The Freedom Bulletin

Barack Obama recently claimed that requiring everyone to have health insurance, which is part of all of the health reform plans that have been considered recently by Congress, does not amount to a tax increase.

I agree with him, but only because I think that mandatory insurance is worse than a tax increase. Forcing people to have health insurance is degrading, unconstitutional, and unfair, it is a huge assault on our liberties, and it will make the cost of health services go up and the quality go down. I am categorically opposed to any health reform bill that includes an individual mandate, and I think that anyone who believes in liberty ought to be as well.

First, an individual mandate is degrading because the government is basically telling us that we don’t know what’s good for ourselves. There are two ways of paying for health services: getting insurance (paying a flat fee no matter how many services you get), or not getting insurance (paying separately for each service you get). These are two legitimate ways of paying, which people have a right to choose between. By requiring everyone to do the first option, the government is telling us that it doesn’t trust our judgement. Supporters of an individual mandate don’t believe it’s possible for someone to rationally choose to take the risk of paying out of pocket for any services they receive. Instead, they want to tell you that you don’t know what’s good for you – you’ll end up incurring medical expenses that you won’t be able to pay, even if you don’t think you will. That is paternalistic and insulting.

Second, an individual mandate is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to require people to buy a product or service. The closest the Constitution comes to allowing an individual mandate is the commerce clause, which authorizes Congress “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This doesn’t come very close at all though – whether or not an individual person has insurance doesn’t really affect interstate commerce. 

Third, an individual mandate is unfair. People who don’t need many health services have a right to not pay for many health services. They have a right not to get insurance if that is what makes the most financial sense for them. Forcing them to buy health insurance equates to forcing them to subsidize people who receive more health services. It is simply unfair to make people pay for things they don’t use.

Fourth, and pretty straightforwardly, an individual mandate shrinks our liberty. It eliminates the choice of whether or not to buy health insurance, something that people have every right to do because it hurts no one and is not immoral.

Fifth and finally, an individual mandate would make health insurance costs increase and quality decrease. Why? Well, in a free market, companies have an incentive to keep their prices as low as possible and their quality as high as possible. This is because if the product is too expensive or too low quality, people won’t buy it, and the company won’t make money. With an individual mandate, however, people don’t have the option of not buying the product. Therefore, health insurance companies can charge as much as they want and make their product as confusing and bad as they want, and they won’t lose any business because people are forced to buy it.

Here are some awesome posts from other blogs about the injustice of the individual mandate:

• Below the Beltway – Republican Senator Expresses Support for Mandatory Health Insurance
• Washington Post – Illegal Health Reform
• Cato at Liberty – That Costly Mandate

Did you know that the top 1% of earners in America now pay more taxes  than the bottom 95%? Also, the percentage of our nation’s taxes paid by the top 1% increased from 24.8% in 1987 to 40.4% in 2007.

Thanks to Michael Graham and the Tax Foundation for these fun facts.

Anyone who thinks that our tax system needs to be more progressive needs to take a look at the facts and think again.

Because of Deval Patrick’s budget cuts, the Franklin Park Zoo may have to close, and some of the animals there may have to be killed.

I find it outrageous that the Massachusetts government is spending large amounts of money on things like free stuff for people who aren’t even citizens, STD prevention, and teen pregnancy prevention, but they are going to just let animals die. And the T has to raise its fares because the government decided that free things that only poor people or people with babies are allowed to have are more important than public transportation, which benefits everyone.

Things like zoos, public transportation, museums, and libraries should be made financially self-sustaining through fares, admissions, and membership fees if at all possible, but it is much more justifiable to spend tax money on these things than on wealth redistribution programs. This is because welfare programs are discriminatory in that they only help people whom the government has decided are eligible, usually those whose incomes are below certain levels. Zoos and public transportation benefit everyone who chooses to use them.

The state government should cut $14 billion, mostly in welfare programs, as I outlined here: The Massachusetts budget. It’s completely wrong that they are raising the sales tax, cutting from zoos, and forcing T fares to go up, while barely touching $14 billion worth of unnecessary, unjust welfare programs. If they made all the cuts they should, the state could lower taxes (not just avoid raising them) and still have enough money for zoos and $8 billion to give to the T in order to get rid of its debt and hopefully enable it to not need tax revenue in the future.

Governor Patrick and the state legislature really need to get their priorities straight.

Terrible but unsurprising news: the Massachusetts state senate voted to raise the sales tax by 25%, as well as repealing the sales tax exemption on alcohol. Big surprise, the big-government-supporting, socialist thieves won, and freedom and justice lost.

All the senators who voted in favor of the tax increase, as well as everyone who protested in favor of it at the state house, should be ashamed! Thanks for taking away my money and my liberty.

According to the Boston Globe article:

“Maybe we should call this the New Hampshire economic stimulus bill,” Senator Robert L. Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican, said with sarcasm.

Right on, Senator Hedlund!

