Bringing LIBERTY to
Capitol Hill -- 2008
OZARKS
VIRTUAL TOWN
HALL
Saturday Morning, October 6, 2007, 10:30am
|
A Discussion of The President's Saturday Morning
Radio Address
|
Click here
to listen to a replay of the October 6, 2007 Ozarks Virtual Town
Hall |
Notes and Summary of the Broadcast -- S-CHIP
Reauthorization
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. One important commitment of the Federal
government is to help America's poorest children get access to health
care. Washington is now in the midst of an important debate over the
future of this vital program. I strongly support SCHIP. My
Administration has added more than 2 million children to SCHIP since
2001. And our 2008 budget increases SCHIP funding by 20 percent over
five years.
How the President Differs from the American vision of
"Liberty Under God":
- Unfortunately, today's Americans do not believe in
"liberty," they prefer "security" or
"equality."
- Today's Americans do not believe in liberty Under God, preferring a
secular savior, the State.
- According to America's Founding Fathers and their Constitution,
health care and medical decisions are NOT
an "important commitment of the Federal government."
- Capitalism has given Americans the best healthcare system in the
world.
- Socialist nations do not have health care as good as ours. People
leave those nations to get better medical care in America.
- Problems in American medicine are caused by government regulations
and socialist intervention.
- Capitalism provides the highest quality health care to the
greatest number of people.
- Socialism provides equality of
health care -- at a lower level of quality and timeliness.
- Both Democrats and Republicans ignore
the "experiment
in liberty
 "
of yesterday's Americans that proved so successful, making America
the most prosperous and admired nation on earth. Both parties
believe in the government as savior.
- SCHIP was covered in the
September 22, 2007 Ozarks Virtual Town Hall.
| President's
Radio Address |
Liberty
Under God |
| THE PRESIDENT: Good
morning. One important commitment of the Federal government is to
help America's poorest children get access to health care. Most of
these children are covered by Medicaid, which will spend more than
$35 billion to help them this fiscal year. For children who do not
qualify for Medicaid, but whose families are struggling, we have
the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. |
President Bush took an
oath to "support the Constitution." This is proof he
violates that oath. The Constitution gives no power to the federal
government to take money from your paycheck claiming to "help
America's poorest children get access to health care."
Medicaid and SCHIP are unconstitutional programs. There is no
valid reason why we should send our money to Washington D.C., have
bureaucrats take their cut, and send it back to us with strings
attached. |
| Washington is now in
the midst of an important debate over the future of this vital
program. I strongly support SCHIP. My Administration has added
more than 2 million children to SCHIP since 2001. And our 2008
budget increases SCHIP funding by 20 percent over five years. |
SCHIP is the product
of a Republican Congress in 1997. Bush "strongly"
supports the program. There is no debate in Congress about whether
or not we should have socialized healthcare. |
| Unfortunately, more
than 500,000 poor children who are eligible for SCHIP coverage are
not enrolled in the program. At the same time, many States are
spending SCHIP funds on adults. In fact, based on their own
projections for this fiscal year, Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey,
Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Mexico will spend more SCHIP money
on adults than they do on children. And that is not the purpose of
the program. |
Democrats want to
expand socialized medicine rapidly. Republicans are content to
expand socialized medicine more slowly, talking about "fiscal
responsibility" along the way. |
| This week,
congressional leaders sent me a deeply flawed bill that would move
SCHIP even further from its original purpose. Here are some of the
problems with Congress's plan: Under their plan, one out of every
three children who moves onto government coverage would drop
private insurance. In other words, millions of children would move
out of private health insurance and onto a government program.
Congress's plan would also transform a program for poor children
into one that covers children in some households with incomes up
to $83,000. Congress's plan would raise taxes on working people.
And Congress's plan does not even fully fund all the new spending.
If their plan becomes law, five years from now Congress would have
to choose between throwing people off SCHIP -- or raising taxes a
second time. |
The criticisms of
this bill are criticisms of the entire program. The economic and
cultural considerations marshaled by the President against
Democrat expansion should be applied to the entire program.
Government funding always crowds out personal responsibility. |
| Congress's SCHIP plan
is an incremental step toward their goal of government-run health
care for every American. Government-run health care would deprive
Americans of the choice and competition that comes from the
private market. It would cause huge increases in government
spending. It would result in rationing, inefficiency, and long
waiting lines. It would replace the doctor-patient relationship
with dependency on bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. And it is the
wrong direction for our country. |
It is truly the
wrong direction for our country. But Bush misstates the facts when
he said above, "Washington is now in
the midst of an important debate over the future of this vital
program. I strongly support SCHIP. My Administration has added
more than 2 million children to SCHIP since 2001. And our 2008
budget increases SCHIP funding by 20 percent over five
years."
