Category: healthcare

THE WHY-FORE OF LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE ALLEGIANTS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The first cause of understanding the merits of a contrary prospective is complicated by one’s predeterminations. As is often experienced, one can look but not see. A person’s social, religious, and political values are sacred. Therefore, within the frame of challenging while endeavoring to comprehend differing beliefs, the contesting of prospective ideals demand a medium of respect.

In the second cause, I do think that one must presume that there is a right and wrong to the implementation of a political ideology. Surely, a totalitarian state — regardless of its economic or financial stability — would not be tolerated simply because such a state would deprive its citizens of individual liberty and fundamental freedoms.  Therefore, proportionate to the application of governing rightfulness, there is the overriding virtue of individual liberty that, for the conservative thinker, trumps governing result. This virtue, liberty, cannot be transgressed upon.

I now seek the answer to the question of “why”. Why does a person declare and adhere to the social, political, and economic manifesto of liberal progressivism versus a conservative alternative?

As a conservative, to inquire to the question of why one would champion liberal progressivism, instinctively implies that the conservative inquirer is asserting a degree of transcendent, if not hardnosed superiority over the liberal progressive viewpoint. Although such an attitude of transcendent superiority is appealing to the contestants of either political bias, no such implication should be asserted.

The progressive movement believes and the conservative responds accordingly to the following:

(LP) They believe the rights of man reside within the secular means and ethos of a government designed to encumber itself with all of one’s tangible and intangible concerns; that such a government is best managed by those that know best. They believe that government is the omnipotent arbiter of conflicting economic forces. This positioning of government for purposes of interdiction or inclusion particularly applies to the seemingly always divergent elements that constitute the variant complexities of capital, labor, and their (lobbyist) influences.

(C) Innately, governments are corrupt no matter the style, type, or format; this includes all government, past and present. It is not possible to govern without committing material mistakes. History has proven over and over again that government, if not restricted by draconian-like monitoring by its citizens instead of its politicians, will step-by-step or much faster, erode personal freedom and liberty in favor of the illusive common good. Government is designed to grow while restricting individual liberty.

(LP) The progressives of today integrally adhere to the suggestion that labor is incorruptible; that only corporations possess the entrails of ominous possibility. Historical documentation proves otherwise; no matter, the progressives persist in their instinctive comradeship with labor unions.

(C) Bobby Kennedy certainly did not believe that unions were incorruptible. Evidence does in fact demonstrate that a number of unions are simply a business entity (another corporation) that acts as a well-paid intermediary between management and labor. Certainly no one in the real world of push and shove could believe that unions have any more or less scruple than any other business. Surely unions, in step with enterprise, believe in lobbying their congressional representative for beneficial particulars and circumstance. Clearly unions spent millions upon millions of dollars for their candidate, Mr. Obama; in turn they expect President Obama to deliver beneficial goodies for services and cash dutifully rendered.

(LP) They believe that a policy of  “in the interest of the common good” (as defined by the government) is senior to the words within the Declaration of Independence: That we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They believe that “fair” and “equal” means wealth distribution; they administrate their ideal of fair and equal by progressive taxation, imposing discretionary fees and coercive regulatory action. The lasting result for these progressives and their one-sided definitional intrusion into private equity and entity will be the leveling of the wealthy and the poor into economic, societal common-denomination sameness; a heaven on earth approach to governess.

(C) The preamble to the US Constitution captures the spirit of the Declaration of Independence — note the emphasis on Liberty. We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The progressive movement of 1900-1913 created the concept of individual federal income tax. The power to tax is one half of the power anointed to government; the other half is the power to distribute. The power to distribute is in effect the enabler of federal discretion and discrimination. It is also a direct abatement of state’s rights and privileges.

Today’s progressives want to create a number of entitlements labeled under the banner of rights: the right to a free education, to universal health coverage, a right to immigrate free of lawful compliance, the right to undo a lawful mortgage contract, the right to join a union whether one wants to or not, and for those who happen to have more, they have the right to directly support those who happen to have less.

What happened to liberty?

