Patients First is an Americans for Prosperity project focusing on educating people about the health care proposals currently before Congress and why more government is not the answer. Tomorrow, they are initiating a National Call Congress Day, making it easier than ever for people to contact their representatives and make their voices heard. Just click on the link for the campaign, enter your zip code, and it will bring up your Senators’ contact information. If you “click to call now”, you can enter your phone number, and someone will call you to connect you to your Senator. Unavailable during working hours? No problem — they will connect you to their voicemail where you can give them a piece of your mind.

Thanks to everyday Americans becoming informed and engaging with their representatives, the left’s big-government health care proposals lost steam, despite controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. But the fight’s not over yet. So, I urge everyone to take a few minutes out of their day tomorrow to contact their Senators. With Patients First making it so effortless, what have you got to lose?

The President remarked:

“Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric act and who plot against us still. In defense of our nation we will never waver; in pursuit of al Qaeda and its extremist allies, we will never falter.

Most of all, on a day when others sought to sap our confidence, let us renew our common purpose.

This may be the greatest lesson of this day, the strongest rebuke to those who attacked us, the highest tribute to those taken from us — that such sense of purpose need not be a fleeting moment.”

The strongest words he used in his entire speech were ‘barbaric’, ‘extremist’ and ‘attack”. He didn’t mention the words murder, terrorism or war in his speech. “On a day when others sought to sap our confidence,” he said.

To sap our confidence? Doesn’t he mean on a day when innocent American lives were specifically targeted by terrorists? And that those terrorists wanted to make us tremble in fear to spread their suicidal message of Jihad? That is, to show the world that the American ‘infidels’ had hell to pay for our very way of life?

The President stayed away from using any such harsh language. But, “sap our confidence”? Surely, he could have chosen words better suited to show that on his first 9/11, he stood with the victims, the families of the victims and with the rest of America in opposition to these deathmongers who instigated the deadliest attack on our soil in history.

But, the excerpt above was the extent of his mentioning the 9/11 attackers. I could only shake my head reading and rereading the President’s comments. Just a few days ago, he spoke about his health care proposals more passionately than he did about the attacks on 9/11.

This prompted me to write this tweet:

“Chilling, hard to listen to. http://bit.ly/11Mrf8 Yet a reminder of the evil, not barbaric Mr. Pres. ,but evil that killed so many innocent.

I wrote that on 9/11. And I tried to bite my tongue for the rest of that day. And, it’s for that reason that I’m posting this on 9/12, because I believe 9/11 should be a day reserved for remembering and honoring those whose were brutally and suddenly taken from their loved ones. 9/11 is a day we should all strive to remember what unites us, not what divides us.

So today, I’d like to share some of my thoughts on our President. The truth is, I disagree with President Obama’s policies almost across the board. My convictions and my vision for the country are fundamentally opposed to the big-government policies Obama espouses.

But, when I disagree with someone’s politics, I try to remind myself that while the means may vary, our intentions, on the left and on the right, are the same — to implement policies that we believe are right for our country. I have reminded myself of this often since the President’s days on the campaign trail because even then, when his rhetoric was more centrist, I saw him as an extreme leftist that would push our country in a totally new direction if elected, as he promised — or threatened depending on your view of him.

But, I’m not so sure I can give our President this benefit of the doubt anymore. I don’t know if his decisions are based on what’s best for the country, what’s best for the politicians in Washington or what’s best for certain groups of people he backs, like unions for example. From his decision to appoint Eric Holder, who orchestrated the pardoning of Puerto Rican nationalist terrorists by going so far as to write their apologies when they refused to, to his decision to close Guantanamo and strip the CIA of the power to question suspects who are deemed national security threats (without undertaking any examination of the strategies and reasoning behind the former administration’s decisions), I don’t know that he sees the world as I do. That he sees America as many of us do. That he takes threats to our national security as seriously as he should. Or really, when it comes down to it, that he loves and respects America.

It seems that he exploits every opportunity he has to centralize power, even stripping the CIA and the military of their authority where he can.

While our President opted out of visiting New York City on the anniversary of 9/11, he penned an op-ed in The New York Post. He stated:

“And in the policies and principles that guide our efforts, we are reaffirming a simple truth: that our strength as a nation comes not only from the might of our military, but also the power of our fundamental values.”

