It’s the 10th Amendment Stupid! Why Anger Over “Healthcare” Bill is Not About Healthcare
Posted by Andrew MooreMar 22
It was only a matter of time before I was compelled to open my mouth about politics. The more I study leadership- the more I find I need to reflect on people like Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln- Politicians. I am going to weigh in on the healthcare bill.
The Actual Problem-
THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEALTHCARE. I realize that up to this point it would seem that there has been total focus on “healthcare”. This is not the case- What I and almost all conservatives are frustrated with is the apparent lack of respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment is the meat of this debate.
The 10th Amendment
The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Nowhere does the Constitution grant rights to the federal government to MANDATE insurance or any other product/service. The power of free choice is guaranteed by the Constitution. The federal government forcing the American people to do anything is not allowed because the power to do so is NOT in the Constitution. Therefore – this is a state rights issue.
The debate is being made by many that the issue is not with reforming healthcare, but the manner it is being performed. This congress has made many people mad about their very loose interpretation of the Constitution. Chuck Norris is one of those people and is VERY angry. See his article on the subject where he tells congress there is a “coming storm”. He is not the only one.
Tyranny and Jefferson
What I have a problem with is that the federal government has decided that it knows better than individuals and states how to run people’s lives. That is plain and simple. This is tyranny. Disagree??
Webster’s Dictionary defines Tyranny as: 1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man —Thomas Jefferson>;especially : oppressive power exerted by government
For the federal government to tell me that I MUST buy insurance is oppressive power. The founding fathers would be sick to see what is happening.
“Jefferson aimed at laissez-faire liberalism in the name of individual freedom, He felt that any form of government control, not only of religion, but of individual mercantilism consisted of tyranny.” Quoted from Jim Walker
Check out this excerpt from Jefferson’s first inaugural address in 1801: “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities,”
Socialism in the Bill?
Now let’s look at something from the actual bill- a FEDERAL BILL that is about to become law:
“TITLE IV–AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
Subtitle A–Shared Responsibility
Part 1–Individual Responsibility
Sec. 401. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage”
Notice SUBTITLE A- ”Shared Responsibility” Sound familiar? This is socialism.
According to SharedProsperity.org, a new “social contract” from government should be enacted. What is SharedProsperity.org? This is an offshoot of the Economic Policy Institute whose former Living Standards director, JARED BERNSTEIN, is now Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor for Vice President Joe Biden. So there are ties to this administration.
See this quote from the Shared Prosperity mission: ”Building this new social contract requires a re-examination of the roles of government, corporations, and unions in our society. The social contract that grew out of the New Deal and served the economy and society well for three decades following World War II evolved out of on-going and mutually beneficial negotiations and problem solving between leading corporations and labor unions, with government playing a key mediating, facilitating, and regulating role.”
Hmmm…. government in a regulating role… not very Jeffersonian.
Pelosi is an Ass Clown
Educational Loan Reform in a Healthcare Bill?
OH! Did anyone EVEN talk about this except for Beck?
According to this quote by the House Committee on Education and Labor- The “Healthcare” bill “offers the most sweeping changes to the federal student loan program in a generation,” said Miller, who unveiled the details of the package this morning. “This is really about making a simple choice. Congress can either continue the longstanding boondoggle that rewards banks with tens of billions of dollars in subsidies at the expense of families and taxpayers – or we can invest that money directly in students and America’s world economic leadership.”
After I have researched this topic- I am not crying ’1984′- but I do have concerns. These two articles spell it our pretty well and I would encourage you to read them:
Glenn Beck Does Not Understand Student Loans
So here is my concern regarding the education part of this bill- Private institutions are looking to make money and have NO political agenda. Since they have an interest in interfacing with the student to collect payment and make money doing it- they actually try to compete as a free market option. (great service, web options, organized management of accounts) Once the government takes over, students have to go to a bureaucrat to get a federal loan.
Not to mention that the government can push an agenda like limiting loans to certain universities or students based on desired study… With no other option than private loans the government gets to push an agenda by default because private loans cannot compete with the federal money.
