JUST LET US BE!

The Catholic Church's position on contraceptives, as well as other issues, has been long standing and well known.  The Church's mission is to spread the good news of the Gospel to all who would accept it of their own free will.

The current controversy, let us remember, occurred after HHS issued an edict that health insurance coverage would be mandatory in the Church's policies for its employees.  It is the government, going beyond its constitutional powers, that created the issue, not the Church!

In accordance with the first of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;---".  Catholics and all persons of faith have the right to practice their religion as their conscience dictates.  It should not matter to others, best of all the government, what our private beliefs are.  

Just let us be!

Big Government and Inefficiency

Sometimes, I'm looking for a subject for a new post and it just falls into my lap.

In this morning's "The Times Union", an editorial was titled: "Inefficient stimulus leaves a big debt".  The sub-heading: "The $757 billion stimulus package put in place by the Obama administration in 2009 was not an efficient way to create jobs".

They should have stopped there.  The opening sentence of the editorial opines: "However, it has spurred  the economy in Northeast Florida and across the nation."  It goes on to cite how much money has been "showered" on the area and the benefits to numerous small businesses which it lists.

I continue to be amazed at the mind set of those who first look to government for solutions.  Conservatives know that we can't spend our way out of a recession, that free enterprise is the best engine to grow the economy, that government interference too often results in diminished liberty and to continue funding expenditures by increasing our debt (a burden for future generations) is unconscionable.

We must change our attitude toward big government.  We have looked to our elected representatives "to bring home the bacon".  But government largess comes at a price: more government controls, more debt and a loss of personal freedom.  Included in this process are earmarks that are used to insure a congressman's vote on legislation.  As for instance, for Obamacare, which I would call adding insult to injury.

But not often discussed about big government is its inefficiency as the cited editorial suggests. This condition not only applies to programs that the government has assumed for itself (health care, business subsidies and education for instance) but also to areas where we rely on the federal government to be competent (such as border control, defense and protection of our individual liberties).

Reason for Some Optimism

We are at a time that is very troubling for most of us.  Our economic status is dismal and the political establishment ineffective and in disarray.  These points are reflected in the following quoted from today's "The Times Union" (in an article entitled: "New political process is intriguing"):

     "Nearly two-thirds of U.S. voters feel the federal government has lost touch with the people it represents."
     "More than two-thirds are open to supporting a qualified independent candidate."
     "Only 17 percent of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S."

In the article cited above, an organization called "Americans Elect" is described as a bipartisan group whose purpose is to nominate candidates for office using the internet. Any registered voter can join the process. Nominations will be made and candidates selected on-line by the voters who join. Eventual nominees for office will be registered to be on state ballots by "Americans Elect".  You can read more about it by linking onto http://www.americanselect.org/  Although this group may have only minimal impact this year, they have the potential to challenge the entrenched political establishment in the future.

There are other reasons to look at the bright side.  For conservatives, Rick Santorum has outlined an agenda that we can endorse and applaud.  On issues such as government involvement in the economy, environment, use of resources, religious freedom, defense, foreign affairs, education and abortion, he is the candidate most in line with conservative views.  Although his positions have been, and will be, twisted and distorted by the liberal media, Santorum has shown that he is a worthy advocate and defender of conservative ideas and principles.

Another positive note is that the recent controversy generated by Obama's attack on religious freedom will not go away soon.  The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are rightly holding their ground.  Following are the key points from a letter issued today to all Catholics in the U.S. by the Bishops:

     "The original rule that violated our religious liberty so severely has not been changed, but finalized."
     "HHS has promised some kind of 'accommodation' but only after the election."
     "The promised 'accommodation'- even at its best-would still force our institutions to violate their beliefs."
     "There is no exemption for objecting insurers, secular employers, for-profit religious employers, or individuals."

The Bishops go on to ask Catholics to contact their congressman to urge support for the "Respect for Rights of Conscience Act" (H.R. 1179, S. 1467). We all should be disturbed, if not surprised, that the "accommodation", much touted in the press, will not be acted upon until after the election.

Although the country's problems won't be solved soon, we now see some activity that gives us reason to be optimistic.  In addition to the above, there is the very real possibility that the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate of Obamacare and hopefully the whole program.  And given that the time will come when the Republicans can concentrate on job #1 to defeat Obama, the outlook will  much improve. I am cautiously optimistic.

Threats to Freedom

David Hume, Scottish philosopher, once said: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." (quoted in 'The Road to Serfdom' (F. A. Hayek)).

