It is that time of the year when Presidents rant and rave about the problem of government spending being out of control and they produce budgets that only add to the waste.  Barack Obama is no different; in fact, his budgets are the largest seen in US history.  Furthermore, his annual deficits are higher than the national debt was just a couple of decades ago.  Rhetoric aside, Obama is operating as if it is business as usual.

Peter Morici’s article title at FoxNews.com says it all, “Obama’s Budget — Straight From La La Land.”  In it, Morici notes that “Today, President Obama released his proposed 2011 budget, which forecasts the federal deficit will fall to $706 billion by 2014 or just 3.9 percent of GDP before rising again in 2015.”  The fantasy continues by noting that “To accomplish this feat, he proposes letting the Bush tax cuts expire and other spending cuts the Congress has rejected in the past. More extraordinary, though, the document assumes that real GDP grows at better than 4 percent a year over the four years from 2011 to 2014, and the economy does not encounter a serious recession.”  What is particularly interesting is that we have yet to recover from the economic down turn that we are currently in, yet Obama’s forecast is filled with optimism.

The truth of the matter is there are plenty of areas to cut spending.  In a perfect world, the Congress would be obliged to abide by its oath of office in which members agree to defend the US Constitution.  If they did such, they would find they are allowed to spend in seventeen different areas according to Article I, Section 8 of that document.  If they did that, budgets would always be balanced and our economic freedom would be vast.  Unfortunately, our world is anything but perfect.

There are numerous “real world” ways in which we can seriously cut the deficit and Elizabeth MacDonald points out some of them in a recent article at FoxBusiness.com.  The title will certainly get your attention: “$1.5 Trillion Ways to Cut the Deficit.”  The suggestions make sense, even if they do not have much hope in the political environment we live in today. Here are some examples:

An estimated $1.2 trillion in unused federal property. She notes that “The government owns and leases 3.87 billion square feet of property, and 55.7 million acres of land-meaning, one out of every forty acres. Real property asset value for all these holdings is estimated to be $1.2 trillion, says Citizens Against Government Waste, based on data from the Federal Real Property Profile created by the Bush administration, which helps federal agencies manage and dispose of their excess property.”  The examples that follow are numerous, and include Chicago’s Old Main Post Office, which is a 2.5 million square foot structure that costs over $2 million annually to maintain.  Than there is the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.  This airport cost over $200 million in government subsidies, even though the place has fewer passengers than security guards.  The list continues and it would be very easy to get to $1.2 trillion with little or no impact on any of our lives.

Than she notes “there is the $123.5 billion on government programs that have consistently failed.”  She may be a little kind with such a low number, but she covers makes perfect sense.  The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool found 218 government programs that were either “inadequate” or “ineffective” virtually throughout the entire government.  The OMB may be generous too, but there seems to be plenty of areas begging to be cut.

Than there is $98 billion in agency over payments that MacDonald notes.  The following are only a few examples:

–Health and Human Services: $55.1 billion, or 9.4%. Includes overpayment rates of 7.8% and 15.4% in the Medicare fee for service and Advantage programs, respectively.

–Labor: $12.3 billion, or 9.9%. Most of the overpayments were in the unemployment insurance program.

–Treasury: $12.3 billion, or 25.5%. These are attributed to overpayments in the earned income tax credit.

–Social Security Administration: $8 billion, or 1.2%, in overpayments.

–Agriculture: $4.3 billion in overpayments, or 5.9% of total department spending. Much of the waste was found in food stamp, school meals and federal crop programs.

–Transportation: $1.5 billion, or 3%. This waste was primarily found in the Federal Highway Administration planning and construction program.

–Veterans Affairs: $1.2 billion, or 2.7%. Waste here includes overpayments in the pension and other compensation programs.

–Housing and Urban Development: $1 billion, or 3.5%. All of the waste in this department was found in public housing and rental assistance.

–Defense: $849 million, or 0.5%.

–Homeland Security: $644.5 million, or 3.7%. The Homeland Security grant program as well as Disaster Relief Fund Vendor Payments were the primary guilty parties at this agency.

–Education: $599 million, or 2.1%.

