Remake America?

Would the Founders Remake America?

by Brion McClanahan

Posted 06/30/2009 ET

“At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents….Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”

Barack Obama delivered these magnificently eloquent yet baneful and inaccurate statements during his first inaugural address. They are pregnant with historical fallacies and present Americans with a clear question that must be answered in the next four years: does America need to be “remade?” And, as a corollary, would Americans remain “true to our founding documents” by following Obama’s advice? It certainly is not, as he suggests, the tradition of our “forebears,” men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams or any other man from the founding generation, and they would not support “remaking” America by spitting on the Constitution or ignoring it entirely. The Constitution limits the power of government, and those limits cannot and should not be ignored by either the government or the American public.

The most troubling and damaging fallacy of his first inaugural rests in his apparent belief that the Founding Fathers were romantic, egalitarian, utopian, centralizers bent on “creating” something “new” in the founding documents of the United States. Many Americans have seemingly subscribed to this interpretation of history. They don’t realize that Jefferson copied much of the Declaration of Independence from fellow Virginians George Mason and Richard Henry Lee and his most famous phrase, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…” was simply a shortened version of Mason’s “all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights…namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and maintaining happiness and safety.” And, of course, all Americans in the founding generation recognized the maxim that the right to “life, liberty, and property” originated in the ancient constitutions of England, including the Magna Carta of 1215 and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and were best articulated by the British philosopher John Locke. Jefferson himself stated that the Declaration was not a statement of “new principles, or new arguments.” It was the English tradition applied to American circumstances.

Additionally, no one in the founding generation would have agreed to the idea that American can be “remade” through extensive centralization in the hands of one individual or even 535 members of Congress. To them, the state governments offered the best protection for the liberty and happiness of the people and were the keystone of the federal government. William Davie of North Carolina, a Revolutionary War hero, member of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 and proponent of the Constitution, said during the state ratification convention that, “If there were any seeds in this Constitution which might, one day, produce a consolidation, it would, sir, with me, be an insuperable objection, I am so perfectly convinced that so extensive a country as this can never be managed by one consolidated government.” Samuel Huntingdon of Connecticut, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence and governor of his state, argued during the Connecticut ratification convention that, “The history of man clearly shows that it is dangerous to intrust [SIC] the supreme power in the hands of one man,” and he thought that the state governments would “not be endangered by the powers vested by the Constitution in the general government.” He believed in their necessity and rights as sovereign political entities.

The conviction that America can be “remade” through executive action and consolidation of government is damaging to the American tradition of limited government and jealous maintenance of state authority. Americans have a right to “life, liberty, and property” and, as the founding generation continually emphasized, these rights cannot be abridged by government, particularly a consolidated government in Washington, D.C. Taxes confiscate property, and the more government takes from the private sector the less liberty and independence individual Americans have, thus a violation of the founding documents and the founding principles of the United States. If Obama and the progressives in the modern federal government wish to “remake” America, and they do, they should not cloak their designs in the language of the founding generation. To a man, the Founders would have resisted everything the current government does in the name of the “general welfare” of the “people.” Rather than preserve the “ideas of our forebears,” nationalization, from health care to auto companies to “cap and trade,” destroys liberty, freedom, and independence.

Connecticut native and patriot Oliver Wolcott once said, “Mankind may become corrupt, and give up the cause of freedom; but I believe that love of liberty which prevails among the people of this country will prevent such a direful calamity.” Other members of the founding generation echoed this sentiment. Alexander Hamilton, considered by many to be the American architect of “big government,” thundered during the New York ratification convention: “Sir, can it be supposed that the state will become the oppressors of the people? Will they combine to destroy the liberties and happiness of their fellow citizens, for the sole purpose of involving themselves in ruin? God forbid! The idea, sir, is shocking. It outrages every feeling of humanity, and every dictate of common sense.” This generation could not foresee Americans willingly giving up their liberty or freedom for convenience and security in the name of what Franklin D. Roosevelt called the fear of fear.

The current mess in Washington can be resisted, but it depends on the willingness of the states and the people of the states to grow a backbone. The founding generation pledged their lives, liberty, fortunes, and sacred honor to the principles of liberty and freedom. As Patrick Henry asked in 1775, “Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!” The current generation of Americans must answer the question. America does not need to be remade unless that means adhering to the founding documents of the United States, a novel idea in modern Washington. Heed the words of the Founding Fathers. They would have opposed the “progressive” agenda of Barack Obama and the centralizers in Congress with all of their resources. We should as well. Our posterity depends upon it.

Dr. McClanahan holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in American history from the University of South Carolina. Born in Virginia, he attended high school in Delaware and received a B.A. in history from Salisbury University in Maryland. He is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Founding Fathers (Regnery Publishing, 2009).

