Current Date

The Conservative Reader:
Iowa

The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection

The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection

How is it possible to resist the charms of any elected official offering the dual benefits of fairness and protection? After all, is not being treated equitably, while simultaneously being spared the pain of those who would seek to harm us, not of ultimate worth? Fairness must certainly be the quintessential American value, right? And our entire system of justice; is it not specifically designed to bring both fairness and protection?

Over the next year and a half we will hear the word fairness as if the word encapsulates the complete and final animation of the American ideal. We will also be offered a basket overflowing with governmental “protections” from rapacious bogeymen, both known and unknown. This little “benefits package” will come neatly wrapped in the form of a vague threat that would have us believe any alternative to this package would immediately result in enslavement. It is only demons that would offer us, the American people, anything less.

The real wonder in all of this is how Thomas Jefferson seemed to have completely missed the significance of the beatific vision of the liberal left. To have settled for such suboptimal and simple notions as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must clearly validate the marked progression in our political thinking. Alas, we are talking about a couple of centuries of human achievement. If we can build an iPad, we must certainly be able to build a perfectly integrated, transparent, and high-functioning system of governance. We call this “political science,” as if it was somehow scientific.

Hope and change was the first chapter. Fairness and protection are now emerging as the second chapter. The only remaining question we now have is in determining which of these sets of notions is the most utterly naïve. There is, however, no remaining question as to which is more dangerous. Chapter Two is an unmitigated societal, moral and economic horror show.

Like hope and change, fairness and protection are proffered without definition or object. One man’s version of fairness is another man’s version of purgatory. To suggest that protections are being afforded is to beg the obvious question, “Protection from what or from whom?” The suggestion, of course, is that the government will become both the ultimate dispenser of fairness, and the protector from anything that is “not-government.” This is a binary universe in which the government is the center of virtue, and everything and everyone else is either mundane or oppressive.

In a hypothetical world where half the citizenry are drunken bums and the other half are productive and hard-working citizens, what represents a fair tax rate? Apparently, there is a fair answer to this question, albeit that the obvious answer seems to elude most of us common people. Not to fear, in the liberal mind, they have the answer. And if regulation doubles the price of that which we seek to consume, we must presume that the level of “protection” is worth paying for.  Just ask them. They not only have all the answers, they are willing to impose them on everyone else.

They spin a web of myths. It is only unfortunate that these myths are so seemingly beguiling.

When Mr. Jefferson offered his modest notions of a sustainable basis for societal success, he understood that the government can only create a set of conditions where people can optimize their unique futures. He had seen the fairness and protection “themes” played out in history and seen the implications of the associated governmental arrogance. Mr. Jefferson was willing to look at humanity in a more positive light than many of his contemporaries. Even he could not begin to fathom the negative implications of what is now being offered as the standard offering of the Liberal Left.

When the markets create a willing buyer, and a willing seller, at a given price, most of us would agree that the “trade” was fair. On the other side of the equation, when the government intervenes in anything, it is not fairness and protection that we receive. It is rather just someone’s version of coercion. The liberal definition of fairness is just another form of arbitrary and completely baseless enslavement. It cannot be heard in any other way.

Fairness is only found in established conditions. It is never found in a quest for derived outcomes. When liberals transmute the definition of fairness into an effect, as opposed to its native state as a cause, they turn the world inside out. Viewing fairness as an effect is, by definition, fundamentally unfair. And the result is always predictable, and never pretty.


The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection

Finally! Osama bin Laden Dead!

On national television this evening, President Obama informed the public that bin Laden had been killed in a firefight with a small team of America forces who had attacked a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan in an effort to capture the Al Queda leader.  There were no American casualties.

The President’s speech covered just about every aspect of the situation, and reflected on the history of bin Laden and his murderous mayhem on the world.  He also keyed in on an important fact: Al Queda has not been shut down.  There will likely be continued attacks along with targeted reprisals for today’s successful operation.

Although the details are still sketchy, it appears that the terror leader was killed earlier in the day, and presumably verification and notification of certain world leaders was necessary before notifying the public at large.

Although there will doubtless be days and weeks of analysis of bin Laden’s killing, the events leading up to it, the aftermath, the statement it makes to terrorists, the statement it makes to leaders like Gaddafi (who just lost his own son in a NATO attack that appears to have targeted him).  As the President said, it is important to remember that a large number of people in the military, intelligence, domestic security, foreign partners and our elected leaders have worked hard for the last 10 years to search out those responsible for 9/11 and to protect our interests, and they have done a magnificent job despite occasional problems.


The President deserves congratulations and appreciation for his role in continuing to lead our resources in apprehending bin Laden (dead or not).  Both he and President Bush have done well in working to bring Osama to justice.

So, let’s keep the partisan bickering to a minimum for just a day, can we?  This is a time to celebrate, even if there is more work to be done.  This is a landmark achievement for America at a time when some were ready to give up and throw in the towel.  It is immensely gratifying to see that our efforts have not been in vain.

Celebrate, and remember those who lost their lives in 2001, and who have given their lives since then in the effort to protect us all from the scourge of terror.


