Borrow, print and tax -- Healthcare Utopia

The ability of the government to tax is the only thing backing government spending. We aren't producing enough to back our spending. This is like me being laid off, but increasing the amount I spend -- it will eventualy lead to bankruptcy and loss of credit worthiness.

When we gave government the ability to tax income with no limits, we cleared the way for our downfall. At one time, the government was limited regarding the amount of taxes it could collect, and this limited government's power, but now they can spend until we're no longer able to borrow or print anymore money, but before we get to that point government will increase taxes as a way to show our lenders we're good for the money. Government generates revenue by taking our money, and as long as we have money they can take, they will borrow, print and spend.

I'm saving the links to articles written by moderate statist Republicans who are calling for cooperation regarding the healthcare reform efforts in congress which are championed and led by the Obama administration. These moderates believe that Republicans should be assisting to craft healthcare legislation rather than simply resisting the current bills.

When this monstrosity of healthcare reform reveals its true cost, I'm going to go back to the articles written by these moderates to compare what they are saying then with what they are saying now. Nothing the Republicans propose now as a means to compromise, even if it's accepted, will have any effect on the outcome of healthcare reform being pushed through by the Democrats. The small compromises/amendments being proposed are low leverage, and they address symptomatic problems with symptomatic solutions.

The moderate statists are eager to join the healthcare reform effort out of fear of being seen as obstacles to change -- they will accept a certain amount of statism -- government control of healthcare -- if they can get a few low leverage amendments through which show that they are helping the reform cause. The progressive healthcare reform movement is about government control of healthcare and everything healthcare touches, which includes capitalism, lifestyles and individual liberty. The free market will have no influence on healthcare, regardless of which low leverage amendments are accepted. 

Ostensibly free citizens will be required to buy healthcare insurance against their wills. It won't matter if everyone is given an option of which policy they buy, all policies will be regulated by government. Government will regulate healthcare insurance, healthcare delivery and the healthcare choices of each individual. When costs explode, and are revealed, after ten to fifteen years, America will be in a financial meltdown like we've never experienced. Goodbye, dear billion, we barely knew you -- welcome trillion! Trillions in debt, we'll have no way to pay for it all. The government will raise taxes as much as they can without killing the goose laying golden eggs. Capitalism will be a memory. Finally, the government will have tamed the free market, and politicians will be in full control of the economy.

Every failure of healthcare reform will be blamed on private players who are not cooperating, so regulations will have to increase so that social engineers have the power to make this plan work. When costs explode, our lifestyle choices will be severely limited, as will be our access to healthcare. Everything than can be taxed, will be taxed -- we'll be nudged into government compliance -- and if nudging doesn't work, we'll be slammed into compliance. The healthcare reform plan will work, no matter what the government has to do to make it work -- the government will not admit defeat and go back to free market solutions. Defeat would be fatal to our present statist government. Success of healthcare reform will destroy what's left of the free market.

The only hope we have is that the coming elections change the makeup of government so that representatives work hard to dismantle what the progressives are now putting in place, but this is not comforting. The Republicans, even when in power, have not proven to be revolutionaries for limited government. We need revolutionaries, not spineless moderate statists.

More on the conservative/libertarian link, or division

In 1964, Murray Rothbard wrote The Transformation of the American Right. It's well worth reading if you want to understand the split between libertarianism and conservatism in the late 50s and through the 60s -- and up to the present, regarding several concerns.

Rothbard would be even more appalled by the transforming right is he were still alive, but there appears to be a nascent awakening among conservatives leading them back to their libertarian beginning. Just as the New Deal under FDR created a right wing reaction based on libertarian ideas of limited government, individual rights and peace, the progressive movement in the 21st century has awakened the classical liberal principles which inspired the right in the 30s and 40s, although it remains to be seen how widespread and deep this awakening becomes, and whether it's hi-jacked by religion police and war-mongers.

The classical right position was a unification of conservatives and libertarians, and the intellectuals during that time were clear in their rejection of state power, and thus, military power misused on the international stage. Just as anti-communism caused the right to veer from the internal threat of the state, today anti-terrorism may be the cause of misdirection. Make no mistake, America must have a strong defense and thwart terrorist attacks, but it's a mistake to focus on terrorism to the point of obsession when the internal threat of statism is still a greater concern.

If we don't have liberty, and if individual rights mean nothing, then we have little to protect but raw power, material possessions and empty lives. I suppose at a base human level, there is still a desire for protection, even of power and possessions, but liberty is the moral possession worth protecting.

Coercion is the path to tyranny, and even though we live in a dangerous world, America can still establish the vital principle as one of non-coercion -- coercing neither morals nor democracy (or any other way of governing forced on another country). The path of free choice is the path of virtue, as long as the choices don't violate the rights of others.

The progressives have attempted to marginalize the right for decades, but the right has marginalized itself by violating it's basic principles, and many libertarians followed suit, tempted by statist solutions to societal problems better left to the private realm. It may even be time to question the terms left and right, since they have become so weighted with misunderstanding. As I have written many times, the ultimate choice is between statism and classical liberal principles -- statist vs anti-statist -- over-reaching government vs the private realm.

For conservatives and libertarians to have a lasting union, it will require that conservatives embrace liberty in all its ramifications, even those areas of social behavior the conservatives find offensive. Also, as a nation, we all need to embrace non-intervention in foreign affairs -- the future is peace and free trade, or there will be no future.

Carrots didn't work, so get out the sticks

The difference between liberals and progressives, according to David Sirota, is the difference between "using taxpayer money to help better society" and a "focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules".  

Sirota goes on:

To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).

Sirota is tired of carrots, he wants to beat capitalists with a big stick.

Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

In other words, industry must pay. Industry must be controlled by the state so it's fair to all people according to the statists in control. Read the whole article and you realize where the progressives stand in relation to modern liberals. Sirota suggests that liberals have influenced Obama to take a more carrot-like approach, but it's obvious that Obama has visions of a more progressive push -- he has stated that not all the progressive agenda can be done at once -- it will take incremental steps. Sirota, and prgressives like him, are impatient -- they believe the liberal pansy approach of bribing industry with carrots, in other words, applying corporate welware, is too beneficial to the rent-seeking, scumbag, "capitalists", and that now is the time to make them do what government wants them to do. I agree with Sirota regarding the corporate welfare -- end it -- but after that, Sirota and I are worlds apart.

But how far apart are the liberals and progressives? How far apart are the moderates and liberals?

It's been my contention for quite some time that companies seeking government favor are dancing with the devil and that it's only a matter of time before government turns on the companies and renders them lackeys for the state. Despite Obama's posture as a liberal, even a moderate in the eyes of some starstruck supporters who are having difficulty accepting reality, he's a progressive. But Obama is not the problem -- every president will do what is politically expedient to maintain power. Our problem in America goes way beyond Obama -- our problem is creeping progressivism -- the new age socialism.

It's unclear at this point whether liberals will resist the progressive goals of outright control over the free market, and instead maintain their carrott/corporate welfare approach. In many ways Obama has been acting as both liberal and progressive -- but with his administration's favoritism toward Goldman Sachs, that might just be plain old cronyism granted to his financial gurus -- there was really no liberal goal of social change involved with bailing out Goldman Sachs. The stimulus could be said to be a liberal scheme to help middle class workers, and in the process offer carrots to some businesses in exchange for cooperation.

We'll have to see what regulations are in the cap and trade legislation, but it appears to be a progressive plan to get the camel's nose in the tent, just like the bailout of GM. With regulations being planned for energy, environmental concerns, the automakers and the financial industry, we begin to see the progressives' plan unfold. Sticks are handed out to regulators and czars. The free market will be beat into shape.

It remains to be seen if the moderates are content trying to manage the growth of statism or whether they will attempt to resist it by joining the conservative/libertarian effort. Liberals are in a precarious position, and in many ways, I include the moderates among the liberals, because the difference between the two is negligible. Most moderates have been okay with liberal use of tax payer money to influence companies to work toward the greater good -- they just don't want to go too far in debt.  

Progressives aren't concerned with debt, nor are they concerned with the free market -- progressives are interested in controling production and economic activity. If moderates/liberals continue to appease progressives, we're in for economic ruin and a great loss of liberty, yet, politically, the moderates/liberals can't find a way to join forces with the conservatives/libertarians. The political divisions are favoring the progressives, as the moderates/liberals vacillate between the poles of conservativism/libertarianism and progressivism.

The limited government conservatives and the libertarians don't agree on social concerns, but they are united in resistance to statism. The moderates and liberals don't agree on all social or fiscal issues, but they are united against the limited government conservatives and libertarians. The questions for the moderates and liberals is -- Will they fight progressivism? Will they uphold classical liberal principles? Will they allow capitalism to be destroyed? Will their disdain for the conservative base override their reason, principles and common sense, pushing them into the progressive movement, brandishing sticks to beat down a free nation? 

David Sirota ends with:

The "free market" conservatives have so dominated the political debate over the last two decades that our side seems only comfortable proposing to pay off different economic players, instead of forcing those players to behave themselves. It's time for that to change. The government has a job to play in protecting Americans from being ripped off, and that doesn't mean just handing the economic bullies a bribe. It means pushing back - hard.

More on Moderates

I've said some unpleasant things about moderates, especially moderate politicians and pundits. This doesn't mean I have anything against the concept of moderation, nor do I think all moderate human beings are squishes. Many people moderate their drinking, shopping, emotional responses, sexual conduct, their time spent working, their gambling in places like Vegas, their food consumption, etc., and this is admirable -- however, I'm not convinced the virtue is transferable, necessarily, to politics.

The problem I have with the Thomas Dewey-like moderates is that they are okay with government intervention as long as it's paid for. The term "moderate", in politics, is troublesome -- some moderate Republicans even refer to their political designation as "progressive" Republican. Is this a Teddy Roosevelt progressivism? I also wonder what is the difference between moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, and if "progressive" is thrown into the mix, the lines are blurred to the point of being senseless.

I often hear pundits say that moderate Democrats are separating themselves from liberals on a given issue -- if the moderate Democrats are not liberal then this also begs the question -- what makes them different from the moderate Republicans? Does it all boil down to how much debt is acceptable? In other words, is statism acceptable to moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, liberals and progressives with the only difference being how much statism and debt each group is willing to accept? I suppose, if this is true, that at some point a line is drawn separating the moderate Republicans from the Democrats, therfore distinguishing which party the moderates fall within. We know that the liberals and progressives fall within the Democrat Party, but the line is blurred with moderates from each party.

But even this is not clear, because Republican moderates also claim to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so which really defines them, if they accept that a certain amount of statism is acceptable? Don't moderate Democrats claim the same thing -- that they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal? Is it really just a matter of degree? This doesn't seem to be a big enough difference to justify different party designations, because even within the Democrat Party there are disagreements among moderates over how much government intervention is acceptable, so Republican moderates, like Arlen Specter used to be, could fit right in, just as Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and others could blend right in. It appears the Blue Dog Democrats and the Republican moderates are all in the same political group with marginal disagreements over how much statism is acceptable. The particular local issues are not that important when looking at the difference between parties -- here, I'm more concerned with political philosophy in a broader sense, as between statist and anti-statist.

As a libertarian-leaning thinker, I can understand fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, but where I separate from the moderates, and the liberals and progressives, is their willingness to use government intervention in the economy and for the greater good of society, especially after the performance of the state since the turn of the 20th century. Moderates aren't working for a limited government and private realm solutions to social problems, and they appear to see the Constitution as fluid according to the needs of the time. So, who is left to defend the classical liberal principles on which America was founded, or have we moved past our beginning into a more global political philosophy, or anti-philosophy, of socialization and internationalism?

Most libertarians still uphold the classical liberal principles of limited government, individual rights, charity, and self-determination, and the conservative movement is presently re-embracing these principles, although many in the base have always embraced these principles, they've just been too willing to use statsism to achieve socially conservative ends, and the conservative choice of Bush in 2000 showed a statist weakness in the Republican Party.

The moderates might be right when they say that if the Republican Party is to re-gain power it will require moderate support, but what good is the Republican Party in power if it advances statism? The Democrats are doing a better job of advancing statism, if that is the goal -- the Democrats just need to get spending under control, and the moderates in the Democrat Party are working on that -- the Republican moderates can join them and give them more fiscally conservative firepower. The question is who is going to fight against statism? Are the libertarians and conservatives enough? Will the libertarians and conservatives split over social issues? Is the independent movement a new, anti-statist, political formation?  

Next, as a follow-up, I'll write about the concerns I have surrounding the liberal/progressive definitions. The current babble regarding political designations is simply too confusing.

Where have all the real liberals gone?

In the tradition of Sukarno, Nehru and Nasser, Obama is an internationally favored celebrity who talks much better than he manages, and who destroys the domestic economy while pontificating on global advances of cosmic proportions. America is in dire need of leaders who understand capitalism. Even if many liberal goals are questionable, true liberals must still exist, right?

 

The business of America is business, and liberal goals will never be achieved by destroying capitalism, so I have to wonder where the principled liberals are hiding. Its clear that the right opposes Obama's progressive agenda, but where are the liberals? I don't believe that all liberals are progressives -- writers like Alan Wolfe, for instance.

Most modern liberals depend too much on the state to achieve their goals of public welfare, but many liberals still believe in the free enterprise system. Obama states he believes in the free market, but his actions, past statements and associations contradict this claim. And, aside from Obama, other progressives in power have made no secret about their disdain for capitalism.

 

In order to stop the war against capitalism, courageous liberals must step forward and join the alliance aimed at fighting against the progressive onslaught. Luckily, not much damage has been done so far, but if progressives have their way, capitalism will be completely savaged and replaced with state marketism -- much like has happened in European countries with mediocre economies which would collapse if these countries had to pay for their own defense and weren't propped up by our research, development, innovation and funding of the IMF and World Bank.

 

This brings up another point -- the world can't afford the destruction of capitalism in America. Perhaps there's some type of One World Order strategy where nations think they can bleed industries of the money necessary to bring about a global governance, but this is highly unlikely. Productive people aren't going to produce on demand -- production requires the freedom inherent in a capitalist system -- the lessons of Russia are still fresh, so it's amazing that liberals here in America can't see this.