Wisdom of The Founders

A Debt The Founders Wouldn't Believe By SEN. JUDD GREGG | Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT In a 1789 letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The earth belongs to each of these generations, during its course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and encumbrances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." What would Thomas Jefferson think today, as the Obama administration puts this generation on a path to drive the debt sky-high, effectively leaving our children and grandchildren to foot the bill? Over the past 40 years, U.S. debt has averaged 36% of our gross domestic product. Because of the current economic downturn and the fact that the government has had to serve as a lender of last resort to stabilize the financial system, we are seeing what should be only a short-term spike in our debt levels. By the end of this fiscal year, our publicly-held debt will be about 57% of GDP. This is not a good situation, but a temporary spike in debt can be managed, just as it was in the past when we were facing the crises of World Wars I and II, the Civil War and the War of Independence. In those instances, debt was rapidly paid off during the postwar periods. Under President Obama's budget plan for the nation, this debt will not be rapidly paid off once the recession ends. Instead, it will continue to mushroom, driven by the president's new proposed spending that we cannot afford, which comes on top of looming entitlement spending we are already facing as the baby boom generation moves into retirement. Because of this spending, we will have budget shortfalls, or deficits, averaging $1 trillion each year for the next 10 years. Since the president's budget does not propose to ask Americans today to pay for that additional spending through taxes, the only way for the U.S. government to get that money is to borrow it, which means adding to, not reducing, the debt. By the end of the budget period as proposed by the president, the debt will have skyrocketed to 82% of GDP, which is simply not sustainable. Interest payments on that debt will soon be the largest single item in the federal budget — more than $800 billion per year in 10 years' time. That will eclipse what we will spend on national security, and is four times as much as we will spend on education, energy and transportation combined. These are not abstract numbers, either — the debt will have an effect on every American. In 2019, under the president's plan, each U.S. household's share of the federal debt held by the public will be $133,000 — more than many Americans owe on their mortgage. Passing a huge, unaffordable, debt-ridden government on to our children — a terrible thing for one generation to do to another — is only one of the troublesome aspects of this situation. The other reason for serious concern is our standing in the global economy, and most importantly, with our creditors. Currently, the U.S. government has the highest possible credit score — a AAA from credit rating agencies such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's — so the debt issued by the U.S. Treasury is considered a very safe investment and is purchased by individual investors, public and private entities, and governments around the world. U.S. Treasury debt is a desirable commodity, and that has helped to keep U.S. interest rates low. In recent news, Standard & Poor's issued an early warning about the AAA rating of the United Kingdom, indicating that it might reduce the U.K.'s rating within the next two years. S&P has downgraded Ireland's debt rating twice so far this year. What does this mean? When a country's bond rating is downgraded, lenders will have less confidence that the country can repay its debt, and that country will have to borrow at higher interest rates. Could this happen to the United States? I certainly hope not, but China, our biggest creditor, is becoming increasingly concerned about our lack of fiscal discipline and the impact that continued excessive borrowing will have on the value of Treasuries that China holds. A former adviser to the Chinese Central Bank recently said publicly that "the U.S. government should not be complacent," and noted that China has alternatives to buying U.S. Treasuries — that it could invest its money in safer vehicles. If the Chinese start to reduce their purchases of our government securities because of our need to borrow increasing amounts of money to finance all the spending that the president has proposed, we will have to start offering higher interest payments to potential lenders to make our securities more attractive. As that interest on U.S. Treasuries goes up, so does the financial burden on taxpayers in the next generation. This would hit the next generation with a double whammy — unnecessary debt we're already incurring, plus higher interest rates on our borrowing. Right now we are on a perilous and unsustainable fiscal course, which, if left unchecked, will lead to some disastrous results — devaluation of the dollar, massive inflation and a confiscatory tax rate on our children that will destroy any hope for the same economic opportunities and lifestyle that we have enjoyed. But that is exactly the plan the president has laid out. The Obama budget does nothing about the health care and Social Security costs that the credit rating agencies have warned about. The current budget plan puts us in over our heads, fiscally speaking, and we cannot continue to ignore the warning signals. Thomas Jefferson was right — no generation should take on more debt than it can pay off during its lifetime — and we should take his wise words to heart. Gregg, a Republican, is New Hampshire's senior senator and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

How Democrats Run the House

Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff
http://www.powerlineblog.com

BILL? WHAT BILL?

June 27, 2009 Posted by John at 9:01 AM

At The Examiner, David Freddoso adds a coda to the bizarre story of the cap-and-trade energy tax that passed the House yesterday. The bill that the House voted on doesn't, strictly speaking, exist:

Texas Republican Reps. Joe Barton and Louie Gohmert have just asked the chair whether there exists a complete, updated copy of the Waxman-Markey carbon-cap bill.

"If a bill for which there is no copy were to actually pass this body," Barton asked, "could the bill without a copy be sent to the Senate for its consideration?"

Through a series of parliamentary inquiries, the Republicans learned that the 300-plus page managers' amendment, added to the bill last night in the House Rules Committee, has not even been been integrated with the official copy of the 1,090-page bill at the House Clerk's desk, let alone in any other location. The two documents are side-by-side at the desk as the clerk reads through the instructions in the 300 page document for altering the 1,090 page document.

But they cannot be simply combined, because the amendment contains 300 pages of items like this: "Page 15, beginning line 8, strike paragraph (11)..." How many members of Congress do you suppose have gone through it all to see how it changes the bill?

I can answer that question: none. There hasn't been time to do so. The manner in which the Democrats have run the House since taking control in 2007 has been disgraceful.

Dumbing Down America

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/when_did_the_lowbrows_take_ove.html at June 27, 2009 - 10:08:12 AM EDT June 26, 2009

When did the lowbrows take over the culture?

By James Lewis

I've been trying to grasp for a truth that is so obvious that all of us know it. But it's not a polite truth, so we don't talk about it. Yet I think it's important to say it out loud, because it is a truth that haunts our national discourse.

As a nation we are under the thumb of idiots. Not just indoctrinated, or wrong-thinking, or power-hungry, or manipulative, or even malevolent people. No, I mean real lowbrows, people who constantly fall for really stupid ideas. Neanderthals. (Look at the Governor of California just running the state budget into the ground. See what I mean? That's not just incompetence. It takes special stupidity, almost a deliberate, willful absence of real thinking.)