One of my favorite issues to attack is corporate welfare.  What that means any more has changed significantly after the bailouts of Bush and Obama, but MacDonald’s article (referring to the research of the Cato Institute) points out $92 billion of easily identifiable spending.  “The figure includes direct cash payments, to farmers and research funds to high-tech companies, as well as indirect subsidies, such as funding for overseas promotion of specific U.S. products and industries. The cash payments come from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, HUD, and State.”

Than there are the earmarks, which we seem to all love to hate more than any other area of government expenditures.  Although they only come in at $19.6 billion (on over 10,000 earmarks), they are despised because they are part of a government approach to funding that is filled with deception.  The list, again, is impressive and here are a few examples:

$75,000 for Wayne Gomes Youth Baseball Diversity Foundation

$381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York, NY

$254,000 for Wool Research, Montana Sheep Institute

$2.2 million for Center for Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY

$1.8 million for swine odor and manure management research in Ames, Iowa

$4.4 million for the Army Center of Excellence in Acoustics

This, again is only the obvious…$1.5 trillion.  Imagine what we could accomplish if we were willing to suffer a little pain for the better of our Republic?

Bishop Council Nedd II of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church and a member of the Project 21 national advisory council noted that “After virtually walking away from the gay community after the election, President Obama is all of a sudden taking up their cause again? Last week’s election (in Massachusetts) shows he has problems with Americans of all political stripes, but he appears to be focusing most intently on quelling the civil war rising against him in the left-wing of his party. One would think that — as his approach to national security is being questioning in the wake of the underwear bomber and his dithering on Afghanistan — that he would think of some other military-related issue to champion than one that could fracture his 2008 base even further. And then there is his post-Obamacare pivot to jobs that seems to be uneducated and aimless. Is 2010 to be consumed with ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ for the military and ‘don’t ask, don’t know’ on jobs?”

Mychal Massie, who is the chairman of Project 21 stated that “It is time that President Obama realized his job is more than giving speeches and blaming former President Bush. Instead, from his performance tonight, he continues to show his disconnect with what the American people want and need. With record numbers of people unemployed and home ownership at risk or lost for so many, to point out just two problems, we needed to hear more from him than blaming others. It is time for Obama to own up to this malaise as his own.”

Kevin L. Martin, also with Project 21’s national advisory council argues that while “Watching President Obama’s State of the Union Address, it felt like he was back on the campaign trail. Like on the trail, tonight’s rhetoric tends to differ from reality. What was on display was a bait-and-switch in which broken promises were rehashed and more pandering was thrown at the middle class as he pledged tax cuts, tax credits and job creation.”

R. Dozier Gray, a combat veteran and also a Project 21 member stated that “The President reminds us that one in ten Americans still cannot find work. Hard as I try, I simply cannot think of anything he has done to truly mitigate the problem. Mr. President, if you hated the bank bailouts why did you support them. Own it, sir.”

In addition to her work with Project 21 Lisa Fritsch is a writer and talk show host from Austin, Texas. She observed that “President Obama wonders why there is so much ‘cynicism’ out there. While his speech was full of ironies and folly, this is the worst. It is President Obama who is the cynic, because he doesn’t seem to believe in anything but the government. Though President Obama worked hard to try to connect with Americans, it is clear that his position on some of Americans’ top concerns — taxes, terrorism and health care reform — remain the same. And his idea of change is at odds with the average voter…”

Ellis Washington who is a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network and a former editor of the Michigan Law Review noted that “Obama in his first year raised the spending limit to unsustainable levels ($1.35 trillion); more than GWB did in 8 years and now Obama is championing a freeze on spending? President Obama’s first State of the Union Address painfully exemplifies that this clear and present danger to America is not Mr. Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man of this ilk with the presidency. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us — lack of common sense and good judgment.”

