Celebrate Freedom – Friedman Style!

by Jon Caldara | 10:59 am, July 23, 2009

July 31, 2009 would have been Milton Friedman’s 97th birthday. Now, more than ever, we need his vision. To honor the impact he has had on our society, and to help clarify his moral framework for freedom and free enterprise, we will celebrate the Friedman Legacy for Freedom in partnership with the Friedman Foundation for [...]

Michael Bennet Gutsy on Gun Rights – If He Has Permission

by admin | 10:51 am, July 23, 2009

Dana Milbank reports on The Washington Post blog that Michael Bennet was ready to vote against the recent bill that would have allowed individuals to carry guns across state lines. Bennet only voted in favor of it after getting permission from Chuck Schumer and being reassured that his vote would not result in passage of the bill:

The slim margin was no accident: Other Democrats, such as Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey and Colorado’s Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, were said to have been willing to vote "no" if necessary. Twenty minutes after the voting began, Bennet and Udall left the cloakroom together and walked into the chamber. Bennet went to the well to consult with Schumer, who indicated that it was safe for Bennet — a product of D.C.’s St. Albans School — to vote with the NRA. Bennet looked to Udall, who gave an approving nod, and cast his "aye" vote.

 

Diana DeGette’s response to my letter asking her to suport Auditing the Fed

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 9:16 am, July 23, 2009

From Diana DeGette, U.S. Rep, Colorado District 1:

Dear David:

Thank you for contacting me about the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. I appreciate learning your views on this legislation.

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 was introduced by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) on February 26, 2009. An identical bill was introduced in the Senate on March 16, 2009, by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). As you may know, this legislation removes all restrictions surrounding audits of the Federal Reserve and requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to perform an audit of the Federal Reserve before 2010. The Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology held a hearing entitled “Regulatory Restructuring: Balancing the Independence of the Federal Reserve in Monetary Policy with Systemic Risk Regulation” on July 9, 2009, and the issues raised in this bill were discussed during that time.

This bill raises important issues that should be examined very carefully. Any power resting within the Federal Reserve should be subject to appropriate checks and balances. If the historic independence of the Federal Reserve begins to change with continued involvement of Congress, and the Federal Reserve gains additional permanent authority, such as being the primary regulator of systemic risk, then the auditing of the Federal Reserve should be equal to the task. However, it is important to recognize that the Federal Reserve is already subject to considerable auditing with most of its activities already examined by the GAO resulting in numerous reports being provided to Congress last year. Because the powers, credibility, and independence of the Federal Reserve are the subject of considerable debate, and because Congress should act clearly and decisively on this issue, it is my belief that this and other significant global financial issues should be considered at the same time Congress drafts the comprehensive financial regulator reform legislation being considered this year.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me about providing additional transparency at the Federal Reserve. Please feel free to visit my website at www.degette.house.gov. There you can sign-up for my e-mail newsletter and stay up-to-date with other events in Congress.

Sincerely,

Diana DeGette
Member of Congress

Keep Up the Good Fight for Health Care Freedom and Fiscal Sanity

by Ben DeGrow | 8:27 am, July 23, 2009

Update: Michael at Best Destiny also has a great take on last night’s Obama press conference — “Color me unimpressed.”
President Obama’s press conference last night didn’t exactly bowl them over. With the plummeting support for the government health care Trojan horse plan before Congress, it will be interesting to see if last night moves the [...]

Come Join Us Rally Against Government Run Health Care

by Jon Caldara | 1:57 pm, July 22, 2009

The Independence Institute and American’s for Prosperity invite you to attend a rally against government controlled health care….
Tuesday, July 28, 200911:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Colorado State Capitol – West side
200 E. Colfax Avenue
Denver, CO
Hands Off My Healthcare:
Lobbyists, unions, and politicians in Washington are trying to seize control of our health care. Patients like us have [...]

