Tag Archives: Obamacare

American Fascism or Treading Water?

The President threatened the Supreme Court today. The carrion stink of fascism never wafts far from the Obama kitchen. It was already there during his campaign (and I wrote about it). So, he may be laying the groundwork for a constitutional coup:

“This constitution is too old. We need something better suited to our times. Anyone who does not see this is a racist.”   That’s on the one hand.

On the other hand, this speculation is not in line with most of what I have been saying on this blog: This is a man out of his depth.

It’s difficult to reconcile the cold cynicism required for a coup with Mr Obama’s practice of telling big lies that he has no chance of getting away with. This is a man who declared recently in stentorian tones that a vote of 219 to 214 is a “big” margin (or a ‘wide” margin, same thing). He does not realize that if five Democrats had had the flu that day and stayed home, Obamacare would have failed in the House. Or that if three Representatives had switched sides, the same thing would have happened.

I don’t see how that could have been a lie, I mean a deliberate distortion of the facts. I am guessing he is just treading water.What do you think?

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events

Republican Presidential Candidates

Pres. Obama has already lost the next presidential election as far as thinking people right and left are judging. It does not mean that Republicans will win. The GOP has to run with an electable candidate.

The field of Republican presidential candidates is becoming more readable, I think. Here is my summary.

Herman Cain is very likable and he speaks clearly about his genuinely conservative program. Besides, he looks like a president and women will love his manly manners. That’s not enough to get him elected or to make him electable. Americans will not vote to make president anyone who was not previously elected to something. No amount of good business experience will make up for this. (And Cain, has plenty of that.)

Newt Gingrich is a completely clear conservative. No one explains better than he does the main practical points of a conservative programs for 2012. Unfortunately, no one likes him, I think. There are good reasons to, including his unprincipled flirtations with government support for ethanol.

Gov. Perry lost it all in the last presidential debate. There is no way he can make up for it. He was facing the test of his life with Gov. Romney and he came to the test without having studied. He was not prepared. It’s not a default of knowledge as some pretend, it’s a character fault.

Romney is equal to himself. He is reasonably likable in a sort of metrosexual way. He carries a lot of baggage, including his Mass. health program he has never either really defended nor apologized for. That’s a lot of baggage, especially in 2012 because Obamacare, cousin to the Mass. plan, will be a number one reason to reject Pres. Obama. No one knows for sure whether Gov. Romney is a conservative by today’s standard.

Note: If I turn out to be wrong, it’s going to be about Gov. Romney. He may just be the half-way candidate where the Republican Party voters meet. I sure hope not.

Congresswoman Bachman is another Great Woman’s Hope in the ring. She is clearly a conservative and she is likable in a weird sort of way. (Rearing all those foster children surely was not pretend work.) Politically, though, she is not serious. She said something big-time wrong on the occasion of the second debate, about vaccinations. She will never recover. Here is a the rule of thumb: You may stumble when someone else hands you a question, especially when it’s an enemy handing you a trap question. (I am reminded of Gov. Palin being asked perversely what she thought of the “Bush Doctrine.” I would have flunked too.) You may not, however, tell falsehoods on a topic you, yourself chose. It matters little whether you are lying or merely ignorant. I am not even sure which one I prefer.

Ron Paul sounds like he whines. It may not be his fault. I could be like Pres. Bush’s alleged smirk, just a physical thing with no intention behind it. Paul will always get some support because there are significant numbers of loyal Libertarians who wish to work within the Republican Party. He will never get much more support because they, the Libertarians, don’t dupe anyone. Their isolationism in foreign policy is perceived as a lack of patriotism. (Full disclosure: I am a libertarian – small “l” – who is a registered Republican. I am struggling with the inherent contradiction between libertarianism and the necessary American armed stance. See my recent essays on the topic: “Libertarian Military Isolationism: Forward All with Eyes Tightly Shut,” “The Libertarian Project and American Military Power.)

Congressman Paul declared in the second debate that the armed forces spend 20 billion dollars (US D 20,000,000,000) annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan. See the rule of thumb above. Like many ideological purists, he will come to believe just about anything that seems to support his ideology.

Then, there is what’s his name who stated categorically in a debate that, “ 97 % of climate scientists” believe in man-made global warming. You can’t say that. It’s  dogmatically stupid. If it were true, we would not know it and therefore, no one can affirm it. The man sounds a little stupid, perhaps because he answers before he thinks. Bad trait for a president. Forget him.

And then, there is the other what’s his name whose sole contribution thus far is a good wisecrack about dogs and shovel-ready jobs.

Gov. Christie of New Jersey keeps insisting he is not running. He is not the mincing type. I think he is telling the truth.

