Paul Ryan Is For Lovers
Way back in 1968, in the age of real-life Mad Men, an advertising team led by David N. Martin and George Woltz of Martin and Woltz Inc coined the now-famous tourism slogan "Virginia is for Lovers." Originally, the pair had pitched a series of ideas - "Virginia is for Mountain Lovers" or "Virginia is for History Lovers" - that were meant to lure potential tourists to the Commonwealth. Eventually, however, Martin and Woltz had their "Don Draper" moments and realized that instead of catering to the specifics of all the various sub-groups of travelers, why not just go after all travelers?
If Virginia was the great state to visit they knew it to be, if everyone would find something they liked about the place, why not sell the whole kit-and-caboodle as one shiny package?
Representative Paul Davis Ryan of Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District is for lovers.
Rep. Ryan made a two-day stop in my newly adopted hometown of Los Angeles this week and I had the chance to see the most energizing, substantive conservative politician since The Gipper up-close and in action. Now, I know what some of you are thinking: and the answer is "no." I'm not praising the man like this only because there are rumors (that I started) of a possible appearance on my podcast (The RJ Moeller Show at AEI's ValuesAndCapitalism.com). To be fair, I'm also shamelessly motivated by the speech-writing job I desperately hope to be given when this guy's president some day.
Tuesday evening Rep. Ryan delivered a rousing address to the 1,000+ crowd that gathered at The Ronald Reagan Memorial Library in which he proclaimed, "We face not just a failed president, but a failed ideology."
He continued:
"We face a pessimistic mood in the nation's capital. A belief that our best days are over and the only thing left to do is to manage the nation's decline. But, we have the same opportunity today to reject this defeatist attitude and to embrace a positive reform agenda possible to kick start a new era of prosperity, an American renewal, a comeback."
"Americans have always rejected those with nothing to offer but cynicism and the politics of division. And right now, that's all they are getting from the president...He has become what he said he'd never be: just another Washington politician."
You can watch the entire speech and Q&A right here:
This is unbelievably articulate, important, pithy stuff here, folks. I'm not telling you that you have to watch the whole hour, but if you'd like to be telling the truth some day when you tell your kids, "I always knew Paul Ryan would be president!", then you probably should.
But on to the important stuff: namely, my encounter with the Congressman this afternoon. In front of an intimate crowd, not far from the site of George Clooney's $15 million "Come donate and feel important" dinner for President Obama a few weeks ago, Paul Ryan laid out the stakes for the upcoming election and reminded those in attendance of the key turning points in every nation's life.
Citing the great British statesman Winston Churchill's address to the people of Great Britain after taking over as Prime Minister, Paul Ryan made it clear that he has one over-riding mission as a public figure: to tell the truth.
To tell the truth about our crushing debt. To tell the truth about our out-of-control spending. To tell the truth about an utterly unsustainable entitlement system.
To tell the truth about our nation's rich history and tradition of things like self-determination, personal responsibility, civic duty, private charity, and entrepreneurial activity.
Winston Churchill was one of the only leaders in Europe who was willing to soberly face the reality that, without a radical change of course as a government and nation - and without the intervention of their "New World" allies in Washington D.C. - the people of England would be defeated. The land of the Magna Carta would fall to Hitler's war machine. Not because the Germans were superior, but because no one had done anything about the Germans until it was almost too late.
Politicians in Europe in the 1930's had either covered up or denied what was going on in The Fatherland. Winston Churchill, in May of 1940, stood in front of the House of Commons and addressed the British people with the warning few others had the guts to even whisper to their wives.
Churchill didn't ask for this task. He wouldn't have wished it on his worst enemy. But because he - as G.K. Chesterton put it - loved what was behind him more than he hated what lay ahead, Winston Churchill "spoke truth to power."
Paul Ryan, not just in his speeches out here in Los Angeles, but in every public appearance he makes, sounds the warning bells of impending economic collapse with that same courage and conviction. But, and this point must be stressed, he doesn't delight in having to point out we're on a fast-track to Greece.
