He’s so smart that Barack Obama didn’t even need to show him off his astounding intellect to the Senate, although they admire him so much that they’re still trying to set up a meeting, apparently just to bask in his cerebral glow.  In lieu of questioning, they should test his brain for steroids if they actually get to share a room with him. 

But I am suspicious in my thick-skulled way.  By trying to free us from the free market, Berwick embodies Obamunism better than even if Van Jones was duct-taped to Rahm Emanuel.  How could that be bad?

Yet some of us still feel the need to resist despite who we’re facing.  Like me, you don’t have an Ivy League degree, after all, and even if you do you were never president unless you are one of the George Bushes.  In that case, thank you for clicking here, Mister Presidents.

Setting aside that totally plausible scenario, my non-Bush president readers can’t compete with Obama’s résumé, even if it’s only three lines (education: Ivy; current position: prez; references: call Bill Ayers).  What would you know about making financial decisions, you non-commander-in-chief?

That is, other than everything?  Americans prove every Obama administration member wrong constantly.  Dissenters don’t even have to list specific reasons why the eternal bailout is a recession-extending, corporate behemoth-pleasing nightmare.  Simply, they do it by living their lives and buying things.  The best case against the president is made by spending while existing.

People don’t have to go to some fancy economics school to know what’s good for their personal budgets.  I for one chose a path that was worse than no college: I majored in journalism.  Yet I still know that people even as unwise as me are far better at choosing how to spend their funds than any non-Paul Ryan wonk who plies in Washington.

It’s too bad there’s no way to prove that lack of bureaucratic interdiction actually keys commercial success.  The only exception would be each voluntary purchases made throughout human history.  As an example, any American can visit any mall, supermarket, Target, bookseller, electronics retailer, restaurant, bait shop, or pretzel kiosk and buy any item desired at a voluntarily acceptable rate.  Other than that, the free market sucks.

All enjoyably worthwhile transactions are made via interaction with private sellers.  That’s true no matter one’s definition of “worthwhile.”  You may think that buying Twilight junk at Hot Topic embodies civilization’s nadir.  And you would be correct.

But that’s someone else’s decision about the value they get for their money.  The baffling spenders in question get to choose how to waste what they have even if same choices would appall and confuse people with infinitely better taste.

On the other hand, dealing with a governmentally-planned mini-economy invariably leads to misery, frustration, and comprehension of why Obama succeeds at failing.  It’s too obvious to cite the Department of Motor Vehicles as an example.  But it’s too much fun not to, either.

Wait: you mean you don’t enjoy renewing your license?  The lines, service, price, ease of transaction, and wait time for the product in question to be delivered are all familiarly dreadful.  One needn’t be reminded that the departments are not in private hands.  But it’s always worthwhile for people to keep this fact in mind, especially as the feds attempt to DMV up every industry.

Similarly, we can envision the real-world horror flick that matches Berwick’s vision of expertly-planned health care.  And we can see it, too, as long as we look north or south while standing on our tiptoes while facing certain neighbors.  Instead of seeking out the best care at a reasonable rate from doctors and hospitals who must offer excellent service in a competitive market, unfortunate residents of countries that already employ acute versions of Obamacare wait and suffer while going bankrupt for the privilege.

Worse, the antagonist is already on the loose in America.  We already have semi-socialized medicine, as the elderly or poor souls on one of the very Mediplans that Berwick now runs can attest.  Government provides simultaneously inefficient and lousy care because there’s no competition.

The fact that assigned schemers assure us that they’re better at managing real life than those they’re serving provides little consolation.  Berwick’s agency proves him completely wrong, which would make him feel embarrassed if he knew how.

Likewise, mandating emergency room care for everyone sounds noble, right until people realize they can get non-emergency care at any time for any reason.  Yeah, that’ll hold down costs.

When it comes to those who genuinely require assistance, no reasonable person claims that any hospital would turn away someone in dire need.  If they diabolically did, the free market media would rightfully shred the diabolical institution in question.

As for newsworthy words, the process of spreading ideas online works well precisely because there’s not a Cabinet official or Dot Com Czar attempting to chart the industry’s course.  People post or sell, other people read or buy, and everyone’s happy excepting the administration that hates seeing a vastly unregulated frontier succeed immensely.

You have probably noticed that the internet works.  As a matter of fact, you may be interested to know that are currently using the particular medium of information distribution in question.  That’s unless you curiously printed out a hard copy, which just means you visited the internet first.  Either way, you visited my column freely.  Nobody is blaming or accusing you of anything.  But you are choosing your own path right now.  Bless you.

The ability to select any information you want in lieu of having Katie Couric dictate what she wants to you is the best thing that has happened to the industry since the invention of the journalist cocktail.  Naturally, a prominent liberal recently proclaimed that he wants to change what works.  Specifically, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger wants the government giving food stamps to the press.

You’d better listen: the call to quasi-nationalize the media came from the boss of Columbia, which is a school connected to Obama.  That in turn means he is more awesome than us at everything merely by association.

With that in mind, I’m all for more funding of my life’s work as a freelance journalist, especially considering said work so obviously amounts to not much.  While I should apply for a NEA grant to hold me over for now, I’m ultimately holding out for a federal columnist slot and an accompanying fat pension.

Of course, I’d still totally get to make fun of the president.  Um, right?  Why would the bureaucrats who pay my salary with money confiscated from you get to control what I say via governmental fiat?  I’ve no idea.

Federal funding for publications and broadcasts that fail to draw audiences would be rewarding failure, which would of course be an Obama administration first.  It further means we’d be effectively nationalizing an industry that most Americans think must absolutely remain private if freedom of speech is to endure.  But doing so will prove to them once and for all that central planning works.  Um, totally.  Yes!

The public will soon warm to distrusting their non-Berwickian intellects in favor of letting government pros make decisions for them.  After all, federal intervention never fails to ameliorate and improve our circumstances.  Please don’t check the unemployment rate after reading the previous sentence.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

The inescapability of irritability applies more generally, too, as striving to make every adult happy is like giving Red Bull to five-year-olds and expecting them not to be fussy during naptime.  My suggested science experiment on kindergarteners might be considered by some uptight parenting experts to unlawful, immoral, or both.  Thankfully, we don’t need to conduct it: we already know that the individual humans comprising humanity can’t all get their joyful way, much less at once.

Short of researchers uncovering methods for generating unlimited free pizza and building roller coasters in place of highways, complete contentment will never be attained, especially since so many people seem to prefer wallowing in crumminess.

That cantankerous fact is immutable: even Barack Obama, who is of course the human quintessence of decency and sunshine, cannot mandate that his fellow Americans must ditch the permanent grumpies.  He’s still sadly trying, which is actually only infuriating us further.  Many are responding to his efforts to do so by gleefully waving at the executive with one finger.  Perversely and perfectly, the brazen gesture ameliorates gloom.

Of course, we have little about which to complain no matter how much damage George W. Bush has inflicted upon our wallets during the Obama presidency.  Even in the commanding, controlling year of 2010, most Americans enjoy astoundingly high living standards that are the envy of virtually all people ever.

