Five Positives from Obamacare's Passage

Understandably so, many of those who consider themselves to be conservative or libertarian in philosophy have felt disheartened by the passage of Obamacare. Even though I saw it coming for some time, I share in everyone's being upset with our leaders and their actions. But I am here to tell you that not all that the passage of Obamacare offers is bad. There is a silver lining  for those of us committed to the cause of limited government and individual liberty.

Of course, on its face Obamacare offers nothing of worth to limited government and individual liberty activists. The legislation tramples upon the liberty of individuals, neglects our constitutional compact, and increases the size and scope of government to alarming levels. However, we must look beyond the codified effects and see what this bill's passage will offer to our movement.

Sure, some will feel disgusted and hopeless, but that is based on a misguided placement of hope in a single legislative battle. Such is both naive and foolish. We cannot be "Sunshine Patriots." For, our fight for freedom must be waged in both success and failure.

Here are five positives I see from Obamacare's passage.

1. We now know exactly who our enemies are. To be frank, most of the crooks in Washington are enemies to liberty, whether or not the voted for the health reform bill. But as far as coalitions go, there are those who may at times be our allies on key issues. For many, Bart Stupak and other "pro-life" Democrats were key allies in the battle to protect the rights of the unborn. Even though his previous comments should have alerted everyone to Stupak's true convictions, his vote Sunday let any doubters know where he and his commrads stand on the issue of life.

2. This already has and will continue to drive the GOP toward a more conservative direction. When the GOP is power, it does the exact things it is railing against at the moment. Remember when the GOP was passing the prescription drug legislation a few years back? I don't care about sincerity at this point as much as I care about action. If Lindsey Graham is opposed government run healthcare, it is not because he is philosophically committed to conservative governance. Rather, he opposed the bill because of public pressure and the frustration of being in the minority. That being said, I don't care why as long as he opposes it when it comes time to act.

3. It has forced us to consider the issue of healthcare reform on a national stage once again. Regrettably, the solution offered by the Obama administration will only make the problem worse, but healthcare reform is something that needs to be discussed. We need to head towards a no-government, market-based solution. Perhaps, this fight back against Obamacare will lead to a proper solution. But even if it does not succeed, it has already led to a discussion of the proper role of government in healthcare. And that is a good thing.

4. This could prove a valuable political tool in the midterm elections. I say this not in hopes for a mere GOP sweep; RINOs would prove no value to the cause of freedom. Rather, I am hoping for true liberty candidates to have a shot at office (or at least be able to shake things up) because of the neglect of freedom carried out by our current representatives--now truly displayed by the healthcare reform debacle. 

5. There will be a renewed emphasis on nullification and states' rights. This may be the most important of all. Our government has been out of control for well over a century. Rights have been trampled and the Constitution has been completely disregarded for far too long. It is a shame that talk of nullification and states' rights has gone unspoken for all this time, but it is good to see it now. States should resist this legislation, and nullification is the constitutional and proper answer. 

Make no mistake the passage of Obamacare is troubling, but there may be good things to come. People thought I was crazy when I said Obama would be good for the conservative movement, though I have never seen it so robust and vocal. The same effect may come about because of this despicable legislation and the public's reaction to it.

Tennessee's Lt. Gov. Fighting Back

As a Tennessean I am proud to see my current Lt. Governor and gubernatorial candidate, Ron Ramsey, fighting against the unconstitutional health reform package passed by our federal government. Below is Lt. Governor Ramsey's recent press release calling on our state to assert its Tenth Amendment rights.

March 22, 2010                                                                                                          

The healthcare legislation passed yesterday is a disaster for Tennessee citizens and our constitutional requirement to maintain a balanced budget.  It will raise taxes on Tennessee citizens while stripping away the right to control one’s own medical decisions.

I believe the bill passed yesterday by the U.S. House is unconstitutional and I am calling on Attorney General Cooper to join the 11 state Attorneys General already planning to challenge the constitutionality of the bill.

Individual states must challenge this legislation immediately to halt its implementation.  The longer we wait, the more it will cost the state of Tennessee and her citizens.  Washington has forced this problem upon us – it is now up to state leaders to stop this unfunded mandate from breaking state budgets across the country. 

###

National Standards Will Merely Produce National Dominance

The New York Times reports:

A panel of educators convened by the nation’s governors and state school superintendents proposed a uniform set of academic standards on Wednesday, laying out their vision for what all the nation’s public school children should learn in math and English, year by year, from kindergarten to high school graduation.  

The new proposals could transform American education, replacing the patchwork of standards ranging from mediocre to world-class that have been written by local educators in every state.

Don't be fooled. This is just another effort to subvert state sovereignty in the guise of "doing the right thing for our children." Whether it be the Carter-era formation of the Department of Education, the Bush-era "No Child Left Behind" legislation, or the Obama-era "race to the top" program, the federal government has over the past century led a concerted effort to fully extend its reach over the entire arena of education. The problem is that the federal government has zero constitutional authority to be involved in the business of education, and the expanded federal role has not led to positive results. These acts have merely been blind, unconstitutional power grabs--not improvements for education.

