What exactly was I spectacularly wrong about?  Well, probably all things political, and religious for that matter, if you asked Bill, but one thing that I want to focus on specifically is that Bill (or perhaps his co-host Steve Benen, I can’t remember which one made this exact quote, but they both agree with its sentiment) asserted without further comment that I was “flatly, obviously wrong” in my claim that any expansion of government power results in a loss of freedom.

Well, it’s not obvious that I am wrong in my assertion.  I wish that Bill and Steve had realized that and expanded their response a little more, so I had something to work with here because to me, it is obvious that I am right.

Before I set about defending that I am right that any expansion of government power results in a loss of freedom, let’s first define what is meant by the word “freedom” here.

Merriam-Webster online defines freedom as “1: the quality or state of being free: as, a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence,” followed by c-h, but for my purpose, I want to focus on a and b.

Freedom means being absent from constraint in choice or action, free from the power of another.

To be totally free would mean to have no force or power limiting any of our choices or actions.

However, we do have the force of government limiting our choices and actions.  Any time the government passes a law, it limits our choices or actions; that is the purpose of passing laws!

This is not to say that is a bad thing – it is necessary, to some extent – but, it is clear that any time the government is empowered to make choices for us, we become less free.

Not only is this claim NOT “flatly, obviously wrong,” but it is, by the very definition of freedom absolutely correct!

So what’s the big deal?

Well, it’s not always a big deal, in a negative sense.  I mean, we need to limit the freedom of others to hurt us or our property.  This is the main function of our government.  We cannot have freedom unless those who would seek to oppress us are restrained.  It’s kind of paradoxical; we must restrict freedom to protect freedom.  But that is only true in a very limited sense, and that must remain limited.

There are many ways the government limits our freedom that are not necessary for protecting us.  They serve to shape our behavior in ways that are deemed better than the alternatives.  These things do not always seem like a big deal, as long as we are doing what the government wants us to do.

For example, in 2012, incandescent light bulbs will be banned in the US.  This is an obvious limit on our freedom of light bulb choice.  If you are already using another type of bulb by then, which most people will, since manufacturers are phasing out incandescent bulbs already, the ban will not seem like a big deal because you are already making the choice the government allows – no conflict.

But, if you, like me, have a health condition that is exacerbated, causing severe pain, by compact fluorescent bulbs, the US ban on incandescent bulbs is kind of a big deal.

When you want (or in this case, need) to do something that falls outside of what the government has mandated, your lack of freedom becomes glaringly obvious.

We have come to a point that most people do not care about the expanded role of government and its encroachment on freedom, unless it directly impacts them.  Our freedom is taken for granted to the extent that well-educated, thoughtful men deny the basic truth that any expansion in government power has a direct impact on freedom.

This was never an issue to me, either, until I chose an alternative lifestyle that butts up against the government’s unjust power – I decided to homeschool.

The government has, in incremental steps over the years, declared itself the sole power over the education of our children.  That was not always the case.  That power used to lie with the family.  These days, it is expected that the state needs to have that power, even when it contradicts what parents think is best for their own children.

Now, if you want to educate your child outside of the government-run system, the state controls and limits those choices.

If you want to use an alternative method that does not conform to the “school-at-home” model, you run the risk of problems with the state and charges of educational neglect.

The loss of freedom in education happened over decades.  That is how many freedoms are eroded and government power is expanded.  It happens gradually over time, in a way that most people do not realize, until the freedom is gone and the government power is accepted as the norm.

As long as one lives within the scope of what the government deems okay, the reach of government power into our lives is not obvious.  It is not until one wants to exercise a different choice that the limitation of our freedom is felt.

I did not realize how important it is to oppose the expansion of government, thereby protecting our freedom, until it affected me, but the truth is, we should all care whether it affects us or not.

If I accomplished only one thing in the three years that I published this blog, let it be that I raised your awareness about why freedom matters.

If you do not care about the freedom of others, it may be too late when you finally realize that your own freedom has been limited.

If freedom matters, and it does, it is worth defending the freedom of everyone.

There is no problem that cannot be solved without sacrificing our freedom to do so.