Before 1776, the British colonies in America had enjoyed a degree of liberty.  For example, Roger Williams, a Puritan minister, had been granted a charter from Parliament in 1644 for the State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations (its full name) that guaranteed religious liberty; there was to be no interference by the colony's government in religious affairs.

Other rights cited in the Declaration of Independence were over time threatened by the monarchy.  To quote in part from the Declaration:

     "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

The Declaration went on to list numerous examples.  Among them:

*The King "---has refused his Assent to Laws----for the common good."
*"He has made Judges dependent on his will alone---."
*"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people-."

The Declaration goes on to cite many other of the King's injuries and concluded: "---when in a long train of abuses and usurpations---evinces a design to reduce them (i.e. the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government---."

The Founding Fathers recognized that the impetus toward despotism can be halted by resolute action--it need not be inevitable.

Other countries have not fared as well.  When the Czarist government of Russia was overthrown, it was led for a short time by a democratic one but ultimately fell to the Communists.  An opportunity for a free society had been lost. In the 1930's, the Democratic Government in Germany, which had governed since 1918, relinquished power to the Nazis.

In both cases, the intent of both the Communists and Nazis was well known in advance by their words and deeds, that is if people were paying attention. The existing democratic leaders at that time made no serious attempt to stop the transfer of power.  As history has recorded, the Stalin and Hitler regimes both resulted in totalitarian governments where all opposition was eliminated or neutralized; nothing was left to stand between the leader's power and the individual.

In 1776, the United States had leaders who not only had foresight and political courage but who also were well versed in political philosophy and history.  They understood the value of individual sovereignty and the need to protect it.  They accordingly designed a system of government that limited its authority by the separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism and a Constitution with enumerated powers.  It has worked well for 200 years.  But it is susceptible to attack and we must be vigilant.

In America today, government institutions and programs have been in effect for some years that have an adverse impact on our freedoms. For example, we now have an overbearing government bureaucracy and stifling regulations in many areas including health care, the environment, education, taxes, business and direct grants that undercut state authority, individual sovereignty and the exercise of free enterprise.

Recently we have seen the Obama Administration mandate that Catholic Organizations provide contraceptive coverage in their health insurance policies.  The President later changed that edict to "accommodate" Catholic objections but that "compromise" is no less onerous. The fundamental question remains:  Why should the Federal Executive have the power to mandate health insurance policies or even to "accommodate" or not to "accommodate"?

Another recent example is in education.  In an article released by the Associated Press cited in "The Times Union", it was reported: "Vice President Biden made a pitch Monday for the Obama Administration's proposals to make college affordable, including punishing schools that fail to keep their costs down."  The proposals "---include withholding federal aid from schools that don't keep net tuition down and provide good value."  What's next; federal administrators?

I realize that due to the size of the Federal Government and the sheer number of programs, the impact of these kind of changes cannot be fully known or understood.  We need to turn "the ship of state" around before it is too late. As we all know, each program, entitlement, grant etc. generates its own special interest and voting bloc. Once implemented, it becomes difficult to dislodge them even when a $15 trillion debt would seem to require it.

Mandates: Challenge to Liberty

The real issue regarding the contraceptive mandate is not contraceptives; it is about the Government mandating Catholic health facilities to include coverage in their insurance policies for contraceptives, the use of which are counter to Church teaching and morals.

The following comments are representative of the reaction to this mandate:

     "What is at stake is the choice between a Constitutional Republic that respects individual sovereignty, inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and a divisive government (a good thing) that has separation of powers.  At the other end is a utopia-a statist society of an all-powerful, top-down, centralized government run by a Liviathan (Hobbes) or 'Philosopher King' (Plato)". (See blog post: "Politician or Statesman"; comment posted by Anonymous dated 2/7/12.)

     "Statism, socialism and extreme liberalism eventually fail because the ideology they espouse leaves little room for vigorous dissent, voluntary cooperation or meaningful creativity.-------most egregious of all may be the legislation's assault on religious freedom and the First Amendment.  It is disconcerting to think that the most inefficient, incompetent and bloated entity is surreptitiously seizing more and more power." (Letter to the Editor, "The Times-Union" by Clark McCammon on 2/8/12.)