Not All Republicans Are Clueless About New Media–Taking Aim At Gov. Ritter On Waxman-Markey

by elpresidente | 12:16 pm, July 22, 2009

**Update–ColoradoPols is impressed:

We have to admit we were also impressed with the speed Sen. Jim Imhofe’s office had this video packaged and distributed through a wide viral network–all the way down to our own community talking-point beacons. Clearly they’re getting better at this. The problem is that, as the Post’s Lynn Bartels correctly points out, what these guys are claiming Ritter said…isn’t what he said at all. In fact, reading what Ritter actually said makes what the Republicans claim he said look, well, spun beyond recognition.

Of course Ritter never answered the question, so exactly who is spinning?

---

For many of us outside the Beltway, the perception (and the reality) is that the “insiders” on the Hill don’t get new media, blogging, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. For every rule, however, there is an exception, and in this instance a very good example of how Republicans can use new media to challenge Democrats on any number of issues, including our own Gov. Bill Ritter on his support for the Waxman-Markey bill–from Lynn Bartels at the Denver Post (apologies for a lack of link earlier):

A Republican activist who heckled Democratic Senate candidate Tom Strickland during his 2002 run helped highlight the questions that made Gov. Bill Ritter squirm at a hearing this week in Washington.

Matt Dempsey, 30, is the communications director for Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which Ritter testified before on Tuesday.

In 2002, Dempsey worked for U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard’s re-election campaign, often hollering out anti-Strickland slogans through a bullhorn at various political events. Dempsey’s arrest just 10 days before the election went all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, Dempsey laughed when asked if he had a role in the Ritter hearing.

“Well, a little,” he said, adding, “But I don’t use a bullhorn anymore.”

Now Dempsey has YouTube, a blog linked numerous times by Drudge, and a national audience.

Releasing video and digital press releases to blogs as-it-happens and not waiting for the MSM to garble the story is the best way to move the message on offense, instead of always playing catch-up, and Dempsey has proven that this new model works:

Dempsey also released an exchange between Ritter and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., over the bill, known as Waxman-Markey, after its Democratic sponsors.

Critics say the bill is a tax increase, and in Colorado it would cripple oil shale development and increase costs for farmers.

With that in mind, Inhofe asked of Ritter, “Are you here supporting Waxman-Markey today?”

“I support a national energy policy that’s married to a national climate policy that gets at these goals that we have for greenhouse gas reductions,” the governor said. “And I believe that if you do that, that there will some vehicle that may not look exactly like Waxman-Markey, particularly after the Senate finishes its work.

“But I very much support climate legislation that is joined with a national energy policy to get us to the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that are set for 2050.”

Republicans have had success employing “new media,” including YouTube, the Senate website and a blog.

The headline over the Denver Post story Wednesday read “Ritter attracts negative energy in D.C. hearing.”

“We got our message across,” Demsey [sic] said.

The video of the exchange quickly made the rounds on the blogs, including Michelle Malkin:

Say No To Federal Regulations On Hydraulic Fracturing

by elpresidente | 11:28 am, July 22, 2009

From geologist Isaac Smith: Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracing,” is the process of using high pressure fluids to crack rock formations thousands of feet below the surface in order to retrieve a greater amount of oil and gas resources than would otherwise be recovered. This process has been used to enhance production of hydrocarbons [...]

Bill Ritter Tapdances Away from Cap and Tax: No Memo to Betsy Markey?

by Ben DeGrow | 8:26 am, July 22, 2009

Our “new energy economy” Governor Bill Ritter went before a Senate committee and tapdanced his way around the question of whether he supports the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill. (Yes, I’m late to the story. Yes, I’m hopping on the bandwagon. Yesterday was an important personal day away from blogging, but with a story like this one, [...]

Health Insurance Reminder – Get Some

by wesley | 7:13 am, July 22, 2009

As Obama tours the country trying to scare you about his Health Care CRISIS, let’s remember that not all of his 40+ million statistically uninsured victims (of those evil multinational insurance companies) are sick little children or single moms. Some *gasp* choose not to have insurance. I know many of you Progressives out there would [...]