The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection

Reducing The Cost Of Health Care – For Real

That title is not out of a fiction novel. It could happen right here in our time.

A few weeks ago, both the Obama Administration and the US House made major moves to begin limiting the outlandish awards being handed out by some juries in medical malpractice cases. This area has long been a trial lawyers’ playground and each of us is paying the price.

We may be making the right kind of progress now. The President included $250 million in his budget so that the Department of Justice could work with states to rewrite their medical malpractice laws and see real, effective change on this issue. The proposal provides some specific areas of relief by using judges with expertise in this area to decide cases instead of allowing juries to dole out unreasonable awards. Additional proposals might include creating reliable standards for doctors to operate under that would allow them to prove they were not negligent and a shift from full liability of every entity involved, to proportional liability amongst all parties (hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, etc.).

House Republican efforts are a little more straightforward. They would impose a cap on non-economic damages awarded from juries. This would take out much of the incentive for the frivolous and costly lawsuits in the medical industry. Here is a more detailed summary of House File 5, cleared through committee about a month ago (you can read the bill here):

  • Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011 – Sets conditions for lawsuits arising from health care liability claims regarding health care goods or services or any medical product affecting interstate commerce.
  • Sets a statute of limitations of three years after the date of manifestation of injury or one year after the claimant discovers the injury, with certain exceptions.
  • Limits noneconomic damages to $250,000. Makes each party liable only for the amount of damages directly proportional to such party’s percentage of responsibility.
  • Allows the court to restrict the payment of attorney contingency fees. Limits the fees to a decreasing percentage based on the increasing value of the amount awarded.
  • Allows the introduction of collateral source benefits and the amount paid to secure such benefits as evidence. Prohibits a provider of such benefits from recovering any amount from an award in a health care lawsuit involving injury or wrongful death.
  • Authorizes the award of punitive damages only where: (1) it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a person acted with malicious intent to injure the claimant or deliberately failed to avoid unnecessary injury the claimant was substantially certain to suffer; and (2) compensatory damages are awarded. Limits punitive damages to the greater of two times the amount of economic damages or $250,000.
  • Denies punitive damages in the case of products approved, cleared, or licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or otherwise considered in compliance with FDA standards.
  • Provides for periodic payments of future damages.


The movement on both sides should be seen as a win for health care consumers. Runaway litigation has led to massive increases in unnecessary medical procedures and huge run ups in doctors’ insurance premiums, and will continue to spin out of control. All of those expenses are passed on to the premium payer and the taxpayer, in other words, you and me. Now is the time to enact real medical liability reform.


The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection

A Victory For President Obama

Several weeks ago, President Obama made one of the best decisions of his Presidency.

He decided to support South Korea by after North Korea attacked the island of YeonPyeong.  And he did it with the strength of our military by moving them into the area and engaging in military exercises with our friends in the South.

I was afraid at the time that he would turn his back on Seoul, but instead he did the right thing for the region and for the United States.  Well done, Mister President.

This morning, South Korea followed through on its plans to conduct artillery drills on that same island, plans which had brought promises from the North that there would be further attacks due to this new “provocation”.

And the result of it all was… nothing.  The drills proceeded without incident, the North kept quiet (except to say it “did not feel any need to retaliate”, and we can all go on without worrying about yet another messy war to deal with today.

Although the experts don’t seem to know why Pyongyang held back her fury, it seems pretty likely that the North was trying to leverage opportunities for improvements in economic relations, and did not really have the stomach for either an extended conflict or the potential for all out decimation.  The South’s partnership with the United States is, in my opinion, no small part of the successful conclusion to today’s events.  And President Obama deserves credit for that.

Today’s results should provide continued evidence that a strong US military with a demonstrated willingness to follow through on her commitments to her allies will be a keystone to ensuring general peace around the world.  While we are struggling with conflicts that are sometimes hard for us to accept, walking away and disarming our forces will only embolden countries like North Korea to press further than they have a right to.

It may not be perfect, but it works and is necessary.

Please pray for our soldiers and a day when they may never need to fight again.


The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection

OppurtuniTEA to RealiTEA

In a lot of ways you wouldn’t need much of a crystal ball to see this coming: A Country over 13 trillion dollars in debt with a government either completely ineffectual or damaging in nearly all spheres except military, enacting massive expenditures passed against the majority opinion of its citizens, which gives rise to a movement that wants to stop spending money it doesn’t have and return their government to its Constitutionally relegated space.  These people have been branded with a name: the Tea Party, which is weird because I have never been to a party where everyone is this mad.

Much has been said about this newly minted surge and much is known.  Though you may not have needed it to see it coming, that crystal ball sure could come in handy when trying to envision how the Tea Party will attempt to pivot from being a movement to achieving movement.  Being that mine seems to be broken about half the time I’ll just tell you that if I could write the script it would look something like this.

Never minding how sad it is a movement is needed for this, the beauty of this uprising is the underlying confidence that is implied by the movement.  The confidence of the people in saying we can take care of ourselves.  We, as Americans, can make decisions on a personal level to better ourselves and our Country while weathering the results.  Let us keep the vast majority of our own money and we will be the stewards of our own future.

