Matt Yglesias has written another worthless article about income inequality. He claims that the Democratic divide over income inequality is just a divide over the message, not policy. I would argue that all the Democrats have is a message: there is no policy. Unless Democrats are just going to punish the wealthy by taking their property, there is no policy that will reduce income inequality.
If the ACA’s goal is to provide all Americans access to health insurance, why would Justices Kagan and Sotomayor see the solution to Hobby Lobby’s problem as simply to not provide health insurance to its employees and instead pay the tax?
I also doubt that Liz Cheney is a conservative. Sure she would be a firebrand for many conservative causes, but at the end of the day, I bet she would promote big government. Her family has been part of the Washington Establishment for decades (no disrespect to Vice President Cheney whom I think is a very good man).
The Last Refuge is right on the money on why the Chamber of Commerce is fighting the Tea Party. American Big Business wants amnesty and Obamacare.
Big Business loves the idea of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Many big businesses use illegal immigrant labor (mostly through contracting with smaller contractors). By increasing passing amnesty legislation, labor costs will plummet. This is not good for workers.
Big business also likes Obamacare. The insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies love it: after all, they wrote the legislation. The rest of Big Business loves being able to stop providing health insurance to their employees. Health insurance keep going up and Big Business can’t control these costs.
Americans must stop both of these initiatives.
It looks like Acorn and the DNC’s army of community organizers are doing it again. James O’Keefe has uncovered corruption and fraud with Obamacare’s Navigator Program designed to help people sign up for Obamacare.
1. Ken Cuccinelli could have won – It is a shame that Ken Cuccinelli lost the Virginia governor’s race. If he had the support of the Establishment Republican Party, he would have won.
2. The Tea Party is the life of the Republican Party – All of the energy within the Republican Party is from the Tea Party.
3. Establishment Republican Party lost the race – The Establishment Republican Party is scared to be conservative. The ran away from Cuccinelli because he was viewed as too pro-life and too conservative. If the Establishment Republican Party loses its conservatism, the GOP will die.
4. Reince Priebus must go – Reince Priebus did nothing to help Ken Cuccinelli win this race. After the 2012 election debacle, we should have fired Reince.
5. Virginia is still a purple state – Many in the GOP braintrust thought Virginia moved to a solid blue state after the 2012 election. WRONG! WE CAN STILL WIN VIRGINIA!
This is why some Americans believe we must fight for smaller government NOW. Since 1980, government debt has increased increased from than 1700%. And, in the last 12 years government debt has tripled.
If you want to understand why Tea Partiers are fighting so hard, it because we believe that America is at a tipping point. If we don’t stop the spending, the U.S. will go bankrupt.
Too many Americans don’t appreciate the pain that will be felt by our fellow citizens if America goes bankrupt. If we can’t continue to borrow funds,
- Senior citizens will not have access to Medicare funds at today’s levels
- Poor people will lose Medicaid funds at today’s levels
- The most destitute of us will no longer be able to receive welfare payments at today’s levels
These consequences will be real. Millions of Americans will needlessly suffer.
That is why reducing our debt needs to become a bipartisan issue. That is why Tea Partiers are fighting so strenuously.
Last week I wrote an article about how there needs to be a new agreement between all americans regarding welfare – From Great Society To Great Safety Net. The purpose of this new agreement is to rebuild trust in our society over welfare. I believe that providing a temporary safety net for all people who come on hard times is a conservative principle. Too many families lose their homes, have trouble paying for necessities and all too often face marital trouble when faced with a spouse losing his or her job. But we need to trust our society to not take advantage of the safety net.
The video below highlights one area that needs to be cleaned up. Millions of americans are abusing the Disability Fund. I believe that there is only one group of people that deserve long term help and that is people who suffer from a disability that prevents them from getting a job. But if people who aren’t disabled apply for disability benefits, they are stealing from society.
In the video below, 60 Minutes interviews Senator Tom Coburn about the rampant fraud taking place with respect to Disability Payments.
It’s time that Americans reach agreement on the Welfare State. At times it pains me to say that the Welfare State is here to stay, but it is. There is no denying it: Americans want social security, Medicare, and Medicaid (I am unwilling to add health insurance to this list). And it is time for American Conservatives to develop a conservative welfare system. We need to move from the Great Society to the Great Safety Net.
I believe a majority of Americans have reached a consensus that we can afford to fund a safety net and we should provide one to people who have fallen on tough times. My grandparents and mother would not have been able to make it without Social Security and Medicare. But we need to agree on what benefits should be provided as part of the safety net, how much money should be given, and how long people should be able to stay on the safety net.
I believe conservatives have two main problems with the Welfare State: (1) when will Democrats agree that it is enough and (2) people can’t be allowed to live on welfare indefinitely. To address this first problem, we need to simplify the system so that we know how much welfare people receive and to come to an agreement on just how much of a safety net people should have. After all, the taxpayers are trying to better themselves and their families too, and if more and more of their money is being given to other people, they deserve to know how much is actually being given.
To address the second problem, we need to limit the amount of time people can receive welfare benefits. Unless a person suffers from a disability that prevents him from working, that person owes a duty to society to either work or not take the property of others.
We cannot create a system that encourages people not to work, so that principle needs to be part of this agreement. Work is important to humanity: people don’t function in society if they stop working. This isn’t good for them or for society. A man’s soul is nourished by his work.
The point of this great consensus is trust. Taxpayers need to be able to trust that the system is not allowing some a free ride while they work hard to better themselves and their families. And everyone should have trust in society that if we lose a job or face a catastrophe there is a Safety Net to help until we can get back on our feet. But we must get back on our feet. The Safety Net must be time bound.
We also have to understand what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said that we are endowed by our Create with the unalienable right of the pursuit of happiness. This is pursuit is personal: each person must be allowed to pursue his own journey. We have to acknowledge that some people don’t want to work or they are happy enough with their current station in life not to work harder. It is hard for many of us to understand why someone wouldn’t want to better themselves, and it is hard for us to understand how someone could choose to live “less well-off” than we do, but people do make this choice, and we have to allow them to pursue their own happiness, and they have no right for us to subsidize this choice.
People make very complicated choices in life. Some choose to go to college; some choose to grad school; and others unfortunately choose to drop out of school. We all make these choices for personal and economic reasons, but they are choices. Some choices are smart: other choices are mistakes. But we are responsible for these choices. The trust built into this Great Saftey Net must require personal responsibility for bad choice. The safety net will be there for a short time when someone makes a bad choice, but the person is required to get their life back on track.
This would be my starting point to end the constant fighting over this issue. I am sure we would still debate the benefits and time period of the safety net, but at least the debate could be civil if we had this foundation of trust.