By Ronald Ayers
Thirty five year old Otis Killingsworth, a black man with one child, and a pregnant girl friend walked into a local welfare office, marched straight up to the counter and said.
“Hi. I hate that me, my baby, and my baby moma is drawing welfare. I would rather find a job.”
The man behind the counter replied:
“Your timing is amazing. We just got a listing from a wealthy man who wants a chauffeur/bodyguard for his nymphomanic daughter. You’ll have to drive around in a big black Mercedes. Your suits, shirts, and ties are provided. Because of the long hours meals will also be provided and you will also be required to escort the young lady on her overseas holiday trips. The salary package is $200,000 a year.”
“You’re bullshitting me man!”
The man behind the counter said,
“Well, you started it! Government don’t give out jobs. We give out welfare checks. You want yours?”
There in lies the great polemic that is going on today in this country. A great cultural and political battle is under way in America between people like the man behind the counter in the local welfare office who want government to take care of you and me, and people like Otis who want to take care of themselves.
The former covet their neighbors’ goods and want government to redistribute the nation’s wealth. The latter believe government exist primarily to protect the God given rights of individuals, including not only the right to life, freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, but also the right to own and use the hard-won fruits of their labors.
In asking for a job, rather than a welfare check, or government mandated and operated universal health care, Otis Killingsworth has said NO to big government and YES to freedom.
Recent polls indicate that even though Barack Obamawas elected President in 2008 running on a platform that appealed to the former, the latter still account for the majority of Americans.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll asked more than a thousand adults this question:
“Generally speaking, would you say you favor smaller government with fewer services or larger government with more services?”
Fifty-eight percent said they favor a smaller government with fewer services. Only 38% said they favor a larger government with more services.
Public Policy Polling, a firm that boasts a client base of Democratic politicians, also conducted a poll of more than a thousand adults—in this case likely voters in a l U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts. The poll asked those likely Massachusetts voters:
“Do you think that congressional Democrats are too liberal, too conservative, or about right?”
Fifty –three percent said congressional Democrats are too liberal.
The same pool asked:
“Do you support or oppose President Obama’s healthcare plan?”
Only 40 % of these Massachusetts voters said they supported it.
Another poll of likely Massachusetts voters found even less support for Obama’s healthcare plan. WHDH Channel 7 news in Boston and Suffolk University asked 500 Massachusetts voters:
“Do you support the proposed near-universal national health care law?”
Only 36% said yes.
Yet even though voters in Massachusetts—one of the nation’s most liberal states—have unmistakably rejected Obama’s national healthcare plan, this does not mean Obama and the liberal leadership in Congress won’t keep trying to make this unpopular law palatable to the American people.
Obama and the Democrats may look at their new healthcare tax as a move that might be politically costly in the short-term, but pay off handsomely in the long term by helping to fundamentally change American culture and permanently transform American politics. They may see it as a tool they can use to invert the numbers from the Washington Post poll; to change America into a nation where only 38% want a smaller government and 58% want a larger one.
The Affordable Health Care Law–Obamacare is designed to breed dependency on the federal government among the middle class. The law subsidizes health insurance premiumns for families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level.
For example, a family of four making up to $88,200 per year would get money from the government to buy insurance. They would become another class of welfare recipients—not in their childhood or old age, not in poverty, but in the prime of their lives when they are otherwise making a decent living.
In exchange for this subsidy, middle-class Americans will surrender control over their healthcare to the government. They will be required to buy the type of healthcare plan the government wants them to buy and only from health insurance providers the government approves. Government will decide what treatment they can and cannot get.
By Americans surrender ing their property right in their healthcare to the government in this way, they are also giving the government leverage over decisions they will make involving life and death and profound questions of conscience.
Not long after the Bill of Rights was ratified, James Madison wrote an essay insisting that respect for property rights was indispensable to protecthing other human rights.
“In a word,” wrote Madison,” as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.”
The majority of Americans still know in their bones that Madison was right. They correctly see Obama’s healthcare law as a tax, and as a threat to American liberty. In louder and louder voices, a majority of Americans like Otis Killingsworth are saying:
“NO to big government and YES to freedom!
- Is America becoming a ‘socialist state’? 40 percent say yes. (csmonitor.com)