There is no debate about the "direction" our country
is taking. Only the speed. |
| Congress knew that I
would veto this bill, yet they sent it anyway. So on Wednesday, I
vetoed the SCHIP bill. And I asked Members of Congress to come
together and work with me on a responsible bill that I can sign --
so we can keep this important program serving America's poor
children. |
Democrats know that
they can get political mileage out of this issue. "It's for the
children." |
| When it comes to
SCHIP, we should be guided by a clear principle: Put poor children
first. I urge Republicans and Democrats in Congress to support a
bill that moves adults off this children's program -- and covers
children who do not qualify for Medicaid, but whose families are
struggling. If putting poor children first takes a little more
than the 20 percent increase I have proposed in my budget for
SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the
additional money. |
Government programs
always cost more than private initiative to solve the same
problem.
SCHIP will cost the government over $4,000 per year for every
newly insured child, compared to $2,300 per year to add a child to
a private insurance plan.
If you know of a child who has no health insurance, why go to
Washington D.C. for help? Why not discover or lobby for local and
private solutions to the problem? Bush and the Democrats are
basically on the same page. |
| Ultimately, our
Nation's goal should be to move children who have no health
insurance to private coverage -- not to move children who already
have private health insurance to government coverage. By working
together, Republicans and Democrats can strengthen SCHIP, ensure
that it reaches the children who need it, and find ways to help
more American families get the private health coverage they need. |
As the Democrats
point out in their address, "In 2004, at the Republican
National Convention, the President promised (and I quote): 'In a
new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of
children who are eligible but not signed up for government health
insurance programs. We will not allow, he said, 'a lack of
attention, or information, to stand between these children and the
health care they need.'" |
| Thank you for
listening. |
|
Additional Resources:
- Congressional
Control of Health Care is Dangerous to Children - Rep. Ron Paul
- We don’t need a village, a
bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children.
That’s what parents need to be doing.
- Why
Bush Resists Child Health Bill
- SCHIP is senseless. Like its much larger sibling, Medicaid, the
program forces taxpayers to send their money to Washington so that
Congress can send it back to state governments with strings
attached. Both programs force taxpayers to subsidize people who
don't need help, discourage low-income families from climbing the
economic ladder - and make private insurance more expensive for
everyone else. All told, SCHIP is a very costly way of helping
targeted families obtain health coverage.
- SCHIP-Wrecked
- HUMAN EVENTS
- A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study revealed that an
overwhelming 77% of children affected by this expansion already have
personal health insurance. Expanding income eligibility for
SCHIP will serve as a taxpayer funded substitute to these personal
insurance plans, resulting in many children who already have health
insurance leaving the private sector for the taxpayer rolls. As
the income requirements are eased, the CBO estimates that 2.1
million children who currently have insurance will drop it for the
government-run program. As they leave for SCHIP coverage,
premiums for those still holding private coverage will rise,
encouraging even more to sign up for taxpayer-funded SCHIP in a
dangerous downward cycle.
- SCHIP
follies - - The Washington Times
- As part of their latest political charade, Democrats are joining
with their special-interest allies to launch a massive advertising
campaign to trash politically vulnerable House members who are
demanding fiscal restraint instead of backing a misguided bill that
would expand SCHIP coverage to adults and upper-middle income
families with incomes of up to $83,000 for a family of four. One
liberal activist coalition includes everyone from the Service
Employees International Union to MoveOn.org. Press reports indicate
they're spending up to $5 million this month on an advertising blitz
they hope will intimidate members into supporting the march toward
socialized medicine.
- Abandon
SCHIP: Big Government Returns - Acton Institute PowerBlog
- The mammoth Congressional expansion of SCHIP is such a bad idea,
even the normally big spending President Bush vetoed the bill.
Another growing frustration is a lack of conservative leadership on
explaining the consequences of expanding this program.
- ‘Putting
Children First’ Bush Right to Veto SCHIP - HUMAN EVENTS
- A Republican Congress enacted the SCHIP program in 1997. Instead
of re-authorizing SCHIP with a funding increase to include those
children eligible under the intended criteria, the Democratic
majority in Congress proposed a broad expansion of SCHIP to include
hundreds of thousands of adults as well as upper-income children
already covered under private insurance. The price tag is more than
double the current program—$35 billion for the expansion alone. In
some states, families earning up to $83,000 a year would be eligible
for this “low-income program.”
- Washington
Wire - WSJ.com : Does Veto Bolster Bush’s Standing?
- Townhall.com:
Rep. John Campbell: Blog
- SCHIP will cost the government over $4,000 per year for every
newly insured child, compared to $2,300 per year to add a child to a
private insurance plan.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has indicated that
cigarette taxes are one of the most regressive taxes, that is, a tax
that falls more heavily on lower income individuals as a percentage
of income.
With a shrinking tobacco market, this tax uses declining revenues to
pay for an expanding program. According to estimates, it would take
22 million new smokers in the United States in the next 5 years to
pay for this program.
- IBDeditorials.com:
Health care, health insurance, pharmaceutical industry and more -
Health Care
- Bush
Vetoes Child Health Bill Privately
The Democrat Party Radio Address:
- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer delivers this week's Democratic
Radio Address.
- "The President claims that this legislation would lead to a
government takeover of health insurance. He is wrong. The truth is,
America's largest private insurance lobbying group supports this
bill."