I suppose the liberal progressives believe that only government can aid and assist the disadvantaged, the oppressed, the poor, the discriminated, the undereducated, the underfunded, the lazy, and the fraudsters. Well, why are the most ardent liberal progressives so damn rich? They don’t need all that money… why don’t they spread their wealth? Why do they need to spread mine? Obama believes $500,000 a year is the top tier on richness. Why doesn’t he impose that on his rich liberal buddies? Shouldn’t they lead by example?

I am befuddled…

MR. PRESIDENT, STEP AWAY FROM THE ECONOMY

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by Andy Matthews   —   February 1, 2010

“The country has had enough of your fixing, thank you”.

The conventional wisdom has it that President Obama’s most egregious error during his first year in office was his decision to focus the bulk of his attention on health care, rather than on “fixing” the economy.

“At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second,” conservative columnist Peggy Noonan wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, “the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about.”

Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, he of Cornhusker Kickback infamy, lamented to the Fremont Tribune that “it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy.”

This misplacement of priorities, we are told, explains the precipitous drop in the president’s poll numbers over the past year. Now, a course correction is needed if Obama wants to a) salvage what’s left of his presidency, and b) do right by the country.

The White House got the message. In his State of the Union speech last week, the president told the nation that “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.” Obama referred to “jobs” 26 times in his speech, more than twice as often as health care or health insurance.

And so it’s agreed: The administration has seen the error of its ways, and from now on, fixing the economy and creating jobs will be Priority One for Team Obama.

Now, not to rain on this fun, bi-partisan agree-a-thon, but isn’t this just about the worst thing we could ask for right now?

If memory serves, the guy who’s telling us he’s now gearing up to “fix” the economy is the same guy who, way back in the year 2009, gave us the historically massive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was supposed to … fix the economy.

For those who missed it, Obama’s first take at playing economic Mr. Fix-it didn’t exactly work out as we were told it would. That $787 billion “stimulus” package bought us double-digit unemployment and deficits as far as the eye can see, but that’s about it. Should Americans really be salivating for another helping? Didn’t this guy do enough damage the first time?

Actually, the stimulus debacle did produce two things of enormous value: a teachable moment regarding the administration’s sheer ignorance of all things economic, and the opportunity to watch modern-day liberalism fail so completely and publicly that it may now have been discredited for a generation.

The way to jumpstart a sluggish economy — as anyone who didn’t sleep through the entire 20th Century understands — is to remove governmental barriers to private-sector-driven economic growth. That this point is either entirely lost on or irrelevant to the administration becomes clear when one considers that the stimulus package did the exact opposite: It grew government at the expense of the private sector. The dreadful results were all too predictable. And the ideological rigidity behind the stimulus is exactly what ensures that future attempts by this administration to address our economic challenges will prove no more effective. The only policy solutions with any real hope of succeeding are, by default, kept off the table.

So to say that Obama would have enjoyed a more successful first year had he focused more on the economy misses the point. Any president who so fundamentally misunderstands the reasons why some societies prosper while others remain stagnant is predestined to fail on economic matters. Given this president’s faith in government intervention as the necessary starting point for solving all of society’s problems, anything he touched in the economic realm was destined to go badly — and anything he touches in the future will meet a similar fate. In short, we’ve seen what “focusing on the economy” means to this crowd. And it ain’t pretty. The State of the Union speech — chock full of ideas for new, big-spending initiatives — only confirmed the President’s commitment to his failed strategy.

And so when the president tells us he’s now shifting his focus to the economy, there’s only one serious way to take it: as a threat.

To be sure, President Obama will, through this recalibration, score some short-term political points. By shifting his emphasis to jobs and the economy, he is sending a message to Americans that is sure to be warmly received: Your priorities are my priorities.

But the President’s dogmatic commitment to his statist ideology gives the ending away. Barring a complete reversal of his philosophical bearings, we know that his next attempt to “fix” the economy — and the one after that, and the one after that — will involve increasing the size and scope of government while choking the private sector. As night follows day, things will again get worse, not better.