It all does not ad up to much, so far. Time to get excited.

8 Comments

Filed under Current Events

Tucson Giffords Massacre Not a Tragedy (with new 2013 comments.)

My response to libertarian Brandon Christensen on “Unconditional surrender” will come later. Right now, I have to address the liberal media orgy prompted by the shooting in Tucson. Enemies first, friends later.

I pride myself on my equanimity. I am seldom “appalled” by anything. Right now I am almost sickened by the tsunami of liberal verbiage though. I am not going to dial down my anger, on the contrary.

First things first, a reminder: Poverty, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, sexual orientation prejudice, and inequality did not cause Jared Laughner to commit mass murder. Even a poor education can hardly be blamed. The man is a high-school drop-out like thousands of others who don’t shoot anyone ever. Lack of educational opportunity hardly played a role either: Although he failed to graduate from high-school, Laughner was accepted in community college (exactly like me, I must ad). Neither is Obamacare going to help stave off this kind of horror in the future. Laughner might have benefited from psychiatric care but neither he nor his parents sought it. Hence, he was not “denied care.” Tough luck!

The Left is hysterically blaming Sarah Palin and conservative media for creating a climate conducive to the kind of violence illustrated in Tucson. This is absurd at least for two reasons. First, if a climate of hostility toward politicians could cause acts of violence, President Bush would have been assassinated one hundred times at least. Nothing since the Obama inauguration has come close to the level and volume of hatred spewed at Pres. G. W. Bush for five or six years running. Or is one to believe that only right-wing hatred is effective? Second, it stands to reason that conservative incitement, if it were conducive to action, should have made another victim than Rep. Giffords, or rather, hundreds of more attractive targets would have been more logical. Rep. Giffords is a moderate Democrat, one who has notably made statements in support of gun control among others, in addition to statements in support of Obamacare, of course. She was never a very visible member of Congress. She was not a leader in the Obamacare swindle. Attempting to kill her in particular made no sense in any conceivable mental world (of course). If I were a right-wing extremist bent on assassinating an elected member of the Democratic Party, I could come up with a list of at least one hundred who should take precedence over Rep. Giffords. I hasten to add that I am not and I will not. My side will prevail with persuasion, by shedding light on the other side’s lies, and through constitutional means.

If the targeted victim had been a conservative Republican, I would express the same disbelief about any causality running from political opinions expressed in any media to the criminal acts of a mad person.

The purpose of the current liberal media raging attack and of several politicians’ fascist proposals is not to save lives in the future. It’s to censor and eventually to shut off the rational, factual, well-worded arguments conservatives are making against government’s massive invasion of civil society and against the abandonment of constitutional principles in our country. Don’t be fooled. Liberals hate reason. Also, be attentive: Liberals are so excited by the destructive potential of this event they will soon begin proffering outright lies and some will get caught.

The Tucson massacre is not a tragedy as I have pointed out on Facebook. A tragedy has meaning; that’s why we remember it. That’s why it’s an important kind of literature. The Tucson massacre is not a tragedy. It has no meaning although it’s understandable that victims’ relatives should attempt to scratch meaning out of the meaninglessness of a devastating event.

The only valid public debate this horrifying crime should trigger ought to be about the incarceration of the mentally ill. In this society, we are slow to put away people who may be dangerous. There are good historical reasons for this bias that are worth discussing. They will not be discussed because doing so would contribute nothing to the salvage of the sinking liberal ship.

21 Comments

Filed under Current Events

The Health Disaster: What’s Next. What to do.

The magnitude and the complexity of the disaster of Obamacare are such that the normal thinking person has trouble keeping them all in mind, much less, thinking rationally about them. For me, it’s been like herding cats. I have decided to focus on the essentials with respect to the main next stage for health care in this country and with respect to what we can do about it as individuals. What I describe below is modest enough to understand, remember, and act on, I think.

The road to single-payer destination

I still don’t know how much duplicity exists in Pres. Obama’s heart and I don’t know how capable of scheming Nancy Pelosi is. (He has limited understanding of anything, I keep saying. I think she is on happy pills all the time.) However, the miracle they wrought had predictable consequences irrespective of intent.

On the one hand, as I have said before, I can’t imagine any American jury punishing Americans for refusing to purchase something. On the other hand, overall, the automatic fines for not purchasing health insurance are overall, smaller than the cost of purchasing health insurance. That’s true for companies and for individuals. The rational course of action is to pay the fine and see what happens. For individuals, there will be no personal risk beyond the fine in refraining from carrying health insurance. Insurance companies will not be able to refuse anyone with a re-existing condition: As soon as the doctor informs me I have any serious illness, I will purchase insurance. I will also leave a check with someone close to me to do the same on my behalf in case I have an accident and I am unable to do it for myself.

