On his radio show the other day, Hugh Hewitt caught me by surprise and asked me about running for the U.S. Senate from New Hampshire. My various consultants, pollsters, PACs and exploratory committees haven't fine tuned every detail of my platform just yet, but I can say this without a doubt:
I will not vote for any "comprehensive" bill, whether on immigration, health care or anything else.
"Comprehensive" today is a euphemism for interminably long, poorly drafted, and entirely unread — not just by the peoples' representatives but by our robed rulers, too (how many of those Supreme Court justices actually plowed through every page of ObamaCare when its "constitutionality" came before them?).
The 1862 Homestead Act, which is genuinely comprehensive, is two handwritten pages in clear English. "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is 500 times as long, is not about patients or care, and neither protects the former nor makes the latter affordable.
So what is it about? On Wednesday, the Nevada AFL-CIO passed a resolution declaring that "the unintended consequences of the ACA will lead to the destruction of the 40-hour work week." That's quite an accomplishment for a "health" "care" "reform" law. But the poor old union heavies who so supported ObamaCare are now reduced to bleating that they should be entitled to the same opt-outs secured by big business and congressional staffers. It's a very strange law whose only defining characteristic is that no one who favors it wants to be bound by it.
Via: IBD
Continue Reading....
No comments:
Post a Comment