Let them eat...cake

I'm constantly amazed at the arrogance of our elected officials in Washington.  Service in the government was supposed to be a privilege, and members of Congress were supposed to be the people's representatives. Perhaps there was a time, before big money lobbying and ballooning budget deficits, when that was largely true. But not today.

Today we have a Congress made up of people -- on both sides of the aisle -- who think their position in Washington puts them above everyone else. They have created their own entitlement, with a prerogative that they can do as they wish, when they wish. They no longer work for us. We now work for them. Our tax dollars pay for their perks and their pork. And we are treated as if our opinions don't count. Its enough to make you realize that Reagan was right: Government is the problem.

The evidence of this is everywhere -- from Congress wanting to spend $500 million on new jets for them to fly around the world (on our dime) to them refusing to use the same government-run health care that they are now trying to pass in the House. Last month, Republican Rep Dean Heller (NV) tried to put an amendment on H.R. 3200, the current House Health Reform legislation that would have required Congress to give up their rich health benefits and go on the government plan like everyone else.

Democrats also voted down an amendment from Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nv.) that would require all Members of Congress to get insurance through the government-run plan. Apparently Democrat members of Congress do not like the government plan they’re trying to inflict on the rest of us.

In a straight party line vote, Democrats voted against exempting themselves from the government-run plan by a vote of 21-18. “We also had an amendment to require that members of Congress must participate in the government-run plan,” Rep Dave Camp (R-Mich) said. “If it’s such a great idea, it should be a great idea for members of Congress. The majority voted to prevent that from happening. They voted to exempt members of Congress from the government-run plan.”

No surprise, of course, that Democrats rejected this amendment -- when you consider that progressive leadership in the House firmly believes it is superior to the common folk like you and me. They sit on high and decree, spending our money as if it is water and exempting themselves from their decisions. It is truly shameful.

Now there is another attempt at this, HR 615, sponsored by Rep John Flemming of Louisiana who is also a physician. Flemming has put a link on his website that has a petition -- you can go to it and sign here. The fate of Flemming's initiative, however, is already sealed: the scoundrels will never agree to being treated like "regular folk". They're special, remember?

Fortunately, history has its lessons, even if many choose to ignore them. Marie Antoinette also famously once said "let them eat cake". And we know what happened to her. She lost her head (literally) in the public square.

Cake, anyone?

Hear the Show: 08/09/2009

First Hour Bob Beauprez Guest Host with Joshua Sharf and Matt Dunn Second HourBob Beauprez Guest Host with Joshua Sharf and Matt Dunn

Third HourBob Beauprez Guest Host with Joshua Sharf and Matt Dunn

Public assemblies, American style

The Obama Administration has been the occasion for numerous Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings, which are different species of the genus public assembly.  How they are seen and understood depends a great deal on one’s point of view. As American government is based on the consent of the governed, it is perfectly appropriate and even necessary that public officials be chosen in periodic elections and that the people be free to express their views publicly. While the design of the Constitution is to avoid rule by the people in their collective capacity, relying rather on elected representatives, the First Amendment explicitly guarantees the right of the people to assemble peacefully for redress of grievances.

In our nation’s history, not a few of those public assemblies have been considerably less than peaceful, whether they were in opposition to taxes on whiskey, Jay’s treaty with Great Britain, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, abolition of slavery, the Civil War draft, industrial lockouts, World War I, racial segregation, the Vietnam War or the Iraq War.

Peaceful protest should always have the full protection of the law, and violent protests should be suppressed. The difficulty is that those rioting invariably see themselves as greater in authority than public officials, and the latter sometimes sympathize with the rioters’ goals, if not their means.

It is not surprising that the widespread Tea Parties that protested the record levels of taxing and spending by the Obama Administration should be viewed favorably by Republicans and unfavorably by Democrats. By the same token, the Town Hall Meetings called by the President and a number of Democratic Congresspersons and Senators are looked upon by Republicans as stage-managed affairs, lacking legitimacy.

So some Democrats supportive of Obama showed up to put a damper on the Tea Parties, and evidently more persons–of both parties–critical of the President, particularly his health care plan, have shown up at the Town Hall Meetings. Both parties clearly seek to establish their viewpoint as the authentic voice of the American people and the opposing view as merely a minority faction.

