Politics, Government & Public Policy: January 2009 Archives
Based on Bill Clinton's extensive foreign financial ties I don't see how he or Hillary could even qualify for a run-of-the-mill collateral secret security clearance. Apparently that doesn't matter when you're Secretary of State, though.
Paul Hsieh, cofounder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, has written another excellent op-ed explaining how "universal healthcare" is antithetical to American liberty.
Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines.Is this some nightmarish dystopia?
No, this is contemporary Japan.
The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs. This highlights one of the greatly underappreciated dangers of "universal healthcare." Any government that attempts to guarantee healthcare must also control its costs. The inevitable next step will be to seek to control citizens' health and their behavior. Hence, Americans should beware that if we adopt universal healthcare, we also risk creating a "nanny state on steroids" antithetical to core American principles.
Read the rest. "Universal healthcare" is incompatible with liberty -- and it's an unattainable myth anyway. Just ask any of my Canadian friends who have waited four months for an MRI.
To imitate Glenn Reynolds: They told me that if I voted for John McCain we'd get four more years of Bush-like tax cuts and spending increases... and they were right!
Aiming to foster bipartisan support for his record-setting economic stimulus, President-elect Barack Obama plans to propose huge tax cuts for businesses and middle-class workers that will total about 40 percent of the package, or up to $310 billion, congressional officials said.The revelation is part of an intricately orchestrated rollout of the plan that includes an appearance by Obama on Capitol Hill on Monday and a major speech about the economy later in the week.
Obama plans to ask Congress for a stimulus package of $675 billion to $775 billion, so the planned tax cuts will total about $270 billion to $310 billion, the officials said.
Didn't the Democrats criticize President Bush for such an unsustainable strategy? Did Bush's strategy mitigate the current economic crisis, or precipitate it? Either way, I'm not sure that "more of the same" is the best way to deal with the problem.
I think the tax cuts Obama are proposing are ok -- though too transient and immediate to do lasting good -- but the spending increases are counterproductive and will burden our society for decades to come. Republicans should be careful not to fall into Obama's trap.