I recognize that this President is seen as a supreme communicator, and maybe this is just too far above my pragmatic head, but what does this mean? His op-ed must be understood within the context of 9/11, in which he remembers what began our current struggle against the “real and present danger posed by violent extremists who would use terrorism against Americans.” And so, he continues reassuring the reader that his administration is “providing the necessary resources and strategies to take the fight to the extremists.” And, he goes down the list of measures: investing in intelligence and military capabilities, increasing the Army and Marine Corps, making efforts toward securing non-proliferation, building partnerships with allies and then he concludes by talking about these “fundamental values” and our “common sense of purpose” that he says provide us strength to defend ourselves alongside our military’s might.

So I have to ask, how does pitting the Attorney General against the CIA strengthen us? How does creating a new interrogation task force to be overseen by the FBI, instead of the CIA, strengthen us? How does spending more than all of the Presidents in our history combined strengthen us? How does backing legislation that deprives workers of the right to vote on unionizing via secret ballot strengthen us? What fundamental values do these policies suggest, and how do they strengthen our nation in our ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the larger war on terror throughout the world? How do they strengthen us in fighting against violent, Jihadist terrorists that seek our demise?

President Obama has been hailed as one of the greatest communicators of our time. As you can probably tell by now, I don’t find this to be true. I think the utopian speech he uses, with its grand gestures, leaves much to be desired, particularly in the way of specifics. And I believe that this vague manner of speaking has started working against him — first when it came to spending and the stimulus, then with regard to the debate over health care this summer and yesterday, on 9/11.

These questions, about the President’s intentions, about his view of America, the Constitution, individual liberty and economic freedom — these are questions every American needs to ask themselves. And on 9/11, I found myself wondering if President Obama believes, like his spiritual mentor of twenty years, Rev. Wright, that America had it coming? Does he believe that those terrorists that murdered so many in cold blood on that day were pure evil, not just barbaric and uncivilized as he stated, but cold and calculating evildoers? Had he not found himself in the middle of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how would he have responded on 9/11? Does he believe in the Afghanistan war as he says he does, or is he just an opportunist who knew that the ‘war of necessity’ in Afghanistan would read better to those answering the polls?

I don’t know the answers to all of these questions. But, I do know that when you stack them up side by side, the facts start to paint a picture of a President whose intentions for the country are to take it in a direction so different from our deep-rooted traditions. That is why all those people marched in Washington and throughout the country today, because they believe, like I do, that this country, this great melting pot that was built on freedom is the greatest country in the world. And I don’t believe anymore that this President agrees.

So, if a federal or state health czar requests any information from your tax returns, the IRS is required to hand it over. There is no requirement for the IRS to contact you or even notify you that this is taking place. And, of course, it would just be too simple and not at all sneaky enough if, in these kinds of situations, the bill laid out a procedure by which any individual who applies for government health benefits could, on their own, follow steps to prove their eligibility – including disclosing their financial information themselves. Basically, why would the government ask you for your information when they can set up a system under which they have access to information that paints them a nice picture of your life – your tax returns, your medical records, etc.

What is extremely distressing, is that in the age of Obama and the bloated government policies that have come along with it, this probably doesn’t phase most people. But, it doesn’t stop there. Under the Senate version of the bill, the health czar can sneak a peak into your bank accounts at their leisure, all justified under the same logic, that the government may need this information to check your eligibility. Wait a minute, those evil insurance companies are criticized left and right for asking questions about your medical history when you apply for insurance. Can you imagine the outcries if they also asked for cart blanche access to your tax returns, bank account information and your health records? For those that find no fault with this policy, may I ask, has the government proven itself so capable, so competent, that you are willing to hand over total control of this information to them? If so, when??? Or, to quote Barney Frank, something I do very rarely, ‘on what planet do YOU spend most of your time?’ Where are all those people that were up in arms over the Patriotic Act? Isn’t this far worse?

Not to mention that as Joe the Plumber found out during the 2008 election cycle, when government bureaucrats have access to your personal information, you don’t want to find yourself on their wrong side.

And, the icing on the cake, the legislation does not allow for a court or administrative review of the provisions in that section. Of course. We wouldn’t want the government to have to answer to the people they represent – better to grant them complete immunity, and if your information winds up in the wrong hands, no redress for you.

But, don’t worry. As Giovanetti points out, we’ve got a politician with conviction, a man of the people, who isn’t swayed by day-to-day politics on our side.

Senator Arlen Specter promised the other day at a town hall meeting that “we’ll do everything we can to stop people from breaking into the files.”

I feel so much better.