Barons from earlier centuries would weep upon being exposed to the luxuries enjoyed by contemporary American bank tellers.  Poor people here are uncommonly blessed, although you may not always hear them praising the nation over the combined din of the microwave, air conditioner, and Margaritaville blender.

But the availability of ample simple comforts to most just isn’t enough for Obama.  It’s still not fair here, you see: some people aren’t able to McMansion themselves or tool around the burbs in a Range or Land Rover.  Why should only Wall Street goons get nice things?  Therefore, Obama’s guiding principle following his ascension has been to smack down the opulent in the name of assuaging the incompetent, ungifted, and/or hardscrabble at every occasion.

But confiscating from the rich while handing shady mortgages to the poor turns out to be as dangerous as asking Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC) a question.  Hey: we’re all broke and fearful.  When Washington tells us to empty our wallets, they stay empty.  Blame the present administration for thinking everyone is entitled to nice things, only not too nice.

Of course, Whole Foods franchises aren’t the only ones penalized into oblivion when the rich are dragged down: the people fat cats employ get shafted, too, along with the respective Whole Foods register and cart jockeys.  And marginal homeowners aren’t precisely thriving post-foreclosure, either, unless they’re good squatters.  Spreading the wealth doesn’t work if there’s no wealth to spread.

The notion of broadening agony also applies to universally wretched health care.  The insurance system that not all but most mainly liked just wasn’t good enough.  In lieu of stitches, Obama slashed the patient until he was in debt, and also deceased.  To make it fair, Obama will make it so everyone hates their health treatments and costs equally; it’s an odd but technically accurate form of consensus.

Further, we can’t tap all the oil we can out of Mother Keg because it would sadden yaks, not to mention their human defenders.  The recently-single Al Gore and his evergreen minions can’t imagine a world where an airplane-sized chunk of Alaska is sullied by bulldozers, meaning oil that would help all of us goes unused to placate them.

The dirt adorers are joined by a handful of the rich twits who don’t like having their views obstructed by human creation.  Obama is supposed to loathe these opulent parasites.  Unfortunately, they wouldn’t donate to him if there’s a blip on the Gulf of Mexico’s horizon, so drillers can only ply their trade in the deep.  That may have consequences. 

The stab at fueling America without burrowing in or near it embodies how the president tries to give 100 percent of people everything they want.  How’s that working, Santa?  Ironically, his policies cause the precise opposite of widespread happiness, so at least there’s a reason you presently feel like junk.

His delusions about consensus are an international problem.  The man absolutely guaranteed to be a future United Nations Secretary-General loves the painfully turgid bureaucracy and consumer of souls that is the waste of Turtle Bay real estate.

The love for all things UN stands as Obama’s most defining broader aspect, other than his love for basketball that bigots like me feel obligated to mention.  What wouldn’t he like?  The pompous/puissant diplomats from national hovels who barely deserve flags embody noble human goals by occupying their assigned seats and telling Israel why it sucks.

More specifically, the Security Council epitomizes Obama’s idealized model of selflessly benevolent cooperation that all our planet’s peoples desire.  On an unrelated note, it’s merely coincidence that Obama was eight when Sesame Street premiered.  But the ideal doesn’t quite match the wretched reality.  In practice, the parking ticket-ignoring factory’s upper echelon is a practical example of why demanding unanimous consent is an undisputedly useless approach: some people are jerks, and it’s best to disagree with them.

In fact, the majority of the Council is comprised of nations who you’d duck at the reunion if they were high school classmates.  I’ll take the United Kingdom’s identical vote as a propitious sign, if only because I’ve seen the Rolling Stones twice.

But I don’t ever want to agree with the non-oatmeal stout-championing nations of France, China, or Russia at once on anything.  Finding ourselves in accord with all three varyingly disagreeable nations simultaneously is a sign to grab your flash drives and photo albums before rushing to your bunker.

But Obama wouldn’t see such a 5-0 vote as agreeing with the disagreeable.  After all, he thought that his soothing lectures were the only thing Americans and other Earthlings would adore more than his take on collectivism.

To Obama, the only American who should be held responsible for his actions is George W. Bush.  But absolving everyone else of accountability in the name of communality thankfully isn’t enough of an enticement for us to like him.

The president thought we all loved him while disregarding that he won under 53 percent of the popular vote.  Factor in how many of his former supporters aren’t interested in being fooled again, and it’s clear Obama can’t even cobble together a majority, much less full unity.  Don’t let him talk you into ordering pizza toppings you don’t want even if he plays the national harmony card.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

The consistent application of principles championing natural rights, individual liberty, and a well-defined federal government whose chief role is walloping bad guys domestic and foreign encapsulates your sensible approach.  As a result, many people who don’t think like you dislike you.

So, the left tries instead to beat conservatives with shady labeling.  Why admit your foes have reasonable positions with which you disagree?  It’s so much fun branding the competing gang as racist sexist homophobic hatemongers who equally dislike grandmas and babies.  But it may not quite be accurate to claim that we stand opposed to goodness and innocence despite how many GOP straw polls the Wolfman has won.

For one, the right recognizes the difference between gay tolerance and gay marriage.  Opposing the latter is frequently portrayed as a civil rights violation, as if not letting a man marry another man is the first noticeable characteristic of the Fourth Reich.  That’s despite how we’re not stopping anyone: couples of any sort are free to visit a lawyer who can draw up a partnership agreement, which just reserves the actual word “marriage” for traditional couples.

In reply, those who say yes to gay marriage throw around the word “hate” at dissenters with casualness more appropriate for choosing pizza topping.  Additionally, they relish pointing out that anyone who thinks each ceremony participant should have to be a member of a different gender possesses a Gestapo soul.  They really hate people who they think embody hate.

Sadly, the right is treated similarly for knowing the seemingly intuitive difference between legal and illegal immigration.  Liberals constantly drag out the speciously tired talking point about how we’re a nation founded by immigrants, and that you yourself likely have ancestors who sailed or at least flew here, and so why do you despise foreigners so much, you xenophobic country clubber?

You can kindly reply that you have no problem with people such as your great-grandparents entering the nation legally.  But it’s tough for liberals to hear the retort over the sound of their own obliviously smug smiles.

We just want everyone to fill out the paperwork and let everyone know they’re here.  Um, it’s the law, after all.  Most vitally, those who enter our nation surreptitiously can’t be trusted to obey the rules considering how they’ve already broken rule number one.

If the right needs more evidence confirming the correctness of their immigration stance, they should consider their foes.  Namely, those who want secure borders with gates that swing open for legal applicant ought to be glad they’re not aligned with a remarkably dumb sports franchise that assumes all Spanish-speaking peoples are bothered by a requirement that those under arrest have to prove who they are.

Hopefully, the Los in “Los Suns” is short for Losers, although they may be willing to skirt the rules if it helps them win based on their attitude toward their home state’s laws.  Beware, Lakers: the Suns cheat!