Solution- we all get out of stupid consumer debt and pay cash for our education.
Bottom Line
There are many issues I have with this bill- none of them are directly attributed with helping to reform healthcare. Not that I agree with all the aspects of the healthcare reform in the bill- I have not have time to sift through the hundreds of pages in the bill, but will begin to try. Now that it has passed we all get to see what’s in it according to this video clip of Pelosi:
Pelosi: \”We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It\”
As if transparency required a vote on the House Floor. Whatever happened to “By the People, For the People”?
Pelosi is an Ass Clown – Awesome!
I find it ironic, funny, standard, and sad that we’ve argued this subject more than 10 times and you’ve never once mentioned the 10th amendment. We’ve been down this road before haven’t we? Excellent regurgitation of latest/current right wing radio/tv talking point. I actually listened to 40 minutes of this crap on Sirius Patriot this morning so I was ready for it when I heard it from you this time
This isn’t to say the point isn’t valid but if you were so zoo-ed in to the constitutionality of it you’d think you might have said something about it before it was blasted in stereo to all the “true believers” this morning!
I also find it ironic that you have no problem with the supreme court granting personhood to corporations but all of a sudden the playa you love to hate “jams something down your throat” you are get all Jeffersonian…
I find it downright riotous that you use Jefferson to drive home your point about this stuff but you weigh in on the side who is removing his existence from school curriculum for the children of the state you live in: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/texas-removes-thomas-jefferson-from-teaching-standard/19397481
Bullshit cake-and-eat-it-too stuff as usual.
And you are woefully naive when it comes to private vs. regulated markets and how they function for school loans. I wish I could live in the world you do where these helpful and competitive school loan organizations “compete” for your business and it keeps cost down. Let me shatter your sweet little bubble: these organizations exist to do one thing and that is to rape your for all they are worth and extract every single cent they can from you. They are interested in turning you in to an indentured servant for the better part of your adult life while they bleed you for the money it cost you to get an education.
Blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum.
The fact is- until I took the time to actually research the fundamental argument of why I do not like the idea of a larger government- I had not re-educated myself on the Bill of Rights. I finally got mad enough that I did so- this morning.
Another fact is- I did not listen to talk radio or watch Fox today- at all. I took the time to try and understand why I did not like the bill for myself. A point (to open up an look for myself) I have been trying to focus on thanks to your efforts of re-education.
Your obvious attempt to flank my position with issues outside of this argument (regardless of talking point) is what I find to be “downright riotous”. I will be happy to debate the merits of corporations and their legal standing or Texas education and how 18th Century European “Enlightenment” writings from philosophers like Voltiare may not be grouped with American Revolutionary reform at some point- I am not sure how you link these two arguments to the 10th Amendment or obvious socialists working in the White House- but I am willing to listen.
As far as School Loans- I guess I did not do a great job in laying out my argument. So let me break it down-
Private companies like banks are trying to make money. They compete with one another to make money
The government does not compete with anybody. It has an agenda that is fueled by politics
When you take an inefficient system like the US government- and then add responsibility with money to it, like increasing direct loan transactions, additional PELL money, and race based initiatives for colleges- you get a slower process with more people within the government vying for control of the money. Trust me- I worked for the Government.
I do not believe that banks are trying to rape people- what I do believe is that people are allowing themselves to sign up for one sided deals. Consumer education on finance and a lack of cultural concern for debt has created a huge portion of the financial mess this country is in. http://seekingalpha.com/article/92682-u-s-household-debt-a-frightening-picture
So- I do not believe that the government should be dolling out a bunch of public money to specific people for education without a check/balance in the middle- like a private bank or clearing house- I believe that the Government will attach political based initiatives to this money and one day will be deciding who may get a loan or not based on ideology and not merit.
Sweet, they already have a name for y’all
Tenthers!