She replied that she agrees with that recommendation, but with health care reform we are trying to eliminate unnecessary tests, so the American Osteopathic Association recommends scans at age 60.

60!

Welcome to state-run medical care, folks.  Enjoy it while you can.  Before you die from something that is currently able to be detected early, but won’t be when we have to wait for basic care.

What?  I’m just using Republican scare tactics?

That’s what everyone said – including our truthful president – when the right claimed that private insurance would be driven out by the government.  Yet, Investor’s Business Daily reports that the House’s health care legislation goes so far as outlawing private coverage.

Of course, as Pres. Obama said, we can keep our current coverage.  We just can’t alter it or ever get another policy, if we move or change jobs.

Government monopoly, baby.

While you revel in it, check out Steven Crowder’s undercover look at Canada’s system.

I hope you have $900 for a check up at a private clinic.  That seems to be the standard advice given by the government run health providers, not once but thrice, in his video.

Hope and Change!

According to President Obama,

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

Last night, the president clarified that statement.

“When I say if you have your plan and you like it, . . . or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.”

The reality is that, for most people, their employers will choose whether or not to abandon the private system for the government plan.

Think about that for a minute.  The government is going to come along with this low-cost, taxpayer-subsidized health care plan and your employer will get to choose between that and the plan they currently offer you.

Cheap government insurance vs. expensive private insurance.  What will they choose?

Hint: your employer probably cares about the cost, not so much the quality – and not so much about how much you like your plan.

Bottom line: You will not be able to keep your health insurance plan.

Once the government has a monopoly, how good do you think your health care will be?

Every honest conversation about health care reform has included talk about changing what we in America expect from our health care system, which is a nice way to say we have to expect less from it, if we want a public system.

One of the proposed savings measures is eliminating “unnecessary” tests.  I don’t know about you, but I want my doctor – not the government – deciding what tests are necessary.

And once the government controls health care, they will be able to regulate almost every aspect of our lives (the few they don’t already) because it is for the common good to keep us healthy, according to what the government deems necessary to that end.

On the bright side, maybe we won’t have to hear that tired old phrase “for the children” any more.  Now it will be “for our health.”

First, we have the home mortgage borrowers, high risk-taking insurance giants, and the poorly-run auto makers.  Now, it’s the people who run up their credit cards and fail to pay them off.

And guess who pays for it?  The fiscally responsible.

Now that Congress is making it “fair” for people with massive credit card debt, allowing them to avoid high interest rates, the folks who use credit cards responsibly will help pay for it.

Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.

“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

Yeah, that’s fair.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to be fiscally responsible in this culture?  It’s hard.  You go without.  Not only that, but you go without while everyone else gets lots of stuff you wish you had.  It takes discipline and sacrifice.  But you do it because it is the right thing to do and you will be better off in the long run.

Until the government comes along with its bailouts and regulations and you end up paying for other people’s lack of responsibility.

Awesome.

What ever happened to rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior?

See what I mean?  Backward world.

For perspective, last year, Debt Day fell on August 5.  It was September 9 the year before that.

The fiscal year ends September 30.

Imagine if you already spent all of your salary and, for the next five months, you had to put all of your spending – living expenses and everything – on a credit card or take out a loan to pay for it.

Sounds like a bad idea, doesn’t it?

I found out this morning that Bill Simmon and Steve Benen talked about my tea party post on their Poli-Sci-Fi Radio show Sunday, so I will be responding to what they had to say, as well, though I will not get to everything that warrants rebuttal.

You can listen to the episode online, here.  Tea Party talk starts about half-way through.

The first thing I want to address is the common Where were these people the last 8 years? response to the Tea Parties, popular among the left.

Answer: Complaining about Bush and the Republicans in Congress spending too much money.

I was, when I covered national politics.  So were other conservatives.  Here is a post from March 2006 – just one month after I started this blog on Blogspot – in which I reference a Cal Thomas column entitled, “Spending Obsenities.”  (Link is to my post.)

Mr. Guy, in the comments of my previous Tea Party post, claimed that Freedom Works, a sponsor of the tea parties, was not active in opposing spending before now.  I don’t know how long he has been a Freedom Works member, but a quick search of my e-mail shows a Freedom Works newsletter from January of 2006, opposing government-funded, universal pre-K and supporting consumer-driven health care, as an alternative to government-funded plans.