But conservatives just can’t stop failing to obsess over race.  Contrary to a common portrayal from our counterparts, despising people with different skin tones differs from opposing quotas.  Letting individuals fend for themselves regardless of historical injustices that their ancestors may or may not have suffered in previous centuries is far preferable to legalizing cushiness in the name of balancing the universe.

We merely want everyone starting at zero.  But you’d never know that from listening to the side that purportedly doesn’t see race label color blindness as partiality.  It’s all for the alleged crime of opposing preferences for members of particular ethnicities, which is actually the opposite of bias.  But it’s so reactionary to use dictionaries.

The same compassion-embracing, free-hug-issuing, lovely-dovey liberals can pretend that Rand Paul used code words to express how he wishes he could personally chain African-Americans before spraying them with fire hoses.  Of course, he was merely expressing that he thinks people have the right to be bigoted jerks.  Who needs Washington’s permission to despise the despisers?

Issues of federal overreach, societal pressure to end discrimination, private boycotts, the natural tendency of society to gradually embrace tolerance, and whether it’s worth using federal power to force a racist to serve whoever enters his crummy restaurant are points worth discussing.  But it’s easier to accuse Republicans of longing for segregated lunch counters.  It’s just like how Tea Partiers carried those racist signs that impugned the entire movement even though nobody has managed to produce photographic evidence of them.

Perhaps the left is generally resentful that we don’t need tricky vocabulary-based salesmanship to make a case.  Take health care “reform,” which is positive-sounding in a generic, directionless, who-wouldn’t-want-unlimited-free-Cold-Stone way.  In actuality, such terminology could represent any change in any direction, not merely initiatives that would lead to the Fannie Maeing of the health care industry.

For instance, reform could entail, oh, restructuring that would permit tax breaks for individuals, national competition, lawsuit limits, customers getting to decide what they want covered, removing governmental barriers that would improve the economy and thus allow more people to purchase coverage on their own, and encouraging private charity.  We’re only the party of no when it comes to Barack Obama’s fanciful ideas about spreading misery equally.

Instead of accepting that reform could go in either direction, Republicans were portrayed as obstructionists for refusing to embrace the particular version that involved mind-melding the Canadian and Cuban systems.

We wanted to preserve the best aspects of our first-rate care instead of aping the second and third world.  By denying that there was more than one version of reform, Democraticare proponents were using real estate language, where “cozy” is code for “two adults can fit if one stands on the other’s feet.”

Hippie adversaries are additionally unwilling to admit that conservatives are the last people who would invite the anarchy festival to town.  The notion that we’re anti-government can kindly be called a misunderstanding.  Rather, natural Republicans want a limited government.  Who knew there was a difference, besides us?

It’s subtle but crucial to realize that conservatism is about paring the state’s role down to its essentials, not eliminating it entirely and turning over the rule of law to roaming Viking bands.  Putting the government in its legally limited place bears no resemblance to replacing the government with lawlessness.  Remember this the next time some humorless smartass of a leftist mocks Tea Partiers for driving to gatherings on paved roads.  Oh, yeah: we like cops and firemen, too.

Even the most rabid Reaganites obviously want federal anti-terror funds directed toward New York City, not to mention how they want to field an army that would frighten Darth Vader.  In fact, common defense is one of the government’s few genuine responsibilities; naturally, it’s little wonder liberals pitifully mock us for sponsoring it.

But that won’t stop them from equating conservatives with insubordinate seventh graders drawing encircled A’s on their notebook covers.  Ironically, it’s rather juvenile to caricature those across the aisle as advocates of emasculating the government except when it comes to oppressing Hispanics.

The upside is that demonizing is easier than debating, which means that every nasty distortion of conservative principles is a tacit victory for same principles.  When they invoke the Klan, you win.  Giggling about it is easier than trying to explain the legal/illegal difference once again.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

But the Age of Entitlements is already fading in esteem, as Americans grow increasingly wary of going bankrupt funding free stuff.  Countless repulsed individuals have a renewed appreciation for the freedom to, say, enjoy dinner without being forced to consider how many calories the entrée contains.

More urgently, we’d like to pick doctors that haven’t first been approved by Queen Nancy of the Castro District.  The health sham that’s as unpleasant as it is detested embodies the view of citizens as rubes who shouldn’t be allowed to brush their teeth without a federal monitor.

A sad majority of federal politicians don’t trust us.  But that shouldn’t stop us.  Thankfully, a high percentage of wisely cautious people nationally reject national health.  In doing so, they implicitly comprehend that the health industry responds just like any other commercial segment: we can serve as our own regulators.  It would feel suddenly empowering if the majority of people didn’t recognize such a reality all along.

Stupakare, as the catastrophic bill can be referred to in honor of the dastard who enabled passage, is designed to achieve the modest goals of eliminating life’s worries and ending the need for personal responsibility.

In sadly classic mammoth-government style, the atrocious legislation supposedly keeps down costs while improving care and covering everyone for everything.  It’s the most dreadful fairy tale ever written, although the endless pages of legalistically soporific language still makes the bill suitable for bedtime reading.

By contrast, the nation is looking for a less utopian but more not-awful-here-in-reality plan where we can make our own money and in turn buy our own things, including voluntary indemnities against calamity.  While we’re at it, we can help our own, which is a foreign concept to temporary Washingtonians who don’t think any of us can even help ourselves.

Why doesn’t the ruling party ever believe that we’ll donate to charities in order to help the truly needy instead of expecting the government to do it?  Do they not trust us?  Oh, right: that’s a yes.  They’ll presumably accept that we can be counted upon to donate treasure and time to worthwhile causes at about the same time they conjure the name of a federal program that has saved money at any point ever.

The sanctimoniousness about the necessity of a federal imposition into health care is accompanied by obliviousness about the true nature of assistance.  Many conservatives would be more than happy to teach proponents of a law endorsed by murderous thug tyrant Fidel Castro and zombie Che Guevara how to write a check and charitably send it to a hospital.  It’s a similar process to how churchgoers drop off canned goods at the parish’s food pantry instead of relying upon the state to provide for needy.  Congregation members may have to conduct seminars.

The mechanism for helping is nearly as important as the notion of helping.  There’s nothing emptier than forced compassion: using Washington as a charity is only suitable if humans are as universally destitute as they are greedy.  Give people the opportunity to excel, and, amazingly, they may just freely help those in need after achieving prosperity.  Privately-generated kindness will help those with pre-existing conditions more than any plan Harry Reid likes ever would.

And private helping works best.  As with competition in any other industry, charities are most efficient when they have to work at attracting dollars and prove that they’re actually beneficial.  Naturally, Obamacare backers don’t understand.

Of the countless problems with the intermediary in question, the federal government has a tendency to spend about one jillion more times than it promised it would.  They prefer nicking your American Express, as cash and debit cards only sustain reckless purchasing for so long.  The key is to move quickly before the inevitable issue of a nationwide hold.

Somehow, the left is shocked that the deficit will be increasing beyond its present astronomical rate thanks to the importation of Havana Health.  A lot.  Don’t blame the calculator, either: the Congressional Budget Office can only issue projections based upon the oft-dubious assumptions they’re handed.  As our nation’s youths phrase it using their parlance, the CBO would tell us to kindly hate the game, not the playa.

Still, abusing the precision of mathematics via crooked submissions to the budget office is nothing compared to the hollow concerns expressed during the bill’s advocacy phase.  For one, anti-insurer warriors just love moaning about inhuman conglomerates dropping people who contract serious ailments.

That said, we could end the crisis with signed contracts identifying the services that the company is willing to offer if we give them our currency.  All we need to do is make demands.

And we have a secret regulatory power in the form of being able to shop elsewhere.  If one company won’t offer a resolute guarantee that they’ll provide services in exchange for our patronage, we can find one that will.  If you don’t like the taste of what Pretzel Time sells, walk to the other end of the mall and purchase one of Auntie Anne’s offerings. 

Companies fear losing our business when potential clients are permitted access to unlimited preferences.  It’s some sort of market imbued with freedom.  There’s no ludicrously counterproductive DMVesque exchange necessary.  Screwing over customers is bad for business.

But Pelosi’s evil dojo doesn’t trust either side of the free market transaction.  Their audacity is unending, as seen in their doglike focus on taxing “unearned income.”  Their ravenous craving for seizing any gains they can corresponds to their belief that wealthy people don’t deserve wealth.

Classifying such proceeds as “unearned” is also a blatant untruth.  If you put money in an account, stock, bond, or whatever and make interest or dividends, then you’ve earned it.  You don’t need to punch a time clock to profit.

Only the present House majority could think that you deserve a financial penalty for the misdemeanor of acquiring earnings from letting banks or corporations use your initial investment.  They’d tax you extra for the purchase of the shovel and strongbox you use to bury your nest egg in the swamp if they could.

But Obama and crew just love to concern themselves with other people’s pocketbooks.  Compelling that focus by force of jackbooted nerds is just another alarming aspect of their sickly law.  Worst is that it’s one of the myriad rotten aspects we’ve learned about after passage.  In medical terms, the surgeon made a sizable incision to look inside for what needs fixing when a cursory external examination would have established that invasive care was wholly unnecessary.

We didn’t need this procedure, and it’s now a matter of avoiding being permanently strapped to the operating table without access to anesthetic.  The only question is whether we can stay outraged over the reduction of consumer options through the next two major elections.

But we’ve already sustained contempt for Obama’s woeful philosophy for a year and a quarter, and that was before his beloved gibberish became law.  The legislation will surely fuel the flames through November, especially considering there are thousands of pages that deserve immolation.

Of course, we’ll be accused of fear-mongering for pointing out that the bill will deleteriously affect both the finances and fitness of the elderly, young, poor, rich, middle class, and every other human being who has or may potentially have a health problem.  But rattling off the legislation’s actual troubles beats shamefully and shamelessly parading victimized children or telling urban legends to close the sale.

Happily, the melodramatic pandering failed even as the legislation squeaked through, as the bill is remarkably unpopular in every location excepting the Capitol.  The only people who want to further enable Congress are congressmen, something which more of the public realizes daily as they add themselves to a clear majority.

Voters are capable of making sure they’re not ripped off, deciding what coverage they need, and taking care of each other.  In short, they’re smarter than Democrats think they are.

As an example, we know that health care will no longer be merely one-sixth of the economy as costs skyrocket exponentially while the rest of the economy correspondingly shrinks: that fraction will grow to terrifying proportions.  Best of all, people figured that out with no help from Washington.

For dunces at the mercy of insurance firms, the rabble sure uncovered who the true foe of health progress is rather adeptly.  As a hint, the archenemies of enterprise will have trouble finding work after they lose their current positions in November, namely because companies will stop growing in order to avoid Stupakare’s numerous penalties.  At least the market plunderers will directly reap the consequences.  Being a class-warfare pirate never pays.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

I hope Stupak realizes he guaranteed that Republicans win the House in November. Wait: I don’t care what Stupak realizes.  As W.C. Fields might put it, “Never give Bart Stupak an even break.”

Thankfully, this fight isn’t over, as long as worthwhile senators and state attorneys general do what they can to do their jobs.  In the meantime, Congressional Democrats spent the day proving that they have learned the worst movie lessons possible.

Specifically, they unreservedly accepted allegedly heartwarming lessons about believing in one’s self no matter what, leading to a melodramatic climax that would make Michael Bay blush.  Hollywood’s reaffirming nonsense peddlers have once again inflicted great harm on the Republic.  This time, it goes beyond relatively venial sins like Tom Hanks’s politics or Matt Damon’s acting: they’ve inspired people who should have given up on their dreams to keep at it.  I blame Disney.

The collective Democratic politician self-esteem bubble needs to be deflated, and not just because they individually have little for which to feel pride.  Most notoriously, a majority of the congressional majority decided that their health plan is so fantastically terrific and also completely awesome that we must be legally forced to partake.  According to most scripts, they should have won us over by now, and yet they only succeeded in prompting us to stress out Capitol Hill switchboard operators, who hold one of the country’s few secure jobs.

The process was nearly as excruciating as the result.  Our oh so empathetic president spent the buildup insisting the shady process is less important than the bill without realizing Americans despise both.  The audacity of elope is motivated solely by utter shamelessness.

My own representative, Louise “Solution” Slaughter, took a break from hawking flags on her site to attempt to destroy the English language by proposing a vote that wasn’t a vote.  Even Democrats decided it was too shameless a move, although Slaughter will continue to find ways to embarrass herself.  Regardless, there will be no deeming for me, as I’ll actually vote for the used dentures opponent’s opponent this November.

In the end, the worst thing they did was enthusiastically back a bill they haven’t even skimmed.  Yes, that’s much more reassuring than deeming and passing it.  Their pile of legislation is more than twice as long as Atlas Shrugged, a book whose robust sales indicate that the most ardent backers of Obama’s campaign may have been the executors of Ayn Rand’s estate.

House Democrats should have read the Objectivist centerpiece when they weren’t busy failing to read the health bill they’ve pushed.  They might learn that reducing barriers to wealth so we can acquire it ourselves is the most efficient, desirable, and noble way to increase health care coverage.  If reading the book that’s grown in popularity every day since early November 2009 is too much of a bother, they could at least listen to themes expressed by the non-Limbaugh Rush. 

They’d undoubtedly disregard the lessons of personal responsibility and liberty either way.  Much like the adverse results of confiscating our money to spend money on our behalf wrought by the stimulus, they won’t let crushing disasters affect their expectation that the next time they interact with reality will be different.

When they’re not snottily taking a rather dim view of the faithful rabble protesting outside the Capitol, they maintain their unquestionably shaky belief that subsidizing health plans for millions and getting government into the act will reduce deficits while improving care.  The only evidence against success is every recorded experience.

By coincidence, Democrats weren’t able to pass their signature initiative without throwing around indescribably vast bundles of taxed or borrowed money.  Of course, they infamously attempted to dole out patently unfair benefits for particular states.  Meanwhile, the executive busied himself impressing yokel congressmen with the aforementioned meaningless proclamation or free flight.

