Liberalism: The Cult of Intolerance

My recent visitor, Carvin, has given me a lot of points to discuss. In a reply to him, I mentioned I would make use of some of his comments to write future blog posts. Many of the points he raised are of interest to everyone.

His first comment was to a post I had written titled, “And You Think We're Embarrassing?” You can read the post for yourself, of course, but my main point was how certain liberals (like Pam Platt of the Courier Journal) seem embarrassed by Bible believing Christians while liberals seem to embrace outrageous antics like those seen at Gay Pride parades. In his response to my point, Carvin said:

[M]ost liberals are perfectly fine when you limit your trouble to an opinion which you express. Your certainly do run the risk of being considered homophobic, but that comes with the territory of the fundamentalist view of homosexuality- it is, in fact, homophobic. It is a Biblical interpretation that is used in the oppression and control of non-hetero people. Again, just having a view on this is still fine. Most liberals would be quite happy if the fundamentalist view was kept within house- that is, if you feel it is wrong to be in a homosexual relationship, this is fine: just don't force anyone else to live by your standard.

If liberalism were just someone's opinion, I would happily agree with Carvin. Everyone is entitled to his opinion – even a wrong opinion. Liberals are wrong about a lot of things and I can live with them being wrong. The real problem, though, is that liberals aren't content with expressing their opinions. Liberals are elitists who not only think they know what's best for every, they aggressively seek ways to impose their standards on everyone else.

Do you think I'm exaggerating? I've been writing this blog for almost 7 years now and I have more than a few examples of this occurring. Let me remind you of just a few that I've already discussed.

Compelling Christians to comply with secular standards probably occurs most often in public schools. In June, 2006, valedictorian, Brittan McComb, was asked to give a speech to her graduating class. She was a Christian, and wanted to give thanks to God for His role in her life. School officials warned her to omit references to God and on the day of her graduation, when she began making reference to God, the school officials turned off her mic. This was her speech talking about her achievements yet school officials didn't think she should be thanking God. I guess it would have been OK if she thanked Oprah.

When the Creation Museum opened, a group called DefCon attempted to thwart their efforts. A board member of DefCon was also an elected, public school official who encouraged public school teachers to sign a petition against the museum. What ever happened to the supposed “separation of church and state”?

Nature wrote an article called, “Dealing with Design” wherein it explained to educators how they should teach students to reconcile their religious beliefs (as in the creation account in Genesis) with “science” (meaning “evolution”). This is not just teaching evolution; it's an active attempt to dissuade a student away from his biblical belief and accept a secular belief.

Do I even need to talk about the National Center For Science Education? The groups stated purpose for existing is to combat a belief in creation among students. More recently, the group also has been recruited to combat doubters in global warming.

But of course, liberals don't just limit their attempts to control to just students. In 2001, a lesbian couple sued two Christian doctors who had refused to provide artificial insemination on the grounds of their religious beliefs. The lesbian couple was able to get the service elsewhere but sued in order to punish the Christian doctors for not complying to the liberal lesbians' standards.

Because of his support of traditional marriage, the president of Chick-fil-A was told by an Chicago alderman, “There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you're not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago.” So, in this case, who is forcing their standard on whom?

Obamacare is forcing all employers, including businesses owned by Christians, to provide birth control and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, regardless of the employers' religious objections. Not only is the employer's right to practice his religion made subservient to the employee's unenumerated “right” to an abortion, the employer is ordered by law to pay for it!

There are even more that I have cited on my blog and many, many more that I haven't. People can't buy 32 oz colas in NY because they might get fat. McDonald's can't put toys in their happy meals because parents can't say no to their kids. School officials search students' lunchboxes to make sure parents are doing their job. Parents can't have school vouchers because they might send their kids to white supremacy schools (I'm not kidding). Need I remind Carvin that he himself has endorsed compelling business owners to pay higher wages because the liberal thinks the wage should be more. The list goes on.

When liberals think something is right, they don't just talk about it. They don't just express their opinion about it. They want to force people to comply with it. They do it because they think they're the experts and we just don't know how to take care of ourselves. See this video and hear it for yourself. Time after time after time, liberals are happy to compel people to conform to the liberal standard. I don't blog about liberals just because they annoy me (though they do). I blog about liberals because they are a threat to liberty.

The Minimum Wage

A recent visitor to my blog, who posted under the name, Carvin, shared some sharp opinions about his view of corporations, the wealthy, and the minimum wage. Here's a sample of what Carvin said:

Many of our biggest corporations pay little to no taxes due to their corporate welfare. This money does not go to anyone who works, but the richest people in the company that merely own it, often through nepotism. Meanwhile, they pay their employees so little that they will either starve and/or fall ill because of it. Since the rich control almost all areas of occupation, they can agree that no one should be payed enough, and do. Our minimum wage is criminally low, a point of utter shame. Our healthcare system is set up so only the rich can be healthy.

Carvin is certainly passionate, but his points lack any substance. He paints a picture where America resembles the caste system of medieval Europe. The world he describes is completely foreign to the real world that I live and work in every day. I'm sure most would agree. Where you work, do you see emaciated people chained to their desks? Are there wooden carts being pulled through your neighborhood with a crier ringing a bell saying, “bring out your dead”? How can Carvin say that workers “starve” or “fall ill” and “only the rich can be healthy”? I'm certainly not rich and neither am I ill or starving. This plague on workers he describes exists only in his imagination.

There are a lot of points I could address, but in this post, I'm going to specifically address the minimum wage issue he raised. Considering, too, that an increase in the minimum wage was just defeated in Congress, the topic is rather timely.

