Something Socialistic This Way Comes (Part I)

NOTE: This is a multi-part essay on the recently passed national health care
legislation and its ramifications for our country.
--- Your faithful Peasant

Last weekend, a pall crept over our country; like an ominous shroud of
darkness, this pall has settled over every village, town, city, county, and
state. The forboding darkness is not one that is visible but rather one that
is palpable --- one that can be and is being felt in the hearts of everyone
who cherishes their freedoms, including their freedom of choice as consumers.

This pall, this darkness, is President Obama's so-called health care reform

legislation, "Obamacare", which in due course will place the health care

industry --- one-sixth of our economy --- under the control of the federal

government.

WHAT IT MEANS

What does this mean for us, the American people? It means that we will be

required to obtain health insurance for ourselves and our dependents whether

we want it or not. If we can't get it from our employers, this sweeping, unprec-

edented new legislation will mandate the creation of new marketplaces called

"exchanges" which will sell us the mandated medical coverage. We will all be

expected to have at least "minimal essential coverage" for our dependents and

ourselves by 2014. If one were to disobey this mandate by refusing to purchase

health insurance, one would then be assessed a tax penalty by Uncle Sam

amounting to $695 for each uninsured family member, up to a maximum

of $2,085 --- or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater. Never mind

that there is no provision in the Constitution granting power to the federal

government to mandate us to buy any product or service! Certain people,

though, will be exempt from this mandate, these being folks with religious

objections, Native Americans, prisoners, and illegal immigrants. And if one

simply hasn't the means to buy the required insurance then our trusty Uncle

Sam will step in with subsidies. Since the money for the subsidies will come

from our taxes, we'll be paying for the coverage for ourselves and each other

anyway.

HEALTH EXCHANGES

The health"exchanges" would be "stores" to shop for health insurance.

They are supposed to inject "retail competition" into the marketplace,

so the Democrats tell us. These exchanges are supposed to help indivi-

duals and small businesses to come together and get greater variety in

health insurance coverage and get greater variety in health insurance

coverage along with better prices, like larger businesses negotiate for

their employees. The design of these exchanges would be left up to the

states, and they would be run either by a nonprofit organization or a

state government agency. The federal government would provide the

states with the money to establish the exchanges. Should a state refuse

to open one, Washington, will open one in that state. The people who

would be eligible to shop at these exchanges will be employees of small

businesses that do not offer, or have not offered, health insurance bene-

fits. The exchanges would ensure the compliance of all offered policies with Washington's standards. One would be able to buy health insurance

for yourself outside of these exchanges, but an insurer would have to

charge the same rates outside the exchange as it does inside it.

WHEN WILL REFORM BE COMPLETED?

The reform in "Obamacare" will certainly take some time, what with the

writing of the regulations that will guide its functions. The best estimate

given by the Democrats is full implementation by 2014.

WHO'LL PICK UP THE TAB?

The reform, rather the remaking of the entire health care industry will cost

an estimated $940 billion over its first 10 years. There will be approximately

$40 billion in tax credits to be given to small businesses to assist with getting

their employees into the program, however, which in time will provide or

subsidize health insurance for presently uninsured people, the figure as to how

many still disputed and debated. The Congressional Budget Office claims that

the health care reform package will reduce the federal budget deficit over 10

years (sure --- and the sun will begin to rise in the west and set in the east!

Have you, my loyal readers, ever known ANY government program to actually

MAKE money, let alone reduce our nation's budget deficit?). The means to pay for this plan will come from new and higher taxes, fees on industries involved in

health care, along with cuts in projected spending growth for other govern-

ment programs including Medicare and Medicaid.

People making over $200,000 per annum and married couples making over

$250,000 per annum will bear much of the brunt of the increased/new taxes.

The Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) tax rate will rise by nine-tenths of

a percent to 2.35%. Also, a new tax of 3.8% on unearned income (i.e. dividends

and interest, etc.) will be assessed to these people in the aforementioned income

brackets. This will affect people's savings for their children's education, buying

age. This tax would come to 40% of the cost of the

plan which exceeds those dollar boundaries, and would take effect in 2018.

Drug manufacturers would have to pay $16 billion between 2011 and 2019,

with $47 billion due from health insurers in that time frame. Medical device

manufacturers will get a 2.9% excise tax on the sale of their goods starting

Jan. 1, 2013. This will impact innovation along with research and development

of new medicines and medical treatment devices (CATscans, etc.).

Medicare payments for home health care would be cut by $40 billion over 10

years. More than a few patients would lose their option to receive medical

treatment at home, in familiar enviorons with their families close at hand.