Libertarian groups, such as CATO, have been criticizing government spending and corporate welfare all along.

What you have to understand is that the people attending these tea parties, by and large, are not Republican Party defenders.  They are citizens who support smaller government, less spending, lower taxes, and more freedom – Libertarians (both big and small “L”), Ron Paul and Bob Barr supporters, Constitution Party members, and GOP voters who are disillusioned with the party’s power-drunk spending spree over the past decade.

Another claim is that the tea parties would not have happened if McCain were elected.

Wrong again.

Conservatives did not like McCain’s penchant for spending, either.  Conservatives also opposed the bailouts under Pres. Bush last fall.  I had a post (actually quite a few) in the fall of 2006 discussing the GOP and its lack of conservatism.

We are sick of the big-government, big-spending, and disregard for the 10th Amendment.  There is no longer a place for lovers of small government and people are looking for a way to speak out.  This was a long time coming and it would have happened no matter who was elected last November.

On the Poli-Sci-Fi radio episode I linked to, Steve Benen brought up the fact that Bush and Cheney had bad approval ratings – no one was saying, “At least they are not expanding government” – as if some sort of evidence that people do not want smaller government (or less government expansion).

That might have been a good point, if only Bush had not expanded the government’s size and power.  In fact, he did.  Being a political blogger for 6 years, one would think Steve would have known that.

Benen did raise one good point, though, that the tea partiers did not do a good job articulating their message to the rest of the country.  That was unfortunately true.  There is a good message to be had in all of this, but without a spokesperson or official group that can put together a platform, people are left to their own interpretation or that of the media, which in the case of the Tax Day Tea Parties, was largely wrong.

.

It’s worth noting that there were a couple of things said on that PSFR episode that I still need to address, but they necessitate their own post(s).

I want to try to clear a few things up, if I can, for people who don’t understand what these protests were about.  (This is from my own perspective.  Obviously, there are other perspectives out there.)

Myth: Tea Party-goers think taxes are bad.

Taxes have been the scapegoat for expanded government because taxes are the part of a big government that directly affect our wallets – and our ability to spend our money the way we want to, but taxes are not the problem.

I read on Twitter yesterday the comment, “I proudly pay my taxes, the cost of a free society.”  Aside from the fact that taxes are also the cost of an un-free society, this statement is true.  Most conservatives are more than willing to keep the government running, performing the functions that a government should perform.

There’s the hitch.  A conservative view of which functions a government should perform is very different from the functions currently being performed by our government.  Under President Obama and the Democratic Congress, those functions are growing, and growing, and growing, way beyond what conservatives believe a government should be doing.

That is what the tea parties were about – growing government power, growing government spending.

The loss of freedom comes, too, but the loss of money via higher taxes comes sooner and is more tangible.  That is why many of the protesters focus on higher taxes.

Which brings me to…

Myth: Most Tea Party-goers will not even see a tax increase.

Maybe, maybe not.  The projections of this country’s debt are so enormous – nearly 100% of projected GDP by 2012 – that it is likely that everyone will have to pay for it.

But let’s say that it is true that most of the people at the tea parties will not see an increase in taxes.  What are the reasons, then, to protest?

First, freedom.  As I said above, this is not just about taxes.  Arguably, taxes are not even the real issue.  The issue is the loss of freedom.

With every expansion of government power, there is a loss of freedom.

Unlike the connection between executive pay and yours, this actually is a zero-sum game.

In any given set of activities, the more the government regulates those activities, the less power you have.

The stimulus and other bills have expanded the government’s role and the government’s power, therefore, it has lessened our roles and our power over our lives.

Who cares whether or not we, personally, have to pay for it?  It’s still something to be concerned about.

Second, just because we are not paying it ourselves is no reason to ignore an injustice.  Expecting 5% of the people to fund government programs that put their money into our pockets is wrong.  Expecting 5% of the population to pay for the services we all use is wrong.  Everyone should pay something to support our society.