You will not typically find these opinions among black Americans in the mainstream media. The reason for this is simple, there is a disdain by the media and by the left in general when it comes to a “diversity of opinion” among minorities and women. Liberals have “fought” for the freedoms of the “down trodden” for years we are told. One of the freedoms they did not fight for, it appears is freedom of thought.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Black Conservative Response to State of the Union Address (gloucestercitynews.net)
• Obama Declares ‘I Don’t Quit’ in State of the Union (usnews.com)
• Obama Seeks to Indoctrinate High Schoolers ala Nazi Youth (rightpundits.com)
• Hillary: I probably won’t serve two terms as Secretary of State (hotair.com)
• WaPo/ABC poll a vote of no confidence in Obama (hotair.com)
• Obama Admits Health Care Reform May Die In Congress (huffingtonpost.com)

While the rest of the nation sat in awe of the events that took place in a special election in Massachusetts that put a Republican in a Senate seat held by a Kennedy for a half of century, President Obama concluded that such was a result of policy makers going too slow on health care reform.  He came to this conclusion in spite of the following:

• • The state of Massachusetts had been under a socialized health care system since 2006 and it has led to higher prices and rationed care.
  • In spite of the fact that Massachusetts is 3 to 1 Democrats, it still chose a Republican for the Senate.
  • If the voter rage in Massachusetts was due to Republican resistance to reform, why would they elect a member of the GOP to this office?

As I read these obvious facts it seems like the need for an explanation is laughable.  These points should be clear to the most casual observer, but Obama is building a policy strategy that is contrary to these facts.  This indicates that either he questions the intelligence of his constituents or his constituents should worry about the “Emperor’s new clothes” or, in this case, strategy.  This approach to governing may work with petty dictators who are not accountable to voters or other branches of government, but it is still highly questionable in the United States.

In regards to the branches of government, Obama has developed this knack of attacking the Legislative and Judicial branches as if they are not necessary in accomplishing his policy objectives.  In a special joint session of Congress in September 2009, Obama claimed that members of Congress who stated that the President’s health care bill would include illegal immigrants were distorting the facts.  Members had seen enough of the bill to know that the President was misleading the audience and compelled Cong. Joe Wilson (R-SC) to exclaim out loud, “You lie!”  We have rarely seen such a reaction from a member of Congress, then again, we have rarely seen such an attack by a president on the Legislative branch. In the President’s State of the Union address, the President again went on the war path at another branch of power.  In this case it was the Judicial branch and the Supreme Court.

During the President’s speech, Obama openly criticized a recent Supreme Court decision on corporate and other group funding of judicial races.  The President claimed that the Court reversed a century worth of opinion on the subject by allowing for such funding.  The reality is, there was very little court opinion on the subject until a few decades and virtually all of that was without precedence.  In spite of this, it was still surprising than that one Justice (Samuel Alito), actually shook his head and said something to the effect of “not true.”  This was another demonstration we have not witnessed during an event such as this, but we have never had a president quite like Obama.  All of these incidents point to problems in his future when it comes to governing.

President Obama Continues to Show Immaturity

Obama’s last job was US Senator, which he did not finish one term.  Before that he was a part time State Senator from Illinois and community organizer, neither of which are typical springboards for the highest office of the land.  What we do know from his experience and temperament is that he does not bring the necessary skills and understanding to serve in the highest office of our land.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rasmussen: Obama post-SOTU comeback, or dead cat bounce? (hotair.com)
• State of the Union: Pivot or Divot? (rightpundits.com)
• CNN: Independents now reacting negatively to mere mention of “hope” by Obama (hotair.com)
• Ego, Obama’s Achilles’ Heel (americanthinker.com)
• Opportunist-in-chief complains about political opportunism (michellemalkin.com)
• Two sharp responses to Obama’s SOTU (michellemalkin.com)
• Sarah Palin: Mr. President: Please Try, “I’m Listening, People,” Instead of “Listen Up, People!” (conservatives4palin.com)
• Is Obama Bored? (rightpundits.com)
• After Mass. Upset, White House to Focus on Economy (cbn.com)
• SCOTUS Slammed at SotU: Alito Mouths ‘Not True’ to the President (abovethelaw.com)

For around a decade in the 1970s and early 80s, 30 Chileans who had studied under the University of Chicago’s Milton Friedman transformed their economy. Later known as the “Chicago boys,” these economists instituted policies of free trade, stable monetary policies, and deregulating the markets. They essentially de-politicized the economy and put Chile on the fast track of development.

As a result of these policies and the incredible economic turn around of this country, Chile is now poised to join the OECD. It struggled for years in the political and civil liberties front during the Pinochet years (although he drove, in a dictatorial fashion, the policies of economic reform that the nation enjoys today); but Freedom House now gives the country its top rating when it comes to political and other freedoms.

According to the Legatum Institute’s Prosperity Index, Chile tops the list of South America’s largest countries (those with populations over 10 million), supported by its high scores in governance, safety and security, and the contribution of its policies to economic growth. When you see the combination of change towards both political and economic freedom, you see a country that has created a situation in which the economy is significantly depoliticized, it is one ruled by law, and one in which the people are free to choose their destinies.

Chile has become a beacon of hope for countries that have suffered for generations under despots and demagogues and is a source of inspiration for Western countries that longed enjoyed freedom, but are now choosing a path towards serfdom. Chile could be a country to watch in the 21st century.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is Costa Rica Really the Happiest Nation on Earth? (freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com)

• It leads to delays where, as in the case of Canada, patients wait for 17 weeks on average from the time a general practitioner says indicates that something is wrong until one visits a specialist

• It leads to rationed care, where people not only wait for years for things such as hip replacements, but often find themselves forced to pay for such out of their own pockets in foreign countries

• It has a negative effect on mortality rates, as we see those who suffer from certain diseases such as cancer, surviving half as long in countries like England compared to patients in the United States

• It has been linked to “economic euthanasia,” in which individuals are allowed (or even encouraged) to die because they are no longer economically viable since they no longer pay taxes. That is exactly what happened to my own grandfather in England • It leads to no recourse, as government officials “apologize” for their negligence or horrible mistakes, but there is no viable way of pursuing damages

These are fairly obvious and well known and observed by medical and policy professionals around the world. In spite of how horrible they are, their proponents tell us that “socialized medicine is better than nothing.” In fact, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer used those words recently. Our indigent population is provided for better in our current and flawed system than those under socialized medicine, so the reasoning simply does not make any sense.

To make matters worse are those effects that are less noticeable. I do not want to sound like a conspiracy therapist, but their implications are far reaching and threaten to undermine both our robust health care system and, historically, the most vibrant economy in the history of the world.

Socialized medicine is part of a “cradle to grave” approach to governing that puts enormous financial strain on individuals and undermines individual responsibility. The mega rich can be taxed to pay for the cost of such programs and still have plenty of resources to do what they want with their money. They can still start enterprises, buy additional businesses, buy new toys, and more. But for the vast majority of individuals in the upper middle class and lower, such excessive costs can literally drive people into a lower income bracket in terms of quality of life and spending power purposes. Such costs make it all the more difficult for people to invest in new tools, to transition from employee to self-employed, and to pursue the climbing of the rungs of the ladder towards economic success.

In essence, these types of programs actually protect the very wealthy from aspiring entrepreneurs that are attempting to achieve economic success of their own, this is among the reasons the rich support big government programs. They might be an inconvenience to them, but are devastating for those who want to be rich. It should not be a surprise then that, in the last presidential election, the highest income group supported Obama 3 to 1 over McCain. It is not only because they can afford to support it, but because it is a small price to pay to stay “competitive.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Does the GOP Share Blame for Obamacare? (girlpundit.com)
• Shhh: White House negotiating for public option behind the scenes (hotair.com)
• Democrats Vow to Resurrect Healthcare Bill (usnews.com)
• Two Dems to oppose party’s health bill strategy (msnbc.msn.com)
• League of Women Voters urges quick response to nation’s health care crisis (medcitynews.com)

There is, of course, the old joke where we get a two line tax form. The first line asks, “How much did you make last year?” Second line, “Send a check or money order for that amount.” That would be simple, but it would also not work because we would all either stop working or become liars about how much we make. However, this joke does put us in the right direction, according to Malanga.

The vast majority of the modern economies are moving rapidly towards a “flat tax” as a way of guaranteeing a predictable amount of revenue coming in, avoiding the punishment of individuals for earning more income (with a flat tax people pay more if they make more, but it is not in punitive way), and to eliminate the problems of complexity.

How complex is our tax code? According to Malanga, some 80 percent of households now use tax preparers or software to complete their tax returns. Furthermore, we spend 7.6 billion hours on tax compliance, according to the IRS Taxpayer Advocate, which in turn costs nearly $200 billion a year.Over the past decade (since 2001), Washington initiated 3,125 changes to the tax code, or more than one a day. Malanga refers to one recent study that ranked the U.S. tax code 122nd in complexity among 175 nations worldwide. This happens because political forces have decided to use our tax code for social engineering rather than for raising revenue. Any time a politician says he or she wants to promote policies that encourage home ownership or energy savings, they want to do so in the context of changing the tax code to encourage such. This only makes the tax system more complicated.

