The question I ask coming out of this election is how will the GOP read it? The election was spun by the left as a referendum on healthcare and that is exactly what won it for Brown. The people of Massachusetts came out in droves to vote against Obama’s plans to extend control over 1/7th of the US economy in the guise of healthcare reform. GOP leadership is of course ecstatic over the victory and they should be (heaven knows it’s been a while since good news involved the GOP). The danger to those of us who value freedom is a misread of Brown’s victory by party elites.

If party leadership reads this victory to mean people are so fed up with the Democrats they will vote for anyone wearing the Republican moniker the potential for big wins in 2010 will be lost. The Republican Party lost big in the last round, not because the country had shifted left, but because the Republican Party had shifted left. Under Bush it was hard to tell a Republican voting record from a Democratic one. Keynesian deficit spending alongside rampant Congressional corruption and moral turpitude produced a perfect storm for the left. The left won because the right stayed home.

It may be possible for the GOP to go one cycle or perhaps two with the old practice of running RINOs and Rockefeller Republicans. It is possible the electorate, shocked by the abuses of a strong Democratic majority, will vote for any elephant walking down the street, but this will not last long. Unless the party of Reagan returns to its base it will find itself exiled from power again and again. If this happens it is not the Republican leaders who will suffer but the American people who are forced to watch more and more of their freedoms wheedled away by misguided apparatchiks.

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.

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.

While the reaction of the right seems churlish, the reaction of the left is naïve. The North very successfully used this and we should admit it. Yes Bill Clinton helped these two women, but that is small in comparison to the world’s condition. The left is using this as a bludgeon against Bush, though he hasn’t been in office for months. They say this shows that diplomacy works, leaving one to assume that diplomacy should have been tried with Iraq and one can only assume with Afghanistan. First of all, we tried diplomacy for years with Iraq. With Afghanistan we acted quickly because they were supporting those who had killed so many of our citizens on 911. Since the Russians had lost to them in the 80’s they assumed we would lose as well. Of course they forgot that we were on their side in the 80’s. Now, while I have always maintained that we should not have entered Iraq when we did, that part of the discussion is over and we have been much more successful in Iraq than the left will ever admit. So let’s look at the scorecard of freed people. Bill Clinton freed two young women who stuck their necks out too far. George Bush freed two nations with populations of millions. While I am no fan of George Bush, you have to give him credit for some things.

The usual argument in favor of a minimum wage is protection of the lower classes. It is claimed business owners have so much power that unless the government intercedes people will be forced into sweat-shops, making subsistence wages while languishing in horrific working conditions. These claims usually mask the results of intrusive legislation, while hiding the lesser known motives of those clamoring for the increases. For example, some unions set the pay scales in their negotiated contracts as multiples of the federal minimum wage. If Congress raises this number then all those covered by these contracts get an automatic pay raise—no strikes, no picketing needed, let Congress do it for you. Another group with hidden motives is Congress itself. Every worker pays a flat percentage of their income in federal taxes (SSI, etc) whether they make enough to pay income taxes or not. The employer is also forced to pay a percentage of the employee’s salary in matching taxes. As a flat percentage of wages, when you increase the wages you increase these taxes proportionally. The employee is oblivious to this because his net pay goes up. However, the business owner has his portion increased and ultimately paid the extra amount taken from the employee. Seldom is Congress able to raise taxes with public support.

It is often forgotten that labor is a commodity—just like anything bought or sold. When prices go up for a product, demand for the product goes down. We see this when the price of gas goes up. People find ways to use less gas. They don’t do this to save the planet, or reduce dependency on foreign oil. They are motivated by basic economics—deciding on the best way to use their limited resource (income). Just like the average family balancing their needs, when the cost of doing business goes up the owner must reduce his profits or learn to economize.

The Robin Hood wannabes in Congress imagine that very penny increase to wages is a penny decrease in evil profits for the wicked business man. People do not go into business to provide jobs or to increase the GDP. They go into business to make money. When costs go up a business owner wanting to expand may decide to forgo hiring new personnel due to the higher costs. To do this he may shuffle his current staff or change their job requirements. If the owner is in a situation where he has no choice but to hire he may hold out for someone experienced instead of hiring one in need of training. Those suffering from an increase in the minimum wage are minorities, the uneducated and inexperienced—the same people liberals claim to champion.

