Uncle Sugar and the Rise of Obamunism

... A Fable

From: Canada Free Press

by - William Kevin Stoos - Thursday, February 14, 2013 

He used to be known as Uncle Sam—a tall, grandfatherly, if a little stern, gentleman dressed in red, white and blue. He was patriotic, straight laced, and distinguished. He taught us to say the pledge of allegiance, he asked us to help—whether it was “I want you to buy bonds,” or “I want you to serve in the Army,” and he even exhorted us to “ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

He was a man we looked up to and respected. He was there for the needy, but he did not encourage sloth. Being out of work to him was a temporary thing—to be sympathized with, not encouraged. He did not mind paying welfare to those who truly needed it—after all he was a beneficent gentleman. Yet he frowned upon able bodied folks who simply did not like to work. That, he thought, was shameful. He believed that a family was a man, woman and a couple of kids—the building block of society and the source of American values. He encouraged the work ethic and believed in equal opportunity—not result—for everyone regardless of who you were. He encouraged respect for our heritage and for American values. He flew the flag. And when the national anthem played, he knew how to raise his hand to his heart or remove his cap in respect. It was unthinkable to stand around like some cool hipster with his hands in his pocket or folded in front of his crotch. Burning the flag was unthinkable. He had asked too many to fight and die for that flag. He was an unabashed patriot—an unapologetic advocate for the country and the freedom for which it stood. He was respected around the world. Those who did not love him, at least feared him.

 But in time Uncle Sam changed. In time he became hip, cool, modern. He wanted to be liked more than respected. His motto became not “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country,” but rather “what can your government do for you today?” He promised free stuff to the people without regard to cost or budget. He wanted too much to be liked. Rather than encouraging folks to work he allowed them to collect unemployment for years; he encouraged his people to live on the public dole. He even encouraged foreigners to apply for food stamps if they crossed our borders illegally. He wanted to be liked by them too. Too cool to salute the national anthem, he would sometimes drop his hands to his waist and stand there casually as if the song merited no special respect. He no longer cared about the traditional family. If man wanted to marry man or woman wanted to marry woman; if a woman wanted to kill her unborn or nearly born child inches from birth, it was fine with him. No longer Uncle Sam, he decided to change his name. Uncle Sugar had a cool ring to it. He wanted to be hip; he wanted to be relevant. He no longer encouraged his subjects to work hard, become independent, support their families and not have to depend on the government. Rather, he wanted to be loved. Most of all he wanted the folks to depend on him. He promised to take care of their every need. And if there were inequality in income or result, that was a bad thing—not to be encouraged. If there were inequality, then those who did work hard, created jobs and had some measure of success and wealth had to pay. Uncle Sugar would take care of those who wanted and take from those who produced. The plaque on his wall which used to read Ask not what your country can do for you, now read “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.” His goal was “an equal result for all,” and to punish those who produced wealth and employed folks. Success, for the first time in the history of the nation, became a dirty word.  Equality was the goal, and Uncle Sugar would decide how to achieve it.

Promises of free stuff flowed from his lips like honey from a jar and his subjects loved it. He would tax the rich to feed the poor; he would protect his subjects by chipping away at the Second Amendment—little by little banning certain weapons and ammunition until that day when only Uncle Sugar owned the guns. It was better that way. The press loved Uncle Sugar and had itself changed from an independent bulwark against government tyranny whose mission it was to speak truth to power, to a fawning group of cheerleaders who hung on Uncle Sugar’s every word, felt a collective tingle down the leg each time he spoke, and swooned each time they were in his presence. Uncle Sugar’s press corps trumpeted his every word and treated it as gospel. No longer was dissent possible—it was drowned out by the tinny yelp of lapdogs who followed Uncle Sugar like puppies. He was so sincere and his speeches so lofty. He would calm the seas, clean the air, bring prosperity to all, and peace to the world. His words were intoxicating and they drank it in—every word a gem, every speech memorialized in a headline. 

