Universal Health Care

[pelathais]

We do have a sweet baby girl and we have individual insurance. We have a high deductible plan and pay most expenses out of pocket so we are very aware of how much health care costs. We need a more market driven health care system, rather than a government operated one.
A very pragmatic view. Free markets are wonderful things. They allow the providers of goods and services to better meet the needs of the consumer. And the more choices available, the more freedom within the market place.

Milton Friedman's popular book Free to Choose (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203317620&sr=8-1) outlines this principle well.

[StMark]

FERD,

If you had to have a major operation or transplant and couldn't affored it, say the medical cost would run the 100s or thousands, would you take govermental help with your bills?

[ChristopherHall]

Then start by paying your "fair share" of the Social Security taxes. I'll take you a lot more seriously when you do that. I'm paying for YOUR free loading ways, Commissar. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Bro. I pay into Social Security, I don't know what you're talking about.

[ChristopherHall]

LOL! you keep arguing that single payer isnt what is being proposed but you say that single payer is the way to go.


now both may be true, but single payer means government mandated price controls and NO COMPITITION

Under a single payer system there can be competition. When the Government negotiates prices you and I benefit...but those health care networks and pharmaceutical companies that come aboard get the biggest contract in their history.

that is the number one recipe for disaster!

It's done very well in many countries. Admitted, some countries have botched up their system. Not every national health insurance system works well. We'd have to look at all the options.

and single payer in England has led to such things as turning sheets over instead of washing them to cut costs and other nice debates like not treating fat people for fat related issues because they got themselves fat.

Those things happen in the US too bro. And social debates are just that, social debates.

[QUOTEYOU are the one who is confused...and is looking for a hand out.[/QUOTE]

Bro. I already have a government negotiated plan. I only pay $40 dollars a month in premiums. A single payer plan would cost me more not less. LOL

[ChristopherHall]

Well Brother,

I mean this in a good way, You sound a lot like Ron Paul, fiscally speaking.

:happydance Nina

And I agree with our brother, Ron Paul is a first class nut. :happydance

[Ferd]

FERD,

If you had to have a major operation or transplant and couldn't affored it, say the medical cost would run the 100s or thousands, would you take govermental help with your bills?

Mark, your question isnt related to the discussion at hand. The fact is, there are laws already in place to help those who cannot afford health services.

We arent talking about that. we are talking about governmenet mandated single payer health care.

these are vastly different things.

[Pragmatist]

FERD,

If you had to have a major operation or transplant and couldn't affored it, say the medical cost would run the 100s or thousands, would you take govermental help with your bills?

Well, you bring up another issue as to why health care costs so much. We do whatever is necessary to keep someone alive a few more hours, days, etc. when sometimes the right thing is just to let them go. If I needed a major operation or transplant and couldn't afford it, I would pray that God would heal me or He could choose to take me home.

[ChristopherHall]

Well, you bring up another issue as to why health care costs so much. We do whatever is necessary to keep someone alive a few more hours, days, etc. when sometimes the right thing is just to let them go. If I needed a major operation or transplant and couldn't afford it, I would pray that God would heal me or He could choose to take me home.

I believe that a Christian society would work as a society to see to it that your ability or inability to afford a life saving surgery or treatment isn't an issue. And if you die simply because you couldn't afford a surgery, we’ve failed you and disregarded the very principle of holding life sacred. Womb to tomb, we should work to protect life. Rather it is measures to influence women to choose life, universal health insurance, or laws protecting you from euthanasia. As a Christian I stand solidly for protecting your life. The only exception would be if such measures were against your personal wishes, or in the case of incapacitation, the wishes of your family.

The life of the homeless bum on the street is just as valuable as the millionaire’s. The idea that one or the other cannot afford a life saving surgery should be eradicated from our worldview and thought processes.

That’s my opinion.

[scotty]

Well, you bring up another issue as to why health care costs so much. We do whatever is necessary to keep someone alive a few more hours, days, etc. when sometimes the right thing is just to let them go. If I needed a major operation or transplant and couldn't afford it, I would pray that God would heal me or He could choose to take me home.

Excellent point!!!!!!

CH
What makes you think those 18,000 a year that die were not ready?! You could have all the medical care in the world around you but if God is ready to take you home, guess what?? Your gone brother!

That works in reverse also, you can put a gun to your head and pull the trigger and if it's not Gods will all your gonna get out of it is a couple nights in the hospital and a migrain.!!

How many cases a year are there when something tradgic happens and people walk away from what others have died from.

There is an old saying "If the good Lords willing and the creek don't rise"

Your spending all your time and effort fighting to keep the creek from rising when the bottom line is, If the good Lord is willing it anin't gonna amount to a hill of beans what the creek does..

[pelathais]

Bro. I pay into Social Security, I don't know what you're talking about.
Most govt. employees are exempt from the system and participate in their union pension plans. From your earlier comments I took that this was the arrangements you were under as well.

[ChristopherHall]

Well, you bring up another issue as to why health care costs so much. We do whatever is necessary to keep someone alive a few more hours, days, etc. when sometimes the right thing is just to let them go. If I needed a major operation or transplant and couldn't afford it, I would pray that God would heal me or He could choose to take me home.

Excellent point!!!!!!

CH
What makes you think those 18,000 a year that die were not ready?! You could have all the medical care in the world around you but if God is ready to take you home, guess what?? Your gone brother!

That works in reverse also, you can put a gun to your head and pull the trigger and if it's not Gods will all your gonna get out of it is a couple nights in the hospital and a migrain.!!

How many cases a year are there when something tradgic happens and people walk away from what others have died from.

There is an old saying "If the good Lords willing and the creek don't rise"

Your spending all your time and effort fighting to keep the creek from rising when the bottom line is, If the good Lord is willing it anin't gonna amount to a hill of beans what the creek does..

My mother, Joyce Arlene Hall, had a heart attack in July of 2007. She was in the hospital for a week and on Friday July 7th her heart began to go into abnormal rhythms. They had to restart it periodically to keep her alive. Being her only son I had to decide when it was time to cease all efforts to save her life and allow her to die. They resuscitated her about 5 times that evening. The doctors said her heart could stabilize but with every episode it was less likely. After calling us in to discuss her condition I had to convince my family that it was time to let her go. Convincing my grandmother that we had to let my mother go was perhaps the hardest thing I’d ever done. We wanted to hold out for a miracle. I also didn’t feel peace with deciding to let her go without the entire family being in agreement. This is a very difficult situation for families. I do not see any justification for condemning families for holding on a few extra days or hours to see if their loved one recovers.

As for the 18,000 that die a year. There are many, many families that have filed lawsuits and have even stood before congress testifying as to how doctors stated that a procedure could save the lives of their loved ones, but to ensure profitability the insurance companies denied them coverage.

I’m not a Calvinist. I cannot look at hardship and say, “Tis God’s will.”

[Pragmatist]

I do not see any justification for condemning families for holding on a few extra days or hours to see if their loved one recovers.


Well, there is a difference in holding on for a few hours or days, and aggressively treating someone to keep them alive for a few more hours or days when the doctors know they ultimately are not going to make it. And the question becomes how much money is justified for that one person, especially if the treatment or medication has to be balanced with millions of other people's preventive health care, vaccinations, medications. Do you want the government making that decision?

[Ron]

Well, there is a difference in holding on for a few hours or days, and aggressively treating someone to keep them alive for a few more hours or days when the doctors know they ultimately are not going to make it. And the question becomes how much money is justified for that one person, especially if the treatment or medication has to be balanced with millions of other people's preventive health care, vaccinations, medications. Do you want the government making that decision?

In Canada the Government doesn't make that decision.:happydance

[Pragmatist]

Well, there is a difference in holding on for a few hours or days, and aggressively treating someone to keep them alive for a few more hours or days when the doctors know they ultimately are not going to make it. And the question becomes how much money is justified for that one person, especially if the treatment or medication has to be balanced with millions of other people's preventive health care, vaccinations, medications. Do you want the government making that decision?

In Canada the Government doesn't make that decision.:happydance

Who does? How is the allocation of money for health care determined?

[Maple Leaf]

As a pastor, I have frequent exposure to the Canadian health care system, and, from my observation, it works great.

If I need to see a doctor today, I can.

If I need to see a specialist, I will.

And, if I get sick, I get to keep my house.

What's not to like?

I pay my taxes, and: every child in my community has access to adequate medical care; the seniors in our congregation receive the medical care that they need; and the only worry that I have over being sick is being sick.

[ChristopherHall]

As a pastor, I have frequent exposure to the Canadian health care system, and, from my observation, it works great.

If I need to see a doctor today, I can.

If I need to see a specialist, I will.

And, if I get sick, I get to keep my house.

What's not to like?

I pay my taxes, and: every child in my community has access to adequate medical care; the seniors in our congregation receive the medical care that they need; and the only worry that I have over being sick is being sick.

If you don't mind me asking, what are your thoughts on America's health care system?

Would you want a system like Americas?

Do you believe the Canadian system has an important party in your value system?

[Pragmatist]

As a pastor, I have frequent exposure to the Canadian health care system, and, from my observation, it works great.

If I need to see a doctor today, I can.

If I need to see a specialist, I will.

And, if I get sick, I get to keep my house.

What's not to like?

I pay my taxes, and: every child in my community has access to adequate medical care; the seniors in our congregation receive the medical care that they need; and the only worry that I have over being sick is being sick.

It may work great from your perspective, but I don't think it would work the same in the USA.

[Mrs. LPW]

It may work great from your perspective, but I don't think it would work the same in the USA.

You're most likely right. A lot of our systems are different.. and it's hard to just take something from one setting and slap it down in the middle of another setting and expect it to work just as well.

I would never trade our health care system and all it's faults for America's present system though. Just as I'm sure you wouldn't trade your winter weather for ours HA.

[ChristopherHall]

I disagree. Anything, no offense to our Canadian brothers & sisters, but I believe that anything Canada can do…America can do better.

Not only is it inevitable that the USA will eventually have universal health insurance, but America’s universal health insurance system will prove to be the best in the world. It will significantly cut health care costs currently paid by individuals and businesses. This savings will energize the economy and stimulate the growth of business making American businesses more competitive. It will also stimulate America’s entrepreneur spirit once business is unshackled with the burden to provide health insurance as a benefit.

Just my opinion.

[Mrs. LPW]

I disagree. Anything, no offense to our Canadian brothers & sisters, but I believe that anything Canada can do…America can do better.
Not only is it inevitable that the USA will eventually have universal health insurance, but America’s universal health insurance system will prove to be the best in the world. It will significantly cut health care costs currently paid by individuals and businesses. This savings will energize the economy and stimulate the growth of business making American businesses more competitive. It will also stimulate America’s entrepreneur spirit once business is unshackled with the burden to provide health insurance as a benefit.

Just my opinion.

Spoken like a true American :toofunny

[ChristopherHall]

Here is the policy plan proposed by leading Democrats. Please give me your opinions.

AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE
No factor does more to hold back America’s economic growth and keep
American workers from earning as much as they deserve than the soaring
cost of health care. The United States already spends twice as much on
health care as our nearest competitor, a terrible burden to carry in the global economy.
And we are not getting what we pay for, since our health outcomes and longevity
are no better than many countries that spend half as much. Employers and employees
alike bear the brunt of double-digit premium inflation. If we cannot hold down
the cost of health care, we will never be able to restore rising paychecks—a centerpiece
of the American Dream—or achieve our goal of universal, affordable care.
We must do much more to stop the premium spiral, from improving the way
we care for people with chronic illness, to modernizing the way health care does
business, to helping small businesses obtain more affordable coverage for their
employees. American businesses and American workers deserve real, immediate
steps to reduce their health care tab:

-Harnessing the Power of Health Information Technology. While the
health care sector has taken advantage of the latest medical breakthroughs,
it has failed to keep up with the Information Age. Its reliance
on paper records makes it inefficient, slow, and more costly than necessary.
We can transform the health care system by doing away with 20th
century bureaucracy and harnessing the power of 21st century information
technology instead.
It is time to pass bipartisan legislation to develop a secure, interoperable
health information infrastructure that makes patient privacy paramount.
We can reduce redundancies and waste and make our system safer and
more accountable, while empowering patients to become partners in managing
their care. Under a 21st century health care system, doctors and
patients will have real-time access to patients’ medical records, test results,
and the latest clinical guidance. Each year, it is estimated that almost
100,000 people die of preventable medical errors. A fully interoperable
health technology infrastructure will pay dividends in research and performance,
saving money and saving lives—and we can reinvest those savings
so our system reaches more people with better quality care.

-Small Employers Health Benefits Plan. Small businesses, which create most
of the new jobs in America, face the highest costs when they try to provide
health care. Because their workforce is small, if one of their employees
becomes ill, they feel it in next year’s premium increases. They do not have
the negotiating power they need to get more affordable health care.
Small businesses need access to stable, affordable health insurance so they
do not have to worry whether they can provide coverage from year to year.
We should allow small businesses to pool their workforces—much like large
businesses—so they have the power to obtain cheaper health insurance for
themselves and their employees.
It is time to give small business employees access to the same kind of health
care as members of Congress. By pooling small businesses across America into
one risk and purchasing pool, this plan will allow employers to reap the benefits
of group purchasing power and streamlined administrative costs, as well
as access to more plan choices. Instead of haggling with insurance companies
every year, small businesses should be able to get back to what they do best—
running their business.