Rep. Cao represents an overwhelmingly Democratic district in New Orleans. Cao is one of seven Republicans whom Democrats have chosen to pursue strongly, hoping to convince him to change to his vote. They are currently running ads against him in his district, urging him to vote for health care.

Republicans had their doubts about Cao’s positions after being elected to represent the most Democratic district held by a Republican. As this piece on The American Spectator’s website points out, Cao is an interesting figure – refusing to call himself a conservative, co-sponsoring the Hate Crimes bill and being only 1 of 4 conservatives to vote for the supplemental war funds legislation. Yet, he voted against the stimulus bill, and unlike many others in Congress, is now reading the health care bill for the third time.

Cao’s position on health care doesn’t seem to have been made across party lines, but on principle. He has stated that while he recognizes the plight of the uninsured, he believes that current health care proposals will eliminate private insurance and lead to a complete government takeover of the health care industry.

He also is concerned with the bill’s provisions that would allow tax dollars to fund abortions. Without strong language prohibiting this from occurring, “the bill is a no-go” for him.

Cao’s most recent statements seemed to cement his opposition to the transformation of health care proposed by House Democrats. Still, he has even been contacted by the White House directly, trying to get his vote for the legislation.

Recognizing the more than likely unpopularity of his opinions on health care in his district, Cao has called his decision over the legislation “the most agonizing problem” that could ultimately end his political career.

For Cao, it is unfortunate that he may turn out to be right and that his political career, at least as a Representative of New Orleans, may indeed be over quickly. But, Cao is exactly the kind of leader that his constituents need – thoughtful, careful, pouring over a bill three times that the majority of members of Congress have not read and working hard to base his vote on what’s right – not on the future of his own career, along party lines or because of backroom deals he stand to benefit from.

Cao’s refusal to call himself a conservative, without any explanation, is probably a little too slick, a little too strategic for my tastes. However, if all that has been reported about him and his deliberative process is true, then conservatives and liberals alike could stand to take a page out of his book and put the interests of their constituents’ first – even at the cost of their own careers.

*Originally published August 4, 2009 on The American Issue Project Blog, here.

Two quotes in the WSJ article I linked to above (here) nicely sum up the debate. First, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama “suggested the measure would allow the government to impinge on the rights of private corporations. “Government bureaucrats don’t know what’s best for America,” he said.” On the other side, Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina said, “We have found out what happens when there are no rules, when there is no oversight, when there is no watchdog.”

There you have the two side of this debate. Each side is concerned with the broader ramifications of action and inaction. Action in terms of this bill puts the government in the driver’s seat once again, imposing terms on private companies and interfering instead of letting self-interested individual choices play out and determine the winners and losers. Inaction, we are warned, is what led us to the economic crisis we face now. So, action is urged.

But there are fundamental flaws in this second argument. First, as to the cause of the current crisis, it’s foolish and untrue to point to a lack of regulation as the cause of the crisis. A simple Google search of ’causes of the economic crisis 2008′ brings up 50,100,000 hits. This is too big a topic to delve into in this post, but I think it’s fair to say that government intervention through Fannie and Freddie along with individual greed and poor choices all played a part in bringing down the housing market. And, as far as I’m aware, banks, while they were greatly over-leveraged, were playing by the rules – investing in the safest market since Americans are known to pay this bill before all others – mortgages. To point the finger at banks and claim that a lack of regulation is to blame for the current situation amounts to singling out and demonizing Wall Street at worst and oversimplifying at best.

Second, it is simply a lie to claim that there were no rules, regulations or watchdogs around, and that in turn, their absence led to the dire economic situation we face. Securities laws and the Securities Exchange Commission were created long ago. They already dictate the makeup of boards of directors, including how many interested and disinterested directors there must be on each board. Further, unlike shareholders, boards of directors have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and must act in the interest of the company and its shareholders. A shareholder, however, can be anyone like you and me who purchases a stock and owes no responsibility to the company to become informed of the company’s structure, liabilities or finances at all. And unlike a director, if a shareholder becomes unhappy with the company, they can sell their shares and cut all ties instantly without any consequences.

It is always easy to blame the haves for anything that goes wrong. But it is irresponsible for members of Congress and the administration to oversimplify, spread misinformation and use the current economic climate to their advantage to inflate government at the expense of private industry and individual freedom. If people think a CEO’s salary is disconnected to his worth for the company, don’t buy that company’s stock. If they think a company is taking unnecessary risks, don’t invest in that company. Government interference is not going to solve problems that were created by many players, over an extended period of time, overnight. And, the ramifications of government continuously overstepping its boundaries like this should be worrisome for all of us.

*Originally published August 2, 2009 on The American Issues Project Blog, here.

It’s important to note the differences in their statements then and now, and the extent to which they’ve backed away from the stimulus because they have been using the same rhetoric they used about the stimulus bill to try to pass health care. During the first month of his Presidency, Obama and his administration pushed hard for the stimulus and quickly, warning that “if we don’t move swiftly to put this plan in motion, our economic crisis could become a national catastrophe. Millions of Americans will lose their jobs, their homes, and their health care.“ That is a strong statement by a sitting President. And, this statement nicely sums up the scare tactics and urgency they used to shove the stimulus down Americans’ throats – we have to pass this or the consequences will be dire, and we have to pass it immediately.

As he’s done with the health care bill, President Obama left drafting the stimulus bill up to Congress and spent his time selling the bill – promising Americans that the bill would create jobs, increase lending, increase investment, improve the housing market and get our economy going.

And yet today, unemployment is nearing the double digits, and there is no improvement on the horizon – not in employment numbers, housing numbers, retail numbers or in the markets, and private investors are still sitting on the sidelines. And to top it all off, we are now facing a deficit so huge that none of us can even begin to wrap our brains around it and comprehend just how long it will take to pay off our debts. Just a few weeks ago, for the first time in U.S. history, the deficit passed the $1 trillion mark for this year alone.

This week, with Democrats’ health care proposals in jeopardy, the party put their best spokesman and salesperson out front to once again convince the American people that without the legislation they’re proposing, we will all suffer. The one thing we learned during the President’s press conference is that massive government spending is not the reason for our colossal deficit, health care is! Obama told us that in order to get our deficit under control, we must buy into the Democrats’ health care program. How is that for circular logic?

Fortunately for fiscal conservatives, after the stimulus debacle, Americans are looking at health care reform with a skeptical eye. They’ve watched the government rack up debt and blur the boundaries between the public and private spheres for month. They’re wondering how all this debt is going to be paid for. They know that government spending comes at a price, and there’s no free lunch – not when it comes to the stimulus or health care. And, above all, while our health care is expensive, it is also the best health care system in the world. People come to America for treatment, not the other way around. Passing the stimulus was one thing, but transforming our health care system, putting government at the helm of the most personal decisions we make in our lives is an entirely different story. When is the last time you heard someone bragging about their wonderful experience at the DMV? The Social Security office? At a courthouse? Americans don’t want to deal with government inefficiency and incompetence when it comes to their health care.

Their scare tactics worked to get the stimulus passed. They won’t work when it comes to health care. 53% of Americans now disapprove of Democrats’ health care proposals. Liberals will likely still get some kind of health care bill passed, and perhaps they will claim a victory on the surface. But, a government-run health care system doesn’t look like it’s going to happen anytime soon, and ObamaCare looks like it will soon be following in HillaryCare’s footsteps.

*Originally published July 26, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.

Here are just some of the czars the President has appointed so far; it seems that no one has a definitive count. Foreign Policy and Glenn Beck put the count at 18. Here’s a partial list:

Health reform czar (this czar is different from the Health Choices Commission Czar now being proposed);

Energy czar;
Car czar;
Urban affairs czar;
Faith-based policies czar;
TARP czar;
Stimulus accountability czar;
Non-proliferation czar;
Terrorism czar;
Regulatory czar;
Drug czar;
Guantanamo closure czar;
Border czar; and
Information technology czar.

The newest czar Obama wants to add the list is the Health Choices Commission Czar who will essentially single-handedly act as a regulator of the newly formed government-run health insurance program. Health insurance is currently regulated at the state level, but when the federal government takes over this arena, this is another power that will be stripped from states’ hands. Under the federally controlled insurance scheme, states could only compete with federal programs or set up a state-based insurance exchange program with permission from the federal czar. This is a completely different vision of federalism as we know it with states answering to the federal government and not the other way around.

Robert Moffit of The Heritage Foundation writes that this is not a federal-state partnership – it is federal domination of the states. Mr. Moffit is absolutely correct. But, this is the goal of the Obama administration – to puff up the federal government at the expense of states’ rights, individual control and freedom of choice. And, with all of these czars Obama is appointing without any repercussions and without any fury from the public, he is succeeding in taking power from states, from individuals and placing it in the hands of of unelected officials who answer to no one but the President.

