The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Clinton Uprising

6.12.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 4)

What is this fixation at TAS with Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party? I understand that the Libertarians have a right to expect some coverage, and I don't have a problem with it being given here. What I don't get is the seeming fixation here with Bob Barr and the Party.

It seems that every day we have a new article here telling us about the battle for the nomination, or the challenges Barr faces in winning over the Party, or how the Party is poised to do some damage in the general election. But really, is all of this attention necessary for a party that is not really a player in the process? Honestly, how many people are going to cast votes in this election for a candidate from a basically fringe party?

This is not to dismiss or diminish the views of the Libertarians, because on many issues I find myself in agreement with them. But can we please have more in depth analysis of the two candidates that have an honest chance winning and not another group of stories about the Libertarians. Because when it all shakes out, they aren't going to be a huge factor in the race...so why continue to cover them as if they are?
-- Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina

Robert Stacy McCain replies:
Whether or not Barr's candidacy will be a "huge factor" in November remains to be seen. Certainly, there are facts indicating the possibility that Barr might indeed be a factor. The phenomenal fund-raising of the Ron Paul GOP primary campaign is the major datum in that regard. If Paul could raise more than $30 million for his Republican insurgency -- which was just as arguably doomed to failure from the outset -- then what might the Libertarians do, should they tap into the same political vein?

The doomed-to-failure argument might just as well have been applied to Hillary Clinton's Democratic campaign after Super Tuesday, but I've written at less four Spectator articles about her campaign since March. And I should point out that, whatever partisans of either major party might say, either John McCain or Barack Obama is even now doomed to failure in November. (Barr, of course, would say that both of them are doomed.)

My crystal ball has been on the fritz lately, and therefore I have no idea what's going to happen between now and Nov. 4. To say, then, that Barr's campaign should be ignored because we know that he won't be a factor is to argue on the basis of an unproven premise. If you know of an affordable crystal-ball repairman, please let me know.

UNIVERSAL, BUT NOT FOR EVERYONE
Re: Peter Ferrara's Free Market Universal Health Care:

I posed a question several years ago that I would now like to pose again. Was I out of the room when the meeting was held at which it was decided that universal health care became a "right" of every American citizen? As long as so-called, self-identified "conservatives" continue to cede the premises of the hard core, left wing Marxists in this country, our republic cannot be saved. We will continue our head long plunge down the slippery slope, onto which every Western society has been thrown, toward fiscal and social oblivion.

We cede the premise that universal health care is a right. We cede the premise that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. We cede the premise that "big oil" is at fault for high gas prices and are ripping off us poor consumers. We cede the premise that federal government intervention is the answer to all problems, real or imagined.

God help us. It doesn't appear to matter whether we elect the liberal or the Marxist in November. We're undone either way.
-- Keith Kunzler

Hopefully, conservatives who decided to punish Republicans in 2006 and empower Democrats have learned their lesson in 2008 -- when Democrats win America loses. If not these "principled" conservatives can rest assured the Democrats will not only socialize medicine, but insure they retain power for generations even as they devastate the US economy, disassemble the US military and appease Islamic imperialism.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina

Usually, I am impressed with Mr. Ferrara's scholarship in regards to free market concepts. I credit him for accurately portraying Sen. Wyden's bill and laying out the stark ramifications if passed. However, since the author had no backbone in calling out each RINO, the Republican senatorial co-sponsors are Alexander, Bennett, Coleman, Corker (surprise to me), Craypo (bigger surprise to me), Grassley, Gregg, and Lott. That being said, his tome takes such a departure in the "Free Market Safety Nets" portion of the column from the actual theory of a free market that I must say I am insulted that he even mentions Milton Friedman's "black hole" comment to pump up his subsequent proposals.

As a general comment, nowhere does the column dive into a discussion on the constitutionality of federal government involvement in health care. Article I, Section 8 does not authorize it, nor does the interstate commerce clause -- so, please do not use that red herring. What this means is the author has accepted the over-arching liberal premise lock, stock, and barrel.

As for specifics, there is no "guaranteed renewability" as an industry standard for either life insurance or vehicle insurance. Why does the author surmise that a mandated renewability requirement would decrease the price of health insurance? Or even decrease the price of health care itself? Additionally, the concept and execution of federal block grants morphs the free market; it becomes skewed. It is akin to the current federal housing bailout for those who do not know how to make good decisions. If this is to be a state program, and at the very maximum it should be, then let the several states fund their execution of it 100%. Stop trying to peel the band aid off one millimeter at a time -- remove the whole thing at once. Lastly, the author mixes the concept of health insurance with the concept of access to health care -- the two are totally separate. Everyone who lives in the United States has access to health care, even though not all the folks have an actual health insurance policy.

My health plan, on the other hand, is a simple three-step process:
-- Terminate federal government mandates and funding (this results in the largest price drop due to cross-state competition).
-- Terminate the requirement for employer-provided plans (indirectly decreases the price of all goods and services consumed).
-- Provide tax write-offs for individuals who purchase health insurance (no matter the premium amount).

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Trade, Health Care, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Business, Islam, Global Warming, Books, Constitution, Law, Military, Iran, NATO, Immigration, Energy, Oil, Medicare