Thursday, February 10, 2011

How Obamacare destroys the Rule of Law

I have several concerns about Obamacare. One is creeping nationalization. Healthcare accounts for 17% of the US economy. Obamacare appears designed to gradually destroy private health care and force more and more people to turn to the government for health care. Nationalization is contrary to the concept of a free people. I think we should be looking for ways to privatize services government already provides rather than nationalize services provided by the private sector.

Another concern, is that Obamacare will bankrupt our country; we just can't afford it. With the National Debt standing at $14.1 trillion dollars and entitlements and interest on the debt making up the bulk of annual government expenditures, we cannot afford another entitlement. The US holds a debt to GDP ratio of 94%! This is not sustainable. We are like a household that is living our lifestyle by financing it on credit cards and we keep getting an increase in the credit limit or get a new credit card every time we approach maxing out a credit card. Adding another entitlement is the last thing we need to be doing.

I am also concerned that government does not do very much very well. I fear the quality of health care will surfer with more government control.

I am concerned about the increase in government power and the unconstitutional nature of Obamacare. I believe our freedom is due primarily to the wisdom found in our constitution which places limits on government authority. If there are no limits on government authority, if the constitution is meaningless, then our freedom is at risk. Surely the Commerce Cause is not so broad that government can force people to purchase a product. If it is, the government can force us to do almost anything.

While all of these are concerns, I am equally deeply concerned about what Obmacare does to the Rule of Law. Rule of Law is not the same as law and order. Rule of Law means that the law is applied equally. Rule of Law means the government does not pick winners and looser.

The book club to which I belong recently selected The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek and I reread this classic. Below are excerpts on the topic of the Rule of Law from that work:

Noting distinguished more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles know as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government is all its actions is bound by rules issued and announced beforehand-rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authorities will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan ones individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge.

When the government has to decide how many pigs are to be raised or how many buses are to be run, which coal mines are to operate or what prices shoes are to be sold, those decisions cannot be deduced from principle or settled for long periods in advance. They depend inevitable on the circumstances of the monument and making such decision it will always be necessary to balance one against the other the interest of various person and groups.

It does not matter whether we all drive on he left or on the right-side of the road so long as we all do the same. The important thing is that the rule enable us to predict other people's behavior correctly, and this requires that it should apply to all cases-even if in a particular instant we feel it to be unjust.

We have already seen more than 700 waivers to the requirements of ObamaCare exempting those who got the waiver from a provision in the new health care law that bans annual limits on what an insurance company will pay for health care coverage.

This is an outrage! Many of those granted waivers are friends of the administration and campaign contributors, such as the United Federation of Teachers and locals of the SEIU. That is not government by Rule of Law but is autocratic grants to friends. That is not the way things are done in a democracy. That is not the way things are supposed to work in America

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Donelson/Hermitage Summit: Emily Evans and Michael Craddock on the TN State Fairgrounds.

Rise & Shine, Join Your Fellow GOP’ers

Donelson-Hermitage Eggs and Bacon Summit

The meeting will be at
Ryan's Steakhouse
 3435 Lebanon Pike, Hermitage

 Dutch treat Breakfast is at 8:30, meeting at 9AM
 Meeting begins at 9 am (sharp)


    Come Hear Prominent Council Members Emily Evans (23) 
    and Michael Craddock (4)
    Emily Evans
    Michael Craddock
    Jim Gotto
    • What Are The Key Issues In The Debate?
    • Why Did Over 1,000 Attend a recent Tuesday Night Council Meeting?
    • The Larger Issue: What Should Be The Government’s Role In Economic Development?
    • What are the politics of the issue?

    Program moderated by Representative (District 60) and Metro Councilman (District 12) Jim Gotto

    Steve Glover
    Also, Special Guest Steve Glover, former School Board Member and Candidate for Metro Council, District 12.

    Event Chairmen – Jer Dunlap
    Kathleen Starnes, DCRP Chair
    Rod Williams, DCRP Summit Coordinator

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Beavers Panders to Birthers

    God bless Mae Beavers. She is a solid conservative. She has a pro-life, small government, pro-2nd amendment, pro-educational reform, and pro-parental rights voting record. Unfortunately, she is now getting silly by pandering to the birthers.

    Mae Beavers has introduced a bill that would require that in order to have one’s name placed on the ballot to run for President in Tennessee, one would have to provide the following:

    (i) An original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, and signatures of the witnesses in attendance;
    (ii) A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America; and
    (iii) A sworn statement or form that identifies the candidate's places of residence in the United States for the preceding fourteen (14) years.
    Maybe Mae Beavers really believe President Obama is an alien and is illegally serving as president. Maybe she really believes this bill is necessary. Or, maybe she has an enthusiastic constituent who worked hard for her election and contributed to her campaign and to whom she promised that if reelected she would sponsor such a bill. I don’t know.

    As of now, the bill has no co-sponsor and no companion bill in the house. Hopefully this will die a quite death and Ms Beavers can tell her constituent, “I tried.” If this moves forward, someone needs to amend it to require everyone running for any office to also meet the same requirements. (How do you get a copy of your long-form birth certificate?)

    To other Republicans in the House and Senate: Please do not sign on as sponsors of this bill. Please do not introduce a companion bill in the House. Things like this make Republicans look like fringe freaks and right-wing nut jobs. Sponsoring nutty stuff like this is a recipe for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and returning this state to Democratic hands. This is embarrassing.

    I am emailing this blog post to Mae Beavers with this message: .
    Dear Ms Beavers,
    I see that you have introduced bill SB 0366 creating a new requirement for having one's name placed on the ballot to run for President in Tennessee. I urge you to withdraw this bill. In my view, legislation such as this makes Republicans look like right-wing nut-jobs, destroys the sponsors credibility, and helps Democrats.
    Could you please explain why you introduced this bill? I am a local blogger and will post your reply in full.

    Stay tuned: I will list any House sponsors or co-sponsors or any reply from Mae Beavers.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories