Beyond Stage One Politics

Each of these photographs was taken near the beginning of the respective rallies, 8/28 Restoring Honor and 10/2 One Nation, and is a reasonable representation of the support garnered by each. Does it matter?

Many on the left would tell you now, after organizing a rally supported by 400 organizations (some of which told their members they had to attend and others which paid their way there) and abjectly failing to garner any significant support, that crowd size is irrelevant. Of course, over the past month all we’ve heard from many of these same people is that the convergence of so many angry, white, racists on the national mall on 8/28 was just a matter of chance. Lawrence O’Donnell even went so far as to say that the approximately “86,000″ people there were what you’d typically expect on a summer Saturday afternoon. As one who did attend 8/28 (and wanted to attend 10/2 but had a conflict) the stupidity displayed in such statements is nothing if not amusing.

If size really doesn’t matter, if support of particular principles means nothing, what is the point of elections? Why is anyone concerned about Nov. 2, 2010 or that fast-approaching fateful day of Nov. 6, 2012? The left’s attempts to sell the message that it doesn’t matter how opposed the American public is to their policies is either laughable or frightening. Public support is the very essence of democracy; on the other hand, if you plan to rule with an iron fist and in complete opposition to the will of the American people, you might not care (health care anyone?).

I recently attended the Restoring Honor event in Washington D.C. and came away spiritually uplifted and inspired by the messages spoken there, and the experiences I shared with fellow travelers. Unfortunately, those messages aren’t being written or shared in much of the media and I can’t help but wonder why (not really).

MSNBC has gone out of its way to stress CBS’s “estimated” crowd size of 85,000 which is so far from being accurate as to make it laughable. Desperate attempts to sideline mainstream America are becoming more and more transparent, especially to those of us who saw with our own eyes. With the exception of the CBS outlier, estimates range from 330,000 to 650,000.

Then there were the falsehoods put out there repeatedly about how hateful and violent this type of crowd is. We have a dear liberal friend who advised us that if trouble were to break out around us, we should simply walk away and not get involved. How many hours a day must one spend reading the Huffington Post and the New York Times, without any rational counterbalance, in order to honestly believe the lies about the violence of the right?

Then there is the issue of the religious leaders who were there. Has anyone thought to mention the 240 leaders of faith, representing 180 million people, who stood with Glenn Beck as he challenged the attendees to turn to God. “Faith, hope, and charity are growing dim. We simply must remember who we were and who we can become, not what we have become.” I didn’t see mention of this support anywhere, nor of this message.

Rather than attempt to sideline those we disagree with by lying about them and misrepresenting what they believe, let’s welcome discussion and debate. Let’s eagerly engage in intelligent conversation with those who disagree with us, and who have a different vision for America. If we speak truth, we have nothing to fear from such discussion.

Unfortunately, my own experience has born out the frequency with which many denigrate, name call, and pick apart the individual rather than discuss the issues (and of course, let’s not forget the often-present crude sexual remark, unfortunately a hallmark of the left). I can only assume that because this is the essence of political debate by many in the media, those who choose to limit themselves to such media types have come to believe that is what makes up intelligent discussion. Let’s not fall into that trap.

The coverage of the 8/28 event focused on everything except for the words spoken there, words spoken over a period of three hours – there was plenty to write. I read about the manufactured controversy surrounding the event, the “un-Christian” religion of Glenn Beck, the large crowds of attendees at the metro who hadn’t been adequately provided for by the organizers of the event. This was contrasted with the way Obama prepurchased metro passes for his followers at the inauguration so they wouldn’t be confused when they had to figure out how to ride the subway themselves (could there be any clearer delineation?!).

Nowhere did I read about Beck’s 40 day challenge, the overarching theme of the gathering, which was based on faith, hope, and charity. This challenge was issued 40 days before 8/28 and was reiterated on that day; it had three parts. The first was for each of us to pray, on our knees, at least once a day for 40 days – faith. The second was to tell the truth, always; to lie to no one, not even ourselves, and to search for truth in all things – hope. “And it only matters when you tell the truth and you know that it’s going to hurt you. You know that it’s not going to help your side. Tell the truth! America is crying out for the truth. Tell the truth in your own life, and then expect it from others.” The third part of the challenge dealt with charity. We were challenged to be charitable, first and foremost, within our own families, and to do something kind for each member of our family each week.

This was the theme of the event, the call to change ourselves as individuals, through faith, hope, and charity. This is the message many in the media don’t want you to know about, or don’t think is important enough to print. Either way, may I say, pity the fool.

Reformation period art had two consistent characteristics in its illustration of the believers.  Catholics were portrayed holding rosaries, while Lutherans were shown holding books, usually Bibles.

The struggle for power is always a struggle of those who desire their power through our ignorance v. those who seek the empowerment of all through education, enlightenment, and consequently, freedom.  In our day, a new reformation is underway; we can choose to allow those with power to take even more through our ignorance and their empty promises which can never really be, or we can become empowered by seeking, learning, questioning, and thinking.

When I was young, a book was published that was not only vitriolically critical of my religion, but full of half-truths and flat out lies.  Churches of different faiths in my hometown were holding meetings to talk about the book, show a movie based on it, and basically sit around bashing this religion they didn’t agree with.

One day I came across this book in my home.  I was only 11 or 12, and I went to my mother and asked if I could read it.  Her response was that I could, but she had me commit to read my scriptures diligently during the period of time I was reading the book, and she in fact gave me specific guidelines for my own study to ensure my exposure to the whole story.

My parents weren’t afraid of me being exposed to lies, half-truths, and criticisms; they knew where the truth lay, and they had confidence in my ability to find it as long as I had both sides of the discussion in front of me.  They knew that to shield me from discussion and debate about things they didn’t agree with or knew to be untrue would only serve to weaken me intellectually and spiritually.

I know it’s human nature to be so wrapped up in one’s opinions and ideas that we refuse to acknowledge anything on the other side.  I think it’s probably even human nature to want to shut up those on the other side of the discussion, as our president seems truly pained to not be able to do (although he and many of his associates have given it a good try).  It could even be human nature to want to call names, try to demean and discredit, and essentially attempt to undermine those who disagree with us without even addressing our real issues of divergence.

There is, though, danger in this approach.

When our opposition is founded on anything other than truth and its principles, we falter.   We become fearful of others being “bombard[ed] with all kinds of content,” and being exposed to “all kinds of arguments.”  We shouldn’t fear those arguments, even if we feel they “don’t always rank that high on the truth meter.” Since when, in America, did too much information become something other than a “means of emancipation?” (I know he said epancipation, but I’m trying to not distract from the issue at hand.)

Too many are fooled by platforms founded on lies because they’ve never been exposed to anything other than those lies.   Those who’ve not developed the ability to adequately and systematically reason through real and complicated issues can be fooled by one promising the most lavish benefits, or one who places all the blame for everything wrong in your life on the other guy (guilty or not), or one who screams the loudest and tells you that progress is achieved by undermining the building blocks of the most successful society in human history.

I’m trying to figure out what is so scary that our president and so many around him have been systematically working to undermine the free exchange of ideas and attempting to shut down opposition.  Remember, if truth is on your side there is nothing to fear.  Why so afraid?

The recent Shirley Sherrod uproar was an interesting study in human behavior and political motivation. Andrew Breitbart, on his website BigGovernment.com, posted a video of Ms. Sherrod, speaking at the NAACP and claiming that when a white farmer came to her many years ago she didn’t want to help him because she was “struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land.” She went on to say, “and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do.” She then says that she subsequently referred him to a white attorney, “one of his own,” to help him.

As she talks about the interchange between herself and the farmer, she says that he took a long time talking and that he was trying to show he was superior to her. According to Ms. Sherrod, all the while he was trying to show her how superior he was, she was trying to decide just how much she was going to help him. (Am I the only one who thinks that maybe Ms. Sherrod and her own lack of self-worth might be the real problem here?)

What a sad, angry, bitter way of viewing the world. Interestingly enough, she has since been exonerated by many in the media because of the fact that further on in her speech (a portion which wasn’t included in the original posting), she explained how this led to an evolution within herself; she eventually came to see that it wasn’t a matter of white against black, but rather rich against poor.

Now I get it! To hate another human being because they’re of a different race is wrong, but to hate another because they have more than you is simply what . . . normal?

Sounds a bit like John Edwards and his two Americas rhetoric. “One America does the work [ostensibly those receiving government services and wealth transfers] while another America reaps the reward [the rich, of course]. One America pays the taxes [the 46% who pay no federal income tax] while another America gets the tax breaks [the taxpayers, let's say the top 25%, who pay over 86% of the federal income taxes].” Oh, it’s making sense now.