-Universal Children’s Health Care. As we save money by reining in the cost of
health care, we will be able to afford the next big step toward universal coverage:
making sure every child in America has health insurance. First, we must reauthorize
and increase funds for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program so
that all eligible children are covered. This program has made tremendous strides
in solving the problem of the uninsured by covering nearly 5 million children.
But there are still 9 million children in this country who remain uninsured.
We should take a step further and ensure that all children have health
insurance. Health insurance for children should be a shared responsibility:
parents should make sure their children are covered and government should
provide adequate subsidies to make coverage affordable for lower-income
families. We should encourage employers to provide dependent coverage and
reward and help businesses that do the right thing. No child should be without
quality, affordable health insurance, and America has a responsibility to
make sure their parents can afford it.

-Giving Americans the Tools They Need to Make Healthy Choices. Good
health includes not only good health coverage but also making healthy choices.
This starts early in life. We need to make sure that our schools serve
healthy meals, that kids learn the value of physical exercise, and that we do
everything we can to keep young people from smoking.
More than 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children and adolescents
are overweight or obese. We should train health care professionals to prevent,
diagnose, and treat obesity, overweight conditions, and eating disorders; provide
the resources for community-based programs that promote healthy eating
behaviors, improve nutrition, and increase physical activity; and close the
loophole on the sale of junk food in schools.
By giving Americans the tools they need to make healthier choices, we can
cut down on the rates of diseases like obesity, diabetes, and hypertension—
all of which put a financial strain on the health care system. But even those
people who live the healthiest lifestyles still get sick. We can help them
improve their quality of life and save money by promoting ways to find cures
and better manage chronic illnesses.

-Making a National Commitment to Finding Cures. Diseases like cancer,
AIDS, and Alzheimer’s exact a tremendous toll on families and drive up
medical spending. By focusing our resources and attention on finding cures now,
we can save lives and reduce healthcare spending over the long run. We
should create a National Center for Cures that targets and coordinates our
research dollars, encouraging better communication within the National
Institutes of Health and between the NIH and the private sector. We also
need a new federal policy on stem cells that encourages, rather than stymies,
life-saving research.

-Strengthening Medicare for the Long Term. Strengthening the Medicare
Trust Fund is essential to Americans’ long-term health and the nation’s longterm
fiscal stability. Over the past five years, the Medicare Trust Fund’s longterm
solvency has shrunk by 12 years. Prescription drugs are vital to preventing
and treating illness and helping to avoid more costly medical problems.
But the greater their role in our health care system, the more important their
affordability will become for seniors and the Medicare system. That is why
there is broad support in Congress to allow the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services to negotiate lower prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

[OP_Carl]

Although I perceived early on that some of the differences between Christopher Hall and me were matters of fundaments, I think I can now put my finger on it:
I believe in what the Declaration of Independence says, believe the Revolutionary war was worth fighting, and believe that our constitution was inspired, like no other founding document, by the brightest minds contemplating the most vivid and recent exposure to bad government.
Christopher Hall places no special emphasis on the unique breed of government created by our constitution, so he has no quarrel with those that would corrupt it.

Here are some items from the Patriot Post to help illustrate

Useful Idiots on the Left

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison

Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

Tocqueville was commenting on liberty and free enterprise, American style, versus socialism as envisioned by emerging protagonists of centralized state governments. And he saw on the horizon a looming threat -- a threat that would challenge the freedoms writ in the blood and toil of our nation's Founders.

Indeed, a century after Tocqueville penned those words, elitist Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt tossed aside much of our nation's Constitution. Though its author, James Madison, noted in Federalist Paper No. 45 that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce," FDR summarily redefined the role of the central government by way of myriad extra-constitutional decrees, and greatly expanded the central government far beyond the strict limits set by our Constitution.

FDR, perhaps unwittingly, used the Great Depression to establish a solid foundation for socialism in America, as best evidenced in this dubious proclamation: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

If Roosevelt's "American principle" sounds somewhat familiar, then you're likely a student of history (or The Patriot). Not to be confused with the Biblical principle in the Gospel according to Luke, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required...", which some Leftist do-gooders cite as justification for socialist policies, Roosevelt was essentially paraphrasing the gospel according to Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Notably, the Bible places the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the individual, while Marx and FDR placed the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the state. In failing to discern this distinction, FDR set the stage for the entrapment of future generations by the welfare state and the incremental shift from self-reliance to dependence upon the state -- ultimately the state of tyranny.

English writer, sociologist and historian H.G. Wells, whose last work, The Holy Terror, profiled the psychological development of a modern dictator based on the careers of Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, said of Roosevelt's reign, "The great trouble with you Americans is that you are still under the influence of that second-rate -- shall I say third-rate? -- mind, Karl Marx."

More to the point, Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt's "New Deal" paradigm shift, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."

Clearly, Khrushchev was onto something. FDR never embraced self-reliance as the essential ingredient of a free society, nor have his Demo-successors Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Why? Perhaps it's because they inherited their wealth, their privilege and their political office.

Recall how Kerry's handlers tried to cast their candidate as a man of the people? He is anything but. Remember, this is a man who has twice married multimillionaire heiresses; a man who has multiple mansions on multiple continents; a man who windsurfs (poorly) off tony Nantucket; a man who rides a bicycle that costs more than some new cars; a man who spends, oh, maybe $15,000 to jet his hairdresser cross country for a trim.

The character of these "inheritance-welfare liberals" -- those who were raised dependent on inheritance rather than self-reliance -- is all but indistinguishable from the character and values of those who depend on state welfare.

Today, more than 70 years after FDR seeded American socialism, the Soviet Union is but a memory. In addition, China and most other states with centralized economies (Cuba notwithstanding) are undergoing a dramatic shift toward free-enterprise -- as well as the political challenges that accompany such a shift. Yet despite the collapse of socialism around the world, inheritance-welfare liberals still dominate the Democrat Party and control their Leftmedia propaganda machine. They continue to advocate all manner of dependence upon the state (the poor man's trust fund).

Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas are nothing more than "useful idiots" advocating Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.

Has America learned its lessons, or is our great nation still under the spell of its useful idiots. Perhaps one day an American majority will reject the candy of the inheritance-welfare liberals, will restore our Constitution as the central authority of the land, and will reclaim self-reliance as the central character of our people.

