Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Liberty & Democracy
"Regarding liberty and democracy in the United States, I would like to refer to the oft told tale in which Benjamin Franklin, coming out of the Constitutional Convention, was asked by a woman, "What kind of government have you given us, sir?" He replied, "A republic, if we can keep it." We are a republic, meaning that we elect representatives to whom WE give the right to govern - not the other way around. We use a democratic process to elect those representatives - or we're supposed to - and a majority of voters decides who gets to represent us. I have to admit that I would like to see in our legislative chambers proportional representation based on ideas, rather than race and gender as has been suggested by some over the last decade or so. Ballot access should be virtually unrestricted, and to those who say that you would have too many people on the ballot and it would be confusing, I would simply say that the value of our liberty, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and certainly our Declaration of Independence does deserve time and effort from citizens to learn who in the heck is running and what they stand for, and to vote for the one they most agree with as their civic duty. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a game of losers. We're supposed to be winners in this country, not losers.
Our liberties are under siege by many things: attacks on the Second Amendment, free speech zones set up so that the politically privileged ears will not be hurt by dissent, and the one most onerous thing of all - the so-called "Patriot Act," insult of insults - a law so vile that I think even John Adams, second president of the United States, who lost his second bid on account of his anti sedition acts, might find repugnant."
Lorenzo Gaztañaga is the 2010 Libertarian Candidate for Congress in Maryland's 2nd District.
Politician Removal Service Available for 2010
Words from Presidents Past....
"Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. "
Great Libertarian Quotes
"Greedy capitalists get money by trade. Good liberals steal it. "
Obama Doesn't Have the Only Prescription for Healthcare Reform
by Michael D. Tanner
A free-market approach would move away from employer-provided insurance and increase competition among both insurers and health providers.
President Obama is right when he says that the U.S. healthcare system needs reform. Although this country provides the finest care in the world, our healthcare system has serious problems. It costs too much. Too many people lack health insurance. And quality can be uneven.
The president and his supporters in Congress would have you believe that the only choice is between their plan — which amounts to a government takeover of the healthcare system — and the broken status quo. That is a falsehood.But supporters of the free market, frankly, have been remiss in positing viable alternatives. So what exactly would a free-market approach to reform look like? Quite simply, it relies on those time-tested building blocks of marketplace efficiency: competition and choice.
There are two key components to any free-market healthcare reform. First, we need to move away from a system dominated by employer-provided health insurance and instead make health insurance personal and portable, controlled by the individual rather than government or an employer.
Employment-based insurance hides much of the true cost of healthcare to consumers, thereby encouraging overconsumption. It also limits consumer choice, because employers get the final say in what type of insurance a worker will receive. It means that people who don't receive insurance through work are put at a significant and costly disadvantage. And, of course, it means that if you lose your job, you are likely to end up uninsured.
Changing from employer-provided to individually purchased insurance requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker's taxable income. However, a worker purchasing health insurance on his own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant financial reward for those who have employer-provided insurance. That should be reversed.
For tax purposes, employer-provided insurance should be treated as taxable income. To offset the increased tax, workers should receive a standard deduction (or in some plans, a tax credit) for the purchase of health insurance, regardless of whether they receive it through their job or purchase it on their own.
The other part of effective healthcare reform involves increasing competition among both insurers and health providers. Current regulations establish monopolies and cartels in both industries. Today, for example, people can't purchase health insurance across state lines. And because different states have very different regulations and mandates, costs can vary widely depending on where you live.
New Jersey, for example, requires insurers to cover a wide range of procedures and types of care, including in-vitro fertilization, contraceptives, chiropodists and coverage of children until they reach age 25. Those mandated benefits aren't cheap. According to a 2007 analysis by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the cost of a standard health insurance policy for a healthy 25-year-old man averaged $5,580 in the state. A standard policy in Kentucky, which has far fewer mandates, would cost the same man only $960 per year.
Unfortunately, consumers are more or less held prisoner by their state's regulatory regime. It is illegal for that hypothetical New Jersey resident to buy the cheaper health insurance in Kentucky. On the other hand, if consumers were free to purchase insurance in other states, they could in effect "purchase" the regulations of that other state. A consumer in New Jersey could avoid the state's regulatory costs and choose, say, Kentucky, if that state's regulations aligned more closely with his or her preferences.
With millions of American consumers balancing costs and risks, states would be forced to evaluate whether their regulations offered true value or simply reflected the influence of special interests. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) has a bill in Congress that would allow consumers to purchase their insurance in other states.