David Horowitz, a man heavily involved in radical left-wing politics for decades before his conversion to the underpinnings of truth that lie in the conservative ideology, has said, “The radical worldview divides humanity into the oppressed who suffer as the objects of the historical process and the oppressors who inflict the process on everyone else. . . . For the traditional Marxist, the enemy system that organizes and distributes power is capitalism; for the radical feminist, it is patriarchy; and for the queer theorist, it is ‘hetero-normativity.’”*

In order for the politics of the left to thrive, there always must be a victim class. Without it there is little message, and any semblance of substance simply disappears. This mindset is echoed from the halls of left-wing ideology daily, and it doesn’t take us to a very good place.

It is the political message that leads us here, courtesy of Ed Schultz, on the special-election in Massachusetts, “I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts, I’d try to vote ten times. I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right, I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.”

Or it leads us to King Samir Shabazz, ranting in front of a polling place in Philadelphia in 2008 and saying, among other things, if “[y]ou want freedom, you’re gonna have to kill some crackers; you’re gonna have to kill some of their babies.”

Or it leads us to where I was a few years ago, having been nominated for the board of a very prestigious women’s organization. As I spoke with the CEO, she explained that a core goal of the organization was the elimination of discrimination. I asked her if discrimination were such an important issue, why weren’t men allowed to be equal members with women. The reply stunned me, “Only men can discriminate.”

Or it leads us to act as Eric Holder is accused of acting when he allegedly ordered his attorneys at the Justice Department to disregard cases involving black defendants and white victims. I’m guessing that only whites can discriminate.

Shirley Sherrod, in an interview with Anderson Cooper after she claims she was forced by the white house to resign from her job at the USDA, says that Breitbart must be a racist and that she thinks he “would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery.”

Mary Frances Berry, who spent over a decade as the Chairperson of the US Commission on Civil Rights recently said, “Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

But I’m sure it’s just really all about the issues.

*The Politics of Bad Faith, David Horowitz, The Free Press 1998, p. 156.

So, 36% of the American public thinks Obama is doing a good job on the deficit. In fact, 23% didn’t think the stimulus package added to the deficit at all. That level of miseducation is astounding to anyone even the slightest bit economically informed. The federal deficit for the 2010 budget is projected to be 10.6% of GDP, with an expected increase even higher next year. This, even though according to our President, we’re in the middle of recovery.

Federal discretionary spending increased over 80% from 2008 to 2010, thus resetting the baseline at an extraordinarily high level. Every new budget going forward starts at that point and goes upward from there; any reductions are considered cuts – something that almost never happens in Washington. What does tend to happen is that spending will increase each year, thus ensuring greater and greater deficits, and an exploding national debt as far as the eye can see.

Deficits under George W. Bush were in the 1-3.5% range until 2009, for which President Bush and President Obama were both responsible. Most of us believed spending was out of control under Bush, only exacerbated by the $800 billion (ten year) price tag on Medicare Part D.

President Clinton was elected to his first term in office with a minority of the popular vote, which had been split by Ross Perot with 19%. What was the issue that so divided fiscal conservatives and was the basis of Perot’s campaign? Concern over a deficit of approximately 4% of GDP.

A quick review of articles written during the Bush administration attests to the fact that liberals have been consistently concerned with out-of-control deficits during periods of time when they’ve been a fraction of what they currently are. I certainly hope this concern is genuine rather than political and we’ll soon see wide-ranging support for massive spending cuts in order to meet the historically consistent level of spending at 18-20% of GDP.

Politicians from both parties have been selling out the future of our country in order to buy votes in the here and now, and the rest of us just can’t afford this party any more.

In The Battle, Arthur C. Brooks outlines a consistent 70/30 split among the American population. That is pretty much what we see in this support for current policies dealing with budget and spending issues.

Nearly 70% of Americans agree that they’re better off in a free market economy than not, “despite its severe ups and downs.” Fifty-six percent of Americans believe their income taxes are too high, while 33% believe they’re just right. Astoundingly, while many Americans believe that the rich should pay more taxes, 69% believe that the top tax rate should be 20% or lower! Seventy-six percent believe the strength of America is based on the success of American business and 66% believe that when “big business” earns a profit it helps the economy; alternately, 18% believe it hurts (where did they go to school?) When asked if they would prefer larger government with more services and higher taxes or smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes, only 21% of Americans chose larger, more expensive government while 69% preferred smaller.*

There is a minority of the population, the 30%, who will, due to lack of understanding or pure ideological drive, charge ahead in attempts to completely redefine and transform this nation of freedom and wealth which was unimaginable in the world just a few centuries ago. It is the rest of us, the 70%, the mainstream of America, who stand in their way. It’s time for the politicians to represent us.