In time Uncle Sugar gained more and more power over his subjects by ramming through a Congress legislation which no one read, signing endless Executive Orders, and imposing administrative regulations, thereby gaining control over national health care, and forcing private citizens and religious groups to violate their own principles. He ruled by decree, raised taxes on the wealthy at first, and then the not so wealthy, and soon began to rule entirely by Executive Order rather than executing the laws passed by Congress.  His subjects were so enamored of Uncle Sugar that they did not seem to notice the almost imperceptible loss of their liberties or the fact that his promises came at a price. The free stuff he promised was not free at all. In time Uncle Sugar became more and more greedy. His appetite for power was insatiable. He appointed extrajudicial political commissars to regulate what his subjects could eat and drink, what they could drive, what medical treatment they could or could not have and nearly every other aspect of their lives. He regulated what industry could produce, imposed punitive regulations on businesses, and gained more and more control over the lives of his subjects. After all, Uncle Sugar knew best what his subjects needed.

Uncle Sugar promised a free ride for all who wanted it. He had a big wagon and anyone who wanted could ride for free—compliments of Uncle Sugar. At first there were still plenty of folks to pull the wagon and they generated enough wealth to pay for the ride.  A free ride and free stuff—cradle to grave care for your every need. After all, what was government for?  Obamunism, they called it: the belief that government would provide for your every need. And most people—at least at first—loved it; those who did not largely remained silent. There was nothing they could do. After all, Uncle Sugar was wildly popular among those who wanted a free ride. And there were more and more of them. It was more fun than working hard and paid better. There was little dissent. Uncle Sugar did not like dissent. Those who questioned him were mocked by him, marginalized, and called “kooks.” Dissent was uncool, and disrespectful. Uncle Sugar demanded respect, loyalty and above all, praise. Unlike Uncle Sam, Uncle Sugar was a narcissist.

But Uncle Sugar needed more money still. There was a price to pay for his munificence. But as long as your ox wasn’t getting gored and you were getting free stuff from him you did not mind. Or so the people believed. It was just fine to tax the rich and make those productive job providers pay. Someone had to pay. So Uncle Sugar decreed that those making $400,000 per year must pay more—it was only right; there were people who made less and did not work as hard. So it was only fair. And the 95% who did not make that much agreed. Shame on those who prospered while others did not live as well. Those pulling wagon of economic progress had a moral duty to pull harder and transport those who were riding in it for free. But, in time, taking from those who made $400,000 was not enough to pay for the free ice cream Uncle Sugar promised all who wanted it. In time he decreed that those making $150,000 or more per year needed to help. So Uncle Sugar required them to pay more too—after all there were a lot of folks riding in the wagon for free and Uncle Sugar needed to provide for them.  This was fine with most of the folks—except of course those who were moderately successful and had to pay the price. And still the people agreed—for most of them did not earn that much—if they worked at all. But it came to pass that taxing even those who made moderate incomes did not produce enough to pay for the free stuff Uncle Sugar promised. In time he decreed that those making $50,000 per year must pay more—after all, compared to others, they were rich and this could not be tolerated by Uncle Sugar.  And so it went until one day there were more people riding in Uncle Sugar’s wagon of economic happiness than pulling it.  It seemed that, in time, those who generated wealth and jobs no longer were able or willing to pull the wagon. After all, they thought, why should they? What was the point? It was easier to rely on Uncle Sugar.

In time, the people became restive. It seems that they could no longer rely on Uncle Sugar to provide their every need. Although they viewed the free stuff as their right, Uncle Sugar had simply run out of free stuff to give. He could no longer afford unemployment payments, free lunches, Uncle Sugar Medical Coverage, free abortions, free phones, food stamps for all, including immigrants whom he invited to partake in them—all the goodies his followers had come to expect. Businesses, which had groaned under the weight of high taxes and regulation, had gone bankrupt leaving millions of wage earners jobless; farmers were leaving their farms by the thousands (unable to comply with the stringent EPA “no dust” regulations and cattle exhaust taxes) and there was not enough food to feed his subjects. Power plants closed by the score—unable to bear the billions of dollars required by Uncle Sugar to install new scrubbers, causing rolling power shortages across the country. The dollar had lost its value owing to successive downgrades of Uncle Sugar’s credit rating.  There were frequent riots in the streets. The once strong and   prosperous country grew more fractious by the day and was coming apart at the seams.

And in the end, there was indeed equality—but not of opportunity. Rather Uncle Sugar’s subjects were equally poor, equally dependent, and equally hopeless. For the problem with Obamunism was simple: in the end you run out of other people’s money. And Uncle Sugar has nothing more to give.


