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.

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.

When this happens the insurance companies will find that they have all the customers they will ever have. They cannot expand their businesses and according to 102(a)(3) they can never raise rates on those who are covered or according to 102(a)(2) can never change what they do or do not cover. This last one also prevents them from entering into any new cost-sharing arrangements to reduce costs. The companies can never expand, or raise rates to offset inflation or higher expenses. The only time a new policy could be written is when someone with private insurance, before hand, changes policies.

Understand what this means, if this bill passes those who are not covered by private insurance will have no choice but the government system—none other can be sold. Those who have coverage can keep it until the company goes out of business or they lose or drop the coverage another way—job change or economic downturn. Once this happens they too will be on the government system, for life, and the government that has proved its inefficiency and incompetence in so many areas will be able to let us down where it matters most. Higher prices, rationing, lower quality and early death for millions will be the legacy of this president. How’s that for Change!

Take notice whenever a politician says that the expensive program he is touting is less costly than doing nothing. This is not an attempt to convince but to obfuscate. It is easy to point to statistics and stories of failings of our current system, because his own system has not been implemented and therefore is difficult to examine. Liberal programs are never measured by what they do or do not accomplish but by what they meant to accomplish. Welfare is a good thing because it meant to cure poverty. Never mind the destruction of minority families and the harm done by these programs.

The healthcare status-quo could never be more expensive than surrendering control of one-fifth of our economy to the government and control of our healthcare decisions to bureacrats. The cheapest healthcare system is one that allows market forces to determine costs, and that rewards creativity and innovation. Government healthcare will choke off innovation, will cost everyone in higher taxes and will drive market forces from the equation. Costs, procedures, and standards will be set by government fiat. Anyone who has experienced healthcare systems run by the US government (welfare systems, BIA Indian Health Services, Veterans Administration, etc.) wouldn’t wish that care on the rest of the country.

This is not the first time that false claims have been made about government spending plans, making one thing look like another with a simple twist of words. Back when the Republicans were in charge of the House and Senate, Democrats charged them with cutting Medicare because they were proposing a lower increase than the Dems. Medicare recipients would receive more than before, but because it sounded better for Democratic election efforts, this was portrayed as a cut. Now they are doing the same by claiming a tax increase is not an increase.

Anytime the government makes changes resulting in more taxes owed by an individual or corporation it is a tax increase. Tax loopholes are a negative name for a write-off. During the life of a corporation or a wealthy individual, events occur that the government in its great wisdom has allowed to be written off on taxes. These are written into the code for various reasons, but closing these—even if appropriate—is still a tax increase. Money these entities once kept will be sent off to Washington to fund Mr. Obama’s reelection campaign. If you don’t think his spending plan is to garner votes you’ll find your face in the dictionary under naïve and next to it will be the definition: “See Democratic Voter.” The desire to fund healthcare for all Americans has nothing to do with helping the needy. This is a blatant attempt to make all Americans beholding to the Federal government and especially to the Democratic Party.

Another side to this plan is the old standard class-warfare. By claiming this is closing loop-holes for the wealthy, then it sounds like a blow for the little guy—taking away advantages from the evil rich. It must be kept in mind who will pay these taxes. If a corporation pays out more in taxes it passes those costs along to consumers. This means higher costs for everyone working to keep his kids clothed, housed and fed. So beware, Obama plans to get your vote by taking over your healthcare decisions. He’ll pay for it with higher taxes from you and with higher prices for you. With Barack Obama in the White House, the America we leave our kids will look nothing like the free and prosperous nation we were privileged to be born into.

Do you believe in limited measures to control climate change or sweeping legislation with the process supporting other priorities of the Administration?

The only choices were between limited measures, sweeping legislation and undecided. I do not believe in sweeping or limited measures to control climate change because I believe that man-made global warming and climate change are propaganda efforts by the hard left to fool us into surrendering our freedoms for our own good. When the Soviet Union and other worker’s Utopias were collapsing socialists and other collectivists needed another vehicle and found it in the radical pseudoscience of global warming.

I guess Mr. McCain, like other eco-nuts, believes that global warming is a fact that no thinking person could question, so one must either be for sweeping or limited action or else undecided about what action to take. It seems action is a done deal in their minds. And they think our minds are closed.

The next time you read that polls show that this or that liberal issue is popular ask yourself who they questioned, what the questions were, and what answers were possible. Every poll out there makes certain assumptions, and you know what happens when you assume—we look like a nation of asses.

Under George Bush we had an expansion of government beyond the nightmare of any conservative. His Ted Kennedy meets Robert Bork agenda left many confused and weakened his base and party—he is the primary reason we have Obama and the hip-pocket congress. On social issues and the military he was very conservative. I give him credit for preventing attacks after 911 and teaching the world that you could stand in many ways in relation to the US but standing against her was not wise.

