You're not exempt from the math

This is a very simple and unemotional explanation on why Obamacare sucks.  Dave Ramsey does a great job explaining that regardless of how people may want there to be some kind of magic that will allow this monstrosity of a law to work as we were promised it would...you can't escape the simple math of the situation.

Govt Shutdown - Report from Out Here: Day 3

DAY 3:

Looking out my windows, it is a little more overcast and dreary today than yesterday...not sure if this is an effect of the shutdown or not.

But, water continues to flow from my faucets, I have electricity, and my phone and internet services still work.  This is curious to me.  Why, I thought that without the Federal Government, all infrastructure just falls apart.  I thought the local water, power and telecom companies were just a front for Federal workers who busily went about making sure that all the important features of modern life were maintained...and yet three days into a Federal Government shut down there is no apparent impact on these vital services.

What I have heard about is government agents putting up barricades around federal landmarks, such as the WWII Monument.  These are monuments that many people visit every day without the need for government tour guides or  any interaction with government at all.  But, even during a horrible shutdown, the Feds do seem to have the ability to send agents to bar 80 and 90 year old WWII veterans from visiting their monument.  They also seem to have the ability to place barricades around Mount Vernon, which is privately owned and operated.

This is pretty pathetic, if you ask me.  This is a blatant attempt to use our monuments as a very visible sign of the effects of a government shut down.  One of the first things they bring up in every discussion of possible shutdowns over the last few years is the closing of national parks and monuments.  They want you to know that poor little school children may not be able to visit their favorite park.  Now remember, this is almost all they have...Parks and the fact that Federal workers may not get paid...except of course the big mean officers barring access to monuments.  What else are we seeing?  What other catastrophes have befallen us?

Once again I call on the States to take up this issue also.  Find for me in the Constitution...anywhere...the clause giving the Federal government the power to run tourist attractions.  In the last more than 100 years, the Federal government has confiscated millions and millions of acres of land within the boundaries of many States for the purposes of establishing parks.  They have no legal right to do this under the narrowly enumerated powers given them by the federation of States through the Constitution.  Don't get me wrong, I think many of these parks are beautiful and amazing places, but they should not be under Federal control.  Most, if not all States run and maintain their own parks.  They could also maintain the Federal parks instead of sending their money off to Washington to have sent back for this purpose after a large portion is skimmed off-the-top for bureaucratic overhead and graft.

So...Day 3 and no real noticeable effect for the VAST MAJORITY of the population..."curiouser and curiouser."

Related post:
Why Feed the Pig?

Do Words Matter?

Obama says "Don't tell me words don't matter."  I agree...they do.  This video takes a look at Obama's own words...and the truth.

The Truth Behind "You Didn't Build That"

When Obama made his now infamous "You didn't build that," speech, we got a deeper insight into the true beliefs and motivations of this president.  As Daren Jonescu points out in his article in the American Thinker, Obama is espousing a central tenet of communist doctrine, namely, there is no private ownership of property.

It was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who first proposed the idea that "property is theft" in his book What Is Property.  An excerpt from this book gives the basis of the doctrine:

"If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?"

As you can see here, Proudhon called property ownership robbery and drew a direct equivalency between private property ownership and slavery and murder.  It was this same book that led Karl Marx to call for the abolishment of all private property.  

Another of the fathers of communist thought, Jean-Jacques Rousseau made a similar assertion when he said, "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

 This has been a standard mantra for collectivists and central planners throughout the years...and Obama carries the banner forward.  As Jonescu points out, "The 'fundamental transformation' Obama seeks to impose on America has many practical manifestations, but all his sundry means relate to one basic end. This is the permanent 'transformation' of a nation grounded in the principle of individual self-ownership (the philosophical foundation of property rights) into a nation grounded in the principle that everything you have is merely on loan to you from the great gods of collectivism -- 'society,' 'history,' and 'government.' "  As much as they try to deny it, Obama is a communist/socialist/ collectivist/central planner.  These are all just labels for the same basic worldview with roots in the political philosophy of writers like Proudhon and Rousseau.

