Count the Cost: Is ObamaCare Worth It For Dems?

The same night House Dems were sneaking through PelosiCare, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was in Iowa asking, even demanding, that President Obama get his priorities straight. His mantra was the old adage, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Citing the shockingly high unemployment rate, he painted a picture of a bleak economy that will only suffer if the health care bill passes.

Did liberals get the message? Of course not. Liberal Democrats have made it clear their priorities are first take over the health care system, then worry about the economy. A few days after Gov. Pawlenty’s speech, former President Bill Clinton held a meeting with Senate Dems. But instead of encouraging Senators to listen to the concerns raised by legitimately scared and angry Americans, he essentially said to ignore them. “The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning,” he said. His advice? Pass something, anything. You can complete the takeover later.

If you think I’m exaggerating, read what he said for yourself. It’s typical elitist drivel. The point is, though, liberals obviously want this bill badly. They’ll probably get it too, in one form or another. But at what cost?

When I say cost, I’m not talking about the $1.4 Trillion this bill will cost the American people. Money means exactly nothing to liberals, especially when it’s our money. I’m also not talking about the cost to our freedoms. Freedoms don’t mean anything either. I’m talking about the only thing that does matter to power-hungry liberals–maintaining power.

Every politician knows one of his most valuable assets is trust. It’s the key to getting elected and re-elected, and it’s one asset politicians can’t spend lightly. President Obama started his tenure with an unprecedented amount. Since taking office, though, he’s taken every opportunity to destroy the trust of the American people. From economic freedom, to weak foreign policy, to health care, to free speech, just about everything Americans value has come under attack in the last year or so. Attacking the things American’s value most is no way to keep their trust.

The great irony is that liberal Democrats are sure getting re-elected depends on ramming this bill through. They are wrong. Americans aren’t known for their patience with politicians. They’re easily displeased, and further threatening valued freedoms –not to mention pushing a teetering economy over the edge–will likely bring about the one thing Democrats don’t want: a conservative sweep in the 2010 elections.

To clarify, I’m not saying re-election is the only thing politicians should worry about. I’m all for principled politicians who do the right thing because it’s the right thing. What I’m saying, though, is that maintaining power is one of the few thing liberal Democrats do care about, and it’s the one thing they’ll probably lose if they pass this bill. They need to count the cost and ask if this is really worth it. I’m sure they think it is. And that’s one more reason why Americans need to let their votes do the talking in 2010.

Emerging to Die

I predict the emerging church will not last another 10 years, if that, and it may be in its death-throes already. It will be replaced by another heresy more exciting and more contemporary. That’s the nature of lies–they always breed new lies to keep pace with the times. Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and others like them will enjoy their time in the limelight, peddling their agnostic nonsense, but they will be forgotten as forgettable faces in ever changing merry-go-round of charlatans and heretics. They will not be remembered because they will not prevail against the Rock of Divine Truth, and no one remembers the losers.

The fashion that is the emergent church is a dream, and like all dreams, it is exciting because for a moment it can set aside the rules of reality. It feels free, it feels real and exhilarating. It brings the thrill of something strange and exciting. But it is not real, and like all dreams, it will come to an end when the light of a new day, of reality, breaks clear and strong through the muddle of darkness that so facilitates dreaming.

Those in the emergent church heap scorn on those of us who embrace an ancient creed. Yes, my creed is ancient, and I embrace its antiquity with pride, for my creed is old enough and strong enough to become outdated. The truest and therefore the most relevant things are always the oldest and the most enduring. Their creed, if it can be called a creed at all, is subject to the whims of an increasingly bored society. It will last exactly as long as the public mood supports it, which will not be long at all.

The emergent church is a fad, and like all fads, it is fading. Its a fad because its both new and popular, and it’s fading because it is false. It is false because truth is neither new nor popular. Truth will prevail, because truth has prevailed. Only the truth survives fashions, moods, persecutions, governments, gods, foolish philosophies, and all the assaults of time. Only a lie can be truly new. Some lies are old, but the truth is always older. Indeed, truth is older than all philosophies, it is older than mankind, it is older still than the world, it is older than all the deeps of time. It is even as old as God.

