Well, when someone is paying for you, what's not to like? - Granite Grok

Well, when someone is paying for you, what’s not to like?

Obamacare -Year of the SnakeIf you look at my previous post, you will see the name of Republican Herb Richardson who voted for BradleyCare today – the expansion of Obamacare’s Medicaid program.  So much for that Plank of the NH GOP Platform, eh?

Sidenote: does any Conservative in NH have a sufficient amount of scotch tape and glue to put it back together again?  Or even want to?

So, what’s the connection between the post’s title and Richardson?  This (emphasis mine, reformatted)

LANCASTER — Former U.S. Senator Scott Brown, a Republican of Massachusetts, who won the seat formerly occupied by the late U.S. Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy in a special election and is now seriously considering a run against Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, visited the home of Rep. Herb Richardson, a Republican of Lancaster, and his wife Rita on Saturday afternoon…The top issues that Brown believes differentiates the Republican Party from the Democratic Party are its deep concerns about the skyrocketing national debt and deficit spending, the lack of jobs, and Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) that, he says, is crushing job creation….He characterized Obamacare as a “monstrosity” that’s hurting the middle class.

All fine and dandy thus far – it is what got Brown elected his first run for the US Senate from Massachusetts.  But then: 

Richardson and his wife pointed out, however, that Obamacare has been a financial lifesaver for them.   Richardson was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers’ comp payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the couple their house on Williams Street. The couple had to pay $1,100 a month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law.   Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers’ comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.   “Thank God for Obamacare!” his wife exclaimed.   Now, thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.

Yeah, I’d be happy, too, if someone else was paying the freight for me too!  Now, don’t get me wrong, he was in a hard place.  But in the Free Marketplace, there are short and long term disability insurance programs that anyone can get.  Yes, they cost, but here’s a situation where they would have mattered a lot.  I do get upset when people get all rosy about life when someone else is forced to pay them.  While other Governments, especially Socialist ones, have no problem in taking from some to give to others, the purpose of the US Government was never (Declaration of Independence) to redistribute wealth:

…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…

pursuit of Happiness” – in the original, “pursuit of Property”; Government was instituted in part to protect YOUR Property and not “instituted to give your Property to someone else”.   It is clear that Democrats have no compulsion to follow the Constitution lock, stock, and barrel; it was Republicans that were supposed to be the ones that acted as bulwarks against the erosion of both the Spirit and Letter of our Founding Documents.

Why are the Republicans no longer willing to act like the Adults In The Room?  Why aren’t they willing to make the hard stands – why have they decided that just being liked is good enough?  Giving people that which belongs to others is either immature or unwilling / incapable of standing up to pop culture pressure.  Standing up for Principles yields both Consistency – and admiration (even if grudgingly over time).

Can Scott Brown learn this?  Here’s the pressure:

Rita Richardson also asked Brown to look into making it possible for stay-at-home spouses who work only sporadically at non-career jobs to go on Medicare when their breadwinner spouse reaches age 65. Brown said he would ask Sen. Kelly Ayotte about this problem, since he had not heard of this issue.

Right – it’s not enough that Social Security and Medicare are already spending more than we have or that the National Debt is > $18 Trillion (and growing).  As Seymour says in “Little Shop of Horrors”: Give me MORE!  Give me MORE!  This is the problem with an Entitlement Society: it’s never enough and the More Today is Insufficient Tomorrow.  Never is it gratitude today but demands for tomorrow.

Will the Adults in the Room ever be able to say “that is not how we were founded – Charity is not a function of Government but IS that of Civil Society”?  Will the Adults in the Room say “that is enough – there is no more money” or will they devolve to being Democrats indeed where the essence is complete redistribution in exchange for votes (which the Democrats set out to do and do very well indeed – even as they publicly won’t admit to it).

I doubt it – they have become misguided and too used to using the verbal sleight of hand over using other peoples’s money:

Brown, Tholl and Richardson agreed that it was only right that Americans, whom they described as “both philanthropic and big-hearted,” provide a safety net for those who are need public assistance.

Both of those attributes become NULLITIES, of no worth whatsoever, when not done in a voluntary manner.  It is EVIL and WRONG to ascribe those attributes to people (who may very well be such) when they have no choice.  Government does not go around asking “would you please contribute to help Martha down the street, or the little kids a couple of blocks over?” – it is merely paying higher and higher taxes.  Me asking that would be Charity – because it would depend on the other person’s heart and a voluntary reaction to say yes to the request – and me being willing to hear a “no”.  And that is where Brown, Tholl, and Richardson are DEAD WRONG in trying to use the phrase they did (“both philanthropic and big-hearted“) as it isn’t in the wheelhouse of Government to be “voluntary”.

If I refuse to give (e.g., pay taxes), I’ll soon find out how both philanthropic and big-hearted Government can be towards me – and how well they will knock on my door.  I keep hearing that “we are a rich nation – we should do this”; it almost always comes from people unwilling to put their full skinny into that new game but are more than happy to squint with dollar signs in their eyes at other people with faces that say “their money is my money” (just like the Progressives that maintain my kids are really their kids).

“Public assistance must be provided thoughtfully and judiciously,” Brown said.

Is taking over $1 Trillion per year from some Citizens (diminishing their “pursuit of Property”) for the Public Dole “judicious”, Mr. Brown?  How much is enough?  Have we gone past “enough”, or have we not reached it yet?  If not, how do you square that with “pursuit of Property”?

“I’m a fiscal conservative and almost a libertarian on social issues; I want the government out of my bedroom and out of my wallet,” Brown had said at an earlier stop at the Northland Dairy Bar in Berlin. “There are good people on both sides of issues. We should be able to have a meal or a beer with those with whom we disagree; there’s no need to vilify or crucify those on the other side of the aisle.”

How about those that continuously, and are willing to demonize their political opponents, require that people give up more and more and more of their property simply to give to others?  Are they “good people” who just have an insatiable thirst and demand to use others things – instead of letting those same people use their property for other means?  What should be that tipping point, Mr. Brown – should government (all levels) be stopped when they take 30% of someone’s income?  40%?  Over 50%?  Or in the case of Phil Mickleson, the golfer, was being forced to give Government (local, county, State, and Federal) over 60%?

What is equitable and what is fair?

Oh, another thing: a social libertarian.  I only have two more questions for Mr. Brown:

  • Do you agree that ALL social issues have fiscal costs (and that Democrats always seek to make that so)?
  • If you are a social libertarian and are for women to have choice over their pregnancies, how come you aren’t pro-choice for me, a law abiding citizen, to own the firearm of my choice?  And I won’t even demand that government pay for it?

(H/T: New Hampshire Lakes and Mountain via Boston.com)

>