Of course, we’ve come to expect such reality show-type private manipulation from The Most Transparent Administration in the History of Existence.  Sadly, the noxious dealing offers a preview of the legislation’s onerous effects.  But recall that it’s apparently okay to sell your soul if it’s for the alleged communal good.  Most importantly, Stupak got some attention for a few weeks while Dennis Kucinich gets to write in his diary, “I went on a big boy plane ride!”

In the end, Democrats were stuck choosing between to stay onboard the cruise ship hijacked by ninjas or jumping overboard and dealing with the laser pirates.  Don’t feel bad, as they chose a trip that would take them through Danger Strait.  Perversely, their precarious status led to the bill’s passage: they were in trouble regardless of whether they voted yes or no for Scandinaviacare.

The obvious comparison is to 1993-4’s situation where the party failed to execute Hillary’s woefully convoluted health curriculum and were whooped in November anyway.  Faced with suffering politically either way, they figured they may as well enact their precious health intervention.  Of course, they could have not placed themselves in peril to begin with, but it’s a bit late for that.

With that in mind, the struggle against the bill is only starting.  It’s exhausting being holed up in the farmhouse with boards and mattresses buttressing the doors while hoping the bonfire and rations both last.  But it’s better to be exhausted now and fight through the elections than to let the undead institute a government insurance exchange.

Knowing Nancy Pelosi will at best be the Minority Leader by this time next year may not be much comfort at present, although it’s good for momentary giggles.  For now, opponents must remain on the sleepless prowl like sharks.  But at least they’re not prey: Tea Party Nation knows what the Congress and the executive just attempted to pull off and are accordingly cranky beyond measure.  An informed electorate is the archenemy of a government that wants a babied electorate.

At least we made them stick their names on the legislation instead of letting them get away with basic shotgun seating rules: they abandoned the proposition that the bill would have passed because they called it.

When they attempted to weasel out of voting, they merely ensured that Obamacare’s foes become well-versed in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution.  Americans learn more particulars about our governmental system every time congressional Democrats try something shamelessly illegal.  We’re getting civics lessons under fire.

Unfortunately, too many Democratic congressmen leaning toward a “Yes” failed to realize that it was better to do nothing.  Aligning themselves with the obstructionists would have been the wisest move for the country and their careers.  Discarding any chance at another term just means that they, like so many fellow citizens facing an employment market hampered by another endless string of fees and regulations, will be looking for work soon.

The wobbly Democrats shoved through their repressive measure even though they had numerous opportunities to reverse course.  They should have remembered lessons from the right movies.  If nothing else, they failed to bring to mind a definitive moment from a beloved film series everyone else has memorized, namely all that Return of the Jedi jazz about how you can be the most evil man in the galaxy as long as you feel bad about it after your son beats you in a light saber duel.  That theme is more pertinent to the present situation than too-obvious references from the silly prequels.

If the left still persists in maintaining that Dick Cheney is Darth Vader, they could have at least learned a helpful lesson from the film series that documented his personal journey.  I’ve got distressing news for them as they re-view the films more carefully: the gruff yet lovable Wookiees aren’t real.  Considering the Democrats’ troubled policies paired with their November prospects, such heartbreaking news may be too much for them to bear at present.

So, let’s go ahead and tell them.  Crushing their dreams of hanging out with Chewbacca would be nothing compared to the headaches and dread they inflicted upon us with a ruinous bill we’re already working tirelessly to overturn.  We will do so without the help of any spiritual movement concocted by George Lucas, too.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Specifically, some have abruptly realized that a government proposal designed to give millions of people free health care while removing all cost accountability might be pricey (h/t Ericka Andersen).  President Obama can deliver yet another lecture about how it will be cheaper than our present setup to insure everyone with no competition, but we haven’t fallen, aren’t falling, and won’t ever fall for it.

He may in fact be reading the same speech every time.  It’s become such a chore to follow his incessant campaign that his staff may have realized they can get away with slothfully feeding the same words into the teleprompter every morning.  Regardless, the counterargument remains consistent: no federal program has ever saved money, and the first to do so won’t be one that commandeers an entire industry.

Still, they’ll try to pull magical quarters out of our ears until they have enough to pay for the charade.  Their most recent stab at cunningness is to not say how much Democraticare would actually cost.  That strategy explains why, whoops, they forgot to mention the plot’s real expenses.  Like Jerry Lundegaard-style car dealers who announce the cost of sealant only as the deal’s being closed, they’ve been caught trying to sneak through yet one more cripplingly brutal cost.  It’s all for the right to buy a junky late 80s GM car.  Nobody wants to pay loads extra for a Cutlass Ciera.

Unsurprisingly, national health backers frame the issue incorrectly.  For one, they think offering exemplary care levels at rock bottom prices is possible by passing a 2,300-plus page bill with the shiftiest of tactics.  If proponents maintain reams of legislation will simultaneously improve costs and care, it has to happen that way here in reality, right?  They shouldn’t but will be astonished to learn that passing a law doesn’t turn intentions into results.

Further, they’re offering something that’s not theirs to offer.  We and not the Steny Hoyers of the world are supposed to take care of life’s details, including our well-being.  The White House and a portion of legislators can ignore it all they want, but they’re only trying to revoke our freedom to be accountable.

Health care is a commodity.  It’s not a right, and we’re certainly not entitled to it.  To clarify for our misguidedly persnickety liberal friends, we have the right to acquire insurance but not be handed it.  The product in question might be important and necessary, but it’s still our responsibility to obtain it.  Actually, rumor holds that the bill makes the word “responsibility” illegal, but nobody’s read that far without suffering boredom-related trauma.  In the meantime, there’s still presently hope for those reactionaries who think humans ought to take care of themselves.

It’s not as if any Democratic bill would leave us destitute but healthy.  The government, in their governmental way, will figure how to reduce the quality of care but not expenses.  Some states have already pulled off this perverse miracle: for one, Tennessee failed to improve its citizens’ bank accounts or selves with their take on collective care (h/t Jay Riemersma, MI-2’s next congressman).  Such a racket won’t work any better if imposed upon both the Volunteer State and their 49 neighbors.  Ask Mitt Romney for another example, and he’ll reflexively cringe.

When they’re not relying on financial sorcery, Obamacare enthusiasts will merely neglect to mention any possible downside of their machinations.  For one, they’ll fail to admit how taxes to fuel their monster will be collected immediately even though the plan itself will be immediately mothballed for a couple years.  On a related note, you can reduce your food budget if you only eat four days per week.  While Michelle Obama might consider the strategy to be a useful obesity-fighting measure, it’s fair to classify it as an unhealthy approach to fitness.

But we’ve come to expect such crooked legerdemain from everyone attempting to Cubafy our health care.  Their most absurdly shameless fraud so far has been trying to pass the bill through the House without passing it.  Don’t worry: they’ll find a way to sink lower within a week or two.

