At one of her recent press conferences, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s was asked by a CNS News reporter, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” the Speaker was clearly agitated by the question and responded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The reporter said, “Yes, yes, I am.” Without commenting further, Pelosi shook her head in disgust and took a question from another reporter. Later on, the Speaker’s press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding the constitutionality of socialized medicine that “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Like every member of Congress, Pelosi takes this sacred oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” She swears to defend the Constitution, but does not take this question seriously? The arrogance or ignorance is amazing. The question is legitimate, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the enumerated powers of Congress and there is no provision for health care. Furthermore, the Tenth
Amendment makes it explicitly clear that the powers not listed in the Constitution are to be left to the states and the citizens.

For decades government has gone well beyond it Constitutional responsibility and has become more cavalier about the role of government. Essentially our government is on auto-pilot and simply picks up new duties as it deems fit.

I have said often on my radio show that to be for the Constitution is simply not “cool” and you will not be taken serious in Washington. I have had friends — both Democrat and Republican — smugly smile at me and say that arguments about the Constitution are laughable. Discussions about a “strict constructionist” view can only be academic.

I must ask the question, by what standard than are we going to judge government? If not the Constitution, what will be our measure of whether government is serving us properly? It cannot be popular opinion, because the masses can be convinced to believe anything. That is why the Founding Fathers put such safe guards against pure democracy.

This is why I have grown frustrated by the “liberal” versus “conservative” debate. All these two views argue is the pace towards socialism. Liberals ask why we are not fully under government control while conservatives want to argue to slow down the pace. What is there to “conserve” any more? Massive deficits and debts? Taxation out of control? A regulatory system that is hostile to freedom? If we are serious about the Constitution we should drop the conservative label and state we wish to restore the Constitution.

Until we have a serious debate about the Constitution we can only expect our freedoms to further disappear while are political leaders show extreme joy on the left or slight discomfort on the right. The leaders in Washington believe there is nothing government cannot do and they intend to only prove that in the years to come.

Economist Walter Williams recently noted that “in each new session of Congress since 1995, John Shadegg, (R-Ariz.,) has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, a measure ‘To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.’ The highest number of co-sponsors it has ever had in the House of Representatives is 54 and it has never had co-sponsors in the Senate until this year, when 22 senators signed up. The fact that less than 15 percent of the Congress supports such a measure demonstrates the kind of contempt our elected representatives have for the rules of the game — our Constitution.”

How has your member of Congress stood on this important first step in restoring Constitutional government? Instead of arguing with politicians on specific policies, let us make them defend their view of the document they swore to defend.

Unemployment is devastating on both people and governments. Not only do people feel the stress of wondering how needs will be met, they often take serious efforts of curtailing spending ,which has a direct impact on consumer spending. Governments suffer too. Local, state, and federal governments find unemployment is a drain on them as they are often unable to collect as much revenue as they could in more prosperous economies and those who are unemployed will often depend on agencies to help through these difficult times.

With that, President Obama recently had a Job Summit and he told those in attendance if there is “anything” the government can do to help increase employment, let him know. With US unemployment at the highest levels in a quarter of a century, “anything” should be taken quite seriously. Our situation has become urgent and steps should be made to act quickly. These include:

Our situation is dire, the answers to our problems are in the market place and not in the halls of government or in job creation summits. These type of actions would have the government give the type of “stimulus” the nation really needs.

As the states desperately try to pass legislation to protect themselves from the many potentially adverse effects of the President’s health care proposal, the federal government is working all the harder to make sure state governments do the heavy lifting for the bill’s funding.

According to a recent article by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, the amount of spending required for the new Medicaid package is so staggering, it requires state as well as federal funding. Southern states have tended to try to contain costs by keeping Medicare spending in check. The Obama administration is planning on forcing states to bring more dollars to the table.

The authors cite the following examples:

The impact may include political tones, since for many of the states represented by swing senators in the health care debate, the required increases in state spending are likely to be quite high, say Morris and McGann:

These increases in spending do not include the direct cost that will have to be carried by Americans in federal tax. This bill remains complicated and the extent of the financial injury it provides only grows daily.

Back in the Dark Ages, doctors were known for bleeding patients to reduce fever and cracking skulls to relieve headaches. Everything old is new again as the Obama Administration pursues excessive taxes on job creators on both Wall Street and Main Street in order to create new jobs.

Elizabeth MacDonald brings the Administration’s current efforts to light in a column at FoxBusiness.com. She points out that “A House bill now being drafted would raise $150 billion each year to pay for new manufacturing jobs by taxing securities transactions such as stocks, options, derivatives and futures…But the effect here would be the polar opposite-it would hurt job creation and even though Congress says they’ll exempt trades made for retirement savings, chances are slim that will happen, and the fees will get passed along. And jobs in the finance sector, already flattened, will fly overseas if the US is the only country with this taxing regime.”