I've always wondered how a minimum wage ever became acceptable in the first place. OK, I do see how. It's an example of that old adage that when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the support of Paul. Some people don't mind when others are being robbed of their property if they know they will be the beneficiaries of it. I see no justice in it at all. On what grounds does the government have the right to set the wage an employer can pay his employee? It seems to me that it should be up to the employer and worker (as in Matthew 20). The employer decides how much a particular task is worth and offers someone that much or less to do it. The worker then decides if the job is worth the pay and might decide to accept. The sounds like the epitome of fairness. What sounds unfair is to demand an employer paid $10 per hour for a job that is only worth $7.

Now, some people might say, “But $7 per hour is not enough to live on.” Well, maybe it's not – but that still doesn't justify paying someone $10 to produce $7 worth of work! This is supposed to be a business, not a charity. Liberals seem to think that the purpose of a business is to provide jobs, promote diversity, and create social equality. I hate to break the news to them but the purpose of a business is to produce goods/services for a profit. Creating jobs is a fortunate consequence of the business's pursuit of profit. Companies that cannot produce a profit eventually go out of business and then there will be not only be no goods and services produced, there will be no jobs either.

Most jobs that pay minimum wage do not require much skill or education. These are often high turn-over jobs (such as in the fast food industry) or temporary, seasonal jobs (like department stores). Many are filled by teenagers or adults who only work part-time. It's also an introductory wage. People who stay with the same employer for any length of time begin receiving raises and/or promotions. According to the US Census Bureau, the average income for an individual in the US is $28,051 – well above the minimum wage. So an increase in the minimum wage won't do anything to help the overwhelming majority of people who work. It will only mean employers will have to pay more for teenagers to flip hamburgers during the summer.

Beyond that, though, increasing the minimum wage will actually hurt many of the people it's intended to help. Let me give you an example that everyone can understand: If you eat at a fast food place that only charges $1 for a burger, but then they suddenly raise their price to $2 for a burger, do you think you'll buy more burgers or fewer burgers in the future? It's obvious that you would probably buy fewer burgers. Most people would. Now, suppose it currently costs an employer $15K to higher a worker but suddenly it costs $20K. Do you think that employer will higher more people or fewer people? Labor is an expense to a business just like food is an expense to an individual. Labor is an expense just like rent or utilities is an expense. People try to save on expenses. You do it and businesses do it. And if labor costs more, businesses will try to reduce their labor costs somehow. It might mean they higher fewer people. The end result is that there will be less jobs available for low skilled workers.  So instead of making more money, many low skilled workers will simply be out of work.

A higher minimum wager also means employers might replace labor with technology.  Think about that for a minute. If a labor saving machine is very expensive, I might continue using cheap labor indefinitely. For example, I might pay a crew $7.25/hr to dig with shovels but if I had to pay them $15/hr, then I might choose to replace the crew with an excavator. Then I only have to pay one man $15/hr to work the machine and the rest are out of work. Once again, a higher costs of labor has cost jobs.

We should also consider the consequence to everyone else if the minimum wage is increased. Suppose a business has 50 employees and its annual labor cost is $1 million. Some of the workers make minimum wage and some make more. If the business suddenly had to pay higher wages to the lowest wage earners, it doesn't magically have more than $1 million to pay. Some workers could be laid off but what else will happen is that the workers who are making more than the minimum wage already will likely get smaller raises or no raises on their incomes. So a raise on the minimum wage actually suppresses the wages of everyone.

Finally, when forced to pay a higher amount for labor, many businesses will be forced to raise the prices on the goods and services they produce. This affects everyone since the value of a dollar is eroded by higher prices on everything. Inflation usually hits poor people the hardest. Do you think McDonald's will still sell burgers for $1 if they have to pay its part-time, teenage workers $15 per hour to cook them? Who eats at McDonald's? Only rich people?

So let's sum up. Increasing the minimum wage will:

• give employers an incentive to cut their labor costs
• cause employers to higher fewer people
• cause some businesses to replace workers with machines
• suppress the wages of everyone
• raise the prices on everything

Did I miss anything? Some people would cut off their nose to spite their face. Raising the minimum wage doesn't mean more prosperity for the poor. It would mean fewer jobs and higher prices. More poor people will be out of work and it will be harder for them to buy food, clothes, and housing. Oh, and by the way, the rich will still be rich.

Earth Day 2013 AKA Radicals on Parade

I don't know if Earth Day has an “official” site, but Kathleen Rogers on this official-looking site billed Earth Day as “the largest secular event in the world.” I'd have to think about that one for a while. I don't know about the world but it's certainly not the largest, secular event in the US. I'm sure it ranks well behind Halloween, Independence Day, and probably even Cinco de Mayo. Still, it does get enough support that I could take a few moments to laugh at... er... I mean, write about it.

In the infancy of Earth Day, back in the 70s, the focus was on “over population.” It was feared that the earth did not have enough resources to support the three billion or so people who lived in the world back then so an early objective of Earth Day was to push for zero population growth. The idea of having children was booed by environmental advocates. Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb and an early champion of Earth Day made these radical statements:

“[T]he first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” [The Population Bomb, pp. 130-131]

Of course, abortion was also one of the big issues of the 70s and liberals used population control as another reason to support their argument to allow abortion. Liberals often defend their radical agendas by saying, “it's for the children.” In the case of abortion, that doesn't quite have the same effect so they instead said, “it's for the planet.”

We now have doubled the population of the planet since Mr. Erlich wrote his book so all of his dire predictions have been proven false. God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28) so He gave us a world capable of supporting many times the number of people who are alive now. The idea of purposefully limiting population growth is not only unnecessary, it's also a direct rebellion to God's plan.

Liberals also hate the free market and capitalism and so, over the years, they have used environmental concerns as a cudgel to beat down private property rights and for-profit endeavors. At first, radicals simply did things like chaining themselves to trees to prevent logging. I wonder if any of these nuts lived in houses built with lumber? Anyway, it's gotten worse over the years and now we are forced to save the environment or face criminal fines. We can't drill for oil in Alaska because there are caribou there. California farmers couldn't water their orchards due to the delta smelt. I can't buy a five gallon flush toilet or incandescent light bulbs because legislators believe these things are destroying the planet. Now the EPA even wants to fine (fleece?) cities and states for the rainwater that runs off of roads and highways.

Liberals have even used the environment to meddle in healthcare. For example, the Feds have banned over the counter inhalers used to treat asthma and have forced asthma suffers to buy more expensive, prescription-only inhalers. The reason: the over the counter inhalers contained CFCs.

On this Earth Day, the focus is “climate change.” It's simply a new spin on the old theme of forcing everyone to comply with liberal ideology by making everything seem to be about the environment. Liberals want to control everything that everyone does. Even something like eating meat is condemned because cow flatulence is supposedly destroying the ozone layer.

And I can't resist mentioning the evolutionary connection to Earth Day. A few years back, I posted this Oakland Zoo quote about their Earth Day celebration:

Bring the whole family out to the Oakland Zoo from 10:00am - 3:00pm for Earth Day 2009 Festivities! This year, the theme is "We're All Connected." All of the world is connected in a beautiful web of life, including you!

You see, Earth Day advocates want everyone to believe we're all connected via evolution: people, pandas, and petunias – we're all the same.

Finally, Kathleen Rogers includes this quote in her article:

More than one billion people from almost every single country on earth will take an action in service to our planet.

What probably bothers me about Earth Day more than the liberal agenda on parade is the not-so-subtle idea of earth worship that seems to be going on. What exactly does Ms. Rogers mean when she says talks about acting “in service to our planet”? The Bible says that God gave us every green thing to be our food (Genesis 1:29). God gave man dominion over the birds and the fish and the beasts of the earth (Genesis 1:26). In other words, the earth was made to serve us; we were not made to serve the earth!

God gave us a wonderful world because He loves us. On this earth day, let's be good stewards over what God has given us but let's not glorify the earth. Instead, give glory to God for His providence!

Have a Christ-centered Earth Day!

Looking Back on 2012

Many news sources at this time of year publish “Top 10” lists looking back on notable events of the past year. Many of these lists are lighthearted or, at the very least, try to reflect on some of the more positive events of the expiring year. I'm not saying that nothing good has happened in 2012 but as I look back, this year seems to have brought many challenges to the Church. I hate to throw a wet blanket on everyone's New Year celebrations, but here are a few things Christians need to think about and pray for in 2013.

Gay Marriage

Chick-fil-A CEO, Dan Cathy, suffered much political persecution after his personal endorsement of traditional marriages. In a less publicized story, Matt Grubbs, owner of Maryland based, Discover Annapolis Tours, has decided to close shop rather than facing a pointless legal battle with Maryland's Commission on Civil Rights because Discover Annapolis Tours does not offer its services to same sex couples. These are not isolated cases. More and more Christian business owners are discovering that their right to exercise their faith is subservient to an unenumerated right to be gay.

The tide is turning in America concerning gay marriage. In November, Maine and Maryland became the first states to approve gay marriage by popular vote, breaking a 32-state streak where gay marriage has already been defeated at the ballot box. In some states where gay marriage was defeated in referendum, it has still been foisted upon the people by activist courts or liberal legislatures. Nine states now allow same sex marriage.

Obamacare

Christian owned businesses have also found their right to practice their religion is being infringed upon by The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called “Obamacare”). In an editorial last January, Catholic Bishop, David Zubik, detailed how the new health care law violates Catholic doctrine by forcing Catholic owned organization to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs as part of its healthcare benefit their employees.

The new law doesn't just effect Catholics. Any Christian who owns a business will be forced to offer these services to their employees regardless of his or her religious conviction.

The Obama administration has set forth guidelines in a weak attempt to defend the religious liberties of Christian businesses but they are so narrow they basically do not exempt anyone except churches.

By the way, since when does the government get to decide which organizations are religious enough to practice their faith?

The DNC Booed God

More and more often, we see God being pushed out of public discourse. Prayer has long since been removed from schools along with the 10 Commandments. High school commencement speeches are scrubbed and censored to insure no student makes any mention of God. In general, any mention of God in the public arena risks swift reprisal from the ACLU or the Americans for the Separation of Church and State.

The recent election shed light on the current administration's attitude toward people of faith. The Democrat platform conspicuously omitted any mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (both of which had been included in the platform in previous elections). Having long been seen as the anti-God party already, the Democrats soon realized that omission was a little too blatant and moved to amend the platform and add the words. A voice vote was taken and the motion did not seem to have the required number of “aye” votes to be adopted. In an awkward moment of indecisiveness, former Governor, Ted Strickland, deemed the motion had passed which prompted a round of boos from the delegates.

On September 5, 2012, Democrats booed God!

Mass Shootings

2012 was spotted with tragic murders in Colorado and Connecticut. The senseless events serve to remind us that evil is real. John 16:33 tells us that in this fallen world there will be tribulation but we can have peace in Jesus.

These sad events have been made even more unfortunate as political opportunists have shamelessly used them as leverage to infringe upon our God given right to own guns. The war on God includes attacks on our liberties.

IN CONCLUSION...

There were many things that happened in 2012 that I could discuss now but I don't mean this to be an exhaustive list. Neither am I saying that these are the “top” events of that past 12 months. I've merely given these few examples to put the past year into perspective.

The New Year is usually a time for celebration and optimism. People see it as a turning of the page – an opportunity to start over on the right foot. I'm not trying to take away from any of that. Instead, I want people to think about some goals we could have for 2013 that might be a little more important than losing weight or going to the gym.