The Federal EPA is about to officially declare carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. That's not just false and unscientific; it's not just an excuse for taxing everything in sight, including breathing. It's not merely wrong. It's idiotic. It marks a low point in our national conversation. Scientists or engineers with a grain of sense shouldn't be taking the EPA seriously for a second. Forget the "climate experts," with their grossly inadequate computer models. Normally intelligent people should boggle at the EPA. They are bizarre. Only the truly ignorant could fall for this level of ignorance. Or those who just can't think.

Or look at Obama's unbelievable spending spree. No sane and sensible taxpayer could possibly believe that spending trillions and trillions of dollars on blue-sky fantasies makes any sense at all; the only reason Americans aren't in open rebellion yet is that half of them can't believe it's happening, and the other half are idiots. We haven't seen the effect (yet) on our pocketbooks. There's food in the stores still, and housing has gotten cheaper. But let Obama's budget affect our wallets directly and just watch the voters explode with rage.

The Democrats in Congress are trying desperately to put the brakes on Obama's egomaniacal ambitions because they can see themselves going over the edge in 2010. In a self-respecting, intelligent culture, the Obama budget would be dead on arrival. It's an insult to our national intelligence. (His foreign policy is more of the same.)

Or look at the global warming farce, still hotly pursued by the political classes in Europe and this country, although the Australians seem to be coming to their senses. China now has more millionaires than the UK, because they use all their resources, like coal, to fire their industrial plants. They will never sacrifice a single luxury car to the cap and trade fraud. Neither will India. China and India have been under the thumb of egomaniacal socialists (in the case of India) and communists (in the case of China). They've been there, done that, seen the suffering.

No wonder those Chinese college students fell all over themselves with laughter when Timothy Geithner assured them that Obama would never spend the United States into debt. What an idiot! They laughed because Geithner's stupidity or mendacity was too obvious for words.

That's how we should all react to the miserable frauds who are now in national office. You have to dull your senses with drugs or endless propaganda to fall for it. I've sometimes wondered how many people must have killed off their critical thinking with alcohol and drugs. I know a walking few drug casualties myself, people who just burned out their brains. I'm sure they voted for Obama.

Or maybe there's such a thing as learned stupidity. How else can so many people be so idiotic? Our national IQ has dropped to about 75: Several standard deviations below normal.

Well, we have now voted in a President for the lowbrows. Yes, Obama himself is smart enough; even smart enough to say a few years ago that he didn't feel ready for the presidency. Well, now we can see why he said that. But legions of idiots voted for a man who was plainly unqualified, even by his own estimation, and surrounded by a bunch of malignant sociopaths like Wright and Ayers and all the rest. How could he possibly win? Well, Obama cynically appealed to the idiots -- the young, the stupid, the naive, the silly, the rock idol worshippers, and probably the drug-addled masses, all the lowbrows in the land.

That includes the idiot savants of academia. Academics have a very narrow band of intelligence, something that satirists since Aristophanes have noticed and poked fun at. The first philosopher in Western history was Thales of Elea; Thales featured in Greek folklore as a man who walked around at night gazing at the stars only to fall into a ditch. That's probably a folksy giggle at the absent-minded professor who is constantly bumping into walls. But there's a big element of truth in it. Academics can be incredibly ignorant and dumb outside of their small areas of expertise. Professors and media scribblers generally lack human smarts. They are sure suckers for all the con artists of the day.

Obama is a smooth-talking hustler who has specialized in charming academic liberals, like a smart graduate student who needs to impress his teachers with every word. They just dote on him, like a proud parent smiling on a favorite child. He's their dream, a black man who sounds so smart.

In his press conferences he hypnotizes all the ink-stained wretches of the media. It's a sight to behold. The man swats a fly and the suck-ups of the media go ga-ga with applause, and go back and write articles about it. That's not just a reflection on their (lack of) character and judgment. It's not just their childish immaturity. It's a reflection on their brains, or rather, on all that empty space between their ears. Our media stars are just not very bright. They're idiots. That single fact explains a lot. (And yes, they are also corrupt, easily seduced, haunted by deadlines, decadent in their values, and very prone to mob thinking. But if they had any brains it might be harder to manipulate them like this. The White House just pulls their strings and they dance.)

Obama's 22 White House czars. That's really stupid. As well as a violation of the Constitution. But it's a Chinese laugh line. It's so obviously wrong and power-mad that it's not worth debating.

Legalizing drugs. That's really stupid.

Obama's power-grab over the medical sector of the economy? It's profoundly stupid. We can insure all the uninsured people in the country for a tiny fraction of all that money. We just need to fix the tire on our national car, and this guy tries to sell us a brand-new O-mobile, it can practically fly off the lot, all on credit, long-term payments, no money down. It's gonna be free! So what if you have to mortgage your wife and children? Even if we already have two national lemons in our garage, Medicare and Medicaid, which nobody likes. Now Obee is trying to sell us on a really, really expensive dream mobile that will fix our problems forever, plus it'll be cheaper than what we have now!

Can you believe it?

That sales pitch only works for idiots.

The rise to power and fame of the real lowbrows explains a lot. It even points to an answer of sorts. Because we've all been intimidated by the Cult of Nice not to contradict anybody who comes out with a really stupid, destructive idea. We can no longer call a really stupid idea what it is. I know that I censor myself all the time. We have been taught to keep our mouths shut when a word in time might make a real difference. We have allowed the national conversation to be dumbed down.

Here's my resolution for July Fourth: From now on I'm going to call idiocy idiotic. Not nastily, but as clearly as I can. It is high time for normal, intelligent common sense to become acceptable again. I'm happy to have a respectful argument with anyone who disagrees with me. But I'm going to start saying the magic words:

That's really dumb! That's really ignorant! You haven't thought about that much, have you? Have you ever considered another side of that batty idea?