And the public will begin to long for the days when the president was bogged down in his ill-fated attempt to reform health care.

Andy Matthews is vice president for operations and communications at the Nevada Policy Research Institute.

DESPITE MEDIA PREFERENCE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Spurred on by a Bush bashing media, a less than convincing John McCain, and an economy unexpectedly turned upside down by an inexplicable financial-banking-insurance calamity, the electorate overwhelmingly voted in Obama and his democratic colleagues. The Democratic Party, with an arrogance that originates from the assurance of ultimate power, unilaterally attempted to turn this politically center-right nation into a leftist-socialist nation state. The leadership of Pelosi and Reid, pumped up by their newfound political potency, decided early in their tenure on the power-tactics of purposeful, excluding Republicans from the legislative process. They have practiced where required the bullying of their Blue Dog Democrats. For key members of congress, the leadership created a milieu of creative offerings; these offerings came in the form of persuasive enticements. Including cash rewards, the specific exemption for a certain state, as well as all unions of their heretofore pecuniary obligation — all of these extraordinary inducements are in play while leadership blatantly ignores the reasonable concerns of the nation’s constituents.

The hagiographic pronouncements of an enchanted-by-Obama media favored the presidential candidate throughout his campaign; indeed, there is observable evidence that this very same mainstream media (in contrast to the customary effort placed on unbiased reporting) has extended its favoritism into the first year of the Obama presidency .This liberal-progressive-socialist president and his brethren of the also elected have heretofore enjoyed, in general, a robust positive cheering of support from a media of like-same-political belief.

In addition to such cheerleading, often enough, the seemingly liberal personalities that host and manage the non-cable networks and its cable affiliates, willingly, often with not even a pretense of presenting a counter-argument, present programming that is an effectual endorsement of Democratic policies. This consistency of press patronage is best described as a Barrack-can-do-no-wrong viewpoint, rendering to the receiving public a politically charged prospective that catalyst a counter-prospective from a constituency of independent and conservative viewers, listeners, and readers. The media-reporting by liberal progressive sympathizers are in fact nothing less than a broadcast of appreciation for Obama’s policies. The liberal media has established a value-plus certification of the current administration’s actions. They have a platform designed more for ideological alliance then a media-platform designed for skeptical journalists.

Interestingly, despite media bias, the facts on the ground cannot be denied; such political consequences are clearly disturbing to the liberal progressives. Imagine loosing the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey and now having the super-blue state of Massachusetts vote red. Well, the unimaginable has happened — Scott Brown the Republican beat the liberal progressive Democrat in the bluest of blue states.

Now how can the liberal-bias spin this election as anything other than a rejection of Obama’s policies? In the finality of result, irrespective of the media’s own political prospective, the American people can think for themselves. The people have, in general, rejected the liberal progressive agenda; specifically the people have rejected the Obama Care legislation, the excessive federal spending, and legislation that adds to the largeness of government. This special election is a great victory for the conservative cause.

OBAMA THE ENABLER

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The continuances by politicians, news print, media, pundits, and entertainers posing as journalist, of dancing around the deductively obvious instead of objectively stating the transpiration of a particular event is intellectually stifling. Recently, we experienced a terrorist-crazy load up with explosives, board a US bound plane with the absolutely clear intent of killing everyone on that plane and as many people on the ground in Detroit as possible. This was a premeditated attack by Al-Qaeda; an act of war perpetrated by this nation’s sworn enemy; instead of shipping this crazy to detention in Guantanamo he was issued an attorney, read his rights, and jailed pending a court hearing to determine whether or not he will be detained. This methodology of legal-disposition is bird-brain stupid. This terrorist attacked US citizens, their property, and their institutions — and we treat him as though he robbed a bank.

Withstanding, the Obama administration’s failure to stop this terrorist from boarding the plane in the first cause and experiencing the ignominy of listening to Secretary of Home Land Security on Sunday last tell the national television audience that everything went according to plan, that the system worked, he was a lone wolf, and other etcetera nonsense. The president added coal to the fire by doing the very best he could to not call this terrorist incident a terrorist incident.

