A Letter to Senator Webb on Healthcare “Reform”
I just sent this letter to my Senator, Jim Webb, a few minutes ago:
Dear Senator Webb,
I am writing to you regarding the impending vote on Harry Reid's health reform bill. If you do not vote against this bill, I WILL VOTE AGAINST YOU IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
We are witnessing the complete destruction of deliberative democracy with this bill. The fact that the text of the bill has been held secret for so long is an outrage. Further, the revelation that Senators are now voting for the bill not on substance, but because of payouts and exemptions for their states, is even more outrageous. How can we call a law validly (and constitutionally) enacted by the legislature when key votes needed for passage are based on peculiar payoffs for the state and exemptions from some of the bill's key provisions? This is not lawful!
Substantively, this bill will be a disaster. While I've heard the President and Senator Reid repeatedly make the same stale assertions - that the bill will cut premiums and lower the deficit - I have yet to see any evidence. How can a bill that places taxes on insurance, medical devices, and requires non-discriminatory coverage possibly decrease premiums, when all those things add new costs? And how can this bill lower the deficit (beyond the use of an accounting gimmick), when it creates a new entitlement and a massive new bureaucracy?
I will be honest, Senator Webb. I am not a Democrat. I consider myself a conservative libertarian, which means that I will usually vote for Republicans or third-party candidates on the right. That said, I have given this issue a lot of thought, and I have come to the following conclusion: if you help kill this bill, I will have a lot of reason to vote for you and to encourage my friends to do the same. If, on the other hand, you help this monstrosity pass, I will do everything in my power to make sure that you do not win reelection.
Sincerely,
Andrew P. Connors
We still have time to kill this horrible bill. Senator Webb is viewed as a possible swing vote. Contact him now by visiting his website.
Update: Read more about the special favors and exemptions dolled out to Nebraska and Vermont here.
Update II: Read this great letter from a primary care physician in Nebraska commenting on the perverse payment scheme imposed on her by government medicine.
Update III: The Senate GOP has a summary of the shenanigans called "Let's Make a Deal...With Your Money."
Final Update: Well, the letter failed. Senator Webb confirms that he will vote for an atrocious bill.
Possibly Related Posts:
- Remember, Remember the Seventh of November
- Republicans Resurgent in Elections
- Atlas Shrugged and the Wisdom of Bailouts
Republicans Resurgent in Elections
The results are in. Conservative Republicans have won in Virginia. Voters have ejected liberal taxer John Corzine from the New Jersey governorship. And while the Democrats took the Congressional seat in New York's 23rd district, Republicans got a reminder that you will not win - and you will not endure in office - if you do not adhere to the principles of limited government.
Conservative pundits have explained that this may be a referendum on President Obama. This may be a statement by a diverse set of voters that they are not thrilled with the "hope and change" playing out across the political landscape. Those pundits are probably right. Voters don't like the stimulus. They don't want government run healthcare. Instead, they want to see Congress and the President reign in federal spending. They don't want to keep hearing disingenuous claims that giant new entitlements will actually decrease the deficit. And they certainly don't want to keep hearing tortured tails from President Obama that he hasn't and won't raise taxes on anyone but the rich, despite the pressing evidence of objective reality.
It's the economy, stupid, and it's on the minds of every American right now. Given that, it makes no sense why the President and Congress continue to focus on far-left wish lists rather than simple policies geared toward reducing unemployment, balancing the federal budget, and ensuring the stability and value of the American dollar. Although I see no signs that they'll change their ways, if they do, I'll be the first one to give a thumbs up for a step in the right direction. But I'm not holding my breath.
In light of that behavior, it makes sense that we've seen the results that we've seen over the past 24 hours. Fiscal and social conservatives are happy right now - as they should be. Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli are not "moderate" Republicans, and the governor-elect appears ready to to reign in spending and reduce taxes. Of course, liberals are fond of reminding us that George W. Bush spent like a drunken sailor - most significantly on the Iraq war. This is certainly a valid criticism of President Bush. I'd add that he was the idiot that started this whole bailout mess when he signed TARP into law. But the fact that the former President spent like crazy doesn't justify the new President's crazy spending. Instead, it reinforces the idea that massive spending is bad, regardless of what party is in power.
So we should be happy today, but we should also remind the GOP of what we expect of them. If you don't cut spending, cut taxes, and improve the dollar, we will vote you out of office too, and we will not continue to put you in office if you speak of limited government on the one hand, while on the other your actions help to grow and strengthen the massive federal bureaucracy and its entitlement culture.
Possibly Related Posts:
Conservative Authoritarianism
As an impressionable young undergraduate at the University of Virginia, I first encountered so-called "liberal" philosophy in action. Not the classical liberalism of our Founders, mind you. No, this was the liberalism of Marx and Lenin, less concerned with freedom of thought and association and more concerned with issues of race, class, and gender.
Classically understood, liberalism embraces freedom in personal and economic matters. It appreciates the value of individual rights and generally avoids the use of force, except to remedy private wrongs and to punish evil-doers. Accordingly, classical liberalism appreciates the maleficent impact that power coupled with the authoritative assertion of ideas can have on individuals and society.
Unfortunately, modern-day liberalism has turned from its roots. Backed by the coercive power of the state, today's liberalism generally embraces government indoctrination of citizens backed by the implicit use of force. Where liberalism once exalted the free marketplace of ideas, it now seeks to silence speech with which it disagrees. This makes modern-day liberalism unbelievably illiberal.
Today's mainstream university wants to teach you what to think, not how to think. Conservatism, at least in the mainstream college atmosphere, entirely rejects this abuse of power and commends the power to decide what to think to the free choice of individuals acting within the marketplace of ideas.
Unfortunately, there are many strains of "conservatism," and not all of them embrace classical liberalism. A limited number of conservatives have no inherent issue with the power of the state. They only wish that the state used its power to create onerous laws to serve their own purposes.
A proper law sets forth duties, obligations, and penalties that apply equally and fairly to all and that remain consistent with the natural order of the universe. Part of that natural order includes the God-given rights of the individual.
As the Declaration of Independence proudly pronounces, all individual have the right to liberty. Liberty naturally implies the freedom to think. Hence, it comes as no surprise that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of thought. Of course, the First Amendment only forbids certain behavior on the part of the government. That doesn't mean, however, that conservatives can't embrace the values inherent in the amendment and carry them out to a reasonable degree in private settings.
We must stand for this simple truth: that a free society relies on well-informed people that freely accept to believe or disbelieve certain propositions, and our society and our side will win out when we tolerate and appreciate the value added by the advocacy of ideas which we may personally reject and even find abhorrent.
And as much as we might abhor particular leftist ideas, we must recognize that a philosophical system that outlaws the expression of those ideas altogether is infinitely more abhorrent.
Possibly Related Posts:
- A Letter to Senator Webb on Healthcare “Reform”
- Remember, Remember the Seventh of November
- Republicans Resurgent in Elections
- David Frum Is Wrong
- Government: Let’s ‘Stimulate’ the Economy by Producing Less