God bless,
JohnnyD 

Guns or Not? It’s Time to Talk About the Constitution

From: Clash Daily

by Michael Schwartz - February 12, 2013

What has to be understood about guns is it doesn’t matter what polls say or what crime statistics show.  If it did matter and it was up to the public, we wouldn’t need an amendment in place to protect gun rights.

The Second Amendment guarantees civilians their right to own and carry guns used by the military.  That is the meaning and that is the purpose.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” – Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 1791.

 

“Well regulated” means competent and properly functional.  If it were written today it would probably read “well trained and equipped.”  “Militia” means a fighting force made of civilians who are not professional soldiers. 

“Necessary” means today what it meant back then: not an option, but essential.  “Security of a free state” means Americans across the country living under the experiment of self-governance.  “The right of the people” means the same thing throughout the writings of the documents that formed our country when “rights” and “the people” are used.  Rights are unalienable and given by nature or nature’s creator and “the people” are people within the borders of the United States.  “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says.

Because a trained militia is a requirement of a self-governing nation and because a militia is a military force made up of the country’s civilians, weapons used by our military, law-enforcement, and foreign military are exactly what the Second Amendment protects.  That means semi-automatic rifles and pistols with detachable magazines that carry 30 rounds of ammunition.

Make the argument that civilians should no longer have this type of access to arms used by the military and have that discussion.  Squirm around and furrow your brow while looking down your nose at all of America telling us that modern society no longer has the need for … blah, blah, etc.  But know that getting rid of the Second Amendment means two things: we are truly no longer a “free state,” with the self-governing experiment being over — and it means repealing and/or replacing the Second Amendment.  Not violating it as the California legislature does and as President Obama suggests.

Fortunately, public opinion and crime statistics both favor the side of the Second Amendment.  But as you debate the subject, be well-versed in the real purpose of the Second Amendment; to ensure that civilians have access to military arms that they can own and carry.  Just in case public opinion is swayed by emotion or the misinformation from media or interests groups, there is an amendment protecting that right.  It is no more a right to take away a civilian’s ability to own an AR style rifle via state law or presidential decree than it is to take away a woman’s right to vote, or an African American’s freedom, or everyone’s right to worship in the way they see fit.

It is time to stop pussyfooting around.  It is time to stop talking about “reasonable restrictions” and “common sense gun laws,” which are both simply code words for “gun ban.”  It is time to stop talking about home defense, hunting, and shooting sports. 

It is time to start pointing out the Constitution and law.  I can easily see in Article 5 what it takes to amend the Constitution.  Now show me where in Article 2 the executive branch has that same ability.


God bless,

JohnnyD

A MUST READ FOR EVERY AMERICAN!!

THE HARBINGER  -  by Jonathan Cahn

The Ancient Mystery That Lies Behind America's Future

The Message, Neither You Nor Your Friends Can Afford Not To Know!

Is it possible…

• That there exists an ancient mystery that holds the secret of America’s future?

• That this mystery lies behind everything from 9/11 to the collapse of the global economy?

• That ancient harbingers of judgment are now manifesting in America?

• That God is sending America a prophetic message of what is yet to come?

Before its destruction as a nation, ancient Israel received nine harbingers, prophetic omens of warning. The same nine harbingers are now manifesting in America—with immediate ramifications for end-time prophecy.

Hidden in an ancient biblical prophecy from Isaiah, the mysteries revealed in The Harbinger are so precise that they foretold recent American events down to the exact days. The revelations are so specific that even the most hardened skeptics will find hard to dismiss. It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood thriller – with one difference… IT'S REAL.

The prophetic mysteries are revealed through an intriguing and engaging narrative the reader will find hard to put down. The Harbinger opens with the appearance of a man burdened with a message he has received from a mysterious figure called The Prophet. The Prophet has given him nine seals, each containing a message about America's future. As he tells of his encounters with The Prophet, from a skyscraper in New York City, to a rural mountaintop, to Capitol Hill, to Ground Zero, the mystery behind each seal is revealed. As the story unfolds, each revelation becomes a piece in a greater puzzle - the ramifications of which will even alter the course of world history.