MacDonald’s article points out the obvious. Politicians develop and implement policies as if we were trees. They believe we will take a tax, regulation, or other cost of doing business without blinking. Unfortunately for government, we are not trees. I do not know about you, but if someone attacks me with an axe I am either going to fight or take flight. That is the same thing that happens in public policy. When government attacks with a tax on job creation, that job creator is either going to fight (which in this country requires a long term strategy that includes changing the people in power) or they are going to run (which is much easier to do in our current political environment and our abilities thanks to technology).

Where and how do people run? We have many examples of this in recent years and the Internet makes it very easy for people to move their money and the rest of their lives, wherever they need to go to do business.

For example, a recent study from the Empire Center for New York State Policy is showing that the state is suffering from a similar fate. The authors of the studies — E.J. McMahon and Wendell Cox — point out that between the years 2000 and 2008 and following massive tax increases for those with higher incomes, the families that have been leaving have income levels that were 13 percent higher than those arriving to the Empire State. In Manhattan and the New York County area, the impact was even more profound. Those leaving the Big Apple had an average income of $93,264, which was approximately 28 percent higher than those who were arriving (which made $72,726 on average).

What is most ironic about these type of policies is that they not only fail to create jobs, but also fail to generate new revenues. They simply do not work. The old saying remains true, “the more you tax something, the less you get of it.” If you heavily tax job creators, you will lose them and the jobs they create. MacDonald believes that the bill being argued in this Congress will actually force some job creators out of the country. They, in turn would likely take the jobs with them. It is time to abandon ancient practices that do not work and pursue policies that simply make sense.

Conspiracy theorists have argued for years that government officials who support the massive regulation of industry in the name of environmentalism, do so in order to pursue even greater government control It is not about a cleaner environment, but a more powerful government. Meanwhile, scientists who have advocated Global Warming have often been accused of being professional “Chicken Littles,” who make a living predicting that the sky is falling. After all, if research studies had indicated that things were fine or temperature changes were cyclical, there would be no need for future research and the funding that comes with it. There is a business side to everything, including environmental research, and fear has proved to be a successful element in obtaining increased funding.

The media has been quick to defend those in government and science in the alarmist camp, creating a powerful and effective troika supporting an ambitious agenda. They have apologized for the many exaggerations and have gone to great lengths to defending the most outrageous of claims. The recent release of some rather incriminating emails are embarrassing to the media, scientists, and government officials behind the Global Warming movement. Forget embarrassing, the movement is now on life support.

The Wall Street Journal discusses the content and the implications of the emails in question, quoting several including one stating that “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

“So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to ‘Mike.’ Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU’s servers were hacked and messages among some of the world’s most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.”

“The ‘two MMs’ are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions-a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.”

The emails in question are in the thousands and the thread demonstrates a similar theme and are most enlightening. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to point out that “In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a ‘unified’ view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the ‘common cause’; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to ‘hide the decline’ of temperature in certain inconvenient data.”

In essence, the world has been duped by scientists driven by the desire of prestige and funding, politicians driven by a lust for control and power, and a media that makes a living by creating alarm. The cost of pursuing a battle plan against these false problems has cost countries like Spain millions of jobs in its “cap and trade” style legislation and countries through out Western Europe and the United States billions of dollars in regulations to date. What will these false prophets receive for their crimes against economies? Probably Pulitzers and Nobel prizess. What a strange world indeed.

Recently I received a request from a very well intended and concerned individual about the health care debate. She wanted me to promote a provision that would have a “whistle blower” provision as a part of the socialized health care bill. It is a great measure that those who want to protect our health care system should support, but avoid like the plague at this time. Meanwhile it is the type of provision that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi hates and they hope and pray that conservatives pursue such with a passion. The reason for this is simple — it legitimizes the role of the federal government in the health care debate. Once we concede to this type of discussion, there is no longer a question as to whether there will be a socialized health care program, but what it will look like.

I hear people say, “government spending needs to be lower before we pursue such an ambitious program,” or “the number one priority is unemployment and until it is below a certain level, we should not be even discussing health care,” or other conditions that some deem necessary before we begin a health care debate. Our view must be different. Our opposition to this health care proposal should be unconditional. There should be nothing the federal government can do to make it worthy of consideration. The reasons for this are numerous, here are just a few:

If those who oppose socialize medicine engage in the debate by discussing provisions “necessary” to make it “work,” the battle is over and we lose. We must stand opposed to socialized health care and do so without exceptions.

In addition to costing (on the low end) approximately $1 trillion simply to launch President Obama’s ambitious move towards socialized medicine, this proposal will also have a devastating effect on the nation’s health care. In fact, I believe the passage of this bill will pave the way for a new Dark Ages in health care.