The system is complex, both for the taxpayer and those who prepare forms for them. A flat tax would be an improvement, although it is still a tax on wealth creation, which makes no sense for any country interested in promoting opportunity and growth. A sales tax would be better still, because it would be a simple tax on consumption. If our government did the things it is allowed to do in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, a very modest tariff, like our Founders intended, would be sufficient. But simplicity with either a flat or sales tax would move us in the right direction.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Thousands May Incorrectly Be Using Stimulus Tax Breaks (nytimes.com)
• Special tax breaks proposed for Haitian earthquake relief donations (dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com)
• PATRICK MCILHERAN: The Patsies Catch On To ObamaCare. “Nor is it just money. The ticked-off people… (pajamasmedia.com)
• How do you enforce a health-insurance mandate? (hotair.com)
• Principles, Not Polls, Should Dictate Policy Debate (girlpundit.com)
• A sham ‘compromise’ health care bill waiting in the wings (americanthinker.com)
• Surprise! 15 million will owe taxes on tax break (hotair.com)

Major news sources like to monitor migration trends among states. The Census Bureau has been watching these trends also and what you find “between the lines,” is really quite interesting.

The fastest growing states for population are (in order) Wyoming, Utah, Texas, Colorado, Alaska, Arizona, Washington, North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina.
There are several unique characteristics about these population shifts:

• They are often huge. Texas gained over 500,000 in one year. This is largely attributable to the huge number of businesses that have relocated to the state.
• All of these states lean Republican or are very Republican. Republican strategists’ lips salivate when they think of these population shifts to their state. This means more Congressional seats moving to their states and away (as you will see later) from Democrat states. However, they may be surprised by the long term results, as I will explain later.
• They tend to be in the West or (even more so) the South. This has been a trend that has persisted for decades and continues to be the case. Politically, the implications of this are significant. All of our Presidents since John F. Kennedy have been from Texas, California, Georgia, and Arkansas (with the exception of our sitting President and Gerald Ford.

What about states that have seen a decline in population? They are, starting with the biggest loser, Michigan, Maine, Rhode Island, Ohio, Vermont, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and Mississippi.

• They are in overwhelmingly liberal states. With the exception of Mississippi, these states are all “true blue.” This, again, makes conservatives excited and liberals concerned, but the long term implications could prove different.
• With the exception of Mississippi, all of these are in the East Coast and Midwest, which have also suffered when it comes to political prestige and power.

What are the lessons learned?

I believe that the political and economic environment of many of these states have become so hostile to entrepreneurship and economic growth, people are voting with their feet in a quest to find better jobs and opportunities. Michigan has taken a pounding for decades (my family was among the “Michiganders” who flew South to flee the rust belt in the 1970s) and continues to face economic pressures due to unions that international competitors never have to encounter. New York and Connecticut are noted for their constant regulatory pressures they apply on business, forcing many to have little choice but to leave. The list goes on; people are leaving these states on the quest for economic prosperity.

I believe Republicans, who appear to be the long term winners in these shifts, should be cautious in their enthusiasm. I remember when I worked as an aide for US Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire. That state had become extremely Republican by the 1980s and was enjoying growth as people fled the disastrous political and economic situation in Massachusetts just to the South. Eventually New Hampshire became increasingly liberal as people moved who knew there were things wrong with their home state — taxes, crime, etc. — but didn’t realize that the people they were voting for were the source of their problems. So once they moved to a new promise land, they brought the same terrible policies with them. Today, New Hampshire is now a major population loser as the migrants from Massachusetts wonder what happened to the Granite State. It is a vicious cycle.

The future looks bright for conservative friendly states on paper, but this will only be the case if new voters support the very policies that have made these states so attractive in the first place.

One of the main reasons why voters are entertaining turning over one of its Senate seats to a Republican is that the people of Massachusetts have seen the future of socialized medicine and they know it doesn’t work.  They have been under a health care bill since 2006 that mirrors, in many respects, the Obama plan navigating through the Senate.