A WORD FROM THE AUTHOR:

The Disappearance of ‘Under God’

In the days and weeks after 9/11, one could hear or see the words “God bless America” almost everywhere. And yet in the years since 9/11, the words “God” and “Under God” have increasingly been under attack or, worse, hidden away from American culture. It was not long after 9/11 that a case arose challenging the words “under God,” in the pledges of Allegiance. A federal judge in California ruled that the words “under God” in such a pledge were unconstitutional.

In more recent days, other controversies rose around the same issue. The president was addressing a Congressional Caucus and quoted from the Declaration of Independence. He stated

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men

are created equal, that all men are created equal,

endowed with certain inalienable rights: life liberty

and the pursuit of happiness.”

 

It sounded right – except for one thing – something had been taken out. Here is the actual text of the Declaration of Independence with the missing words restored in bold:

“….that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creatorwith certain inalienable rights: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

 

Recently it was noted that a pamphlet distributed by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a pamphlet that included the text of the Gettysburg Address. The text of Lincoln’s famous words read:

 

“… …that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom…”

 

One problem… they had removed two words. The text to Lincoln’s actual address reads:

 

“… that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom…”

 

The words “under God” had now been omitted, in a written text, and in a text that was to be the reproduction of Lincoln’s address, word for word. Could all this have been an accident? It’s unlikely. The words of both documents are too famous too allow for that, and too central to American history, to give room for an extreme carelessness in reproduction.

For whatever reason, every word was faithfully transmitted except the words “God” or “under God,’ both of which were expunged. And for whatever the reason or intent, I believe the removal was very significant.

We are witnessing the rapid slight of American and western civilization away from God, away from its Judeo-Christian foundation, and away from God’s word and ways. And it’s not only the word “God” – but the words “under God” which are under attack. That’s also very significant – It’s a sign of a nation removing itself from any accountability, any responsibility, and any relationship to God or His Word.

What does that mean for you? In a day and age when “under God” is disappearing from national consciousness, you, as an end-time believer, must all the more live your life strong, decidedly, and visibly “under God.” In other words, in everything you do, live accountable, responsible, subject, and submitted to God. And especially now, in a time and place increasingly not “under God” – you, all the more, live an “under God” life… starting today.

 

Make this a month of putting everything under God… and you will be blessed!


God bless,
JohnnyD

The Sorry State of Obama’s Union

From: Americans for Limited Government

By Bill Wilson – February 12, 2013

Reporting annually on the “State of the Union” is one of the few founding principles U.S. President Barack Obama has bothered to honor over his first four years in office.

Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that the President “shall from time to time give Congress information on the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” To his credit, Obama has done that each year he’s been in office – eloquently, even.

“The time to take charge of our future is here,” Obama said four years ago in his annual address to Congress. “Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity.”

No one will dispute Obama’s “boldness” — but what has come of his promises for economic revival and securing our future prosperity?

Despite the President’s lofty rhetoric — and an unprecedented explosion of government spending and regulation — the state of the American union is slipping. Our economy has not recovered, our financial situation has not improved and Obama’s anti-competitive policies are poised to do even more damage moving forward.

First let’s look at jobs: According to the latest data from Obama’s own Labor Department, 12.3 million Americans are currently unemployed (including 4.7 million who have been without a job for more than 27 weeks). Even worse, America’s employment-population ratio is only 58.6 percent — while its labor participation rate is just 63.6 percent. Both of those numbers remain stuck at or near 30-year lows — in spite of the Obama stimulus, numerous bailouts and endless money printing by the Federal Reserve.

This chronic joblessness — along with a paucity of decent-paying positions with benefits – has severely depressed income levels. According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, annual household income fell for the fourth straight year in 2011. After adjusting for inflation, median annual household income stands at $50,054 — or 8.9 percent below its 1999 peak of $54,932. Meanwhile roughly 46.2 million Americans — 15 percent of country — are living in poverty.

Does that sound like a recovery to you?

Want more data on the state of Obama’s union?

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a record 47.7 million Americans are currently using food stamps.

According to the National Employment Law Project, 26 million Americans received unemployment insurance in 2011.

According to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a record 70.4 million Americans — or 22 percent of the nation’s population — received Medicaid benefits in FY 2011.

The costs associated with this welfare explosion are staggering — and unsustainable. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, federal spending on various welfare expenses topped $1 trillion in FY 2011 — a 32 percent increase from four years earlier.

No wonder the federal government blew through $2.1 trillion in new deficit spending over the last seventeen months alone — pushing the national debt to a scarcely fathomable $16.5 trillion (or $146,151 for every American taxpayer).  Even after Obama’s $630 billion “fiscal cliff” tax hikes are factored into the equation, debt held by the public is still projected to reach 200 percent of GDP by 2040 according to a report issued last month.

The fiscal cliff deal “did very little to improve our long-term budget outlook,” the report’s authors concluded, adding the agreement “did not make meaningful progress toward the primary goal of a sustainable fiscal policy — stabilizing the debt as a share of the economy and putting it on a downward path.

In fact the report found the deal “improved our long-term budget outlook by only about one year.”

High unemployment. Low incomes. Soaring dependency. Staggering debt. Such is the true state of Obama’s union – and based on the tax hikes and entitlement expansions coming down the pipe, it’s going to get worse before it gets better.

This is why Republican elected officials in Washington must resist the Obama agenda as opposed to continuing to accommodate it — and start embracing the sort of fiscal reforms put forward by the Republican Study Committee and U.S. Senate leaders like Rand Paul.

Otherwise America’s descent will soon approach terminal velocity.


God bless,
JohnnyD

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

From: Town Hall Magazine

by - Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD - Feb 12, 2013

Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.    

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.

It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.

As is the case in all personality disturbance, defects of this type represent serious failures in development processes. The nature of these failures is detailed below. Among their consequences are the liberal mind’s relentless efforts to misrepresent human nature and to deny certain indispensable requirements for human relating. In his efforts to construct a grand collectivist utopia—to live what Jacques Barzun has called “the unconditioned life” in which “everybody should be safe and at ease in a hundred ways”—the radical liberal attempts to actualize in the real world an idealized fiction that will mitigate all hardship and heal all wounds. (Barzun 2000). He acts out this fiction, essentially a Marxist morality play, in various theaters of human relatedness, most often on the world’s economic, social and political stages. But the play repeatedly folds. Over the course of the Twentieth Century, the radical liberal’s attempts to create a brave new socialist world have invariably failed. At the dawn of the Twenty-first Century his attempts continue to fail in the stagnant economies, moral decay and social turmoil now widespread in Europe. An increasingly bankrupt welfare society is putting the U.S. on track for the same fate if liberalism is not cured there. Because the liberal agenda’s principles violate the rules of ordered liberty, his most determined efforts to realize its visionary fantasies must inevitably fall short. Yet, despite all the evidence against it, the modern liberal mind believes his agenda is good social science. It is, in fact, bad science fiction. He persists in this agenda despite its madness.

God bless,
JohnnyD

ObamaCare's Broken Promises

Every one of the main claims made for the law is turning out to be false.

From: The Wall Street Journal

By DANIEL P. KESSLER - January 31, 2013

As the federal government moves forward to implement President Obama's Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services is slated to spend millions of dollars promoting the unpopular legislation. In the face of this publicity blitz, it is worth remembering that the law was originally sold largely on four grounds—all of which have become increasingly implausible.

• Lower health-care costs. One key talking point for ObamaCare was that it would reduce the cost of insurance, especially for non-group insurance. The president, citing the work of several health-policy experts, claimed that improved care coordination, investments in information technology, and more efficient marketing through exchanges would save the typical family $2,500 per year.

That was then. Now, even advocates for the law acknowledge that premiums are going up. In analyses conducted for the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado, Jonathan Gruber of MIT forecasts that premiums in the non-group market will rise by 19% to 30% due to the law. Other estimates are even higher. The actuarial firm Milliman predicts that non-group premiums in Ohio will rise by 55%-85%. Maine, Oregon and Nevada have sponsored their own studies, all of which reach essentially the same conclusion.

Some champions of the law argue that this misses the point, because once the law's new subsidies are taken into account, the net price of insurance will be lower. This argument is misleading. It fails to consider that the money for the subsidies has to come from somewhere. Although debt-financed transfer payments may make insurance look cheaper, they do not change its true social cost.

