Month: February 2012

An Elected God and His Disciples

In a February 25, 2012 editorial in Barron’s Thomas Donlan refers to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner as Mr. Obama’s “financial twerp.”

Originally concerned that Mr. Donlan had put his journalistic credibility at risk, I now come across today’s commentary by Lawrence Lindsey in the Wall Street Journal with the title, “Geithner and the ‘Privilege’ of Being American.”

Every citizen should read both pieces.

You have a decision to make in November. I hope these articles help you clarify your position on the issues that will justify your vote.

“Obama Money”

Back in October 2009 some people in Detroit and other cities lined up outside government offices because of a rumor that free money was being given out as a result of the Federal stimulus funding approved by Mr. Obama. A now infamous interview with one person in line referred to the money as “Obama money.”

Well, no money was being given away but now, several years later, it is constructive to explore exactly what “Obama money” actually is.

“Obama money” is debt employed to bribe politicians and voters to support Mr. Obama’s statist agenda. Statism is defined as concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.

The reality of legislation, regulations, and mandates supported by Mr. Obama is clear. Regardless of policy focus (health care, banking, industrial, environmental, whatever) Mr. Obama believes in the power of a centralized Federal apparatus over policy driven and funded at the State level, and over policy based on individuals assuming responsibility for their own behavior.

Money Mr. Obama has sought and approved for “economic stimulus” projects, extended unemployment benefits, subsidies for teachers, police and fire workers, student loan reorganizations, mortgage assistance, cash for clunkers, auto manufacturer bailouts, reductions in employee social security taxes, support for the new Federal bureaucracies supporting Obama Care, new bank oversight, and a new “consumer” agency, and on, and on is all funded by debt.

Federal debt will total over $16,400,000,000,000 by the end of September 2012, $4,000,000,000,000+ more than it was when Mr. Obama took office. While he likes to talk about his spending in the context of “fairness” and “empathy,” Mr. Obama’s only real achievement is a dramatic increase in debt you, your children, and your grand children will have to find a way to pay back long after he is gone.

At the same time he has spent over $1,000,000,000,000 in the name of “fairness” Mr. Obama has failed to address the automatic increases in entitlement programs that have also driven up the debt during his tenure. Total unfunded liabilities related to these entitlement programs is projected to range between $60,000,000,000,000 and $100,000,000,000,000 according to government data, in addition to our $16,400,000,000 in existing debt.

Failure to significantly reduce current government spending and entitlement program liabilities will have extreme fiscal and social consequences, with or without tax increases. While railing on about increasing taxes on the “rich” in the name of “fairness” Mr. Obama has intentionally avoided addressing the realities and consequences of our debt and future unfunded liabilities.

Mr. Obama continues to spend and to ignore our fiscal realities in pursuit of re-election. Is this the behavior of a leader with moral purpose, or of a politician with allegiance to power over principle?

Mr. Obama is solely responsible for this failure of leadership.

Apologies Aplenty

Mr. Obama recently apologized to Afghan President Hamid Karzai over the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base by US soldiers.

Opposition political reaction criticizes the act of making the apology. I don’t think they get it.

Burning a religious text, regardless of the religion, demonstrates contempt and intolerance for those whose moral code and belief system is based on the text. Accordingly, an apology is in order and is appropriate.

What concerns me is that Mr. Obama demonstrates contempt and intolerance for those whose moral code is based in Catholic teachings by mandating that all private health insurance provide free coverage for birth control pills and other contraceptive aids, forcing Catholics to share in the cost of something that violates the teachings of their faith.

Hubris? Conceit? Hypocrisy? What else would you call it? How would you defend this double standard?

Looks like another apology is in order. It also looks like politicians and press could do a better job connecting the dots.

PS – I am not Catholic. I don’t care what you choose to believe so long as you don’t try to impose your belief system (whether religious or political).

The Great Conceit

February 8, 2012

The Obama administration has ordered that all health insurance must cover the full cost of certain female preventative health services including contraceptives for free; no deductibles, no co-pays, nothing, free.

See the HHS News Release.

See this explanation from the Whitehouse Press Secretary.

See related Wall Street Journal Editorial.

See Wall Street Journal Opinion piece in Defense of the Mandate.

The media thinks the controversy is over non-profits having to comply with this order, including religiously affiliated universities and hospitals. I think there is a deeper problem, conceit.

The explanation of the policy boils down to Mr. Obama’s belief that all people who pay for health insurance coverage must subsidize free services including contraceptives for those women who want them.

Should the government require all people who pay for health insurance coverage to subsidize free blood pressure medicines for those people who want them?

Should the government require all people who pay for health insurance coverage to subsidize free Weight Watchers programs for those people who want them?

Should the government require all people who pay for health insurance coverage to subsidize free smoking cessation programs for those people who want them?

Should the government require all people who pay for health insurance coverage to subsidize free abortions for those women who want them?

Recently, but before the Greek reality check, some European Union official was proposing that every citizen should have vacations at five star resorts subsidized by taxpayers. Really!

What is going on here? Why are we, as health insurance customers, being required to subsidize free stuff and why shouldn’t each of us pay the fair market price for health insurance that covers what we want it to cover? Where are the limits of what government will mandate as free stuff?

The government should have one simple rule requiring all people to pay for what they wanted out of their own pockets. If some people wish to subsidize free stuff for some people they can start a 501(c)3 non-profit, solicit voluntary contributions and distribute the money to those whose wishes they choose to serve. What we have now is forced government charity using your money.

As Woody Allen has noted, when you are sure you are right you will have a moral obligation to impose your will upon those who disagree with you, that is, if you have no understanding of individual liberty and responsibility and no understanding of the proper role of limited government.

These mandates simply reflect conceit exercising political power.