I promise to be nice.

But honest.

Pass the word.

If we all start doing it we can change the world.

CAP and TRADE is WRONG

June 24, 2009

The High Cost of Cap and Trade: Why the EPA and CBO Are Wrong

by heritage.org Fact Sheet #34

Cap and TradeThe EPA Is Wrong

* False Assumptions: Proponents of cap and trade point to the low cost estimates by the EPA and CBO as a reason to pass Waxman-Markey. The EPA underestimates that the bill would cost households an additional $140 a year.

* Based on Consumption: The EPA's numbers are based on consumption changes, which are typically less than income changes, as families respond to income losses by saving less.

* Uses Discounting: Discounting is a reasonable approach for comparing costs and benefits that occur at widely different times. However, costs of climate change rarely use a discounted rate this high. Without discounting, the impact per household is $1,288 in 2050. Adjusting household size to reflect a family of four raises this cost to over $1,900.

* Assumes Rebates: The EPA assumes all the allowance proceeds will be rebated directly to consumers. This clearly isn't the case, since most of the allowances have been promised to industry.

* No New Taxes?The loss that the EPA calculates doesn't include the cost of the energy tax to consumers, since the EPA assumes that all of the money is rebated. The cost of the energy tax is actually $4,600 per family of four in 2035.

The CBO Is Wrong

* False Assumptions: CBO underestimates that the bill would cost households $175 in 2020. They assume that the carbon tax isn't a tax if the government spends the money. When have Americans ever seen all of a tax returned to them? It's like suggesting your tax rebate will be as large as the amount taken from your paycheck every year.

* Numbers Don't Add Up: The CBO's allowance cost numbers don't add up. They say the allowance price will be $28. Since there are 5.056 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in the cap that year, that implies a $141 billion gross cost. They list $91.4 billion.

* Hard to Believe: In the CBO's June 5 analysis, they projected allowance revenues of $119.7 billion, $129.7 billion, $136 billion, $145.6 billion and $152.9 billion for the years 2015-2019. It's hard to believe that the next number in that series would be $91.4 billion.

* Ignores Economic Damage: The CBO doesn't include the decrease in GDP as a result of the bill. The GDP hit in 2020 would be $161 billion (in 2009 dollars) according to our analysis. For a family of four, that is $1,870 that they ignore.

Cap and Trade Is Wrong

* It's a Massive Energy Tax

* It Will Not Make a Substantive Impact on the Environment

* It Will Kill Jobs

* It Will Cause Electricity Bills and Gas Prices to Sharply Increase

* It Will Outsource Manufacturing Jobs and Hurt Free Trade

* It Will Make You Choose among Energy, Groceries, Clothing and Haircuts

* It Will Be Highly Susceptible to Fraud and Corruption

* It Will Hurt Senior Citizens, the Poor, and the Unemployed the Worst

* It Will Cost American Families Nearly $3,000 a Year

* President Obama Admitted "Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket" Under His Cap-and-Trade Program (January 2008)

For more information, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/News/Cap-and-Trade-Global-Warming-Bill.cfm

The Most Dangerous Credit Card

by Rep. Kevin Brady and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (more by this author) Posted 06/24/2009 ET Hard-working Americans have had enough of outrageous government spending -- and they are not going to stand for it anymore. Enough is enough. A trillion dollars here, a trillion there -- doesn’t this new Democratic Congress understand there is no “free money”? At this rate, will the average American family ever again see a balanced federal budget in their lifetime? It's time to sunset wasteful Washington spending. That’s why we are co-chairing a bold new effort by House conservatives to root out government programs and agencies that taxpayers don’t need and then send them riding off into the sunset WITHOUT any more of our hard-earned tax dollars. The newly formed Sunset Caucus and its 42 members have one goal: to protect taxpayers and shrink the behemoth that is our federal government. We will do it -- one wasteful, duplicative, or unnecessary program at a time. Every member of this Caucus has committed themselves to adopt one or more federal programs they believe has outlived their usefulness (or never should have been enacted) and publicly champion their elimination, including offering zero-funding amendments this summer to the twelve spending bills that fund the national government. So far the Caucus has identified nearly a half a trillion dollars -- $472 billion -- of wasteful spending. They include the unspent portion of the controversial economic stimulus boondoggle, Americorps (the federal program where “volunteers” get paid for community service), the heavily subsidized and money losing Amtrak, the failed presidential election fund, millions of dollars for the national party conventions, a “diplomatic attaché” in Paris for the Department of Education, paying federal workers with tax dollars so they can work on union organizing activities and payments to countries to take Guantanamo Bay terrorists out of a perfectly good high security prison. Do you know we spend $8.7 million dollars a year to connect whalers in Massachusetts with their whaling ancestors in Alaska and Hawaii? To pay for just one program like that means dedicating all the federal taxes from families in a small rural town of 1,800. With federal deficits running into unimaginable numbers, can we really afford these types of frivolous programs? Is this how people want their hard-earned dollars spend? The Congressional voting card has become the most dangerous credit card on the face of the planet. There are no limits, no repercussions and no penalties for overuse. But, the problem is -- it’s not our money, it’s yours, America.

Washington's Plot to Explode Your Taxes

By Peter Ferrara on 6.24.09 @ 6:08AM

Everyone in Washington knows the record Federal deficits and debt are out of control and can't continue. President Obama knows it. The ultraliberal Democrat Congressional leadership knows it. Rank and file Congressional Republicans and Democrats know it. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has been openly saying so.