We also need to rethink medical licensing laws to encourage greater competition among providers. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, midwives and other non-physician practitioners should have far greater ability to treat patients. We also should be encouraging such innovations in delivery as medical clinics in retail outlets.
The choice facing us now is not between Obama's plan for healthcare micromanaged by the government or doing nothing. Rather, it is a choice between government control, regulation and rationing on one hand, and free markets, choice and competition on the other.
That is the real healthcare debate.
Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
Added to cato.org on July 6, 2009
This article appeared in the Los Angeles Times on July 5, 2009.
Some Things Are To Basic To Understand..
"The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it."
Libertarian Quote of the Day
"The Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals. It does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government. It is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens' protection against the government. "
Monday, July 6, 2009
Barr: 'Cap and tax' a lot of hot air
Congressman Bob Barr, the 2008 Libertarian presidential nominee, takes a look at Barack Obama's proposed "cap and trade" $1.9 trillion National Energy Tax in his weekly column for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Click here to read Barr's column. Barr writes, in part:
...Its 1,200 pages must rank among the most complex and convoluted pieces of legislation ever devised, making old, Soviet-style government edicts appear streamlined by comparison.
Former President Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the last formal effort Washington undertook to mandate comprehensive energy usage, was a novice compared to the heavy-handed, global-oriented approach by Obama and his Democratic colleagues in the House. Where Carter, a generation ago, was content to turn down the thermostat and lecture the country while wearing a cardigan sweater in front of a warmly glowing fireplace, Obama uses 21st-century communications tools and offers to change not just America’s energy system, but the entire world’s —- with taxpayer dollars by the trillions...
...This discussion barely scratches the surface of the Byzantine system of mandates and favors that would be doled out by the government if this legislation reaches Obama’s desk. The cost is impossible to calculate, except to know it will be in the trillions of dollars. For a plan based on bad science and proposing to implement a model that’s already failed in Europe, that’s a price no responsible American ought to accept. But, how can you put a pricetag on saving the world and all of mankind?
Monday's LP Message from Donnie Ferguson
Dear friend,
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
It’s an old saying, often attributed to Edmund Burke even though it’s never been found in any of his writings. But it’s not entirely accurate.
You see, “evil” just as easily triumphs when good men do things that are pointless or ineffective.
In fact, “evil” loves ineffective “good men” even more than inactive ones. Engaging in ineffective habits not only depletes resources more quickly than inactivity, it’s much harder to change ineffective or pointless activity than it is to simply act in the first place.
For folks engaged in electing “good men” and defeating “evil” legislation, “triumph” only happens when you are better organized and engaging in more effective activities than the opposition.
In fact, it was the subject of several lengthy conversations I had with friends over the July 4th holiday. In one way or another they are all actively involved in scaling back government and restoring freedoms, whether it’s electing congressmen, educating the public or lobbying.
While their organizations and job duties all adhere to the strictly defined purposes that make their larger movement effective, they are all focused on one thing – being better organized than their opponents and working with a laser-like focus on activities that are effective. They know that veering off the path or expending resources doing things their
When I told them what we are doing here at the Libertarian Party – recruiting new members, strengthening our finances, focusing on relevant issues and improving our political technology, and then focusing it on electing more Libertarians to office, starting at the local level – they were excited.
They know, like I do, that something big is brewing. The independent, non-partisan Leadership Institute’s July 4th Soiree drew a record crowd of over 1,500 people, all committed to fighting the Obama administration’s bailouts, industry nationalizations and proposed government takeover of health care. Crowds swelled at July 4th “tea parties,” where activists booed bailout-supporting elected officials of their own party.
Americans are sick and tired of Big Government Republicans and Democrats, and they’re looking for an alternative that knows simply doing “something” won’t magically solve the problem. They’ve been doing “something” for decades. Now they’re looking for an alternative that is effective and focused.
The Libertarian Party is that alternative. If you are already a Sustaining Member, thank you!
If not, please join today. Just click here to become one of those “good men” (or “women”) who knows that defeating “evil” means that just doing something isn’t good enough. Activists must be focused on electing Libertarians -- starting at local offices -- and defeating those who would take away our liberties, wealth and property.
With optimism,
Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian National Committee
Donny.Ferguson@lp.org
Great Libertarian Quotes
"The principles of this country are no mere abstractions; they are written in the hearts of all true Americans."