This philosophy is in direct opposition to the foundational principles of our country.  The United States was based, in no small part, on the idea of personal property rights.  One of the key philosophers who influenced the American founders was John Locke.  As Jonescu points out, Locke had a completely different view of property.  Lock stated that  "Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men [in the state of nature], yet every man has a 'property' in his own 'person.' This nobody has any right to but himself."  Additionally, Locke said, "The 'labour' of his body and the 'work' of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men."  In other words, Your body is your own...all that your labor has earned belongs to you...and not to anyone else.

But, Obama and his fellow communists believe, that all property is held in common, and, therefore, it is only natural that someone who has more should have to give up what he has to those who have less. This is his point when he says. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."  He is just repeating what he has learned through his life being influenced by communist thought.  We know that he sought out Marxist professors in college...that he has been mentored by Marxists like Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers.  He believes in redistribution of wealth, and that allowing people to keep their own money is equivalent to government spending, as if all money belongs to government to begin with.  So..."You didn't build that," shouldn't surprise us.  In his mind, nothing can be done outside the collective and without a central government...and that, my friends, is communism, pure and simple.

Jonescu summarizes:

"The reason why one has no right to the fruit of another man's labor is not to be casually glossed, and it cannot be overemphasized: the other man's labor is itself his property, derived from his most fundamental property, namely himself.  (This explains why state-controlled medicine is the ultimate policy prize of leftists; it directly attacks the heart of property rights, the right to the use and preservation of your own person.)"

"This brings us back to modern progressivism, and its chief mouthpiece, Barack Obama.  By denying the inviolable right of the 'successful' to the legitimately acquired result of their intellectual and physical efforts, Obama and his cohorts are denying the successful man's ownership of himself."

Today, Obama only calls for the fruits of those he deems as "rich."  This is the essence of class warfare.  But, if "the rich" can have their property so casually confiscated, what will keep them for coming for yours and mine?  Communist philosophy has never in the history of the world lead to societies with more freedom and prosperity.  It has only lead to totalitarianism by a group of elite central rulers at the expense of the masses. 

Obama and his cohorts represent a clear and present danger to our liberties.  They stand against the founding principles of this great country and on the shoulders of their Marxist mentors.  They must be defeated, both politically and in the hearts and minds of the people.  

Obama must be voted out of office in November!

Obama Care - Still a Bad Idea

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court found it constitutional or not, I thought it was time to remind everyone of why Obama Care is still a bad idea.  The basic facts have not changed since I did a post about the Democrat's wild rush to pass this monstrosity back in July of 2009. At that time, Gallup polls indicated that 56% of likely voters believed that passing some form of healthcare reform was important.  This past week, Rasmussen reported that 53% of likely voters support repeal of Obama Care.  Gallup reports that, "Americans are more likely to say the 2010 healthcare law upheld by the Supreme Court last week will hurt the national economy (46%) rather than help it (37%), while 18% say they don't know or that it will have no effect." Which agrees with what the Congressional Budget Office said in 2009 when it reported that the Obamacare legislation would raise federal health care costs"to a significant degree" while not reducing health care costs in general.  This tells me that while people thought there were problems with the health care system, they do not believe that Obama Care is the right solution.  But, the majority of Americans have continued to say that they do not want a government takeover of health care all along.

The very basis of Obama Care were the claims made by supporters that a large number of Americans were not covered by health insurance.  Here's what I wrote then, which is still true:

The President and the Democrats trot out all of the normal, emotionally charged statistics to back their claim that we are in a health care crisis. Particularly they point to the last U.S. Census data that shows that nearly 47 million were uninsured as of the 2006 census. Taken at face value, this seems like terrible thing, but once the data is broken down you begin to see a different picture. For example, 10.2 million of this number is made up of non-citizens. 8.3 million are between 18 – 24 years old, a group that typically chooses not to spend their money on insurances. Another interesting group is the 9.2 million with household incomes of $75,000/year or above. Now that number does not seem nearly as tragic, does it.

