Obama's contraception compromise

The issue is that the Catholic Church is forced by government to offer contraception to women. It doesn't matter who's paying for the contraception. Obama says he will have the insurance company pay for the contraception services which will be offered by the Catholic Church through company insurance offerings because they are forced by government to offer contraception services with the insurance offerings. This doesn't solve the problem, and it only confirms that Obama is not backing down. Sebelius, Jarrett, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and others on the Left, especially women, are pushing this, and Obama is right there with them. They're staking a political stand for the 2012 elections in an attempt to frame religion and the Right as against women's rights.

Update on Friday, February 10, 2012 at 01:04PM by M. Farmer

Whoops, I just heard that Obama says this is not a compromise -- it's an accomodation.

What if the Church is appeased?

If Obama and company come up with a "deal" that the Church can live with, will the Church put its head back in the sand, or will it continue to fight for freedom? Obamacare will violate freedom in many different ways, not just in the narrow sense of religious freedom promoted by some, so, will the Church stand tall for freedom in general? If the issue is government over-stepping its bounds and telling  private organizations what they can and can't do regarding behaviors that don't violate rights, then the Church and all social conservatives and Catholic Democrats who are now resisting the government intervention regarding Catholic organizations should fight against all such government interventions which violate our freedom.

Staying focused

Media will gladly talk about the Republican primaries and ignore the economy and Democrat policies which ensure the economy will only get get worse. Healthcare costs will continue to rise, and now that the flimsy wall left between private sector healthcare and government run healthcare has been demolished, the resulting confusion will call for more government "solutions" which will cost us even more. Income stagnation among the middle class is due in large measure to employer healthcare costs, and the uncertainty surrounding Obamacare will keep employers from hiring.

EPA regulations have increased energy costs. Just as soon as there is any sign of recovery, once banks start lending the huge amount of cash on hand, inflation will attack the middle class as a hidden tax. Obama had the opportunity to implement free market principles in 2008, but here it is 2011, and Obama, after spending his political energy passing Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, has stopped governing to run for re-election -- he stopped about midway through 2011. The American people shouldn't lose focus on what's obstructing recovery -- liberal policies and statist incompetence.

I won't be surprised if we're in a war with Iran before the year is out. Will Republicans do any better? They can't do any worse. Obama asked a crowd in one of his re-election speeches if anyone believes the financial crash was caused by too much government oversight -- he was being facetious, but the answer is Yes. Government intervention in the economy, statism, caused the crash, and government interventions are making it worse. I know that I should give a more nuanced accounting of the crash, but, basically, this is true -- government caused and government mismanaged -- period.

Yes, it's very entertaining that Newt is in revenge mode and is going to tear Mitt a new one, but, seriously, let's stay focused.

Are higher taxes and stimulus all liberals have left?

I hear a lot of complaining from liberals/progressives about income disparity and unemployment. The vague charges of unfairness don't propose any plan I know of to seek solutions other than taxing the rich, redistributing the wealth and government spending on the creation of jobs.

We're not in a normal economic downturn. Our economy has stumbled through a transition, and this level of unemployment is likely the best it will get until something new is created. We're not waiting for capital to find more productive avenues, consumers to save and for businesses to throw off the waste -- capital is frozen because the economic system managed by government has halted production and new creation of wealth. Until the statist system changes, businesses will operate overseas and remain cautious at home.

One of the founders of Home Depot was asked if he could create Home Depot in today's market, and he said that he couldn't. Small business creation is what drives economic growth and the creation of new wealth, but our statist system has become such that negative consequences have overwhelmed the market and are preventing new Home Depots from materializing.

Raising taxes and going into more debt for government to create temporary stimulus jobs will not change the factors which stagnate business growth and new wealth creation. Actually, higher taxes and stimulus will only compound the problem. There was a time when government could direct capital through incentives and gimmicks, even though it's always had negative consequences, but the system now is so unsuited for business, investors and entrepreneurs are not responding to incentives and gimmicks. No business is going to expand and hire when there's no gaurantee that a government program or more regulations won't come about to raise costs still higher. Plus, business men and women know that with our debt, government is going to raise taxes going forward -- they just don't know how much.

Obamacare and Dodd-Frank were two straws that finally broke the back of business expansion and new hiring. Beyond that is the fear that government has so much power, and the attitude toward capitalism is so negative, investors feel under seige. No one is going to risk investment when those with the power to destroy are waging a war against business and wealth creation.

Up with Chris Hayes 12/11/2011 -- Egalitarianism

I watched the first hour of Up with Chris Hayes. It was mostly an attack on Republicans using the debate last night as the material to make their case. Reihan Salam was on the panel, and he weakly attempted to present a a different perspective from the basically progressive perspective delivered by Hayes, Rebecca Traister and Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins. Lamkins insisted that Gingrich's recent comments regarding lack of a work ethic among the poor in inner cities were rooted in racism. The Left loves to talk about dog whistles, but their dog whistle claims are actually dog whistles themselves, or more like blaring horns. You can't have a decent debate about poverty when one side is called racist when they offer theories and solutions.

Most of the conversation was ordinary Leftist spin, but Chris Hayes responded to something Romney said which I found interesting. In the debate Romney praised the efforts of entrepreneurs which have helped raise the living standards of Americans across the board. Hayes didn't explain, but he countered Romney by saying he, Hayes, is an egalitarian. I assume, since Hayes is a big supporter of OWS, that Hayes is talking about the modern liberal/progressive deification of democracy as a path to equality. Equality can mean different things to different people, and, because Hayes has never promoted limited government, I take his egalitarianism as a call for government policy to enforce equality. What kind of equality? If Hayes means that government is responsible for ensuring equal treatment under the law, including the wealthy, and that all people should have the same rights, including the poor, then I'm on board.

If Hayes believes it's government's responsibility to remove economic inequalities among people, then I have a serious problem. The Progressive statist agenda to remove economic inequalities is not only morally offensive, it has a counter effect that winds up harming the very people Hayes proposes to help. Government economic interventions in the form of picking winners and losers and redistributing wealth suppresses economic growth and creates a situation in which interventions call for more interventions as unintended consequences are created by the interventions. Obamacare is a prime example of interventions calling for more interventions until all the interventions create economic stagnation and high unemployment. While Hayes will say that economic stagnation and high unemployment are caused by lack of demand, the main problem is uncertainty in the economy. Businesses are not sure what their operating expenses will be when Obamacare and other regulations are in full force, and consumers are uncertain  how all the changes will affect their financial situation. Many companies have the cash to innovate, take risks, and offer new products and services, but they will not invest, take the risk and expand unless they are reasonably sure what their operating expenses will be.

In an environment in which small and medium sized businesses fear that government will confiscate their profits to socially engineer economic equality, they will not take risks. The attempt to establish equality of results destroys equality of opportunity. On a moral basis, government doesn't have the right to take money from some and give to others in an attempt to create economic equality. The fact that so many people in America are okay with redistribution of wealth shows how far we've drifted from "fairness". If wealth producers in the private sector choose to give a part of their wealth to people in need, then that's their choice, but government confiscation and redistribution are wrong on so many levels, it's amazing that so few see how wrong it is. The bottom line, though, is that poor people are ultimately worse off through this type of egalitarianism, although it makes wealthy liberals like Hayes feel righteous.