The ever so naive Obama is befuddled. After all, he has addressed the reasonableness of extending his hand of peace and tolerance with his speech in Cairo. He has added the rational mixture of “let’s all work together for the common good” and has apologized (repeatedly) for US unilateral aggressiveness; he even eliminated the use of the phrase ‘War on Terror.” And most importantly, as a good faith gesture, he is closing Guantanamo because the prison is an anathema to terrorist, might be terrorist, almost terrorist, Muslims world-wide, and of course without a doubt of hesitation by Obama, such a closing will significantly hamper Al-Qaeda recruiting.

However, this is not the only instance of dancing around the deductively obvious. Congress is addressing the passing of healthcare legislation. Noting that few have actually read the aforesaid, and most who have not read the pending legislation admit that if they read it they would not understand its content. Whatever happened to the concept of prudent oversight and willfully deliberate due diligence? We Americans are allowing the political majority to ramrod critical legislation as if the issue was transparent, commonly decipherable, and opaque. The majority agrees, it is not perfect. Indeed, interestingly, many of the senators that voted for the legislation did so only after insuring their state was except from its pending pecuniary obligations. Blatant payoffs and self-serving earmarks are the sugar Reid utilized to insure the 60-vote requirement. If a private company acted in this manner, the attorney-general would indict for violations, criminal and civil.

In order for the Obama liberal progressive to fashion the nation to accept the transition to socialism, under the guise of ‘for the common good,’ they must stymie all democratic procedures by means within their power, extralegal or by ad-hoc actions. Their goal is to supplement the principle of laws and general rational precepts with an ever enhancing amplitude of governing bureaucracy; the more complex the regulatory compliance, the easier for the socialist to control the process of decision making. The goal of Obama is to take vast powers and legislate under a platform of ordinances and decrees.

The Obama administration coupled with the congressional majority is the single greatest threat to America’s traditional understanding and practice of liberty and freedom.

THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR DIRTY DEED

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The Democratic Party of Obama has misread the last election and overreached its electoral mandate. It has put most of its eggs into the basket of healthcare and angered the right and the left, and flummoxed the independents. How a political party could infuriate so many in such a short period of time is a bit mysterious. Nevertheless, by the end of next year, one will be able to measure the Obama effect; the midterm elections will quantify and parse the effectiveness or ineptitude of the Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel policies.

It is simply amazing to me how devastating the hubris infection is to those in power; but I have never witnessed any group of politicians as arrogant as the Democratic leadership. Of course they do have an excellent role model to mimic; humility is not an apparent vestige of the president. As a consequence of their arrogance, Reid can outright lie to the American people; he can do so because he knows what’s best, and he actually feels justified in doing so.

In truth, Reid and Pelosi have lost their way; they are in the neither-land of blundering muddle-headedness. The healthcare legislation is no longer a matter of reforming healthcare or servicing the best interest of America; for the Democratic Party, this legislation is now a matter of exercising raw political power simply to render to Caesar a political victory. The Democrats have mounted a malicious and disingenuous attack on all non-supporters of the president’s agenda; they are working feverishly to unbridle themselves from the restraints of democratic procedure. These socialists are focused on implanting monopolistic institutions managed by special commissions, regulators, coupled with a behemoth bureaucracy and the entrenched ideal that the government does all the thinking.

This healthcare legislation is indecipherable, unpredictable, and full of contradictions and conundrums; this is the perfect exemplar of manipulating procedural methodology in the interest of divorcing the spirit of the law to suit the means to an end. Everyone knows the Congressional Budget Office scoring on this was founded on unattainable assumption and presumptions; the CBO detailed sections of deep concern within their report.  It seems to mean nothing to the claptrap of congressional officialdom; seemingly, the only true agenda is Obama politics of wealth redistribution over entrepreneurship.

Ideological animus is the fuel that runs the engine of liberal progressive coteries; their time is now and come hell or the loss of congressional seats, they have drunken the kool-aid and they are all in for a penny or a pound.

Well, they have done their deed and run, contrary to the wishes of the American people… that’s why we have elections.