The Fist of the Obama Administration Must Not be Re-Elected

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics:

My father liked to tinker with writing simple poetry—the type of “greeting card” poetry that can be very touching or funny, or simply lame.  I recently have been reminded of the following part of a funny poem he wrote for me when I graduated from law school, which he entitled “Lawyer to Client”:

You say you hit the other guy,
Broke his nose and blackened his eye,
Split his lip and damaged his face.
I think you’ve got an excellent case.

The man is daft and obviously
Was in a place he never should be.
With devious means and grievous twist
He put his face in front of your fist. …

As I’ve followed the debate over the “Obama mandate” for insurance coverage that narrows the conscience exception that had protected religious institutions for many years, I feel as though we conservatives have once again put our face in front of the left’s fist on this issue.  Normally, I would advocate just licking our wounds and changing the subject back to the economic issues facing the country.  But, the problem is that what underlies the thinking of the left on this issue is what also is strangling the long-term neck of our economy.

Before we go further with that point, we first need to understand how our face found its way into the left’s fist. Back in January (it seems like years ago), during one of the many GOP debates over the last few months, George Stephanopoulos asked the candidates about their view of a half-century old Supreme Court ruling that constitutionally prohibited states from banning the sale or use of contraceptives.  Virtually everyone on the stage, and in the auditorium, was shocked by the question because it seemed to come out of left field.  The candidates all answered in one way or another that the issue was irrelevant and no one is advocating banning contraceptives, and Stephanopoulos looked really silly and petty as he continued to press for an answer from the candidates—but the key is that he continued to press for an answer.  Why?  It made no sense—at the time.

Then, not long after that debate, Secretary Sebelius announced that the Obama Administration would mandate that all employers would have to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their insurance plans, including religiously-affiliated hospitals, schools, and charities.  The “conscience exception” that had previously exempted such institutions from such mandates was to be narrowed to just the direct employees of the houses of worship of such religious institutions.

The negative reaction was stunning and swift, but it was not about women’s health or access to contraceptives—which must have further surprised the likes of Stephanopoulos and Sebelius.  Instead, it was about the use of the governmental fist in violation of the First Amendment to force churches to act at variance with their beliefs, or get fined—the type of direct assault on religious liberty that the U.S. Supreme Court had just told the Obama Administration it could not do as the court struck down another attempted regulatory invasion into the operation of a religious school. Hoping to find a compromise, people of goodwill from all over the political spectrum called on the Obama Administration to reconsider and re-embrace the full conscience exception that both political parties previously had honored, and that had provided a federal safe-harbor from mandates at the state level, while exploring other constitutional ways to maximize women’s access to medical treatments and prescriptions.  Instead of such a compromise, Obama announced a unilateral “compromise” with himself, which—of course—was no compromise at all.  It, instead, was a new fiat that was even more extraordinary for its hubris—mandating that insurers pay for, but not charge for, providing contraceptives to employees of religiously-affiliated hospitals, schools and charities.  Incredible!

Why was the second fiat incredible?  Let’s look closer at Obama’s magnanimous act of self-compromise for a moment:

• it ignores the fact that, in order to take advantage of the historical safe-harbor provided by the federal conscience exception, many religious institutions became self-insured, and those plans cover both the employees of the churches as well as the affiliated entities;

• it ignores one of the most basic facts of economics—there is no free lunch.  Regardless as to whether we are talking about free-market or government-planned economies, goods and services (including contraceptives, and the doctor visit and prescription needed to obtain the contraceptives) cost money; and, in this instance, those costs will be paid either directly by the employer or self-insurer, by all the insureds of the insurance company (including the religious institutions and their employees) through higher premiums, or by taxpayers through higher taxes or more public debt;

• it continues to ignore that these religiously-affiliated institutions only exist in order to fulfill the mission of the church in the community, so that they are an important part of the practice of religious faith  by the ministry of the church, regardless of whether the church employs or serves persons of other faiths (or of no faith) in the performance of such practices; and

• in making all these mistakes, it shows that Obama refuses to acknowledge and abide by the limitations on governmental power, and the exercise of that power, that our Founder’s enshrined in our Constitution, including the preservation of a separate church and the importance of its separate institutional role in our society.