So, the lie is revealed.  The 47 million who are tragically uninsured is really more like 19 million.  Of these, many were only temporarily uninsured do to job changes but were reported in the snapshot of the 2006 Census.  But, let's take 19 million as the number.  That is 19 million of a population 310 Million, or 6%.  Should we completely overhaul a system that is working for most Americans for 6%...a number that seems to be high to begin with?  Should we trust the central government to control one-sixth of the economy?  From my earlier  post:

What in the history of the Federal Government or the career of Barack Obama recommends them to be able to run health care any better than the private sector? I submit that, in fact, the opposite result is indicated. Government never has to compete…if they fail; they just raise taxes or print more money. More Americans (45%) trust doctors and hospitals to address the problems than either the Democrats (33%) or Republicans (10%). Beyond the trust issue, the Federal Government has long been known as a paragon of inefficiency. While large corporations can have their own level of bureaucracy, they seldom pay $2,000 for a toilet seat or hammer. Companies are responsible to their stock holders and must compete against other companies to survive…unless they are a bank or auto manufacturer, I guess. The government mostly exists to further its own size and power.

Look, we didn't want it when it was Hillary Care, and we don't want it now.  Let's repeal Obamacare.  Let's dump the largest tax increase in the history of the country.  To do that, Obama Must Go!  Elections do indeed have consequences.

Who's Money Anyway?

On Monday, President Obama called for extending the so-called Bush tax cuts for anyone making under $250 Thousand a year while letting the cuts expire for those making more than that. While everyone can agree that raising taxes on the middle class during this troubled economy, Mr. Obama continues to use one of the major tools of socialists everywhere...class warfare.

One of the most troubling parts of his speech was when he said, "The money we're spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit, a major contributor of our deficit, costing us a trillion dollars over the next decade."

Okay, where to start? First of all, Mr. Obama, like all statist, central planners seems to think that all money belongs to the government. He believes that letting the wealthy keep their money is spending by the government. This is in direct opposition to the principles of this country's founding. The power...and the money, for that matter...comes from the People. It is ours first and we decide how to invest it in government. It is not the other way around. When we keep more of our money, it is not spending by government.

Let's look at an example of how this kind of thinking would work in another part of society. Say you go to a car dealership to buy a new car. You want something nice, with decent gas mileage numbers, but can't afford anything too extravagant. You decide on a Ford Fusion. You go to the dealership and pick the car you want. Now, when the paperwork is being completed, the manager of the dealership comes and tells you that you make too much money to buy a Fusion. You have to buy a much more expensive Lincoln MKT. "You see," he explains, "We are behind our quota and our budget is already overspent. We can't afford to spend the difference between the Fusion and the MKT on you this month. We will have to sell you the more expensive vehicle."

Does this seem like a ridiculous example? Why, because the dealership doesn't have armed agents to force you to buy the more expensive car? Or, maybe because nobody voted? What if all of the car dealers in your area voted and decided to give themselves the power to force you to buy a more expensive car? Would it be okay then? No, huh? Okay, you're a tough customer. What if everyone in your state voted and a majority said dealerships could force people of a certain income level to buy more expensive cars than they wanted? Then it would be okay, right? I mean everybody voted and all. Okay, still not convinced? What if they told you that they were going to take part of the extra money you spend for the MKT and help someone with less means buy a Fiesta? That would be nice...you could help someone else own a car.

Well of course it is a ridiculous example. It is your money...money you earned. What do you care if the dealership has mismanaged their business and are in financial trouble? If you don't buy a car that is twice as expensive as the one you want, the difference is not spending by the dealership. It's money they never had and were never entitled to in the first place. Helping someone with a lower income than you buy a Fiesta does not make any of it more acceptable. Why would it be more acceptable, or moral, when government does it? I propose that it is not.

Secondly, the President contends that the so-called "spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy" is a "major contributor of our deficit." This also is a ridiculous assertion. As I have chronicled in several past posts, which I list below, our deficit is not caused by a lack of taxation...of revenue...but by out of control spending. Deficit is the result of spending more money than you have...deficit leads to debt. Recent estimates are that the revenue raised by the allowing the tax rates for those over $250,000 in income to return to the pre-Bush levels would fund our deficit for about eight days...eight out of 365, or about 2% of the deficit.

This president is not serious about fixing the economy. With this assertion, Obama just presumes that every bit of government spending is absolutely vital and legal. He has no plans for cutting spending...in fact, he only continues to propose new spending. He has raised the nation's debt by more than $5 TRILLION in less than four years, more than all other presidents combined. Joblessness under this administration continue to be dismal. And all he seems to have to offer are repeal the Bush tax cut for the wealthy, a move which many in his own party don't even agree with, and the largest tax hike in the history of the country through Obamacare. This is the same man who said, "The private sector is doing fine. Where we are seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with State and local government."