[OP_Carl]

Here is a second essay that continues the thoughts from above, also from the Patriot Post:


The Politics of Disparity

For several decades, the purveyors of classism have sought to further their careers by way of economic propaganda. Typical of this bumper-sticker logic are slogans such as "billions for war, but nothing for the poor," and the current favorite being trotted out to highlight deficits, "tax cuts for the rich." Economic disparity, however, is not what it seems, and that which is present doesn't need government "fixes."

Democrats -- and far too many Republicans -- depend on class warfare for their power. Indeed, the divide-and-conquer strategy of keeping an entire segment of the population addicted to government handouts while simultaneously demonizing another more successful segment too often succeeds in retaining sleazy pols. And it hurts all concerned.

Aware that for most people perception is reality, class warriors incessantly complain of the expanding gap between "rich" and "poor," by which they mean the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. In fact, all boats rise with the tide -- the poor are getting richer, too. Unfortunately, too many Americans believe the lie because of its constant repetition in the media and in our public schools. These political pawns have been brainwashed to discount any hint of economic wisdom from "mean-spirited" conservatives and they thus become self-aggrandizing "victims."

While the Left's propagandists endlessly decry the "failing Bush economy," every month the economy's continuing stellar performance puts the lie to their charges. Since May 2003, when President Bush's across-the-board tax cuts finally took effect, the economy (read: not the government) has created 4.7 million jobs, and unemployment has plummeted from 6.1 to the current 4.8 percent.

The economics of tax cuts are really quite simple: Capital is freed for reinvestment in business. Thus, if a business owner is taxed at a lower rate, he has more money for expanding, hiring and buying more equipment and supplies. On the other hand, forced redistribution of business wealth achieves the exact opposite. To see this truism at work, one need look no further than Michigan, whose economy thrived under the tax-cutting policies of three-term Republican governor John Engler, but now ranks dead last in nearly every economic category under tax-happy Democrat Jennifer Granholm.

As for taxes paid, in 2003 (the latest figures available), the top half of wage earners paid nearly 97 percent of all taxes, while those in the top one percent paid more than 34 percent -- an average rate of more than 24 percent per household. On the other hand, the lower half of wage earners paid less than 3.5 percent of all income taxes. Thus, "tax cuts for the rich" are inherent in any tax cut, since the "rich" pay most of the taxes.

But who are these "rich"? The top 50 percent of wage earners includes individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 or more in a given year. Thirty grand a year hardly evokes images of lavish wealth. Wage earners in the top one percent make $295,495 and up. So we're not talking all millionaires here either, though the Left wants you to hate them anyway. If you're one of those who "won life's lottery," you must be made to feel guilty and "share" your wealth.

Statistics, in fact, show that the majority of Americans are within a few percentage points of each other. Yet, the Left reckons the "poor" using the relative European method -- that is, we're all poor compared to Bill Gates. Never ones to let the facts get in the way, classists continue to declare that the poor are getting poorer. Yet despite the Left's endless bellyaching and prophesies of doom, the poverty rate has stayed nearly the same for several years.

As far as government is concerned (which shouldn't be very far), the way to reduce the poverty rate is simple: More tax cuts, more deregulation, much less government spending, and then -- get out of the way. It was Benjamin Franklin who observed, "[T]he best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Leftist politicians continue to make the poor easy in their poverty.

Beyond the rhetoric, two foundational ideas are utterly lost on the Left. Where the Declaration of Independence says "created equal," liberals, after discarding "created," focus on "equal," interpreting it to mean equal result. It is their self-anointed duty, then, to ensure equality of result in all aspects of life by playing Robin Hood. (Winston Churchill once noted, "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.") Indeed, the princes of thieves have it exactly backwards. Our Founders' clear intent was the freedom to pursue happiness, which is why they said nothing about the attainment of happiness.

Secondly, in our fallen world, as Jesus Himself reminded us, "You have the poor with you always." Inequality of wealth is a function of free-market economics, and despite liberal whining, it is not necessarily a bad thing. Jesus taught His followers to care for the poor themselves -- not with grants from Caesar. Meanwhile, liberals (and "compassionate conservatives") are exceedingly generous with other people's confiscated money. In big, bloated, debt-ridden government, this is called "compassion." In our humble shop, we call it stealing.

Class warriors disparage both rich and poor. "The rich didn't earn what they have, and they should be forced to share. The poor can't make it without our help because they're obviously incapable." Fortunately, the Demos are getting less mileage out of their constant demeaning of achievers and despicable exploitation of the poor.

A truly classy warrior, Ronald Reagan saw heroes in all walks of life where the Left sees only greed and incompetence. He also understood the classists: "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." And when it comes to the myth of inequality, it just isn't so.

[OP_Carl]

Here's another one:



Hilrya Rodhamovich Clintonov's economic plan

"It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people...." --Adam Smith

Demo-gogue presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave a little-noticed stump speech in Manchester, New Hampshire, this week. It received little media attention but should've sent up countless red flags.

By now, all of us know about Clinton's re-warmed plans for socializing medicine, regulating healthcare services and providers and centralizing government control of about ten percent of the U.S. economy.

This week, however, Clinton went national with her classist "it takes a village" model, claiming that free-enterprise Capitalism is the root of all evil.

In a speech on "shared prosperity," she proclaimed that it's time to replace the conservative notion of an "ownership society" and economy with one based on communal responsibility and prosperity, alleging that the current system is really an "on your own" society that increases the income gap between "poor" and "rich" Americans.

Now, if Clinton is implying that individual initiative, self-reliance, responsibility and ingenuity -- the very foundation of free enterprise -- are the keys to creating wealth, then she is right. If she is implying that dependence upon the state and redistribution of income creates poverty, then she is right here, too -- but that was not her message.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she went on. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

In a quintessential example of Clintonista doublespeak, Hillary outlined her economic fairness doctrine: "There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed. Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

So, according to Ms. Clinton, free markets work best when they're constrained by the right government policies. In other words, free markets work best when they're not free.

Apparently Hillary has also been smoking Fidel's hand-rolled cigars. How else are we to account for her failure to recall that centralized economies, like that of the former Soviet Union, are doomed to fail and have cost millions of lives along the way?

Of course, Clinton's allusion to "rules" is Demo-code for taxation, which, as we know, is often the forcible transfer of wealth from one group to another. This taxation, in turn, creates reliable political constituencies for Democrats. As George Bernard Shaw once noted, "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul."