Rep. Ryan is an optimistic, affable man. He cracked jokes. He fielded the sillier questions from the audience with grace and care. He grinned from ear to ear when talking about the decency and charitable nature of the American people. The love he has for his family and his neighbors back in Wisconsin shone through.
And the substance! Oh, the substance!
This guy can talk at astounding length about anything under the sun that has to do with fiscal policy. He knows it inside and out. And not in a "my team of writers filled me in on some Paul Krugman talking points, peppering them with extra 'everyone deserves a fair shot' references" kind of way that President Obama talks about the economy in. It's real with Ryan because he knows the numbers. He's studied the math. His ideology (free market capitalism) is the result of careful study of economic realities and a humble willingness to acknowledge that there are natural laws written on the hearts of man that can't simply be tossed aside because Ivy League graduates pass new regulations.
Paul Ryan has the looks. He has the rhetorical skills. And he actually has something to say that couldn't have been said by President Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact.
He's attractive to religious/social conservatives and as a practicing Irish Catholic, is legitimately interested in making the moral case for traditional values. He's attractive to the fiscal conservatives who, despite always finding something wrong with any plan presented by any human, know that this man is serious about spending cuts. And I believe he's attractive to Independent (a.k.a. people who don't pay attention) voters for some of the very same superficial reasons they voted for Barack Obama. (This last point shouldn't rule our way forward, but it certainly helps!)
Most of you will know the name Paul Ryan already. Many of you probably have seen him on cable news or read an Op-Ed or two of his in The Wall Street Journal. All of you who care about the fate of this nation should be thankful there are watchmen on the walls of the city like Rep. Paul Ryan.
And be praying (and voting) for more.
----------------------
I leave you with the conclusion of Churchill's address to Parliament (May 1940):
We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory; victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
Let that be realized; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."
Buckley on Ayn Rand
Happy Labor Day, everyone! What better way to celebrate a day off from work then by discussing Ayn Rand and William F. Buckley, am I right?
Rand's two classic works, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), are engaging, insightful novels that remain must-reads for any proponent of de-centralized government and economy. Atlas remains the best-selling novel of all time, but I actually personally prefer The Fountainhead.
In recent years, and due in large part to the waning confidence most Americans have in their ever-increasing-with-power-and-control government, Rand's writings and philosophies have found their way into the consciousness of a whole new generation of Americans. Although an unapologetic atheist and fierce critic of religion, Rand still has many important things to teach all those willing to wade through her massive epochs.
The late, great William F. Buckley had this to say (on The Charlie Rose Show) on Ms. Rand a few years ago:
There's no reason for a religious conservative to run and hide from Ayn Rand; but there's also no theological or moral ground for a one to embrace her ideology. Taken to their logical conclusions, objectivism and compulsive individualism are no better than the secular collectivism of Marx, Mao and (unfortunately) many others.
Liberals - especially religious ones - enjoy lumping all "limited government" conservatives and libertarians in with the cold, calculating, selfish Rand, but this is not the case. For most Center-Right Americans, the definition for a statement such as "pursuit of one's own self-interest" does not exclude things like God, charity, compassion, etc. as Ms. Rand's does.
For more on this important subject, check out these two excellent resources:
- The late Whittaker Chambers' column (mentioned by Buckley in the video clip above) from National Review in 1957: "Big Sister Is Watching You"
- My friend Joseph Sunde's recent treatment of it on his website Remnant Culture.com.
Enjoy the day off, folks!
A View From the Left
By: R.J. Moeller
Bill Maher: It’s Sarah Palin’s birthday today – do you have any special wishes for her?
[Sarcastic laughter and snickering from the audience and Real Time with Bill Maher panel]
Hooman Majd: I don’t think we can say it. Even on HBO.
Matthew Perry: Do you think she even understands that it’s her birthday?
