The Freedom Bulletin

Even though I don’t like his politics at all, he is an important historical figure and I think it’s fitting to make a little post in his honor. The Kennedy brothers are together now. I always liked this picture of them.

It looks like President Obama and the Democrats might be starting to give up on the public option as part of their health insurance reform plan. However, they don’t seem to be giving any consideration to the idea of dropping the individual mandate to purchase insurance, which I think is unfortunate. An individual mandate, in my opinion, is immoral and unconstitutional. It’s one thing for the government to tax people, but telling people how they must spend their money is going too far. Check out this great post at Q and O which discusses an often-ignored issue, the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of Congress forcing all Americans to buy health insurance.

I think it would be a much better idea to have a compromise bill that included the public option but dropped the individual mandate. The public option, although it might result in higher taxes, is not as objectionable to me as the idea of the government requiring people to buy a product. I wrote a little letter to Obama through the WhiteHouse.gov contact page telling him as much:

President Obama,

I hope you are enjoying your vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.

I have an idea for a health bill that would be a good compromise between liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I strongly oppose an individual mandate to purchase insurance. I believe that it is simply wrong for the government to require people to buy a particular product. People have a right to make their own decisions about what to buy with their money and to decide whether or not they want to take the risk of not having insurance.

However, I actually like the idea of a public option that is open to everyone. I have really disliked every private insurance plan my family has had (I am a college student so my parents, not me, get to choose our insurance). Private health insurance companies seem to always charge exorbitant prices for a confusing, bad-quality product. I would like the option to try something different.

So, my humble suggestion is that you consider supporting a bill that includes a public option, but no individual mandate. Dropping the public option but retaining the individual mandate, as some people are suggesting, is a bad idea because it would disappoint liberals who support the public option, as well as libertarians and conservatives like me who oppose the individual mandate. Keeping the public option but getting rid of the mandate would give Democrats something they want while also getting rid of the thing that most offends libertarians and Republicans. Such a bill would be a real compromise that gives all sides something they want.

Obama will probably never see my letter since he gets so much mail, but if enough people tell him what they think, you never know, he might listen. If you oppose the individual mandate (or no matter what your views are), why not send him a letter, too?

Three cool things I’ve come across recently:

• Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest – and it’s legal. I didn’t really get the outrage over the fact that people had guns near Obama’s town halls. The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms, so as long as you’re not shooting an innocent person with your gun, I don’t see what the problem is.
• Charles Krauthammer and Michael Graham explain why preventive medicine and early detection don’t save money.
• A better way of stopping uninsured people from being free-riders, by John McClaughry at the National Review and Michael Cannon from the Cato Institute.

Carla Howell and the folks at the Center for Small Government are trying to get an initiatie to roll back the sales tax on the 2010 ballot. Toward that end, there is a new campaign called the Alliance to Roll Back Taxes and a new website, RollBackTaxes.com. (I designed the header for it ). We’re aiming to get the sales tax reduced from the new rate of 6.25% to 3%. Check it out!

Facebook: Roll Back Taxes

Twitter: @CarlaHowell

According to Fox News, the federal Office of Management and Budget is considering overturning a 9-year ban on using cookies on government websites.

Cookies are files that websites place on users’ computers to track some aspects of users’ online behavior. Things like online shopping carts and any websites that involve signing in, need cookies in order to work. Cookies, however, are also used to track the web pages that people view - for example, news sites use them to automatically suggest articles that might interest you, and shopping sites use them to suggest products.

“Our main goal in revisiting the ban on using persistent cookies on Federal websites is to bring the federal government into the 21st century,” said Vivek Kundra, the nation’s chief information officer.

While it is true that many websites use cookies today, I think the ban on cookies on government websites is a good thing and shouldn’t be overturned. The trend toward more tracking of visitor behavior takes away people’s privacy rights more than it provides them with useful features. Some cookies are needed in order for people to make online purchases and sign in, but websites should try to limit their use of cookies beyond that. I don’t find recommended products and news stories very useful, and definitely not worth giving up any of my privacy for.

Judge Andrew Napolitano pointed out in the same article that the Privacy Act of 1974 forbids the government from monitoring which books people browse for or borrow from libraries. Using the Internet in one’s own home carries a higher expectation of privacy than using a public library, so it makes sense that the law prohibits government tracking of Internet activities as well.

Overall, I think one of the last things America needs is more government tracking of people’s behavior. Until it’s clear exactly what they will be used for, I think government cookies are a bad idea.