A tax to wipe your ass?

by Rossputin | 3:40 am, July 22, 2009

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTY4NTQyMjJjN2NjZTgxMDhkOTkwN2YyNTIxNzEzNDU

Small business and ObamaCare

by Rossputin | 1:34 am, July 22, 2009

My friend Rusty had the following letter (or something extremely similar to it) published in the Boulder Daily Camera. It’s an interesting companion to the letter Congressman Jared Polis wrote to Nancy Pelosi the other day…

A new McClatchy-Ipsos poll released Wednesday found Americans torn over several key questions regarding the health-care debate. One question about which there was strong consensus is that, by a 91-8 margin, Americans support tax breaks to small businesses to help them provide health insurance for their employees. That is all well and good. However, unlike the “tax-breaks” given to low-income earners (more accurately, welfare in the form of tax ‘refunds’ to people who do not pay taxes), a small business must have a certain level of profits (that is taking in more than you spend, to those of you who majored in ethnic studies) before it will benefit from ‘tax breaks’.

Many small businesses are struggling to hold on. Depending on the specifics of course, requiring a business to provide health insurance for all employees (including part-timers) and penalizing them if they do not, may well make the difference as to whether or not they can afford to retain some staff. In fact, it may well make the difference between a business owner being able to hold on or choosing to give it up and become a ward of the welfare state that our country is becoming.

Please contact your congress people and stand up for small business. Your job may be the one you save.

Sincerely,

Rusty S.

Bureaucrats get the best value for themselves, not you

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, July 22, 2009

In defense of government rationing of medical care, philosopher Peter Singer writes:
The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated. It is the familiar comparative exercise of getting the most bang for your buck.
Indeed. Bureaucrats will get the best value for themselves with our [...]

Hope and Change in Harry Potter

by Ari Armstrong | 12:13 am, July 22, 2009

The following article originally was published by the July 22, 2009, Denver Daily News. It is also available through the Independence Institute website.

Hope and change in Harry Potter

by Ari Armstrong

With Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince breaking movie records, now is a great time to review the political themes of the series.

In the fifth book, Order of the Phoenix, the students of Hogwarts rebel against the Ministry of Magic’s unjust exertion of power over the school.

In the final book, Deathly Hallows, the Ministry falls under the control of the evil Lord Voldemort. The fallen government censors the press, brutalizes wizards and Muggles (non-magical people) alike, and persecutes wizards born to the “wrong” parents through the Muggle-Born Registration Commission, echoing the vicious evils of the Nazi era. The Potter series thus features strong anti-totalitarian themes.

Between those two books rests Half-Blood Prince, which tones down the politics in favor of romance and backstory. Yet politics flows in the undercurrents.

In one important scene in the book (that unfortunately didn’t make it into the film), the Minister of Magic visits Harry and tries to get him to feign support for the Ministry in order to comfort people.

The Minister says, “It’s all perception, isn’t it? It’s what people believe that’s important.” He continues, “You are a symbol of hope for many, Harry. The idea that there is somebody out there who might be able… to destroy [Voldemort]… gives people a lift.” The Minister urges Harry to “stand alongside the Ministry, and give everyone a boost.”

The Minister asks Harry to pop “in and out of the Ministry” to “give the right impression.” He offers Harry a payoff in the form of help getting a job. The Minister says, “It’s all about giving people hope, the feeling that exciting things are happening.”

Harry realizes that misguided “hope” isn’t worth much. He retorts, “I don’t like some of the things the Ministry’s doing. Locking up Stan Shunpike [who is known to be innocent], for instance… You’re making Stan a scapegoat, just like you want to make me a mascot.”

The Minister condescends, “These are dangerous times, and certain measures need to be taken. You are sixteen years old…” In other words, shut up and do what you’re told.

Half-Blood Prince was published in 2005. Four years later, I certainly have the feeling that exciting things are happening here in America. In the name of hope we are offered astronomically expensive new programs that forcibly transfer more wealth from some citizens to others and expand political control over our lives.

These are dangerous times, at least for economic prosperity, and “certain measures need to be taken.” What measures? Not even those voting on the bills quite know. It’s about perception, giving people a lift, not long-term consequences. At least the rivers of political payola are flowing.

I don’t want to pretend that J. K. Rowling, author of the novels, would agree with any of my particular political views. Still, the Minister’s words remind me of a lot of what I’m hearing from American politicians these days.

When Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, said politicians should “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” what is that besides putting the politics of perception above the truth?

Vice President Joe Biden said, “We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation. Now when I say that people look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we got to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes, I’m telling you.”

The claim that the way to avoid bankruptcy is to rack up insane deficits insults the intelligence of every American family that has ever made a budget. Ah, but “certain measures need to be taken.” And we are as children, awaiting the guidance of our political guardians.

I don’t like some of the things our government is doing. All the hope in the world cannot compensate for misguided and unjust policies.

Ari Armstrong, a guest writer for the Independence Institute, is the author of Values of Harry Potter and the publisher of FreeColorado.com.

Health Care Plea

by infinity3 | 10:11 pm, July 21, 2009

When I was a kid, I never thought I would have to write my congressmen to fight for my humanity in the United States. I sent the following letter to Diana Degette. I don’t know if they read these or a staffer just hits delete, delete, delete. Politics …

Why I want Socialized Medicine

by Joss Armstrong | 6:23 pm, July 21, 2009

Healthcare is a RIGHT.  I have a RIGHT to healthcare, dammit. What a relief it would be to know that life-saving services would be available to my daughter whenever she needed them. I could walk into any E.R. for treatment of myself and my daughter, much as I do now, but I wouldn’t be hit [...]

God Wants Political Takeover of Medicine

by Ari Armstrong | 4:31 pm, July 21, 2009

God wants Congress to take over medicine, at least according to the Colorado Catholic Conference (CCC).

In an “action alert,” the CCC today called for legislatively guaranteed “health care coverage for all people from conception until natural death.” (The CCC wants “inclusion for legal immigrants,” so apparently illegal immigrants would not have access to tax-funded health care under the organization’s desired system.)

Even though the CCC wants to use the force of the federal government to compel some people to finance the health care of others’ fertilized eggs, the organization wants to forbid forced funding of abortion. The CCC calls on Catholics to demand federal politicians to “continue federal ban on funding for abortions and reject any mandate for abortion coverage or access to abortion.”

There is no mention of whether the CCC favors tax funding of contraception, which Catholics regard as sinful.

The CCC also likewise endorses “including freedom of conscience for providers, health care workers and patients.” For health care workers, presumably this means that tax-funded doctors and other health care providers may be free not to offer abortion and contraception to patients. Does it also mean that women should be left free to decide whether to get an abortion? (Somehow I doubt that is the CCC’s intended meaning.)

Once force guides the process, such decisions will be determined by mob rule and bureaucratic influence. Whether politically-controlled medicine subsidizes or forbids things like abortion and contraception will necessarily become fundamentally a political matter.

The CCC made clear that, in its view, politically-controlled medicine is demanded by God’s teachings in the Bible:

Catholic Social Teaching and Health Care: In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person lives. Instead, every person, created in the image and likeness of God, has a right to life and to those things necessary to sustain life, including affordable, quality health care. This teaching is rooted in the biblical call to heal the sick and to serve “the least of these,” our concern for human life and dignity, and the principle of the common good. Unfortunately, tens of millions of Americans do not have health insurance. According to the Catholic bishops of the United States, the current health care system is in need of fundamental reform. To learn about Catholic teaching on health care in more detail, read the full statement by the United States Catholic Bishops, A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform, at usccb.org/sdwp/national/comphealth.shtml

For excellent essays on why health care is not a right and why politically-run medicine is a disaster, see Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

For why the United States ought not impose religious faith by force of law, see the First Amendment and the material at the Coalition for Secular Government.

Will You Fight?

by Joss Armstrong | 1:37 pm, July 21, 2009

There’s a lot of  folks out there right now who are awfully unhappy with the state of things.  The entire Tea Party phenomenon, if taken in its historical context, indicates a populace issuing a warning against their government.   A populace on the brink of revolution.  Props to Jason Talley for tweeting this. Violent revolution. Now, [...]

