Quite simply, increasing prosperity and jobs will return if and when the climate of uncertainty created by government intervention ceases. Growth occurs when productive people have an idea, understand the risks, and find a way to capitalize on it. The only role government should be playing is to maintain a simple and clear set of laws that are applied equally to EVERYONE. This is what allows free people to do great things and provide wealth for themselves and opportunities for others. Everyone wants to demonize profit-driven individuals and point to examples of “greed”. It must be understood that in nearly all instances of unsavory situations in corporate America, the root of the problem was governmental manipulation. When government decides to lure corporations or entire industries in with special favors and incentives in return for control, typically to establish social engineering crusades, disaster is certain. Now, instead of focusing on creating and delivering the best product as demanded by the market, leaders of companies are distracted into finding the best ways to exploit their cozy relationship with the government. Simple choice: reject this awful culture of corporate welfare and central planning and return to growing prosperity for all, or continue being suckered by the rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle and devolve into misery.

The most important part of the Massachusetts special election result is not that an “R” beat a “D”, but that Scott Brown was chosen by the people based on his principles and not a cult of personality. It is clear that when the people decide based on sober reflection, as opposed to meaningless hype, conservative values resonate over the false hopes of progressivism.

Thomas Sowell has an excellent recent column about numbers in politics…

Magic Numbers in Politics

His writings are consistently spot-on, but this one hits the nail on the head. It really gets right into the essence of the ridiculousness of many of the attempts of quantitative claims by our government. A great example is the claims being thrown around concerning of the number of jobs “saved or created” by the $787 billion thieved from the people. This is an impossible task. There are 300 million individuals, each making a unique set of decisions based on their unique perspective of the risks and rewards that come with each. To think that anyone could accurately measure how many jobs were affected by government spending, when millions of other factors impact job creation and loss, is a joke.

Each time you hear the Obama administration trumpet their latest figure on how many jobs they were able to save or create, think about what a phony and unmeasurable number they are taking credit for. Think about the elitist pedestal one must put themselves on to believe they can orchestrate and measure the decisions of hundreds of millions of free individuals. It seems like a silly thing to try to do in a nation of individuals who are free to make their own decisions. But what this does further expose is the ultimate desire of the left to remove the freedom to choose from the individual, and give that responsibility to the government. That will allow them to more accurately control and take credit for the “magic numbers” (as Sowell coins them) that they strive for. Look at every major piece of legislation on the Obama agenda and think about the main theme: choice removed from the individual and assigned to the government.

A trap we often walk into is allowing the left to define and pervert the meanings of our words. The “wanting them to fail” statement is a great example. Let me explain…

“Wanting them to fail” is in regards to transforming the country into a social democracy and replacing the rule of law with the rule of men. We understand that if these changes take place, individual liberty will be a thing of the past and the opportunities for all that are the result of free people making their own decisions will be severely reduced. What leads us to believe that these will be the real consequences? The repeated historical application in countries throughout the world. It’s not an unproved theory of what we *think* will happen, it is a virtual certainty backed up by solid evidence.

The liberals have a tendency to ignore and excuse evidence of practical results of the policies they espouse, and redefine what exactly it is that we say we “want to fail”. They genuinely believe that the transformation they desire for the country will bring all the positive results, and none of the unintended consequences. They attribute our “wanting them to fail” to the positive results they claim will come.

Who can argue that the claims of what their policies will bring would not be desired, if it were actually possible? Cheap healthcare for everyone, more wealth for those who are lacking, our enemies becoming our friends, and so on. These would be great outcomes, unfortunately we know that none of them will be realized through the changes the liberals desire.

But this is where the liberals become opportunistic. They aggressively persuade that the positive intended outcomes are inevitable if only we allow the change, and then state that those opposed are against the ends rather than the means.

We can’t just let this stuff slide. It is important that we spend the time and energy to articulate the reality, rather than let the left turn our own words against us.

If anything positive comes from the mess we’re in, it’s the reemergence (or introduction) of conservative ideas in the mainstream. In particular, the vehicles of these ideas are encouraging. Receiving attention are not only the usual present-day personalities, but the more classic and “academic” thinkers from the past and present. Those whose explanations and delivery are not as dependent on entertainment value and sensationalism, but rather sound and insightful perspectives.