There are two solutions to this problem, both very unpleasant. First, the authorities, aided by court decisions, can admit that forced purchase of insurance cannot be implemented and then, turn to taxation. A tax on everyone would abolish the dual obstacle of superficial voluntariness and of unconstitutionality of the dispositions now in the law.

It’s possible to convict people and companies for not paying a tax, especially a nearly universal tax. It happens all the time. If he is still President, Barack Obama will say: “Very sorry, I tried to keep my campaign promise that no one earning less than $250,000 would see a tax increase. The lack of civic spirit of too many of our citizens and companies forced me to do it.” Keep in mind that he did much worse recently as far as betraying solemn promises is concerned.

But there is another solution that is even more palatable to the leftists who have taken over this country. They can simply preside over a massive die-off of private (non-government) insurance companies. Such an event would be precipitated by a broader coverage mandate accompanied by a loss of clients as many, or most, turn to fines as the better option. Leftists could thus passively create a new situation with government, single-payer coverage as the only solution left. Single-payer, in turn, would be financed with a combination of obligatory payroll taxes, co-payments, and other miscellaneous taxes as is the case in most of Europe today. Faced with the prospect of no coverage for most of the population even a conservative majority in both houses would probably cave in.

Apologists for single-payer health coverage delude themselves that if it works in Finland and in France, it would work here too. I have written before about this, based on experience and study. I think they are dreaming. I see no prospect that the US can do as well as France in that area. It’s a long story; let me summarize it: French trains are fast, comfortable and they run on time, all the time. Think Amtrack!

What is to be done?

The airwaves are currently full of speculation about whether or not it is possible to reverse or even to limit the damage of Obamacare. Much of the speculation is above my pay grade. Even if it were not, it would leave me deeply dissatisfied because I need to act now, or at least, to have a plan for action immediately. The implementation of the plan has to depend entirely or mostly on factors under my control. At the very least, I want to be able to make a resolution for my behavior right tomorrow that I will be able to keep. Here are two in one.

1 I will vote punitively in every election. In federal elections, I will find out who voted for the Obamacare and who said anything positive about it. I will vote against any candidate that did either. I will do so even if the alternative candidate is a yellow dog. (That’s where the term comes from, incidentally.) In primaries, I will vote for the candidate who will say the worst things about Obamacare. Lacking such information, I will chose the candidate most opposed to government enlargement. In other elections, I will ferret out candidates’ position with respect to Obamacare and about public intervention in health care and in the economy in general. I will vote for the candidate who sounds most opposed even if he is running for dog-catcher. I will not miss an opportunity to trumpet my electoral choices and the reasons for my choices.

2 I will make it my foremost goal to draw one another person to this viewpoint and I will make sure this person vote in November. My conquest, my single conquest, may be an independent, a comparatively easy achievement. Secondly, there are millions of young people who don’t register to vote or who don’t vote. Many abstain because they think they don’t know enough to do any good. It’s fairly easy to capture the attention of one of those abstainers and to hold his hand until he registers and votes (the right way). But I may even be able to cause a Democrat to vote against his party just this one time. It’s not as unlikely as it sounds. Many registered Democrats are disgusted by the process through with Obamacare was voted and signed into law. They are repelled for much the same reasons I am: It was obscene. You don’t have to be a Republican or a conservative to recognize obscenity. Second, Democrats in rising numbers are going to discover that the law does not accomplish many of the things they were promised and that it deprives them of some of what they have.

As I said at the beginning, I don’t know what the immediate future holds for the legal and practical status of Obamacare. However, I can’t think of any future where a larger number of non-Democrat elected officials would not help repair or compensate for the ravage.

This two-pronged strategy will meet with uneven success, depending on locale. In my district, there is scant chance of preventing the re-election of silly Congressman Sam Farr. Yet, it’s worth doing for two reasons. First good behavior is no less contagious than bad behavior. Your good behaviors might, in the aggregate, move to action voters in districts where a change of representation is possible. Just remember that a majority is half plus one (unity, un, uno). Second, at the very least, pursuing this strategy is going to make me feel better.

One last thing: I am contemplating designing a flag for the “Party of  No.” I am thinking of the silhouette of a shapely woman with a beehive hairdo and a hunting rifle across her back. What do you think?

PLEASE, TRY TO CIRCULATE THIS PEACEFUL CALL TO ARMS. (I have to emphasize “peaceful” because I don’t trust our Executive anymore.)