The entire debate on health care seems to be focusing on costs and covering the uninsured. The latter group is almost a misnomer because one can argue that our “uninsured” are better protected than many under socialized medicine in Europe and the former cannot be contained through government controls without sacrificing quality and fostering rationing health care system.

The United States is the only major nation with health care that is still (to some extent) market driven. There is an impetus in US health care towards innovation that other countries simply do not enjoy. The Cato Institute noted in a recent study that innovation should be the number one concern in the health care debate, according to Glen Whitman, an associate professor of economics at California State University, Northridge and Raymond Raad, a resident in psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

They make this case by examining four categories of innovation — basic science, diagnostics, therapeutics, and business models. They found:

The US approach, with all of its costs and inefficiencies, has provided the greatest innovations in health care for its patients, according to the authors. These include:

Innovation has had virtually no role in the current health care debate and this shows how myopic supporters of socialized health care are. They too will find themselves suffering from the lack of options that are common in systems that are not market driven.

For more information I suggest Glen Whitman and Raymond Raad, “Bending the Productivity Curve: Why America Leads the World in Medical Innovation,” Cato Institute, November 18, 2009.

In spite of the rocky road to date in the pursuit of socialized medicine, it seems that policy makers are bent on pursuing the most difficult course possible in making this bill become law. The costs exceed earlier expectations, it is picking up questionable policy additions along the way, and it is receiving criticisms from every sector. This trend in the US House is continuing in the Senate.

There is the sticky matter of abortion funding in the bill. Pro-life members of the Senate are convinced this bill will lead to federal funding of abortions. Fox News quotes Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb) stating
“Citizens get charged a premium that includes abortion coverage. The taxpayers pay a percent of the premium. Who can determine what dollar went here or what dollar went there?”

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., concurs and is threatening to filibuster the bill, under which the so-called “public option” health insurance plan and subsidized plans would allow for abortions, if covered with private money.

Even Obama himself admits the proposal does not have the proper balance to appease all the forces in the debate. “Not yet,” Obama told Fox News’ Major Garrett in a recent interview.

Abortion is just the beginning of the problems facing the legislation.

Union members, a strong part of Obama’s constituency and of members of Congress behind the bill, could find themselves paying a tax on the part of family health insurance plans that exceed $23,000 in value.

The bill takes aim at those who can afford elective procedures by charging an additional tax on aesthetic procedures. It is being affectionately referred to as the “botox tax.”

Than there is the Medicare tax which would rise for people making more than $250,000 a year from nearly 1 1/2 to nearly 2 percent, in the Senate bill. “Tax” is a popular theme through out the bill. In fact, the group Americans for Tax Reform notes the bill uses the term “tax” 183 times. This should not be a surprise, since the bill is more than 2,000 pages long and its enormity has become a prop for its critics during debates.

As is the case in every legislation, the Devil is in the details. With more than 2,000 pages, there are plenty of those to be sorted out. For example, one popular idea among “nanny minded” members was a proposal to tax sugary drinks that did not make it to either the House or Senate bill. However, to hedge their bets, the food industry is still running ads critical of it. One such advertisement points out that “They say it’s only pennies, well those pennies add up when you’re trying to feed a family.”

In my opinion, the only thing that will allow this awkward bill to pass, in light of its many targets for critics to attack, is to use fear. Essentially they are going to try and convince the American people that doing nothing will be far more harmful than passing a bill that is riddled with social agendas, outrageous taxes, and prolific spending. This does not even begin to discuss the problem of rationing that will follow the addition of tens of millions of individuals added to the health care system. In spite of significant majorities in both Houses of Congress, this bill likely is “dead on arrival.”

In addition to costing, at a minimum, approximately $1 trillion simply to launch President Obama’s ambitious plan towards socialized medicine, the current bill will also have a devastating impact on the quality of our nation’s health care.  In fact, I believe that passage of this bill will pave the way for a new Dark Ages in health care.

Thus far, the primary focus of this debate has centered on health care costs and providing coverage to the uninsured.  While American generosity and compassion are weighing in on the side of helping our fellow citizens without adequate health care insurance, it is worth pointing out that our “uninsured” are better cared for and protected than most European nations already practicing socialized medicine.  And while exercising restraint as far as health care costs are concerned, if this was a legitimate goal of reform then why not immediately correct the $60 billion of identified waste and abuse in Medicare, instead of using it as a method of paying for new reforms?  In reality, the notion of controlling or curbing rising heath care costs via this legislation is a red herring; these costs cannot be contained through government controls without sacrificing quality and instituting rationing of health care.  Period.