So, the Obama fist came in a second swing toward the face of those of us who still believe in those limitations on government power, and in religious liberty.  But this time, like on so many other occasions over the last two generations, it is our face that was now alleged to be the aggressor, rather than the victim.  Those on the left who initially had called for Obama to re-consider his decision miraculously found this new fiat to be a welcome compromise, and then fell back in line as the lemmings that they are.  And, of course, their fellow travelers in the media lauded the magnanimity and wisdom of Obama’s act of self-compromise, and fell in line, too.  Then, returning full circle to the Stephanopoulos question, they found further criticism of the second swing of Obama’s fist to be a new assault on women’s health by the face of conservatives—an assault so grave that it could not be tolerated.  Unfortunately, some of our candidates and pundits played into this narrative, by allowing themselves to be drawn into debates about specific religious views of contraception, rather than keeping their focus on the fundamental flaws with Obama’s aggressive mandate.  As a result, in the latest twist in this story, the U.S. Senate could not muster the votes to return federal policy to the full conscience exception, and the left walked away from the debate claiming their fist had been assaulted by our face.

I want to be clear about some things.  I am not a Catholic, though I have great respect for the Catholic Church. I am a father of three girls, and I’m a grandfather.  I care very much about the health of my wife and daughters, and their access to the care they believe they need.  Finally, I see no societal, economic or political benefit to, or wisdom in, re-visiting the legal issue of medical privacy related to the sale and use of contraceptives, which was decided a half-century ago.  Contraception should not be, and really never was the issue in this political debate—we must remember that point as we move forward from here.

Now, back to my the point I started to make.  The shear arrogance of a political leader of this nation who would so cavalierly ignore basic economic principles, ignore basic constitutional rights, and ignore the basic limitations of governmental power that allow us to practice our constitutional rights, in order to advance an agenda to regulate by fiat an industry that represents at least 17% of our economy, and, in the process, create a new entitlement scheme, has not earned our trust and must not be re-elected.  We will never recover our economic vitality as a nation, let alone our full individual freedoms and responsibilities, if we re-elect this arrogance and give it four more years at the helm of our country.

To those of you who are involved in GOP campaigns this year, I remind you of the seriousness of the mission we have this fall, and ask you to keep your focus on that mission and what the real issues are.  Don’t get sidetracked into the left’s narrative—don’t stick your face into the left’s fist.  Simply fight back based on our narrative of liberty, personal responsibility, limited government and economic opportunity.  As Reagan once told us a generation ago, “there is no substitute for victory.”

Our Health Care Dilemma

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics:

In today’s Wall Street Journal, columnist Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., provides this interesting analysis (Conservatives and the Mandate) of the root problem with our health care system. Distilled to its essence, the problem with Obamacare (and Romneycare, and Schwarzeneggercare), it that they perpetuate and worsen an already existing distortion of the market for health care. Ladies and Gentlemen, I hate to tell you this, but there has been no free market for health care in a very long time, and we will have to accept a lot more personal responsibility in our lives if we want to re-establish a free market in that industry.

Since the end of World War II, when unions negotiated for insurance coverage in lieu of wage increases, the provision of health care in this country increasingly has come to be managed by middlemen: private for-profit insurance companies; private non-profit insurance companies; federal and state government agencies; and local public hospital systems. Moreover, most privately-employed full time workers have another middleman, their employer, involved in the process of selecting the insurance coverage, negotiating its price, and collecting and paying the premiums. Most doctor-patient relationships, including the cost and scope of care, are initiated and managed, directly or indirectly, by one of these middlemen. Relatively few individuals (if any) today “choose” their doctors and can negotiate the cost and scope of their care.