Chait Calls Out Conservatives on Rationing
I’ve been struggling with how to respond to an article by The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait, who accuses conservatives of hypocrisy and Republicans of whorishness when it comes to wasteful spending in Medicare and other government health programs. I have grudgingly decided that a good fisking is the only way to go.
Chait writes:
Two weeks ago, President Obama offered to cut several hundred billion more dollars out of the Medicare and Medicaid budget to help make room for health care reform. This sort of gesture ought to appeal to conservatives, right? Apparently not. The Heritage Foundation warned, “At a time when Medicare is dangerously close to bankruptcy, it is shortsighted to funnel funds into the creation of another government-run program instead of shoring up Medicare.” A National Review editorial complained, “These cuts in Medicare and Medicaid payments are nothing more than reimbursement reductions with no empirical or economic basis to justify them.”
A couple of problems here. Chait takes the National Review quote out of context. The magazine’s most recent issue states: “Republicans should not have only harsh words for Obama’s ideas. If he truly believes that he can squeeze hundreds of billions of dollars from federal health programs, then he should be encouraged to do so. But the savings should be banked before they are spent.” The Heritage quote is odd in that it suggests that conservatives should make “shoring up Medicare” a priority. But it makes essentially the same argument. Chait gives a false impression when he suggests that all conservatives are knee-jerk opponents of reducing wasteful Medicare spending.
No empirical basis to justify them? Since when do conservatives require an empirical basis to justify cutting social spending?
Truth
"The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States … formed the compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities."
Great Libertarian Quotes
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial … the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. "
Words from Presidents Past....
"The extravagant expenditure of public money is an evil not to be measured by the value of that money to the people who are taxed for it. "
The Politicians and the Founders
David Boaz
Both President Obama and Sen. John McCain cited the Founders in their weekly radio addresses today, as they made the case for government actions that would have appalled those Founders. Obama invoked “the indomitable spirit of the first American citizens who made [independence] day possible” in arguing for a federal takeover of education, energy, and health care.
He might have trouble explaining how his policies reflect the spirit of the men who left us such words as these:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must be happy.
Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
Meanwhile, McCain called for the American government to more vigorously support the protesters in Iran. What would the Founders say to him?
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible….Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest.
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
[America] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. …Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
Maybe each week there should be three national radio broadcasts: one from the incumbent president, one from the other big-government party, and one reflecting the views of the Founders.
Monday's Prohibition Quote
"Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments … Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils.? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs. "
Fuel Standards Are Killing GM
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and the author of Income and Wealth
General Motors can survive bankruptcy far more easily than it can survive President Barack Obama's ambitious fuel economy standards, which mandate that all new new vehicles average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.
The actual Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) results will depend on the mixture of fuel-thrifty and fuel-thirsty vehicles consumers choose to buy from each manufacturer — not on what producers hope to sell. That means only those companies most successful in selling the smallest cars with the smallest engines will, in the future, be allowed to sell the more profitable larger pickups and SUVs and more powerful luxury and sports cars.
Sales of Toyota's Prius, Yaris, Corolla and Scion, for example, allow and encourage Toyota to market more Lexus 460s, Sequoia SUVs and Tundra pickups in the U.S. without incurring fines. Hyundai's success selling Accent and Elantra compacts allows it to sell 368-horsepower Genesis sedans.
Similarly, Ford has the Toyota-licensed hybrid Fusion and will soon produce the European Ford Fiesta in Mexico. Chrysler will soon have Fiats. But what does GM have?
No independent reviewer suggests that the Chevy Aveo and Cobalt are credible contenders in the small car field. Even the president's auto task force finds the electric Chevy Volt "unviable," since it will lose money unless priced above a Cadillac CTS. The Opel-engineered 2011 Chevy Cruze will face tough competition from Asian cars whose reliability is better established. Launching such new models will be even tougher in the future, now that GM has lost control of Opel.
GM accounted for about 19% of vehicle sales so far this year, but the company had a much smaller share of the market for small cars and SUVs (which accounted for 20% of total sales through May). To continue offering a Toyota-like array of larger cars and trucks under ever-tighter CAFE rules, GM would have to capture a much larger share of the market for small and/or diesel-powered vehicles. Unfortunately, European and Asian car makers have decades more experience building reliable subcompact cars and diesel engines for their local markets — where consumers face steep taxes on gasoline and large engines.