[Raucous laughter from the audience, grins from the panel]
Bill Maher: I don’t. I think they said, ‘Sarah, it’s your birthday,’ and she thought her water broke.
[More approving laughter]
And thus began the “Ask the Panel” portion of the most recent episode of HBO’s political talk-show Real Time with Bill Maher. Straddling the same “It’s a comedy show when I want laughter and applause (or when I get in trouble for going too far), but I really want to subversively promote an ideological agenda the rest of the time” line that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert walk every night on Comedy Central, Real Time offers the hard-hitting analysis one can only find anywhere two or more liberals are gathered in President Obama’s name.
To say that the banter I printed above is childish and petty is a slight against all children and petty people everywhere.
But it’s a “comedy” show, dude. Why take it so seriously?
It is my belief that politically-involved public figures are who they really are when no one is voting – when elections are not imminent, politicians and pundits become increasingly loose-lipped.
I am a student of the culture, as we all should be, and I know (as we all do) that there is more than a hint of truth in any joke. More people under the age of 40 get their information about current events from fake news and political talk shows like Real Time and The Daily Show than anywhere else. The opinions offered on these mediums matter. It wasn’t my decision to make these shows and these comedians the gatekeepers of information in this country, but for (far too) many they are.
And I think it more than fair to say that after watching the clips I’ve included in this column, you will see that the smokescreen-like attempts by people on the Left to dismiss the importance of these shows simply because comedians host them is either misguided or purposely misleading. The Left want students and young adults to watch these shows and lap up the ideas and values streaming off their television and computer screens. They want parents to remain where (far too) many of them are: oblivious, out of the picture, and utterly disengaged from the ideological development of their child’s worldview.
Now, if a show like Maher’s Real Time or Stewart’s Daily Show simply had actors, actresses and entertainers on as their guests, they might be able to get away with the “We’re just joking around, bro” excuse. But the cavalcade of intellectuals, politicians, and influential members of the mainstream media that grace the sets of these shows reveals the deeper intent: they want to promote a specific, progressive, liberal-Democratic understanding of everything from foreign policy to the abortion debate.
Alright, enough with the (valid) generalizations. Let me show you what I mean when I say that not only are these types of shows actively pursuing the hearts and minds of as many Americans as they can, but that what you hear on such shows is typically how the guests and their host truly feel about the matter being discussed.
After bravely mocking Sarah Palin’s intellect, raising the level of civil discourse in this country by complaining that the Republican Party is merely the party of “insane people,” claiming that Abraham Lincoln would not be a Republican if he were alive today, and insisting that the French and Russian revolutions were each hijacked by “right-wingers,” Bill Maher opened a discussion with his panel of experts on the topic of Barack Obama’s personal and religious convictions:
So much to say about what you just saw, but let me quickly introduce the players involved in this little drama. First there is Bill Maher himself. Most of you are familiar with him, but for those who aren’t, all you need to know is that stand-up comedian Maher is an outspoken far-Left atheist who despises religion, Judeo-Christian morality, conservative politics, and not being able to use profanity and coarse sexual humor (which is why he had to leave network television for HBO).
Going from right to left on the panel you had MSNBC political correspondent Norah O’Donnell, Iranian-born author Hooman Majd, and Professor Cornel West of Princeton University. Oh, and next to Maher was, of course, actor Matthew Perry (aka Chandler, from Friends). O’Donnell works for MSNBC, so I’ll let you do the math on where she’s coming from politically. Mr. Majd writes books and articles for publications like The New York Times and Huffington Post, and loves playing the moral equivalency “they’re bad, but we’re not great either” game between the dictatorial regime in his native Iran and the republican democracy known as the United States of America.
