in return. Actually what the government does is far worse than simple theft. Robert Nozik (Nozick, 1974, p. 169) says, “Taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another’s purpose.” This forced labor is, in effect, government sanctioned slavery. When you consider the money is given to those who did not work for it you can only conclude that the producer is made slave to the unproductive. Those who work hard to build wealth must work even harder to make up for what the government forces them to provide for those who choose not to work, or not to work as hard.

Second, with our progressive tax system no program benefits all Americans the same. Like I said taxation is appropriate for things that only the government can or should provide. We would not want private armies roaming the land or police working for the highest bidder so the government provides these and must tax to do so. However, when money is taken and nothing is given it is easy to see the wrong that is done. Lately, the problem is another type of entitlement. We are not faced with one that only benefits the poor but it is claimed that its implementation will benefit all Americans. The debate I am speaking of is healthcare. The plan, right now, is to create a government safety net for those without insurance, but the details put forth show a deeper desire to create a government program meant to spread and grow until its tentacles entwine all Americans. The final goal is a one-payer system in which all people will be on the government plan. Many see this as an acceptable use of tax power because those who pay the taxes will participate in the program—getting something in return. Actually, the problem with this view is that only those who work and can afford it will pay for the program that is meant to cover everyone. Those who currently pay for their own insurance and care will continue to do so, but they will send the check to the Federal government along with a hefty additional sum to cover their neighbor. This is not a program for all Americans but one more example of the productive subsidizing the unproductive.

This brings up a major problem to consider. With our progressive tax system, those who produce wealth pay for their own police and military protection and also for the protection of those who do not produce. This is still a subsidy of bad choices. The only fair tax is one that is totally flat and shared by all Americans, rich and poor, big and small alike. Any attempt at a graduated tax system gives higher value to some Americans by taking away from others.

America is not a rich country. Among the American people are rich and poor. Like all nations we only have the wealth produced by our people. Each American is entitled to the wealth he produces and none other.

Works Cited
Nozick, R. (1974). Aarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.

Calls from the left ring throughout the land, “We must be civil in discussing healthcare.” People are going to town halls to protest and harangue condescending officials defending this takeover of the American healthcare system. Constituents shout, plead and debate the candidate in a way that can be very uncomfortable, but does this lack proper civility?

Efforts of this administration and the Hip-pocket Congress prove that the current elected assemblies in Washington are representing a failed ideology at the expense of the American people. Many of us fear having an imperfect system that works replaced by a system destined for failure. The Democrats in Congress (with the help of their moderate to liberal Republican sycophants) are so set on building their leftist Utopia that they are ignoring the voices of the people.

This congress and administration has done far more to undermine the confidence of the American people in their own government than all previous ones combined. Over the last few months we have become aware that those elected to represent us are voting on bills they have never read, and that many times are not even off the presses. This happened before, but pair it with record spending and you have a government run amuck. Add to this their hatred for dissent with efforts to reinstate the failed “Fairness Doctrine,” special email addresses to report those who would dare to speak out against healthcare, labeling those who served their country with honor as potential terrorists and accusations by Speaker Pelosi that those who are now speaking out are un-American.”

Then there’s the blatant hypocrisy of a Congress that rails against corporate executives flying in private jets, only to turn around and request new business jets from the Pentagon to ferry Congressmen around. According to a story in Market Watch this money will have to be cut out of other areas of the defense budget. Congress is willing to cut the amount of money being spent to support our troops in war so they can get a cushy flight. Of course this ignores the old news request of Speaker Pelosi for a larger jet for her private coast to coast flights. Their hypocrisy doesn’t stop there though. What about Card Check? This plan, also known as the Employee “Free Choice” Act, claimed to be for the support of workers. This claim was possible because leftists still long for the days of the great Revolution and calls of “Workers of the World, Unite!” They overlook the facts about unions—driving up costs, making American manufacturing uncompetitive, and unwillingness to see companies as anything other than cash-cows to be milked at every opportunity. Do you want to know why manufacturing jobs are fleeing the United States? “Look for Union Label.” This nice little bill would have stripped away a worker’s right to a secret ballot in a union vote.

So what are good hard-working Americans to do when faced with these issues? Are we to wait for the media to get the word out? Considering they have still not dropped their love affair with Barack Obama, I don’t think this will happen anytime soon.

Of course we should not be surprised they still fawn over Barack. They should have known that once they sold their souls in the election they would have to keep up the charade for the rest of his presidency. Liberals do not care what you did for them yesterday. Any anchor in the MSM that comes out with any negative press about Barack Obama will find himself labeled a bigot and tarred and feathered by the left. We can hope the media will wake up and resume their post as defenders of liberty and clarions of the truth, but that kind of media is rare.

“If you do not read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you read the newspaper you are misinformed.” —-Mark Twain.

The answer is what we see happening today. Protests and demonstrations are one of the few ways left to get the word to congressmen. The first amendment was not meant to protect only the news industry but all Americans who want to express themselves. Solutions will not be found in quiet discourse and polite debate, but in high volume vitriol. Politician’s calls for niceness and quiet are a veiled attempt to silence and to muzzle. The left has used this tactic for decades. There is a huge difference between what the left did before and what is going on now. When the left would demonstrate, the ranks were filled with the unemployed, the professional protestors and people unlikely to pay for what they demanded. Those protesting now are the very people who write the check and mail it to the IRS to pay the bills of this country. They are the productive in our society. When those who create the wealth in this land feel the need to take time away from work and family to come to a townhall meeting and make their opinions known it is the Congressmen or other official that should sit down and be quiet because those who pay them are speaking.