General Motors does produce competitive cars and trucks, but not one of them is small. Consumer Reports recommends three GM cars and three GM trucks. The recommended cars are the Chevy Malibu (the unrecommended hybrid has been dropped), the large Buick Lucerne and the Cadillac DTS. Consumer Reports recommends the Chevy Avalanche and Silverado and the GMC Sierra trucks. Car enthusiast magazines insist on adding Camaro, Corvette and the 556-horsepower Cadillac CTS-V to that list.
Among those nine best GM vehicles, only the four-cylinder Malibu achieved as much as 25 mpg in Consumer Reports testing. The others get 12-17 mpg, yet they are no less fuel-efficient than comparable foreign brands. The Environmental Protection Agency rates the mileage of the Toyota Sienna van and Nissan Titan pickup as worst in their class, and comparable Chevys as best. Unlike GM, however, Japanese car companies sell enough small cars to offset the large and thus hold down the average figures.
General Motors is likely to become profitable only if it is allowed to specialize in what it does best — namely, midsize and large sedans, sports cars, pickup trucks and SUVs. The company can't possibly afford to scrap billions of dollars of equipment used to produce its best vehicles simply to please politicians who would rather see GM start from scratch, wasting more taxpayer money on "retooling" to produce unwanted and unprofitable subcompacts and electric cars. The average mileage of GM's future cars won't matter if nobody buys them.
Politicians are addicted to CAFE standards because they create an illusion of doing something sometime in the future without voters experiencing the slightest inconvenience in the present. Tighter future CAFE rules will have no effect at all on the type of vehicles we choose to buy. Their only effect will be to compel us to buy larger and more powerful vehicles from foreign manufacturers. Americans will still buy Jaguars, but from an Indian firm, Tata, rather than Ford. They'll buy Hummers, but from a Chinese firm, Tengzhong, rather than GM. The whole game is a charade; symbolism without substance.
As a matter of practical politics, rescuing GM from strangulation by CAFE will require offering economically literate environmentalists a greener alternative, i.e., one that works. Luckily, the government has two policy tools that, with minor modifications, really could discourage people from buying the least fuel-efficient vehicles.
One is the federal excise tax on "gas guzzlers," which could take some fun out of the horsepower race except that it applies only to cars, not to SUVS, vans and trucks. Why not apply this tax to all types of gas guzzling vehicles? Owners of trucks used for business could deduct the tax in proportion to miles used for business, as they do with other vehicular expenses. Phase it in after 2011 to encourage buyers to snap up the unsold inventory of gas guzzling trucks quickly — a timely "stimulus plan."
Second, the federal fuel tax is highest on the most efficient fuel (diesel) and below zero on the least efficient fuel (ethanol). Cars get about 30% better mileage on diesel than on gasoline, and cars running mainly on gasoline get about 30% better mileage than they would using 85% ethanol.
To stop distorting consumer choices, simply apply the same 24-cent-a-gallon federal tax to gasoline and ethanol as we do to diesel. This would add funds to the depleted federal highway trust. More importantly, it would remove an irrational tax penalty on buying diesel-powered cars — arguably the most cost-effective way to improve mileage without reducing car size or performance.
These two proposals are a greener alternative to CAFE, because they'll work. But they'll only work if Congress totally and permanently abandons the charade of CAFE. It is arguably worthwhile to accept a modest tax increase in exchange for an end to harmful regulations, but that exchange is effective precisely because it is not painless.
Unifying fuel taxes and broadening the excise tax on gas guzzlers makes sense as an alternative to CAFE. Otherwise it's just more pain with no gain.
If politicians insist on tightening fleet average mileage standards for bankrupt auto companies, how could those rules be enforced? The only penalty for violating CAFE rules is a big fine. If consumers keep refusing to buy enough small cars from GM and Chrysler to allow them to meet the CAFE rules, how are those companies expected to pay the fines?
The government is already planning to spend about $50 billion bailing out General Motors plus $7 billion for Chrysler. Will President Barack Obama provide Detroit auto makers with even more subsidies to pay CAFE fines?
Maybe so. That would be only slightly more bizarre than current plans to bribe folks with $4,500 to sell their "clunkers," or to offer huge tax credits to those rich enough to buy a $73,000 hybrid Cadillac Escalade or an $88,000 Fisker Karma.
The bottom line is that CAFE standards are totally unenforceable and ineffective. Regardless of how much damage the rules do to GM and Chrysler, Americans can and will continue to buy big and fast vehicles from German, Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Indian car companies. CAFE standards might just be another foolhardy regulatory nuisance — were it not for the fact that they could easily prove fatally dangerous for any auto maker overly dependent on the uniquely overregulated U.S. market.