Last, but certainly not least, is Professor Cornel West. A practicing Christian, and outspoken Socialist, West is an “expert” on racial issues in this country. He is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. This group’s founder, and someone West holds in high regard, Catholic-turned-atheist Michael Harrington, once explained the organization’s political ideology like this:
“Put it this way. Marx was a democrat with a small d. The Democratic Socialists envision a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning...and racial equality. I share an immediate program with liberals in this country because the best liberalism leads toward socialism.... I want to be on the left wing of the possible.”
Nice.
With the introductions out of the way, let’s tackle the actual words spoken – and valuable insights revealed – in the YouTube clip above.
Commenting on the president’s insistence that he is a “Centrist” politically, Maher said, “I think [Obama] is a Centrist the way he is a Christian…He’s pretending to be a Centrist.”
I applaud Mr. Maher for his candor in recognizing what any casual observer ought to clearly see in our president (and, to be fair, a large number of politicians): an unnatural comfort-level with presenting yourself as one thing, when you really you are nothing of the kind. To the issue of his politics, it is without a doubt true that the president often tries to cover up his true ideological leanings. We on the Right see right through this and are disappointed, both by the fact that he is a progressive liberal to begin with, and also by the fact that so many people buy the moderate rhetoric he has peppered throughout a decidedly far-Left political career.
As to his faith in God – no one can know another man’s heart, and it is not my place to speak to the nature of a personal relationship one has (or does not have) with their Maker. We generally take someone at their word about such matters.
But Bill Maher is insinuating what we all know to be true: actions speak louder than words. What about the president’s actions since taking office point to a real, energetic faith in God? We all knew George W. Bush was a Christian, in large part because the media never shut up about it. They mocked President Bush for being honest and direct about his prayer life and faith in Jesus Christ. With President Obama, in between the times it is convenient to reassure Americans that he is a Christian, the media goes out of its way to downplay the man’s faith.
The only way someone would know President Obama is a Christ-follower is if he or she has read either of his two memoirs. But those are the books that also tell us about the radical nature of the president’s political ideology and worldview, as well as his deep affection for (and connection to) people like Jeremiah Wright. If we’re supposed to look at the president’s own words about his own beliefs, we find an affinity for the Marxist rabble-rouser Saul Alinsky and his radicalizing manifesto Rules for Radicals (which Obama believed so much in that he took action and taught classes on the text to up-and-coming community organizers in Chicago for more than a decade).
Please hear me: I do not stand in judgment of President Obama’s heart. Only his actions. In this case, however, even Bill Maher can read through these lines.
The conversation continued:
Bill Maher: His mother was a secular-humanist, and I think he is too…It’s like when he (Obama) says ‘I struggle with the issue of gay marriage.’ You don’t struggle with it. You’re fine with it.
Professor West: He supports gay marriage, of course.
Maher: No, he says he struggles with it…that he doesn’t like it.
West: Yeah, but that’s the political answer…
[Panel concurs with knowing glances]
Hmm.
When a conservative or Republican, say, Rush Limbaugh, for example, attempts to analyze the president’s track-record and make pronouncements about his actual stance on the issues they are scoffed at and accused of having partisan blinders on. When one of the most respected liberal professors in the country comes to the same conclusion that Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity have about the president’s disingenuous position on the redefinition of marriage, it is affirmed as a fact that everyone ought to already know.
This, of course, says something less-than-favorable about President Obama’s character, but it also speaks to the minimal importance that modern liberalism puts on the subject of character and integrity in its leaders. Neither Right nor Left, Republicans nor Democrats, hold the moral high ground in the sense that one side or the other are literally “better” people. We’re all sinners. But the comfort-level that the Left has with morally-questionable (or out-right immoral) behavior on the part of their leaders is worth noting.
To the majority of Americans, traditional marriage is held up and recognized as a sacred institution – the building block of society. It is a massively important issue. In order to garner votes in 2008, the president and vice president claimed to be on the side of history, biology, 6,000 years of religious teaching, and the will of the American people when it came to keeping marriage one man-one woman. But again I ask: what actions have these men taken to solidify and strengthen the institution of marriage? Heck, what words have we heard from either of them in 2 years on the matter (other than their enthusiastic support for the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy)? With a heavy heart, I must admit that I think Professor West speaks the truth in this matter.