My New Taxes Under Obama

I'm not one of the 1% that has been maligned by the left. I do pay taxes so I guess I'm not in the bottom 47% either. I'm what you would call “middle class” in every sense of the word. Why then are my taxes going up? I'll tell you why – It's the Affordable Care Act AKA Obamacare. Just recently, my employer published a little pamphlet that detailed how the new healthcare laws would effect our coverage at work. I don't like the changes. Here are a few of the changes that effect me the most.

First, Health Savings Accounts (HSA) can no longer be used to buy over the counter drugs. It used to be that I could use my HSA to buy allergy pills for my son or naproxen for my wife's arthritis. By using my HSA, it meant that I was spending “before tax” dollars to pay for these over the counter drugs so if I spent $20 per month on these pills, I essentially took $240 off my taxable income each year. I still have to buy these pills, but thanks to Obamacare, I now use “after tax” dollars which means I'm now taxed on that $240. In a 20% tax bracket, that's $48 more in taxes just on my over the counter drug costs!

Another big change is in the tax deductible portion of medical costs. Currently, a person or family can deduct the actual cost of their medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of his/their income. Under Obamacare, that is increasing to 10%. Here's an example of how that costs more money: Suppose a struggling family makes $50,000 per year and has $5,000 in out of pocket medical costs. 7.5% of $50K is $3,750 so under the currently plan, they could deduct $1,250 from their taxable income ($5,000 in expenses minus the $3,750 threshold). Again assuming a 20% tax bracket, that would reduce this family's taxes by $250. Under the new plan, the new threshold is 10%. 10% of $50K is $5,000 so this same family under the same circumstances cannot deduct anything!

Still another change impacts those people (like me) who have high deductible insurance plans. Under my current insurance plan, I have a $3000/person or $6,000/family deductible per year. It sounds high but with my HSA, it's not bad. Under high deductible plans, the insurance companies are not paying for every little trip to the doctor (my HSA covers most of these) but I am insured against a catastrophic illness. I like this plan. It keeps my premiums low yet I still have peace of mind knowing that I'm covered if something terrible should happen. In the last 3 years with my employer, I haven't once reached the $3000 individual deductible.

Under the new plan, the maximum allowable deductible is only $2,000/person. Even though I've never actually had to pay $3,000 out of my pocket, I'm going to start having higher costs in the form of higher premiums. I haven't yet gotten the new rates but, on a family plan, I am certain my premiums will increase at least $100 per month. That may not be a new tax, but it's still more money out of my pocket each month because of Obamacare.

Yet the biggest tax increase will be in the employer paid portion of medical insurance. Under Obamacare, employers will start including the employer's cost for the employee's medical insurance on the employee's W2! So, if my employer is paying $400 per month for my insurance, I can expect to see a $4,800 item on my W2. Again, if we assume a 20% tax bracket, that's $960 more in taxes I'll have to pay. But mine is not even the worst. It's those employees who have the so-called “Cadillac” plans (like many union workers) who will get hurt the most by this. If a high paid, union worker has a real sweet, low deductible, family plan where his employer is paying $700, $800, or even more each month, that employee is going to face an increased tax burden of thousands of dollars! It's no wonder Obama has been writing waivers for many of his union buddies. I wonder how long that's going to last once this part of Obamacare takes effect?

Do you remember when Obama said if we liked our currently plans then we could keep them? That was a lie. Do you remember when Obama said that his new plan would lower healthcare costs? That was a lie. Do you remember when Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class? That was a lie. Do you remember when Obama said he wouldn't support healthcare reform if it added one dime to the deficit? That was a lie too because the CBO says Obamacare will add $1.2 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years. Even the name, The Affordable Care Act, is a lie because I can't afford it and neither can the nation.

Obama was right about one thing; he had promised change. How sad it is that we just blew our chance to change it back.

Rights Belong to Individuals

In my last post, I talked about how Obama-care has mandated employers to provide things like contraceptives and other services which might conflict with the employers' religious beliefs. In an effort to defend this dangerous idea, liberals have raised many weak arguments. One example of a weak argument is the idea that, since pregnancies and babies are expensive, paying for contraceptives actually reduces the overall cost of health care.

The wisdom of this argument (if any) rests on the premise that it's better to sacrifice individual liberties for the betterment of society as a whole. In this case, by forcing employers to pay for contraceptives, everyone enjoys lower health care costs. This same argument has been used for years regarding seat belt laws: since seat belts saves lives and reduce injuries, forcing individuals to wear seat belts reduces health care costs to society.

First, let me ask: Is this really the precedent liberals want to set? Do they really want the benefit to society to be greater than the rights of the individual? In this case, they probably do which is why they raise the argument. However, this opens the door to tyranny. According to this logic, what would stop congress from passing a law mandating that everyone use contraceptives? Some might say, “Well, congress wouldn't do that” but the question still remains if congress has the power to do it. If we buy into the argument that congress can decide what's best for society – even at the cost of individual liberty – then yes, we've given them the power to do it!


In case there are liberals who still don't see the danger, let me ask this: what happens if next year, congress decides there aren't enough babies being born?  For the good of society, congress decides that no women may use contraceptives.  If the benefit to society is the objective, then what argument will liberals use then?

Second, there's a glaring flaw in the liberals' arguments: You see, the very notion that society incurs a cost for individuals' health care decisions stems from the liberal idea that society should pay the costs individuals' health care. Here's a suggestion: if someone makes a poor decision, let him suffer the consequences of it. When people don't have any consequences for bad decisions, it's a license to sin.