In the meantime, the premiums paid by employers and employees are no longer dictated by the actuarial pricing of the risk of illness, disease or injury, because coverage is so broad that it covers basic medical services for which there is no fortuitous risk involved. This means that increasingly the cost we pay for coverage has little or no relation to the individual needs of each person, but rather is based on the cost of sustaining the insurance coverage for everyone enrolled in a specific plan, or for everyone covered by a carrier or government program.

In turn, the decisions of the middlemen dictate how much health care is provided, to whom it is provided, when it is provided and where it is provided. These decisions affect the decisions of doctors in the treatment of patients, and distort the allocation of medical resources in every community.

The only major benefit of the private insurance market to the overall free-market economy is that the premium funds are re-invested in the private economy. But, if you think you are paying premiums to buy a free-market relationship with your doctor, you’re simply wrong.

What Obamacare and its state counterparts do is not a fix to these problems, so that the same quality and amount of medical care is accessible to everyone, and that you regain control of your doctor-patient relationship. Instead, these programs further institutionalize the role and power of middlemen, and raise their decisions from contractual dictates to legal mandates. Meanwhile, the program is designed, over time, to reduce the incentive to purchase private insurance, which eventually will reduce the primary economic benefit of such a product—the re-investment of premiums into the private economy. Eventually, Obamacare will lead to a pure transfer payment entitlement funded with tax dollars and public debt.

The only way to fix this mess in the long term is to restructure the health care industry into a free-market system where most of the economic and medical decisions are kept at the level of the doctor-patient relationship, and the middlemen’s role is greatly reduced. This can be done by creating three delivery systems:

• A private insurance system that only provides coverage for major medical issues—major illnesses, diseases or injuries—and that requires high deductibles or health savings accounts, and personal responsibility, for the payment of all other health care;
• Local hospital and clinic systems paid for with local tax dollars, and administered by local governments, for the indigent (and the continuation of a similar federal program for veterans); and
• A means-tested voucher system to fund the payment of private insurance premiums for insurance coverage for the elderly, paid for from the Medicare tax.

Although these changes sound like common-sense, conservative approaches to fixing the system, I have been amazed by the reaction of many conservatives to these ideas when you discuss them privately. Over the years, as I’ve tried to discuss our current predicament and these types of policy changes with people around the dinner table or in relaxed conversations, their eyes glaze over. More importantly, I have discovered another phenomenon during such discussions: many spouses and single parents, who control family finances and handle the doctor appointments (and, in my anecdotal experience from these conversations, these spouses and single parents are women, regardless of whether both spouses in a marriage work outside the home), hate the idea of losing the simplicity derived from the involvement of middlemen, and they especially hate the idea of losing the convenience of co-pays. They may complain about a specific bad experience with an insurance company over a coverage issue; but the idea of a return of more control over medical decisions and payments to families, and the resulting increase in personal responsibility over such transactions, is simply an anathema to many of these spouses.

Now add to this pre-disposition against assuming more responsibility over the doctor-patient relationship, the recent flap over Obama’s mandate for church-related hospital and charities to provide services and prescriptions, or insurance coverage for such services and prescriptions, which violate the tenets of the religious institutions that manage such hospitals and charities, and you see that this issue is more politically volatile and complex than we conservatives often think. Yes, conservatives and many independents viscerally recoil at the notion of government having and exercising the power to mandate us to do anything, and especially when such power is used to interfere with the decisions and doctrines of a church (and most believe that such government action is unconstitutional). On the other hand, even many conservatives are much more ambivalent about middlemen in their medical decisions, including government, when they are forced to consider the alternative. So, when these people hear that access to contraceptives could be denied to some women, and that the alternative to mandates that are designed to require such access is responsibility they don’t want, their reaction to the issue is not predictably supportive of the religious liberty of the church.

Where does all of this lead to? As I’ve said so often that I’m beginning to feel like a broken record, it leads to the hardest question we Americans have to face this fall, and for many years to come: are we willing to take back the personal responsibilities that the maintenance of liberty and a society of free people requires? If not, then electing Republicans to Washington this fall will not matter in the long-run, because the trajectory of public policy will continue in a leftward direction toward a European system with the trade-offs between social programs and national defense that Europeans have made, and with the acceptance of increasing public and private debts to finance such a system—until it inevitably collapses, internally or externally.

