Category Archives: Republicans

That Oh-So Original Argument From Hitler

Democrats, Fascism, History, Republicans, Socialism, The State

The Argument From Hitler (TAFH) is so tired. Come to think of it, tired is a good word for the Republicans. Funny guy and host of Fox News’ late-night laugh “Red Eye” drives home the ludicrous nature of the TAFH by sealing his Gregalogues thus: “If you don’t agree with me, you’re worse than Hitler.” But then Rush Limbaugh is not smart enough to poke fun at himself. Economically, fascism and socialism are evil twins. The Republicans have more of the first in them; the Democrats more of the last. Both parties are made up of consummate statists. Ultimately Rush’s weary TAFH shuts off a more serious deconstruction of Democratic ideology. In any case, here goes Rush:

“Now what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business. They hated big business and, of course, we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They were for two years mandatory voluntary service to Germany. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working one of which was the Autobahn.

They were against cruelty and vivisection of animals but in the radical sense of devaluing human life, they banned smoking. They were totally against that. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables as we all know and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized health care. I have always bristled when I hear people claim that conservatism gets close to Naziism. It is liberalism that’s the closest you can get to Naziism and socialism. It’s all bundled up under the socialist banner. There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy that’s being heralded by a Hitler-like logo.”

Co-op Or Co-optation?

Barack Obama, Democrats, Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Regulation, Republicans, Socialism

As members of the two-party monopoly come together to hammer out a “compromise” on how best to send the health care we have to hell in a handcart, I thought you ought to know a bit about the co-op option; it is, after all, the buzzword being bandied about to replace the less-than soothing “public option” phrase. A co-op is “simply government-run health insurance by another name.” Over to Cato’s Michael D. Tanner:

“Now, if this was really going to be a co-op like rural electrical co-ops or your local health-food store — owned and controlled by its workers and the people who use its services — it would be a meaningless but harmless diversion. America already has some 1,300 insurance companies, so it’s hard to see what one more would add, but it would be unlikely to do much harm.

But these aren’t true co-ops. The members wouldn’t choose its officers — the president would. Plus, the secretary of Health and Human Services would have to approve its business plan, and thus could force it to offer whatever benefits, premiums and reimbursement schedules Washington wants. Finally, the federal government would provide start up, and possibly ongoing, subsidies.

[This is a] ‘co-op’ run by the federal government, under rules imposed by the federal government and with federal funding…

The Senate compromise also drops the job-killing employer-mandate that businesses provide their workers with health insurance or pay a penalty — and substitutes a more regressive employer mandate.

The compromise would have no specific mandate for employers to provide insurance. But any employer who failed to do so would have to pay the cost of all subsidies that the government provides his or her workers to help them pay for insurance on their own.

It is hard to see how this is different from any other employer mandate — except that it will hurt low-wage workers most.

Business owners care about the total cost of hiring a worker, not how that cost is apportioned between wages, taxes, health insurance or other benefits. If they have to pay the cost of subsidizing health insurance for their workers, employers will simply offset the added cost by lowering wages, reducing future wage increases, reducing other benefits (such as pensions), cutting back on hiring, laying off current workers, shifting workers from full-time to part-time or outsourcing.

It will ultimately be the worker who pays the subsidy’s cost. The government will be giving the worker a subsidy with one hand, and taking it back with the other. Does that make sense for any reason other than ‘compromise?'”

The complete Tanner piece here.

Michael D. Tanner is a Cato Institute senior fellow and the author of Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.

‘Audit the Fed!’

Conservatism, Federal Reserve Bank, Founding Fathers, Inflation, Journalism, libertarianism, Republicans, Ron Paul

What I appreciate about Jack Hunter, also a Taki’s Magazine writer, is the way he marries solid principles and a pragmatic approach to politics. Unless a commentator achieves this feat in a consistent, principled manner, he is worthless. Yes, worthless! Some of our readers have been seduced by the habit so many libertarian scribblers have of vaporizing libertarian theory into the ether, while sitting on the fence and playing holier-than-thou when it comes to politics. Worthless as it is easy. Aside from the pleasant Southern lilt, Hunter has a natural knack for cleaving to reality while retaining principles. In ‘Audit the Fed!’ he narrates thus:

“While Bush and McCain were ‘abandoning free-market principles to save the free-market system’ by signing off on an $800 billion Wall Street Bailout, the Republican establishment still treated the truly free-market Ron Paul as some sort of crazy, irrelevant money crank.

It’s amazing the difference a year makes.

As of this writing, every single Republican in the House and over 60 Democrats have co-sponsored Paul’s H.R. 1207 Federal Reserve Transparency Act, which calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Given the current economic crisis, it turns out that many legislators are eager to see just how the Fed is able to print new money out of thin air. In the 1980’s, Paul introduced similar legislation with virtually no help from his fellow Republicans. In 2009, the entire party has lined up behind Ron Paul.”

Listen here.