Clinton's economic plan is nothing more than a contemporary remake of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's class-warfare proclamation: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

In fact, Roosevelt's "principle" was no more American than Clinton's. It was a paraphrase of Karl Marx's Communist maxim, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt's "New Deal" paradigm shift, "We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."

Echoing that sentiment was perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas (the grandfather, incidentally, of Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas): "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

No irony was spared in another interview this week, when Hillary Clinton was asked about the enormous wealth that she and Bill have amassed since their co-presidency. Clinton replied, "My husband and I never had any money. Now suddenly we're rich. I have nothing against rich people."

"Never had any money"? Spare me. She and Bill were long ago cashing in on commodity futures and real-estate deals. Still, the wealth they have accumulated in recent years must make those good ol' days seem Spartan by comparison.

Hillary claims that if elected, she will "hit the restart button on the 21st century and redo it the right way." I checked, and the Clintons were in the White House the first year of the 21st Century. Did they push the wrong button then?

Only when the Clintons voluntarily surrender for redistribution all their assets to the U.S. Treasury will I then consider her economic views with at least the sincerity afforded one who is not a complete hypocrite. In the eternal interim, her Socialist "we're all in it together" claptrap should be considered a perilous hazard to prosperity for all.

Civics 101 (Correct Answers Below) 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx B. Adolph Hitler C. Joseph Stalin D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin B. Mussolini C. Idi Amin D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev B. Jose f Goebbels C. Boris Yeltsin D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung B. Hugo Chavez C. Kim Jong Il D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx B. Lenin C. Molotov D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet B. Milosevic C. Saddam Hussein D. None of the above Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004 (2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007 (3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007 (4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007 (5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007 (6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

- The Patriot Post

[OP_Carl]

Christopher,

I make no apologies whatsoever for Republican initiatives like the prescription drug plan that make our country more socialist. Too many Republicans are incapable of conceiving of a country without these trappings, largely because they've been in place and growing for so long now. But I am a conservative thinker, not a Republican shill.

I would like to learn your answers to a few direct questions:

1) Was President Roosevelt's New Deal concept un-constitutional?

2) If New Deal programs were un-constitutional, did President Roosevelt do anything immoral in implementing them?

3) If I were to decide to sue the SSA for a cash settlement of all my future social security benefits, could I win?

4) If I won, from whence would I be paid?

5) Is it moral for congressmen to spend the accrued social security funds instead of investing them for some level of growth?

6) What is more fair in your opinion, equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

7) Is America presently a free country?

8) Is effect on recipients the only valid way to evaluate an institutionalized wealth transfer program?

9) The new bi-partisan tax rebate bill is going to cause checks to be sent to Americans that will total $145 billion. Where is this money coming from?

10) Will the tax rebate work to acheive its stated goal of invigorating the economy? Why or why not?

[ChristopherHall]

OP Carl,

Do you plan to vote Constitution Party? To vote for any other party would violate the principles you believe in.

[ChristopherHall]

I'll present something expressing an alternative view for the reader. OP Carl, before I do, would you say that God's economy, as described in the Law of Moses, is "free market" or "distributist" economy?

I'll also cover Christ's words regarding the poor where he expressed that the poor we have with us always. This statement is often lifted from it's context to justify inaction and the Social Darwinist philosophy of the Right Wing.

[ChristopherHall]

1 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.
3 What will you do on the day of reckoning,
when disaster comes from afar?
To whom will you run for help?
Where will you leave your riches? - Isaiah 10:1-3 (NIV)

"When someone strips a man of his clothes we call him a thief. And one who might clothe the naked and does not -- should he not be given the same name? The bread in your board belongs to the hungry: the cloak in your wardrobe belongs to the naked, the shoes you let rot belong to the barefoot; the money in your vaults belongs to the destitute." - St. Basil

"This is the rule of the most perfect Christianity, its most exact definition, its highest point, namely, the seeking of the common good . . . for nothing can so make a person an imitator of Christ as caring for his neighbors." - St. John Chrysostom (4th Century):


The Bible. The Bible is the final rule of faith and practice. All things are in effect subordinate to the Bible’s authority. If a given philosophy or worldview isn’t in harmony with the clear teaches of the Bible it is error. Therefore as a Christian I feel the need to begin by starting with the theological premise established in the Bible for social justice. This subject is very expansive given the Bible’s focus. Only a short search for the word “poor” in the Bible will reveal that social justice is mentioned far more than even the subject of adultery. But how is social justice to be viewed? Is it strictly a private charitable endeavor of good will or is it to be regarded as something to be embodied in all aspects of society from private expressions of charity to the very policies of the nation. While this subject is very expansive, the best expression of this idea I’ve read can be found in the Holman Bible Dictionary under the entry defining “Justice”. The entry follows:

Holman Bible Dictionary

JUSTICE

The order God seeks to reestablish in His creation where all people receive the benefits of life with Him. As love is for the New Testament, so justice is the central ethical idea of the Old Testament. The frequency of justice is sometimes missed by the reader due to a failure to realize that the wide range of the Hebrew word mishpat, particularly in passages that deal with the material and social necessities of life.

Nature of justice Justice has two major aspects. First, it is the standard by which penalties are assigned for breaking the obligations of the society. Second, justice is the standard by which the advantages of social life are handed out, including material goods, rights of participation, opportunities, and liberties. It is the standard for both punishment and benefits and thus can be spoken of as a plumb line. “I shall use justice as a plumb-line, and righteousness as a plummet” (Isaiah 28:17, REB).

Often people think of justice in the Bible only in the first sense as God's wrath on evil. This aspect of justice indeed is present, such as the judgment mentioned in John 3:19. Often more vivid words like “wrath” are used to describe punitive justice (Romans 1:18).

Justice in the Bible very frequently also deals with benefits. Cultures differ widely in determining the basis by which the benefits are to be justly distributed. For some it is by birth and nobility. For others the basis is might or ability or merit. Or it might simply be whatever is the law or whatever has been established by contracts. The Bible takes another possibility. Benefits are distributed according to need. Justice then is very close to love and grace. God “executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and… loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:18, NRSV; compare Hosea 10:12; Isaiah 30:18).

Various needy groups are the recipients of justice. These groups include widows, orphans, resident aliens (also called “sojourners” or “strangers”), wage earners, the poor, and prisoners, slaves, and the sick (Job 29:12-17; Psalms 146:7-9; Malachi 3:5). Each of these groups has specific needs which keep its members from being able to participate in aspects of the life of their community. Even life itself might be threatened. Justice involves meeting those needs. The forces which deprive people of what is basic for community life are condemned as oppression (Micah 2:2; Ecclesiastes 4:1). To oppress is to use power for one's own advantage in depriving others of their basic rights in the community (see Mark 12:40). To do justice is to correct that abuse and to meet those needs (Isaiah 1:17). Injustice is depriving others of their basic needs or failing to correct matters when those rights are not met (Jeremiah 5:28; Job 29:12-17). Injustice is either a sin of commission or of omission.