If electing Republicans this fall is to mean real change, we will have to look in the mirror and accept the personal responsibilities such changes will demand of us.

Trust and Consequences

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics:

As I have listened to all of the campaigning, media coverage and breaking news stories over the last few weeks, I have been reminded of a conversation I had with a friend of mine late last year.

This friend is a committed Democrat, and we have enjoyed lively debates over the years about virtually everything. In this last conversation, we were both expressing our exasperation over some of the positions and mistakes of our respective parties, and the ups and downs of the Presidential race. When I restated my long held view that our country won’t be able to fix many of its problems unless we return responsibility to people and local communities, my friend said something that crystallized many of our differences: “Ed, I don’t trust people to do the right thing like you do.” Toward the end of the conversation, as we were discussing certain social issues about which we disagree, I asked my friend whether he was concerned at all by the unintended consequences that changes in social customs and mores create, and he flatly said, “No. We can address any problems later, but I am for change that broadens people’s ‘rights,’ and it is just mean-spirited not to broaden them.”

Now, it’s not like I had never heard comments like those before—any conservative who is old enough to read and write has heard statements like them too many times to count. But, for some reason, my friend’s statements have been ringing in my ears lately as I’ve tried to make sense of all that is transpiring around us, and of what needs to be done over the next few months as we head into the November election. If we conservatives are going to win the national elections this fall, we need to convince the American people that implementing our vision will fix the problems we face, not just rearrange those problems and defer their resolution to another day. My friend’s statements helped me re-look at what unifies our conservative vision.

What ties our conservative policies and ideas together is that they depend for their success upon a basic trust of our neighbors—a mutual trust that we will make more right choices than wrong choices privately and publicly, and that together we can rely on our mutual trust to rebuild our families, our communities and our economy.

This trust drives us to oppose centralization of responsibility in Washington and state capitols, to oppose the ridicule and diminishment of churches and organizations whose work helps to form our character as individuals and as a people, to oppose grand schemes that depend on mandates and entitlements to solve our problems, and to oppose a growth of government that is purchased with debt borrowed from our competitors and enemies. Meanwhile, this trust inspires us to promote the protection and exercise of our basic civil rights, to find answers to our problems in the opportunities constantly created by free markets and free trade, to require governments to live within their means and abide by their constitutional limits, and to engage with our neighbors in the lives of our communities to guide inevitable social changes in a way that prepares our children for the future while preserving for them the unique society we inherited.

But our trust is tempered by our inherited memory that decisions and actions have consequences, and that some of those consequences are often both unintended and destructive. Such memory leads us to oppose change for the sake of change, or to oppose change that may make us feel better about ourselves today without regard to what we may do to our children’s tomorrow. That memory leads us to oppose changes that confuse rights with privileges, that confuse liberty with autonomy, that confuse the exercise of wisdom and conscience with censorship or discrimination, that confuse opportunity with mandates and regulations, and that confuse growth of government with the growth of freedom and wealth.

However, such memory also challenges us to engage in the process of change when it is necessary or inevitable. That engagement requires us to guide such change so that it results in preserving and strengthening our unique society for future generations, rather than to disengage from the process and allow changes to unfold that destroy the fundamental principles of our society over time.

All of this is easier to describe than to live by—it always has been. That is why it is easier to be a political progressive or liberal in our society than it is to be a conservative. It is this gap between talk and action that has led many people to tune-out conservatives when we start talking about returning responsibility to the people, or when we discuss the potential for negative consequences from certain changes that, at least superficially, sound good, fair and just.

Indeed, this predicament frames our challenge this year: we must describe our vision of a society that is grounded in mutual trust, and that channels that trust to guide inevitable change confidently and prudently; and we must persuade our neighbors that we will live by the best of this vision, if elected.