Unfortunately, Bush’s expansion of government and runaway spending laid the groundwork for an administration with little respect for liberty and a hatred of capitalism. The Bush administration devised and pushed TARP bailouts, even forcing some banks to take money they didn’t need. This administration abused that leverage to seize an amount of control over the economic sector never seen before. The most recent example of this problem of failing to look long term is Homeland Security. It appears that the office created by Bush to protect the US against terrorists has turned against the most loyal, patriotic Americans among us as potential terrorists. The new profile of a terrorist is not a radicalized cell hidden in a New Jersey mosque or the mountains of Pakistan, but those Americans who are so dangerous as to believe in defending their country, to believe in defending their homes and, most shocking of all, to believe in the defending every American life—even inconvenient ones. The new terrorists for Barack Obama and his Office of Homeland Security are veterans who own guns and are pro-life. This makes sense though; as the bumper sticker reads: “Tyrants prefer unarmed victims.”

An idea for good in the hands of one president can be easily turned against our freedoms by another. Stop looking at any president—conservative, liberal or socialist—as savior and see them as potential oppressors. This was the example of our founders. Even George Washington, father of our country, was distrusted so long as he held that office. The potential for abuse was too great, even under a limited government. It is far greater now under this monstrosity of an expanded government touching all areas of our lives.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTkvhG-MOK8

The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with fairness. There have been massive efforts to recreate for the left what the likes of Rush and Hannity have done for the right. No matter how much cash has been thrown into these they have failed miserably because the lies and venom of the left are not marketable to the average American who loves his country, believes it is the best place on earth and wants to see her triumphant. Because Americans won’t buy it, they want to silence the alternative. This is not about being fair but about making conservative talk radio go away. Once this happens and the conservatives are forced off the airways and solely available on cable and the Internet look for a new attack to sensor these. We as Americans must stand for free speech and stand against the Democratic “Unfairness Doctrine.”

An important lesson for our new president is offered and hopefully learned. According to former Israeli army chief of staff Ya’alon, “In this kind of conflict, your ability to stand and be determined is more important than your firepower.” Is our own national leadership willing to stand up to the extremists and thugs of the world? With the close of Gitmo, the timetable for the pullout of troops from Iraq and the latest directive to redefine the War on Terror as an Overseas Contingency Operation one has to wonder if resolve is lacking from the American leadership. This of course, demonstrates the weakness of modern liberalism, a movement giving greater weight to sound-bites and photo ops than actual accomplishments. We can have a war on hunger and a war on poverty, but a war on terror doesn’t have that feel good ring to it. Are we fighting a war? Do we still have a determine enemy? If you believe that redefining the terms is helpful then other questions come to mind. Will people still die? Will extremists sill blow themselves up, taking our brave soldiers and their own people with them? We know they will, but dying in a Contingency Operation is not as bad as getting killed in a war, even though you’re still dead.

In the last two days, I have heard two accusations that are common in defense of abortion and they are examples of errors in logic, but very powerful rhetorical tools. With political discourse rhetoric is often more important than logic. Jay Heinricks, in his book Thank You For Arguing, defines rhetoric as the art of persuasion and shows that many forms of persuasion are logical fallacies, but still quite effective. One such tool is the ad hominem attack. Logically, the character of the one testifying does not effect the truthfulness of a statement, but since we can not always discern the truth easily, we must take many things into account, including the character of the witness or opposition. To undermine this the ad hominem is used.

An example of this attack, often used against supporters of the rights of the unborn, is the charge that we fight for the unborn but don’t care about homeless or unwanted children. In other words, we fight to keep the mother from ending an unwanted pregnancy, then leave the poor mother and child to their own devices. While this produces powerful imagery and emotions it is far from true. Those who fight for the rights of the unborn also support Crisis Pregnancy Centers and have historically given far more to shelters and services to support these people and to help them. I personally know of several people who have taken young girls into their homes to make sure the child gets a chance to start life off right. Even with all of this aside, this does not change the issue and is easily seen as obfuscation. Abortion is the unjust use of force against one human being for the convenience of one and the profit of another. There is nothing admirable about this. The embryo is human and is alive, therefore it has the rights of the rest of humanity. To allow abortion is to permit the creation of a class of lesser humans without rights and without protection.

Another smokescreen thrown up by the pro-abort is the charge that those of us in opposition are being hypocritical when we support capital punishment or military action. This moral equivalence is a dishonest effort to turn the argument. When someone is given the death penalty they are tried and found guilty of a heinous crime. They are given scores of appeals and their case will work its way through the courts for years. Prior to carrying out the sentence the defendant will have chance after chance to convince a judge that in his case the sentence is not appropriate. With the exception of a few states the condemned will still never see the inside of a death chamber, but even if they do make their appointment with the needle they are not equivalent to the aborted child, who is murdered out of convenience. The death of the condemned is an act of the state in its complementary roles of protector and punisher. The death of the child in the abortuary is an act of a misogynistic industry taking advantage of a woman in need of help.