Although I welcomed the Tea Parties and look upon Democrat Town Hall Meetings with suspicion, I cannot say that I am pleased that more and more citizens are taking their grievances so noisily into public places and meeting halls. A major contributor to this development is the rise of Big Government, which treats opposition to its goals and methods as essentially illegitimate.

Fortunately, this year’s protests lack the violence that characterized the radical left’s opposition to the War in Vietnam, when both public officials and private citizens were targeted for bombs by the likes of the Weathermen, of which Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn were members.

It is always a challenge for politicians to deal with tumultuous assemblies with a combination of good humor and firmness, granting the legality of the protest but seeking to defuse its passion and restore civil discourse. Politicians slandering citizens angry over the government’s less than candid explanation of its programs are pouring fuel on the fire.

This present situation is not unlike that of medieval Europe, ruled by monarchs and priests, in which ordinary people had no say and whose only form of protest was armed rebellion. It is only when citizens finally won the right to elect their leaders that the frequent resort to mob violence was no longer necessary.

But the longer that large, intrusive and costly bureaucratic structures dominate our lives, and render citizens powerless, the more those otherwise not inclined to angry outbursts will feel compelled to vent their spleen at the persons they chose to make their laws.

Far better, though, that we take advantage of constitutional structures that enable the people to vote for or against those persons they believe do–or do not–have the best interests of the nation at heart.

Democrats have long believed that, just as they have a monopoly on holding public office, they alone have reason to protest, even violently, if they feel strongly enough. Republicans more commonly look upon public office as a temporary calling and reluctantly take part in public protests.

And while leading Democrats have attributed base motives to Republican protestors (special interests, Ku Klux Klan members and even Nazis), the latter have not gone beyond labeling Democrats (accurately) as big taxers and spenders, socialists and petty tyrants.

We have an opportunity to restore government by the people in the 2010 Congressional elections and the 2012 Presidential election. That’s where the protests will really count.

Four-step rehab for DC dolts

Instructions for Congress: (1) STOP what you are doing. STOP destroying the country. Do NOT pass any more legislation. (2) Repeal ALL the legislation you have passed this year. (3) Use a "continuing resolution" from 2008 to cover the 2010 federal budget. I.e., freeze discretionary spending at the 2008 level, minus the 2008 "stimulus".

(4) Go to Hawaii on vacation and have fun. Go exploring. If you're lucky, maybe you'll stumble onto Obama's birth certificate.

America's spiritual core awakens

The secular progressive movement has been effective in limiting the spiritual component of issues from being more significant in popular discourse. In fact, spiritual aspects of issues have been ignored completely by the mainstream news and most political office holders. But the passion of the crowds and the grassroots nature of the opposition to President Obama’s health care overhaul is I believe derived from our nation's spiritual core as much as it is from intellectual evaluation. The spiritual question we face as a nation is simple and comprehensive, it is: “Is there enough?”

Enough what? Many will ask and then attempt to throw the question away, unwilling to consider the deeper meaning. “Is there enough, of anything?” Is there enough food? Is there enough wealth? Are there enough votes? A portion of the population answers this basic question in the negative. There is not enough, of anything. Therefore we must take from one group that has and transfer it to those without. Democrats in general fall into that mindset and President Obama has organized his entire administration around the premise that redistribution of all things including power is not only possible but mandatory for survival.

Nowhere in the policy and discussion of this administration do you find reliance upon or confidence in the proposition that humans create their world and that the universe is abundant. Many in the world experience starvation, but food is limited by choices of those in power, more than by material limits. North Korea suffers shortages because of Kim, not because there are limited resources.

Some in this country suffer financial hardship. I include myself in that group. But it is my experience of lack, not the imperative of lack that is at work. I know I can create a new business and recover my life. I need not take anything from another in order to have some of it.

President Obama believes that health, not health care, is limited and so he proposes equalizing the amount of health mandates by taking from some and redistributing to others. President Obama is willing to sacrifice the health of some to change the experience of illness of a few. Wellness is abundant in the universe but free people sometimes experience lack and suffering. Reducing the wellness of some will never increase the wellness of others.

Across the country thousands are seeing the debate about health care and financial recovery and are reacting in a truly spiritual manner. They know something is wrong with the core belief of lack and redistribution. Americans want solutions that recognize creative genius and American excellence. Obama promises a future of failure and works from the basis that there is never enough of anything. So he takes what others have.