Progressives always talk about the difference between mercy and discretion; insurance companies and the federal government. And as many Conservative pundits have pointed out “we” didn't vote on the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act, also known popularly known as Obamacare. Congress did. And it was rammed through Congress without a modicum of Republican support, and with half of the nation opposing it. And yet the Democrats (Nancy Pelosi particularly) stressed that it must be passed: "We have to pass it to find out what's in it". If that quote from our former Speaker of the House doesn't deflate your opinion of Congress, then nothing will.
Who's going to enforce the Act? Bureaucrats. Faceless, emotionless bureaucrats. The IRS and countless other government employees will toe the line and force this down the throats of the American people. During the debates, Obama talked about "kids being able to stay on their parent's insurance until they're twenty six". Twenty six? I didn't know that childhood had been extended until you're four years away from being thirty.
The point being is this: why should I be coerced (because that's the only real power the government can use to motivate the people it governs) by a faceless bureaucrat 1,000 miles away into accepting something I do not want or need? And why do I have to pay a fine if I refuse to accept Obamacare? Is that my only choice, as an individual? Just because someone out there is unlucky, or irresponsible, or unmotivated to get insurance on their own, I have to help shoulder that burden? Why can't private charities, fraternal organizations, and religious communities step in and offer better services?
The Left goes on to say that Obama put his ideas out there during the presidential election on healthcare, and they're right, he did hint at his “general” ideas on what social welfare/healthcare/Medicaid/Medicare would look like under his leadership. But, when it came time to televise the healthcare negotiations, he reneged. Obama has promised a more transparent federal government. But that hasn't materialized. The very first bill he signed into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Act wasn't even posted until after he signed it.
The list goes on:
- Dept. of Energy officials using personal emails instead of government accounts when talking about Solyndra green-loan failure. Why? To protect themselves from subpoenas, of course!
- 19 out of 20 cabinet-level agencies have failed to follow the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
- The entire Secret Service scandal.
- Fast and Furious and the Justice Department's corruption.
Obama wasn't transparent with healthcare and he and his cabinet have not been transparent with any other government mechanisms. Seeing as how you and I own the government, and they are our employers, I believe we have a right to know.
“But Kirby, the Republicans want five trillion dollars in tax cuts!” (Said every Liberal-Progressive I’ve ever met). Five trillion dollars in tax cuts? So what's your point? You certainly don't raise taxes on anyone during a recession, either global or national. Yes, Republicans have said this every single time they appear on camera for more than five seconds, and no, I'm not regurgitating it. I'm merely agreeing with what a majority of Republicans say.
You want to regulate how much money the rich put into the Fed? Fine. Close the loopholes. Cut back on returns. The rich do fine in any environment, and the rich can choose whichever political party they want. Why? Because they're rich! But it's the small businessman that I'm concerned with because they have been, are, and always will be, the backbone of this country. Do you seriously think that an American President would enter office with the intent to take away as much money from the lower and middle classes?
During the presidential election the Tax Policy Center (which is center-left) claimed that Romney's tax plan would have started with us $86 billion in the hole. But, by their estimations, that could have been filled without raising taxes on the middle class. There's an assumption (one that is academically backed) that tax reform will result in economic growth. That's one way you fill part of the hole. With economic growth. Tax revenue might go down, but once again, economic growth will cover *part* of that $86 billion. Combine with axing the exclusions of interest on local and state bonds and the exclusion on life insurance vehicles and the hole is not only filled, but overflowing. In fact, it will be around $98 billion. This $12 billion extra prevents the middle class from being hit with a tax hike.
But it's just not about taxes. It's about expenditures. We've got to stop spending like we're at a drunken bachelor party in Vegas. Cut spending, severely, reform welfare services, close loopholes, and you can still cut taxes. The point is this: we can't keep spending like we have been. There's no justification for it.
Between radical individualism and radical collectivism lies a majority of our society: a Republic that believes in freedom, luck, hard work, blessings, choice, liberty, and the open market. Our elections and debates boil down to two philosophies who want to, on one hand: expand and preserve that society. The other wants to shrink it because they believe that freedom under control of the government is the future. Americans have always believed in something different: freedom from the government.