Wisdom From Webster
"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? "
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Sam Adams on a Sunday Afternoon
Sunday's Libertarian Sermon
"Let it be henceforth proclaimed to the world that man's conscience was created free; that he is no longer accountable to his fellow man for his religious opinions, being responsible therefore only to his God. "
Wisdom from George Washington
"My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic; but to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see them independent of all and under the influence of none."
Sunday - Voices of Libertarian Prophets
"Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Bankruptcies and losses concentrate the mind on prudent behavior. "
mon·o·blogue - Michael's General Assembly Guide is Ready
Words from President Martin Van Buren
"For myself, therefore, I desire to declare that the principle that will govern me in the high duty to which my country calls me is a strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the Constitution as it was designed by those who framed it. "
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Joey Chestnut Does It Again.
The Nathan's Famous International Fourth of July Hot Dog Eating Championship was started on July 4th, 1916.
Obviously this has nothing to do with the Libertarian Party. I simply have the thought that this is really cool. Legend has it that the Hot Dog Eating Contest was started when several immigrants were arguing over who was the most patriotic. It was determined that he who could eat the most hot dogs would be declared the most patriotic.
George on the 4th
"The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations."
Declaring Freedom on the 4th
"We cannot restore traditional American freedom unless we limit the government's power to tax. No tinkering with this, that, or the other law will stop the trend toward socialism. We must repeal the Sixteenth Amendment."
JULY 4th - Patrick Henry's Speech
Text of Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses
March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?
Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Thomas Jefferson on Independence Day
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
The Declaration of Independence
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Friday, July 3, 2009
2nd Amendment Fridays - Dedicated to the Gunpowder Chronicle
Thoughts on Sarah Palin's Resignation
This moment gave us insight into two things way up North. First, it gave her an opportunity to promote the great things she and her administration have done in Alaska. It also gave us a peek at the amount of ridiculous nonsense people deal with when they offer themselves up for public service. On that I wish to comment.
The problem with politics today are several things. First there is a need for instant information via the 24 hour news cycle. Thousand of hours are constantly filled up with talking heads and news briefs. The details and specifics are often left out, we get to the juice much faster if we are destroying someone's reputation.
The second problem is the scoop. The desire to break the story as fast as possible has allowed for some news organizations and those that claim to be, to cut corners. Nobody verifies a claim or accusation. A perfect example in my situation this past spring was when I was accused of saying something, I was even quoted. It made a website, then a local TV news organization put it out as news. The website that posted the quote never called to verify with me if I even said it. The TV station never called me to verify that I said it. I never said it. Never breathed the words, was not privy to the information that I was accused of dispensing.
This gotcha form of politics and the desire to embarrass people no matter what the costs is ruining public service. Good people are more worried about what someone may write or say about them then helping make their communities a better place. Their families do not want to see their loved ones dragged through the mud or defamed. I certainly understand how people feel but we must not be afraid of or give power to those who dispense hate and lies. We must stand up against this tyranny of hate, destruction, and perversion of the First Amendment with action, love, and helping those in our communities with humble hearts.
Sarah Palin has experienced these attack in an extreme manner. One that has cost the taxpayers of Alaska over $2 Million. Herself, she has legal bills over $500,000 for defending lies and false accusations. I have a feeling her opponents will declare victory. However, I would not want to deal with a Sarah Palin who is not restricted by the confines of the title of Governor. She will be free, unrestrained, a rabid pitbull with lipstick on the loose. I certainly would not want her as my enemy. I also say too bad she is not a Libertarian.
A Special 4th of July on Maryland Libertarians
Harry Browne's Wit & Wisdom
"The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun owners than in one of disarmed citizens – even if you don't own a gun yourself. "
A Kennedy Said What????
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
Patrick Henry on The Right to Bear Arms
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
A Kennedy Said What????
"Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain."
Hitler's View on Gun Control
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! "
Thomas Jefferson on the 2nd Amendment
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Warming Up for the 4th
"Given man's nature, freedom will always be in jeopardy, and the only question that need concern each of us is if and how well we took our stand in its defense during the short period of time when we were potentially a part of the struggle. "
My View
"Criminals obey "gun control" laws in the same manner politicians follow their oaths of office."