Libertarian Response to Democrats:
- See the
September 22, 2007 Ozarks Virtual Town Hall.
- "Private lobbying groups" often lobby Congress for
government takeover of their industries - if it brings them profits
or "security."
- Bush wants to expand the SCHIP program, not cut it.
He just doesn't want to expand it as much as the Democrats do.
There's no evidence that this child would have been denied coverage
under the White House expansion.
- Expanding this government program is wrong. It is sinful and
immoral to take money from Jones under threats of violence
to give to "the poor children."
- It is unconstitutional for the federal government to to this, even
if it were moral.
- Capitalism, not socialism, will ensure the greatest amount of the
highest quality health care to every child in this country. The
medical care available to this child would not have been available
to him if he lived in the Soviet Union a few decades ago.
- Democrats and Republicans are quibbling over ten or fifteen
billion tax dollars. True leadership would inspire and orchestrate voluntary
giving from those who can afford to do so.
- Book
Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton
Institute PowerBlog
- “If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the
current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private
Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education
to all the poor of the
earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left
over for evangelism around the world.”
Late Questions from Listeners
Unfortunately, a question arrived from a listener after the
conclusion of last week's Town Hall:
| I thought the Preamble for the Constitution said
the purpose of that document was "to provide for the common
weal. . ." How can that be done without education? Without
public safety? Without regulation of industries that would
otherwise rob the public and spoil the environment? |
The preamble states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.
Probably our listener was referring to the highlighted phrase.
What are "the blessings of liberty?" How are they
"secured" by the government? The blessings
include automobiles, computers, antibiotics, and thousands of groceries
at the local market. How are these blessings "secured" by the
government? By nationalizing the automobile industry, as in the Soviet
Union? No, simply by protecting the nation from foreign invasion and
eliminating trade barriers between the several States. What about
punishing fraud and crime? Though considered to be a function of
government, it was not considered to be a function of the federal
government. Punishing crime remained with the states and local
governments.
The question posed during the Constitutional Convention and during
the ratification process was "What form of government best secures
the Blessings of Liberty and promotes the general Welfare?" The
answer given was not "a huge centralized federal
government with unlimited powers," but rather a limited federal
government that has only a few powers enumerated in the
constitution, with the rest of government remaining with the states. The
Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights summarizes the philosophy of the
Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
In Federalist
45, Madison described the relationship between the federal
government and the states in these famous words:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in
the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former
will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace,
negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of
taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to
the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the
ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and
properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and
prosperity of the State. [emphasis added]
And nobody believed that the state governments had the authority to
nationalize production of computers, automobiles, and groceries.
Government on all levels was tightly limited, and liberty extended to
The People and their businesses.
This is the theory of constitutionally-enumerated
powers. Only powers enumerated in the Constitution are possessed by
the federal government.
But doesn't the "promote the general welfare" clause
indicate that the federal government has vast, sweeping powers to
whatever is necessary to "promote the general welfare?"
In
testimony before Congress, CATO Institute scholar Jerry Taylor
explained how the architects of the Constitution understood the
"general Welfare" phrase:
| In Federalist No. 41, Madison summarizes the
relationship of the general preface language including the
"welfare" language, to the subsequent more detailed
enumeration of specific powers, as follows.
"Some who have denied the necessity of the power of
taxation [to the Federal government] have grounded a very
fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language on
which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed that the
power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and
excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States"
amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power
which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense
or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the
distress under which these writers labor for objections,
than their stooping to such a misconstruction."
(emphasis added)
Thus, Madison, who like Story after him sought to defend
federal power, treats with derision the claim of opponents of
federal powers the claim that the "welfare clause" is
a general grant of power. Madison continues Federalist No 41 in
this language of angry paradox:
"For what purpose could the enumeration of
particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were
meant to be included in the preceding general power?
Nothing is more natural or more common than first to use a
general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an
enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an
enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify
the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to
confound and mislead, is an absurdity ... what would have
been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to
these general expressions and disregarding the
specifications which limit their import, they had exercised
an unlimited power of providing for the general welfare?"
(emphasis added)
|
More information on the "general Welfare" clause can be
found on our Constitution page, and this
page.
Our listener mentions three functions which are necessary to secure
"the Blessings of Liberty":
The first question to be asked is, must education etc. be provided by
the government, or can it be provided by the Free
Market: voluntary associations, businesses, and "We the
People" networking together to assure that children are educated.
In other words, which political theory is true: capitalism or socialism?
If socialism is true, we might still ask, should state and local
governments decide how children will be educated, or should that be
done by the federal government? In other words if only government
can provide these elements of an orderly and prosperous society, which
level of government?
The Constitutional answer precludes the federal government from
involving itself in these areas. It would not have been ratified by
states jealous to protect their own powers, or The People jealous to
protect their liberties, if it gave to the federal government such
sweeping powers.
Click here
for a replay of this edition of the Ozarks Virtual
Town Hall
|
| |
|