Read Washington’s farewell address. Even the nimble patriotic monarchist John Adams refused to be labeled as a federalist. Got mad when somebody called him one. Fast-forward to today. Now we have warring parties. It’s the Hatfields vs. the McCoys, the Red Sox vs. the Yankees, Celtics vs. the Lakers, Democrats vs. the Republicans, Hannity vs. Beckel, oh, it’s all such great theater. Fantastic for ratings. People love to watch it on television, listen to it on the radio. Doesn’t do a g-damned thing to make your life better. Does not get government one iota out of your life and does nothing to restore the republic. I don’t know if that’s by definition, or if that’s just the way the beast operates. But that is the fact.
All points of view are not equally considered in a free society. And what I mean by that is the idea here that there is an antithetical view to freedom in a free society ought to be just that, antithetical. Why do you promote it? Why do you treat it as if, well, we had the left vs. the right? No. We have people that want the free people to not be free anymore vs. the free people. Why is that view – why is that view even regarded as a legitimate one, historically speaking?
I heard Marco Rubio. So let me paraphrase. He was on with Neil Cavuto yesterday, and Neil Cavuto was asking him about, you’re even in the polls now with Charlie Crist, how did you do it? And Rubio said, basically, I don’t believe in big government. You had Governor Crist out there, stampeding the entire state, boasting and bragging about the stimulus bill. I didn’t do it. I fought it. He said the people of Florida have had it. They have had it with the idea that government provides them with anything. They don’t want government providing them with things. They want government to keep the – to preserve their liberty is what they want it for.
And I’m paraphrasing, again. But there’s another example there of a candidate that’s rising in the polls and that is being embraced by, I would say, intelligent people. And now we have this,
“ conservative revolution.” You’d better watch who you call conservative, and you’d better watch whose wagon you hitch your revolution to, my friends.
Today’s Wall Street Journal piece by Paul Ryan, who is the wunderkind, the poster boy of the new conservative, the “Young Guns II” as Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard calls them. Why, these are the future Ronald Reagans. Why, these are the ones that are going to lead all the conservative tea party masses to the promised land, to the land of milk and honey. I would love to believe that. I really would. I don’t think it’s true. It’s not because I don’t like Paul Ryan, because I do. But again, this is not Barry Goldwater in 1964. This is not saying, I’m not here to make deals with government. I’m not here to accommodate. I’m here to repeal, to get it out of the way, to restore the Constitution.
I don’t understand why this concept is so oblique. Why is this so hard for people that claim to be conservatives to attach themselves to? Ron Paul, yes. That’s right. Ron Paul has a saying – we ought to, you know what, we ought to make this into a T-shirt, if somebody hadn’t already done it, “Legalize the Constitution.” Which would make illegal all the unconstitutional activities.
So I have this piece by Paul Ryan in today’s Wall Street Journal: “A GOP Road Map for America’s Future. There’s still time to rejuvenate our market economy and avoid a European-style welfare state.” Now, I guarantee you, decepticons are going to give this guy an A++++, 105 percent credit on this. Not only did he pass the exam, he aced it. Why, he made fans out of everybody. I gave – I read this objectively, and I wrote my objections down. And I give Paul Ryan an A+++ for effort, but a C- grade on being a constitutional conservative. Again, this is nothing personal to Paul Ryan. Nothing. But if we don’t point out where these guys are straying from the path, or where we think they’re straying from the path, how are you ever going to get them on it?
You people claim you want a constitutional republic. Well, I am sorry, but Granny is not – your child, fast-forward 40 years, your 10 year old, fast-forward 45 years, if you want a constitutional republic, is not going to have Medicare. Unless you want to amend the damn thing. If you want to put an amendment in there that legalizes and makes Congress’s purview over your medical services, then okay. But as it currently stands, and as it was written, and as it was ratified, no. There will be no Medicare. There’d be no Social Insecurity. And yet we have conservative after conservative talk about preserving the great legacy that is Medicare.
It’s not a great legacy. It is an absolute, unmitigated disaster. Disaster.
So I’ll be the only honest guy in the room that will tell you that, yes, we made commitments to senior citizens. You cannot yank the rug out from underneath seniors that have spent their entire lives contributing to Medicare, or much of their lives, and are now banking on it. Sorry, that’s just not fair to them. You’d basically be breaking a contract, and the Constitution does enforce contracts. Ditto that for Social Security. You can’t do that. But here’s what you can do. You can eliminate the future generation’s participation in it. Tell them no. You’re free to go make your own old age medical plans. As a matter of fact, you’re responsible to go make your own old age medical plans. You are responsible now, youngster, young man, young lady, to go make your own future retirement plans. The federal government’s not going to do it for you. You’re actually going to have to do it yourself.
So I gave Paul Ryan a C-. And I find some of this stuff just laughable. Here, healthcare. His plan, and I’m reading from it now, “ensures universal access to affordable health insurance by restructuring the tax code, allowing all Americans to secure an affordable health plan that best suits their needs, and shifting the control and ownership of health coverage away from the government and employers to individuals.” No. That’s not what this does. That shifts control to the government because it is the government’s tax policy that ensures that the change is to be made. And you will still have to file the tax. Or you will have to take the tax exemption. The government hasn’t gotten out of the business. It’s just redirected it.
The proper answer is that all tax credits for all manner and form of health insurance are to be repealed. No interference. No favoritism. Employer, employee, corporate, government, doesn’t matter. That’s what the founders would do. Well, I’m telling you what they would have done, and I’m telling you what little “r” republicans would do. I don’t believe that this could be done overnight. But you could at least state that that’s the stated goal. And then you fast-forward to this, from Paul Ryan’s plan to save us all from ourselves.
“State-based high risk pools will make affordable care available to those with pre-existing conditions.” Are you a federalist, Mr. Ryan? Are you? Who’s going to enforce the state-based high risk pools? You going to reach across state lines again and lord your will over all the 50 states and tell them they’re going to have these risk pools? This is the conservative position, again? Sorry.
Medicare.“For those under 55,” he writes, “as they become Medicare-eligible, it creates a Medicare payment, initially averaging $11,000, to be used to purchase a Medicare certified plan.” This “will help keep Medicare solvent for generations to come.” As it has been demonstrated on this show and on others and embodies volumes of written work, the Medicare Act was unconstitutional. They knew it was at the time. But they had the Court in their back pocket, and nobody – not that it wasn’t sued, and not that they didn’t try to stop it, but the Court wouldn’t go along. So let’s preserve it for – in other words, let’s preserve the broken system that drives the deficits up and ensures the tax is taken out of your paycheck for generations to come.
That’s conservative. Yeah. I can’t wait to vote for that. How about you?
edited from the MIKE CHURCH Sirius radio show