Sen. DeMint highlights the double standard in the US Senate

An Inconvenient Debt

In September of 2005, former head of the General Accounting Office (GAO), David Walker, embarked on a “Fiscal Wake Up” tour of the United States to educate and alert people to the current fiscal state of our economy. The tour consisted of town-hall style forums where Walker, along with members of the Brookings Institution and The Heritage Foundation, met with citizens across the country to explain the inherent problems regarding the amount of spending our Federal Government engages in. The biggest problems being the commitments to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security which, according to Walker and many others, will begin to dramatically increase once the Baby Boomer generation begins to retire in massive numbers on or around 2019. This will lead to expenditures at the Federal level that, over the years, will exceed $55 to $60 trillion dollars. This number dwarfs our current trillion-dollar deficits and makes our current debt of $11 trillion dollars seem like pocket change by comparison.

On July 1st, congresswoman Betty McCollum (of Congressional District 4 in Minnesota), held a town hall meeting to discuss the current call for health care reform, embodied in President Barack Obama’s initiatives. While many citizens spoke up at the event, few grasped the perils of government involvement in the health care sector.

Many supported the “Public Option” in Obama’s health care proposal; some spoke of the need for a Single-Payer system, much like the one Canada engages in. These options may at first seem attractive but they ignore the disastrous results awaiting the United States.

When considering the trillions of dollars in debt that await us in 10 years, is it sensible to create an additional Federal entitlement for our country? If our future financial commitments are this great, would not any sensible person consider any additional spending to be ludicrous? Dangerous? The Congressional Budget Office estimates Obama’s health care plan to exceed $1 trillion over 10 years, a number which would only cover 16 of the supposed 47 million uninsured in America. This massive amount of debt is not something we can tax our way out of, we cannot borrow our way out of, and we sure can’t keep printing money to cover it, although the behavior of the U.S. Treasury implies contentment with the latter as of late.

Those who stand in opposition to Obama’s health care reform proposals must not allow those who support it to characterize them as being content with the status quo, as McCollum did. Opposing Obama’s proposals does not equate with or imply support of the status quo. The health care system in the U.S. needs fixing, that much can be agreed upon. Rather, any opposition should stress free market solutions such as Health-Status Insurance, health savings accounts, and the like. Furthermore, this opposition would be wise to illuminate the history of health care in the U.S. and highlight how and why costs have risen to their current level.

The impending crisis Walker calls attention to is not the product of one political party or another. Both Republicans and Democrats have made few attempts to tackle this issue, while each have engaged their own spending priorities leaving future generations in oceans of debt. There are 545 people in Washington responsible for this calamity, and the public’s trust in each and every one of them has worn thin. Should people trust those in Washington with something as critical as their health care? As I stated last Wednesday, “Congresswoman McCollum I don’t trust you. I don’t trust Republicans. I don’t trust Democrats. I don’t trust Liberals. I don’t trust Conservatives. There are 2 people in this world I trust with my health care, my doctor and myself. Stay the hell out of that relationship”.





Those interested in Free Market solutions to health care are encouraged to visit The Cato Institute's website dedicated to this topic: http://healthcare.cato.org/

For a solid history of health care in the United States be sure to read Jeff Hagen's position paper for MNLG, posted below.

March Meeting minutes

March Meeting Minutes, 3/2

The March meeting of MNLG was called to order at 7:15pm by Chair, Rick Karschnia.

Guest speaker: Andy Celik, MN Voters Alliance talked to us about instant runoff voting.

Introductions of members and guests

Treasurer's report was approved as read. We currently have 91 paid members.

Secretary's report was approved as read.

Events Committee report: Tax Cut Rally (May 2) and a "Shooting at the Range" day are in the works.

Fundraising Committee report: Fundraising letter is in the works, see Bill if you'd like to read it.

Motion was made, seconded, and passed to reimburse Mitch Imbertson for the cost of business cards.

Announcements: Freedom Book Club, March 9th 7:15pm at the Arlington Hills Library (St. Paul)

American Majority Candidate and Activist Training, March 21, 8:15am Kelly Inn (St. Paul)

March 21, Gun Show, MN State Fair Grounds, $40 for a booth or you can help out w/ Tim Utz campaign for State House.

Motion passed to ajourn the meeting at 8:45pm.

Next Meeting: April 8th, 7pm, Riverview Library (Bylaws Changes meeting!)

MNLG Meeting: Upcoming Special Guest

Minnesotans for Limited Government
is excited to host
Potential Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Emmer (R)
at our monthly meeting this Monday July 6th at 7PM.

MEETING REMINDER:
MNLG July Meeting - Monday, July 6 at 7:00 pm.
Location: Sun Ray Library - 2105 Wilson Ave, St Paul, MN 55119
http://www.stpaul.lib.mn.us/locations/sunray.html

Richard Easton will also be in attendance. Richard is running for St. Paul School board.

Betty McCollum to hold townhall meeting about Health Care, Wednesday, July 1

Rep. Betty McCollum of the 4th Congressional District will be holding a Town Hall Meeting regarding Health Care on Wednesday!

This event is at the Highland Park Picnic Pavilion, 1270 Montreal Avenue, St. Paul from 6 - 7:30 pm.

Assuming that this event was organized to sell the "Plan" before the CBO analysis of the Kennedy Bill became public. For the official announcement, go to her website found here: http://www.mccollum.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=616&Itemid=92

Let's all give our Betty a warm and roasty toasty welcome on July 1st!

See you on Wednesday!

FitzSimmons, Stebbins, Imbertson: Why we're staying with the Minnesota GOP

In response to Joe Repya's opinion piece of June 23, the Pioneer Press ran our rebuttal today:

FitzSimmons, Stebbins, Imbertson: Why we're staying with the Minnesota GOP
By David FitzSimmons, Marianne Stebbins and Mitch Imbertson
Updated: 06/25/2009 06:46:39 PM CDT

In his Opinion piece "Why I am leaving the Minnesota GOP," Lt. Col. Joe Reypa paints a pretty damning picture of the Republican Party of Minnesota. As Republican grass-roots activists, we have witnessed and experienced what Joe described as "tyrannical domination over the grass-roots" of the party.

We agree with Joe when he says "it is time to stop enabling bad behavior from that party." Joe is a friend who has been a principled champion of freedom and liberty for many years; he remains a friend. We disagree, however, with his conclusion that "the Minnesota GOP is no longer capable of being saved."

This is why we are not leaving the Minnesota GOP. Not only can the Minnesota GOP be saved, it must be saved.

While the Republican Party has drifted away from the fundamental principles inherent in the U.S. Constitution - the primacy of individual sovereignty, the sanctity of private property and preservation of the rule of law - the Minnesota DFL has coalesced around the national Democratic Party values: the collective good over individual pursuit of happiness, the property needs of the state over the property rights of the individual, and government power restrained only by the grace of the majority, irrespective of the rule of law. History warns us that a nation so divided cannot long endure.

And this is why we choose to remain in the Minnesota GOP: Despite past leadership flaws, the Minnesota GOP remains the last best hope for resurrecting republican, constitutional government. It is the last best hope for individuals who want to make their own decisions about health care, their children's education, where they live, what they eat and how they worship. The Minnesota GOP is the last best hope for preservation of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the last best hope for a productive society capable of creating the wealth that makes compassion possible.

The groups we represent - the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Campaign for Liberty, and Minnesotans for Limited Government, and many other like-minded liberty-oriented organizations - are evidence that hope is not dead.

To Joe's point, many of our groups have sprung up and grown strong because the Minnesota GOP abdicated its role as protector of republican principle - endorsing capital "R" Republicans regardless of their allegiance to small "r" republican principle. But for whatever reason our groups came into being, they exist, and they are making a difference.

When the campaign for GOP officers began, the emphasis was on "Platform Conservatism," the notion that the "best conservative," the "best Republican," was the one who could put the most check marks next to the 171 planks of a 5,100-word party platform. Over the course of the campaign, the debate changed.

Republicans started talking about "Principled Conservatism" as an alternative to the litmus test of platform politics. The grass-roots felt empowered; a candidate for chair was drafted by the party's grass-roots. With no "old guard" support whatsoever, he nearly pulled off the upset.

