In our latest Freedom Minute, Health Care Policy Center Director Linda Gorman questions whether government officials in charge of implementing are attempting to follow the law or just making it up as they go along.
Archive for the 'obama' Category
Two stories in today’s Denver Post show how cynically the mainstream media are playing the story about what they misleadingly call a “government shutdown.”
Of course, it’s really not a shutdown, just a slowdown—more on that below. And in our constitutional system the states, not the feds, are the primary line of government. The states will still be around to help us through.
And neither story comes to grips with the truth: If we have to endure the full force of Obamacare, it will be a far greater, and far longer lasting, disaster than any temporary federal slowdown.
One of the two stories is “House Pushes Closer to Federal Shutdown.” The e-version is “Budget Fight: GOP Refuses to Drop Assault on Health Law.” It originated at the Washington Post. As both titles suggest, it is written to blame everything on House Republicans. No mention of President Obama’s unprecedented refusal to negotiate. Prior Congresses and Presidents have always been willing to give a little to come to a deal. The Obama position has been “My way or the highway.”
Actually, the House Republicans have been quite moderate about this whole affair. They have repeatedly passed appropriation bills. They have asked only to de-fund one program and have not asked for any other significant budget cuts. (With a $17 trillion deficit, you have to ask “Why not?”) Very moderate, in the overall scheme of things.
A second story, originating at the Los Angeles Times, is entitled “Federal Shutdown Would be Monumental,” but its on-line version is “Federal Officials Warn of Shutdown’s Effects.” Again, both headlines reveal the co-authors’ goal: To panic people—just like they tried to scare us about the sequester.
Would a federal slowdown really be so bad? Social security and other entitlements will continue to flow. Truly vital services will continue. The military and other federal workers will get their back pay. (Anyway, House Republicans stand willing to pass a military appropriations bill at any time.)
Yes, some unconstitutional federal programs will pause. There might be a delay, for example, in grants to promote political correctness or to study the mating habits of apes. But that’s a good thing. Yes, The national parks will close, but for most of them the season’s pretty much over anyway.
Is anyone really horrified at the prospect of, say, not being about to reach an IRS bureaucrat on the telephone?
Will the slowdown hurt the economy? I’m not so sure. If the slowdown reduces the deficit or keeps money in the private economy, it might help. If it forces federal regulators to take a holiday, on balance that might help, too. After all, we’ll still have state regulators available to deal with egregious situations.
For this constitutionalist and fiscal conservative, the stakes are “Obamacare or temporary slowdown?” Given that choice, I’ll take the slowdown any day.
Progress Now Colorado recently had a “Thank You Obamacare” project that supposedly informed citizens of the “benefits” of Obamacare. (In lefty linguo, a “benefit” is something taken at gunpoint from the rest of us and given to the privileged. Decent people call it something else.)
Anyway, Number 1 on their list of “benefits” is “Congress will have the same health care as the rest of us.”
This claim remains on their website even after the nation has learned it simply not true.
It turns out that the Obama administration plans to implement a new rule that allows members of Congress—unlike the rest of us above a certain income level—to continue to enjoy taxpayer-subsidized access to the health care “exchanges.” The rest of us pay full freight. Members of Congress get subsidized.
That’s not fair treatment. In fact, not much about Obamacare is fair, as America has been learning: in one news story after another, we learn how the powerful get exempt, and the rest of us just get stuck.
We expect an apology and formal correction of the error from Progress Now. They can send it to the press, or to us here at the Institute. When we get it, we’ll pass it on.
Serious question: Is there any reasonable person out there who truly believes that ObamaCare will reduce health care costs and insurance premiums? And by reasonable, I mean someone who can point to some evidence for their belief, not just some command and control fanboy. After all, even Jonathan Gruber, one of Obama’s architects for the health control law, admits that health insurance premiums in Colorado would rise 19% under ObamaCare.
It seems so obvious to those of us who understand the most basic of economics. When you centralize an entire industry and impose a top-down scheme of price controls and subsidies, the once functioning market place no longer functions. Why? Because free people are not acting freely anymore. Individuals within that scheme are no longer making free choices. Therefore, there is no market. It’s just a bunch of people being forced to buy and sell goods and services. Forcing is not trading.
It’s no wonder that under these circumstances health insurance premiums in Colorado will rise under ObamaCare. Health Care Policy Center director Linda Gorman gives 27 concrete reasons why this is the case in her new Issue Backgrounder. Or as she likes to put it, “Here are 27 specific reasons why the law is the problem.”
Please share this information with the people you know who are still skeptical about the destructive effects of ObamaCare. Show them the difference between a functioning market and top-down central planning.
Obama is trying to spook state governors about budget cuts that could effect their states. I say call his bluff. I also say no one can notice my double chin thanks to my manly beard. Watch this 9news piece and see if you can catch my chins.
The November 6 election outcome has many friends of the Constitution dispirited. As so often before, they hoped that by defeating federal candidates contemptuous of constitutional limits and replacing them with others, they could help restore our Constitution.
Obviously, that decades-long strategy has failed—spectacularly.
They also have long hoped that by appointing the right people to the U.S. Supreme Court, they could win case decisions restoring constitutional limits. But after 40 years, that campaign has produced only indifferent results. Actually, worse than indifferent: When, through the 2010 Obamacare law, federal politicians overreached further than they ever had before—by imposing a mandate ordering almost everyone in the country to buy a commercial product—the Court didn’t even hold the much-weakened line. Rather, the Court upheld the mandate.
The fundamental fallacy behind the federally-centered strategy lies in assuming federal politicians and federal judges will somehow restore limits on federal power. That is implausible as an abstract proposition. And practical experience over many decades also shows that strategy to be a failure.