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events

Going Out on Four Limbs on the Health Debate

Following the open-house health care debate (2/26/10)  “moderated” by the person with the greatest vested interest, I am going to make four hazardous predictions:

1 The President’s popularity is going to surge for a while because Americans like fairness and the debate was a demonstration of fairness as compared to the back-room dealings that preceded it.

2 For the next week or so, the media, including the liberal media, are going to analyze what really happened. It’s going to become increasingly clear that the President did not know what he was talking about, did not understand the 4500 pages of the two bills, did not understand the cost of his proposal, did not understand the mood of the public.

3 The Democrat leadership is going to make a half-hearted attempt at passing the President’s bill with a simple majority through reconciliation, also known as the “nuclear option.” It will fail in almost all respects. Nevertheless, the Democrat leadership will declare victory.

4  Around June, July, we are going to see the launching of a  new health care reform initiative. It will have bi-partisan sponsorship, the real thing, led by Senator McCain. The new bill will comprise less than one hundred pages total. It will include the obvious: option to buy insurance across state lines, tort reform, limited portability of health care benefits, possibly an end to the exemption of health insurance companies from anti-trust laws . (Read the last again; you won’t believe it.) Moderate Democrats will get something to, I don’t know what, but not a public option. Democrats will get something suitable to take to the November election

Then, we will all go to the beach,

If any of these predictions fail, or all, you will have to forgive me. Although I had the time, I wasn’t able to force myself to listen to the whole seven hours. I am just tired of the whole thing. We need health care reform. The Democrat approach is almost entirely wrong-headed. Our institutions are working. The rest follows.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Current Events

Whining Instead of Sex and the Better Use of Health Insurance: A Testimony

I know how detestable it is for older men to speak about their health. First, the odds that they are going to come out alive are not good. Second, it’s true that many old geezers replace sexual pleasure with the joys of whining. I am not one of those. I have a legitimate, didactic reason to speak about my health, at least, briefly. It has to do indirectly with the underpinning of the on-going debate on and disgust with health care reform.

About five months ago, I started suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome. In a way, CTS is a happy illness. It’s the illness of writers who actually write. It come from spending too much time intensively using the keyboard. Yet, the pain was intense enough to wake me up at night. The neurologist prescribed Aleve. Then, at my insistence, he described the appropriate surgical intervention. It’s a routine operation; it does not require anesthesia; it works almost all the time. Having little patience, in my mind, I was immediately sold on the procedure.

Then, I started looking at cost. I am on one of the Bush-era, smart versions of Medicare. It’s designed to give me all that I need but not much more. I knew this in an abstract way but I had not thought it through because, frankly, who does not have something more exciting to do than reading insurance companies fine print and wooden language? So, I was shocked that my share of the cost for this simple, small operation would come to almost $2,000. I put off the decision because putting off the decision rather than making lemonade, is often the most rational thing you can do when life serves you lemons.

On my next doctor visit, I listened for the first time to the issues of how much Aleve I can afford to take daily and also of how to use the brace, I had purchased distractedly. He said not to wear it only at night, as I had done, but as often as I could, day or night. Fast-forward three months. I still have not had the operation. I take three Aleve a day of the four the doctor allowed. (Because, after all, it’s my liver, not his. Plus, he doesn’t know all the things I did to the self-same liver years ago.) I wear a brace fifteen hours a day on the average. I purchased for $38 the snazzy black variety that makes me look vaguely dangerous instead of the most common flesh-pink old-lady kind. The black looks good against my tanned, muscular, hairy forearm. (If I say so myself.)  I think of the brace as the brachyal equivalent of a pirate’s eye-patch. The pain has not waken me for weeks. Most of the time, there is barely any pain although a tingle in the fingers remains. What pain there is is on the decline. Right now, I wouldn’t dream of having anyone cut deep into my hand to get to the offending nerve. I saved myself something like $2,000 and the nation several times this amount.

What’s important about this fairly boring story is what it does not say. I have not become a wiser person in the past few months. My propensity to think things through has not improved. My innate rationalism is pretty much where it was last year. I insist: I am not a better person. Instead, the structuring of my particular kind of health insurance gave me a good incentive to do nothing. While I was doing nothing, less obvious solutions than surgery had a chance to show their effectiveness. The problem solved itself to a sufficient extent. Resources were saved. Additional risks to my health were avoided.

Here is a fallacy you have to avoid when reading this story: Yes, in some other case, an operation might have proved necessary, or simply been the better option. But we are not reasoning on averages here. Evey dollar saved is a dollar saved, forever. Buying health services should obey the same rules as buying a suit, or a car. Ordinary prudence works well if you have reasons to use it. Most health insurance interposes itself between you and your good judgment. Government health insurance is the worst of all in this respect. It rewards you for not thinking things through. It rewards the worst version of you (and me).