Cynthia Tucker: Government Will Save Us

In her Saturday column, Cynthia Tucker laments the lack of government regulations on the private sector. American business and consumers can’t possibly handle such a dangerous thing as an unregulated market, she suggests. Don’t worry, though, she concludes, my government shall supply all your needs.

It astounds me how much confidence Ms. Tucker places in the government. She trashes businesses as greedy, malevolent entities, ready to “pillage” the American economy if they’re left to themselves. The government, she firmly believes, isn’t prone to weaknesses like greed or corruption, and it can police the naughty business to protect the American people. Absurd. The government is the ultimate business, intent on gobbling up as much market share as it can. Considering it has no competitors, it’s been pretty successful so far. And yes, greed and corruption abound. The government is no morally neutral police force.

But that’s not even the point. The point is that free markets regulate themselves. So a meat packing company sells meat that gets me and thousands of others sick. I never buy their product again, nor does anyone else. Their sales plummet, they get sued, and perhaps they even go bankrupt. There’s a direct, cause and effect correlation between bad business and consequences on the bottom line. That’s how capitalism works, and even Ms. Tucker acknowledges that.

There’s another problem with a nanny government babysitting the private sector, though–government bureaucrats don’t have a clue about meat packing, car manufacturing, or anything else. It’s easy for someone safely ensconced in a taxpayer furnished office to whip out a bunch of theoretical regulations telling business how to operate. But every one of those regulations means time, money, and energy for the real businesses that actually have to follow all those regulations. Not to mention the increased cost to consumers who buy their products.

Like king Midas, the government has a magic touch. Instead of turning things to gold, though, the government has a proven track record of turning them into bureaucratic nightmares. My response to Ms. Tucker is this: No, more government regulations won’t fix anything. The government is not God, the maker protector, and sustainer of all things. Yes, free markets can lead to faulty products, just as free speech can lead to faulty opinions. But the freedom, economically or otherwise, is always worth the price.

Snowe, Let’s Be Honest

Bipartisanship! cried Democrats when Republican Senator Olympia Snowe cast her vote for Obamacare. At least symbolically, Democrats had achieved their goal of Republican support. But, details of the bill aside, I have to question if this vote was really bi-partisan. More to the point, I  have to question if Olympia Snowe is really a Republican.

Sure, she claims to be, but let’s let the facts do the talking.

Snowe is rated 0% by the National Right to Life Coalition–in other words, she’s strongly pro-abortion. She is strongly pro-gay rights. She voted no on $75 million for abstinence education. She is an environmentalist. She is for open borders. She voted for Obamacare. The list goes on.

Yes, Snowe sometimes votes with Republicans on issues that don’t matter, but on the key social issues, she’s a liberal. Which raises the question, why exactly is she a Republican? I don’t presume to know, but I do know she shouldn’t be.

There’s an oft quoted anecdote about Alexander the Great commanding a cowardly soldier to change his ways or change his allegiance. I don’t know if the story is true, but the point of it is–don’t ally yourself with something if you won’t stand for it. As much as I disagree with him, I have to give Arlen Specter credit where it’s due–he was honest enough to switch parties. I really think Olympia Snowe should think about it too, and end this farce of bipartisanship. It’s the honest thing to do.

The Novice and the Nobel

“For what?” and “Why? ” were common questions when it was announced that  Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Some peaceniks rejoiced, but most of the world scratched its collective head in amazement. The astonishment was compounded when it became common knowledge that the nominations for the prize ended 12 days into Obama’s presidency. In those 12 days, Obama had done little but party and go to a few meetings.

But why indeed? It can’t be known for sure, but I have a theory. It goes like this. The Nobel Committee saw Obama travel the world apologizing for how mean and terrible America’s been, they saw him beginning to dismantle America’s defenses, and they saw him seek to make America less than a world leader. Being the good, anti-American Europeans they are, they liked what they saw. The best way to encourage America’s impotency, they reasoned, is to give the President a reputation to keep. Accordingly, they cursed him with an honor.

Now permanently labeled as an international man of peace, Obama will have to continue downplaying America’s importance in the world. As one commentator put it, how can a Nobel Prize winner send more troops into Afghanistan? He can’t, and that’s the point. Afghanistan is just one example of how being a Nobel laureate will affect Obama’s policy. Any sign of assertiveness, any sign of American supremacy and Obama won’t be living up to his status. He will have to continue to sacrifice America’s best interest for that of the world community, and that’s exactly what Europe wants. Score: Europe 1, America 0.

I’m not sure the Nobel Committee needed to do this. Obama likely would have continued apologizing profusely for America. And, of course, this is all just theorizing. Still, if Europeans could have done one thing to encourage the America’s growing impotency on the world stage, this was it. I wouldn’t be surprised. Congratulations, congratulations indeed.

Is Social Justice Cool?

I have been intending to write something on the problems with social justice as it’s often addressed, but I’ve needed something to coalesce my thoughts. This excellent post from the pastor of the Well, a community of house churches in Southern California, did just that. In his post, he discusses why addressing issues of injustice and meeting needs through programs misses the point. He says the poor and needy are not statistics, they are souls with needs that can only be met through personal interaction, love, and the Gospel. Money and food can’t help someone struggling with spiritual depression or lonliness. I agree completely.

Another point that he mentions but does not develop is that social justice is “cool.” I’ve thought this many times. Social justice often seems more of a fashion and a mood, and not a lifestyle of denying yourself. For many, it’s simply a conscience salve. It’s very easy to talk about helping the poor and needy nestled comfortably in a recliner at Starbucks sipping a $4 mocha. You can have your cake, and eat it too, so to speak. You can feel like you are helping the poor because that $2 bottle of water you bought helped build a well in Africa, but you never have to minister to a real, hurting African with spiritual needs. In short, social justice makes people feel like they’re good at little personal cost.

Besides the lack of personal interaction, my biggest problem with the fashion of social justice is it operates on the philosophy that money can solve everything. Just throw enough money at the poor parts of the world, and poof, all the problems will disappear. On the contrary, foreign aid to many poor countries often results in rampant corruption and abuse. The point is, we can build wells, send medical supplies, and build schools in poor countries worldwide, and souls will still go to hell. Meeting of physical needs is essential, but it can never be separated from the Gospel. As the pastor writes in his post, treating physical symptoms without treating the heart is like treating cancer with Tylenol. It will ease the pain temporarily, but it will lead to eternal destruction.

I’m not saying helping the needy is unimportant, nor am I saying  every Christian needs to go to Africa. What I’m saying is true social justice will always cost more than money. Justice, true justice, cost Christ his life. Think about that before you jump on the social justice bandwagon.

Thugs and Toy Guns

What if every cop in Detroit was armed only with a pop gun? I image things would get pretty messy, pretty fast. The truth is, bad guys don’t care if you’re wearing blue, have a badge on your shirt, and have flashing lights on your car. No offense intended, but mall cops have those. Really, the only thing a thug fears is a loaded gun. The fact that most police officers don’t have to resort to using their weapons is a testament to the fact criminals respect firepower. After all, fear of consequences is the foundation of all inhibitions. No fear, no inhibitions.

Let’s apply this principle to nuclear weapons for a moment. President Obama and other world leaders recently passed a U.N. resolution they naively hope will lead to a nuclear free world. The idea is preposterous. The world will never be free of nuclear weapons, just the free world. By passing this resolution, the “good guys” of the world have essentially armed themselves with pop guns–worthless resolutions, sanctions and threats. They make some noise, but they aren’t going to hurt. The bad guys, like North Korea and Iran, all have or will soon have nuclear weapons, and you better believe they won’t be getting rid of them any time soon. With the fear of nuclear winter removed, rogue nations will feel at liberty to do as they please. Iran’s firing of advanced missiles today shows they are already testing the waters.

But how did we get here? It’s simple: Obama and his compatriots at the United Nations are hopeless idealists, their feet planted firmly in the clouds. Like all progressives, they live in a fairy tale world where the Lions lie down with the Packers. They genuinely believe diplomacy and happy talk will convince hardened dictators and insane despots to play nice. As anyone with a bit of common sense knows, and as we all very well might find out, they are dead wrong.

While nuclear disarmament probably won’t happen over night, you can rest assured that Obama will continue to make American less secure in a pointless crusade to prove to the world that America isn’t a bully. It’s nice to be liked, but when everything you stand for as a nation is at stake, popularity is worth sacrificing. But if we are really willing to disarm and prostrate ourselves in front of possibly the most dangerous threats we’ve yet faced, we’ve already lost.