Red Herrings, Straw Men And Caterpillars

Saturday evening I was having a discussion with a young lady of my acquaintance. She is a nice lady, but terribly misinformed politically.

The discussion started from some comments on the merits of the Obama Care debacle. I was remiss in my duty as I let her take me far afield of the proper discussion with Red Herrings and Straw Men. I think we all are guilty of that when getting into emotional subjects such as Politics, Religion and Sex. We need to be careful or we could loose the argument by our own failures, not because the other side had a better argument. They dont.

The discussion started well enough with statements about the efficacy of Obama Care. But then it continued in that direction, as though that was all its about. It is not what its about...not yet.... We all agreed that the USA has the best health care system in the world and we all agreed that it could be improved. But then the question came up as to whether Obama Care was the way to improve it. That is getting the horse before the cart. Before we can discuss whether Obama Care will be effective in getting the "Change" we want ot not, we must decide whether it is LEGAL or not. Because if it is ILLEGAL than its benefits are ZERO...unless we abandon the Constitution of the United States...along with Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, freedom of assembly, Due Process, etc. Yes, all those are IN the Constitution. If we abandon the Constitution in order to have Obama Care, then we loose all the rest to precedent.

So the current discussion should not have to do with whether it is better or worse, expensive or cheap. We could all agree on those points and if Obama Care was unconstitutional then they would all be moot points.

The tenth amendment to the constitution states that:

"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."

That is the whole enchilada! Thats it, thats all there is. Nothing has been added nor taken away! Its just that simple.

A quick and easy search of the Constitution and all previous amendments shows NO MENTION of health care insurance. So, by the above amendment, that issue is "reserved to the States respectively". Now there are another 17 amendments after the tenth amendment, so we must search there for a possible granting to the Federal Government of the right to issue or regulate health insurance. As before, no mention is found in the latter 17 amendments. Nada!! It just isn't there!! So the tenth amendment holds and health insurance regulation is the right of the individual states.

Now we could change that by the simple adding of a 28th amendment that states that the Federal Government DOES have the power to regulate health insurance and health dispersal. But we haven't done that yet. So the discussion should be on this amendment. Until that amendment is added, then Obama Care is illegal and any points, there gained, are moot.

I think that perhaps we should add that amendment and by so doing, enable ALL insurance vendors to sell across state lines. This would put health care under the "Regulation of Interstate Commerce" where it currently IS NOT because of the prohibition of interstate commerce in health insurance. But if that were done, thus enabling the legal, constitutional passage of a national health care program, such passage would no longer be needed because the interstate commerce in private insurance programs would solve the problem, in and of itself!

Thus saving the country a half a trillion dollars a year which could be applied to the National Debt.

Now the alternative to the above is to ignore the Constitution....along with Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Due Process, etc., all those are in the Constitution that you may want to abolish to have Obama Care.

This is where the discussion went from health care. The solution of the massive National Debt and huge deficit. Now my young lady friend was of the opinion that we should attack the deficit first. "because is something we can actually do". She felt the National Debt was beyond our control. This is like sitting on your front porch while a bulldozer is destroying your home from the back wall forward, and crushing a caterpillar on the rose bush, "because it is something we can actually do", rather than going to the back yard to stop the bulldozer. If we don't stop the bulldozer there wont be any reason to save the rose bush.

Of course, what discussion on the deficit would be complete without a discussion of Foreign Aid? Since Foreign aid is about 50 billion a year, cutting it completely would reduce the deficit, 1.2 Trillion, by a pittance, less than 4% per year!! Oh, but what about the money that could be raised from "Taxing the Rich"?

From the Washington Post:

"Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.

The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year."

So, eliminating the "Bush Tax Cuts" would not reasonably affect the deficit and would mean NOTHING to the debt. And elimination of them would turn the economy south in a big way. A souring economy would make bigger reductions in the tax revenues that would totally offset ANY perceived gain by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

But back to Foreign Aid or more specifically to money sent to Pakistan. Somewhere the discussion turned to that subject, and my young friend stated that we could not take aid away from Pakistan because they had an atomic bomb and we had to remain friendly with them. That is like saying, "The rapist has a knife so I might just as well relax and enjoy it." Are we friends with China? Are we friends with Russia? They have more atomic bombs than Pakistan!!!

Friends, the bulldozer is tearing down our house. I don't care if you are a Socialist, a Democrat, a Republican, or what ever, we have to cut off the fuel to that bulldozer, and 2012 is our chance to do that. Vote for fiscal conservatives of EITHER/ANY party.

And talk to your mistaken friends and show them the error of their ways. But don't let them talk you into chasing Red Herrings, Straw Men, and caterpillars.

Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================

July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook