WASHINGTON — Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.
Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.
Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Indoor tanning salons will charge customers a 10 percent tax beginning today in just one of the changes Americans will see as a result of the U.S. health-care overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama.
Firstly, should the church and the state exist as two separate entities? Yes. Even the Bible teaches us this. In Exodus, when God established the nation of Israel, he appointed Moses to be the political/judicial leader and his brother Aaron to be religious leader. However, He never intended for the two to be antagonistic toward each other. Quite the opposite, the very first law He gave Moses was that we should "not have any other gods before [Him]." But by establishing two different, separate institutions - church and state - He allowed for them both to focus on their own responsibilities while complimenting but not competing with each other.
Flash forward a few millennia. The Danbury Baptist Association wrote to Thomas Jefferson, worried that this new government he and his peers were forming would become too much like the one they were leaving - that it would mandate religion and religious practices. He responded with a letter, the letter from which we get the infamous above phrase. Here is the text of the letter:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.Read that carefully, for that is the original source, context and intent of the sentiment "Separation of (or between) church and state." The intent was not to keep religion out of the state or to keep religious beliefs from influencing the state (as are so often claimed in the current marriage and abortion debates), but to keep religion free from government interference, either by establishing a national religion (as England had done) or by prohibiting an individual's practice of their religion.
So, it is with that in mind we approach today's topic:
Apparently, last August, our President held a webcast with clergy across the country, asking them to sermonize in favor of his health care plan.
Yes, that's right. He asked them to give sermons that pushed his political agenda.
Now, in light of the true intention of Separation of Church and State, is this appropriate behavior for a sitting President?
Of course, the nameless White House officials quoted in the article say that wasn't really what the President asked, that he doesn't actually expect them to give political messages from the pulpit. Duh!
That doesn't jive at all with what the members of the webcast have reported. They felt the intent of his statements was just that, based on the conversation that went on.
I've already posted my opinion on Obama's faith. This seems to fall in line with the impression he gives that faith is a facade, a useful tool to pull out when he needs to influence voters, but not something essential in his own life.
George W. Bush was often criticized for being too openly evangelical, such as stating that his favorite philosopher was "Christ, because he changed my life." But you can't name one instance where Bush tried to influence what was being preached in the pulpits. This is, in American history, unprecedented.
First, Obama tried to interfere in local schools. Now, he's trying to interfere in our worship services.
Take heed, and keep an eye out. We've just started the second year.
So today the Legislature is going to approve even more money to be flushed down the toilet that is "Cash for Clunkers."Harsh, you say? How could it be a Fail? Isn't the program so wildly successful that the government has run out of designated funds for the program?
If your measure of success when it comes to government programs is the amount of expenditure of tax dollars, I suggest you try a similar practice with your own bank account. Spend a month's worth of grocery budget on one week's worth of food, and let me know how that works out for you.
The problem with Cash for Clunkers isn't that people are taking advantage of it. The problem is that the government is taking advantage of it.
If your measure of the success of a government program is how many people use it, then I'd advise you to revisit the recent CRA debacle, which - in a curious similarity to Cash for Clunkers - required (housing) lenders to issue more financing to loan applicants than they could afford - all for the Greater Good, you understand.
This doesn't make any sense from an economic standpoint. After all, what traditionally happens with trade-in vehicles? The dealer either flips them itself or sells it to a smaller, independent dealer who in turn is able to sell it to someone who couldn't afford a newer car on their own. However, by destroying the trade-in cars, the government is undercutting an entire segment of the industry. And to reiterate, it's not a proof of GOOD planning that you run out of money 1/10th of the way into the plan.
Second, Cash for Clunkers only does marginal good to the environmental cause, and that's even allowing for the fallacious position that the government exists to enforce environmental ideologies. Must have missed that part in the Constitution.
To believe Cash for Clunkers will make a significant impact on the environment, one must assume one of two things: either A) all Americans drive equal miles, therefore by trading in cars getting 21mpg for cars getting 22mpg, it'll significantly reduce fuel usage, or B) some Americans drive more than other Americans, and those are the ones that will trade in their cars for more fuel-efficient cars, not the segment of the population that drives less. The first assumption is obviously ludicrous, and the second is improbable and unprovable. But that's only the first chink in the "environmentally-friendly" facade.
Specifically exempted from the Cash for Clunkers program are motorcycles. This makes no sense if the point of Cash for Clunkers (as has been alleged) is the "Greater Good" goal of lesser fuel consumption, since motorcycles average 35-40 mpg, much higher than the required 22mpg for cars. And anyway, the list of qualifying cars has changed weekly since the bill was signed at the beginning of the month, because apparently the definition of "environmentally friendly" is as nebulous and non-specific as the "Greater Good."
So, if it can't be economically or environmentally justified, then what's the real motive behind Cash for Clunkers? As always, the goal is control.
Back when the auto bailouts were in process, there was much talk from Capitol Hill that this money didn't come without strings attached. Pelosi and crew told automakers that if they accepted bailout money, they would be subject to Congressional regulations when it comes to the types of cars they manufacture, specifically environmental regulations. This was, again, wildly unpopular with voters.
But now they have found the magic bean to get their fantasy of total auto regulation into becoming reality - Cash for Clunkers.
By allowing only certain cars to be traded in (the evil pre-2007 21mpg cars) for approved cars (the sainted 22mpg cars), the idea is to saturate the market with approved cars. Then, once they have data showing "that's what people are buying" they can justify requiring automakers - pursuant to their acceptance of the bailout money - to make cars falling within their environmental regs, which if you recall they couldn't even keep standard for this Cash for Clunkers program.
This is an irresponsible program all the way around. Considering the government has designated a 5-year-old 21mpg car a "Clunker," how will they designate your 80-year-old grandmother applying for a pacemaker under Obamacare?