If paying taxes is patriotic, as Vice President Joe Biden says, why are we letting 43% of the people pay no income taxes at all?  Are they not part of this free society?

Finally, over-taxing the “rich,” ie. the people who create jobs and produce goods and services, is bad for all of us.  Think about it.  When your company gets hit with higher and higher tax burdens, do you think that will not affect you?  When the producers of products you buy are spending more on taxes, do you think that will not affect prices?

As with many political causes, this is not just about what affects us personally, but what affects us all.

Myth: A majority of Americans support expanded government.

This was a misrepresentation of a poll coincidentally released the day before the tea parties and touted by Huffington Post and others as proof that the tea partiers were not representative of America.

It was as close to a lie as you can get without actually lying.

While it is true that the poll found a narrow majority of Americans (53%) support the government expansion to aid the economic crisis, a majority (55%) also said it was too expensive.

The more telling piece of polling data came when people were asked if they support the expansion of government being permanent.

Only 13% said yes.  The rest either oppose it altogether, or want it rolled back when the economy is no longer in crisis (if it even is).

Another way to say that is that 83% of Americans do not want permanently expanded government power.

83% rejects the progressive left’s vision for centralized power and a government that is involved in shaping our economy.

This makes the Tea Partiers very much representative of America.

There is so much more to cover here, but I will stop with these few for now.  I will have more posts like this over the next week.  Feel free to jump in with your comments, questions, etc.

Here’s a look at the crowd, via video.  I have to warn you, it is a little shaky.  I was trying to navigate my way through the crowd, without saying “excuse me” on camera.

No word yet on the turn out in Rutland, where Tea Party participation was expected to be even greater.

I put together a little montage of the protest signs, in case you missed it.

The event will be taking place on the State House lawn from noon – 2:00.

From the facebook page:

Matt Cropp, of VT Campaign For Liberty, American Socialism for the Rich and the Bank Users Strike Team will talk about credit unions and how they benefit users and the communities they serve.

Jim Hogue, blogger, farmer and radio host will be discussing the Federal Reserve and how this private banking cartel took control of the American Taxpayer.

Stewart Skrill, farmer and former VT and US House of Reps. candidate, will be speaking about the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Vermonters For Economic Health will also be providing us a speaker.

Please bring at least 3 tea bags with you to the rally. We will have 3 crates set up near the Federal building in which you should deposit your tea bags. The crates will then be delivered to the offices of Rep. Welch and Sens. Leahy and Sanders. I am asking for volunteers who would be willing to make these deliveries (especially to Welch as his office is in Burlington).

**UPDATES**
Be sure to pack a lunch and bring a blanket or chairs to sit on. There is no vending on the State House Lawn, though the cafeteria will be open. Again, this is a peaceful, family-friendly event. No pets allowed unless they are service animals.

Vermonters For Economic Health will be making a presentation “Vermont’s Unsustainable Future” immediately following the Tea Party at 2pm in the AIV conference room. This presentation is free and open to the public. Having seen this presentation before I highly recommend making time to attend. For more information please visit http://www.vermontersforeconomichealth.org/

The “We The People” Food drive at the Tea Party will benefit the Salavation Army Emergency Food Shelf. TJ Michael’s will be helping me coordinate this effort. Please make sure to bring a non-perishable food item.

Again, we have a website www.vermontteaparty.com and comments can be made at this site: www.taxdayteaparty.com/vermont

And don’t forget– the Legislature is in session! Be sure to allow time for yourself to stop in and say hello. Let your Representatives and Senators know where you stand!

Hope to see you there!

(Except you, Ryan.)

Politics makes strange bedfellows, indeed.

There is one notable difference between the two blogs, though.  VDB doesn’t like the idea because it doesn’t pass the “Dick Test.”

All of which fails the Dick Test, in our opinion: would you want this law on the books if Dick Cheney were the Shadow President? Epic fail, Rockefeller and Snowe.

The Ace of Spades crew doesn’t need to imagine a power-abusing, boogy-man “Shadow President.”  The current power-abusing president is cause enough for concern.

Either way, no one wants this type of power bestowed to some Dick in the White House.  And that is one of the few things you will get conservative and liberal bloggers to agree on.

Q and O also weighs in.