Forbes magazine has pointed out that many of the voters of Massachusetts are unhappy with the plan and for several good reasons.  In an article titled “MAss Disaster,” writer Sally Pipes exposes some of the ugly truths surrounding the socialized health care bill that has plagued the state.

Pipes reminds the reader of some words that have haunted then Governor Mitt Romney.  “‘Will Commonwealth care cost taxpayers more? No!’ So wrote Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in November 2004, the economy then still in full bloom. ‘Neither the state nor the taxpayers can afford to pay more.’  She goes on to point out that “It’s worth pondering ex-Gov. Romney’s promises just over three years after he crossed partisan lines to reform health care in the Bay State. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are modeling reform on the Massachusetts model, promoting bureaucratic health exchanges, increased restrictions on health insurance and vastly expanded taxpayer-subsidized care. Like Romney, they promise more coverage at lower cost, even as the evidence suggests otherwise.”

So what do the people of Massachusetts think about the socialized health care experiment they have been a part of?  The Forbes piece notes that “Only one in four considers the reform a success. Just one in five thinks it has made health care more affordable.”  I’m sure that many of the one-fourth work in government or they are among those that had no health insurance before and do not know quality care when they see it.  They certainly are not seeing it in their own state.

A plan that was touted as a way to increase coverage without excessive government spending has had the exact opposite effect:

• Medicaid has increased by 76,000 enrollees and the subsidized plans by 177,000.
• Forty-six percent pay no premium, and
• another 12% are highly subsidized.
• A mere 19,000 have signed up for the non-subsidized private plans offered through the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector. These were the plans that Romney and others said would help contain costs.

To make matters worse, the bill is very costly.  Most citizens are looking at spending 10 percent of their incomes on premiums or face impressive fines.  So high, in fact, are the premiums, 20 percent of the state’s residents have become exempt from the coverage.  Many of these moved to Medicaid (as seen above), but at least 3 percent of the population are still without coverage.   Instead of reducing costs, like the politicians promised as the bill navigated through the legislative process, it has significantly increased costs and has the government scrambling for revenues.  Recently the state has taken a page out of Obama’s book and has put a hit on smokers at the tune of $1 a pack.

So how will the state fight the growth in health care costs? The same way socialist health care systems have fought such runaway costs for years; through a bureaucracy that will cut doctors’ income, moving patients into manage care, and the establishment of price controls.  In other words, through the development of the same type of rationed care that dominates much of the world today.  These are the exact type of approaches Massachusetts is pursuing.

Is Massachusetts Senate Race a Health Care Referendum?

The people of Massachusetts already know this type of health care does not work and that is why they are so close to electing a Republican like Scott Brown to the US Senate.

The article points out that “Mr. Nelson, who faces re-election in 2012, backed the Senate health-care bill only after lengthy talks in which he won agreement that the federal government would permanently cover the full cost in Nebraska of expanding Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor.” His vote was crucial in getting the controversial bill through the US Senate. Nelson’s vote has drawn criticism from around the country and close to home. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a moderate Republican noted for his tolerance of liberal actions called Nelson’s vote “sleazy.” The Senator’s own governor, Dave Heineman, has been critical of the circumstance behind the bill’s passage, stating on Fox News that “The responsibility for this special deal lies solely on the shoulders of Senator Ben Nelson.” He is now said to be considering running against Nelson in 2012.

The damage for the bill has been significant. In Nebraska, a Dec. 28 Rasmussen poll showed Heineman, who opposes the bill, soundly beating Mr. Nelson in a theoretical 2012 match-up, 61% to 30%. This is devastating to Nelson, who is 68 years old and was last re-elected in 2006 with 64% of the vote.