Next week we'll examine what "Obamacare" would mean to families and

children, to seniors, and to businesses.

MEM

Forming Counterarguments 101

In January I had posted two articles regarding the visit to Milwaukee by Sister Helen Prejean,
the nun famous for her campaign to abolish capital punishment in the U.S. My first article
announced her then-pending visit; the second talked about it after it had taken place.
In these articles I stated my opposition to the death penalty, my moving from support to
opposition, and my reasons why. A few weeks later, I received a response to each of the postings
in question entered into the accompanying comment boxes, both from the same respondent.

This respondent was a Mr. Dudley Sharp, a person whose name was unfamiliar to me. In his
first response he snotilly admonished, "Fact checking would have helped your article. Start
here:" then gave out a bunch of links to pro-death penalty articles, some of which were written
by Sharp himself. In his second set of comments he just rattled off still more links to the same
bill of fare, this time without any snide remarks.

Being bemused rather than perturbed, I clicked on a few of the links and read some of the
articles. Then I did a Google search on Dudley Sharp and discovered that he is a fairly well-
known advocate of capital punishment, having not only written articles giving his point of
view but also having debated the topic on TV and radio in the United States and Great Britain,
the latter nation having abolished killing murderous convicted criminals quite some years ago.
I also learned that he leads a pro-death penalty group called "Justice Matters". Further, I
found that Sharp was once AGAINST the death penalty, though I have not learned why he
switched his view on it.

Next, I e-mailed Dudley Sharp a letter thanking him for his comments, such as they were,
re: my articles in question. I minded my manners even though he didn't mind his; your loyal
Peasant is a class act. I invited him to have a dialogue on our differences regarding capital
punishment, discussing our views in cyberspace, and perhaps even do so face-to-face should
Sharp ever find himself in Milwaukee or I should travel to Houston where Sharp is based.
I did this on February 8; over a month later I am still waiting for Sharp's reply. I would have
loved to have shared our conversation with you, my wonderful readers, but Dudley Sharp
seems to not have a taste for open discussion but rather for sniping from the bushes.

Hey, Dudley Sharp! A properly structured counterpoint with logic and reasoning, along with
some guts, would have helped your argument. Start here:

Now, one of the purposes of this blog is to generate open, honest discussion of the issues in
the political arena. Your faithful Peasant welcomes comments from those who disagree with
my ideas and opinions, from those who agree with same, and from those who haven't made
up their minds regarding the issues discussed but would like more information. I'm a big boy,
I can take the heat. I have a tough hide, a necessary attribute for one to possess if one is to
participate in politics. But what I won't tolerate from anyone are "drive-by" tactics, nor the
dumping of a bunch of links to articles to serve as the entire counterpoint to a point I make
on a topic. That is neither debate nor discussion; it is tantamount to a bratty child throwing
a snowball at someone then shouting "Nyah, nyah nyah nyah nyaaaaah!" while running off.
If all one can do is to make snide or snotty remarks, or simply dump a bunch of links to
articles without first presenting a structured argument in opposition to any of my articles,
then I have no time for you. I will not let anyone waste your time, my beloved readers, nor
mine. We have bigger fish to fry! We've got no time for cowards and punks!

That said, henceforth any further such "comments" posted in the comment box after subse-
quent postings will be deleted starightaway. Such behavior has no place in a forum, such as
this blog, that is dedicated to the frank and open exchange of ideas. In the meantime, thank
you, my terrific readers for your ongoing support of your favorite Peasant in my efforts to provide this forum. You're the greatest!


MEM

"Hate Speech" and Double-Talk

In recent years, whenever we conservatives state our opinions on the political issues and
figures in our country, liberals accuse us of "hate speech" and hurl epithets such as "haters",
"racists", "rednecks", "sexists", and some much worse. But when these same liberals
state their opinions regarding these issues and conservative figures a mysterious double
standard appears, giving the left-wingers "carte blanche" to say whatever they like;
nothing is too fallacious, nothing is too vicious, nothing is too incendiary, nothing is out of
bounds nor beyond the pale.

How so? Since the Tea Party Movement emerged many talking heads in what is laughingly
termed the "mainstream media" have attacked in print and on air we participants in this
movement as being all of the deragatory things mentioned above along with some sexual
references too vile to relate in this blog (hey, your faithful Peasant runs a respectable
establishment! Besides, we've all heard these particular slurs already!). Among the worst
of the puppet media's mud-throwing brigade are MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Keith
Olbermann, with the former gleefully having predicted that "at some point point some-
body's going to jam a CO2 pellet into (conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh's)
head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp", and the latter engaging in the aforemen-
tioned attacks while also comparing conservative columnist and occaisional Tea Party speaker
Michelle Malkin to "a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it".