(Polling data excerpted from The Battle by Arthur C. Brooks, Basic Books, 2010, pp. 3-12)

During the conquests of Napoleon Bonaparte, intermittent war raged between France and Britain for over twenty years. One of the major difficulties faced by Great Britain during those years was the issue of supplying resources to troops spread out in battlefields throughout the continent. Faraway merchants were reluctant to accept bills of exchange offered by the Duke of Wellington and his troops, and the only answer seemed to be to transport actual gold coins across Europe during a time of war.

This proposition was expensive and extremely risky. The British government turned to Nathan Rothschild, who had spent a decade in the textile industry, dealing mainly with Britain and Germany. Napoleon had placed a blockade on trade between England and mainland Europe, which had allowed Rothschild to gain vast experience smuggling gold out of England in order to conduct his business, but also in violation of that blockade. Rothschild’s knowledge and experience allowed the British to carefully and expertly move vast quantities of gold coins across the continent to their troops in need of sustenance.

Napoleon assumed that the blockade would bring Great Britain to its knees, but it actually led to them being able to access the vitally important experience which was necessary to sustain their troops in battle and continue fighting. This act of oppression created the very situation which allowed for eventual British victory.

Government actions often tie the hands of the productive and the wealth-producing members of society, whether that is the goal or not. The ingenuitive, though, will always find a way to continue on. A friend of ours recently decided to incorporate his international company far from the US or Europe because of the corporate restrictions and smothering tax rates found here.

Our new government of hope and change, our Napoleon, can do its best to control the actions of everyone in society through oppressive policies of redistribution and forced equalization, but the end result will be a population where all may be “equal” (to a bureaucrat, anyway) but none will be wealthy and few will be productive. In fact, it won’t be long before the most productive will go elsewhere to make their money. I think I’ve seen this all somewhere before, but hey, this time is bound to be different . . .

(Historical information excerpted from Niall Ferguson’s The Ascent of Money, Penguin Books, 2008, pp. 82-84)

A lot of exciting things are going on in my personal life right now, from a son not yet old enough to drive being accepted into college, to major overseas business opportunities which could significantly impact our family. I’ve been off the radar lately as I spend more time diverted by such matters, but I’ve noticed how one issue after another intersects pointedly with public policy.

Through our son, we’ve seen first-hand the benefits to the community when public university and school funds are used in ways that encourage greater educational attainment (as opposed to teaching to the mean), business development, and scientific research and achievement. After many years in private school, our son was able to attend a public charter school that was allowed to innovate and develop a nationally renowned science and engineering program which partners with a public research university. This university has also been blessed with state legislators and a former governor who were willing to use funds in a way that encouraged the proliferation of new high-tech industry in a state desperately in need of such. As a result, this university rivals MIT in business startups. Not bad for a public university, which just recently accepted my 14-year-old son as a full-time student.

As the financial industry my husband has been involved in for over fifteen years has faced more and more government hostility and constantly evolving regulation that repeatedly fails to address the issues that could actually solve some real problems, we’ve been forced to look outside our traditional avenues of income for some sense of economic stability. Our desire to invest resources overseas is encouraged by the fact that we’ve watched the Chinese begin shifting much of their capital from the US to some of the same developing nations and industries we’re investigating; nations whose governments are interested in encouraging economic growth throughout all strata of society and who have learned through hard experience the dangers of attempting to turn classes against each other in order to increase their own power. These lessons will serve them well in the coming years if they can remember them better than we have.

Government has a place. When our resources, those that belong to us the taxpayers but which have been entrusted to a government charged with serving all of society, are used to encourage job creation, innovation, and education we will all be better for it. In a country where “73% of the political class say the country is heading in the right direction, but 84% of mainstream voters say it’s going in the wrong direction,” we’d all better hope our politicians figure it out before too many more American businesses and workers simply give up and decide our best days are behind us – and take their dollars and education somewhere else, where government appreciates and encourages their contributions.

Carolyn Day

The media consistently tells us how divided we are as a nation and how the divisions among is are increasing. If this is the case, it would serve us well to ask a few questions as to why and how this happened.

If we are more divided than ever, and I would submit that we are – why? One of the reasons can be found in the the latest news about who pays taxes in this country. Just last week, we were told that for 2009, 47% of Americans will pay no federal income tax. According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, original estimates for 2009 were that 38% of Americans would be exempt from federal taxes, but the “$787 billion economic recovery package . . . included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.”