Personal Pledge
by Larry Elder
Gun control isn't the answer
THE TRAGEDY at Virginia Tech may tell us something about how a young man could be driven to commit terrible actions, but it does not teach us very much about gun control.
So far, not many prominent Americans have tried to use the college rampage as an argument for gun control. One reason is that we are in the midst of a presidential race in which leading Democratic candidates are aware that endorsing gun control can cost them votes.
This concern has not prevented the New York Times from editorializing in favor of "stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." Nor has it stopped the European press from beating up on us unmercifully.
Leading British, French, German, Italian and Spanish newspapers have blamed the United States for listening to Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Assn. Many of their claims are a little strange. At least two papers said we should ban semiautomatic assault weapons (even though the killer did not use one); another said that buying a machine gun is easier than getting a driver's license (even though no one can legally buy a machine gun); a third wrote that gun violence is becoming more common (when in fact the U.S. homicide rate has fallen dramatically over the last dozen years).
Let's take a deep breath and think about what we know about gun violence and gun control.
However, there is no way to extinguish this supply of guns. It would be constitutionally suspect and politically impossible to confiscate hundreds of millions of weapons. You can declare a place gun-free, as Virginia Tech had done, and guns will still be brought there.
If we want to guess by how much the U.S. murder rate would fall if civilians had no guns, we should begin by realizing — as criminologists Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins have shown — that the non-gun homicide rate in this country is three times higher than the non-gun homicide rate in England. For historical and cultural reasons, Americans are a more violent people than the English, even when they can't use a gun. This fact sets a floor below which the murder rate won't be reduced even if, by some constitutional or political miracle, we became gun-free.
There are federally required background checks on purchasing weapons; many states (including Virginia) limit gun purchases to one a month, and juveniles may not buy them at all. But even if there were even tougher limits, access to guns would remain relatively easy. Not the least because, as is true today, many would be stolen and others would be obtained through straw purchases made by a willing confederate. It is virtually impossible to use new background check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow.
It's also important to note that guns play an important role in selfdefense. Estimates differ as to how common this is, but the numbers are not trivial. Somewhere between 100,000 and more than 2 million cases of self-defense occur every year.
There are many compelling cases. In one Mississippi high school, an armed administrator apprehended a school shooter. In a Pennsylvania high school, an armed merchant prevented further deaths. Would an armed teacher have prevented some of the deaths at Virginia Tech? We cannot know, but it is not unlikely.
AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has gone up sharply.
Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence have also occurred in Europe. In recent years, 17 students and teachers were killed by a shooter in one incident at a German public school; 14 legislators were shot to death in Switzerland, and eight city council members were shot to death near Paris.
The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities.
It is a problem for Europeans as well as Americans, one for which there are no easy solutions — such as passing more gun control laws.
By James Q. Wilson, JAMES Q. WILSON teaches public policy at Pepperdine University and previously taught at UCLA and Harvard University. He is the author of several books, including "Thinking About Crime."
April 20, 2007
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Great Libertarian Quotes
"The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
A Kennedy Said What????
"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
Henry David Thoreau
"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."
Wisdom from H.L. Mencken
"I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave."
Wisdom from Thomas Jefferson
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."
mon·o·blogue
Finally, an Education Muckraker!
I’ve often complained on this blog that there are no education muckrakers – no reporters who will actually go out and investigate the misleading claims so often fed to them by politicians and public school officials. Well, it turns out there’s at least one, and his name is Ron Matus.
After being told countless times that public schools in Florida spend just $7,000 per pupil annually, Matus decided to do what no other ed reporter in the state (so far as I know) has done: check it. In a blog post today, he explains where the $7,000 number comes from, he points out that the actual total is $12,000 per pupil, and he lets readers decide which number is more relevant to them. Way to go, Mr. Matus!
I particularly enjoyed this line: “[Department of Education] officials say it’s fair to roll federal money into a per-pupil spending figure – that money does go to operational costs - but not capital outlay and debt service.”
Apparently schools don’t need buildings anymore! Wonderful news! Now that Floridians no longer have to pay for construction and renovation costs, they’ll save $6 billion a year. That is, they’ll start saving it as soon as the Department of Education gives it back to them. What’s that? They don’t want to give it back even though they say it doesn’t count? Gee. I guess it does count then, doesn’t it?
This public school emperor isn’t just naked, he’s mincing about flamboyantly and daring on-lookers to call him sartorially challenged. Well we dare, pal, we dare. If you want buildings to house all those students, and you want the billions to pay for them, then the St. Pertersburg Times, at least, is going to start counting it.