Oh, such loving sentiments! Such eviscerating wit! And all this from the side of our political
spectrum which, during the "Dubya" Bush years proclaimed "Dissent is patriotic!" and then
made a one-eighty upon Barack Obama's ascent to the White House, calling those who disagree
with his policies "racists", et. al. Rachel Maddow, who hosted a talk show on the failed "Air
America" left-wing radio circus called we Tea Partiers members of the Ku Klux Klan. If this
ditz ever bothered to attend one of our gatherings, or even view a videotape of one, she would
not only have found more than a few non-white faces in the crowd but may even have gotten
to listen to some of them addressing the crowd! But then the Left loves to confuse the issue
with the facts in an argument.

So when we conservatives take the lefties to task for doing to us what they falsely accuse us
of doing to them, they either ignore us altogether or they claim that their criticisms of us are
based on fact, proclaiming that we have no right to complain because we are, after all, (here
insert all of the aforementioned epithets).

Now, this is not to say that there aren't any people on the Right who put one (or both) feet
into their mouths and swallow; we have a few "loose cannons" among us. But we conser-
vatives exercise "quality control" by either bringing them into line or by disassociating
with them. Case in point: Tea Party groups have given wide berth to Dale Robertson, founder
of TeaParty.org, for his attending a gathering holding aloft a sign with a racial slur printed on it.
True conservatives do not harbor such poisonous thoughts and attitudes, nor tolerate anyone
who does.

The question, then, is: While the Left is criticizing the Right for making what they perceive to
be hateful remarks about their own, who is exercising quality control on the Left regarding
their remarks about our side? Since, as a group, they fail to see the blatantly hypocritical
inconsistencies in their behavior, the resultant answer is no one.


MEM

Birthday Party for the Tea Party Movement!

On February 27, 2009, an updated version of a long-ago protest appeared
on the American political landscape; the first round of tea parties (inspired
greatly by the Tea Party of 1773 staged in Boston Harbor) took place in a
handful of cities across the country in protest of runaway government spending,
bailouts of corporations coupled with government purchases of stocks of some
of them, and an attempted takeover of the entire health care industry (one
sixth of our economy) by the government. Thousands and thousands of citizens
came together to tell their elected officials in both major political parties that
they will not tolerate such wild growth of their government and its scope, nor
will they tolerate being ignored, disrespected, and dictated to. Despite being
ridiculed by some of these elitist so-called leaders and the toadying media,
the Tea Party Movement activists have quickly and forcefully made their
presence felt! Today The Peasant is paying tribute and wishing a Happy
1st Birthday to the Tea Party Movement.

In just that single year, this nascent movement boasts achieving these stunning
accomplishments:

*President Obama's health care "reform" plan has been stalled and/or stopped
many times. With each blockage this legislation has drifted farther and farther
away from coming to fruition.

*The "town hall" push where cavalier politicians were taken to task by their
angry constituents for their efforts to push the Obama health plan forward
over the opposition of the people, as well as for the pols' arrogance, elitism,
and corruption. Many of them never held another town hall meeting after
having been read the riot act by the cheesed-off voters in their districts and
states!

*Congress has been thwarted in its attempts to pass the junk-science inspired,
governmental power-mongering, economy-killing monstrosity known as "Cap
and Trade".

*The sudden exits from Washington by some of President Obama's "czars" ---
his unofficial (and unconstitutional) cabinet members who purportedly
advise him on issues ranging from the enviornment to health care, most
notably Van Jones. He was Obama's "czar" for "sustainable energy" or some
such, and is also a self-admitted communist(!).

*The sudden exits from Congress by some of its most powerful members in
either house (not to mention state governors and legislators) thanks to the
bright hot light of scrutiny shined by the tea partiers. Bye-bye Byron Dorgan!
See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya, Christopher Dodd! These two prominent
members of the Senate are among the growing list of such politicians who
have found their re-election fortunes dwindling in the face of the Tea Party
Movement's activism.

*The historic election results in the governors' races in New Jersey and Virginia
along with the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts. In that Senate contest the
Bay State's Democratic Party establishment and the memory of Ted Kennedy,
the "Crown Prince" of the Kennedy family and political dynasty, were whipped
by a little-known upstart named Scott Brown. Brown was the favorite of the
Tea Party activists in Massachusetts for the Senate seat vacated with the pass-
ing of the late Sen. Kennedy, who held that seat for nearly half a century.
President Obama won electoral majorities in all three of these states just
over a year ago, by the way. I wonder what he'll face there come 2012?
I don't envy him!