Broken Window Fallacies

by TJ Wihera | 1:36 pm, July 21, 2009

Parts of the Metro Area got rocked last night by a wicked hail storm. When I arrived at the office in Lakewood, I found broken windows, broken windshields, and destroyed trees. Certainly, the next few days will be very good days for those who sell glass and dispose of tree limbs. But as Bastiat pointed [...]

Milton Friedman Remembered: Friedman Legacy For Freedom Lunch

by elpresidente | 12:32 pm, July 21, 2009

FYI:

The Independence Institute invites you to celebrate the legacy and ideas of Milton Friedman with us at lunch July 31, 2009, on what would have been his 97th birthday. We are proud to present Dr. Barry Poulson, Professor of Economics at the University of Colorado and Senior Fellow at Independence, as our guest speaker. To honor the impact Friedman has had on our society, and to help clarify his moral framework for freedom and free enterprise, we will celebrate the Friedman Legacy for Freedom in partnership with the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Space is limited, so reservations will be made on a first come, first serve basis. Please RSVP to Mary at 303-279-6536.

Date: Friday, July 31, 2009
Time: 12:00pm – 1:30pm
Location: The Irish Snug
Street: 1201 E. Colfax
City/Town: Denver, CO
Cost: Free!

Costly Green Jobs–The Pueblo Example; Gov. Ritter Refuses To Endorse Waxman-Markey

by elpresidente | 11:30 am, July 21, 2009

In Pueblo, Colorado 450 new “green” jobs cost $32 million, or around $71,000 per job:

Here is the poster used in the video above:

---

During today’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, Gov Bill Ritter refused to endorse the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade global warming bill recently passed through the House of Representatives:

From Sen. Inhofe:

“Based on the widespread public backlash against the Waxman-Markey bill, I am not surprised that Gov. Ritter refused to endorse the bill,” Sen. Inhofe said. “And if you read the testimony of the majority witnesses, Waxman-Markey is nowhere to be found. That’s because this bill is the largest tax increase in American history, and they want nothing to do with it.”

Full text of Ritter’s prepared statement. Face the State has a recap of the day’s testimony.

Dave Kopel on Sotomayor

by Jon Caldara | 11:05 am, July 21, 2009

What does the Senate Judiciary Committee do when they need expert testimony on a Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor? They ask Dave Kopel, duh. Dave’s legal mind is unmatched when it comes to second amendment issues, and disregarding his thoughts on this nominee would be like brushing aside MacGyver’s suggestions during a life [...]

Politics and GM: So much for no “pattern”

by Rossputin | 1:32 am, July 21, 2009

In June, when Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) used his position to arm-twist GM into keeping open a distribution center in his district that was scheduled to be closed. Frank’s response to criticism was “I don’t think this will lead to a pattern.”

And, as The Hill magazine noted at the time, “Obama repeated Tuesday that his administration has no interest in running GM…”

Last Thursday, the Congress passed an appropriations bill which includes a measure essentially forcing General Motors and Chrysler to put terminated dealerships back in business.

Here’s the specific language from page 137 of the bill:

SEC. 745. (a) None of the funds made available in this or any other Act may be used to obtain a financial or ownership interest (or right to acquire such an interest) in an automobile manufacturer that deprives an auto5
mobile dealer of its economic rights under a dealer agreement and does not assume (or assign to a successor in interest) each dealer agreement which is valid and in existence (and has not been lawfully terminated under applicable State law) before the date of the commencement of a case under title 11 of the United States Code by such automobile manufacturer.

      (b) Any automobile manufacturer with respect to which the Federal Government has a financial or ownership interest (or right to acquire such an interest) shall, to the extent that a valid dealer agreement existing immediately before the date of the commencement of a case under title 11 of the United States Code by such automobile manufacturer is not assumed by or assigned to another automobile manufacturer, require any new entity created in such case to enter into a new dealer agreement with the dealer whose agreement was not so assumed or assigned, and on the same terms as existed immediately before such date.