If there are any other reporters out there who have similarly tracked down the real total per pupil spending numbers, let me know and I’ll cite your work here. Or, if you’d like to try it but don’t know where to start, drop me an e-mail.
Supreme Court Stands Up for Student Privacy
Thursday, June 25, 2009
David Rittgers, legal policy analyst:
The Supreme Court's decision today in Safford Unified School District #1 et al. v. Redding was a victory for privacy and decency. The Court held that a middle school violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a thirteen-year-old girl by strip searching her in a failed effort to find Ibuprofen pills and an over-the-counter painkiller.
The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief, joined by the Rutherford Institute, opposing such abuses of school officials' authority. The search in this case should have ended with the student's backpack and pockets; forcing a teenage girl to pull her bra and panties away from her body for visual inspection is an invasion of privacy that must be reserved for extreme cases. School officials should be authorized to conduct such a search only when they have credible evidence that the student is in possession of objects posing a danger to the school and that the student has hidden them in a place that only a strip search will uncover.
The Fourth Amendment exists to preserve a balance between the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy and the state's need for order and security. Unnecessarily traumatizing students with invasive and humiliating breaches of personal privacy upsets this balance. Today's decision restores reasonable limits to student searches and provides valuable guidance to school officials.
Ethanol Standards: Why Federal Policy Is Crazy
by Harry de Gorter and David R. Just
Harry de Gorter and David R. Just, economists in the Department of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University, are authors of an upcoming Cato Institute study on sustainability standards for biofuel production.
Added to cato.org on June 23, 2009
This article appeared on cato.org on June 23, 2009.
Farm state Democrats are threatening to vote against climate change legislation unless the EPA excludes emissions generated by the indirect changes in land-use that follow from ethanol subsidies in their calculation of a "sustainability standard." This standard requires ethanol to emit at least 20 percent less CO2 relative to gasoline as a condition for federal mandates and subsidies. While ethanol subsidies as a general matter are not a good idea, these legislators are right: The EPA standards at issue make no sense and should be scrapped.
Ethanol is sustainable by definition. The CO2 sequestered by growing corn is exactly offset by the CO2 emissions that follow from burning the fuel in a car. The same observation applies to, say, drinking bourbon made from corn.
Are CO2 emissions due to operating an automobile any worse than emissions due to digestion? The only difference is that ethanol can replace gasoline—bourbon cannot. Hence, a logical sustainability standard would be tougher on bourbon and all other products made from corn —products that can negatively impact health, like beef, bacon, butter, Buffalo wings etc. – and a lot easier on ethanol which is more greenhouse-friendly than other corn-based products and saves lives by powering ambulances to hospitals.
The EPA's sustainability standard is based on "life-cycle accounting" (LCA), a "well to wheel" measure of greenhouse gas emissions in the production of gasoline and a "field to fuel tank" measure for ethanol production. While attractive in theory, LCA fails to recognize that if incentives are given for ethanol producers to use relatively "clean" inputs (e.g., natural gas and land previously used for soybean cultivation), the "dirtier" inputs (e.g., coal and land previously dedicated to rainforests) that might otherwise have been used will simply be used by other producers to make products not covered by the sustainability standard.
In short, sustainability standards reshuffle who is using what inputs with no net reduction in national emissions. LCA measures are therefore misleading and may not measure the actual greenhouse gas emissions saved by ethanol production.
Rather than try to get LCA right, the entire exercise should be scuttled altogether. The difficulties associated with a sensible calculation are simply too great.
LCA assumes, for instance, that ethanol will replace gasoline, but it may actually replace coal or other energy sources, especially since oil supply is generally thought of as "finite" while coal is considered "unlimited in supply." This is not simply a matter of theory. In developing countries like Brazil, electricity is generated by harnessing leftover sugar cane, thereby potentially replacing coal-based electricity. It is also possible for biofuels to replace wood currently used for home cooking and heating, both of which impose huge health and environmental costs in developing countries. The upshot is that LCA will almost certainly undercount the greenhouse gas emissions that are "saved" by ethanol as well as other problematic air emissions.
Nor is LCA any easier when we apply it to the oil sector. The direct and indirect effects of oil pollution in the Ecuadorian jungle, for instance, would have to be measured, as would the environmental impacts of site specific drilling everywhere else on the globe.