Since we've been talking about contraceptives, let's talk about a related issue – out of wedlock births. Today, more than half of all births to women under 30 are out of wedlock. In almost every area examined, children born to unwed mothers suffer for it. They are more likely to live in poverty, to drop out of school, and to commit crimes. What is the liberal solution to the problem? It's to give money to women who have children out of wedlock! Unmarried mothers often get food stamps, free health care (Medicaid), rent subsidies, daycare subsidies, etc. What if they have still another child? Why, they get more money, of course! Here's the weirdest part – if the women consider marrying the fathers of their children, they understand they will likely loose their government benefits. So women have babies and get benefits – they marry and loose benefits. By the way, with contraceptives so readily available, why is the illegitimacy rate so high anyway? Given the fact that illegitimacy rates are so high, do you think that at least some women might have an incentive to make bad decisions?

Consider the alternative. What if women who have children don't receive more government benefits but are simply burdened with another mouth to feed? What if they knew they would be saddled with higher and higher daycare costs for every child they have (while they have to work two or three jobs to pay for it)? If a woman knew how much of a burden a child would be, might she make better decisions about birth control or premarital sex?

Compelling all people to share the burden of those few who make bad decisions is another road to tyranny. When individuals have no consequence for making bad decisions, they have no incentive to make better decisions. This leads to higher and higher costs for the rest of us. It's the exact opposite of what liberals are trying to argue now. There is no savings. If something seems “free,” then more people will abuse it which leads to higher costs. If women believe they can have children with no consequence, then the overall cost to society is greater: higher poverty, higher taxes, higher crime, higher dropout rates, and higher everything.

Rights belong to individuals. So do responsibilities. When the government tries to protect the rights of society at the expense of the rights of the individual, it's not liberty. It's despotism.

Who Has the Biggest Right?

It's not unusual for liberals to lie but the lies... I mean “political spin”... surrounding the contraception controversy are getting a little more whopping than usual. On the DHHS website, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “This proposal [the Blunt Amendment] isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong” (bold added for emphasis). Nancy Pelosi has said the Blunt Amendment is, “part of the Republican agenda of disrespecting women’s health issues [by] allowing employers to cut … basic health services for women, like contraception, mammograms, prenatal and cervical-cancer screenings and preventive health reform benefiting 20 million women” (bold added for emphasis).

Lie, lie, lie. The impression given by these statements is that Republicans want to take away women's access to birth control or any other “health care” service they might want to deny on a whim. It's a bold misrepresentation. No one is denying or even discussing denying women access to any health service. The only question being raised is, “who has to pay for it?”

The controversy was raised when Catholics began to publicly and strongly object to the DHHS guidelines that mandated Catholic employers like churches, hospitals, charities, and colleges, to provide contraception to their female employees as part of their employer-provided health insurance plans. The Catholic church objects to the use of contraceptives and said forcing them to pay for contraception for its female employees violates their freedom of religion.

What part of the First Amendment is ambiguous? Let me remind everyone what the Bill of Rights says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Catholic Church has long objected to the use of contraceptives. To suddenly mandate the Church to pay for contraceptives for its female employees clearly places a prohibition on their free exercise of this long standing belief.

But liberals see it differently. They believe other rights exists – like a right to “health care.” Now, I've read the Constitution but I can't quote it from memory so I've done a word search on the Constitution. Curiously, the words, “right to health care” aren't found anywhere. By the way, neither could I find a “right to privacy.” If these rights exist, they aren't enumerated the way our freedom to religion is. At best, they are implied.

Let's assume, for a moment, that there is a right to health care. Who has the bigger right? Does the implied right to healthcare somehow trump my enumerated right to exercise my religion? Why must it?

Of course, that's not good enough for liberals. If someone has a right to health care, they believe that means they're guaranteed health care. OK, let's apply that same logic to the right to bear arms. Consider this analogy: The right to own a gun is enumerated in the Constitution. Have you ever bought a gun? A nice gun isn't cheap. A 9mm handgun could set you back about $400.00. Are only rich people allowed to exercise the right to own a gun? How can poor people like me afford $400 to buy a gun? Since I have the right to own a gun, what I need is for my employer to buy me one.

Here's a twist: what if I worked for Rosie O'Donnell? From what I've heard, Rosie O'Donnell doesn't believe people should have the right to carry guns (except for her bodyguards). That doesn't matter, though. I have the right to own a gun and, according to liberal logic, Rosie must buy me one no matter what her own conscientious objection might be.

Somehow I don't think liberals would go for the idea of compelling employers to buy guns for their employees. But they can't see the similarity in that and forcing employers to provide contraceptives for their employees.

“Rights” are not entitlements nor guarantees. The idea that the government can compel one person to act against his conscience in order to guarantee the right of another is anathema to liberty. The dangers that surround this issue are many and I intend to spend a couple of more posts talking about them. For now though, let me just say that a woman's “right” to birth control is no more sacred than my right to exercise my faith. Here's an idea: I will practice my religion and you buy your own contraceptives!

Obama to Catholics: “To Hell With You”

A few months back, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidelines mandating that by the summer of 2012, all individual and group insurance plans must cover contraception, sterilization procedures, and abortion inducing drugs. Prior to the passage of Obama-care, one of the many criticisms of the plan was that it would ultimately violate the religious liberties of employers and individuals. The Administration assured us that the religious conscience of the people would be safe. We see now that was another lie.

In an editorial, Catholic Bishop, David Zubik, had some hard hitting words about the Catholic response to the new guidelines. Here are some highlights from his column:

It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, “To hell with you!” There is no other way to put it.

A million things are wrong with this: equating pregnancy with disease; mandating that every employer pay for contraception procedures, including alleged contraceptives that are actually abortion-inducing drugs; forcing American citizens to choose between violating their consciences or providing health care services; mandating such coverage on every individual woman without allowing her to even choose not to have it; and forcing every person to pay for that coverage no matter the dictates of their conscience.