2 Comments

Filed under Socio-Political Essays

A Common Conservative Fallacy (Revised 7/24/10; revised again 4/9/12))

I believe folly serves liberals better than it serves conservatives. Our way is the rational way while liberals tend to rely on their gut-feelings and on their sensitive hearts which make them comparatively indifferent to hard facts. That’s why they voted for  Pres. Obama. That’s why many of them still can’t face emotionally the possibility of buyer’s remorse.

It’s the task of every conservative to correct important errors that have found their way into fellow conservatives’ mind. Here is one I hear several times a week, especially from Rush Limbaugh (whom I otherwise like and admire). What’s below is a paraphrase, a distillation of many different but similar statements, from Limbaugh and from others I listen to and read:

Government does not create jobs.” and, “Government does not create wealth (it just seizes the wealth created by business and transfers it to others.)” Both statements are important and both statements are just false. It’s not difficult to show why.

First, some government actions make jobs possible that would not exist, absent those actions. Bear with me.

Suppose I have a large field of good bottom land. From this land I can easily grow a crop of corn sufficient to feed my family, and our poultry, and our pig, Gaspard. I grow a little more to make pretty good whiskey. I have no reason to grow more corn than this. I forgot to tell you: This is 1820 in eastern Ohio. Now, the government uses taxes (money taken from me and from others under threat of violence, to be sure) to dig and build  a canal that links me and others to the growing urban centers of New York and Pennsylvania. I decide to plant more corn, for sale back East. This growth in my total production works so well that I expand again. Soon, I have to hire a field hand to help me out, After a while, I have two employees.

In the  historically realistic situation I describe, would it not be absurd to declare that the government gets no credit, zero credit for the two new jobs?

Second, it should be obvious that government provides many services such as mail delivery. Also, some of the services private companies supply in this country are supplied elsewhere by a branch of government. They are comparable. Emergency services, ambulance service, is a case in point. Most ambulances are privately owned and operated in the US while most ambulances are government-owned and operated in France. If you have a serious car accident in the US, you or someone calls a certain number and an ambulance arrives to administer first aid and to carry you to a hospital if needed. Exactly the same thing happens in France under similar circumstances.

In both countries, the value of the  service so rendered is entered into the national accounting and it appears in the American Gross Domestic Product for the year (GDP) and in the French GDP, respectively. The GDP thus increases by something like $500. GDP is important because it’s the most common measure of the value of our collective production. When the GDP is up by 3,5 % for a year, it makes every American who knows it happy. When the GDP shrinks by 1%, we all worry and we all feel poorer. If it shrinks at all for two consecutive quarters, you have the conventional definition of a recession and all hell breaks lose, including a rise in unemployment.

Exactly the same is true in France. The government-provided French ambulance service has exactly the same effect on the French GDP.

Now think of this: Is there anyone who believes that the equivalent service supplied in France by a government agency does not have more or less the same value as the American service provided by a private company? Would anyone argue that the ambulance service supplied in France, in most ways identical to the service in America, should not be counted in the French GDP? Clearly, both propositions are absurd.

Same thing for job creation. When the French government agency in charge of ambulances hires an additional ambulance driver, it creates a new job, same as when an American company hires an ambulance driver.

By the way, don’t think my story trivial. “Services” is a poorly defined category. It’s even sometimes too heterogeneous to be useful (not “erogenous,” please pay attention). It includes such things as waitressing, fortune-telling, university teaching, and doing whatever Social Security employees do. Yet it’s good enough for gross purposes. Depending on what you include, last year, “services” accounted for something between 45% and 70% of US GDP. So, if you think services, such as ambulance service, should not be counted, you should know that it means that we are earning collectively about half to three quarters less than we think we do. If memory serves, that means that our standard of living today is about the same as it was in 1950 or even in 1930.

Does this all imply that we should rejoice every time the government expands? The answer is “no,” for three reasons. These three reasons correspond to three questions that conservatives should ask over and over again:

1 Is this service a real service to regular people or is it created only, or largely, to serve the needs of those who provide it, or for frivolous reasons? Some government services fall into this area, not many, I think. Look in the direction of government control, inspection, verification functions. Don’t forget your local government.