Obama's economic policies, adopted by the Democrat-controlled Congress, call for total Federal borrowing of $3.5 trillion this year alone! The Federal debt is projected to soar over the next 10 years to a peacetime record of 84% of GDP, and to keep on growing past the all-time record of 113% of GDP during World War II. Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, projects it will climb to 200% of GDP, twice the size of our entire economy. That would be 5 times the level of national debt that prevailed for decades before Obama.

This is the result of adding Obama's extreme, liberal left, Keynesian economic plan, with its trillion dollar stimulus package of wasteful spending that will do nothing to stimulate the economy, on top of the exploding costs of our current entitlement programs.

Obama's New Amerika

But not to worry, because the Congressional Democrat leadership and President Obama have a plan. First they are going to pass national health care, adding the biggest entitlement of all to the fiscal catastrophe we already have, giving new definition to the term fiscal insanity. Then, after that, they are going to come back to us and say, gee, we have no choice now but to raise your taxes, really, really, really raise your taxes, to record-shattering levels, to levels so high that it will change the fundamental nature of our economy and our nation.

After that, America will no longer be a land of prosperity and booming economic growth, as it has been for hundreds of years, since early colonial days. It will no longer enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. It will instead be America the Welfare State, with a government so big and overwhelming that everyone will be scrambling to get their personal gravy in government handouts, rather than producing for the marketplace and consumers.

Example Number 1 of this will be the new Obama health care system, where the doctors and hospitals will all be working for the government, who will be paying their bills, not you the patient, who will just be along for the ride. When the government tells them not to provide medicine for macular degeneration, or cancer treatment for senior citizens because it is not "cost effective," or referrals to specialists until it is too late, the doctors and hospitals will all hop to and salute, because they will be desperate for their slice of federal funding.

In this new system, everyone -- patients, doctors, hospitals, etc. -- will all be sacrificed for the "greater good," as defined by the liberal left. Doctors and surgeons now refusing Medicaid and Medicare patients because the government won't pay them enough will find the same government is refusing them adequate payment for everyone. Cost pressures will lead the government to clamp down more and more over time on payments to doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and other health providers. They will be vilified in the media just like the bank executives are now in regard to their traditional bonuses. As a result, investment will collapse in new hospital capacity and medical facilities, and development and adoption of new, cutting edge, health technologies and advanced, high tech, miracle drugs, sacrificing the interests of sick patients. This is how Canada got to the point where a hospital room could not be found in British Columbia for a mother experiencing accelerating birth contractions, and she had to be flown over the Rockies to the next state, Alberta, while giving birth, to find maternity care. Human capital will flee the health system as well, as older doctors retire early and new ones choose other professions instead, further constricting care for sick patients.

The Current Entitlement Catastrophe

Adding this new, massive, health care entitlement on top of the enormous entitlement mess we already have could not be more ridiculous and wildly irresponsible. The latest Trustees' Reports show that the current unfunded liability for Medicare alone is $89 trillion. Social Security adds another $15.1 in unfunded liabilities, for a total of $104 trillion. And that doesn't even count Medicaid. The entire American economy right now only produces about $14 trillion a year.

Since World War II, going back 60 years, federal spending as a percent of GDP has been stable, hovering around 20%. But the cost of the three big entitlement programs alone, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, is now projected to balloon eventually to 20.5% of GDP. Counting burgeoning interest on the national debt, on our current course federal spending will rocket towards 40% of GDP. Counting state and local spending, total government in America will consume over 50% of GDP. GDP will collapse in the face of all that spending and the resulting taxation and debt, increasing the percentage of government spending further. America will no longer be a free country, at least in terms of the freedom of people to enjoy the fruits of their own labor and decide how to use what they earn for the pursuit of happiness.

This doubling of federal spending as a percent of GDP implies a doubling of federal tax rates. The Heritage Foundation reports that trying to pay all of the promised benefits of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by raising income taxes would require raising the top 35% tax bracket to 77% and the 25% tax bracket paid by middle income earners to 55%. All income tax brackets, in fact, would have to be doubled.

By 2018, less than 10 years from now, Medicare Part A will be running a deficit of close to $100 billion. General revenue contributions for Medicare Parts B and D that year are now projected to be $364 billion. Consequently, the deficit for Medicare alone that year will be close to $500 billion (and that assumes a scheduled reduction in doctor and hospital reimbursements of over 20% starting in 2010). Yet, Obama and the Left are preparing to fight for an "option" for everyone to join Medicare or its equivalent as the answer to our health care problems. This is their "public option," which they say will keep insurance companies honest. But who is going to keep the government honest? These people just cannot be numerically literate.

How the Plot Will Work: A Tax Increase for 95% of Americans

After Obama's socialized medicine plan is passed, the hue and cry will start coming out of Washington, and will be echoed throughout the Democrat Party controlled media, that something has to be done about this fiscal catastrophe. The answer will be to appoint a new federal spending and tax reform commission, which will report back just after next year's election. America will then be permanently mangled by the enactment of extremist, bone-crushing taxes early in 2011.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) is a leader of this plot. So is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) as well as Speaker Nancy Pelosi. So are all the blue dog Democrats, led by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN). Unfortunately, so are some strategically inept Republicans and conservative institutions who are thinking now we need to get control of the long-term budget disaster, but are not thinking ahead concerning what such a Commission will mean in the current Washington thoroughly controlled by the liberal/left.

In fact, legislation for just such a Commission has already been introduced in both the House and the Senate, by Reps. Jim Cooper and Frank Wolf (R-VA), and Sens. Kent Conrad, Judd Gregg (R-NH), and George Voinovich (R-OH). The great majority of Commission members will be appointed by President Obama and the current ultraliberal Congressional leadership. It would be modeled on the base closing commission, with only one up or down vote allowed on the Commission's sweeping recommendations.