Admittedly, one episode of Bill Maher’s show is not a comprehensive or exhaustive representation of all Center-Left thought – but it is a fair one. It is fair because it is common. You can hear such things any night of the week on everything from The Daily Show to The Rachel Maddow Show to TBS re-runs of The Steve Harvey Show.
If you only get your news and information about politicians and the issues they represent from skimming newspaper headlines or Katie Couric’s nightly reports on CBS, you will assume that Maher and his panel are joking. With even a minimal effort to investigate the people you lend power to, and the issues that are impacting your jobs, schools, and families, you will learn that the joke has only been on you. (And that the Left has been laughing us all the way to Western Europe for 40 years.)
It is said that a nation gets the leaders it deserves. If West and Maher are correct in their appraisals of President Obama, what does that say about us?
To VAT, or not to VAT…
The Value-Added Tax (or VAT) is some expert's solution to our national budgetary and fiscal woes. Here's a pithy description of what the term "VAT" even means, as well of some its immediate implications for society:
A VAT, used in 100 countries around the world, is essentially a sales tax but one collected at every stage of production.
Take bread, for instance.
“When the farmer grows the wheat, sells it to the baker, there's value-added tax on that. When the baker makes something and sells it to the grocery store, there's value-added tax. When the grocery store sells it to the individual, there's value-added tax,” said William Gale of the Brookings Institution.
But a VAT is regressive, meaning the poor and the wealthy pay the same tax on every product, which is why liberal analysts say a VAT would have to be on top of the current income tax.
“You would not want the value-added tax to replace the income tax. If you did that you would have huge tax increases on middle income people and on the working poor and massive tax cuts for the richest people in the country, ” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
But others say adding VAT on top of the income tax, rather than replacing the income tax with it would make the total tax burden far too great and put a dent in economic growth.
“You don’t want a value added tax on top of the income tax otherwise the total tax bite of the government is huge. You'll have individuals who are paying tax rates on their income of 25 and 28 and 30 percent and then going to the grocery store and paying a 20 percent tax on whatever money's left over,” said Brian Reidl, lead budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Many impressive writers/thinkers of our day have weighed in on the matter. George Will, of The Washington Post, and Robert Samuelson, writing in Newsweek, are two worthy examples. Both men foresee a necessary national dialogue regarding the appropriate (and desired...and Constitutionally-allotted) size of government that MUST occur before we take drastic measures to fix the mess we're most certainly in. 
Will adds:
When liberals advocate a value-added tax, conservatives should respond: Taxing consumption has merits, so we will consider it -- after the 16th Amendment is repealed.
A VAT will be rationalized as necessary to restore fiscal equilibrium. But without ending the income tax, a VAT would be just a gargantuan instrument for further subjugating Americans to government...
Money is time made tangible -- the time invested in the earning of it. Taxation is the confiscation of the earner's time. Although some taxation is necessary, all taxation diminishes freedom.
Adding a VAT without subtracting the income tax would constrict Americans' freedom much more than the health care legislation does. Because the 16th Amendment will not be repealed, adoption of a VAT would proclaim the impossibility of serious spending reductions, and hence would be the obituary for the Founders' vision of limited government.
I doubt I could agree more. 
Samuelson, with whom I often disagree, hits the nail on the head as well this time out:
The value-added tax has become the designated panacea for massive federal budget deficits. It's touted by think-tank economists and mentioned by congressional leaders. A VAT could, it's said, raise stupendous amounts of money, which, Lord knows, are needed to cover projected deficits. A VAT is likened to a "national sales tax," so once in place, most Americans would barely notice it -- just as they barely notice state and local sales taxes. How's that for friendly politics? A VAT would also discourage consumption and encourage saving and investment, making America richer in the future. What's not to like?...