*And, of course, the thousands of "Tea Party" rallies across the nation,
attracting great throngs of Americans, many of them having never been
politically active before except for voting, if that. They banded together to
challenge the Democrats and the Republicans over their failed and self-serving
policies along with their contempt for the everyday American citizen. All this
from a movement that has no recognized leadership, no organizational struc-
ture, and is NOT a political party!

This, my loyal readers, is participatory government in action! This is how
government used to work and how it is beginning to work again. One of the
many freedoms which we Americans enjoy is the right to petition the govern-
ment over grievances and have our elected officials listen to us, to work for
us; NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These gatherings are taking place only because many of our elected officials
have taken a paternalistic, condescending, elitist view of us. They snub and
ridicule us daily! They call us "angry mobs", "racists" (never mind that many
"people of color" attend and address the rallies!), "rednecks", "ignorant",
"know-nothings", "unintelligent", "uneducated", and "unsophisticated".
But believe your beloved Peasant when I say that these jerks, after the 2010
and 2012 elections, will have a name given them by the same electorate which
they so disdain --- "UNEMPLOYED"!!

So Happy Birthday to the Tea Party Movement, one year young! Let's party on!!


MEM

Serving or Selling Out?

No sooner than Scott Brown, the newly-elected, Tea Party-activist backed
Republican U.S. Senator sat down in the very seat formerly occupied by
the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the liberal icon, that Sen. Brown did something
quite unexpected and to some, dismaying --- Brown voted in favor of a
jobs bill endorsed by Persident Obama. He joined four other Republican
senators in cutting off a potential GOP filibuster on the bill, which faces
a final vote today in the Senate.

Now, the other four Republican senators who voted for the bill were certainly of no surprise; Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins,
George Voinovich from Ohio, and Christopher "Kit" Bond of Missouri.
They each have a history of going against the party's leadership (including
Republican presidents) and its platform on important issues, voting often
with their Democratic colleagues. Sen. Bond has been the least egregious
of these four in this regard, but now feels free to buck the GOP more as
per his whimsey, as he is not seeking another term this fall. The other
three, though, have well and truly earned the acronym moniker "RINO"
(Republican In Name Only) by having amassed voting records virtually
indistinguishable from those of the Senate Democrats over time.

But what gives with Sen. Brown? He ran on the promise to vote against
President Obama's health care legislation, and it was thought by the
voters in Massachusetts that Brown would oppose Obama and the
Democrats on all of their lavish-spending ideas. Brown assured his state's
voters that he would also fight any legislation which would increase both
the nation's deficit and debt, and of course send taxes on a rocket ride.
Did he make a "pie crust promise" just to get elected?

The Peasant will play "Devil's Advocate" here, quoting Jeffrey Berry, a
political science professor at Sen. Brown's alma mater Tufts University:
"Scott Brown knows that he's going to be judged differently in 2012 than
he was in 2010... He's facing a different electorate, with more Democratic
voters, and Barack Obama at the top of the ticket, in what is still a blue
state." Indeed, this is true. Sen. Brown likely figures that he will be seen
as working to create jobs in his economically distressed state.
Furthermore, the Democrat's jobs bill has some provisions that have strong bipartisan support, including a proviso exempting businesses
hiring the unemployed from Social Security payroll taxes through
December of this year, and giving them a $1,000 credit if new hires
stick around for a full year. Important sweeteners, these are. And,
Sen. Brown was elected only for the final two years of Sen. Kennedy's
final term, so he has a limited window of opportunity to show the
voters in Massachusetts that they were right to vote him into that
open Senate seat.

On the other side of the ledger, however, the jobs bill --- should it pass
and be signed into law --- might not be any more effective in job creation
than was Obama's 2009 Stimulus Package (called the "Porkulus" Package
by opponents). One of its supposed benefits was to foster job growth as a factor in stimulating the economy, and all it did was consume $780+
billion with unquantifiable job creation to show for it.

Some of those who voted for Scott Brown have contacted him to voice
their dismay and displeasure at his stunning vote, calling him a "RINO"
and accusing him of selling out right out of the starting gate. But The
Peasant urges calm and patience, as Sen. Brown deals with the political
realities of being a Republican senator from a Democratic state. He was
elected not because his state's electorate had suddenly turned Republican,
but because it has grave doubts about at least some of the policies of the
Democratic administration that it had helped vote into office. The voters
of Massachusetts want to sample what Scott Brown has to offer before deciding to buy for the long haul. Let's wait and see what the new U.S.
Senator from Massachusetts does in the weeks and months to come.