“These efforts are all part of a movement whose members are convinced that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits spending programs and regulations disfavored by conservatives. Indeed, while “birther” conspiracy theorists dominate the airwaves with tales of a mystical Kenyan baby smuggled into Hawaii just days after his birth, these “tenther” constitutionalists offer a theory that is no less radical but infinitely more dangerous.” http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=rally_round_the_true_constitution
First off, well stated Andrew. Your clarification regarding educational loans helped me understand what you were trying to convey.
Now, Lupton. You should try more of what Andrew does – independent research. Watching, “The Corporation” and regurgitating talking points does not count. I loved that movie for how one-sided it was, never mentioning that almost all the breakthroughs and inventions we have today are the result of corporations. Are there corporations that do bad things? Yes. Are there bad people? Yes. Are there are also good corporations and good people? Most assuredly. A corporation is no more evil than a block of wood, it just “is”. The actions of the individuals that control the corporation are what can be judged. Just as a corporation can be made to do evil things by the persons holding the reins, so can a government.
You are also leaving out one very important idea in your educational loan argument – choice. In the free market system, one can choose not to take a loan from a company that will “rape your for all they are worth”. And guess what? There will be another company that will offer loans at somewhat more reasonable terms. Then someone else will offer even better loan terms in an effort to gain market share. And on and on until the supply/demand curve meets in a happy place. The person responsible for paying for the loan gets to choose. You could also pay cash as you go. And where is it that one is guaranteed an education, a home, a car? Go and do it for yourself. Make your own way. Don’t point as someone else and cry about what they have. Look at yourself and say, “What do I want and what do I need to do to get it?”. You have the choice.
Finally, your comment regarding “Tenthers” betrays your contempt for our founding documents. Only someone that has no believe in, or regard for, The Constitution would compare conspiracy theories (911/Obama Birth/George Bush Katrina) to the Bill of Rights. How is it a conspiracy to believe in The Constitution? The article you quote above states the following:
“Tentherism, in a nutshell, proclaims that New Deal-era reformers led an unlawful coup against the “True Constitution,” exploiting Depression-born desperation to expand the federal government’s powers beyond recognition. Under the tenther constitution, Barack Obama’s health-care reform is forbidden, as is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The federal minimum wage is a crime against state sovereignty; the federal ban on workplace discrimination and whites-only lunch counters is an unlawful encroachment on local businesses.”
Yes! The New Deal was extremely unconstitutional and vastly overstepped the role the government should play. FDR did more damage to this country than most people realize. Just because someone did it in the past does not make it any less distasteful or unconstitutional. And why does every talking point against conservatives have a racial component, “whites only lunch counters”? Chances are you think the Three-Fifths compromise was also a demeaning and racist agreement. Am I wrong? And the endless naming of groups: “Tenthers”, “Birthers”, “Tea Baggers” and “Truthers”. Are we in 2nd grade? I understand why it is done, to demean and make light of their opinions; I just think it’s a bit infantile. The individual that resorts to name calling is the one that knows their argument cannot win on merit alone.
I am glad people are starting to wake-up now, but it’s unfortunate we’re so far down the road. We’re like the crack addict that has an epiphany just after he loses his job and the wife leaves with the kids. It’s not over, but we’ve got a long way to go to get back to solid ground.
The most important thing to do is not let the pendulum swing too far back to the right. There will be a movement that will attempt to capitalize on this event and push the country hard over to the right. While I personally believe we could move a good but right, that’s not what these groups will do. They will want to play on fear and ignorance just as much as fear and ignorance was used to push this “reform” bill through. We must not allow this to happen. We must remain temperate, but the sewage on both sides of the isle in D.C. needs to be flushed out for good.
I believe in our country and in our Constitution and also believe that if we do not stand for what we believe in, we may lose all that is precious.
Rob, my name is Luptin, get it straight
Honestly I’ve never even heard of the documentary “The Corporation” so FAIL, but I will definitely check it out.
You, like Andrew, paint a pretty picture of how supply/demand is supposed to function, specifically when it comes to securing educational loans. The realities are a bit bleaker. Predatory lending in the rule not the exception and without government oversight it turns into a price fixing meat grinder that those who seek higher education must navigate. Now one could always supplement with grants and scholarships but that would most assuredly be communist pinko bullshit right? Again, as I often say, I don’t blame them for trying it, I blame them for getting away with it. Who believes that it is a good idea to rack up tens of thousands of dollars in debt to secure an education and start your professional career in an almost inescapable hole of debt?