The United States remains the only major nation with any resemblance to market driven health care.  There is an impetus in US health care towards innovation that other countries simply do not enjoy; but they do reap the benefits from America;s innovation, research and development.  According to Glen Whitman, an associate professor of economics at California State University, Northridge and Raymond Raad, a resident in psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, the Cato Institute noted in a recent study that innovation should be the number one concern in the health care debate.  In the study, four categories of innovation are examined:  basic science; diagnostics; therapeutics; and business models.  They found that in the areas of basic science, diagnostics, and therapeutics the United States has made more positive contributions than any other country, and in some cases, more than all other countries combined.  In the category of business models, the researchers lacked the data needed to make a final determination.

However, what no one is able to refute, is that other countries with socialized health care have their own significant problems in the area of business models. In these countries, government bureaucracy has replaced business bureaucracy.  How is that better?  Government’s involvement in the “business” of health care is the primary reason for the inefficiencies in other country’s socialized heath care systems; arguably the same is already true of our own.

If this administration was serious about improving our system, it would explore ways of reducing the role of government and increasing the role of the free market in the business of health care.  According to the authors of the Cato report – and most clear thinking Americans – our health care system, though far from perfect with its rising costs and inefficiencies, has undeniably and without equal, provided the greatest innovations in health care for its patients.  This includes the quick adoption and broad use of new treatments and technologies, which in turn create an incentive to develop those techniques in the first place.

When the American people “subsidize” medical innovation through higher costs, the whole world benefits; that is a virtue of the American system that is not reflected in comparative life expectancy and mortality statistics, and one not so much as even acknowledged by our current administration and in this current debate.  In a sane world, other countries would rise up in urgency and anger to protest the health care proposals before the Congress, denouncing the administration’s intent to drastically and irrevocably damage the greatest health care system in the world, and to squash the innovation inherent in our system from which other countries benefit and should be grateful.

Medical treatments must be invented and perfected before costs can be reduced and their benefits extended to everyone.  Innovation is critical.  If the incentive for innovation is not there, everyone – most especially those who are touted as being the biggest beneficiaries of socialized medicine – will suffer.  Innovation has had virtually no role in the current health care debate showing the myopia of the supporters of socialized health care. They too will find themselves suffering from the lack of options and rationing that are common in socialized systems where the free market is shackled or excluded.

For more information I suggest Glen Whitman and Raymond Raad, “Bending the Productivity Curve: Why America Leads the World in Medical Innovation,” Cato Institute, November 18, 2009.

There are, in public policies, these inconvenient things called the “secondary effects.” These are the unintended consequences of even the best intended laws. Critics of Obama’s national health care program have questioned its intentions from day one. Few doubt the program will lead to a serious rationing of health care (adding 40 million on the system and allegedly lowering spending will have that impact) and will lead to increase taxes for millions of Americans.

According to public opinion surveys, the number one issue of most voters is unemployment. This sentiment is backed up by the hard fact that unemployment recently broke into double digits, increased employment is still dragging, and the numbers added to the dole are still in the hundreds of thousands each month. One of the main deterrents to the creation of jobs is taxes. Obamacare is nothing short of a direct tax on labor and the cheapest labor in particular.

Writer Eric Staib has spent some serious time with this massive legislation that will change health care and the economy forever. He points out that “According to pages 269-273 of the gargantuan bill, employers of full-time workers will be required to cover at least 72.5 percent of the premium of the least expensive health-insurance plan available that fulfills the bill’s minimum criteria of ‘acceptable coverage.’ In cases in which family coverage is provided, 62.5 percent of the premium is to be borne by the employer. Depending on the specific plan and other variables such as location, this amounts to a direct labor tax of approximately $300 per month for an individual, or nearly $700 for family coverage.” Simply put, that means an additional cost of $300 a month for adding an employee and more than twice that if he or she has a family. This, of course, leads to discrimination of potential employees if they have a family.

To make matters worse, if adding $300 or $700 to a preexistent employee and the return being given back to the company is worth less than that, he or she might be laid off or find themselves part time. That leads to another problem, Obama’s bill leaves the definition of part-time in terms of the health care bill to Obama’s Czar on the subject and not the Department of Labor. The lower the number of hours are used in defining part-time, the fewer the hours people will have at a job. It will create a devastating cycle.

The political left claims to hate regressive taxes (those that get higher as you make less income), but that is exactly what this bill promises to be. The less productive (lower paid) employee will be the one in the business decision makers’ crosshairs. Instead of improving the lot of those who are in need of national health care, this legislation promises to do them more harm by also making them unemployed or under employed.

Another unintended consequence of this bill, but certainly tied in to it, will be the continued growth of outsourcing to foreign countries as a viable way of doing business. Cheap labor that is around the world will be a more attractive source for getting things done. Instead of helping the working poor and those who aspire to rise up the economic ladder, Obamacare promises to make the “working poor”, simply “poor.”