A Web site and Facebook group, "Grassroots for an Open Republican Party," described a Republican Party that doesn't just win elections, but one that earns respect as a party of integrity and principle. Both the newly elected chair and deputy chair of the Minnesota GOP signed on as supporters.

Campaign for Liberty supporters of Ron Paul (who as Joe notes were systematically shut out of the 2008 GOP State Convention) remain engaged in the Republican Party, actively supporting liberty-oriented candidates and conservative/libertarian principles.

The Republican Liberty Caucus, "the conscience of the Republican Party," exists to promote individual liberty, limited government and free enterprise within the Republican Party.

Minnesotans for Limited Government is educating the party and public on the principles of limited government and supporting liberty-minded candidates.

There is an old adage that describes change as frightening when done to us, but exhilarating when done by us. This is an exhilarating time to be a Republican.

The frightening change taking place in the country, the abandonment of republican government and fundamental constitutional principles, is a wake-up call. Now is our "Time to Choose." It is our time to stop an ever-intrusive government from doing change to us. It is our time to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. It is our time to put American principles to the test. It is our time to reform, re-energize and resurrect the last best hope of American constitutional government - the Republican Party.

That is why we are emphatically not leaving the Minnesota GOP.

David FitzSimmons of Cokato is chairman of the Minnesota Republican Liberty Caucus: rlcmn.org/; Marianne Stebbins of Excelsior is coordinator of the Minnesota Campaign for Liberty: www.campaignforliberty.com/usa/MN; and Mitch Imbertson of Maplewood is Communications Committee Chair of Minnesotans for Limited Government: www.mnlg.org.

[Corey Sax has his own response up at his blog. If you have a response or submit a LTE to the PiPress, include a link or copy/paste in the comments section here.]

Health Care Reform -- MNLG Position Paper

The Fallacy of Government Sponsored Single-Payer Health Care
A consumer-driven model proves best for both patients and providers.
by Jeff Hagen

Almost everyone agrees that America's health care system is terminally ill. It is the most expensive in the world, with the US spending more on health care per person than any other industrialized nation. Recent estimates put health care spending at around 16% of U.S. GDP. In 2007, the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person. 46 million people are without medical insurance. The health care share of GDP is expected to continue upward, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017.

What most do not agree upon is how to solve the problem associated with rising health care costs. One argument is that single-payer universal health care is the answer. By paying out of one fund the advantages is administrative simplicity. Others think that the mandatory private purchase of health insurance by all is the answer, as is done in Massachusetts. A third option is that we need to adopt the system offered in Canada., where some see the free market and consumer-driven care as the solution. While all proposals are well meaning, the law of unintended consequences spoils the capability of centrally controlled health care schemes. We will take aim at the history of rising health care costs, the Canadian model, the laws of unintended consequences and examine our options going forward.

History of Health Insurance

The first U.S. President to propose a prepaid health insurance plan was Harry S. Truman. On November 19, 1945, in a special message to Congress, President Truman outlined a comprehensive, prepaid medical insurance plan through the Social Security system.

Before the advent of health insurance, patients were expected to pay all health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the “fee for service” business model. The fee for service business model was relatively inexpensive and reliable, with doctors even making house calls. But it was not without its problems. Medical conditions such as infection, pneumonia, influenza, and tuberculosis were the leading cause of death and advances in medical products and services were limited. Serious innovation was still years ahead. My father recently told me that his birth in 1943 cost a grand total of $35; that’s $438 in inflation adjusted terms. And births at that time mandated the mother and child to spend several nights in the hospital, as compared to today’s same-day delivery.

Nonetheless, for decades the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. As time when on, most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The Advent of Medicare and Medicaid

The 1960s however saw a plethora of concrete moves by the federal government to consolidate and modernize the U.S. healthcare system. With Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiative, the U.S. established public health insurance for both senior citizens and the underprivileged. Known as Medicare and Medicaid, these two healthcare programs granted certain groups of Americans access to adequate healthcare services.

Download the full position paper here.