Another problem with government intervention in wages is the loss of liberty. Seeking employment is an attempt to sell one’s time and skills. The highly skilled and educated are more valuable because their training empowers them to produce more in an hour than a less trained person. As a result they receive higher wages. Another person with no skills or training must take that into account when negotiating pay. Paying a certain wage for a set period of time is an exchange of value. If the value the employer receives matches up to the amount one is willing to take then a bargain is struck. When government sets a minimum wage, opportunities for the unskilled are reduced. If my time is not worth the artificial minimum, then the government has priced me out of the job market and stolen my ability to negotiate and my right to enact a private contract. If I am willing to sell the hours of my day for $2 each and an employer is willing to purchase them for that amount, what business is it of Congress or anyone else? The minimum wage reduces the freedoms of the average American.

Such legislation makes certain feelings behind a crime extenuating circumstances in the punishment of the crime. If I mug a person, I get one punishment; if I am inspired by hatred of his race, gender, ethnic origin or sexual orientation then I receive a stricter sentence. While this may seem like a good idea, consider the issue of justice and why we inflict punishment on a perpetrator. When one commits a crime we take away from them something (time, money, or even life) commensurate to what they cost society and the victim. Hate crimes legislation insinuates that a victim of a hate-inspired crime loses more than the victim of the same crime when inspired by something else. The other victim would probably differ with this and so should we all. A mugger is imprisoned for violating the rights of another. These were the right to their property, and the right to a reasonable sense of security. To increase the punishment for a crime because it is inspired by hate assumes that one has the right to not be hated. This may sound warm and fuzzy, but would give you right over my mind and emotions. If I think in my own mind badly about you and it inspires me to hate then I would have violated your rights. Such a right is ludicrous and indefensible. I have the right to think as I see fit. I have the right to speak as I see fit. When hatred inspires one to hurt another it is the harm, not the hatred, that is a crime.

Hate crimes legislation also belittles the loss of other victims. “This woman was raped in a hate crime so her attacker gets 25 years. Your rape is only worth 15 years.” Sentence would be based on the beliefs behind the crime instead of the details of the crime, the cost to the victim and society?

One other problem is the difficulty of defense against accusations. How disprove hatred? How can a heterosexual prove he doesn’t hate homosexuals? How can a man prove he doesn’t hate women? How can a black man prove he doesn’t hate whites? It is often said that you can not prove a negative. When I was in the Army I was stationed in Korea and served with several Korean soldiers. Most were good friends whom I would hang out with to learn the language and culture while helping them to understand ours. However, one Korean soldier and I did not get along at all. He pretended to speak less English to get out of work, refused to take initiative and seldom carried out his own duties. One day the Company Commander called me into his office. This soldier had charged me with hating Koreans and discrimination. Such a charge can end a military career in a day. I was called on to prove that I did not hate Koreans. The fact that I could speak and read the language was not enough. The fact that I loved to walk through the Korean villages well away from camp to experience the food and culture was not enough. I had only one card to play in my defense. I responded: “Sir, you signed my marriage paperwork. You know my wife is Korean and my future children will be half Korean.” The Commander went blank for a second before sending me away. He tore up the charges and I was exonerated. This is important to realize the depth of actions needed to defend against accusations of hatred. Actually, my commander was wrong in one regard. My being married did not answer the charges because there can be any number of nuances to hatred. It is possible to hate an entire people and find one among them who, for some reason, is not hated. Once we open the door to hate crimes legislation we open a Pandora’s box that will be next to impossible to shut.

If a person has a right (as this legislation insinuates) to not be hated, before long there will be a cry for hate speech legislation. When this happens we lose the most central of our freedoms—the right to speak our minds, no matter how unpopular or uncomfortable the words may be. We will be a country muzzled, afraid to speak for fear of the hate police. Religious speech will be curtailed. Political speech will be monitored. The America that set the world free will have been killed by a hateful leftist agenda—the only hatred permitted.

When explaining his move, Specter tried to sound Reaganesque—claiming he had not left the party, the party had left him. Actually, he had never been in the party. He was always been (to suitably mangle the metaphor) a Jack Ass in an Elephant suit. When explaining his reasoning he pointed out that over 200,000 Pennsylvanians had switched from Republican to Democrat in the last election and of course he assumed these were the moderates and liberals who would support Specter. Am I the only one who remembers Rush’s Operation Chaos? This tactic to keep Hillary in the race so the Democrats would keep eating each other was a very powerful tool and thousands of Americans—especially in PA—took part by switching parties for the primary. I wonder how the media will spin it when they all switch back for the next election.