Perfectly appropriately, the House and Senate face a prisoner’s dilemma.  It’s an applicable term not just because many of them are under investigation and/or act like felons: more specifically, each side is currently pondering what the other will do and accordingly acting in a manner conducive to their own goals.  With that in mind, representatives could pass the bill and hope the upper chamber twits then pass the promised modifications.  Should they fall for it?  Do you trust Chuck Schumer?

All the confusion, nonsense, and subterfuge stems from a preposterous effort to turn an item we should buy on our own into a free handout.  The genuine competition that would emerge as a byproduct of allowing insurance purchases across state lines would do more to lower costs than Washington ever will on anything.  But Democrats will eschew allowing more people to buy a plan in favor of attempting to get more people on medical welfare.  There’s nothing cynical about noticing that every one of their initiatives expands federal control over everyone but Guantanamo inmates.

Of course, they’re also simultaneously ruining the word “insurance,” as the service is supposed to be obtained voluntarily to protect against possible future calamity.  Instead, people will wait until becoming sick to enroll, then sign up and suck up all the rationed care available.  While it’s an infinitely safer bet, the house will inevitably go bankrupt.

And Obama won’t stop moaning about health insurers denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions.  Next, he’ll complain that home insurers won’t sell policies to those whose dwellings are presently aflame.  They’re so greedy, and probably connected to Wall Street fat cats somehow.

If the present Congress passes any health bill, the only way to limit costs will be spreading out care evenly.  I’m sure someone has broached the inevitability of rationing panels.  It will cost so much to get much less, but at least we’ll suffer together.  Turning America into South Quebec will make our lives resemble the situation on The Office: we’re essentially stuck in a lousy job where the only coping mechanism is being unified by contempt for the ludicrously misguided boss.  Whether Steve Carrell or Ricky Gervais comes to mind, we’re not suffering alone.

It’s too bad morale had to sink this low in order for us to bond.  But at least we’re making new friends.  Best, we share common interests: the new crew is entirely composed of folks wise to the philosophical and financial catastrophe that congressional and executive Democrats wish to inflict upon us.

Like a Greek organization or sports team initiation, the misery has bonded us together, and not in an Eric Massa’s Naval career way, either.  We’re united with our honorary brothers and sisters by the belief that the only thing worse than surrendering freedoms to the state is getting a thoroughly lousy, woefully overpriced service in return.  Other than that, we’d get a good deal.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Being a reactionary at times and a pinko at others sort of equals out, in a twisted way.  But true moderation would mean reliably backing a watered-down version of one party’s platform.  What we instead most often see in the Capitol are legislators who oscillate wildly to please please please get what they want.  Yes, bigmouth strikes again, and the only thing worse than cramming a “Panic”-related Smiths reference into this paragraph are unpredictable Republicans who can’t adhere to a logical platform most of the time.

The warped press isn’t helping, as when they ponder the fate of oh so poor “middle of the road lawmakers.”  Similarly, other journalists ponder whether “GOP moderates” (h/t Ericka Andersen) will dominate the party, an odd thought for anyone who’s seen the nation lurch rightward after coping with the alternative in practice for over a year.

Maybe the present anti-statist climate will actually force the officeholders to pick a direction and follow it.  As evidence, even John McCain is playing conservative in order to trick voters into thinking he’s more appealing than primary opponent J.D. Hayworth.  It’s true that the man frequently not elected president occasionally veers into Sarah Palin territory on particular budget matters.  But he remains a Republican beloved by the press whenever he doesn’t act like a Republican.  That’s the case when it comes to campaign finance, bailouts, amnesty, and a couple dozen other issues where he disproves the value of inconsistency.

Likewise, ex-sorta-Republican Arlen Specter has been classified as a “moderate,” which is true except for virtually every vote he’s ever cast.  If not for his admirable support for gun rights, Specter might have been a candidate for Joe Biden’s present occupation.  And it’d be much less fun to giggle at such an astounding bore.  But Specter has still occasionally scattered himself across the ideological map: he’s somewhat unpredictable, which is wholly different than being lukewarm.

On the other hand, Democrats could use a little moderation in the sense that they should water down their beliefs.  It would be better for the country, and I suppose for them, too.  The approach will be a tough sell, as Obama didn’t campaign as a centrist: he ran as a messianic figure who superseded politics.  After taking office, he stuck with the let’s serve the people blah etc. routine for about a day and a half. 

Unfortunately, it turns out the people don’t care for his particular idea of service, but he’s still imposing it as best as he can.  He’s not going to let something as trifling as our lack of money keep him from spending nonexistent dollars while meddling in our destitute existences.

He and his congressional teammates could have scaled back the plot to their advantage.  Moving closer to the center than the left may have kept his happy cult largely intact.  But Obama has already abandoned the chance to be Bill Clinton without the wantonly scummy lifestyle.  Set aside his occasional foray into practical decisions such as on letting Predator drones act like predators: Obama is an example of why ideological purity is conversely only good to a point.  Said point involves being too much of a leftist twit.

For example, Democraticare might be an awful law as opposed to a rotten idea if party leaders had just been willing to let people pay for their own abortions (h/t Teri Christoph).  But they couldn’t be content with guaranteeing virtually unfettered access to ghastliness: they had to ensure taxpayers would be on the hook for the morally revolting procedure, too.

Mercifully, it didn’t help them.  The failure to soften, or perhaps a word like “moderate,” their social engineering/socialistic spending policies has doomed their agenda.  There’s something to be said for unyielding arrogance, at least from their foes’ view.

By contrast, Republicans are classified as moderates when they occasionally or frequently stray from conservatism.  But that’s inaccurate usage.  The term should be reserved for someone who supports, say, milder tax cuts than Jim DeMint or is slightly less Darth Vadery on anti-terror issues than Dick Cheney.  Alternately, someone like, oh, Scott Brown should be addressed as a semi-conservative, Republican temp, or such when he strays.  We’ll modify his classification once he makes himself easier to classify.

It’s tricky pinning down meaning these days.  As with “stimulus,” “moderate” seems to be a word whose definition is misunderstood by certain media members and Presidents of the United States of America.  The left are actually the ones who should tone down their domestic efforts, as that would help them avoid having to conspire about how to pass a nation-altering bill in the most temperate-averse method conceivable.

As for those affiliated with the right, frequent swaying makes little sense.  Conservative principles are based upon steady ideals: the government shouldn’t be responsible or pay for much aside from catching and imprisoning criminals or catching and imprisoning and/or eliminating war enemies.

The feds should let us build houses and only approach our property if barbarians besiege us; we and not our congresspersons can call a private contractor about getting new kitchen fixtures or killing termites.  Letting the Al Frankens and Louise Slaughters of the world crash on the couch is antithetical to conservative doctrine.  But some Republicans still need to learn the value of kicking out unwelcome guests.

GOP politicians shouldn’t only be more conservative in general; additionally, they need to be conservative on more specific measures.  Tea Partiers should harangue the leaders in question so that they tilt toward reducing the state’s role as a default setting.  The goal is maintaining both reasonability and stability in one’s beliefs.  That means we may have to write off Lindsey Graham.  So, it works out all around.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Maddeningly, the health care enhancements are actually possible.  Sadly, it would take an executive and majority of legislators to embrace the free market first, meaning the gorge-and-intoxicate-yourself-to-fitness program is presently more likely to succeed.