The Democrats are in trouble when it comes to the health care bill in general and that legislation will likely serve as a referendum in the 2012 elections. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in December found that 44% to 41% of Americans prefer the health system as it is to the Democrats’ health overhaul. The bill is so bad that they cannot even give it away for free in Nebraska.There will be much debate over the sudden decline in Nelson’s popularity. It could be because the people of Nebraska are like the rest of the nation who are opposed to rationed or socialized care. Some of them may understand the Constitutional obligations of a US Senator and believe he violated his legal mandate by supporting this bill that is without legitimacy. I believe that Nelson should have learned a lesson from George McGovern, the candidate who lost the 1972 race for the Presidency by a landslide. In the early part of 1972 McGovern was doing very well in his race against Richard Nixon, until he placed on his platform the redistribution of $1,000 to individuals who made less than $5,000 a year. $5,000 does not seem like much now, but at the time it was a huge sum of money. In fact, that described a majority of Americans at the time. But the vast majority of them believed they would make more than that some day. Furthermore, in spite of the weak morals of our elected officials and deep seated cynicism in the way they judge their constituents, I believe most Americans are not mere free loaders eager to get on the welfare dole. The people of Nebraska are hard working and do not want to be seen as dependents on the rest of the country. Nelson’s dim view of his voters will likely provide grim results for him in 2012.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ben Nelson Working to Extend Medicaid Deal (dailykos.com)
• A money-making opportunity (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Making 2010 a Great Year for America (girlpundit.com)
• Cornhuckster Sen. Ben Nelson: We shoulda waited on Demcare (michellemalkin.com)
• Forcing a vote on Demcare’s constitutionality (michellemalkin.com)
• Who’ll Bell the Cat? (americanthinker.com)
• It’s on: Blanche Lincoln rips Ben Nelson for ObamaCare kickback (hotair.com)
• States Threaten Lawsuit Over Nebraska’s Medicaid Deal In Senate Health Bill (medicalnewstoday.com)
• Senator Nelson Defends His Health Care Vote (nytimes.com)

• If a majority of Americans support a massive increase in taxes, do tax increases become a good thing?
• If a majority of Americans want to severely limit access to firearms, is that a good thing?
• If a majority of American want to socialize medicine, should we be supportive of it?

Invariably, polls that do not support “our” position are dismissed as distorted, skewed towards certain population groups, or are simply wrong. It is not the numbers that are wrong, it is the idea of using polls to drive policy debates that is the problem.

Polls are the tools of demagogues and purveyors of mob rule. Polls are tools used by the majority and are designed to bring the minority, or the one, “in line.” One of my favorite quotes on the subject is from Ayn Rand who said, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” The Founders attempted to make a country in which individuals ruled and the elected officials served to protect them (and not “provide” for them).

Our federal government was designed to do very little at all. Its primary objective was to protect individuals from other individuals and our nation from adversaries. Its seventeen enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, gave the federal government a very modest agenda, with the vast majority of power being deferred to the states and (more importantly) individuals. Furthermore, the Founders created a convoluted form of government that made change difficult to achieve. This was not by accident, but design. While the so-called “French Republic” started years after ours, it has had five different governments over the last two hundred years. The British boast of a “Constitution,” but that is simply the evolution of law over centuries. Our Constitution was intended to mean something. It was meant to make government small, but strong. It provided the separation of powers — the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches — for the primary objective of making it difficult for laws to pass. It was meant to hinder, not foster, change. Our office of the President differs greatly from the Prime Ministers of Europe. The latter are mere extensions of the legislative branches and are meant to facilitate change. The former is meant to represent the interests of all the people and often resist the legislative agenda.

Our Constitutional Amendment process is so daunting; we have only had 27 amendments approved since 1789. Since that time over 10,000 amendments have been introduced and any where from 100 to 200 have been offered annually for the last several years. Of those 27, ten of them were ratified with the Constitution (they are our Bill of Rights) and were a prerequisite for the document being approved. Seventeen amendments over 200 years demonstrate a government adverse to change.

The Founders were opposed to most “change” when it came to government, because such was virtually always done at the expense of individual freedoms. Those who do not share such values continually discount the delays in our founding documents and often try to legislate through courts and bureaucracy. I, for one, believe it is time to go back to the principles that have worked and are found in the Constitution and not public opinion polls.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Finally, Someone is Discussing the Constitution (girlpundit.com)
• No Health Care in the Constitution (americanthinker.com)
• Obama’s First Veto (politicalwire.com)
• The Popular Disdain for the Constitution (girlpundit.com)
• Did Founding Fathers envision such wealth redistribution? (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Rep. Virginia Foxx: Health Care Reform Is A Distraction (alan.com)