Edit: Go to Hub Politics to see how all the senators voted. If your senator voted yea, then vote them out!

It seems like the world (or at least Boston) is going in a bad direction right now. The Boston Globe, an integral part of many people’s daily routines and an invaluable source of news, is in danger of closing, and now another venerable Boston institution, the MBTA, might have to drastically cut its service and raise fares. In other depressing news, the iconic Zakim Bridge will no longer be lit up at night to save money for the Turnpike Authority.

If the state does not raise its gas tax by 19 cents a gallon, the T might have to raise fares by 25-30%, eliminate commuter rail service on nights and weekends, eliminate bus routes and subway stops, and reduce the frequency of trains and buses by 50% during midday, nights, and weekends. These are just a few of the cutbacks – check out the Globe for a more extensive list.

I am vehemently against raising the gas tax. Massachusetts has WAY too many taxes already, and more taxes are the last thing the state needs. I’d rather have $7 tolls than a higher gas tax, and I’d rather have the T cut services and raise fares than have any kind of tax increase.

However, there are a plethora of things in the bloated state budget that should be cut before the T. Just take a look at this game, which was created by the Globe to show how hard it would be to balance the budget if Question 1 passed (which it very unfortunately didn’t). I was able to fairly easily cut more than I needed to by eliminating government spending on health care ($13 billion) and human services ($3.59 billion), and a couple more billion in various other categories. A lot of people would disagree with me on this, but I don’t think it’s the government’s role to pay for people’s medical services or social programs. Cuts in these areas could be used to give the T and Turnpike the funding they need to balance their budgets. I love the T, and the Zakim Bridge is a beautiful icon of Boston. While I am really supportive of the state government cutting its budget, these are the last things that should be cut.

Overall, there was nothing too surprising about Obama’s address to Congress. Early on he said that he doesn’t support big government, but then he went on to list all the things he wants the government to spend money on. He says he doesn’t want to create a huge national debt, but he just pushed through a nearly $1 trillion stimulus package and is now planning to place the burden of reducing the budget deficit solely on financially successful people. Here are two of the main things in the speech that I took issue with:

1. Obama’s comment that “a surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy.” I really disagree with this statement because it presumes that money fundamentally belongs to the government, which (supposedly) has the right to distribute the money to people however it sees fit. I think money belongs to the people who earn it. Stealing less money from the rich (as Bush did) is NOT the same thing as transferring money to them. Ever since the 16th Amendment was passed, the government has been transferring money from the rich to the poor, not the other way around.  

2. His statement that “Tonight I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training…Every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country.” This deeply offended me for three reasons:

• Although these comments were just Obama’s opinion and do not have the force of law, what a paternalistic, un-American thing to say! How dare Obama tell Americans what decisions to make in their own lives? Dropping out of high school is just as good a choice as going to college. The choices that individual people make are not the business of the country as a whole – that would be socialism. What makes America beautiful is that people have the liberty to make their own decisions without being judged by others.
• Additionally, to expect everyone to get a college education is collectively self-defeating. The purpose of a college degree is to gain an advantage in the job market. If everyone gets a college degree, no one will have an advantage. The situation will be exactly the same as if no one went to college, except everyone will have spent 4 years of their life working hard with no financial compensation. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
• Third, society needs all kinds of people. That includes plumbers, electricians, truck drivers, cooks, cashiers, and people who work in Dunkin’ Donuts. Blue-collar jobs that require no college education, and maybe not even a high-school education, are in many ways more useful to society than doctors, consultants, and even lawyers. The world wouldn’t be a very good place if all the Dunkin’s shut down because there was no one to make coffee and get donuts for people. Contrary to what Obama seems to think, in America, it’s okay to have people with a variety of jobs and education levels.

The economic stimulus package is nearing $900 billion, about a third of the most recent federal budget. Although it is scary that the government is adding almost a trillion dollars to the $10 trillion national debt, some parts of the bill are more objectionable than others.

• The worst part was billions of dollars to expand Medicaid coverage of contraceptives. If you want condoms, you should have to pay for them yourself! Thankfully, Obama said he was willing to drop this.
• Obama also says he will agree to getting rid of the alternative minimum tax for tens of millions of people, one of the few good parts of the stimulus bill.
• $180 billion will go toward increased Medicaid funding and unemployment benefits. This is unfair to people who work and/or have too much money to qualify for Medicaid.
• There will be a $500 payroll tax holiday for all workers. Tax breaks are always better than increased spending, I guess.
• $365.6 billion will go toward roads, highways, bridges, and other brick-and-mortar projects. This is better than giving people money for nothing, a la Medicaid and Welfare, but it doesn’t seem like America really needs all those new roads…

It’s good that Obama is at least trying to compromise with Republicans, but if I was in Congress, I still probably wouldn’t vote for it. It’s just a mind-boggling amount of money, and with the national debt at such a ridiculous level, we can’t add to it any more.