Why are the Democrats willing to go to any measure to pass health care? It’s all about Statism. Nothing else can explain Obama’s obsession with this bill. The President sold this bill as a way to reduce our debt entitlement, lower health care costs and reduce premiums. The bill does none of these things. It doesn’t even come close and the President is still willing to do anything, even jamming it through the Senate via the partisan reconciliation process. Passing the bill is a certain calamity in the short term for Democrats. This is suicide voting at its finest. Democrats are willing to lose in the short term because once health care becomes an entitlement in the minds of the American people the Statists win. Mark Steyn wrote an article over the weekend that is essential in understanding what the liberal end game is on this issue.
It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible. In most of the rest of the Western world, there are still nominally “conservative” parties, and they even win elections occasionally, but not to any great effect. (Let’s not forget that Jacques Chirac was, in French terms, a “conservative.”) The result is a kind of two-party one-party state:
Right-of-center parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless. Republicans seem to have difficulty grasping this basic dynamic.
This already exists. Think about entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Both of these programs are unsustainable. Reforming these programs is extremely difficult, and scrapping them all-together and starting over is an impossibility. The right has capitulated and the left has an entitlement that moves the nation further from limited government.
The Democrats’ answer for every problem is more government. If Obama said today: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country” it would be hilarious. The President certainly doesn’t believe it and neither does his party. Government dependency can be the only reason that the Democrats are so determined to pass a bill that a majority of Americans do not want. Either way the House votes on this bill is bad for the Democrats in the short term; however, if ObamaCare does pass the repeal movement may ultimately be more devastating to Democrats than Obama’s fragile ego if he fails to deliver.
The cover story for this week’s Economist deals with America’s fiscal hole. For the most part The Economist is dead right about this issue. Americans seem unwilling to pay higher taxes or cut down the size of government.
Cold arithmetic suggests that spending cuts alone cannot deliver enough. Changes to entitlements take effect only gradually. And the scope for slashing non-defence discretionary spending is limited, since it makes up merely one-sixth of total outlays. So Americans are stuck with a budgetary conundrum: they seem to be opting for more government, at least in health care, yet they do not seem prepared to pay for it. Their leaders have indulged this fantasy. Mr Obama has foolishly sworn off higher taxes on 95% of households, and Republicans will not countenance them for anybody. This newspaper strongly prefers small government and low taxes, but if Americans are to have bigger government and a sustainable budget, tax revenues will have to rise.
This is the defining issue of our time. Both parties seem unwilling to reduce entitlements. Democrats wish to raise taxes and Republicans are adamantly opposed. Republicans talk about reducing the size of government, but lack the willpower to actually do anything. Simply raising taxes on the rich won’t pay for everything. The Economist makes a great point about tax options. The United States taxes income too much and consumption too little. Everyone seems to agree there’s a savings problem in the United States. I’ve written before about the many inefficiencies of income taxes. A national sales tax is a much better solution. Unfortunately, we can’t trust the federal government not to abuse a sales tax while still levying an income tax. Plus, given America’s growing appetite for larger government taxes would continue to rise to pay for any new “rights” progressives dream up (the right to clothing, the right to food and shelter, the right to own a smart phone, and so on till we can’t get any of that stuff).
The 2008 youth vote myth is fast becoming one of my biggest pet peeves. The percentage of young people who voted in 2008 was relatively unchanged. The largest change was that Obama carried 66% of the youth vote compared to Kerry’s 54% in 2004. This is hardly a huge electoral shift. 2008 was a Democrat year in which a hip young politician ran against a very old member of the incumbent party. Unfortunately, these realities cannot stop the press from pushing this myth even further. Martha Irvite writes the following for the Associated Press:
Young Americans showed their collective power when they helped vote President Obama into office. Inspired by his message of “change,” they knocked on doors, spread flyers, voted for him by a 2-1 margin, and partied like rock-the-vote stars when he won. Since the election, though, that fervor has died down — noticeably. And while young people remain the president’s most loyal supporters in opinion polls, a lot of people are wondering why that age group isn’t doing more to build upon their newfound reputation as political influencers.
Isn’t it obvious? The reputation is a myth. A better reputation would be the fact that young voters are easily the most ignorant political demographic. What else can explain the fact that a majority of young voters continue to vote for a party that’s steadfastly opposed to reforming Social Security. The number one issue for young voters is that there won’t be a country left when they reach 50. I find it humorous that many young people spend time worrying about climate change, but seem unfazed by the idea that they could be living in the economic equivalent of the 1930s in the future.
I would love to hear this guy speak intelligently about any topic.
Perhaps this is the outcome of 50-plus years of economic prosperity. No one (especially anyone under the age of 40) has any idea what economic hardship is like. It’s not like no one sees this coming. Economists have been talking about this for decades now. The American people lack the will to do anything about it and our politicians would rather promise free health care than tackle real problems. Western Civilization is buckling under the weight of entitlements. I fear before my generation passes, we’ll see the fruit of a half century of bad economic choices.
The table below is a great example of how much wealthier Americans are today compared to 50 years ago. Some of the economic malaise that’s gripping the nation today is due to the fact the press and left complained how bad things were for eight years. It reached a fever pitch during the election year. Now that a recession inevitably arrived we’re supposed to believe that our so called free market economy is to blame.
I say so called because the government is involved in almost every aspect of life. A free market economy wouldn’t subsidize corporations or farms. It certainly wouldn’t tax corporations at the highest rate in the industrialized world. What kind of free market economy wouldn’t allow competition in the airline industry? While American airline companies struggle to make ends meet the government in all its wisdom doesn’t allow competition for domestic flights. There’s a reason you can’t fly Emirates in the United States. It’s because the government doesn’t allow them to compete here. Imagine if Europe decided that they wouldn’t’ allow Coke or Microsoft to sell their products in that continent. Wouldn’t Americans be outraged?
Where’s the free market in the US dairy or sugar industries? There are regulations for almost every conceivable aspect of American life. The list goes on and on… city zoning, the Forest Service, IRS, and eminent domain. That doesn’t even scratch the surface. Since the New Deal the nation’s economy has grown despite the fact the government’s reach has grown ever longer. It’s incremental and it’s done by well intentioned people who think they have all the answers. The problems created by these stewards of ineptitude occur long after the bills are signed and the press releases are sent. Getting rid of these programs, bureaucracies, and entitlements are nearly impossible. The path to bankruptcy that they put us on is inevitable.
Despite that sad realization, the nation’s wealth has grown at rates never seen in the history of mankind. Economic growth isn’t automatically assured. Without liberty people aren’t free to pursue wealth. These entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of the American dream.
Hat Tip: Carpe Diem
Recent Comments