The Tyranny of Paternalism

            Paternalism, writes Charles Krauthammer, is one of the three pillars of ObamaCare, the other two being mendacity and subterfuge.  Of the three, I find paternalism the most odious.

            Those of us who are of a certain age remember "Father Knows Best," a TV series starring Robert Young.  The father played by Young was the very model of benevolent paternalism:  he was neither permissive nor harsh, yet he retained the kind of practical wisdom necessary for family problem solving. 
            There is another kind of paternalism, the kind embodied in ObamaCare.  This paternalism begins by denying the ability of others to make independent decisions and to be responsible for the consequences of their choices.  In response to the complaints from hundreds of thousands of people who have had their health insurance policies cancelled, President Obama and his spokesmen reply with a supercilious arrogance that drips with disdain for the very people they claim to help.   The message is clear: The policy you have is no good.  It is substandard.  You're obviously too ignorant to make an informed decision about your health care needs.   So we have something better for you.
            This is the kind of paternalism that was a pillar of Marxism and Leninism before ObamaCare arrogated it for his Progressive agenda.  It is the belief that government is the solution to all problems.  It is an echo of the authoritarianism against which Americans went to war with England and its king.  Plainly speaking, this paternalism is un-American.
            And now the people are angry.  They're angry because they can't keep their old insurance policies, because they can't keep their doctors, because their premiums and their deductibles are going through the roof.  And they're angry at the president who lied to them repeatedly about these things.  Americans don't like liars, especially the ones who treat them like ignorant fools.
            What?  Do I hear the rumblings of rebellion?  It may be time for Mr. Obama to read a little history about what Americans do when they feel the weight of tyranny pressing on their necks.

Tear It Down!

            As we approach the Promised Land of November 30th, we are told that the ObamaCare website might be only 80% ready, that the payment feature might not be ready at all, that glitches number in the hundreds and will need lots more Band Aids.  We won't know the full extent of the mess until the deadline is reached.  In the meantime, the sign-up disaster has given us a trove of words that reflect the richness of the English language.

            Some of the adjectives describing the failure of the website have been mild: elementary, dysfunctional, inexcusable, misbegotten, historic.  Some add a sense of doom: catastrophic, abysmal, stunning, astounding, disastrous.  Still more try to assign a dimension to the problem: colossal, epic, gargantuan, and galactic (my favorite).  The list goes on.
            The point is that we are at a loss for the one word that truly measures the impact of this government-engineered screw-up.  Some say that it dooms ObamaCare, because the young people counted on to sign up have been turned off by repeated failures to get on line or get answers to their questions; they hear that their information may not be secure and may expose them to the consequences of identity theft, and that their premiums and deductibles -- if only they could figure what they are --  will be prohibitively expensive.  As a result, few are enrolled and fewer still are actually making payments.
            Then we have the 5 million (or is it 8 million?) policy holders who have been notified that they are losing their coverage, not to mention the 50 million small business employees who may also soon be dumped unceremoniously onto the same uncovered snow bank.  In spite of the president's attempt -- legalities aside -- to apply a fix to this problem, there really is no fix possible without the cooperation of state insurance commissioners and the insurance companies themselves. Meanwhile, an increasingly incredulous public renders its opinion of our dissembling president with poll numbers that are sinking like a corpse with cement shoes.
            What even the left-leaning media is coming to realize is that this is a defining moment for progressives, maybe even for honestly compassionate liberals.  To borrow an image from the Reagan era, ObamaCare is becoming the Berlin Wall of American history.  The voices of the disillusioned and disenfranchised are only a rumble now, but they will soon erupt into a roar:  Tear It Down!

           

           

Ethanol and Other Follies

            Every time I stop at a gas station to fill up, I am reminded that good intentions come to naught when they clash with common sense. 