For now, health insurer WellPoint looks sick, bluntly.  The corporation is being hassled for trying to run their business and make money in exchange for providing irreplaceable health services.  The fact that they must explain a rate hike to governmental representatives is surprising only to peculiarly indecisive voters still giving Barack Obama a chance to prove he’s a moderate.

What’s not helping is how many in Washington get upset anytime anything costs more.  They don’t get that price hikes are a frustrating but inevitable result of the Earth revolving around the Sun.  Maybe staffers in the White House and certain congressional offices have never bought goods or services.

As for me and my simple ways, I try to bear candy economics in mind.  For example, the Snickers bar I scarfed as a reward for getting through another day of third grade set me back 35 cents.  Meanwhile, it only cost either of my grandfathers a nickel, not to mention that the treat came with a free tin of mustache wax and ticket to a Harold Lloyd feature.  By contrast, today’s whippersnappers probably have to cough up seven or eight bucks for their chocolately/peanuty hit; feeling ripped off and on a sugar high, the rebellious youths will undoubtedly end up running across my damn lawn.

Of course, inflation doesn’t wholly account for a 39 percent increase in rates, although only some of WellPoint’s customers face that steep a spike.  But set aside the mandates and lack of direct consumer billing that escalate prices more quickly than my sense of self-worth at an open bar.  The problem is the lack of options.  In an ideal marketplace, consumers will be able tell WellPoint to sod off.  As it stands, limiting insurers to intrastate competition creates mini-monopolies throughout the union.

Insurers know your options often boil down to 1) buy what they’re peddling or 2) move.  They’re exploiting the present system, which is the equivalent of only permitting Amazon to sell in one state.  Oh so diabolical firms are often accused of rejecting those with preexisting conditions and dropping coverage for the infirm.  But widespread competition would allow purchasers to just sign up with a rival offering more cushy terms.  Hey, look: the industry would regulate itself.

Such laissez-faire fairness embodies why conservatives want to head in a different direction than the one most frequently pitched in the capital.  As established one million times, Obama’s dissenters offer far more than folded arms and shaking heads.  Instead of acting like petulant toddlers, those on the right are promoting revolutionary concepts like paying for what you buy.  We’re armed with ample constructive proposals.  We throw in the scowls for free.

But Obama and Company won’t compromise regardless of how many of us want a do-over.  They refuse to mull over obviously salubrious measures such as letting insurers compete across state lines, which is as basically obvious as a reform can get.  Unfortunately, Democrats are unwilling to open the system for a reason: any concession that loosens governmental reins would cede more health decisions from their control to ours.  At the core, they’re standing against personal responsibility.

Depressingly, the phobia of decisions not made in Washington is the same reason the president’s party won’t let us create jobs on our own.  Instead, they take money out of the economy to help the economy.  Don’t worry if that makes us poorer, as Washington will in turn create more antipoverty programs, which they can fund by taxing us.  Such a strategy not only runs counter to the Tenth Amendment: thinking it works also steadily drives one to insanity.  The thought of Harry Reid delivering his concession speech on Election Night whilst wearing a straitjacket provides little comfort for those suffering from his party’s injurious policies.

As for the Bill of Rights’ final addition, it’s no better to have 50 relatively small bureaucracies govern our lives as opposed to one omnipresent juggernaut.  Being regulated into submission by a state is no better than letting Washington do the same.  Instead, we need to be allowed to freely interact with the corporations of our choosing regardless of one’s ZIP code.  As a result, if one healthcorp tries to push us around, we’d be free to move on to the next conglomerate.

But such commonsense notions won’t stop leftists from continuing to idolize Rube Goldberg as their model economist.  They reason that we need the most elaborate scheme possible on the grounds that people can’t be trusted to earn what they can and buy what they need.  Convoluted attempts by Tom to finally capture Jerry aside, Democratic comprehensive policies are harming health prices more than any other factor.  After all, the lousy economy causes people to lose insurance, which leads to, hmmm, rate hikes from companies that lose revenue.  On a related note, nobody can really be shocked that the stimulus perversely only eats jobs despite having a year to be useful.

As for the upcoming televised health care freak show, Republicans have reason not to play along at the president’s grotesque exhibition of deformed policies.  When it comes to accepting ideas from the other side of the aisle, he can only be trusted to be duplicitous.  If Obama disregards his political foes’ suggestions, which is as likely to happen as his use of the phrase “Let me be clear” in any random speech,  it’s best to wait him out and push for genuine reform in the not-quite-distant future when he’s back to community organizing.

It’ll be worth the wait, especially since early 2013 isn’t all that far into the distance.  Until then, conservatives should emphasize that the best method for insuring more people is to let us buy from whom we want.  Unfettered commercial interaction will do more to lower prices than any double Bible-sized bill ever will, although that’s not exactly a prodigious accomplishment.

The only downside might be seeing the irksomely affected Geico lizard and the deranged-looking Progressive lady duel in grating health insurance ads as well as auto-themed ones.  And that’s simply a chance to use your DVR’s fast-forward button, check if VH1 Classic is showing a worthwhile episode of BBC Crown Jewels, or get up and visit the kitchen.  As with buying an indispensable product, it’s always nice to have choices.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

The president’s political opponents shouldn’t bother to play nice.  While Republicans were polite enough to hang out with him at their retreat, it’s still unwise to wager he’s sincere about bipartisanship (h/t Michelle Oddis).  They’d be better off treating him like a weirdo junior high kid who has sardines in his lunch bag: based upon his strange tendencies, GOP members should accordingly pick their cafeteria table by how far it is away from him.

His hollow charm will eventually stop enticing all but the most hardened leftists and naïve political outsiders.  For one, most people had to recognize that Obama’s amusing claim at the Republican bash that he’s not an ideologue indicates he may not know what the word means.  The dictionary-based trouble is reminiscent of his weak grasp on the definition of “stimulus.”

The natural response to someone consistently gives bad directions is to simply head the other way from where he points.  When Obama proposes anything, it’s entirely prudent to engage in a knee-jerk reaction that manifests itself as a shaking head.  That may sound both reactionary and oversimplified.  But his policy suggestion track record means assuming he’s likely incorrect is simply a time-saver.

Obama keeps proving that disagreement with his judgment pans out.  For one, conservatives should definitely fold their arms and look cross every time the president requests cash for clunkers, banks, junky car manufacturers, bird-shredding intermittent windmills, tuition, mortgages, perfectly good refrigerators, or any other boondoggle of a folly that Washington’s ruling party thinks will supernaturally incite prosperity.

By obstructing such federal financial chicanery, the right will essentially be standing for restraint.  After all, we have to pay off the deficit someday unless the president plans on never answering his home phone again.  At the present rate, the entire burden will be foisted upon the four or five millionaires left in America by 2042.   As foes to his classless class warfare, Obamafoes are also standing up to his concept of the government as a kindly, sentient ATM that constantly refills itself thanks to some voodoo charm.