To make matters worse, the argument over sustainability standards diverts attention from the contradictory and wasteful stew of federal ethanol policies – import tariffs, tax credits, mandates and production subsidies – which exist whether ethanol is sustainable or not. Our research shows that these policies generate tens of billions of dollars per annum of economic inefficiencies. Ensuring that ethanol is "sustainable" does not make those costs disappear. To just take one example, combining a tax credit for ethanol with a binding mandate requiring a minimum level of consumption will subsidize gasoline consumption instead of ethanol consumption, resulting in an increase in CO2 emissions, traffic congestion, and dependence on foreign oil.
Sustainability standards for ethanol make no sense. If we want to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, the most efficient means of doing so it to impose a carbon tax (explicitly through the tax code or implicitly with a cap & trade emissions program) on oil and natural gas at the refinery, coal at the plant using the coal, and land at time of conversion into the production of biofuels, bourbon, shopping malls, etc. That covers all of the relevant sectors of the economy in a fair and efficient manner. "Fair" and "efficient," however, are not words one would use to describe sustainability standards for ethanol.
The Dangers of a "Public Plan"
by Michael D. Tanner
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition:What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
Added to cato.org on July 1, 2009
This article appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on July 1, 2009.
In the editorial "Socialized ignorance" (June 22), the Post-Dispatch took critics of President Barack Obama's health care reform plan, including the Cato Institute, to task for calling it "socialized medicine."
It is true that President Obama, who during the campaign said that if he were designing a health-care system from scratch his preference would be for a single-payer system "managed like Canada's," has not proposed a system where "the government owns hospitals and clinics; employs doctors and nurses; and pays for everyone's care," in the Post-Dispatch's words. However, "socialized medicine" is not just about ownership. It also is about who ultimately controls the resources and makes the decisions.
And there can be no denying that under the plans currently being considered by Congress and supported by President Obama, the government would control more and more of those resources and make more and more of those decisions.
Government would force Americans to purchase health insurance and control what benefits that insurance would have to include. Even Americans who are happy with their insurance today might have to switch to a plan that includes the benefits that the government requires. That insurance could be more expensive or include benefits that people don't want or are morally opposed to. White House spokesmen have said that President Obama's oft-repeated pledge that you can keep your current insurance is not meant to be taken literally.
The government would undertake comparative-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness research, and use the results of that research to impose practice guidelines on providers, initially in government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but possibly eventually extending those guidelines to private insurance plans. Private health insurance companies would exist, at least initially, but they would be reduced to little more than public utilities, operating much like the electric company, with the government regulating nearly every aspect of its operation.
That by itself would "socialize" much of the health care system. But it wouldn't stop there.
President Obama also wants to set up a government-run health plan (a single-payer plan, if you will), that would compete with private insurance.
Regardless of how it was structured or administered, such a government-run plan would have an inherent advantage in the marketplace because it ultimately could be subsidized by American taxpayers. The government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefits since it could turn to the U.S. Treasury to cover any shortfalls. Consumers naturally would be attracted to the lower-cost, higher-benefit government program, thus undercutting the private market.
A government program also would have an advantage since its enormous market presence would allow it to impose much lower reimbursement rates on doctors and hospitals the way Medicare and Medicaid do today. Providers would shift their costs to private insurance, driving up premiums, making private insurance even less competitive with the taxpayer-subsidized public plan. True, advocates of the public option promise that it would play by the same rules as private insurance and pay reimbursement rates higher than Medicare. But, politicians made the same promise back when Medicare was created.
The actuarial firm Lewin Associates estimates that, depending on how premiums, benefits, reimbursement rates and subsidies were structured, as many as 118.5 million people, roughly two-thirds of those with insurance today, would shift from private to public coverage — or be pushed. Businesses would have every incentive to dump their workers into the public plan. The result would be a death spiral for private insurance. In the end, the vast majority of Americans would have no choice. They would be stuck in a government plan, putting the government in charge of which doctors they see or which treatments they could receive.
To see how this would work, one need only look to other areas where the government has set up insurance programs "in competition" with private insurance, such as crop insurance, flood insurance or some workers' compensation plans. The government programs have squeezed out private competition.
As a candidate, President Obama talked about how "it may be that we end up transitioning to [a single-payer] system." Under the program he has proposed, that is far more probability than possibility.
In the end, President Obama would bring us a health care system under which the government would control one-sixth of the U.S. economy and some of the most important, personal and private decisions in our lives. Socialized medicine? Government-run health care? It doesn't really matter what you call it. It's a bad idea.