• Smaller deficits. Increases in the estimated impact of the law on private insurance premiums, along with increases in the estimated cost of health care more generally, have led the Congressional Budget Office to increase its estimate of the budget cost of the law's coverage expansion. In 2010, CBO estimated the cost per year of expanding coverage at $154 billion; by 2012, the estimated cost grew to $186 billion. Yet CBO still scores the law as reducing the deficit.

How can this be? The positive budget score turns on the fact that the estimated revenues to pay for the law have risen along with its costs. The single largest source of these revenues? Money taken from Medicare in the form of lower Medicare payment rates, mostly in the law's out-years. Since the law's passage, however, Congress and the president have undone various scheduled Medicare cuts—including some prescribed by the law itself.

Put aside the absurdity that savings from Medicare—the country's largest unfunded liability—can be used to finance a new entitlement. The argument that health reform decreases the deficit is even worse. It depends on Congress and the president not only imposing Medicare cuts that they have proven unwilling to make but also imposing cuts that they have already specifically undone, most notably to Medicare Advantage, a program that helps millions of seniors pay for private health plans.

• Preservation of existing insurance. After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of health reform in June 2012, President Obama said, "If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your insurance." This theme ran throughout the selling of ObamaCare: People who have insurance would not have their current arrangements disrupted.

This claim is obviously false. Indeed, disruption of people's existing insurance is one of the law's stated goals. On one hand, the law seeks to increase the generosity of policies that it deems too stingy, by limiting deductibles and mandating coverage that the secretary of Health and Human Services thinks is "essential," whether or not the policyholder can afford it. On the other hand, the law seeks to reduce the generosity of policies that it deems too extravagant, by imposing the "Cadillac tax" on costly insurance plans.

Employer-sponsored insurance has already begun to change. According to the annual Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits Survey, the share of workers in high-deductible plans rose to 19% in 2012 from 13% in 2010.

That's just the intended consequences. One of the law's unintended consequences is that some employers will drop coverage in response to new regulations and the availability of subsidized insurance in the new exchanges. How many is anybody's guess. In 2010, CBO estimated that employer-sponsored coverage would decline by three million people in 2019; by 2012, CBO's estimate had doubled to six million.

• Increased productivity. In 2009, the president's Council of Economic Advisers concluded that health reform would reduce unemployment, raise labor supply, and improve the functioning of labor markets. According to its reasoning, expanding insurance coverage would reduce absenteeism, disability and mortality, thereby encouraging and enabling work.

This reasoning is flawed. The evidence that a broad coverage expansion would improve health is questionable. Some studies have shown that targeted coverage can improve the health of certain groups. But according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, "evidence is lacking that health insurance improves the health of non-elderly adults." More recent work by Richard Kronick, a health-policy adviser to former President Bill Clinton, concludes "there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the U.S."

The White House economic analysis also fails to consider the adverse consequences of income-based subsidies on incentives. The support provided by both the Medicaid expansion and the new exchanges phases out as a family's income rises. But, as I and others have pointed out in these pages, income phaseouts create work disincentives like taxes do, because they reduce the net rewards to work. Further, the law imposes taxes on employers who fail to provide sufficiently generous insurance, with exceptions for part-time workers and small firms. On net, it is hard to see how health reform will make labor markets function better.

Some believe that expanding insurance coverage is a moral imperative regardless of its cost. Most supporters of the law, however, use more nuanced arguments that depend on assumptions that are increasingly impossible to defend. If we are ever to have an honest debate about entitlement spending, we will need to distinguish these positions from one another—and see them for what they really are, rather than what we wish they would be.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Scout leaders vow to quit if 'gay' policy reversed

Century-old organization 'will end up having money but no program'

 

From: World Net Daily

 

by Art Moore - February 3, 2013

 

He’s a fourth-generation Boy Scout leader, recipient of an award for distinguished leadership and a member of the Southern Region committee as well as an ad hoc member of the national committee.

But if the Boy Scouts of America’s national executive board follows through this week with a proposal to reverse a century-old policy and allow homosexuals in its ranks, Steve Elwart of Vicksburg, Miss., says he’s one of many Scout leaders throughout the leadership structure who will resign.

Elwart, a 30-year veteran of Scouting, explained to WND that with a model program already in place to protect Scouts from sexual abuse, his concern is not that pedophiles will infiltrate the organization if the policy is changed.