Being anti-stimulus is additionally a stance in itself.  If the White House floats another spending plan to conquer the recession by fixing roads ahead of schedule, his foes merely need to point out how pork gets funded.  The answer, namely that it’s either taken from taxpayers, borrowed from other nations, or printed by a government that’s unable to resist temptation, points out the strategy’s inherent futility on its own.

As a result, conservatives are implicitly positioning themselves against letting an entity that’s not quite known for innovative efficiency try to fix the economy.  Besides, unemployment’s still in double digits after the first stimulus; we simply can’t take any more assistance, or we’ll all be jobless and in debt as deep as Washington’s.

Further, standing against any effort to get more sick people on the government drip is also a plan on its own.  Democraticare epitomizes the difference between how a concept is supposed to work and how it would actually work.  “Coverage for all” sounds nice until we face skyrocketing costs paired with systematic abuse of ghettoized care.  The difference between the scheme and reality is similar to, oh, how community organizing sounds uplifting in theory and leads to pompous blowhards wasting tax dollars while fostering dependency in practice.

Obama may act like alternative solutions to health care’s woes are as rare as accepted advice from Joe Biden.  But dissidents of course have plenty of health care improvements in mind.  It’s certainly wise for right-leaners to propose fixes such as letting insurers compete anywhere while extending coverage tax breaks to everyone.  But pushing back against rationing subpar health care is a robust opening statement.

Stridently opposing tax hikes on any level is also a negative standpoint that’s positive.  We just want to stop the economic drag before it starts.  If increasing cigarette taxes is supposed to get people to stop smoking, does raising income taxes encourage people to stop working?  That’s frequently the outcome regardless of intent.  Conservatives believe capitalist pigs should be allowed to create and/or save their own jobs.

Therefore, their answer to questions about how to remedy shaky markets is to trust the people while having our leaders stand down.  Stepping out of enterprise’s way is a plan for the government that’s far superior to having a governmental plan.

The standard can be applied to straying Republicans, too.  While many liberals turned bashing George W. Bush into a lifestyle, they’d be horrified to realize he occasionally backed their policies on isolationist tariffs, disturbingly high federal spending, appeasing illegal immigrants, and making TARP happen.  Similarly, they never recognize how many on the right were dismayed by his big-government tendencies.  We merely wanted him to actually be a conservative.  The same concerns apply exponentially to his successor, namely the one who doesn’t get why his thoroughly divisive, European lite, university lecturer-style politics have failed to unite us.

Those on the right can’t be accused of failing to offer an alternative.  In truth, saying “No” to both future increases in the government’s size and its present scope is a bold philosophy.  The stance’s obvious corollary is that conservatives favor returning power to individual citizens.  A lefty president backed by congressional majorities has shown the worthlessness of incessant national scheming.  It turns out both George Costanza and Peter Gibbons (decidedly NSFW) are great political philosophers: it’s a worthwhile goal to do nothing.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

The tone of Earth’s favorite Constitution is straightforward enough that even Harry Reid should be able to understand it; he therefore has no excuse when he ignores it.  Basically, the government is supposed to create situations where we can thrive and not manufacture the actual thriving.  The latter part is up to us.

Most notable is the parchment’s brevity itself.   There’s a reason why the document that lays out the foundation for running the greatest nation ever is shorter than an average term paper or Stephen King chapter.  A Microsoft Word count has it at just under 27,000 characters.  In a modern context, that equals fewer than 200 tweets.  I’ve updated more frequently than that in a month.  While I strive to ensure everything I post is as awesomely profound as it is undeniably hilarious, I concede that I’ve never quite matched, say, the (327-character) Preamble.

The document’s brevity is as remarkable as it is inspiring.  And it was written in such an utterly concise manner for a reason: it details the specific tasks that a severely constricted government is allowed to perform.  For one, there aren’t passages documenting the brutal minutiae of how health care should be inflicted upon us.  And there specifically aren’t extensive paragraphs explaining why our government should be spending a fortune subsidizing abortion or removing wrinkles and filling in bald spots while paying people to get high and change genders in a pleasantly-smelling environment (h/t Ericka Andersen).

Particularly, we can’t blame the document’s General Welfare clause for the actions and thoughts of liberals.  But we can fairly point fingers at people who read the section today and somehow see that it gives Washington the right to dole out insurance policies.  Here’s the text:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

You’d have to squint until your eyes bled and then exploded to interpret the sentence as meaning the feds are entitled to mandate that we’re all covered against illness and accidents.  Of course, progressive thought is based upon the notion that a document that perfectly balances limited government and serves the people is somehow inadequate.  The only thing that would be worse than amending the Constitution regularly is seeing de facto amendments where there are none.

There’s a reason national insurance isn’t already in the Constitution: we’re supposed to furnish that ourselves.  We should strive for self-reliance as opposed to figuratively parking our futons under the Capitol’s rotunda.  The document’s thesis is that we’re free to preside over our own lives.  Promoting the aforementioned general welfare is worlds different than legislating and compelling it.

Republican politicians should in fact swing the pendulum back in the other direction, namely by emphasizing that people and not the government should be helping others.  Instead of focusing as they frequently have on how Democraticare would cut present mandated health spending, they should apply free market approaches to charitable giving, too.

It would beat the lack of benevolence evident in the present strategy’s results.  At their essence, Mediplans are like EBT cards for your well-being; that isn’t good for anyone.  Counting upon Washington or the states to indefinitely deliver insurance to the impoverished and elderly is demeaning to recipients and wasteful to those who actually want to assist.

Changing the approach has worked before.  Despite hysteria that we’d be dooming the impoverished to devastation, welfare reform helped Washington be fiscally responsible for a few moments while performing a contemporary miracle, namely reigning in the government’s role.  What wasn’t to like?

Letting private charities, churches, and individuals help is far more compassionate than relying on the state to mend the infirm.  The liberal counterargument boils down to believing that humans won’t help humans in genuine need.  It’s why they seek to compel the government to provide for the needy: they don’t trust us.

Besides, our citizens have always proven they care.  We don’t merely offer help to those in dire situations: we fan open our wallets and demand the aggrieved take what’s needed.  That overwhelming tendency is displayed by how so many are doing everything possible to help Haitians.  Even broke Americans still reach for their credit cards or cell phones the moment after a natural disaster ends.

The same people will undoubtedly help those who need medical attention.  Americans provide plentiful assistance not because they’re forced to by an utterly expansive interpretation of the Constitution, or because Nancy Pelosi tells them to: it’s because residents do what’s right without governmental coercion.

A careful perusal of America’s rulebook will lead to one noting that citizens are left to do much on their own.  Yes, it’s beyond fantastic, and we should keep pursuing the original standard despite Washington’s nannyesque desires.  The right to be not bothered and take care of ourselves is far more obviously contained within the Constitution than is the idea that doctors and DMV workers should be classified the same way.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.