Alaska and Texas are the only states that refused to participate in the standards-writing process. I say, "GOOD FOR THEM!" They are exerting their right under the Tenth Amendment to manage their own education systems and refusing to participate in an unconstitutional program. If only they would do the same in a whole host of other areas, we might be getting somewhere.

By participating in this program, states will be opening themselves up further to a floodgate of federal influence, and that is not a good thing. As I have already said, the federal government has no constitutional right to be involved in education, but there are practical concerns as well.

Massachusetts is already finding the standards to be a problem. Their state standards are actually higher than the uniformed ones being offered up. Should they lower them to fit in with the masses? Moreover, should any state compromise its current pursuits by adopting a program that cannot guarantee success.

At the heart of a free republic is the concept of localization. That is, local entities know their needs better than a central government. It is simple enough. Localization better addresses local problems because solutions are carried out within a local context. I am not saying that all states are doing a stellar job in education. In fact, no state can or will succeed in education without proper competition and market incentives. Indeed, we must meet the challenges of education, but meeting them locally will be the key.

Another problem that plagues the unified standards plan is a neglect of human action in education. Not only is it unreasonable to assume children can all be held to the same standards and achieve at similar levels, it  is unreasonable to assume that students can achieve at all unless they are truly invested in their education. A Harvard-bound honor student and a slum-dwelling drug addict can be produced by the same schools with the same standards; it is the students, parents, teachers, and communities that make the difference. Until we realize that student achievement is not a direct result of dollars and programs, we will continue to see failed schools and wasted resources.

Look to the wealth of data if you are looking for empirical proof against government involvement in schools. There has been much policy research on the matter. I merely want to alert you to the fact that there is absolutely no convincing evidence that higher standards in education produce better results and point to the philosophical reasons you should be opposed to these latest educational developments.

The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby rightly notes:

[T]he very nature of American society - a nation of 300 million comprising a multitude of ethnic, religious, social, and ideological traditions - argues against the imposition of one-size-fits-all education standards. There is no uniform answer to the question of what parents want most from their children’s education. “The greater the diversity of the people falling under a single schooling authority,’’ McCluskey observes, “the greater the conflict, the less coherent the curriculum, and the worse the outcomes.’’

Anyone who called for legislation to establish mandatory national standards for television programming or restaurant menus would be laughed at: Americans don’t think the government is competent to decide what shows they can watch on TV or what they can order for dinner when eating out. Is it any less risible to think that government knows best when it comes to your children’s education? 

In fact, a uniform set of achievement standards will most likely have the same effect as more educational spending--public education will still produce the same results regardless of government influence. Only the cost and federal influence will increase.

This is an influence that we cannot afford. To solve our educational woes, the state should be getting out of the education business altogether. Funds should be returned to the taxpayers to educate according to their own desires. Private schools and home schooling already does an overall better job for a fraction of the price per student. It is prime time for privatization, but that will not occur in the near future. Until then we should be fighting back against centralized education attempts and unconstitutional federal action in a state's matter.

As Jacoby concludes so will I:

Rather than centralizing even more government authority over the nation’s schools, genuine reform would move in the opposite direction. It is parents - not local, state, or federal officials - who should control education dollars. School and state should be separated, with schools being funded on the basis of their ability to attract students and teach them well. The primary responsibility for children’s education should be vested in the same people who bear the primary responsibility for their feeding, housing, and religious instruction: their mothers and fathers.

More government control is not the cure for what ails American schools. The empowerment of parents is. No teachers’ union, no school board, no secretary of education, and no president will ever love your children, or care about their schooling, as much as you do. In education as in so much else, high standards are important - far too important to hand off to the government.

Ron Ramsey Attacks Loose Monetary Policy

I am often disappointed with those running for governor in my state of Tennessee. I have spent a good amount with both Zach Wamp and Ron Ramsey over the years, and both are decent guys with whom to have a conversation. Ron is really personable and has been know to say some quite conservative things to people when not overtly politicin'. However, his voting record is a mixed bag, like all the "conservatives" in the TN legislature. Despite his flaws, he is quite conservative and appears to be a strong supporter of states' rights.

He has done some good things lately, like writing to assert state sovereignty. I just received the following short message in regard to his recent participation in a healthcare forum and was pleasantly surprised.

Last week, I was pleased to take part in a special forum on healthcare hosted by Steve Gill. It was a privilege to share my thoughts and concerns about the current reform efforts.

As our nation faces record deficits, Washington continues to print money as fast as they can. Now, with issues like healthcare, they're trying to pass the costs on to the states. We shouldn't be forced to pay for irresponsible legislation in Congress that will not produce the actual reforms we need. (My emphasis)

I find it so interesting to see Lt. Gov. Ramsey go out of his way to address our monetary woes. Could we have a hard currency man on our hands? Another FED fighter?