The next step is to have the fortitude to extend this confidence into the political proposals that will be forthcoming after the mid-term elections, when at a minimum Republicans will control the House, if not the Senate as well.  Here is what I mean by this– the process for passing legislation in Washington is to argue for it by making grand proclamations for how some bill’s passage will control costs, provide this or that, or stop this or that.  Once passed the game turns into one of managing expectations.  When a bill is written never is there included benchmarks that need to be met for it to be continued, no rip-cord provisions stating that if certain measurable effects that have been promised do not materialize in a certain amount of time the bill is nullified or re-opened for debate.  The reasons for this are obvious.  First, when you pass bills upwards of 1,500 pages for a country of over 350 million people nobody knows what will really happen.  Second, it flies in the face of political self-preservation by opening the door to, god forbid, being proven wrong.

A perfect example of this is the Obama administrations hollow promise that the Stimulus Bill would keep unemployment below 8%.  One that while politically damaging does nothing to stop the economic consequences that its failure has brought.  The point here being that if you are confident in your claim-put it in the bill.  Include language that if the unemployment rate goes above 8% the spending is stopped outright or a vote on its continuance is triggered in the legislature.  Since no sane person from either party would, in hind-sight, trade spending a trillion dollars for 9.7% unemployment we could have had the bill discontinued at a cost of $200-$300 billion, instead of spending it all and having the president simply change his argument to “well unemployment could be at 16%.”

This is where the Tea Party movement and the candidates that it produces have a real chance to differentiate themselves from the weak- kneed slop that has been served up in recent memory by both parties in the economic realm.  If the ideas are right and the desired results are indeed forthcoming, have the confidence to put it in writing.  If the policies deliver you go from a small movement that champions a huge shift in the direction of the Country to a proven entity with the ability to actually get it done.  In other words; Step up, Throw down, Win big, or Flame out.  If you don’t think that this is a strategy that the American electorate would fully embrace, you haven’t looked around much lately.

We as Americans are ingrained, if not obsessed, with competition resulting in either winning or losing.  We don’t watch American Idol and Survivor in embarrassingly large numbers for 12 weeks to be told all the singers are equally as good and that everyone gets to stay on the island and split the money.  Americans are not rabid about sports so we can watch our teams play and discuss amongst ourselves who we thought was the better team that day.  We don’t watch soccer, not just because well…its soccer, but because we can’t accept the concept of a tie, nor should we.  There is not a doubt in my mind that Americans, especially the massive number of politically apathetic ones, would be interested and invigorated by a movement that had the courage to offer an agenda that says not only will we do x, y, and z (akin to the Contract With America), but that this agenda will then deliver x, y and z, and if it doesn’t we were wrong and will go away.

The perfect place to start would be in the areas of taxes and health care as these both can be impacted in the short term and have solid, near real-time measurables.  The proposal for health care would look like this: offer tax breaks to the lower and middle classes while opening up the health insurance industry to nation-wide Capitalistic competition.  If after a period of somewhere between 1 to 3 years prices on average have not gone down a certain percentage the bill is ended and the debate is re-opened.
In terms of taxes- the party would settle on a tax strategy, be it a flat tax, a consumption tax or just lowering the current progressive rate.  Then  a proposal would be offered  that states- we will lower/reconfigure the way you pay taxes and at the end of a set period of time it will result in some combination(to be specified in the bill’s language)of  higher GDP, a lower National debt, and more employment.  If it does not then we return to prior policy and the debate is restarted.

Not only would this approach let potentially ineffective legislation be discontinued and give the American people a chance to clearly judge the success of our ideology, the real benefit is what could be achieved afterward.  If these bills delivered on their promises the trust needed to tackle larger and longer-term problems would begin to be established.  This bold approach could create the political capital and trust that is required to move forward with things like removing Federal money from education and privatizing or vastly reducing Social Security.

Near is the time that these Tea Party candidates will be running in and winning a sizeable number of general elections.  With this will come the reality of actual bills that contain actual legislative language.  This phase in which the Tea Party goes from the philosophical to the literal is the critical moment that will determine its ability to deliver.  Though most involved won’t want to hear it, this is the point where the Tea Party inevitably, at least to a degree, will lose its “leaderless” status  as legislative proposals have to be authored, co-authored, and submitted by actual Congressmen and Congresswomen.  This is not necessarily something to be feared if the right people take up the task.  The preceding thoughts are in a way a plea to these legislators to be bold and embrace the spirit of confidence inherent in the movement that will have placed them there.  Conservatives have long been fond of saying that we win in the arena of ideas – soon will come both the time and opportunity to prove it.

Though this level of political risk is highly unorthodox it is most certainly American in spirit.  From our founding, quite fittingly, to the very nature of Capitalism that we have thrived on for centuries we have craved competition, embraced the possible glory of winning, and never feared the possibility of losing.  When the time comes, and it is coming soon, for the men and women we elect to put the pen to paper and attempt to realize the potential of this political movement I only hope that that this is the spirit that guides them.  To them I say simply – Step up, Throw down, Win big, or Flame out.

    Log in