Obama promised us transparency in his administration. Doesn’t appointing the largest amount of czars any President has ever had cut against this promise completely? When our President has appointed more czars in the course of six months than Russia did over three centuries, it is an understatement to say that something is very wrong. The appointment of these czars is the epitome of government expansion without any accountability.

*Originally published July 7, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.

This is one time when I can get behind President Obama’s sentiments – although he may not like my reasons for it. What Obama failed to recognize in making that statement is that if the founding fathers were around today, they would abhor his intrusive, expansionist policies. The ‘spirit’ of the founders Obama alluded to was based on a fundamental distrust of those in power and of the tendencies of government itself. James Madison once said that “all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree”. Thomas Jefferson echoed this sentiment when he said, “Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” And thus, the founders designed the system of checks and balances we admire today to limit power and to hold government accountable.

Not only did the founders distrust the people in government, but government itself. Madison’s distrust of government is exemplified in his statement, “In framing a government…you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Obliging government to control itself – in making his remarks yesterday, President Obama seems to have forgotten the fear and distrust the founders had of placing too much power in the hands of a distant few governors with a tendency to want to grab more and more power.

Indeed, the actions of this administration thus far have been completely antithetical to the wishes of our founders. President Obama, not wanting to ‘let a crisis go to waste’ believes that the current economic crisis is his best opportunity to transform America – by passing the biggest spending bill in American history, making future generations and states beholden to the federal government, fundamentally changing our health care system so that the government is at the helm of that industry, and imposing burdensome standards and regulations on us in the guise of climate change when there is far from a consensus on global warming. (As I sit here writing on the 4th of July with temperatures in Chicago in the 60s, it’s especially difficult to buy into this theory!)

According to the Congressional Budget Office, within the next 10 years, government debt will be equal to 82% of GDP. The U.S. now has the same number of jobs as it did in the year 2000, erasing 9 years of job creation. And despite massive spending by the federal government, states like California, who received stimulus dollars, are now issuing IOUs to cover their bills.

So, President Obama was right yesterday when he called on all of us to the look to the founding fathers for answers. In this time of economic turmoil and great debate about the proper role of government, we should all turn to them for guidance and remember why the structures they put in place created a system that produced the most wealthy and innovative country in the history of the world. The founders created a magnificent structure. And, it is up to us to remember, understand and defend it from those who would wish to expand government at the expense of our freedoms through monolithic changes to our system with plans such as ‘health care reform’ (which should properly be termed government takeover of the health care industry) and cap and trade (more accurately known as cap & tax).

*Originally published July 5, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.

In reality, the move has nothing to do with the safety of Coke Zero, nor is the government’s concern genuine. In fact, in 2008, Coke removed an artificial sweetener, sodium cyclamate, from the drink. Sodium cyclamate is banned in the US, though it is legal in other countries. Venezuela’s Coke Zero, however, did not contain this sweetener.

Surprised at the lack of details justifying the ban coming out of the country’s health ministry? You shouldn’t be given Venezuela’s President’s propensity toward nationalization of homegrown companies and bullying of foreign companies. For example, Venezuela has nationalized 74 of its oil companies and is set to complete nationalization of these companies by the end of the year. More recently, the government strong-armed Coke into giving up a parking lot to the government.

While this episode is just another example of Chavez’s anti-American lunacy, in the midst of our discussions about the proper role of government as it relates to the private sector and health care, this example of a government on steroids should give us all pause. Venezuela is a prime example of what can happen when government overreaches, intrudes in to the private sector, takes over domestic companies, kicks around foreign companies and even bans products with no explanation whatsoever – all in the name of the greater good, out of disingenuous concern over citizens’ health.

When a government runs health care, as would surely happen in the U.S. given that government-run health care would ultimately drive private insurance companies into the ground, the line between running the government and running citizens’ lives becomes murky. Want to take a jab at a company by forcing it to pull a product? Easy, do what Venezuela did, claim the product threatens the health of consumers.

Public health care is not affordable, is not efficient and is not the answer to the health care problems our country faces. There have been many pieces on this issue here on the American Issues Project Blog.

Aside from cost issues however, there are also issues of control. And what we can learn from Venezuela’s actions this week, is that a government-run health industry will not only be the first step toward destroying the best health care system any society has even known, but it will also be the first step toward total government control.

*Originally published June 12, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.