Wow, Steve Forbes not pulling any punches here.
Forbes kind of reminds me of Newt Gingrich as a smart-guy, understander-of-the-big-picture type.
Excellent overview by Mr. Forbes.
Thanks for that post. I have always admired Steve forbes and thought he’d be a great president - the year he ran and especially now...
Wow, this is powerful. Pulls no punches and tells it all clearly.
Bumping and bookmarking.
I’m not sure Steve Forbes follows the HealthCare Bill to it’s logical conclusion: the onerous regulations and coverage requirements are designed to DESTROY all the insurers, NOT turn them into some kind of de facto public utility. When they start going under then he will declare that the government has no choice but to take over.
Otherwise, this is the best article I’ve seen about Chris Dodd’s own 1500-page financial regulatory monster. He and his staff must have gone over it comprehensively.
Where I think Obama miscalculated is that his healthcare bill will bring on Gotterdamerung/Ragnarok much faster than he intended (after all, he doesn’t know what’s in it). That’s why the administration and Waxman are panicking over the companies’ public release of the estimates of their medical costs exploding. Things were not supposed to start going haywire immediately, It was all supposed to kick in AFTER 2012, not right away.
For my own part, I can’t see how this will do any less but cause the utter, total, abject collapse of the American Health Care System. Doctors quitting en masse, Hospitals and clinics closing their doors, Medicaid and Medicare exploding like overripe tomatoes... But first, doctors and hospitals will be going Galt all over their Medicaid and Medicare patients in a desperate bid to stay afloat a while longer. The shock effects will come on fast and hard, and snowball bigtime. As it hails on liberals and conservatives, workers and retirees alike, the public will be terrified and start breaking out the pitchforks and torches.
The greatest miscalculation was that these idiots actually thought they could make America a socialist state overnight. Eurosocialist countries can limp along for about fifty or sixty years or so but it only works that way if you’re a smaller (8-40 million), more homogeneous country and you have time to gradually lose your starch. And now they are “running out of other people’s money”, starting with the club med countries. America’s too big and complicated to function as a statist system. Furthermore, in Euroland, socialism was imposed gradually, bit-by-bit. These klowns simply threw every one of their wet dreams into one bill and passed it, with no idea of the unintended consequences. This is the real consequence of none of them bothering to read the whole bill and realizing all these gears don’t fit together.
Steve Forbes nails it!
This so-called "intellectual" President and his fellow "progressives" in Congress and the Senate either do not understand the lessons of history, or they willfully ignore them.
Any Democrats who truly want to help those in need in the society should heed the lesson on Constitutional principle explained to Congressman Davy Crockett by one of his constituents. That constituent was upset that Crockett had voted for a bill to help some families in Georgetown whose homes had been destroyed by fire.
As Crockett related the story (Told in "Not Yours to Give" - the full story available at Foundation for Economic Education web site):
Crockett: "Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
Crockett: . . . . "The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road, I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and - '
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again''
“This was a sockdolager .. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question'
,,'No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'
"'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in this country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000.00. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.''
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him-
“Well, my, friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot'
Later, Crockett was called to vote on another bill. Let him relate that story also:
Crockett: "One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker - I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
If this principle was in effect in the days of the Congressman from Tennessee (Crockett), then the principle remains unchanged. It is the tyrannical "redistributionist" theory which is different.
Excellent piece from Steve Forbes.