The basic budget problem is simple. For decades, the expansion of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- programs mostly for the elderly -- was financed mainly by shrinking defense spending. In 1970, defense accounted for 42 percent of the federal budget; Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were 20 percent. By 2008, the shares were reversed: defense, 21 percent; the big retirement programs, 43 percent. But defense stopped falling after Sept. 11, 2001, while aging baby boomers and uncontrolled health costs keep retirement spending rising.
Left alone, government would grow larger. From 1970 to 2009, federal spending averaged 20.7 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). By 2020, it could reach 25.2 percent of GDP and would still be expanding, reckons the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of President Obama's budgets. In 2020, the deficit (assuming a healthy economy with 5 percent unemployment) would be 5.6 percent of GDP. To cover that, taxes would have to rise almost 30 percent.
A VAT could not painlessly fill this void. Applied to all consumption spending -- about 70 percent of GDP -- the required VAT rate would equal about 8 percent. But the actual increase might be closer to 16 percent because there would be huge pressures to exempt groceries, rent and housing, health care, education and charitable groups. Together, they account for nearly half of $10 trillion of consumer spending. There would also be other upward (and more technical) pressures on the VAT rate.
Does anyone believe that Americans wouldn't notice 16 percent price increases for cars, televisions, airfares, gasoline -- and much more -- even if phased in? As for a VAT's claimed benefits (simplicity, promotion of investment), these depend mainly on a VAT replacing the present complex income tax that discriminates against investment. That's unlikely because it would require implausibly steep VAT rates. Chances are we'd pay both the income tax and the VAT, making the overall tax system more complicated.
The reality is this: we have some tough decisions ahead of us in this country. We've been putting them off for too long, and allowing our emotions to be manipulated by people and policies that count on Americans NOT knowing the facts and the options.
Don't let our leaders sell you a bill of goods (i.e. "Taxing the rich will solve everything", or "Big Brother will always be able to bail you out"). It is because of a pervasive lack of personal responsibility and fiscal discipline, at every level of the government, and in far too many homes and businesses, that we are where we are today.
There is no quick fix. There is no free lunch.
Obamacare Is A Loser
You simply cannot explain the scope and breadth of the Obamacare debacle in one column...unless your last name is Krauthammer.
As an aspiring writer and commentator, I spend a great deal of time reading the books and articles and speeches of the people I feel effectively communicate the ideas I believe in better than anyone else.
Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and Fox News Channel is one of those people.
Every night of the week, at roughly 6:40 p.m. (Eastern Time), Dr. Krauthammer is a member of the "All-Star Panel" on Special Report With Brett Baier. (You should be watching or DVR-ing this every day). And each Friday, his nationally syndicated column is read in newspapers all across the country.
Today he treated his reading audience to this gem on the current state of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama health care plan:
After 34 speeches, three sharp electoral rebukes (Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts) and a seven-hour seminar, the president announced Wednesday his determination to make one last push to pass his health care reform.
The final act was carefully choreographed. The rollout began a week earlier with a couple of shows of bipartisanship: a Feb. 25 Blair House "summit" with Republicans, followed five days later with a few concessions tossed the Republicans' way.
Show is the operative noun. Among the few Republican suggestions President Obama pretended to incorporate was tort reform. What did he suggest to address the plague of defensive medicine that a Massachusetts Medical Society study showed leads to about 25 percent of doctor referrals, tests and procedures being done for no medical reason? A few ridiculously insignificant demonstration projects amounting to one-half of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the cost of Obama's health care bill.
The Health Care Summit last week was a dog-and-pony show, meant to portray the Republicans as obstructionists and big old meanies. But the president was confronted by the likes of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), and the fact-based disagreements conservatives have with Obama's brand of "reform." Republicans DO have ideas, and many key members of the GOP on the state and national level have been promoting them all year.
