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!

Every time a law is passed it chips away freedom. If the law forbids some action then you are no longer free to take certain actions. If the law requires an action then you are no longer free to refrain from acting. For this reason, I often point out that the freest time in America is when Congress is in recess. This nation has, on the federal level, 535 people paid full time to do nothing more than make laws and seek reelection. I know some will point out that the job of our Senators and Representatives includes meeting with constituents, but these meetings are primarily for three reasons: reelection, build support for legislation and get ideas for other legislation. With the majority of their time consumed with keeping their job and enacting laws the greatest threat to the freedoms we so love is Congress.

So what is the solution? Is it to be found in making Congress part time, similar to many state legislatures? This will actually change little. The best thing is to elect officials who understand the Constitution and honor their pledge to uphold it. For example, earmarks would not be a problem if constituents stopped electing people who shell out federal dollars to get reelected. Of course this is hard when many who balk at earmarks attack their own representative for not bringing home enough project money. Most Americans oppose earmarks, except for the ones that come home to line their own pockets. We need elected officials who are statesmen first and foremost. Such people do the right thing, even if the next election means a job hunt.

We also need passion on the floor of the Senate and House where those who believe strongly for and against any legislation are encouraged to fight it out tooth and nail—verbally of course. Instead of pandering to the CSPAN cameras, let’s have heated debates with partisans (yes, I said partisans) fighting to the point of exhaustion to prevent anything unconstitutional from leaving either floor. Breaking a sweat in defense of one’s beliefs has been replaced with looking good for the cameras.

The next thing we need is an informed electorate that will hold its representatives responsible by demanding for each vote the constitutional grounds upon which that person voted. If a politician is unable to give good constitutional reasons for a vote he or she should look for other work. Until the American people realize that this is our government that has been allowed to rob us of wealth and chip away at our freedoms there will be no meaningful change. I hear complaints all the time about how bad politicians are. Can you imagine any business owner having nothing but complaints about an employee continuing to employ that person? We must realize that the politicians are our employees and if they are not performing up to standards (the Constitution) then we must fire them.

We often hear about those without insurance and that they are unable to get basic health care. It is actually illegal for a hospital emergency room to not render aid and care for life and limb. These patients will sometimes find their costs covered by government programs, but often the hospital is forced to pass these costs on to other patients. Most of these people are honest people who simply have not been able to afford coverage, but those who defraud the system are a huge problem—giving false identification to prevent collection. My family and I went for many years without health coverage. We still managed to get very good care for an assortment of problems. Sometime we made payments and other times there was help from private charities.

Another claim is the number of people unable to afford healthcare. What about the people in that statistic who can afford it but choose instead to spend their money elsewhere? I purchase health insurance because it is important to safeguard my family. To do this I give up other things I could spend the money on. Many who claimed to be unable to afford insurance have cell phones, good sized homes, new cars and cable TV. Some of these people actually have insurance offered by their employer but they elect to do without preferring to risk a high cost and hoping the government will do it for them. People electing to do without insurance should be excluded from these studies and be left to their own devices when there is a medical emergency. You have a right to be stupid and if you are stupid enough to elect to be uncovered then you should deal with the consequences—rather than casting them upon the fed, the state, the doctor or your fellow citizens.

Barack Obama has claimed that under his system there would be no mandatory switch from private to public insurance. He proposes a government system that would compete with private coverage. It is claimed that this would keep market forces at work in healthcare to drive down costs. Imagine running a business with a competitor across the street. Competition is good for both businesses and for the customer so long as it is honest competition. However, if one company has unlimited resources and no need to turn a profit then there is no true competition (consider the Post Office). Add to this the power that the government has to regulate the industry and you now find a a private individual competing against a monstrosity that easily absorbs the highest of costs while driving other’s costs up through regulation.

Private insurance companies and their clients will find themselves, through taxation, underwriting the public system that they compete against. The private companies will have higher costs from regulation and higher taxes to subsidize the wasteful government system they compete against. Families who choose to pay for their own coverage will discover that in addition to the cost of their own insurance they are expected to pay (taxation again) for those who choose to join the government system.

The losers in this system will be the American people as they see coverage choices dry up. Companies that now offer insurance will find themselves forced out. Employers who offer coverage will find it cheaper to pass that cost along to the government and stop offering health benefits. Workers who receive medical coverage as part of their retirement package will see those go away in favor of pushing them onto the government system.

While discussing back and forth the pros and cons of a government healthcare system, few are pointing out that the federal government has no power to interfere with the healthcare system. This is an affront to the limited government intended by the founders. The federal government was limited to certain powers and responsibilities. Anything outside of these is an issue for the people themselves or the states. We are never going to see a return to constitutional government and the freedoms it guarantees unless we begin telling our elected officials to stay within the scope of their duties. So join me in telling Mr. Obama and the Hip-pocket Congress: “Hands off my health care!”

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.