So-called exemption

Let’s be blunt. This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself. In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process. 

This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone — not only Catholics; not only people of all religions. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens. It forces every employer to subsidize an ideology or pay a penalty while searching for alternatives to health care coverage. It undermines the whole concept and hope for health care reform by inextricably linking it to the zealotry of pro-abortion bureaucrats.

For our church this mandate would apply in virtually every instance where the Catholic Church serves as an employer. The mandate would require the Catholic Church as an employer to violate its fundamental beliefs concerning human life and human dignity by forcing Catholic entities to provide contraceptive, sterilization coverage and even pharmaceuticals that result in abortion.There was a so-called “religious exemption” to the mandate, but it was so narrowly drawn that, as critics charged, Jesus Christ and his apostles would not fit the exemption. The so-called exemption would only apply to the vast array of Catholic institutions where the following applied:

• Only Catholics are employed;• The primary purpose of the institution or service provided is the direct instruction in Catholic belief;• The only people served by the institution are those who share Catholic religious tenets. (Try to fit this in with our local Catholic Charities, which serves 80,000 every year without discrimination according to faith. It would be impossible!)

Practically speaking, under the proposed mandate there would be no “religious exemption” for Catholic hospitals, universities, colleges, nursing homes and numerous Catholic social service agencies such as Catholic Charities. It could easily be determined that the “religious exemption” would not apply as well to Catholic high schools, elementary schools and parishes since many employ non-Catholics and serve both Catholic students and, through social outreach, many who do not share our religious beliefs. Such a narrow “religious exemption” is simply unprecedented in federal law.

Kathleen Sebelius, and through her the Obama administration, have said “To hell with you” to the Catholic faithful of the United States.

• To hell with your religious beliefs,• To hell with your religious liberty,• To hell with your freedom of conscience.

We’ll give you a year, they are saying, and then you have to knuckle under.

I could not have said it any better. I've said before that I'm not a Catholic. However, it's no stretch of the imagination to see how these guidelines are a threat to the religious liberty of all believers. It even erodes the rights of non-believers since it establishes a precedent that the government's agenda for a better society trumps individual liberties.

This is another call to arms. We need to let our legislators know that we will not stand still while our God given rights are trampled by the very government we established to protect them. We need to challenge this in the courts and we need to defeat its advocates at the ballot box.

Hopefully, November of 2012 will be the end of the Obama administration and the beginning of the repeal of Obama-care.

What is a “Budget”?

A few years back, I was doing some volunteer work for Junior Achievement. Once each week for 10 weeks, I met with a class of sophomores and discussed “personal economics.” Most of it was basic stuff like balancing a check book or filling out a job application. However, there was one thing which stood out that I still carry with me today.

A couple of the lessons dealt with having a budget. I was trying to figure out a good way to explain the concept of a budget to a group of 10^th graders and I came up with the following analogy. Imagine that, immediately after graduating college, you get a job where you take home $20,000 each year (I said “take home” because I didn't need to get into a discussion about taxes just yet). Anyway, what are some of the things you could do with $20K/year? Well, you could save all your money for six months and buy a nice, used car. You could save your money for a year and buy a new car. You could even save all your money for five years and pay all cash for a modest house.

You see, even on a modest income of only $20K, you could still afford nearly anything you want: a house, a car, a vacation, nice clothes, etc. The problem, however, is that you can't afford everything you want. You could buy a house OR a car OR take a vacation but not necessarily all three. A budget, then, is a list of your priorities. You have to decide what it is you want the most. If you want to eat dinner out every night you can. But if you would rather save to buy a car, then eating out every night isn't a option. It might be nice to have both, but realistically you can't. You have to prioritize which you're going to spend your money on. That is a budget; it's simply prioritizing your spending.

It was a simple concept and the 10^th graders seemed to catch on quickly. Unfortunately, our elected officials still don't get it. They still think we can have it all. They want to “invest” (i.e. spend money on) education, green jobs, unemployment, social security, health care, infrastructure, foreign aid, defense, corporate bailouts, teachers' pensions, congressional salaries, and pork barrel projects. When we protest the outrageous spending that's going on, they merely answer with the question, “well, what are we going to cut?” as though everything is too important to cut funding for it.

Not only do our elected leaders not understand the concept of a budget, neither do they seem to understand the definition of “priority.” How can everything be a priority? If you want to balance the budget, you've got to decide what is truly a priority, spend your money only on those things, and cut everything else.

Now, I know some decisions are hard to make but we have reached the point where we have to make them. Is congress so weak-willed and indecisive that they can't decide what is a priority? Do I need to remind you that this was a lesson I taught to 10^th graders?

Continuing to spend money on everything we want is no longer an option.

Be Careful What You Wish For!

I first heard Velma Hart's comments on Bill Bennett's radio show. For the rest of the day it's all I heard – on CNN, Laura Ingrim, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Most of the talk centered around how Obama seems to be losing luster among even his Democrat supporters. Certainly that's happening but I think there's an angle here that isn't being mentioned.

Some people believe the waning favor for Obama is happening because the economy continues to struggle and they don't believe Obama is doing enough about it. He's been a big disappointment to them. Perhaps these people should step back a little and think about some of the things Obama has accomplished while in office. He managed to rack up a record $1.4 trillion deficit his first year in office; he's on pace to break his deficit record in his second year; he added thousands of government workers to the tax-payers' payroll; he pushed through the long sought-after healthcare reform; after doling out billions to prop up failing banks, he began attaching regulatory strings retroactively to the banks receiving the money; he demonized Wall Street sending the markets into turmoil; he socialized one of the largest private companies in the world (GM); he issued an executive moratorium on off-shore drilling; and most recently passed sweeping, financial regulation. This is the stuff liberals dream about.