MEM

Sarah Palin's Tea Party Convention Speech

Your beloved Peasant just got the link to YouTube to see and hear Sarah Palin's speech
that she gave at the recent Tea Party Convention. Click here and enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP4PJlufZ0c

I'll be back next week with another article for you, my beloved readers.
Yours in Freedom & Liberty!

MEM

Thoughts on the Tea Party Convention

The Tea Party Movement, the rapidly growing and spreading political
movement fueled by resentment and anger aimed at arrogantly unresponsive
elected government officials, recently concluded its very first confab ---
a three-day convention in Nashville, Tennessee. Deliberating from Thursday,
February 4 through Saturday, February 6, the gathering was designed to form
alliances with various tea party groups nationwide to be a force for persuading
the country's two major political parties to listen to and serve the people rather
than dictate to them.

However, some Tea Party activists steered clear of the proceedings, believing
that its true purpose is to turn the movement into a top-down, heirarchical
organization which could also be co-opted by the Republican Party and its
moderate/liberal leadership. Other activists worried that the event would lead
to the establishment of a third political party which would likely split the
nation's conservative vote in elections, leading to Democratic Party victories.

The convention, organized by Tennessee activists Judson and Sherry Phillips,
put up what these wary Tea Partiers perceived as red flags:

*A $549 price tag for an all-access pass for the three-day event. For anyone
coming just to hear the convention's main speaker, former Alaska Governor
Sarah Palin, $349 to purchase the ducat. Gov. Palin said that she would
donate her honorarium to some conservative political groups. Many people
declined to attend the bash because they simply couldn't afford to, and had
complained that the pricey tickets ran counter to the populist purpose of the
Tea Party Movement, even with Gov. Palin's generous intent for her fee.

*The Phillipses are long-time Tennessee Republican Party figures, having
worked on many GOP campaigns in their home state. This fact led many
Tea Partiers to believ that the convention was a ruse by Republicans to
take over the movement.

*Some of the scheduled speakers, including U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn
(R-TN) withdrew from the conference because of the two aforementioned
facts. Some partnering Tea Party organizations pulled out as well. Your
faithful Peasant did not attend, though I certainly would have loved to,
because of the cost of the respective passes.

Now given all of these things, The Peasant says this:

First, holding a Tea Party convention was a good thing to do. It was an
opportunity to gather Tea Party activists from around the country to exchange
ideas for the movement's next step, and how it should thus proceed. But the
attendance prices should not have been stratospheric, for the sake of those
wishing to attend but having been waylaid by the effects of the staggering
economy as well as to preserve the populist feel and purpose of the convention
and the movement itself. Let the fat-cat elites in the Big Two political parties
have their $500 + gatherings; the Tea Party Movement is supposed to be
about "regular" Americans, many of whom don't have that much disposable
income to spend on attending political get-togethers.

Second, the success of the Tea Party Movement is in its "outsider" appeal.
As a phenomenon having originated with "regular" Americans via grassroots
activity, in part as a reaction to the cavalier behavior of the Republicans and
Democrats and their big-monied constituencies (Big Business, Big Labor, etc.),
it must be and be seen to be independent of these groups. If the Tea Party
Movement is to exert pressure on the politicians to get them to change how
they function, then it cannot become entangled in the latter's web, lest its
purpose be distorted and very possibly co-opted.

Third, the Tea Party Movement should maintain a balance between being a
protest movement and being a watchdog over our elected officials. It must
point out what the government is doing wrong, then propose and advocate
what alternatives must be initiated. Furthermore, the movement must have
the leeway to spontaneously organize and hold Tea Party rallies whenever
and wherever the need arises; its participants should not have to wait for
permission and instructions on whether and how to proceed in taking action.
The Tea Party Movement should neither be a third political party, a component
of one of the existing major political parties, nor a corporate entity. Any of
these things would compromise the integrity and purpose of the movement.

The Tea Party Movement, however, is young. It is experiencing growing pains,
and this is to be expected. In time, though, it will mature and thus function in
ways which will be most fruitful in aiding the cause of reinstituting constitu-
tional restraint and responsibility in government. And the American people
will no longer be shoved aside from the process of governance.

MEM


NOTE: The Peasant wishes to thank USA TODAY Online and The Washington
Independent.com for their coverage of the National Tea Party Convention, their
coverage being the source of information for today's article.