            Before I pull the nozzle I'm told that the fuel I'm about to pump contains 10% ethanol.   What a wonderful idea!  By replacing gasoline, ethanol reduces our dependence on foreign oil.  And, of course, burning less fossil fuels means less pollution.  Who could argue with that?
            Well, it so happens that this argument clashes with common sense reality, because it ignores the negative effects of ethanol.  First of all, the production of ethanol requires an increase in corn harvests, meaning that more land (5 million more acres so far) must be converted to this crop.  And where does this land come from?  From grasslands, from filled-in wetlands, and conservation lands.  And what else is needed?  Fertilizer.  Lots of it.  We're talking billions of pounds of nitrates that can filter into our streams, our rivers, and our aquifers. 
            But nitrates are not the only polluters occasioned by the thirst for ethanol.  You can't just put corn juice in your tank.  It has to be converted to a flammable liquid, just like oil needs to be refined into gasoline.  Where is that done?  In factories burning coal and polluting the air.
            What else?  It costs more to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline.  And devoting so much land to growing corn for ethanol raises the price of all other corn products.
            Ethanol is not the only idea that our well-intentioned energy gurus have come up with that clashes with reality.  How about wind farms?  Is the little energy produced by wind turbines, whose tips can rotate up to 170 miles per hour, worth the lives of thousands of eagles and migrating birds?  How about insect-eating bats?  The Journal of BioScience estimates that in 2012 between 600,000 and 900,000 bats were killed by wind turbines.  Consider that one bat can consume between 600 and 1,000 mosquitoes and other insects in just one hour.  Could it be that flying insects, not humans, are the biggest beneficiaries of wind turbines?
            The United States government is moving full speed ahead to subsidize other renewable energy sources (biomass, thermal, hydro, etc.), but has not always been wise in choosing winners and losers.  The list of losers like Solyndra ($535 million lost), Spectrawatt ($500 million), First Solar ($1.46 billion), Sun Power ($1.2 billion), Fisker Automotive ($529 million), Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700 million), Brightsource ($1.6 billion), and many others have proven again and again that investment in renewable energy is no slam dunk. 
            Some $80 billion of taxpayer money has been flushed down the renewable energy drain since Obama took office in 2009.  This is not to say that renewable energy has no future.  It does.  But it would be wise, I think, to consider the pros and cons of any project before pouring money into it.  The market, which uses its own money, is much better at that sort of thing than the government, which uses ours.  I doubt very much that the market would have picked $80 billion worth of losers or raped the land to produce more corn.  

Subsidies

            Forget about all the trouble ObamaCare is having with its website.   The fact is ObamaCare is bound to be a raging success.  The computer problems will be fixed eventually, and enrollments will come pouring in.  Sure there will other problems with people facing increased premiums and higher deductibles.  But it's all part of the plan.  You see, those who are calling ObamaCare a train wreck are ignoring the program's real goal: votes.  And, as we all know, votes equal power.  And unlimited power in the hands of government leads to tyranny.

            How will ObamaCare produce votes?  With one simple method called subsidies.  We've already heard that most people who have managed to get through the tangle of the ObamaCare website have learned that they are eligible for Medicaid.  Eligibility for Medicaid has been raised to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).  A family of four with an income of $31,155 or less can now get free medical care with Medicaid.  All these new Medicaid enrollees are sure to vote Democratic in gratitude.
            But what if you make more than 138% of the FPL?  Not to worry.  You can make up to 250% of the FPL (almost $59,000) and get a subsidy from the federal government to help pay for your increased premiums.  That's on a sliding scale, of course, but free money is free money.  Add these people to the list of likely Democratic voters.
            Incredibly, you can earn up to 400% of the FPL and get a subsidy from the government called an advance premium tax credit.   It's kind of hard to explain how it works, but the point is that just about anybody earning under $95,000 a year gets free money to offset the cost of health insurance under ObamaCare.  More grateful voters.
            Now, does President Obama and his Progressive entourage really care about the poor?  Nonsense.  When the president and his wife spend millions of taxpayer dollars on themselves every year to live like royalty, do they display any affinity for the poor?  On the contrary, the real object of Obama's ideology is to destroy capitalism and replace it with a Socialist form of government that redistributes wealth and creates an underclass of citizens dependent on government.  Grateful voters, all.
            ObamaCare , with control of one sixth of the economy, is the key to the Progressives' permanent takeover of this country.  The only way to stop ObamaCare is to defeat every politician who voted for it.  Otherwise, if you want a glimpse of the future, they're playing previews of coming attractions in Cuba.

           

Trust

            The words "In God We Trust" appear on the back of every bill in my wallet.  This reminds us that our Founders believed that we could rely on a higher power to watch over us.  Now, I'm sure our increasingly secular society would love to eliminate any reference to God, not just on our currency, but in every aspect of our daily lives.  But if we can't trust in God, who can we trust?