While he was doing these things, Obama had the full support of his liberal base. Not once did I hear any Democrat say something like, “Let's put healthcare on the back-burner and work on creating jobs.” Actually, I heard the opposite – they said healthcare reform would create jobs by making would-be entrepreneurs free to pursue their dreams (like being an artist as Nancy Pelosi suggested). Regulating “big oil” companies to death was supposed to create “green jobs.” Punishing big banks and Wall Street firms was supposed to create jobs by... er... well, I don't know how punishing employers creates more jobs but the liberals sure loved sticking it the bank CEOs.

So here we are nearing the end of Obama's second year in office. He has pushed the liberal agenda farther than anyone could have hoped or imagined but no utopic society has materialized and so liberals are disappointed. The problem is, the liberals are blaming Obama but can't see that the problem is that it's really the liberal agenda that isn't working.

Liberalism is a failed ideology. You cannot help the workers by destroying the employers. The opportunity to earn more is an incentive for people to work more but if you rob people of what they earn (in the form of higher taxes) then you rob them of the incentive to work more. If you promise equal results through the redistribution of wealth, then you are encouraging equal effort from the workers. There is no incentive to start a business, take more risks, and work harder if the end result is the same as if you'd done nothing.

Tell me the truth, what more liberal thing could Obama have done? Every piece of liberal legislation he's put forth has already been passed. I think it's time liberal recognize that it's not the man but the liberal ideology that's not working. You wanted hope and change? You've got it. Look where it's gotten us.

It's Not Just About the Money

I was more than a little annoyed as I watched Nancy Pelosi proudly proclaim that “health insurance reform will stand alongside Social Security and Medicare in American history.” Why do you think she is so proud to equate this new reform with two other government programs that are teetering on bankruptcy? Perhaps she has tacitly admitted that government health care will someday become another bloated bureaucracy that will further burden our deficit in the same way Social Security and Medicare do now. I've cited this quote from the Social Security Administration's web site before but I'll remind my readers of it:

“Many people think that the Social Security taxes they pay are held in interest-bearing accounts earmarked for their own future retirement needs. The fact is that Social Security is a pay-as-you-go retirement system—the Social Security taxes paid by today’s workers and their employers are used to pay the benefits for today’s retirees and other beneficiaries.

Social Security is now taking in more money than it pays out in benefits, and the remaining money goes to the program’s trust funds. There are now large “reserves” in the trust funds, but even this money is small compared to future scheduled benefit payments. In 2017 benefits owed will be more than taxes collect ed, and Social Security will need to begin tapping the trust funds to pay benefits. The trust funds will be exhausted in 2041. At that time, Social Security will not be able to meet all of its benefit obligations if no changes are made.”

And now it seems we will have another behemoth to be fed with our tax dollars. Another debt that will devour our grandchildren's paychecks.

But the outrageous cost of the program is not the only thing that bothers me about health insurance reform. I also have a simple, fundamental objection to the idea of government benevolence. When did the American people get this “entitlement” mentality? Why do some people assume that if they don't have something, it's the government's job to give it to them?

I think it has something to do with their concept of “rights.” If something is considered a right, then people expect the government to protect their rights. Yet this goes beyond that. When something is identified as a “right,” it soon becomes looked at as an “entitlement,” and next people expect it to be a “guarantee.” OK, I admit I have the right to receive health care. Does that mean the government MUST provide it? Why? I'm serious. On what grounds do some people expect tax payers to provide their every need? I have the right to own a house – why doesn't the government give me a house? I have the right to eat – why doesn't the government give me my food? I have the right to bear arms – why doesn't the government buy me a gun?

Financial hardship is not a valid reason. If I'm not working, how does that suddenly obligate someone else to give me stuff? If I weren't working, that's no excuse to steal money from my neighbor. However, when some people are out of work, they expect the government to take a portion of their neighbor's paycheck in order to give it to them. When I take money from my neighbor, it's called “stealing.” When the government does it, it's called “taxes.”

Of course, there are certain things the government should be doing: defending us against enemies, establishing a national currency, building interstate highways, etc. Being a charity is not on the list. No matter how noble the cause, no matter how seemingly right it might seem, we must keep the government out of the business of benevolence. I've even heard liberal pastors try to use the Bible to justify programs like health care reform. How sad it is that supposed men of God are content to let Caesar do the work of the Church (Mark 12:17).

Christ instructed His church to engage in charity. Consider this wonderful passage from Matthew (v. 31-40):

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

It's truly incredible that there are those Christians who shirk their own duties and then expect Caesar to fulfill their obligations to God. Move over Red Cross – FEMA will take it from here. Stand aside Salvation Army – WIC will provide. Who needs Mother Theresa when we have Nancy Pelosi?

Yes, I object to the horrific cost of this bill. But for me, it's not just about the money.

It’s the Economy, Stupid!

Many of you might remember that when Clinton beat Bush to win the Presidency, his campaign mantra was, “it’s the economy, stupid.”

I snapped this picture sometime in January, 2009. Wow! Gas for $1.36/gallon. People may have been out of work, the banks may have been struggling, foreclosures may have been skyrocketing, but gas prices had fallen to the lowest I remember them being in nearly 10 years. Today, people are still out of work, the banks are still struggling, homes are still being foreclosed, and now gas is $2.79/gallon.

As we stand on the brink of passing the most intrusive piece of legislation since the New Deal, I wonder what the President and Congress have been doing for the past year. For months the debate has been about some imaginary “health care crisis.” I hate to break it to the President and his cohorts in congress but there is a real job, housing, and energy crisis going on out there and I don’t see them doing anything about it.