While the burden on some in society was increasing exponentially as a result of skyrocketing government spending, the burden on others was removed completely. Exempting nearly half the population from any liability to support government spending and increasing government dependence, while demonizing those paying the bills, isn’t going to bring us together as a nation.

According to Aristotle, the duty of a mature legislator and statesman is to pull against the natural human tendency to want to undermine the wealthy and preach the redistribution of their wealth. “Demagogues are always dividing the city into two, and waging war against the rich. Their proper policy is the very reverse: they should always profess to be speaking in defense of the rich.” This conclusion came to him as he studied nearly 160 types of constitutions in dozens of Greek city-states, and observed and recorded their successes and failures.

It works to the benefit of a demagogue to have a deeply divided society, to pit the 47% of non-taxpayers against the 53% who labor for their support and their benefit in society. Equalization of outcome leads to a place where eventually, no one can be (or is willing to be) successful enough to foot the bill. After all, it is the 53% from whom the federal services flow, as well as the welfare benefits and “tax refunds,” often EITCs (Earned Income Tax Credits) that aren’t really refunds at all, but cash transfers. We wouldn’t want to explain that to the non-payers, let them just believe it’s all coming from the “government.”

According to economist Milton Friedman, the use of political channels, as opposed to the market, for the provision of resources leads to the straining of social cohesion. The reason for this is that markets allow diversity, while government policies require conformity. In Capitalism and Freedom, he states that the more extensive the range of issues we attempt to solve through political means, the greater the strain on the “delicate threads that hold society together.” He goes on to say,

The wider the range of activities covered by the market, the fewer are the issues on which explicitly political decisions are required and hence on which it is necessary to achieve agreement. In turn, the fewer the issues on which agreement is necessary, the greater is the likelihood of getting agreement while maintaining a free society.

Thus, the more extensive the range of issues attempting to be resolved through coercion (force of law) as opposed to individual choice and market forces, the greater the conflict in society between those who desire conformity to their ideas and those who desire freedom.

Pretty straightforward to me.

Carolyn Day

A disturbing phenomenon seems to be creeping into the national political dialogue with increasing frequency, and in the process undermining intelligent debate. My personal experience is that more and more liberals, outspoken about their opinions, shut down completely when presented with evidence contrary to what they’ve always believed. It’s as though they’ve never been aware that intelligence existed on the other side of the political spectrum. This phenomenon has been noticed, and written about, by Gerard Alexander in the Washington Post back in February 2010 in an article entitled, Why are liberals so condescending?

I don’t expect that we’ll all agree with each other all the time, and I don’t think absolute agreement would be good for our republic. The interplay of different thoughts and ideas, founded upon our Constitution, is healthy. The founders didn’t all agree all the time, and from their debates and conversations emerged the most stable, prosperous, opportunity-granting nation the world has ever seen. Not bad.

That is why the direction in which we’re moving is so disturbing; if we don’t actually listen to each other and acknowledge the good intentions and ideas coming from those who disagree with us, it’s over.

One of the most consistent ways this intolerance is manifest is in statements such as, “Don’t quote Fox News or The Heritage Foundation.” Didn’t President Obama just try claiming that a centerpiece of his health care reform originated from Heritage? And didn’t the Heritage president have to come out and tell him to stop misrepresenting their work? This is beside the point of course, but apparently a Democrat president finds their work legitimate enough to claim he’s incorporating their ideas into his legislation when it suits his purposes.

I seldom use Fox news as a source; not because they don’t present the facts accurately most of the time, but simply to avoid outright dismissal of the truth by those who are convinced that not slanting to the left means favoring the right. I even had somebody once say, “I won’t use the NY Times or MSNBC if you don’t use Fox News or the Wall Street Journal.”

My response was, “Go ahead and use any source you want. I’ll even avoid the ones you want me to avoid, and I can still make my case.”

I was recently told that since some particular research was cited and published by a conservative think tank, it was a total waste to even read. Of course, this deep-thinking liberal hadn’t even done the requisite research necessary to discover that though it was published by a conservative source, it was a compilation of 20 years of research by various organizations – liberal, conservative, nonpartisan – and was quite comprehensive. When that was pointed out to him, he had absolutely nothing to respond. See, he couldn’t counter the information; he could only dismiss the source.

Truth is not relative and its legitimacy is not dependent on its source. The last refuge of those without truth or knowledge on their side is a dismissal of facts simply based on who’s uttering them, even when faced with overwhelming evidence of their soundness.