Unfortunately for Democrats, that seven-hour televised exercise had the unintended consequence of showing the Republicans to be not only highly informed on the subject, but also, as even Obama was forced to admit, possessed of principled objections -- contradicting the ubiquitous Democratic/media meme that Republican opposition was nothing but nihilistic partisanship.
Republicans did so well, in fact, that in his summation, Obama was reduced to suggesting that his health care reform was indeed popular because when you ask people about individual items (for example, eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions or capping individual out-of-pocket payments) they are in favor.
Yet mystifyingly they oppose the whole package. How can that be?
And now, in what can only be described as the most brilliant summation of the American peoples' opposition to Obamacare, please enjoy the wit and wisdom of Charles Krauthammer in its rarest of forms:
Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: A dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.
However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed -- say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak was to be cooked. How do you think this would poll?
Perhaps something like 3-1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry's feeling about the current Democratic health care bills.
Late last year, Democrats were marveling at how close they were to historic health care reform, noting how much agreement had been achieved among so many factions. The only remaining detail was how to pay for it.
Well, yes. That has generally been the problem with democratic governance: cost. The disagreeable absence of a free lunch.
That's it, folks. Everything the Left promises sounds nice on an individual level, which is how they present their collectivist policies. The problem is, of course, that all of their policies are implemented on a national level and cannot possibly succeed. This is the heart of the debate between Right and Left: can the few rule, and provide for, the many? Can "experts" in Washington "control" the expenses and costs of 300 million-plus liberty-loving Americans?
The good intentions of liberals are heart-warming and bone-chilling, all at the same time.
Chuck closes out his devastatingly informative column with the following:
The time for debate is over, declared the nation's seminar leader in chief. The man who vowed to undo Washington's wicked ways has directed the Congress to ram Obamacare through, by one vote if necessary, under the parliamentary device of "budget reconciliation." The man who ran as a post-partisan is determined to remake a sixth of the U.S. economy despite the absence of support from a single Republican in either house, the first time anything of this size and scope has been enacted by pure party-line vote.
Surprised? You can only be disillusioned if you were once illusioned.
Responsibility is for losers
Greece is bankrupt and counting on Germany to bail them out. Sound familiar? The United States is moving closer to European-style socialism with every government annexation of power. THIS is why something like the health care debate matters.
Mark Steyn, writing for National Review Online, breaks down the broken-down economy (and collective mentality) of the Greeks.
While Barack Obama was making his latest pitch for a brand-new, even-more-unsustainable entitlement at the health-care “summit,” thousands of Greeks took to the streets to riot. An enterprising cable network might have shown the two scenes on a continuous split-screen — because they’re part of the same story. It’s just that Greece is a little further along in the plot: They’re at the point where the canoe is about to plunge over the falls. America is farther upstream and can still pull for shore, but has decided instead that what it needs to do is catch up with the Greek canoe. Chapter One (the introduction of unsustainable entitlements) leads eventually to Chapter Twenty (total societal collapse): The Greeks are at Chapter Seventeen or Eighteen.
He continues:
We hard-hearted small-government guys are often damned as selfish types who care nothing for the general welfare. But, as the Greek protests make plain, nothing makes an individual more selfish than the socially equitable communitarianism of big government: Once a chap’s enjoying the fruits of government health care, government-paid vacation, government-funded early retirement, and all the rest, he couldn’t give a hoot about the general societal interest; he’s got his, and to hell with everyone else. People’s sense of entitlement endures long after the entitlement has ceased to make sense.
Read the rest of his latest column here, and ask yourself this: "What worth having in this life does not come with sacrifice?" There really is no such thing as a free lunch, and we're going to have to make the tough, unpopular decisions if we want to preserve economic, personal, political, and religious liberty.
What are you willing to do for those things?
Steyn closes his piece with a wake-up call to those who think "It can't happen here."