Public education looks more and more like a service provided largely or even primarily to give careers to teachers and administrators protected by powerful unions. It does not mean that the real service “education” does not take place, just that it’s often done badly by people who are not the best they could be to provide that particular service

2   Is this particular service better provided by government or by the private sector? Is it so even while the provision of the service requires collecting taxes and then paying out the proceeds to the actual civil servants through a government bureaucracy? That’s a very indirect way to go about. That’s probably enough to make it more expensive than it would otherwise be. That’s true even if every government employee inv0lved is a model of efficiency

The US Post Office remains the best example of a  situation where one would say  the private sector can do it better

Only conservatives dare pose this question with respect to services one level of government or other has been supplying for a long time or forever. The Post Office is inefficient; if it were abolished, the paper mail would be delivered, faster or cheaper, or both. Some paper mail would not be delivered anymore. Many more of us would count it a blessing than the reverse. While there is a broad consensus across the political spectrum that children should be educated at collective expense, there is growing certitude that governments should not be in the business of education. In many parts of the country, the public schools are both expensive and bad. Last time I looked, Washington DC was spending over $20,000 per pupil per year. Give me half that amount and half the students or better will come out knowing how to read, I say. (It’s not the case now.)

3   This is the most serious question and the most difficult to answer concretely: Does the fact that this service is provided by government (any level) have any negative effect on our liberties? This is a separate question altogether. It may be that the government’s supply of a particular service is both inefficient and dangerous to freedom. It may be however that government supply is the most efficient solution possible and yet, I don’t want it because it threatens my freedom. As a conservative, I believe that my money is my money. I am free to use it to buy inefficiently, in order to preserve liberty, for example. I am not intellectually obligated to be “pragmatic” and short sighted.

To take an example at random, if someone showed me, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, that Obamacare would reduce the cost of health care without impairing its quality, if that happened, I would still be against it because of the answer I would give to the third and last question above.

I don’t want a any government bureaucracy to make decisions that are ultimately decisions of life and death on my behalf. The possibility of blackmail is too real. Even thinking about it is likely to make some people more docile than they otherwise would be.

The rule of thumb is this: Every expansion of government reduces individual freedom. That’s true even if this expansion creates and efficient and effective government agency, say, a real good Post Office we don’t even know how to dream of.

This is not  something I worry much about, in the case of Obamacare obviously. It would be inefficient, ineffective and dangerous to individual liberty all at once.

Conservatives don’t do enough to proclaim that their opposition to big government has an ethical basis, that it’s a moral position independent of the quality of big government. This silence makes if easy for liberals to caricature conservatives as just selfish grouches who don’t want to pay taxes.

Most of the time, I don’t want to pay taxes because I don’t want to be forced. I would gladly give away twice the amount of my taxes if there were a way to do it voluntarily instead of paying taxes.

I am so opposed to this kind of force that I think even the undeserving and obscenely rich should not be despoiled by the government. It’s an ethical position, not a pragmatic one. And, it sure cannot be called “selfish.” (WTF!)

3 Comments

Filed under Socio-Political Essays

A Real Town Meeting in the People’s Green Republic of Santa Cruz.

Tuesday night, I took in, in person, two and a half hours of town hall meeting with the same congressman, Sam Farr, in my own town of Santa Cruz, this time. Now, it’s important to understand that Santa Cruz is, overall, a seventies throwback, left-liberal to communist anti-American. To give you an idea, on my long street, downtown, there are only three American flags, two of which belong to me. When I make conservative noises in public, in spite of my considerable expressive talents, people think I am kidding.


I went to the meeting with my wife, under my own power. The only prompt I got is that one local radio station gave the time and place of the meeting on the air. It did so several times. It’s seen as a conservative station. (Full disclosure: I have a talk-show program on that station, KSCO 1080 AM, every Sunday 11AM-1PM.) Rush Limbaugh did not send me. The local Republican Party was pathetically absent in every respect. If there was any conservative or right-wing organization present, it escaped my attention and I was looking for one. There were no right-wing thugs in sight, with the possible exception of myself, and especially, my wife, Krishna. My wife is in very good shape indeed but, she is slight of built. She has never really divulged her age too me but her hair is all white. The only humans she has ever physically threatened were our children, when they were teen-agers, and me, of course. I can’t tell you why she threatened my because I don’t like to brag.


I insist on the unorganized nature of the event in a spirit of helpfulness. The main problem most Democrats, including Congressman Farr and including the President face, is that they cannot conceive of a genuine grass-root movement of revulsion. George Beck, the Fox News-appointed liberal, of all things, said on television that he does not believe that the opposition to Obamacare is “spontaneous.” He is not a dumb man. He is associated in some fashion with George Washington University. I have heard him before and never caught him even in a white lie. Those people can’t conceive of spontaneous political action because it seldom happens on their side. Instead, they rely on tax-subsidized ACORN, and on a variety of radical front organizations.


