McConnell agrees to earlier Christmas Eve vote on ObamaCare

Marxism, espoused by Obama’s father and implemented by Potus Obama and the Congressional Democrat Majority, would enslave American citizens to profit global Marxist governance. The carrot baiting the ignorant masses: universal health care, aka global health care dependency on a Eugenic Bureaucrat to dispense with antipathy.

Scott Johnson @ Powerline comments on Michael Barone’s brilliant comparison.

“When legerdemain is used to pass an unpopular bill” –Washington Examiner

…the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Its lead sponsor was Stephen A. Douglas, at 41 in his eighth year as senator from Illinois, the most dynamic leader of a Democratic Party that had won the previous presidential election by 254 electoral votes to 42. He got the Senate to pass a bill some of whose provisions were supported by half of the Senate plus Douglas and some of which were supported by the other half plus Douglas.

The issue that Douglas said the Kansas-Nebraska Act would settle forever was slavery in the territories. His bill repealed the 34-year-old Missouri Compromise prohibiting slavery in territories north of Arkansas and substituted popular sovereignty — territory residents could vote slavery up or down. Nor did the Kansas-Nebraska Act settle the issue it addressed. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers fought it out in “bleeding Kansas,” and Douglas felt obliged to break with the Democratic administration and disown election stealing by the pro-slavery side [Democratic ACORN has long precedence].

We cannot say with assurance that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was unpopular; Dr. Gallup didn’t start polling until 81 years later. But the results of the next election were pretty convincing. The Republican Party was suddenly created to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the 1854-55 elections transformed the Democrats’ 159-71 majority to a 108-83 Republican margin. Democrats didn’t win a majority of House seats for the next 20 years. The issue roused a former congressman named Abraham Lincoln to re-enter politics, and he beat Douglas in the popular vote (but not in the legislature) in 1858 and then was elected president in 1860.

On the health care bill, there can be little doubt about public opinion. Quinnipiac, polling just after the Senate voted cloture, found Americans opposed by a 53 percent to 36 percent margin. Polls suggest that Democrats may suffer as much carnage in the 2010 elections as they did in 1854. A health care bill like the Senate’s is unlikely to settle all health care issues either….

The Senate bill contains provisions that are likely to be revisited. Its language channeling federal and consumer dollars to abortion coverage is opposed, according to Quinnipiac, by a 72 percent to 23 percent margin. Its provision establishing an Independent Medicare Advisory Board and stating that it cannot be abolished except by a two-thirds vote of the Senate is of dubious constitutionality, and even if upheld in a court of law may not pass muster in the court of public opinion. Since when has Congress passed laws that cannot be repealed?

Kansas-Nebraska was an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by legislative legerdemain and political trickery. The Democrats’ health care bills are an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by partisan maneuver and cash-for-cloture. As Stephen Douglas learned, such tactics can work for a while, but the country — and the Democratic Party — can end up paying a heavy price.

“The Louisianna-Nebraska Act of 2009?” Powerline Blog

In October 1854 Lincoln gave his utterly brilliant Peoria speech in opposition to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Lincoln observed:

This declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I can not but hate. …especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty–criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

When [] man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government–that is despotism.

What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other’s consent. I say this is the leading principle–the sheet anchor of American republicanism.

Today, the US Congress and Potus are enforcing despotism, readying America for the 100% taxation.

Obama’s father Barak H. Obama advanced 100% taxation in his July 1965 EAST AFRICA JOURNAL article, “Problems Facing Our Socialism: Another Critique of Sessional Paper No.10“. (Politico has the link.)

It is true that mismanagement can occur both in private as well as in public ownership, but we ought to look at the matter within the social context. Looked at this way, we can avoid economic power concentration and bring standardized use and control of resources through public ownership, let alone the equitable distribution of economic gains that would follow. One need only look at the problems of getting consolidated in some areas. Will this be easily done through individual action, through co-operatives or through government ownership? Realizing social stickiness and inflexibility and looking at the society’s distrust of change, one would see that, if left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come. We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.

It is good to be optimistic, but so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others, nor is it unlikely that … to subject the poor into submitting to political ideologies and to persuade them to vote for those who offer them money, would not be difficult and has, in fact, been occurring.

Certainly there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay. It is a fallacy to say that there is this limit and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Yet one who has read Marx cannot fail to see that corporations are not only what Marx referred to as the advanced stage of capitalism but Marx even called it finance capitalism by which a few would control the finances of so many and through this have not only economic power but political power as well.

[On growth and development,] We can have a high rate of growth economically and yet not develop both economically, politically and socially. There is a small minority of people and worse still, on a racial basis, who have high incomes and who can afford to save, but no country can afford to rely on one group or a small segment of society to do all the saving. Nor is all of this saving being invested in this country. Some are sent abroad for many other reasons. What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all and at the same time to be able to channel some of these gains to future production. THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT’S OBLIGATION. Is not this the reason the government should tax the rich more so as to generate high tax surpluses?

Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. Assuming that development and the achievement of a high per capita income is a benefit to society as a whole I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues…

If we are to nationalize, we are going to nationalize what exists and is worth nationalizing. A form of import licencing ought to be introduced which will only look at the goods imported in terms of their contribution to growth and development, unless they are things that we do not produce ourselves.

Further, we should not only look at the population as consumers of goods and services, but also as producers of these goods and services. If we realize this then we should not be worried about the rate of growth of population. All we need to think of is to plan properly and find projects, given priorities, which will absorb this populace. In this way we will not only be able to absorb the rising population growth, but also the overwhelming disguised unemployment (“rotting in poverty”).

On class problems…While we welcome the idea of prevention, we should also try to cure what has slipped in. The elimination of foreign economic and political domination is a good gesture towards this, so are plans to develop in order to prevent antagonistic classes. But we also need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now. It is a case of cure and prevention and not prevention alone.

Interestingly, notice where Potus Obama differs from his father Barak the polygamist on population growth. Also notice that Progressive Marxists since Pres. Wilson and FDR, by wielding the National Democratic Party to the LEFT, have relied heavily upon corporatism to already nationalize American industry.

maverick muse on December 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM