Editorial Cartoon by Ramirez

The recent string of summer town hall meetings held by the President and members of Congress have brought out a wave of protests against the proposed health care program.  This should not be a surprise.  Americans have been exercising their First Amendment rights in the form of protests since the bill of rights became part of the Constitution.  Before that, there were still protests, like the one depicted above.  The protests occurring all around the country today, however, are a different type of protest than we’re used to.

First, the protesters appear different.  They are older. These are not college students or young people, they’re people who are over the hill and beyond.  The average health care protester is probably old enough to be the grandparent of the environmental and anti-war protestors we’re used to seeing in the news.  Second, many of them are conservative.   Traditional protesting (like that which is going on at these town hall meetings) is a tool that was traditionally used to advance the liberal agenda, while the health care protests are dedicated to stopping it.  Finally, this is the first time that one of Barack Obama’s plans has met widespread protest.  Controversial actions such as the $700+ billion TARP bailout, billions worth of appropriations and spending bills, and the cap and trade program were passed with little public outcry.  Now, on the issue of health care reform, the people are, for the first time, coming out in great numbers to speak out against the pet project of the Democrat poster boy of the century.

These departures from our common conception of protests have sent liberal politicians reeling; trying to decide how to react.  For once they are on the receiving end of protests, something that many of the Democrat politicians in office today have never experienced on such a scale.  The result has been a myriad of reactions, none of which are appropriate.

The White House chose denial, calling the protests ‘manufactured’.  While some of the protests may, in fact, have been influenced by conservative interest groups, the widespread scale and nature of the protests and protesters is evidence that they are not manufactured.  The simple fact is that the GOP is too fractured at this point to organize any kind of protest, let alone one on the scale that we’re seeing.  The claim of manufactured protests is, howver, congruent with the White House’s inability to accept that the people could disagree with it’s policies.

Congressional leaders, however, went even further.  Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D, Nev.) chose to use the phrase ‘evil mongers’ to refer to the protesters.  It is a phrase he proudly repeated several times for journalists.  Evil is a strong word, used to refer to morally objectionable people and actions.  Is it really appropriate for American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to express their discontent with a governmental movement?  No, it isn’t.  Not at all.

That leaves Nancy Pelosi (D, Cal.), the Speaker of the House, who showed just how out of touch she is with the country, it’s people, and the Constitution she swore to support and defend, by calling the protesters ‘un-American’ .  She really did.  These are ordinary American Citizens, exercising their rights, as delineated in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.  They are Americans, exercising the rights granted to them as Americans.  Maybe they’re more American than you, Ms. Pelosi.

The most interesting part of these reactions and the similar reactions of other Democrat politicians is the one reaction that is being avoided like the plague: understanding; empathy.  Executive and Congressional Democrats are so stubbornly behind this very liberal concept that they are unwilling to accept the fact that the American people may not want this proposed health care plan.  Let’s hope they learn before a destructive bill is passed.  If not, they’ll surely learn in the next election.

Editorial cartoon from www.mediabistro.com

Considering the current political scene, I find myself often thinking about taxes, taxation, and the economy.  The way I see it, there are two fundamental conditions under which people allow themselves to be taxed: that they have representation on the body that taxes them, and that they in some way benefit from the government’s use of their money.

The first condition had Americans quite literally up in arms 230 years ago, when patriots took arms against the British throne.  As the history books tell us, the British Parliament imposed taxes on the colonies, despite the fact that the colonies had no representation in Parliament.  This sentiment and the subsequent conflict gave birth to our nation and shaped its early development.  For a nation built on ‘No Taxation Without Representation’; a nation conceived in fear of an over-powerful central power and designed to prevent one, a lot has changed since the Revolution.

Today we are embroiled in another debate, one centered over the second condition of taxation: that tax-ees in some way benefit from the government’s use of their money.  This is not one that will be fought with muskets.  It may not even be fought at all.

Traditionally, when more privileged persons give a portion of their income, wealth, or possessions to help the less fortunate, it is called charity.  Charity stems from human compassion, and occurs when one realizes that they are comfortable enough to share what they have, so that others may be slightly more comfortable. The key to charity is that it is voluntary.

Recent trends in the federal government appear to be attempts to redefine charity.  The latest proposals for funding Barak Obama’s health care program involve adding a further tax on those making $350,000 or $1,000,000 or more.  This money would fund the federal health care program designed for those who do not have any or adequate health care.   The implications of adding a federal option to compete with commercial health insurance programs are a topic for another post.  In any case, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce that someone making $1,000,000 or more doesn’t need health insurance from the federal government.  The bottom line here is that Barak Obama is asking (making) the more affluent members of society give “a little bit more” in order to fund a program that they will not benefit from.  In turn, this added burden could lead to a reduction in traditional charity, and even in the risky entrepreneurial investment that contributed to the power of the US economy.

Such sentiment constitutes a redefinition of charity, where the ‘compassion’ and ‘voluntary’ elements go away, and the government steps in and forces the giving.  At the same time, it constitutes a violation of the conditions in which citizens allow themselves to be taxed.  Votes alone cannot reverse this triend, as the portion of society being wronged is a very small fraction of the whole.  On the other hand, the influence and power held by that small fraction is immense.  Society must hope that these citizens take up the fight in the ways they know best in order to reverse this wrong before it becomes insurmountable.

One final thought: true charity is the product of a healthy economy; government-forced charity is a barrier to it.