            The answer we get from the Progressives in this country Is...Government.  After all, government knows what's best for us.  The latest example of that Progressive dogma is ObamaCare.  The law and its thousands of pages of regulations smack of an arrogance that belittles everyone seeking a solution to health care.  You want a simple policy that covers only catastrophic illnesses?  Not good enough.  ObamaCare has something better for you.  Even though you're a childless single adult you still need pediatric dental coverage;  if you're 60 years old you still need maternity coverage.  It may cost you a lot more, but that's what fairness is all about.  A talk with someone in the Administration might go something like this:

            __ We know what's best for you. Trust us. 
            __ Wait a minute!  I thought the president said that if I liked my health plan, I could keep it, and that no one will take it away, no matter what.    
            __  He did say that, but he just forgot to add that your policy had to meet the standards set forth in the ObamaCare regulations.  Just a slight omission.
            __ And didn't he also say that I could keep my doctor? 
            __ True.  But some doctors are refusing to participate in the program.  So you might not be able to keep yours.  It's not your fault: it's your doctor's fault.
            __ But will my costs go down like the president promised?
            __ I believe you are being a little selfish about this.  We need you to pay more so that people with no insurance can get it for free with government subsidies.
            __ So was the president lying when he promised I could keep my health plan and my doctor, and that my costs would go down?
            __ Of course not.  He was in the middle of a re-election campaign and he didn't want people like you to get upset and not vote for him.  In politics there is no such thing as a lie.  It's just politics.
            __Oh, thank you.  You had me scared there for a minute.  So I can really trust the president?
            __You bet.
            __Good. 'Cause I really like his smile.  So where do I go to sign up?
            __ The president gave you an 800 number to call.  Just dial that number, and a nice person who knows what's best for you will help you.

We Will Not Forget

            "It's Over."  So read newspaper headlines after the president signed the bill to end  the government shutdown and extend the debt ceiling.  Everybody shakes hands.  It's all behind us now, so let's forgive and forget.  Really?  Not so fast. 

            Will we forget the vicious name-calling, like White House aide Dan Pfeiffer comparing tea party members to jihadists, "people with a bomb strapped to their chest"? 
            Will we forget HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius assuring us that all was well with the opening of ObamaCare exchanges, when it was clear that it was an enormous disaster?   
            Will we forget the image of a clueless Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel showing up for the first time ever to receive caskets returning from Afghanistan, when his department had announced that it would not pay death benefits to the families of the dead soldiers? 
            Will we forget National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis squirming before a congressional committee and saying he couldn't remember the name of the person he talked to at the White House who told him to prevent public access to national parks and the Washington Mall?  
            Will we forget the guard who admitted, "We're just following orders.  We were told to make it as painful as possible."? 
            For me, the most indelible image is of the veteran with tears running down his cheeks, not in sadness or sorrow, but in anger and frustration at President Obama for dishonoring the men who fought and died for this country by preventing veterans from  visiting the WW II Memorial.  Behind him were men and women depositing the Mall's metal barricades at the White House fence.  In the spirit of Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, they rejected Obama's insult, shouting, "Take Down These Barricades."
            It's not over.  We will not forget.

State solutions

            From the floor of the Senate in 1856, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts rose to give another one of his fiery anti-slavery speeches.  This time he went too far when he called  South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler an imbecile and said, "Senator Butler has chosen a mistress. I mean the harlot, slavery."  Two days later, Butler's cousin, Preston Brooks, a congressman from South Carolina, avenged his family's honor by bludgeoning  Sumner with his gold-tipped cane and almost killed him.  It took years for Sumner to recover.

            Maybe we have grown a little more civilized these days.  But the counterproductive spectacle of name-calling going on in Washington these days makes some of us wonder if the federal system of government devised by our Founding Fathers is fatally flawed.  Extremists at both ends of the political spectrum rarely show that they are interested in solving problems.  Instead, when they take time off from slandering each other, they go trolling for votes so they can stay in power, or seek glory in martyrdom by sacrificing themselves on the altar of ideology.  But it needn't be that way. 
            In  a recent article, Cal Thomas demonstrated that Washington should follow the example of several states that have achieved a high level of success in those very areas that have plagued our federal government.  Louisiana, Ohio, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Wisconsin have all done very well in growing their states' economy: GDP is up, unemployment is down, personal income is up, taxes are down, manufacturing is up, deficits are down. 
            How did they do it?  They enacted tax reform, they shrunk their bureaucracies, they modernized programs like Medicaid, and they worked with private industry to create jobs programs that really work.    
            If these states can solve their problems, why can't Washington?  Thomas points out that the five states all have Republican governors.  This is more than a clue.  What they all have in common is the belief that smaller government, lower taxes, and free enterprise are the elements that foster growth.  Not more spending, not higher taxes, not job-killing regulations.
            North Carolina, with tax reform enacted this past year by its Republican legislature and signed by its Republican governor, seems to have gotten the message.  Maybe the next time Cal Thomas writes about the states that have shown the way to economic growth, North Carolina will have been added to the list.