Readers Oppose Drug Entitlement I thoroughly agree with Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) ["Why I Oppose the Drug Entitlement"] that the Medicare modification bill the President has unwittingly signed into law, is a big step towards socialized Medicine—the ultimate system Sen. Kennedy hopes to see inflicted on this country. As a refugee from socialized medicine in the UK, I could tell many stories of the effects such a system has, besides the crippling expense on the taxpayers. The National Health Service (NHS) is still in disarray and many have to pay private insurance to get prompt and decent treatment. When I left the UK in 1957, there was a 10-year waiting list for tonsillectomies, an 18-month waiting list for hernias to be repaired. Doctors' offices were full of patients with trivial complaints demanding free medication. The NHS now relies mainly on recruiting doctors from other countries, many of whom I believe have doubtful medical abilities. They can even apply for the equivalent of a license to practice by e-mail. Fifty percent of new doctors have not trained in the UK.
We got Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under President Nixon, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) under President Reagan and now the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill under President Bush. Through its actions the GOP has demonstrated that it is not the party of limited government. Wasn't our nation founded on this principle? President Bush and the GOP had a chance to make the case for limited government, especially after 9/11, but the President and most congressional Republicans have failed to uphold in its actions the principles of limited government or individual liberty. It's all about buying enough votes to get reelected and who cares about future generations. What a rotten choice for those of us who oppose continued entitlement creation and expansion. Clearly President Bush and the GOP have calculated that this will gain them more votes than they lose. In addition supporters of this bill may say that the President promised this and he has delivered. But by signing this particular prescription drug bill I think President Bush will succeed in upsetting the Republican base, energizing the Democrats base, upsetting young people and probably most seniors. This bill is a loser politically and financially for taxpayers.
I believe the majority of conservative voters will decide on Election Day the "dark horse" in the 2004 elections. I find it very strange and troubling that the Bush Administration and most of the Republicans in Congress have taken such a turn to the left politically. Ever since the beginning of President Bush's first term, both the President and Congress have expanded the public sector, which go against what conservative voters expected when they voted for Republican officer-holders in 2000 and 2002.
Neither President Bush nor the majority of Republicans in Congress seem the slightest bit interested in finding out where all the waste, fraud, and abuse in government is and cut, cut, cut.
How can Republicans blame Democrats for many political woes when Republicans are the majority in Congress, and govern the White House, the governorships, and state Legislators? Also, how can Bush and the Republican Party at all levels be so sure that enough conservative voters in 2004 will be more than willing to "hold their noses" and vote for them again instead of just staying home in 2004? Conservative voters need more incentives and actions from conservative politicians at all levels in order to help move the country in a better direction and increase its voter base.
Moral Foundations Of U.S. Constitution Just what is our Constitution about? The meaning of the U. S. Constitution is being changed ["Massachusetts Manhandles Marriage"]. The Constitution was written for a religious people. It was written for a moral people. The Founding Fathers intended that it protect the people from our government, not necessarily from each other. The Constitution insures our liberty not our freedom. Liberty is maintained by responsible freedom. The Constitution is being watered down, twisted, and diverted as the river of Political Correctness flows, corrupting our society. Had the Founders known that sexual deviations would become an actual dialog of public discourse, they would have addressed the situations. They would have defined what a marriage is had they saw a need. They would have placed in effect a protection for the life of the unborn, had they known the extent of our political follies. Our Constitution was written by a people, for a people who took for granted, responsibility, respect for life, respect for others, and who had a fear of God. Responsibility would have been spelled out had they thought we would become so irresponsible. The U. S. Constitution left much up to the common sense of a moral people. We are a depraved people and our liberties are waning as a result. Common Sense has ceased.
The Real Problem With Sanctifying Gay Marriage According to Ann Coulter's column last week [These Court Opinions Are Not Private Enough"], "Ms. Marshall has as much right to proclaim a right to gay marriage from the Massachusetts Supreme Court as I do to proclaim it from my column. The Massachusetts legislature ought to ignore the court's frivolous ruling—and cut the justices' salaries if they try it again." The problem is the legislature is controlled by how they are glorified, how they are glorified is determined by the sizzle, the sizzle is the creative ways the media can represent the politician to the public, and gays dominate the creative content of the media. This is not to be underestimated in determining the prospective behavior of the politician. Rush and others call this the newsroom camaraderie factor. So the solution is to get some candidates or current politicians who have access to media and can continually articulate conservative viewpoints with hard evidence trumping accusations of bigotry.