People are giving the writings of Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and even our founding fathers a shot. This represents a genuine interest in investing real time and energy to understanding the true fundamentals of conservatism. In the age of instant gratification, it is increasingly rare to find those who will consider reading a book titled “Applied Economics”; the title itself strikes many as off-putting.

It’s an uphill battle, since academia nearly exclusively presents liberal literature and ideas as if there is no alternative. It takes a lot of individual motivation to go out and seek an understanding of the other side. But history and facts prove that conservative ideas and policies result in the best possible outcome for society. Hopefully enough people realize this sooner than later.

Through all the bickering and claims and high hopes and back-and-forth of the “health care” debate, I can’t help but feel that most everyone is being duped by a carefully calculated diversionary tactic. It seems silly any time you find yourself pondering conspiracy theories, but there is actually credence to this one.

Valid and credible skepticism and disagreement of the intentions and objectives of America’s Affordable Health Care Choices of 2009 are essentially endless. We have readily available information soundly proving that the goals of this bill are riddled with unintended consequences and unrealistic assumptions. It is a provable certainty that the overall health care experience in this country will be severely depressed should this type of legislation be enacted.

But what if this is understood by the originators of this bill? What if our President and those advising him know that the health care industry will be irreversibly transformed in a way that results in slower, lower quality, rationed services for all citizens? Why would they want that?

There does exist an ideology that can justify this objective. Certain people hold the belief that it is unjustifiable that access and consumption of health care services may be defined by an individual’s ability and willingness to pay for it. They believe that it is inherently unfair that one person is able to receive a different health care experience than another person, whether by choice or financial constraint. In summary, disparity in health care outcomes is evil and must be eliminated.

How does the legislation in H.R. 3200 address this problem? It effectively provides a mechanism to slowly but surely remove individual choice from the equation. The government will act as the arbitrator to guarantee equitable outcomes amongst everyone. But does “equitable” in regards to everyone else mean that you will receive an equal or better experience than you currently do? Absolutely not!

Like any other good or service, health care is defined by a finite supply that we all demand. The intensity of what we demand is driven by all of our decisions as individuals. Practically all people experience conditions throughout life that require us to consume health care services. The crucial aspect of this is that we hold the responsibility and ultimate choice. This fact is so important because it is the most effective way to achieve the most optimal supply of health care to meet the demand.

This holds true because health care is a commodity just like anything else, no matter how much someone tries to elevate it to a sacred entitlement. Not anyone can become a doctor or health care professional. Statistically speaking, a very small percentage of the population is intellectually capable and/or academically driven enough to acquire the necessary skills. Because of this, maintaining a supply large enough to meet the demand is extremely difficult. Like it or not, health care is a scarce resource. There will never be enough to totally satisfy the demand.

The legislation being discussed is so dangerous because it drastically affects the supply/demand balance of health care. There is no doubt that the changes, if enacted, will reduce the supply of doctors. Fixing wages has never served to increase the supply of those entering or staying in a given occupation, especially one as highly specialized as medicine. Also, demand will increase by many magnitudes if millions of individuals are no longer constrained by cost. A basic economic fact is that when cost is removed, consumption increases.

What is the likely resulting scenario? Those who are currently classified as being neglected by the health care system will receive no better care, and more likely will receive degraded care. Those who are today receiving satisfactory or excellent health care will experience a significant decline. But the most relevant outcome to proponents is the resultant lessening of the gap between the privileged and under-privileged. It is of no importance that all people receive a lower absolute level of health care services, but rather that the disparity of outcomes is reduced to a more uniform and acceptable measurement.

This theme is not unique to health care, but rather is the central purpose of the liberal agenda. It is Marxist in its roots, and has undergone a modern-day transformation to regain appeal to the masses. We are now experiencing a full court press by an ideology that has regrouped after failures throughout the world, and now understands how to achieve its objectives in the civilization that has consistently and successfully rejected its false promises and avoided the guaranteed despotism and misery. It is imperative that we understand this reality, stop this slide into disaster, and return to a government guided by the Constitution.