One leading conservative institution that favors this bill argues that it expects the Commission to deal with the long-term budget and entitlement crisis entirely by cutting government spending, which is what it favors. But who are they kidding? The liberal/left now in complete control of Washington, not to mention the so-called Mainstream Media, is not going to support cutting the welfare state in half. It is going to use the Commission to figure out how to finance doubling the welfare state, which is what Obama and the Democrat Congress are adopting now. Any such commission is just to provide political cover for massive, runaway tax increases.

Barack Obama won the White House with a campaign pledge to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. But now this plot is under way to increase taxes on 95% of Americans, to record, bone-crunching levels.

The Right Strategy: Congress Do Your Job

America is not Iran, or Russia or China. We are supposed to be governed by the Constitution and democracy, not by a Commission of supposed "experts." Conservatives should not be involved in this plot to subvert our capitalist economy, our Constitution and our democracy. They should be advocating the legislative reforms and policies that conservatives favor, and demanding that Congress do its job and enact these changes.

This means that Congress must first reject any new health care entitlement. They should focus instead on alternatives that ensure we have a real health care safety net in place so that no one will suffer without essential medical care. That is all that needs to be done, we don't need a government takeover of health care as the Left wants. Such legislation has already been introduced by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), involving no net increase in spending or taxes. Another bill has just been introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint with even less government involved, which is more strongly supported by conservatives.

Secondly, Congress should repeal the badly confused stimulus, and end all further bailouts. Only a small fraction of the trillion-dollar stimulus has been spent so far, and it has not and will not work to stimulate the economy. You don't restore economic growth by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy for the government to spend a trillion dollars. That adds nothing to the economy on net, and does nothing for the fundamental incentives that truly drive economic recovery and growth.

Thirdly, contrary to what most half -baked commentators say, packages of tax increases and benefit cuts are not the only way to reform entitlements. Rather, we should advance fundamental reforms that restructure and modernize our entitlements from the bottom up. Such reforms can serve the goals of our current entitlements even better than our current old-fashioned programs, while costing far less.

For example, in 1996 we reformed the old Depression era Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program by sending it back to the states with the Federal share of funding for the program in finite block grants. The old program provided matching federal funds for each dollar the state spent, so the states kept increasing their welfare rolls in good times and bad, bringing more federal funds to their state as a result. The new system provided that the amount of federal funding was fixed, and if the state spent more that extra money would all come out of its own pocket. But if the state spent less due to reform, it could keep the savings.

With these new incentives and the freedom to remake the program, the states focused on work requirements to reduce the program's rolls by close to 60% nationwide. Such reform should now be extended to the other 85 federal means-tested welfare programs, including Medicaid. Send them all back to the states under the same rules.

But Obama has done just the opposite, undermining this reform with new rules and welfare benefits adopted in his stimulus bill, which has already caused a reversal sharply increasing the welfare rolls.

Another opportunity is personal savings, insurance and investment accounts for Social Security and even part of Medicare. Workers should each have the freedom to choose to shift first some and then eventually all of their payroll taxes to such accounts, replacing all the benefits currently financed by those payroll taxes through the accounts. This would dramatically reduce federal spending over the long run, and phase out the deficits of Social Security and Medicare. But since over the long run, real market investments provide much better returns than Social Security even promises, let alone what it can pay, retirees would enjoy even higher benefits under such reform.

While our economy has suffered from a severe recession over the last year, such personal account investments are held for the very long term, for the entire adult lifetime of each worker. When we restore free market policies, the economy and investments across the board will boom again. Meanwhile, to ensure the social safety net of current entitlements continues, such reform can and should include a government guarantee that all retirees will get through the accounts at least as much as promised by Social Security. This would be far less than what such accounts would pay at standard, long term, market investment returns. The South American nation of Chile follows this same policy for its thorough personal account system adopted in 1981.

Such reforms are already included in the Ryan Roadmap, already introduced in legislation by Rep. Paul Ryan. That legislation has been officially scored by CBO as completely eliminating all long-term entitlement deficits, without any increase in taxes. Instead, the federal budget is balanced over the long term at 18.5% of GDP, smaller than the current Federal budget. Indeed, the Roadmap includes tax reform as well, with a new system applying a 10% tax rate on families with incomes up to $100,000 per year and singles up to $50,000, and a 25% rate on all incomes above that. Generous personal exemptions provide that a family of four earning up to $48,000 would pay no income tax.

Another round of tea parties is scheduled for July 4. The Washington plot to explode our taxes, and these alternative reforms, would be a good focus for tea party activists.

Peter Ferrara is director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation. He formerly served in President Reagan's White House Office of Policy Development, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

AN OPEN LETTER TO OUR NATION'S LEADERSHIP

[by Janet Contreras]:

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Profit and Loss are Best Regulators

Obama's Fairy Dust

John Tamny, 06.21.09, 12:01 AM ET

In a major speech last week in which he rolled out his vision for financial regulatory reform, President Barack Obama said he has "always been a strong believer in the power of free markets." Nice rhetoric for sure, particularly given a series of proposals meant to hamstring natural market activity while surely driving other forms of finance overseas.

As he sees it, "one of the most significant contributors to our economic downturn was an unraveling of our major financial institutions." No doubt that's the conventional wisdom of late, but it's hard to see how it could be completely true.

Indeed, finance as we know it is nothing if not a very broad concept. While Ford Motor Co. can trace its beginnings to car manufacturing, Quicken to tax software and E*TRADE Financial to low-cost stock trading, all are presently significant players in the business of lending. More broadly, retail behemoth Wal-Mart would have been in banking years ago if it weren't for regulations meant to keep it out, while leveraged-buyout giants of theBlackstone Group variety are dying to pick up insolvent financial institutions on the cheap.

In that sense, the true contributor to our economic downturn wasn't so much the failure of banks, but instead a bipartisan failure within Washington to let market forces prevail whereby finance substitutes would have entered a marketplace badly served by various dead banks walking. Put more simply, the unraveling of major financial institutions is not what presently ails us, but an unwillingness to allow them to die so that they could be replaced by healthy substitutes is.

Obama went on to say that the failure of these major financial institutions was due to a "lack of adequate regulatory structures to prevent abuse and excess." The latter constitutes what passes as settled truth at present, but what's less acknowledged is the simple reality that in addition to oversight provided by the Federal Reserve, banks dealt with regulators ranging from the Comptroller of the Currency to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Office of Thrift Supervision, not to mention myriad other state regulators.

That their collective wisdom with regard to the health of financial institutions was charitably non-existent doesn't seem to trouble the president. And while he saw fit to acknowledge the inability of the regulatory class to even foresee the individual troubles ahead for finance firms, he has remarkably chosen to essentially double down on what's failed in the past.

Specifically, the very Federal Reserve that proved so stupendously unequal to the task of regulating the nation's biggest banks will now be charged with regulating the "stability of the system as a whole." The Peter Principle has never held relevance in a Washington political culture that regularly rewards failure, but this promotion of sorts for the hapless Bernanke Fed is really quite something. A bureaucracy that was utterly blind to the proverbial trees will now be asked to somehow see the forest.

And as part of the Fed's expanded mandate, what Obama terms a "resolution authority" will be created for "large and interconnected financial firms so that we are not only putting in place safeguards to prevent the failure of these firms, but also a set of orderly procedures that will allow us to protect the economy if such a firm does in fact go under." Translated, just as AIG, Citigroup and General Motors were deemed "too big to fail," the Obama administration will spread fairy dust over other finance firms it deems important to the financial system's overall health.

For the institutions supposedly lucky enough to be tapped by our federal minders as too big to fail, the much remarked upon "optimistic" scenario is one in which their cost of capital will drop for them being protected by Washington. This ensures that the many financial institutions not important enough to fit under the Fed's umbrella will be weakened for having to lend in an environment distorted by larger institutions profiting from their tight relationship with Uncle Sam.

Of course that's the optimistic scenario. Indeed, Obama made plain that in return for their implicit protection, procedures will be put in place for regulators to seize them if they run into financial trouble. It's a nice idea, but collective investor memory is surely long, and after seeing how secured creditors were dealt with when Chrysler was seized, who in their right mind will deal with banks that redefine the term "federally chartered institution"? More realistically, the anointed among financial institutions will be weakened by their implicit federal protection such that they'll require more in the way of taxpayer subsidies in the future. Backdoor nationalization, here we come.

For banking institutions more broadly, the Obama plan involves raising their capital requirements while putting rules in place to make sure they're got more exposure to the loans they securitize and sell. What's forgotten here is that without investor capital there are no banks, so while it may be comforting to think that the federal government can rearrange the path to banking profits, if investors don't agree, they can surely take their money elsewhere.

Along those lines, the beauty of finance is that it is fungible. If the stringent capital requirements make it difficult for stateside banks to operate profitably, the dollars that fill their coffers will move offshore along with myriad financial jobs. Almost to a man politicians worship at the altar of "job creation," but if the new capital requirements prove problematic, the creation of financial jobs will occur in London, Frankfurt and Tokyo--not on Wall Street. "Systemic risk" will simply find a new address.

Not mentioned once in a talk meant to revolutionize finance was the dollar. This is not insignificant, given the basic truth that the failure on the part of the Treasury and Fed to issue a dollar known for uniformity in its measure of value, like the foot is known for measuring length, is what got us here to begin with. Instead, the Treasury and Fed will take on greater responsibilities while the underlying cause of our financial ills will continue to be ignored.

But most unfortunate was Obama's failure to embrace the basic truth that profit and loss are the best, most effective regulators of all. A free-market profit/loss system ensures that those who treat capital well will be rewarded with more investment, while those who treat it poorly will be put out of business so that they can no longer bring harm to their customers. This simple form of regulation might be worth trying at some point, particularly since it would force the unproductive regulatory class in Washington to actually find real work.

John Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets , a senior economist with H.C. Wainwright Economics and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research and Trading. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.

Is Government Health Care Constitutional?

• 

• OPINION
• JUNE 22, 2009

The right to privacy conflicts with rationing and regulation.

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY

Is a government-dominated health-care system unconstitutional? A strong case can be made for that proposition, based on the same "right to privacy" that underlies such landmark Supreme Court decisions asRoe v. Wade.

The details of this year's health-care reform bill are still being hammered out. But the end result is sure to be byzantine in complexity. Washington will have immense say over how, when and through whom Americans are treated. Moreover, despite the administration's public pronouncements about painless cuts in wasteful spending, only the most credulous believe that some form of government-directed health-care rationing can be avoided as a means of controlling costs.

The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s and used it to strike down a series of state and federal regulations of personal (mostly sexual) conduct. This line of cases began with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (involving marital birth control), and includes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."

It is, of course, difficult to imagine choices more "central to personal dignity and autonomy" than measures to be taken for the prevention and treatment of disease -- measures that may be essential to preserve or extend life itself. Indeed, when the overwhelming moral issues that surround the abortion question are stripped away, what is left is a medical procedure determined to be "necessary" by an expectant mother and her physician.

If the government cannot proscribe -- or even "unduly burden," to use another of the Supreme Court's analytical frameworks -- access to abortion, how can it proscribe access to other medical procedures, including transplants, corrective or restorative surgeries, chemotherapy treatments, or a myriad of other health services that individuals may need or desire?

This type of "burden" analysis will be especially problematic for a national health system because, in the health area, proper care often depends upon an individual's unique physical and even genetic history and characteristics. One size clearly does not fit all, but that is the very essence of governmental regulation -- to impose a regularity (if not uniformity) in the application of governmental power and the dispersal of its largess. Taking key decisions away from patient and physician, or otherwise limiting their available choices, will render any new system constitutionally vulnerable.

It is true, of course, that forms of rationing already exist in our current system. No one who has experienced the marked reluctance to treat aggressively lethal illnesses in the elderly can doubt that. However, what may be permissible for private actors -- including doctors and insurance companies -- is not necessarily lawful when done by the government.

Obviously, the government does not have to pay for any and all services individual citizens may desire. And simply refusing to approve a procedure or treatment under applicable reimbursement rules, as under the government-run Medicare and Medicaid, does not make the system unconstitutional. But if over time, as many critics fear, a "public option" health insurance plan turns into what amounts to a single-payer system, the constitutional issues regarding treatment and reimbursement decisions will be manifold.

The same will be true of a quasi-private system where the government claims a large role in defining acceptable health-insurance coverage and treatments. There will be all sorts of "undue burdens" on the rights of patients to receive the care they may want. Then the litigation will begin.

Anyone who imagines that Congress can simply avoid the constitutional issues -- and lawsuits -- by withdrawing federal court jurisdiction over the new health system must think again. A brief review of the Supreme Court's recent war-on-terror decisions, brought by or on behalf of detained enemy combatants, will disabuse that notion. This area of governmental authority was once nearly immune from judicial intervention. Over the past five years, however, the Supreme Court (supposedly the nonpolitical branch) has unapologetically transformed itself into a full-fledged, policy-making partner with the president and Congress.

In the process, the justices blew past specific congressional efforts to limit their jurisdiction and involvement like a hot rod in the desert. Questions of basic constitutionality (however the court may define them) cannot now be shielded from judicial review.

It is, of course, impossible to predict how and when the courts will ultimately rule on the new health system. Much depends on the details and the extent to which reasonable and practical private alternatives to the national plan remain. In crafting the law, however, its White House and congressional sponsors must keep privacy -- that near absolute right to personal autonomy they have so often praised and promoted -- squarely before them. The only thing that is certain today is that the courts, and not Congress, will have the last word.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey worked in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreementand by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com

The Party of 'Know,' Not 'No'

by Ted Nugent 06/11/2009

In an effort to deflect criticism of their ongoing program to bankrupt the entire nation, the Democratic leadership has labeled Congressional Republicans as the "party of no." The Democrats would have been correct had they checked their spelling. It is not "no" that defines the Congressional Republicans but rather "know."

Let the guitar boy help the spelling-challenged Democrats understand what the bedrock of the Republican Party -- conservatives -- instinctively know.

We know that stimulating the economy and getting America growing again begins with tax cuts across the board, including payroll, corporate and individual taxes.

We know that prosperity can not be brought about by taxing, borrowing and spending trillions of dollars. We know that leveraging the future tax dollars of our children and grandchildren is immoral, unethical, and should be illegal.

We know the economic producers cannot be punished without also punishing the working class. We know that bad economic decisions roll downhill quickly. We are surprised that everyone doesn't seem to either know this or care.

We know that GM and Chrysler will ultimately fail because they are now being run by the federal government and the labor unions. We know they are hopeless. We know that the people who brought us the U.S. Postal Service and the Internal Revenue Code are incapable of managing a three-car funeral in the desert.

We know energy independence includes drilling off-shore and building many new nuclear power plants. We know that "cap-and-trade" is nothing more than a tax that will punish those who can least afford it.

We know that bailing out failing businesses with tax dollars is not what our founding fathers had in mind.

We know that more gun control laws will not reduce violence but will instead create more victims. We know that more guns equal less crime.

We know more government programs, requirements, agencies and employees are not the answer. Instead, like all Americans of reasonable intellect, we know President Reagan was correct when he said that government was the problem, not the solution.

We know that we have adequate immigration laws but lack the political will to enforce them in order to enhance political power.

We know that judges should interpret the law, not make law. We know that judges should be impartial, not empathetic to any group based on race, creed or sex.

We know that throwing more money at a social problem does not correct the problem, but often exacerbates it. We know that Democrats have shoveled hundreds of billions of our tax dollars at various social and cultural problems not with the intent of solving the problems, but to attract votes.

We know political correctness is a euphemism for "brain dead" and that all crime is a hate crime. We know we don't need special criminal laws to protect certain people.

We know that too many young people do not graduate from high school, and the reason is because too many of their parents do not value education. We know that more money for education is not the answer.

We know our worst enemies are violent Muslims who hate America for our freedoms and Western values. We also know that we cannot negotiate with them and that defeating them decisively is our only hope.

We know that compromising our values, beliefs, and ideals under the smog of "getting along" may satisfy Democrats and some lukewarm Republicans, but we know this is a losing strategy.

These are things we know to be true. Why do Democrats say "no" to "know"?

Rock legend Ted Nugent is noted for his conservative political views and his vocal pro-hunting and Second Amendment activism. His smash bestseller Ted, White & Blue: The Nugent Manifesto, is now available at www.amazon.com. Nugent also maintains the Official Ted Nugent Site at www.TedNugent.com.