There are several reasons for the failure of the federal election strategy. First, for this approach to work, you have to elect a majority—actually a super-majority (at least 60 in the Senate)—of constitutionalists to Congress. You also have to elect a person of similar views to the presidency. And you have to do this so they are all in office at the same time.
Second, constitutionalists face inherent handicaps running for federal office: Most are by nature non-political, and therefore don’t make good or persistent politicians. Their views prevent them from promising farmers more subsidies, seniors more health care, or students more loans. And those views also discourage campaign contributions.
Third, even when constitutionalists do achieve federal office, a critical proportion of them forget or weaken their commitments amid the enticements of Washington, D.C. and the fleshpots of power.
The Founders foresaw this sort of thing. That’s why they inserted in the Constitution’s Article V language allowing the states to respond to federal abuse by amending the document. At the behest of 2/3 of the states, all convene together to propose constitutional amendments, which 3/4 may ratify.
This provision was designed explicitly to enable the states to bypass federal politicians.
Incredibly, however, the convention method of proposing amendments has never been used. This largely explains why our governmental system is so unbalanced today.
Year after year, well-meaning people have rejected the convention approach in the vain hope that federal elections are the answer. In the light of Tuesday’s results, they need to re-assess. This reassessment is now more urgent than ever, because even more than the Constitution is at stake. So also is our national solvency.
Post-election blues got you down? Go ahead and and stay curled up in a ball on the couch for Devil’s Advocate tomorrow night as I am joined by Denver Post editorial page editor Curtis Hubbard and Colorado Springs Gazette editorial page editor Wayne Laugesen for a dissection of what happened on Tuesday and what it might mean for Colorado in 2013. That’s Friday night at 8:30 on Colorado Public Television 12.
As reported by the Second Amendment Foundation, this morning the Obama administration joined a U.N. majority which called for convening a new conference to create a global Arms Trade Treaty.
Why is this Billboard now across the street from the Denver Post building?
I don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea, so let me explain. I really miss the days of Denver being a two newspaper town. The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News for a century had a competition which gave Coloradans superior news coverage of state and local issues. Those days are gone. The Rocky went under a few years ago and sadly, the Post is a frail shadow of what it once was.
Much of this demise is not the fault of the Post. Younger people don’t buy papers, they get their news for free online. Online classified ads like Craigslist took away the paper’s largest steady income source. The Post is also straddled with crippling debt.
But the Denver Post is still the paper of record for Colorado. And it needs to act like it.
I want to see the Post survive and thrive. The state needs a trusted news source. But just like when a friend needs an intervention, the Post needs to hear the truth no matter how painful.
To the good and extremely overworked people at the Post, we have to tell you that you are failing to cover news. My guess is you know this. We understand your staff has been slashed to a fraction of what it was and how this economy has hurt your industry. But we rely on you for actual reporting, and you are failing to do that job. Rerunning Associated Press stories and writing about gardening tips and Bronco games are fine. However, you have a responsibility to report the news.
When Denver Public Schools changed their evaluation for teachers, judging them on how well they got our children to get involved in “social justice,” there was no news coverage from the Post. 9News did the story. When DPS reversed this politically-driven policy, there was again no coverage. You could read about it in the Washington Times, however.
When it was found that the co-chair of President Obama’s reelection committee, Denver’s former mayor Federico Pena, was a venture capitalist just like Mitt Romney, laying off a thousand workers and closing three domestic factories, there was no coverage. Rush Limbaugh did a better job informing Coloradans about this story than the Post did.
But hiding from the Abound Solar story is beyond excusable.
In our own backyard is Solyndra on steroids, and not a peep from the Denver Post. A politically-connected solar company gets a $400 million guarantee of government loans. And we learn of the Pat Stryker connection from Complete Colorado. http://completecolorado.com/stories/markey-stryker-pay-to-play.html
When the firm went belly-up the company execs told a Congressional committee it was because of cheap Chinese competition. But when whistle blowers show that the product was so faulty it would catch fire, it was the Daily Caller that told the story http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/sources-documents-suggest-government-subsidized-abound-solar-was-selling-faulty-product/. As one worker said – it was a fine product, so long as you didn’t put it in the sun.
When documents were found suggesting Abound falsified its books to secure funding, there was no story in the Post. You had to go to Fox News http://nation.foxnews.com/abound-solar-inc/2012/10/08/congress-local-authorities-investigate-doe-loan-recipient-abound-solar
When the District Attorney of Weld County opened a full investigation into Abound, you could find the story on Channel 7 http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/abound-solar-under-investigation-by-weld-county-district-attorney-received-68-million-stimulus but not in the Post.
When the US House Energy and Commerce Committee announced a further investigation into Abound, http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/committee-leaders-probe-does-knowledge-loan-recipients-faulty-solar-panels – now the story made it to Reuters, but not the Post.
We put a billboard across the street from the Denver Post to remind them that they are STILL the paper of record in Colorado. And it’s time they stopped turning a blind eye to news that matters. We want the Post to succeed.
Bad economy got you down? Feeling like you can use a break from the “economy tax?” Well, the Independence Institute is here to provide relief! Come party with us on Friday, October 19th, from 4-6pm here at the Freedom Embassy. We will be providing relief in the form of delicious food, refreshments, and FUN! FUN! FUN! (yes, we’re going to have a big bouncy house)
We will have a drawing for gift certificates for BOTH groceries and gas!
Visit our Facebook event page for more info.
RSVP for FREE with Mary MacFarlane at 303-279-6536, ext. 102 or Mary@i2i.org.