Calling that issue a “red herring,” his concern is more fundamental.
“Homosexuality is not a value I want to see imparted on my children,” he said. “And a lot of parents feel the same way, that homosexuality is not OK.”

Along with his regional committee position, Elwart said he will also resign as assistant scoutmaster of Troop 638 in Vicksburg, where he has served since 1987. He also is a former scoutmaster for the troop.

Elwart, a frequent contributor to WND, explained he will resign if the new policy is passed,  because by remaining, he would be “giving tacit agreement to the policy.”

The executive board is meeting Monday through Wednesday in Irving, Texas, the headquarters of the national organization.

Noting the culturally conservative rank-and-file membership of the Scouts, Elwart believes the executive board is poised to change the policy because of the loss of major corporate donors, who were pressured by homosexual-rights groups.

In contrast, he cited Boy Scouts founder Sir Robert Baden Powell’s philosophy of not asking for money, explaining he had an idea, and “money followed the idea.”

The Boy Scouts of America, a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement, was founded in 1910.

“I’m afraid that if the BSA goes down this road, they may preserve some big money, but they will lose not only small contributors but the efforts of thousands of volunteers that do not want to be part of this,” Elwart said.

“They’ll end up with a lot of money but no program.”

As WND reported, the BSA’s new policy proposal coincides with a sudden drop in major corporate funding that began last summer after a gay-rights blogger for the Huffington Post published a collaborative report that named the donors and chastised them for violating their own policy of not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Scouts count more than 2.7 million members and more than 1 million volunteers. The Scout troops, which are hosted by churches and other organizations, are organized into districts, based on geographic boundaries, which in turn are grouped into councils. The councils form 26 areas nationwide, which are further grouped into four regions. The BSA national council sets policy, offers national awards and organizes national jamborees.

Elwart said, based on his extensive communication in the past week with Scout leaders nationwide, the BSA national council’s proposal has created a firestorm

“Overwhelmingly, they do not like the change,” Elwart said of his colleagues. “A majority of them are considering retiring.”

He affirmed that his sample includes both volunteers and paid professionals from local unit leaders to leaders at the district, council and regional levels across the country.

‘Meeting the needs of families’

Last week, the national council in Irving announced it was considering allowing the local, chartered organizations that oversee Scouting to establish their own membership policy

Speaking for the National Council, Director of Public Relations Deron Smith explained that BSA members and parents “would be able to choose a local unit which best meets the needs of their families.”

But last July, an 11-member committee of professional scout executives and adult volunteers unanimously concluded after a two-year study that the policy of barring homosexuals should be maintained. The executive committee of the BSA national executive board then announced that while not all board members “may personally agree with this policy, and may choose a different direction for their own organizations, BSA leadership agrees this is the best policy for the organization and supports it for the BSA.”

Elwart thinks the proposed policy’s stipulation that each local unit can decide for themselves whether or not they want to receive homosexuals is not feasible.

“They’re trying to parse their words now,” he said.

The policy runs into trouble, Elwart argued, when local units come together for events such as summer camps and jamborees.

“For parents, even if their unit does not want homosexual Scouts in leadership or in the unit, they would have to isolate themselves from the rest of the Scouting program,” he said.

One practical issue, he said, would be the fact that Scout rules allow married leaders to share a tent on outings.

“Would we now let homosexual members share a tent?” he asked.

“I don’t want my grandkids exposed to that.”

Losing focus

Elwart and his wife are both recipients of the Silver Beaver award, the highest Scouting honor given by councils. In the Southern Region, Elwart once served as area training chairman, which encompasses youth protection.

He noted other organizations have tried to model the Scouts youth protection program, which teaches leaders the policies, guidelines and methods of protecting Scouts from sexual abuse.

Elwart pointed out the proposed policy also was voted down last June at the annual BSA national meeting, which included the members of the national and regional committees along with council and district leaders.

These are the rank-and-file leaders, he explained, in contrast to the national board that will decide the issue this week.

He describes the national board as “a completely different slice of Scouting, and from my personal experience, more politically correct.”

These are “good, well-meaning people,” Elwart said, “but they get so focused on the big picture items, like these major donors, that they forget the boy in the tent.”

SIGN WND’S PETITION TO KEEP THE BOY SCOUTS MORAL.


God bless,
JohnnyD