Oh sure, there was the $700 billion “stimulus” package passed last year but even now most of the money earmarked for stimulus STILL hasn't been spent. Doesn’t the President have any idea on how to help bring energy costs down beyond the cap-and-trade bill which was kicked around for a while in congress? I guess there’s also Obama’s incessant apologizing and butt-kissing to the Arab nations but that hasn’t seemed to accomplish anything.

What is it with this guy? He’s supposed to be the leader of the country. He was supposed to help bring change to Washington. Yet he's offered nothing Chicago style politics and partisanship. He has his sights on health care and let everything else be damned. Forget jobs, forget housing, and forget energy. His mouth is watering like Pavlov’s dogs’ over the idea of regulating 1/6 of the US economy and he is going to pass “health care reform” whether we like it or not.

The die is already cast. Democrats have already lost congress because of health care reform – we’re just waiting for the election to make it official. Mr. Obama, it’s the economy, stupid!

Obama has a Credibility Issue

The President has really been hitting the trail this week selling his health care reform bill. As I listen to him, I can see how some people might get caught up in his rhetoric: more coverage and lower costs. Who can disagree with that? To hear him describe it, the insurance companies are run by fat-cat CEO's who raise premiums, waste money, and deny benefits. Mr. Obama wants to fix all that.

But as I listen to his lies... er, I mean “promises”, I have to shake my head. Can anyone ever think of a time when the government has lowered costs, reduced waste, and improved anything? In his first year in office (and with the help of a Democrat congress), the President has already run up a 2 TRILLION dollar deficit. He then had the nerve to appoint a blue ribbon to help find ways to lower the deficit. I've got an idea: spend less money!!

How can anyone sincerely believe that a government which spends money with such reckless abandon could ever devise a plan to make medical care more affordable? It would be like having Pee Wee Herman for a physical trainer. It reminds a little of Matthew 7:3, the liberals are falling all over themselves trying to “fix” rising costs in the medical sector, yet it is a speck compared to the two trillion dollar beam in the eye of the Feds.

Here's some free advice: Congress, show us that you can reduce your own spending first and then maybe you'll have some credibility when telling us how you might lower health care costs.

Health Care Reform Made Amazingly Easy

So the new House version of the health care reform bill has been released and it’s a mere 1,990 pages long. You can read the entire thing in PDF here. Of course, when the bill is debated on the floor and new amendments are proposed, we can easily expect a few thousand more pages to be added. Later, when the Senate bill is unveiled, it’s likely to be equally voluminous and have its own tome of amendments. If both should be passed, the two houses will meet to “reconcile” the two bills and we’ll have would be a monstrous behemoth that will include every pet project ever imagined by Democrats. Health care reform is a liberal’s wet dream.

I may not be a legislator but it seems to me health care reform could be done in an amazingly simple way. I can give you the whole outline of it right here in a single blog post. Watch – I’ll show you:

You’ve got to ask yourself, “Why is health insurance so expensive?” The simple answer is because health care is so expensive. Duh! So, the first step in bring down health insurance cost is to bring down the cost of medical care. There are a couple of simple ways to lower the cost of health care.

The first way is through tort reform. Law suits against doctors and drug companies have run amuck. Lawyers are in the business of pedaling junk-science and convincing juries to award billions of dollars in bogus claims. The risk of litigation forces doctors to shell over tens of thousands of dollars every year in malpractice insurance premiums. Additionally, doctors often more care than they otherwise might have were it not for the possibility of litigation: more tests, more prescriptions, more of everything – “just in case.”

It’s hard to estimate how much could be saved from tort reform. Some studies have suggested the cost of litigation and defensive medicine accounts for 1/3 of health care costs. Considering that health care is around 17.6% of the GDP ($2.5 trillion), any reduction realized through tort reform could translate into billions of dollars of savings.

Another simple way to lower medical costs is to increase competition among service providers. Do you know how much a visit to the doctor costs? It’s no surprise that many people don’t know. Oh sure, most people can tell you what their co-pay is for a doctor’s visit but they don’t know what the total cost is because they never see it. They visit the doctor and the doctor sends a bill to their insurance company. That’s the way it is for nearly all our medical care. So when people shop for doctors or medical care, they choose doctors based on thing like friendliness, a convenient location, etc. People seldom consider what the doctor charges unless the doctor is not in their insurance network.

Because doctors often participate in insurance networks, an interesting thing happens – they don’t compete with other doctors to charge less. Instead, they charge whatever the insurance company agrees to pay. So if the insurance company says it will pay $100 for an office visit, the doctor will charge $100 for an office visit. There is no incentive for him to charge less. It’s almost a kind of price fixing.

So what if we made doctors compete for patients’ dollars? We could make insurance available only for catastrophic events and put a portion of the consumers’ premiums into a medical savings account. The patients would use the money in the account to pay for routine medical care with the understanding that they get to keep whatever isn’t spent. In this case, the patient is concerned if one doctor charges $100 and another only charges $75. Patients would begin shopping for medical care and doctors would have to compete with other doctors by lowering costs. And since competition always drives prices down, such a plan is bound to help reduce costs.

And speaking of competition, another easy fix would be to allow insurance companies to insure people across state lines. With more insurance companies competing in every state, the competition will help keep premiums down.

Finally, if the feds are truly interested in insuring the poor, let it be done in the form of tax credits where there is a means test on the recipients’ incomes. So, an individual making less than, say, $40,000 per year would receive a tax credit for the amount of money he spent on health care. Families could earn a higher dollar amount and still receive the tax credit. This way, the government is only spending money for those who need insurance and can’t afford it. Revamping the entire health care industry to offer coverage to only a few million people is akin to swatting flies with a bazooka.

So there you have it: health care reform in less than 1,000 words – not 2,000 pages. It has all the things a conservative likes: consumer choice, competition, and less government involvement. Unfortunately, these are the same reasons why no liberal would ever support it.