I get you on the tenther part. I was being deliberately obtuse. I myself apparently get the xxxxer moniker as an GW-denier so I am well aware of the dismissive nature of such a statement. The point remains though as these “tenthers” share the same mannerisms as the “birthers”. I point it out as Andrew all of a sudden considers himself a Constitutional Law professor when it comes to obstructing this particular bill but had no problem whatsoever when Bush et al used the Constitution as a tampon when they passed the Patriot Act (Obama gets dinged hard for his bullshit propagation of this crap btw). These individuals seem to use this vague amendment as a tool to derail, not as a point of liberty. Cherry picked when necessary to serve a partisan purpose.
If you believe that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, that federal minimum wage is a crime against state sovereignty and the federal ban on workplace discrimination is unconstitutional and bad for this country then at least I can respect your consistency but I have a feeling you, like most of your ilk, think those others are just fine. I would respect you more if I heard you railing against these previous injustices.
And where are you guys when they put “in god we trust” on our money and “under god’ in our pledge, blatantly violating the establishment clause? Oh, that’s right, you only scream save the Constitution when it goes against your own views…
Nobody is “waking up now”. Same old my team vs. your team. Red vs. Blue, me vs. you, etc. Nothing new under the sun.
Apparently we can agree 100% on one thing though: I believe in our country and in our Constitution and also believe that if we do not stand for what we believe in, we may lose all that is precious.
Andrew, I hate it that you turned your pretty blog into a cesspool of political argument. I feel like I am arguing on Digg, Reddit or Fark. What a shame
I feel bad regarding your comment about the blog. I value your posts and appreciate your point of view. I know we can find a way to disagree with more harmony.
Bah, what happened to my picture? Trying again
You make good points Luptin.
I will say that I do not support and federal support program. States, local communities, churches and neighbors should be the source of support. When we are handed checks from unseen entity in a magical far off land, we begin to erode at our own self-worth. The more local you bring the issue and the support, the more applicable, efficient and valuable it is.
The establishment clause does not say the government cannot acknowledge God, it simply says that the church cannot be the state and visa vi. Our founding fathers were very religious men and intended for us to take notice of how our country was divinely inspired. The reference to God on our money, the “under God” in the pledge and the Ten Commandments in court houses are all relevant and, in my opinion, legal.
I must respectfully disagree with your statement that it’s the “same ole same ole”. I believe there are many Americans that think free speech, individual rights and capitalism will always just “be” in this country. These are the individuals that are beginning to come out of the “Dancing with the Stars” or “American Idol” coma to realize things can change pretty quickly. These are the individuals that are beginning to find their voice and actually question what it is that they believe in. Just as Andrew did before posting here in his blog.
I will admit that in the past I have been biased against protesters that somehow find the time, generally during weekday business hours, to stand around and shout at buildings in the hope that a TV crew will find their cause interesting enough pay lip service to on the local nightly news. I now realize how important it is to have the ability to do this. The fact that most protesters, in the past, have been for liberal causes (except for the abortion issue . . . not gonna get into it) does not escape me – and I am willing to recognize how hypocritical I was. I have never “protested” myself, but I do see that more conservatives seem to be gathering and joining forces on issues they agree on in a show of solidarity. This means that more people believe what is happening now is important enough to spend their most precious resource, time, in an effort to make themselves heard. This is true all along the political spectrum, and I support this wholeheartedly. The moment we try to silence opposing viewpoints, a la “the debate is over”, is when we have formally given up on the system that made this country what it is. We must make sure not to turn it into a shouting match, but rather consider the merits of the opposition’s viewpoint and have the courage to admit when we are wrong.
We must agree to disagree on many things, but I am glad to hear that you too believe in our country and our Constitution.
Thank you for the mental sparring, I trust you did not cry yourself to sleep last night
Good form. Good Show.