The Freedom Bulletin

The Democratic National Committee decided to try to be cute and create a parody of conservatives called the Republican Tea Party Contract on America. The items on the “agenda:”

1. Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)
2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether
3. End Medicare as it presently exists
4. Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil
5. Repeal Wall Street Reform
6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes
7. Abolish the Department of Education
8. Abolish the Department of Energy
9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency
10. Repeal the 17th Amendment

This list doesn’t seem half bad!

Take, for example, abolishing the “Affordable Health Care Act.” That would (gasp!) allow people to decide for themselves whether or not to buy health insurance. Contrary to what the mock Contract says, abolishing this law would not “put insurance companies back in charge” but would restore some freedom to consumers. If forcing everyone to buy health insurance doesn’t put insurance companies in charge, nothing does.

And abolishing Social Security isn’t a bad idea either. People should be able to decide for themselves how or whether to save for retirement instead of having money taken from them. People who have paid into Social Security are entitled to receive benefits, but if Social Security was phased out starting with people who are just entering the work force, then people would no longer need it because they would be able to keep their own money and save, spend, or invest it as they wish.

If the DNC was being serious with this Contract, then I would applaud them for having some good ideas. Not perfect, but good overall. It’s too bad they’re being sarcastic, because instead they just come off as ignorant and mean-spirited.

Since Scott Brown’s victory on Tuesday, many people - such as Anna North at Jezebel.com, James Carroll at the Daily Beast, Monica Hesse at the Washington Post, and Jeanne Cummings and Erika Lovely at Politico – have said that basically, Martha Coakley lost because voters are sexist.

I disagree. I have never heard or read of anyone saying that they voted for Brown because he is a man. There’s just no evidence to support these claims.

Additionally, this article claims that it was sexist of Brown’s supporters to “cheer on the notion of Coakley being raped.” While it is certainly horrible to wish rape on someone, it isn’t sexist, exactly. Men can be raped, just as women can. Coakley’s supporters could just as easily have cheered about Brown being raped, and it would have been just as classless. It’s sexist to say that wishing rape on someone is sexist, since that claim seems to be based on the assumption that only women can be raped. Real feminists believe that men and women are equal and should be treated that way. Both men and women can be the victims or the perpetrators of rape, and it’s unacceptable to wish rape on anyone of any gender.

Plus, there has been letter after letter in the Boston Globe this week saying that the people elected Brown because of “stupidity,” “foolishness,” “personality, misinformation, and fear.” One person goes as far as to write, “although Scott Brown won the election, there is a large chunk of Bay Staters he doesn’t seem to represent.”

Well, duh! That would be the same chunk of Bay Staters that is currently represented by the other 11 of our 12 representatives in Congress. How do you think we non-Democrats have felt for the past few decades that we have gone with no representation in Congress? Right now, 52% of the people are represented by one person, and 47% are represented by 11 people. When it gets to be 6 and 6, then the Democrats can start complaining.

Why can’t people accept that maybe Brown won the election because people like his views better and think he’ll do a better job? Why can’t they accept that people might be fed up with one-party control of our state and the country, or opposed to the health bill that was created through bribery and forces everyone to buy health insurance? Why must people attribute Brown’s victory to sexism, ignorance, and fear? Maybe Brown won because he deserved to.

The “hypocrisy bill” – which would allow Governor Deval Patrick to appoint an interim replacement for the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy – just passed the Mass. House of Representatives. I honestly cannot believe that so many people support this.

In case you’ve been living under a rock (or aren’t from Massachusetts), governors in this state used to have the power to appoint interim senators when an empty Senate seat arose. Five years ago, however, when Massachusetts had a Republican governor, the Democrat-dominated state legislature passed a bill taking this power away. Now, because we have a Democratic governor, the Democrats want the governor to be able to appoint an interim senator again. In other words, they want the bill that they changed, changed back.

Do I even need to tell you how hypocritical this is?

There have actually been rallies in favor of changing the law back, and the main argument of its supporters is that Massachusetts needs two voices in the Senate. I don’t know about you, but as a supporter of liberty, I don’t feel that either of Massachusetts’s two senators has really represented me.

Obviously, the sole purpose of changing the law back is to allow our Democratic governor to appoint a Democratic senator so that there are as many Democrats in the Senate as possible. This is especially important to the Democrats because they are currently trying to pass their ”health care reform” bill (which I put in quotes because it really doesn’t go far enough to reform much of anything). Contrary to what the pro-hypocrisy people argue, this is precisely the time we don’t need another Democratic Senator from Massachusetts. The health bill – which I will write more about later – threatens to take away our liberty, and we need to do whatever we can to take away votes from it.