Medicare and medicaid were initially designed as an overlay to systems already in place. Medicare, for example, was based on a existing physician based charge system; medicaid as a grant system to the states to administer their own programs.  The complexity of these programs has increased over time due to legislative actions and ineffective efforts to reign in the costs to taxpayers.  Obamacare further complicates the system by instituting additional mandates and controls.  It also grants to the Executive unprecedented power to issue regulations to implement and govern the health care system.

We should note that President Obama once said of the Founding Fathers:  "The Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like." (Article in "The Times-Union" entitled "Federal government isn't our daddy").  That statement speaks volumes about Obama's concept of government.

Because of Obamacare, the President claimed the authority to compel Catholic health institutions to include contraceptives in their insurance policies.  Just today, he said he would, on his authority, "accommodate" Catholic organizations by mandating insurance companies to provide contraceptives "free of charge", a concept no sober person can take seriously. The fact that he can unilaterally make such a decision to "accommodate" also means that he also has the authority not to do so, a power that is discretionary and unconstitutional.

Americans often boast of their liberties; it has been claimed that an authoritarian form of government could not happen here.  My response:  Study history; it can happen anywhere and we are not immune.

Politician or Statesman?

We hear much from the mass media about political attack ads and the divisiveness of the Republican primaries. Why the divisiveness? I would argue that it is a symptom, not a cause:

     Consider the mass media's motivation to maximize profits.  Given a choice between educating and titillating, the media too often chooses the latter.  This generally leads to more heated discourse versus insight, encourages emotional reaction versus a reasoned debate.

     The intensity of the campaign for the Republican nomination is in part due to the vulnerability of the Obama Presidency.  Given unfavorable public reaction and the failure of Obama's policies, his reelection is in doubt.  The relatively large number of candidates declaring for the nomination is because they sense that Obama will very possibly be a one term president.

     Part of the acrimony in the Republican primary is due to a split in the party itself. Paradoxically, there is not a significant difference in philosophy among the candidates. There is, however, a long standing debate between conservatives and more centrist, establishment party members. This conflict is heightened by the critical nature of our problems as well as the ultimate prize of the presidency and control of the party.

     No candidate has inspired wide spread support and confidence in his leadership. There has been some modest levels of enthusiasm for Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. But in the absence of major differences in policy, the issue of electability has been in the forefront. Attacks have highlighted each candidate's weaknesses for what will surely be a hard fought general election.

We are at a crossroads:  larger government or smaller, more regulation or less, more spending or less, more taxes or less, more debt or less, a society governed from the top or one with individual choice and freedom, a confident and bold America or a diminished America.  The stakes are high and time is of the essence!  It will not be kind to us if we make the wrong selection.

If candidates really believe that the country is in deep trouble and conservative principles and ideas are the best remedy, they must put aside their personal ambitions in favor of the public interest.  They must stress that conservatism is vastly superior to Obama's policies; that the road to prosperity is to increase the size of the economy and not to divide it into ever decreasing, smaller shares.  America does have a bright future if only we grab hold of our destiny.

Politicians should follow the example of our founding fathers who risked all in order to gain the freedoms that each of us cherish. They should follow the example of statesmen, not political partisans.

Money and Ideas: The Florida Primary

I'm disappointed by the Florida primary.  I expected Mitt Romney to win but not by such a large margin.  What most disappointed and surprised me was the large amount of money spent by the Romney campaign versus his rivals.

To state the obvious, this was not a level playing field.  Money was not the only difference but it was a significant factor.  For those voters not already committed and with only a cursory interest in the issues, the overwhelming advertisements by the Romney campaign had to have had an impact.

The wide disparity in the candidates' expenditures has complicated an already acrimonious nomination process.  Romney's advantage in assets, coupled with personal attacks on his opponents, has further increased the risk of a divided party.  Furthermore, it plays into the hands of the Obama campaign by emphasizing what divides us.

Money can defeat individual candidates but ideas are more inspiring and powerful. Conservative Republican ideas are especially compelling in our current situation.  Each of the Republican candidates should be highlighting the party's conservative principles and positive ideals: adherence to the Constitution, individual liberty and opportunity, free enterprise and smaller, limited government.

They should point out that the Republican agenda, reflecting these ideals, would lead to a reinvigorated America and an improved economy. They should draw a stark contrast between the liberal Democratic agenda versus the Republican agenda: between the prospect of even more government and more control versus individual choice and liberty, between more spending and debt versus financial stability and economic prosperity.

Each candidate should start this process now. They should highlight relentlessly the superiority of conservative Republicanism as opposed to the bankruptcy of liberalism. And they should keep at it until election day.