The content of justice, the benefits which are to be distributed as basic rights in the community, can be identified by observing what is at stake in the passages in which “justice,” “righteousness,” and “judgment” occur. The needs which are met include land (Ezekiel 45:6-9; compare Micah 2:2; Micah 4:4) and the means to produce from the land, such as draft animals and millstones (Deuteronomy 22:1-4; Deuteronomy 24:6). These productive concerns are basic to securing other essential needs and thus avoiding dependency; thus the millstone is called the “life” of the person (Deuteronomy 24:6). Other needs are those essential for mere physical existence and well being: food (Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalms 146:7), clothing (Deuteronomy 24:13), and shelter (Psalms 68:6; Job 8:6). Job 22:5-9,Job 22:23; Job 24:1-12 decries the injustice of depriving people of each one of these needs, which are material and economic. The equal protection of each person in civil and judicial procedures is represented in the demand for due process (Deuteronomy 16:18-20). Freedom from bondage is comparable to not being “in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything” (Deuteronomy 28:48 NRSV).

Justice presupposes God's intention for people to be in community. When people had become poor and weak with respect to the rest of the community, they were to be strengthened so that they could continue to be effective members of the community—living with them and beside them (Leviticus 25:35-36). Thus biblical justice restores people to community. By justice those who lacked the power and resources to participate in significant aspects of the community were to be strengthened so that they could. This concern in Leviticus 25:1 is illustrated by the provision of the year of Jubilee, in which at the end of the fifty year period land is restored to those who had lost it through sale or foreclosure of debts (Leviticus 25:28). Thus they regained economic power and were brought back into the economic community. Similarly, interest on loans was prohibited (Leviticus 25:36) as a process which pulled people down, endangering their position in the community.

To be continued….

[ChristopherHall]

These legal provisions express a further characteristic of justice. Justice delivers; it does not merely relieve the immediate needs of those in dire straits (Psalms 76:9; Isaiah 45:8; Isaiah 58:11; Isaiah 62:1-2). Helping the needy means setting them back on their feet, giving a home, leading to prosperity, restoration, ending the oppression (Psalms 68:5-10; Psalms 10:15-16; compare 107; Psalms 113:7-9). Such thorough justice can be socially disruptive. In the Jubilee year as some receive back lands, others lose recently-acquired additional land. The advantage to some is a disadvantage to others. In some cases the two aspects of justice come together. In the act of restoration, those who were victims of justice receive benefits while their exploiters are punished (1 Samuel 2:7-10; compare Luke 1:51-53; Luke 6:20-26).

The source of justice As the sovereign Creator of the universe, God is just (Psalms 99:1-4; Genesis 18:25; Deuteronomy 32:4; Jeremiah 9:24), particularly as the defender of all the oppressed of the earth (Psalms 76:9; Psalms 103:6; Jeremiah 49:11). Justice thus is universal (Psalms 9:7-9) and applies to each covenant or dispensation. Jesus affirmed for His day the centrality of the Old Testament demand for justice (Matthew 23:23). Justice is the work of the New Testament people of God (James 1:27).

God's justice is not a distant external standard. It is the source of all human justice (Proverbs 29:26; 2 Chronicles 19:6,2 Chronicles 19:9). Justice is grace received and grace shared (2 Corinthians 9:8-10).

The most prominent human agent of justice is the ruler. The king receives God's justice and is a channel for it (Psalms 72:1; compare Romans 13:1-2,Romans 13:4). There is not a distinction between a personal, voluntary justice and a legal, public justice. The same caring for the needy groups of the society is demanded of the ruler (Psalms 72:4; Ezekiel 34:4; Jeremiah 22:15-16). Such justice was also required of pagan rulers (Daniel 4:27; Proverbs 31:8-9).

Justice is also a central demand on all people who bear the name of God. Its claim is so basic that without it other central demands and provisions of God are not acceptable to God. Justice is required to be present with the sacrificial system (Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-17; Matthew 5:23-24), fasting (Isaiah 58:1-10), tithing (Matthew 23:23), obedience to the other commandments (Matthew 19:16-21), or the presence of the Temple of God (Jeremiah 7:1-7).

Justice in salvation Apart from describing God's condemnation of sin, Paul used the language and meaning of justice to speak of personal salvation. “The righteousness of God” represents God in grace bringing into the community of God through faith in Christ those who had been outside of the people of God (particularly in Romans but compare also Ephesians 2:12-13). See Law; Government; Poverty; Righteousness; Welfare.

Stephen Charles Mott

Shortly I will translate these principles into an expression of social policy and governance. What is important is that we realize that the Bible speaks to far more than just the candy stick social issues contained in the narrow worldview of America’s Religious Right. In fact the Religious Right has done more to harm the cause of Jesus Christ than any sinner ever could. There is a middle ground that is neither right nor left, but rather biblical and yet fostering justice, stability, and community. We will examine this in more detail and I will attempt to demonstrate how this relates to the Christian Cause of advocating for the sick and dying through the advancement of universal health coverage shortly.

This subject is one of heated debate. However this is nothing new to Christian advancement in the areas of social justice. It should be noted that in the 1700’s many Christians whole heartedly believed that the institution of slavery was biblical and preserved the common order. Property rights were also the primary arguments of those on the conservative side of the debate. Those advocating for emancipation from slavery were regarded often as radicals, liberals, and some even considered them un-Christian by their fellow Christians in that they sided with what Southern conservatives viewed as the state’s encroachment on what they defined as their property rights; specifically the right own another human being. But time brings change. And God always has his way. Only the most militant ultra-conservative Christian would still defend the institution of slavery with its abuses and disregard for human health and welfare. This too is one of those issues. Many conservative Christians are once more defending an outdated and inhumane system of private health insurance that leaves nearly 18,000 people dying without the care they need each year, leaves 25,000 people bankrupt with medical bills; and with increasing costs…promises more of these tragedies in the coming years. I predict that as in times past they will loose again and healing will flood the nation. And in 100 years from now, as we see today in regards to the injustices of slavery, Christians will find it inconceivable that they once defended the current system and Christians will be the most outspoken advocates for healing, health care, and medicine in Western Society.

God bless.


God bless.

[OP_Carl]

While you are translating and deriving scriptural proofs, please also show where the Law of Moses commands the chosen people to spend goods, money, and services that they DO NOT PRESENTLY HAVE on the well-being of the less fortunate.

I dare say that even the most solid boilerplate scriptural analysis will NOT reveal that we are to assist the less fortunate with a contrived financial scheme that is, in essence, the printing of money that we expect our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to repay.

We aren't even perpetrating the run-of-the mill evil of despoiling the inheritance of our heirs - the money's already gone and we're selling our heirs as debt-slaves for the sake of instant gratification!

Of special note in the following essay are the first and last quotes, which I have highlighted in order to illuminate their ageless wisdom.


From The Patriot Post:
The other National Security threat

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson

"Year after year in Washington, budget debates seem to come down to an old, tired argument: on one side, those who want more government, regardless of the cost; on the other, those who want less government, regardless of the need. ... Government has a role, and an important role. Yet, too much government crowds out initiative and hard work, private charity and the private economy. Our new governing vision says government should be active, but limited; engaged, but not overbearing. And my budget is based on that philosophy." --President George W. Bush in his first address to the Joint Session of Congress, February 27, 2001.

The Federalist has written at great length about the exceptional performance of President George W. Bush as Commander-in-Chief in the conduct of our very difficult war with Jihadistan, that borderless nation of Islamic extremists with global reach, inhabited by al-Qa'ida and other Islamists who are relentlessly targeting the U.S. President Bush's military record in this most significant of military roles deserves very high marks.

But The Federalist's editors view the emerging domestic fiscal crisis as an equally ominous threat to our national security. Though some of our analysts estimate George Bush -- if he gets a second term -- plans to substantially cut the bloated central government's duplicated services in areas like the combined Department of Homeland Security, he has exhibited little leadership in fiscal restraint in his first term.

President Bush's proposed fiscal year 2005 budget includes estimated deficit spending of $541 billion, though he proposes to cut the annual federal budget deficit in half by 2009. To put that in perspective, next year's deficit almost exceeds the total federal budget of $600 billion proposed by Ronald Reagan in his first year as President. Concurrently, Congress is endeavoring to legislate a balanced budget by 2014. The feasibility of both these goals is dependent on the rates of growth in both mandatory and discretionary spending, and, of course, the strength of the economy.

Mandatory spending has increased by an average of 7% per year over the past five years, while discretionary spending has grown an average 10% over the same period. The Congressional Budget Office, the body responsible for making budgetary projections, has estimated an annual growth rate in mandatory spending of 6% over the next decade.

At the same time, the CBO's best projections for a balanced budget by 2014 show that, in almost every scenario, increases in mandatory spending must not exceed 4% annually. Alas, under the current system of federal entitlement programs, especially Social Security, Medicare (replete with its new, mammoth prescription-drug entitlement), and farm subsidization, the feasibility of a balanced budget by 2014 is virtually nonexistent.

While discretionary spending -- namely, the plethora of pork-barrel spending projects that often amount to nothing less than officially sanctioned corruption -- generally receives the brunt of conservative scorn (and rightly so), it is non-defense-related mandatory spending that inherits the lion's share of federal tax dollars. Though pork-barrel spending has increased, according to the Heritage Foundation, from 2,000 pet projects five years ago to a record 9,362 for FY2003, these expenditures (however ludicrous) still constitute less than 1% of the federal budget. However, discretionary spending is a good barometer of spending restraint -- or lack thereof. (See -- http://PatriotPost.US/news/spending.asp )

While such bold-faced wastes of taxpayer dollars as $725,000 for Philadelphia's Please Touch Museum, and $360,000 for "Citrus Waste Utilization" in Winter Haven, Florida, may be convenient targets, they amount to little more than anecdotes of the greater problem of central-government expansionism and the culturally ingrained mentality of dependence on the welfare state. The true task ahead for constitutional constructionists and fiscal conservatives is a radical overhaul of the federal government's mandatory spending budget, beginning with the entitlement system in all its manifestations. (continued)

[OP_Carl]

- - - continued from above - - -


In the final analysis, the CBO's estimates indicate that a reasonable chance at balancing the budget by 2014 will require modest (which is to say, modest by any standard other than that currently in place) cuts in mandatory spending to less than a 4% annual increase (some estimates say less than 3%), and increases in discretionary spending held to 3% annually, for the next decade.

At present, mandatory spending amounts to 11% of the gross domestic product, or $11,144 per U.S. household -- a record high for any time in our nation's history. Likewise, total government spending now exceeds $20,000 per household, the highest level of spending as a percentage of GDP since World War II.

In his most recent State of the Union Address, President Bush vowed to hold discretionary spending to 4% annual growth -- not nearly enough. Almost in the same breath, the SOTU address lauded the administration's behemoth new entitlement: Medicare prescription drug coverage (read: socialization) for seniors.

In a time when essential increases in defense spending are matters of national security, the administration's domestic-spending priorities are mysterious, to say the least. These include prescription-drug entitlement, manned missions to the moon and Mars (estimated to cost as much as $1 trillion), the now-defunct International Space Station, and expensive bureaucratic expansions such as the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Further, these priorities include the surrender of traditional conservative agenda items such as Social Security privatization, school vouchers, dismantling the Department of Education (instead, DOE funding has increased by an unprecedented 65% since 2001), and failing to promote free trade and Third World growth and stability through tariff reductions and removals.

How far from the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s and the Gingrich Revolution of the 1990s have we strayed?

Just as Democrats, when in power, usurp Republican initiatives (NAFTA and welfare reform under the Clinton administration, for example) to consolidate their hold on power, so now are Republicans guilty of adopting Democrat initiatives to the same end. To wit, spending under President Bush has increased twice as fast as spending under President Clinton -- with less than half of these increases coming from national security and defense-related spending increases in the aftermath of 9-11.)

By contrast, Ronald Reagan inherited a terrible recession from the Carter fiasco, and, with a Democrat Congress, managed to hold spending to a total increase of 6.8% in his first three years, while rebuilding our military. Even Bill Clinton, who inherited a booming economy, held spending (with help from a Republican Congress and military downsizing) to just 3.5% in his first three years.

The 2003 deficit soared to $374.2 billion -- twice that of 2002 -- and next year's estimated $541-billion deficit exists despite a rebounding economy. In Mr. Bush's efforts to spend his way to consensus, we once warned him that he can't outspend Democrats. We are now revisiting that admonition, as Mr. Bush has certainly outspent Mr. Clinton. He has not yet pulled his father's supremely nescient "read my lips" flip-flop, but the current deficit spending may bite him just the same. Our sources in the White House suggest that Mr. Bush has a macro strategy, using his first term to combine major sectors of government (for example, the Department of Homeland Security), and using his second term to downsize the duplication in those sectors, cutting or transferring many programs to the states. We still believe this is the administration's strategy.

While the President constantly reminds the American public, and rightly so, that we are a nation at war, his FY2005 budget reflects anything but. Indeed, unlike budgets during the Second World War and the Korean War, the present War on Terrorism has seen massive increases in non-defense spending, rather than the expected substantive decreases. One is reminded of the spending toward Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society at the height of the war in Vietnam.

Politically, the tax issue is hot -- not only in the race for the White House but in contests for the executive mansions in Kentucky and Mississippi, where Republican candidates who took pledges not to increase taxes defeated their Demo opponents. One substantial difference is that unlike the central government, most states are constitutionally required to have balanced budgets. That is why The Federalist has advocated, for two decades since it was first proposed by Ronald Reagan, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring a balanced federal budget. Flag, marriage and other amendments notwithstanding, a balanced-budget amendment is the most critical and worthy modification we can make to our Constitution.

It is our opinion that the line in the sand must be drawn with the new Transportation Bill, now being reconciled between the House and Senate versions. If President Bush fails to wield a promised veto -- the first of his administration -- in response to massive congressional excesses above and beyond the White House's already bloated threshold, the likelihood of future fiscal restraint (much less responsibility) will be essentially nil.

One final note on the FY2005 budget: If you were inclined to give the administration's budget the benefit of the doubt, given the necessity of increased defense expenditures, think again. The proposed budget doesn't actually include any of the costs for continued operations in, and reconstruction of, Afghanistan and Iraq; this will require a separate spending bill altogether.

President Bush's performance as Commander-in-Chief notwithstanding, he and most Congressional Republicans have disappointed -- to say the least -- their core-constituency of fiscal conservatives, and undermined the administration's credibility in the process. Unmitigated government growth (and the resulting historic deficits) is the Bush administration's Achilles' heel in its bid for another term. Given the enormous growth of central-government spending under Republican-controlled executive and legislative branches, one is left to ponder if the tension created when those two branches are controlled by different parties is necessary to contain government growth.

Quote of the week...

"Two years ago this month, I signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, the most important reform of public education in a generation. ... In 2003, we provided $234 million to assist the lowest-performing schools that need the most improvement. In 2004, we plan to more than double that amount. We have increased federal funding for elementary and high-school education from about $25 billion in 2001, to more than $33 billion in 2003, an increase of about 36 percent, and the highest level ever. We've committed $1.8 billion in grants to help train tens of thousands of teachers to use effective reading instruction methods and materials." --President George W. Bush Memo to Mr. Bush: No Federal Spending Program Left Behind?

On cross-examination...

"Never mind that George W. promised to reduce federal spending: The fact of the matter is that he has not done so. What he has reduced is the use of the veto, reduced it to zero." --William F. Buckley

"We as Republicans have exploded the number of earmarks [pork-barrel spending]. We seem to have no shame." --Rep. Jeff Flake

"The Republican Party could be fairly criticized for not having the discipline in spending we should have. But we're the best game in town. Compared to the Democrats, we're great." --Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, speaking on the mammoth increases in discretionary and non-defense spending in the federal government Memo to Mr. Graham: When did Democrats become the standard for comparison?

Open query...

"Virtually everything that the government does costs more than when the same thing is done in private industry -- whether it is building housing, running prisons, collecting garbage, or innumerable other things. Why in the world would we imagine that health care would be the exception?" --Thomas Sowell

[OP_Carl]

BUMP

Christopher,

I make no apologies whatsoever for Republican initiatives like the prescription drug plan that make our country more socialist. Too many Republicans are incapable of conceiving of a country without these trappings, largely because they've been in place and growing for so long now. But I am a conservative thinker, not a Republican shill.

I would like to learn your answers to a few direct questions:

1) Was President Roosevelt's New Deal concept un-constitutional?

2) If New Deal programs were un-constitutional, did President Roosevelt do anything immoral in implementing them?

3) If I were to decide to sue the SSA for a cash settlement of all my future social security benefits, could I win?

4) If I won, from whence would I be paid?

5) Is it moral for congressmen to spend the accrued social security funds instead of investing them for some level of growth?

6) What is more fair in your opinion, equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

7) Is America presently a free country?

8) Is effect on recipients the only valid way to evaluate an institutionalized wealth transfer program?

9) The new bi-partisan tax rebate bill is going to cause checks to be sent to Americans that will total $145 billion. Where is this money coming from?

10) Will the tax rebate work to acheive its stated goal of invigorating the economy? Why or why not?

[OP_Carl]

The problems facing society today are compounded by a widespread inability to comprehend the true nature of the problems. People are so immersed in and comfortable with a culture that has amalgamated patriotism and love for nostalgic Americana with ideologies and sentiments that are specifically counter to the intentions of the founding fathers and constitution, that they cannot see clearly enough or far enough to separate the one from the other, much less the desperate need to do so. Mankind would do well to re-learn the principles of our constitution, and how these principles served as a catalyst to propel America from a fledgling frontier nation to a superpower in a scant, historically-speaking, 200 years. Mankind would do well to re-learn critical thinking skills, and how to analyze both the seen and unseen results of policies, the intended and unintended consequences.

This is especially important for the subject of economics, an arena of policy where we are about to plunge ourselves into even deeper error. Mankind would do well to study the origins of some of the trends of thought wending their way through society. Some of these ideologies and sentiments, even though their emergence appears to be a matter of course, are in fact being propelled to prominence with design and purpose. Such design and purpose ought to be able to withstand the light of scrutiny in a free and just society, yet the originators wish to remain in the shadows. Mankind would do well to learn more about these designs and purposes. Some are overt and current, such as Madison Avenue's incessant efforts to keep their hooks in people, and some are subtle or are ripples of after-effect from efforts made in the distant past, such as the ideology of collectivism that was intentionally planted here by Soviet communist infiltrators.

Just as the incompatible ideologies of collectivism and individualism cannot in practice be truly blended, the concepts of economic freedom and Federal benevolence are also mutually exclusive. Mankind can be led and taught to have a heart for giving and sharing, but it can never be forced. Compulsory charity causes man to work against his own self-interest, and as a system has been proven to be unworkable and unstable. The use of government force to influence economic decisions inhibits the creation of wealth, and while the visible acts appear to increase prosperity in one spot, the unseen effect of forfeited prosperity in another spot is all-too-frequently ignored. The more complex this system of government coercion of economy becomes, the more inhibited and guarded commerce becomes. In the name of economic stimulus, government intervention in commerce produces in the sum total the opposite effect.