The Obama supporters seemed only a little more organized than the opponents. They had better signs and many seemed to know each other. They occupied most of the first three rows but I suspect there was no ploy involved. I could have sat in the second row if I had wanted to. One woman standing at the door was handing out three-page leaflets in support. She was careful to say she was not representing anything, that the document only expressed her own views. She tried to scrutinize my face before handing me a leaflet, no doubt to figure which side I am on. I gave her a big marble smile providing no information at all. I had also been careful to dress in a non-revelatory way. I don’t mean revelatory of my enviable physique, but of my political leanings. I was attempting stealth, the better to observe.


Naturally, I didn’t wear my brown shirt and I left my swastika at home. I did it to confuse Nancy Pelosi , a woman who becomes easily confused, it’s true.


The woman’s brochure had a lot of facts and it seemed carefully referenced. However, a number of the websites to which she referred the reader were clearly partisan. Overall, her argumentation was coherent. Yet it stood zero chance of persuading anyone not already in support of Obamacare. She made no effort to address the abundantly expressed concerns of opponents. (More on this later.) I think she was trying, ineffectually, to hand out ammunition to the weaklings on her side before the meeting. There were a variety of signs in the audience, fewer than fifty in all. The anti (conservative) signs were all hand-made. The pro signs were a mixture of hand-made and carefully printed slogans.


I estimated there were 500 people at the beginning of the meeting plus 200 in an overflow space. 700 is a large number in Santa Cruz for anything other than a movie. (There might be as many people at a religious service. I wouldn’t know. ) The main venue, in a church, was half-full an hour before the announced beginning of the meeting. It was packed when the Congressman arrived, pretty much on time.


He was introduced by one of the pastors, a woman with politically signaletic short hair. Then, the Mayor of Santa Cruz briefly took over. She is a leftie, of course, but rather well-liked by all. I felt that we were in mildly inimical territory. The Congressman is a jovial man with a sense of humor. He is also brave and hard-working.


Representative Farr began in Santa Cruz with the same rehearsed speech he had given the night before in Monterey. I felt he was on the wrong track from the beginning: not helpful to his side, the pro-Obamacare side, and startlingly incapable of addressing the views of the people opposed to Obama care.


Then people, about one hundred of them, lined up to deliver their two minute- speech and/or question. There is not much reason to repeat any of the audience’s addresses but I want to report on the tenor of the meeting. Only about 4/5 got to the mike. The queuing process was orderly and fair.


There was no intimidation on either side. There were catcalls and loud boos, from conservatives mostly. One, who was sitting next to me, was very loud indeed. I believe though not one sound was an attempt to drown out the Congressman, as we see regularly on college campuses, for example. It never even came close to that. There were also many rather effeminate hisses coming from pro partisans and directed at conservative speakers.


Conservatives, the con camp, and liberal/progressives, the pro Obamacare crowd, differ significantly both in appearance and in the content of their speech. Liberals are more flashy and they look better overall. The only speaker with a hat (a white straw hat) over his long hair, gave a little pro-Obamacare address and concluded that the overall solution to any health care crisis was to legalize and tax marijuana. (Disclosure: I agree that it’s a good idea. I don’t think it would make a dent, nationally.) Conservatives dress in a less interesting manner. Many are energetic sharp-spoken middle-aged women. The young among them tend to dress simply and soberly. More of the conservatives are seniors than are on the other side. This is interesting because you would assume Medicare beneficiaries did not have much of a dog in that fight. There were two black men in the audience. One did not get to speak; the other gave one of the best, most coherent anti-Obamacare arguments.


As usual, what did not happen matters most. Contrary to stupid, lazy press reports, the meeting did not look at all like a battle between well-dressed conservatives on the one side and the hard-working poor in work boots on the other side. Although Santa Cruz County is probably one third Hispanic, with Hispanics doing most of the ill-paid work, I observed no Hispanic presence at all. There were several large, white-on-white families I would classify, with my unusual sociological acumen, as “Oakies” here (“hillbillies” elsewhere in America). They were obviously there to a protest against Obama care. The town hall meeting in Santa Cruz was a solidly middle-class affair. All the people present could have mixed, matched, and possibly mated, at a neighborhood barbecue.


The spectacle rejoiced my heart because it was in the very best tradition of American democracy in action. Yet, I think the meeting was useless for its announced purpose. The two sides spent two hours speaking past each other. I don’t attribute the responsibility for this equally to both sides. (The truth is never in the middle.) The Congressman and supporters of Obamacare came wholly unprepared to address either the economic arguments of their opponents, nor even less, their constitutional concerns. The conservatives gave better speeches because they actually gave speeches while the liberals wasted a lot of time whining, as usual.


