George Washington speaks up against ObamaCare Exemptions

As the Department of Health and Human Services grants another exemption to part of Obamacare, this time to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), I am reminded of what George Washington said:

Tranquillity reigns among the people, with that disposition towards the general government, which is likely to preserve it. They begin to feel the good effects of equal laws and equal protection.

Until we return to a system of “equal laws and equal protection,” there will be no tranquility among the people and the people will not have a positive disposition towards government.

If Obamacare is so great, why all the exemptions?

According to the latest report:

HHS posted 126 new waivers on Friday, bringing the total to 1,040 organizations that have been granted a one-year exemption from a new coverage requirement included in the healthcare reform law enacted almost a year ago.

About 2.6 million people are covered by the waivers, representing less than 2 percent of privately insured individuals, according to HHS.

With 2.6 million people now exempt from Obamacare, we are are getting close to my goal of 300 million exemptions.

How to repeal Obamacare without repealing it!

So far, more than 700 organizations have received waivers on Obamacare.

Assuming a new President is elected in 2012, this President can simply hand out 300,000,000 waivers. Problem solved!

Michelle Obama’s War

Michelle Obama recently said:

Childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well.

Previously, we had heard that our deficit was a national security issue:

The record U.S. budget deficit and debt should be viewed as a growing national security concern, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers yesterday.

“We have to address this deficit and the debt of the U.S. as a matter of national security, not only as a matter of economics,” Clinton said in testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and related programs.

Why must everything be a national security issue? And if these things really are national security issues, why are they announcing it to our enemies? And if our enemies already know this, do these Washington bureaucrats think we, the American people, are too stupid to realize it for ourselves?

I explain this obsession in The Path to Tyranny in a section about War Powers:

Seeing the usefulness of war to expand government and gain powers not enumerated in the Constitution, politicians and bureaucrats often use war terminology to advance their agendas. The War on Drugs, War on Poverty, and War on Cancer were not real wars, but by creating a sense of urgency, proponents of these issues hoped to receive government funding before public sentiment shifted to other causes. Many argue the War on Terrorism should also be on this list of fictitious wars, but it at least involves real military conflict. To some extent, the War on Drugs also requires military support, but it remains primarily a job for law enforcement and public education. The wars on poverty and cancer though require neither the military nor law enforcement and, therefore, the use of the war metaphor is simply a deceptive tool used to gain support for increased government spending.

The same could be said about the two “wars” above. While our deficit may in fact be an immediate national security issue, the use of this “war metaphor” will simply be used to force higher taxes upon the people or reductions in promised benefits (social security) to pay for these new “wars.” It is a stretch to claim childhood obesity is a national security issue. It is a serious problem and is symptomatic of our society, but it in itself is not a national security issue, though its underlying causes (consumerism, laziness, lost productivity, increased health-care costs) may themselves indirectly affect national security.

Don’t let the politicians trick you with their use, rather misuse, of words.

President Obama: The Health Care Tyrant

The incoming governor of South Carolina challenged President Obama to repeal the health care bill. TheSunNews.com reports:

Obama rejected Haley’s request to repeal the health care bill – but said he’d consider letting states opt out of its mandates if they ran exchange programs, banned insurance firms from denying coverage of pre-existing conditions and enabled people to pool together for better rates.

Now, I must admit that I did not read the 2,600 page health care bill, so I don’t know if there is a provision that allows the President to issue such exemptions under those terms. Either way, this is very disturbing.

According to this story which is based on Nikki Haley’s comments afterward (there is no way to know what exactly the President said), President Obama “said he’d consider letting states opt out of its mandates…” He apparently is under no obligation to do so even if a state complies with his demands.

According to Obamacare or the government interpretation and enforcement of it, the President has dictatorial powers. The President can grant exemptions to whomever he pleases and deny exemptions to others who comply with the very same provisions.

We have already seen the government issue exemptions for individual corporations, but I was under the impression that there were strict rules to follow and those who follow those rules and apply for an exemption would get one. But now, at least with the states and maybe on the corporate side as well, the exemptions require Presidential approval and the President can make up his own rules.

Hail to the Health Care Tyrant!

Record number in government anti-poverty programs. Fewer people to support them.

In The Path to Tyranny, I wrote:

Why work if the government will provide free food, subsidized housing, free health care, and a welfare check?

It turns out that fewer people are working and more are relying on government assistance. The USA Today reports Record number in government anti-poverty programs. Here are some of the numbers:

• “More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid.”
• “The new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014.”
• “More than 40 million people get food stamps.”
• “Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance.”
• “More than 4.4 million people are on welfare.”
• “The federal price tag for Medicaid has jumped 36% in two years, to $273 billion. Jobless benefits have soared from $43 billion to $160 billion. The food stamps program has risen 80%, to $70 billion. Welfare is up 24%, to $22 billion. Taken together, they cost more than Medicare.”

All told, these government welfare programs cost $525 billion. Currently, there are 139 million employed people in the United States. Thus, each worker is taxed about $3,800 to support the unemployed. The average employee earns about $40,000 per year. So he gives up 9.5% of his wages to be received by the employed. The unemployment rate is 9.5%, an exact match for this income redistribution scheme.

Of course, the average employed person lives much better than the average unemployed person. But this is not always true at the margin. A  below average wage earner may find he or she is better off not working and choose to receive government welfare instead. This is especially true if he or she has children and would have to pay for childcare while working. The added childcare expense along with taxes and transportation expense may make it financial wiser to stay unemployed and receive government assistance.

Not only are these programs costing hard-working Americans a large portion of their earnings, it is encouraging many to stay at home when they could work and would like to work.

Civil Disobedience by the States by becoming Sanctuary States

In a previous post, I wrote “It is time for civil disobedience by the states.” The post was directly addressing Arizona’s immigration law.

Now, the Obama administration is stating that its problem with Arizona’s law is that it “actively interferes with federal law.” On the other hand, the Department of Justice has said it will not prosecute sanctuary cities because they are only passively ignoring federal law. The exact quote:

“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”

Republican lawmakers immediately saw the problem with such an approach:

“For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law –who fail to comply with the law — is absurd,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not.”

Maybe there are individuals brave enough and crazy enough to test the DOJ’s new stance on not prosecuting those who passively ignore federal law, but the DOJ spokesperson actually said “state or locality,” not individuals, so the DOJ could still go after individual violators.

So I again call on the states to disobey the federal government. We can start with the many unfunded mandates the federal government imposes on the states, most especially the new ones that will appear as part of the recently passed health care reform.

If you are a governor who believes in liberty and the Constitution, please announce that your state will become a “sanctuary state” from socialized health care and will not enforce the new health care laws within your state.