One thing that is quickly learned by any observation of American politics: memories are short. The biggest threat to those who would undermine our system and take away our freedoms is a voter with the power of recall. Had people remembered McCain in the 2000 election, he could have never been the candidate in 2008. Hopefully the people of PA will remember Arlen Specter’s history of obfuscation and disloyalty to take this opportunity to get him out of office.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z-OgbrCu_I

On his radio program, Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped President Obama would fail, and is asking people to sign an online petition against him. Of course, with classic obfuscation, they leave out the fact that Rush was wishing failure on Obama’s efforts to saddle our economy with his socialist agenda. Think about this for a second. Those claiming to be the party of civil rights are attacking a private citizen because he spoke his opinion about a public official. You can almost hear the First Amendment crumbling.

Over the years the sentiment has grown that politics is too dirty, too nasty. We’ve all heard “If you can’t say anything nice don’t say anything at all.” Fortunately the founders of our country were not so vapid. If you read their correspondence you would probably think these guys needed medication. The efforts to undermine the reputation and to deface the character of great men, honored by all, would put most modern Americans off. We all think of George Washington and honor him for his character. This man, though refusing the offer of a crown, was constantly attacked as a monarchist wickedly plotting to establish himself as King George. His every move was questioned and his intentions were constantly doubted. One of the most rabid practitioners of character assassination was Thomas Jefferson.

This is the field from where the American political system sprouted. The founders understood that it was better to have a verbal blood-bath every two to four years than a literal one every twenty. It is distasteful to say these things and it was just as distasteful to the founding generation—imagine their more developed sense of propriety. In their day, such words got one called to the field of honor to exchange pistol shots. In a time where speaking one’s mind could be fatal, men were willing to risk death, embarrassment and public disgust to protect their rights. Those with questionable plans and motives must have them questioned.

Like the demand for nicer politics is the current trend to seek bipartisanship and to overcome party differences. It is often pointed out that the founders spoke against parties. George Washington himself spoke out against the party spirit and the damage it would do. They had experienced the English Parliament with it’s party problems and assumed that if we could just be Americans we would work everything out. The founders, though a bit starry eyed at times, quickly realized the futility of this. The same founders, so outspoken against parties, formed the first ones before the Constitution was even ratified. Even old George, though never declaring himself of either party, governed in line with the policies of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist party.

The founders protected political speech with the First Amendment. They didn’t include this so Larry Flint and company can peddle smut. They included it so we would be free to speak our minds about our government. They even intended Rush Limbaugh or any other citizen to freely express a desire for the current president to fail. Some feel Obama is too sacrosanct to speak against. You can almost hear hushed intonations of “Heresy!” in the comments on the DCCC blog. It is always painful to hear someone speak against a Messiah figure, but the Constitution guarantees all speech and this recent Democratic Messiah is not immune.

We need to stop being the nation of the squeamish. We must speak out loudly and with conviction. If feelings get hurt then so be it; the founding father’s would be proud!

Within hours of being sworn in the 111th Congress changed the rules to strip the minority of an important tool in the fight against a liberal feeding frenzy. In any deliberative assembly there will be those for, against or undecided on any decision. These assemblies, when properly led take measures to restrict the power of the majority so that the minority is at least heard. The minority is allowed to speak its position and has measures it can take to cause the body to reconsider or delay the decision to allow them time to try to sway the assembly to their view. A democracy requires such protections for the minority.

One well known tactic is the filibuster. While still used in the Senate, the House did away with when when its size makes it too obstructive. In a traditional filibuster members who have unlimited time to speak in debate can prevent a vote by speaking for hours on end. Today the Senate can end a filibuster and force a vote with a vote of “cloture,” which requires 60 votes. If cloture fails the filibuster continues. For the history buffs, the record for the longest filibuster is held by Strom Thurmand when he spoke for over 24 hours.

Since the House limits the length of debate the members take other actions to slow votes. One of these has been a “motion to recommit promptly.” If this passes the bill goes back to the committee, improving good legislation or allowing bad legislation to die.

No one can be sure of their freedoms with over 500 people whose primary job is to make law. The people of this country are never more free than when the House and Senate get hopelessly deadlocked. The reason the founding fathers made it so difficult to bring a new law into being is because they knew an abundance of laws would erode our liberties. The best defense for the rights of Americans is a strong voice for the minority—regardless of who’s in the majority. This recent step empowers the majority to ram through legislation while gagging dissent. This will not improve the lives and expand the freedoms of the average American, but will warp our nation into a liberal Utopia. Such a pipe-dream society has never existed and every attempt to produce one has birthed tyranny and desolation.