What we can no longer afford to spend on are big-government solutions that have caused massive deficit and debt. We can't afford policies that kill jobs and ruin whole industries. We cannot afford to allow politicians to invest taxpayer money in business of their choosing to see those companies fail and take our money with them. What we cannot afford in this country is Obama and his like-minded Marxist, central-planning cronies. This man...this total failure of a President...must go, and we need to sweep his type of political theory out of government behind him.

Related Posts:
A Spending Problem

Are You Getting It Yet?

The Debt from Two Perspectives

The National Debt in Perspective

Obama Care and the Death of a Republic

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obama Care, is a huge disappointment for anyone who cares for the Constitution and the rule of law.  This law was shoved through Congress against the will of a strong majority of the people in this country.  It gives unprecedented power to the central government to control the lives of individual citizens.   This has been done over the objections of several States.  It also gives the central government control over approximately one-seventh of the economy...in effect socializing a  whole segment of the private industry.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this law, the so-called "individual mandate," which forces individual citizens to purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not, under the penalty of being fined, was held to be constitutional under Congress' taxing power.  Chief Justice Roberts found, in writing the majority opinion, that "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."  This flies directly in the face the wording of the act and of what was continually claimed by Obama and his minions.  He claimed that the individual mandate was "absolutely not" a tax.

Rather than interpreting the law, as is the mandate of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts and the other assenting members have legislated from the bench.  The mandate language in the law did not call for a tax, but rather a penalty.  Roberts and the others changed the law by judicial fiat.  In writing for the dissenting members,  Justice Kennedy explains that, "In a few cases, this Court has held that a 'tax' imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act adopt[s] the criteria of 'wrongdoing' and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax."  But that's what the majority clearly did in this case...they interpreted a penalty as a tax.

Justice Kennedy, also explained:

"As for the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare: The Court has long since expanded that beyond (what Madison thought it meant) taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, see United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65–66 (1936). Thus, we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumerated powers, and only marginally related to commerce: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system."

"The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have beenenacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative."

The truly frightening part of this decision is that it sets precedent that will likely allow the central government to control any activity or sector of the economy they wish through their seemingly unlimited power to tax. Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La. had it right when he spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court after the ruling,  “They basically have said Congress has no limit to its taxing power. This is the largest tax increase on the poor and the middle class in the history of this country . . . it was sold to the American people as a mandate and not a tax.”


The short-term solution is to vote Obama and all of his central planning, socialist cronies out of office and push the new president and Congress for a total repeal of this bad law.  But this is not enough.  The problem is systemic...the government given to us by the founders has rotted to the core.  The central government can not be trusted to act on the principles of the founding and the original intent of our bedrock legal document, the Constitution.  Neither can Supreme Court be counted on to take up the cause.  As I wrote in a previous post:

Where are the checks and balances that safe guard our liberty? The Supreme Court? This is only a small group of politically appointed lawyers, with tenure for life, who have a history of rubber stamping government expansion. No, the only real hope is to return to America's founding principles, and it is The People who must demand the changes necessary.

Notice that throughout this post, I have referred to the "central government" rather than the Federal government.  I do this with a purpose.  The founding fathers provided us with a federal republic form of government.  It was a republic in that ultimate power originated from "the People."  It was federal in that there was a small body that was to represent the interests of the federation of the sovereign United States of America.  This central government was to be very limited in scope and power and, derived it's power from the States and the People.  The chief check on the power of the Federal government was to be the sovereign States.  With this ruling, and many before it, we no longer have a federal form of government in practice, we have a national one with the States now being subservient to the central body.  This is why I will no longer refer to this body as federal.  There are no sovereign States, and soon, if we don't make a change, there will be no republic.

Because the central government has become so corrupted, we cannot hope to restore it from within.  We must return to the principles of federalism.  The States must retake their rightful role as the check against usurpation and aggression by the central government.  To do this, we must repeal the Seventeenth Amendment (see these post for more information on this topic: Repeal the 17th Amendment ; Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!).  The states must then nullify unconstitutional laws and rollback the central government to it's rightful scope.  Without these steps, the republic is truly dead.

See the following posts for background on Federalism:

Balance of Power

The Utility of Federalism

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4