Striking ignorance of basic facts was evident on both sides. Ignorance has multiple causes. Mistrust is one of them. Congress could dissipate 90% of the mistrust on the conservative side with a single sentence: Members of Congress will have exactly the same access to health care as every other American.


The disjunction between the two discourses became clear within the first half-hour. The pro camp argued for the human necessity of government-directed, and in some case of single-payer, health care, shored up by horror stories. Many liberal speakers only gave horror stories, often about their own needs and the injustice of their destiny. The old stereotype was confirmed to an astounding degree: Liberals think of Government as an infinitely wise milch cow with teats that never dry up. They resist discussing the cost of good things, of any good things. Many have a singular talent for irrelevancy: By the end of the meeting, there were catcalls offering “no war” as the best solution to the alleged health care crisis health. Liberals are overwhelmingly childish.


Liberals and progressives came ready to counter only the crudest conservative slogans, such as the accusation of “socialism.” They painted their opponents in primitive colors, again, like children. I think they only know slogans and their slogans are mostly boring.


Obamacare opponents included only a small number of anti-abortion speakers. There was no hysteria about government-ordered euthanasia though concerns were expressed about the possibility government rationing might lead there. Conservative arguments were comparatively sophisticated and free of heart-wrenching personal narratives. They focused on disbelief regarding the announced costs of Obamacare. (They were thus joining he Congressional Budget Office, currently directed by a Democrat), and on constitutionality. Libertarian sentiment dominated. The financial consequences of Obama care were the tying principle as you would expect from people worried about economics and equally from people who dislike government growth.


Congressman Farr – a man easy to like, as I said – inspired pity. He came equipped with simplistic bullet-points and was confronted by a barrage of sophisticated questions and arguments. I believe he did not honestly understand most of them. I think he is out of his depth defending health care reform Obama-style. In part it’s because he is ill-informed, superficial, and living in a liberal intellectual ghetto. In part it’s because he, his party, and the President, did not come close to expecting the strong opposition that emerged quickly. They seem to believe their own gross propaganda describing opponents of Obamacare as a handful of ignorant thugs paid by insurance companies and teleguided by Rush Limbaugh.


Missing in the congressman’s handling of his opposition:


The crucial distinction between health insurance and health care. (He pointed out repeatedly that obligatory health insurance would be just like obligatory car insurance. Of course, I am unlikely to have a car accident and I am a hundred per cent likely to become sick.)


A grasp on the real nature of the “40 million uninsured” he kept using a a final argument that should close the matter for good. (They are largely a myth, though the figure is real, in a superficial sense.)


Any mature comprehension at all of the constitutional and historical fears expressed by opponents of Obamacare. (Listening to him was like listening to a French politician who would not know who Thomas Jefferson was and who would have never read the Declaration of Independence.)


Practical, personal familiarity with conservative rank-and-file, with conservatives who are not politicians or figments of left-wing journalists imagination. (I suspect he would be astounded, in full disbelief, if I talked to him freely over a beer.)


Elementary comprehension of economic objections to Obamacare. (After the meeting, I would have bet he did not understand even the summary of the Congressional Budget Office’s report on the topic.)


The defining moment of the town meeting occurred when a conservative asked him a pointed but simple question about the projected final cost of the proposed national health program. Congressman Farr, always the honest man, replied:


I don’t know.”


The local newspaper, the Santa Cruz Sentinel, gave a fair report of the event the next morning with a breath-takingly dishonest heading. Perhaps it was torn between fair and factual reporting and trying to align itself on the rest of the liberal press representation of such town meetings as being taking over by thugs.


For the record: I believe we need health care reform. This, for several reasons. Our costs are twice higher than those of the French and we don’t live as long. It’s intolerable that Americans should be forced to keep a job they hate because they cannot afford to lose the health care that’s tied to it. The propensity of insurance companies to turn down people with pre-existing conditions is a real problem so long as we are in an insurance regime.


I also think health insurance is a terrible idea. I place less confidence in our government to administer any complicated, national-level plan than I would in most West-European governments. I fear creeping, soft fascism, using nationalized health care as its main vehicle.


PS  Mr President: If you didn’t plant the alarming story about white extremist militia, don’t worry about them. They include only 37 middle-age guys spread over ten states. They have trouble finding their size in camouflage fatigues. They have to walk up hills in the forest because they smoke two packs a day.


Incidentally, tell your whiny Democrat Congressmen who complain about imaginary militias that its’ “supremacist,” no “supremist.”


Mr President: Worry instead about a massive tax revolt that will peacefully paralyze government. That’s the American way, didn’t you know?

4 Comments

Filed under Current Events