Now I was part of the vast right-wing conspiracy which believed and believes that not all may have been Kosher in the selection of which dealerships were targeted for termination. And to the extent that the government interfered in that process, something we probably won’t learn for years if it happens to be true, there is some justification for government un-screwing-it-up. But we don’t know that government was involved in the dealer closure selection process and therefore the interference in GM’s business now can’t be justified. Yes, the government is GM’s largest shareholder – and that’s precisely the problem. GM will be reticent to fight back even if all was on the up-and-up in the dealer closure selection process and even if Congress’ action is bad for the government’s investment.

[The Wall Street Journal had an interesting Op-Ed on Saturday describing some specific effects of government meddling and how damaging it is likely to be to taxpayers. See “Will Small Be Beautiful for GM?“, WSJ, 7/18/09]

It’s far from clear that the provision will get through the Senate, but the House’s action is just the latest indication of the risks of government being in bed business. As Dick Armey says, “If you make a deal with the Devil, you are the junior partner.” Or, as I heard someone on CBNC say on Friday, government collaborates with business in the same way an alligator collaborates with a duck.

Senators Not Rushing to Sign Up for National Health Care Plan (For Themselves)

by Derec | 5:03 pm, July 20, 2009

The Wall Street Journal ran a piece about the recent Senate Health Committee debates on health care reform.  Senator Tom Coburn introduced an amendment, after his bill was squashed, to require all congresspeople and their staffs to enroll and take part in any national heath care system.  Remarkably, this improved and more efficient vehicle for [...]

“Let Them Eat Cake” part 2 – Denver Post editorial board wants you to shut up and take it on car tax, late fees

by The Peripatetic Pundit | 4:32 pm, July 20, 2009

“Sure, new late fees for auto registration are steep, but threats that result in extra security are out of line. Just pay your bill.”  So sayeth the Denver Post, in an editorial published Saturday (July 18th). Following on the heels of last Saturday’s suck-up to Governor Ritter’s “compromise” proposal,  the Denver Post editorial board has [...]

Time off isn’t time off

by Mr. Bob | 3:27 pm, July 20, 2009

Won’t be blogging much this week. I am working for the Navy on my annual training doing lots of manual labor instead of multi-tasking in front of a computer all day.

For my loyal readers (both of you) I recommend the following blogs.

Local Colorado and National coverage; The People’s Press Collective and the Rocky Mountain Alliance.

For National coverage, my favorite right now is Rick Moore at HolyCoast.com

J.J. Ament’s Entry Makes Two in Colorado GOP Treasurer’s Race

by Ben DeGrow | 1:15 pm, July 20, 2009

Rocky Mountain Right has the scoop: J.J. Ament today officially has thrown his hat into the ring as a Republican candidate for Colorado state treasurer. I took a few minutes a little while ago to chat with the newly-minted candidate himself.
J.J. Ament stressed his “hands-on experience” in previous dealings with the treasurer’s office, that he [...]

DeMint’s Health Handouts Violate Liberty

by Ari Armstrong | 10:12 am, July 20, 2009

The following article originally was published in the July 20, 2009, edition of Grand Junction’s Free Press.

DeMint’s health handouts violate liberty

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Memo to Republican Senator Jim DeMint: tax-subsidized health welfare is not “free-market reform.”

DeMint touts his “Health Care Freedom Plan” as an alternative to President Obama’s political takeover of medicine. The plan contains some good ideas. It reduces political controls of insurance by allowing people to buy policies out of state. It limits frivolous lawsuits. And it allows people with Health Savings Accounts to use pre-tax money to purchase insurance.

Part of the plan, however, forces some people to finance other people’s health care. That’s not freedom, it’s a threat to throw people in prison if they don’t pay up.

Real freedom in medicine means that patients, doctors, and insurers have the right to voluntarily interact to mutual advantage, free from force, fraud, and political controls. Real freedom means that you may choose to pay for somebody else’s health care if you want, but others may not force you to pay for their care.

The problem with American medicine is that over decades politicians have seized control of much of medicine, driven up costs, and largely destroyed the market for real health insurance by tying most people to expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance.

In order to “solve” the political failures of the past, today’s Democrats want to extend their power over medicine by increasing tax subsidies, forcing people to buy politically-controlled insurance, and subjecting doctors to ever more controls.

Now that Lady Liberty needs her Knight in Shining Armor more than ever, some Republicans have busied themselves instead with stabbing freedom advocates in the back.

It was, after all, Republican Mitt Romney who advanced the political takeover of medicine in Massachusetts. That state forces people to buy insurance — though many there continue to buy it only when they face expensive medical procedures, as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial points out — and massively subsidizes health expenses with tax dollars.

Massachusetts suffers from exploding costs and doctor shortages, so naturally Democrats want to duplicate that failed experiment on a national scale.

To his credit, DeMint rejects insurance mandates. Yet a core part of DeMint’s plan shares Obama’s premises that some must be forced to pay for the medicine of others.

DeMint’s bill 1324 creates a “refundable tax credit” for non-employer insurance of $2,000 for individuals and $5,000 for families. That’s a great idea for those who would simply get a tax break, as it would offset the tax incentive to get overpriced insurance through employers.

The problem is that those who pay less income tax than that would get a subsidy or voucher, in other words a handout.

DeMint disingenuously claims that his vouchers will generate “no cost,” as he would redirect “stimulus” money to fund the vouchers. But this is merely changing the recipients of the forced wealth transfers.

The “stimulus” special-interest spending should be stopped immediately, and the federal government should reduce its spending to match so that the real economy can direct those resources productively.

Given the better points of DeMint’s bill, are we overly critical of the handouts? The problem is that, by granting the premise that some people should be forced to fund the health care of others, DeMint ultimately grants the entire case to his opponents.

Individuals have the right to their own labor and income. It is wrong to rob Peter to pay for Paul’s health care. Forcing some to finance the health care of others violates the rights of those paying the bills and breeds abusiveness and irresponsibility among recipients. DeMint’s handouts ignore those truths.

So long as Republicans play the handout game, they will correctly be seen as “me-tooing” the Democrats, and they will continue to lose, step by step, inch by inch, to those who would subject the entire economy to political controls.

DeMint’s handouts also distract attention away from the fundamental problem: health insurance is too expensive because of political controls. You solve that problem by repealing the controls, not by hiding them behind another welfare scheme.

In a Fox interview, DeMint praises the market, says “Americans don’t want more government in health care,” and lauds competition. But a tax-funded free market is a contradiction in terms. If people buy insurance with tax dollars, politicians will continually seek to expand political control over insurance, rather than roll back those controls. Thus, DeMint’s handouts will tend to diminish the free market for insurance, not augment it.

We applaud DeMint for looking seriously at ways to redress the problems of politically-manipulated health care. We especially like his reforms of Health Savings Accounts and lawsuits. We agree with DeMint when he says, “No American should be forced into a government-run system that limits their choices and rations their care.”

To successfully restore free markets, though, DeMint needs to do something other than promise more handouts. He needs to unequivocally champion the individual’s right to his own life, resources, and property.

Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari, edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Don’t Get Mad, Get Even – Car Tax Blame belongs to Ritter, Legislature, Mullarkey Court – not County Clerks

by The Peripatetic Pundit | 10:00 am, July 20, 2009

Public anger in reaction to the Rice/Ritter car tax – the substantial increases in vehicle registration fees, along with the disproportionately (if not extortionately) high, punitive, and regressive late fees – continues to heat up, apparently nearing the boiling point in several instances (“Anger simmers over auto-registration fees,” in Thursday’s Denver Post).  Public reaction is [...]

“One Giant Leap for Mankind…”

by Ben DeGrow | 6:23 am, July 20, 2009

Today marks the 40th anniversary of an event that made possible many a wry observation to begin with, “They can put a man on the moon, but they can’t….” (For a more serious take on how times have changed in the past four decades, check out yesterday’s Detroit Free Press column by bestselling author Mitch [...]

Jeffco sets standard on transparency

by Amy Oliver | 6:20 am, July 20, 2009

COST wants to thank Jefferson County for being “one of only a handful of Colorado government entities to post line-item expense account charges, contracts and the county’s checkbook. All the information is in a searchable database available to anyone with access to the Web,” according to Charley Able from the Lakewood Edge. 
Jeffco’s Transparency Initiative sets the [...]

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers