E!!

Yuval Levin always impresses.  Read it.

Nearly every argument in favor of universal (socialized) health care includes the premis that it is a “right.”  But according to the U.S. Constiution, this is not so.  Geoff Lawrence over at NPRI explains why by giving us a brief lesson (via the writings of John Locke) about how the Constitution does not in fact support “positive rights.”  If you wish to effectively debate someone on health care reform (or any other entitlement program), you must understand this fundamental concept.  I recommend that you read Geoff’s whole post, but here’s the opener to give you a taste:

In the ongoing debate over health care reform, I continue to hear pundits on the left claim that health care is a right. Yet, this notion that government exists to guarantee “positive rights” such as free health care completely misunderstands the development of constitutional government.

The entire notion of constitutional government can be traced to John Locke’s Second Treatise. Here it is explained that all men are endowed with a set of natural rights which include: life, liberty and property. In order to protect those rights, civilized individuals agree to a “social contract” in order to form a government whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of individuals. This is done by empowering government to restrain the actions of others (such as theft, physical violence, etc.) that might directly infringe on your own natural rights. Hence the expression “Your rights end where someone else’s begin.”

The primary problem with the concept of “positive rights” is that the purpose of government changes from protecting the natural rights of individuals to actively infringing upon those rights. Any requirement for government to provide individuals with a certain amount of goods means that those goods must first be confiscated from society – which is a limit on the natural right to control property.

Just so.

For a wonderful treatise on why the government should not be in the business of deciding whether or how much to take from us in order to give to select others, read this story that was told on the House floor by Davy Crockett when he was serving as a U.S. Representative from Tennessee.  It concerned two votes on spending bills and the temptation of Congress to distribute money that was not their own for “charitable” purposes.

Our federal and state legislatures, as well as the Oval Office, have too long been staffed by too many people who do not understand nor support our rights and protections as they ought to exist according to our Constitution.   Through the increasing willingness of we, the citizenry, to allow government to do what we, as individuals, ought to be doing – helping and giving to the poor and needy as we are able and as we feel called to do – we have permitted our great Republic to become a tax-laden “social democracy” that reduces rather than protects our prosperity and freedom.

On May 23, 1857, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote: “A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Are we there yet?  Not quite, but I fear we are getting dangerously close.  Educate yourselves, good people, and let us find ways to speak out and persuade others before this great Republic devolves into a pitiful excuse for the nation it once was.

My friend and fellow blogger over at Cranky Hermit reports on a recent discussion panel  - the “Organizing for America Health Care Forum” – at Centennial Hills Library.  The panel was moderated by former Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Erin Neff. 

Cranky Hermit did such a great job of reporting who said what – and of providing reliable research data that handily refutes many of the claims made by those in attendance – that I am going to withhold comment and encourage you to just go read it.  (And then drop him a comment with your thoughts and thanks.  We need more citizen journalists covering these kinds of events.)

Vis a vis my Spreading the Wealth post and the differences between Sebelius and I on who-should-vote-how-and-why, I was delighted to run across this piece from Jonah Goldberg.  I quote:

Another example of a tactic masquerading as a principle is contemporary liberalism’s fixation with the idea that the working and middle class should “vote their interests,” by which they mean vote for the most government goodies. This was the point of Obama’s “bitter” and “clinging” comments last summer. Those poor deluded souls in western Pennsylvania don’t understand that their real interests lie with Obama’s economic agenda.

For all the liberal protests claiming that Obama’s “bitter” comments were misunderstood, his remarks were, in fact, mainstream on the Left. For instance, Thomas Frank, something of a guru to angry liberals, wrote in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? that, “People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about. This species of derangement is the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests.” And, he added at great length, it is the reason so many deluded working- and middle-class Americans vote Republican (or at least why so many did when Frank wrote his book).

This has always struck me as hypocritical, pernicious lunacy. Legitimate election issues are those issues voters decide are legitimate. Americans who cling to religion and guns don’t do so out of bitterness, but because they consider such things central to their understanding of the good life and resent what they perceive as hostility to their lifestyle from their own government. And no liberal opposes voting on values issues — including gay rights — when they think they’re right or if they believe it helps get liberals elected. Liberals denounce rich people who vote their interests as “greedy” and celebrate limousine liberals who vote against their own interests as heroes.

I was interested to see Jonah’s mention of Thomas Frank’s book because I linked up to it in my earlier post (because Steve Sebelius mentioned it the other day on KNPR when making his point).  As soon as WTMWKansas was invoked, I shook my head and knew right where we were headed.  Guys like Frank think conservative Heartland voters are too dumb, deluded, or simple to vote the “right” way.  Right being to say Yes to higher taxes on the wealthy and Yes to more breaks and government handouts for themselves.

Frank & Co. cannot comprehend why some poor sap would rather live poor on what he legitimately earns and dutifully pay his fair share of taxes than get a pass or take a handout from his fellow (richer) taxpayers.  They insist on shoving their leftist But-We-Are-Here-to-Help-You agenda down poor Kansas Man’s throat – and delight in calling him dumb when he spits it out.

 If you are a District 6 voter, or just interested in looking in on one of Nevada’s hotly contested state senate races, be sure to see this E!! exclusive “mock debate” featuring a Q & A with incumbent Senator Bob Beers and Democrat candidate Allison Copening.

Copening has been widely criticized for refusing to debate Senator Beers after an initial appearance on Face to Face early in the political season.  Producer Dana Gentry made no bones about her views on the matter, snarking about ”political candidates who are woefully unprepared for the office to which they aspire” and “even worse…who put their name on the ballot and then disappear, refusing to address the very citizens they hope to represent. 

E!! is therefore delighted to be able to present a “mock debate” in which Senator Beers and Ms. Copening will be answering a series of questions pertaining to public policy in Nevada.  Both candidates were given identical sets of questions, and both returned their answers to me without seeing their opponent’s responses.

Enjoy ~ and please feel free to contact me with questions or leave your comments below.

As Jay Nordlinger would say, some pointlets:

Joe the Plumber, forget owning your own business:  you are now teed up for your own hit reality show.

Obama is now “Senator Government.”  Brit Hume said he thought it was a slip.  If so, what a great slip.  If not, brilliant.

Schieffer asked a couple of pretty good, hardball questions tonight.  And stayed quiet when he should have.  He was way better than the other two moderators, I thought.

Loved McCain’s “I am not George Bush” bit.  About time.  But too little too late?  Why has the McCain team been so poor at communicating?  Ironically:  they share that failure with the Bush administration.

On economics and taxes, why didn’t McCain mention his new thing this week:  cutting the capital gains tax to 7.5% from 15% plus a bigger capital loss write-off – ?  They are pro-growth policies and important.

Obama gave ONE example of something specific he would cut, and I can’t even remember what it was now.  McCain listed at least half a dozen things.  Brownie points there for having thought about it.

Loved it when McCain bashed the very bashable ethanol subsidies.  He did well on energy, I thought.  Liked the detail on nuclear energy and reprocessing plants.  Liked that he called Obama out on “we’ll look at it” comment re: drilling (which in polspeak means we’ll do absolutely nothing).

McCain FINALLY hit Obama on all the false/negative ads on his health care plan.  A $5,000 tax credit is more than anyone’s getting now, and the benefits tax would be nominal in comparison.

Why did Obama keep smiling and laughing when McCain was hitting him hardest?  It seemed odd.  A serious, indignant look would have been more effective.  And normal. 

McCain listed a few of Biden’s wrong judgments on foreign policy including the “cockamamie” idea of splitting Iraq into three parts; good.

McCain brought up ACORN, and that was good.  But he should have given more specifics.  ACORN has been investigated, and has had employees indicted and incarcerated, for the same kind of voter fraud they are perpetrating this year, yet Obama’s camp still gave them big bucks, and still defends them.  There are other ACORN ties as well, and I bet most voters don’t know about them.

I wish McCain were better at narrative.  There are connections that could be made, a story that could be told, of who Obama is and where he came from and where he will surely lead us.  It’s clear to most of us who have been reading and doing our homework, but the average American probably does not have a cohesive picture of the whole thing.  (I’ll try to find that flow chart thingie I saw the other day.)

Sum up:  McCain did much better than in the other debates because he had some fire and said things we hadn’t heard umpteen times and went after Obama more on legit points; and Obama did a little worse than previously because he reverted to talking points when flustered and because of the weird laughing thing. 

I think McCain won by a little, but not sure it’s enough.

 And now for a few Cons:

Politically speaking, it sort of undermines a large part of the case against Obama:  inexperience, lack of credentials, lack of foreign policy and national security know-how.

She has never worked in D.C. so there will be a steep learning curve – and probably a few slip-ups.  (Then again, McCain will make sure she has a great staff.)

And then to all those on the Right who have called the Obama candidacy an example of Tokenism, there’s this question:  Would Palin would been picked if she were a man?

And the Unknowns:

How will the female thing play?  The pro-choice feminists will all hate Palin, but the female Republican base might show up in never-yet-seen numbers.  Bitter and disaffected Hillary supporters might vote for her out of spite.  Or they might see her as a threat to Hillary in 2012 and decide they don’t want her anywhere near D.C.

(And what about the guys?  Will men vote for her because she’s got great legs and is just waaaay better looking than Biden?)

Also, how will she do on the stump?  Can she hold her own?  Will she make any major gaffes (which will cause the opposition to Shriek and Point at her Inexperience)?  Will Biden handle her well or come off looking like a bully when he goes up against her?

I’m glad Chuck Muth keeps talking about Yucca Mountain.  Harry Reid says the debate is “over” and that the Yucca Repository will “never happen.”  The thing is, Yucca never enjoyed the benefit of a full, open debate.  It was quashed by Reid and Friends as “bad for Nevada” and that was That.

Here’s a flashback to some of my thoughts in early June:

“The United States Department of Energy submitted its license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 3,” wrote Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Masto in an op/ed in the Nevada Appeal. “Nevada’s experts reviewed the application and quickly concluded that it is neither viable nor complete.”

I’m wondering who these “Nevada experts” were. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my short stint on NV’s political airwaves and especially in re: to Yucca Mountain, it’s that the word “expert” gets bandied around like nobody’s business and due diligence and follow-up questions are key to uncovering the truth.  Very often, the so-called “expert” is some underqualified PR hack who is being paid to have the opinion he has.

I’d be willing to bet that some of these “Nevada experts” are people who have already come down against Yucca in the past.  And shall we ask how they managed to sift through the 8,600 page application in less than a week in order to render their “expert” verdict…?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to take three to four years to evaluate all the information before reaching its decision on whether or not to license the Repository…so who were these speed-reading geniuses that managed to do it in 4 days???

We keep seeing what looks an awful lot like co-ordinated, biased knee-jerk opposition over Yucca Mountain.

Pelosi & Pals adjourn, having failed to schedule a vote to allow offshore drilling (11:23 a.m.)  They turn off the lights, kill the mics, and head home.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and other GOPers indignantly opposed the motion to adjourn.  A few GOPers stayed on the floor and continued to debate.  As word spread, the crowd on the floor began to grow.

Dem aides were steamed at the “stunt” and had reporters kicked out of the Lobby.  Capitol PoPo were also busy kicking people out of the press gallery but stopped when Minority Leader Roy Blunt (R-MO) went up to talk to reporters.  Blunt’s office sent out a message asking all Republicans still in town to come to the House floor.

The Dems turned out the lights (again).

The Republicans sent out word that they were looking for a bullhorn and also sent aides out to round up members to come to the floor.  Shadegg started typing random codes into the chamber’s PA system and accidentally hit the right code to turn on the microphones (cheers!) but then they subsequently went off again (groans).

Members were pacing the floor, making speeches, standing on chairs.  Visitors were cheering loudly.  At one point Manzullo (R-IL) gave a rousing speech and brought the crowd to its feet.  Applause and cheering echoed in the chamber.

Rep Nunes (R-CA) crowed, “I am a Democrat and here is my energy plan.”  He then paraded around the House floor holding up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it.  (LOL)  More cheering.

At 5:00, Tom Price (R-GA) announced the end of the protest and led the chamber in a round of “God Bless America.”  Assembled visitors, aides, souriest, and members gave a standing ovation.

Question:  Since the C-SPAN cameras were off, didn’t anyone think to try to sneak in a video tape so we could have some fun watching the footage on You Tube and/or FNC?