Why the fear? If the source is illegitimate, no problem countering the untruths it generates; on the other hand, facing truths one would rather not can be quite painful.

I was recently personally attacked by a liberal newspaper reporter who, instead of responding to well-reasoned comments based on recognized news sources (and sources much more prestigious than his paper), commented that I should get back to the kitchen and bake cookies for the PTA, and then went on to denigrate what he assumed was my religion. What? (Incidentally, his hate-filled, religiously-bigoted diatribe proved his complete ignorance about the religion he attempted to denigrate. The only thing he got right is his assumption about what my religion is.)

Not once did he attempt to prove false a single point or counter a single argument, but I was told, “It’s cute that you try to have an opinion,” and “Watching Fox News doesn’t make you a pundit.” Again, huh? (By the way, I try to read at least as many liberal sources as conservative – I’m not afraid of what they may teach me.)

Personal attacks, namecalling, and denigration come from a place of fear, ignorance, and hate. Let’s not go there, rather let’s work together as Americans who sometimes agree, sometimes disagree, but always seek after truth no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

Carolyn Day

Healthcare – so much to say and no idea where to even start with a bill so full of manipulations, cost-shifting, and purchased votes.

I think I’ll begin with a few of the responses of liberal friends since the bill’s passage. They tend to go something like this:

“I just don’t understand why people who claim to know of God’s love would deny help to their fellowman.”

“My family has plenty of money and we don’t mind helping those in need. We can afford it.”

Those who “claim to know of God’s love” were already helping others before this bill ever came along, and to a greater degree than those without God. Arthur Brooks, a former professor at Syracuse University, spent twenty years studying the issue of philanthropy. His book, Who Really Cares, is based upon hundreds of studies and the underlying theme is that those who truly care have always helped their fellowman. No government program of forced redistribution necessary. I mentioned a very small portion of this in a previous ultra-simplified post entitled Ideology, Religion, and Charity.

We are a country of givers.

This, from an article by Arthur Brooks, citing some of the data from his book:

“In 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans.”

It seems as though those who give formally are also those we'd want to run into on the street if we happen to need help.

“One nationwide survey from 2002 tells us that monetary donors are nearly three times as likely as non-donors to give money informally to friends and strangers. People who give to charity at least once per year are twice as likely to donate blood as people who don’t give money. They are also significantly more likely to give food or money to a homeless person, or to give up their seat to someone on a bus.”

To the issue of those who “know of God’s love” – not only are the people in the US the most charitable on the face of the earth (in any way that can be measured), but religious people in the US are even more charitable than the average citizen. They are 25% more likely to give to charity than the non-religious, and 23% more likely to volunteer. When looking at the average dollar amounts and average time volunteered, religious people give nearly four times as much money and volunteer twice as often. This is the difference between giving $2,210 versus $642 and volunteering 12 times/year versus 5.8 times.

Certainly we would see a much different world if all gave to same degree as the religious. Unfortunately, what tends to happen in any society is that the more government does for the people, the less they do for themselves and for each other. Thus, increasing government programs that limit the freedom of individuals and decrease their available resources doesn’t bode well for our future.

The answer to the second response is based on the first, “Well, if you have plenty of money, then why do you need government to take it from you in order to help those in need?” Incidentally, the income of this family is generated by an ER doctor. Apparently he never thought to donate his time and efforts to those who can’t afford medical care or to establish a charity that would treat indigent patients. Maybe that would take just a little more than he’s willing to give, while still speaking the language of charity (with a little bit of his money and a whole lot of ours).

What he also fails to understand is that pretty soon he won’t have “plenty of money.” As more and more individuals are forced onto the government plan, his income will decrease. The reimbursements rates of government plans must be driven down over time in order to not only cover an additional 30 million new Americans, but all those whose employers can no longer afford to pay their rising premiums (premiums that will have to rise as a result of what will surely be a slew of new mandates placed on insurance companies by the federal government when the plan finally goes into effect). Incidentally, most of this plan doesn’t begin until after the next presidential election.

Government policies have consequences. If we truly believe that this new entitlement program that robs from the future prosperity of this country in order to establish rights never envisioned by the founders will make us a better country, then we have certainly come a long way from their “land of the free.”

Incidentally, while we’re changing the meaning and intent of the Constitution, it might be nice to note that the right to healthcare was part of a constitution, but it was the constitution of the USSR. Heaven help us.