In a USA today column, Nancy Pelosi called opponents of Obama’s health insurance reform plan “un-American.” She writes:

“These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”

Pelosi, of course, is referring to the protesters at the Democrats’ health reform town halls. It seems like she’s fine with protesters whose political views match her own – according to Fox News she once said about anti-war protesters:

“It’s always exciting. This is democracy in action. I’m energized by it, frankly.”

I’ve noticed a lot of health-protester-bashing in the past few days. A letter to the editor in today’s Boston Globe said the following:

“As a teacher of 31 years, I have learned how to quickly recognize a bully, and how not to be intimidated by one. We have fought wars in order to stop the bullies of the world. Now they are in our own backyard. We are not just talking about healthcare, but the very foundation of our free society.”

Right. So the Democrats, who control the presidency and both houses of Congress, are the victims, and people who dare to voice unpopular views are the bullies? Funny, I thought bullies were people who gang up on others and force them into doing things they don’t want to do. To me, that sounds an awful lot like what the Democrats are doing. The protesters are bravely standing up to bullies. To label them as bullies themselves is preposterous.

Another preposterous thing that this letter writer says is that the Democrats’ plan is “a healthcare system that would benefit everyone.” The Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for more health services for the poor. This clearly doesn’t benefit the people who will be paying those taxes. The Democrats also want an individual mandate – in other words, everyone will be required to have health insurance. This certainly doesn’t benefit people who would rather pay for their health procedures individually than buy insurance.

Earlier, the Globe ran an article entitled “Foes’ decibels replace debate on healthcare.” I object to the implication that loudly protesting the Democrats’ plan prevents debate. I get the point that the protests could be a little more civil, but yelling is a lot closer to debate than blindly accepting everything Obama says.

Additionally, Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson recently bashed Republicans for not agreeing to everything Obama says. He writes…

“The Senate voted 60 to 37 to extend the (cash for clunkers) program, with 33 Republicans voting against it. This was worse than the 31 Republicans who voted against Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. And, of course, the Republicans have declared war against meaningful healthcare reform, despite the fact that the nation has 46 million uninsured people, one of the greatest travesties in the developed world.”

First of all, I’m not sure why voting against something is always “worse” than voting for it. Why doesn’t Jackson use the word “better”? Second, I wouldn’t call Obama’s health reform plan “meaningful.” None of the laws under consideration in Congress would significantly change anything for the better about the health system (except requiring insurance companies to cover anyone who applies; that’s a slight improvement). Health insurance will remain ridiculously expensive, complex, and confusing, only there will be more taxes to provide it to poor people, and everyone will be forced to buy it. Third, Jackson thinks that people being uninsured is “one of the greatest travesties in the developed world”? Not having insurance isn’t a travesty – it’s a good thing! People should be free to choose whether they would rather buy insurance or pay for each health service individually. I can think of many far greater travesties – the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, the fact that you can’t get a gun without going through tons of paperwork and fees, machines that show the naked bodies of everyone at airports, and the progressive income tax system are just as few examples. And then Jackson concludes by saying…

“In 2008, the nation said Nay to the party of Nay. It is rapidly coming time for Obama to do the same.”

I don’t really see why he criticizes the GOP for saying no to things. When the issue in question is whether or not to raise taxes and force everyone to buy insurance, I think “nay” is a pretty good response. Angry protests are also a pretty good response. What does Jackson want the Republicans to do, automatically agree with everything the Democrats do? Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of having two parties?

The Democrats in the House have unveiled their proposal for a health care overhaul. In my humble opinion, this plan would decrease Americans’ liberty and move our country one step farther in the direction of socialism. Among the provisions of the proposed bill are the following (with my commentary):

• A government-funded insurance plan. I’m opposed to government-funded anything right now, since that would mean either higher taxes or more debt.
• Affordability credits available only to people who make up to $43,000. I think it’s unfair to charge different prices for the same thing based on income.
• Expansion of Medicaid. Again, this would require more government spending and would be giving people free things based on their income, which is unfair.
• An individual mandate to have health insurance, with penalties of 2.5% of one’s income if one does not obey. This is the worst part of the bill right here. The government simply does not have the right to tell people what they must buy. Having health insurance and not having health insurance are two equally good options, and people have a right to decide which is best for them.
• A mandate that businesses with payrolls of up to $250,000 either provide health insurance to employees or contribute 8% of their payroll. Businesses should not be required to provide employees with health insurance. In fact, I’d much rather employers not provide health insurance and instead raise their employees’ pay by the amount they would be spending on health insurance so that the employees can decide for themselves what to spend their money on.
• Insurance companies cannot deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions. I actually like this. Insurance should be made more like any other product – it should cost the same for everyone, and anyone who pays the price should be able to get it.

The Dems are calling their proposal America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. To me, it doesn’t seem too affordable, nor does it seem to give people choices, since one of the most important choices – whether or not to get health insurance - would be taken away from us. More government spending and more regulations on how we can live our lives are the last thing America needs.