Think of Greece as California: Every year an irresponsible and corrupt bureaucracy awards itself higher pay and better benefits paid for by an ever-shrinking wealth-generating class. And think of Germany as one of the less profligate, still-just-about-functioning corners of America such as my own state of New Hampshire: Responsibility doesn’t pay. You’ll wind up bailing out anyway.
The problem is there are never enough of “the rich” to fund the entitlement state, because in the end it disincentivizes everything from wealth creation to self-reliance to the basic survival instinct, as represented by the fertility rate. In Greece, they’ve run out Greeks, so they’ll stick it to the Germans, like French farmers do. In Germany, the Germans have only been able to afford to subsidize French farming because they stick their defense tab to the Americans. And in America, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are saying we need to paddle faster to catch up with the Greeks and Germans.
What could go wrong?
Health Care Summit = Joke
President Obama and the Democrats have been trying for a year to get their brand of health care "reform" passed. They had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, yet nothing happened. The American people have shown up at town hall meetings, called and emailed their representatives, and the people of the most liberal state in the Union (Massachusetts) turned out in droves to vote for a Republican whose sole campaign promise was to vote against the president's health care package.
Today he is holding what seems to be his 54th "summit", this time on health care. Liberals love talking about things when they could have just been doing them. But why pass up a chance to try and make the Republicans look like the overly-used cliche "Party of No"? Why pass up an opportunity for a photo-op that makes un-informed Americans think you are really trying to reach across the aisle?
This is all you need to know about the White House's true intentions:
From Politico.com
After a brief period of consultation following the White House health reform summit, congressional Democrats plan to begin making the case next week for a massive, Democrats-only health care plan, party strategists told POLITICO.
A Democratic official said the six-hour summit was expected to “give a face to gridlock, in the form of House and Senate Republicans.”
Democrats plan to begin rhetorical, and perhaps legislative, steps toward the Democrats-only, or reconciliation, process early next week, the strategists said.
After the summit, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid planned to take the temperature of their caucuses.
“The point [of the summit] is to alter the political atmospherics, and it will take a day or two to sense if it succeeded,” the official said.
"We're going to have a health care summit to look like we're listening to the people, but you can go jump off a bridge for all we care America 'cause we're not really listening anyway.
You republicans never listen...and oh, btw, we're not listening to what you say in this meeting we called to show how much more we listen to our political enemies than you. Meanies!"
Wait until you get home tonight and watch how ill-tempered President Obama was with Republicans like John McCain (AZ) and Eric Cantor (WI).
I smell another Beer Summit to mend some fences!
This is the Left's attempt to give the federal government control over health care permanently, and create a new and eternal entitlement. The president has said so himself, in his own words. It is about ideology (progressivism) and it is about politics (buying voters). It stands against everything the Founders envisioned.
RJ's Social Network
Read RJ’s Columns/Blogs
What is “Mere Conservatism”?
Video of RJ
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
Books You Need to Read
Wall Street Journal
Blogroll
- Acton Power Blog
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Black and Red
- Conservative Daily Blog
- Dad's blog
- Dennis Prager (The Master)
- Desiring God (John Piper)
- Doug Giles (Clash Radio)
- Education News
- Hugh Hewitt
- Jihad Watch
- Mere Orthodoxy
- Michael Medved
- Milton Friedman
- Mom's blog
- My LOST blog
- Only Good Movies
- Patriots Corner
- Remnant Culture
- Shot In The Dark
- Stiletto Blog
- Subscribe via RSS
- The Straight Hype
- Twitter Me
Columnists You Need to Read
- Ann Coulter
- Charles Krauthammer
- Christopher Hitchens
- George Will
- Jonah Goldberg
- Karl Rove
- Mark Steyn
- Marvin Olasky
- Thomas Sowell
- Tony Blankley
- Walter E. Williams
Music/Entertainment
News/Politics
- Drudge Report
- Fact Check
- Fox News
- Hot Air
- Jerusalem Post
- National Review
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Washington Times
- Weekly Standard