A Secular Detour

In this blog, I mainly focus on the spiritual reasons why you don't want a Mormon in the White House. In this cycle, that would be Mitt Romney.


But in the past, I've provided secular reasons for not voting for Mitt Romney. Here's another.

Alternate headlines

I wrestled with what to title this post. There are so many candidates.

• Mitt Romney's delayed tax increase


• Mitt Romney's Great Society. NOT!


• Mitt Romney: "Bain, bain? What is bain" (Star Trek parody)


• Mitt Romney doesn't believe in wise virgins
  (Not what it seems)


• Mitt Romney: "It's not a tax. It's a penalty. (And that's 'fine' with me)"
  Or, Mitt Romney lies again about taxes.


• The American Spectator on Mitt Romney: Not so miraculous

Depends on the meaning of Conservative

There's been quite a battle on Conservative Talk Radio lately over who, of the Republican Presidential candidates, is truly a Conservative. Wrapped up in that is what the definition of Conservative is, and so it becomes rather circular.

Rush Limbaugh seems to be leading the charge. I agree with a lot of what he says, except he's content with American troops warring in foreign countries and I'm not. (A blurry line about providing for the common defense.) Lately, Hugh Hewitt has been beating up on former Governor Mike Huckabee. But with the Michigan Primary looming and Senator McCain neck and neck with Mitt Romney in this MUST win for Mitt Romney, Mr. Hewitt has relented on Mike Huckabee but stepped up his attack on Senator McCain, calling the latter a Liberal.

Whereas I say Mitt Romney, the REAL Latter, is a Liberal. (Indeed, Mormonism is progressive, so Mormon Mitt Romney is progressive.)

"By your words you will be condemned"

But let's look at Mitt Romney's own words on his Hillary-like Universal Health Care plan. Judge for yourself if Mitt Romney is a Conservative or a Liberal. (Try to forget that he was Governor of one of the Bluest States in the Union, even though that ought to tell you what they thought of his conservative "convictions.")

On Tuesday, April 11, 2006, Mitt Romney wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page. This is when he was Governor of Massachusetts. BEFORE he decided he wanted to spread the misery and campaign for our President. It's titled "Health Care for Everyone? We've found a way."

Just the facts

We're not going to get very far into this study. Like listening to Bill Clinton, once you have the famous blue dress, you have enough facts and it doesn't matter what else he says after that. So like reading the Book of Mormon, you don't have to get very far here with Mitt Romney before you spot trouble and can stop reading. Nothing that Joseph Smith or Mitt Romney follow up with will change the facts. In fact, you could stop with just the title of Mitt Romney's piece. What is the government doing providing health care for everyone? Is that a Conservative principle or a Nanny State Liberal one?

Mitt Romney begins:

Only weeks after I was elected governor, Tom Stemberg, the founder and former CEO of Staples, stopped by my office. He told me, "If you really want to help people, find a way to get everyone health insurance." I replied that would mean raising taxes and a Clinton-style government takeover of health care. He insisted: "You can find a way."

I believe that we have.

Arrrrgh! STOP!! It is NOT THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT TO 'HELP' PEOPLE! That's what Liberals believe! This is LBJ's Great Society all over again!

 If you're a Conservative and you want to help people, GET OUT OF OUR WAY! Lower taxes, cut regulation, step back and let the free market take care of things!

What did Ronald Reagan say? "Government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem."

What does Rush Limbaugh say? It's not the job of government to be a safety net! Get the government out of our lives and let us help ourselves. No entitlements. Self reliance. You can do it yourself! (Listen to the 3rd hour of Rush's show, Tuesday, January 16. "Conservatism is the answer.")

If someone truly needs help, that's the (Christian) church's job - or your and mine as individuals - to provide charity. Not the government's.

"I will judge you by your own words!"

But Mitt Romney admits he knew interfering in health care would be a de facto "Clinton-style government takeover." Still, he did it anyway.

Look, you can't be a Governor meddling in the private sector without it being, by definition, a government takeover. It's no longer the free market, something Conservatives are supposed to believe in. But I guess it depends what the meaning of "government takeover" is when government interferes with your decisions.

And then Mitt Romney lied. But it's taken this long for the lie to appear, long after he's no longer Governor and no one (excpet me) can accuse him of raising taxes. How convenient.

Time delay fuse

Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced. And we will need NO NEW TAXES, NO EMPLOYER MANDATE and no government takeover to make this happen.

He lied when he said "No New Taxes" and "No Employer Mandate."

This from The Boston Globe: "Uninsured Mass. residents face monthly fines starting in January." It published on Christmas Eve, and seems to have been missed by everybody. I'm trying to report without comment and let you decide, but this is really disgusting.

Come Jan. 1, Massachusetts residents who still haven't signed up for health insurance will start racking up FINES on a monthly basis.

[Oh, they're fines. This must be Brian Lamb speak, where he insists that C-SPAN is not government funded, even though the government requires cable companies to pony up "fees" for Mr. Lamb's "private, non-profit" company. Even though the fines go to the government (Mass Dept of Revenue) and the government is confiscation your money, Mitt Romney says it's not a "tax." No, no.]

Those penalties may be up to half of the monthly premiums for the least expensive health care plan available, although the exact amount of the fines is expected to be announced as soon as this week.

That's on top of the loss of the $219 personal tax exemption for anyone not insured by the end of December.

[Oh, so now the government is punishing you with a reverse tax for not playing their game. THAT'S conservative.]

The fines are part of an increasingly more aggressive approach written into the state's landmark health care law designed to pressure Massachusetts residents into getting insurance.

[Long after Mitt Romney is gone. Can't blame him for this. Can you?]

The law, intended to create near-universal coverage in the state, was approved by lawmakers and signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006.

[In fact, Gov. Romney, in his Wall Street Journal piece, takes credit for being the creator (organizer, if you're Mormon. A little joke) of this "conservative" universal health care plan.]

Everyone, including those insured through their employers, will be required to fill out a new tax form proving they have insurance to avoid paying penalties.

[Ahhh... more paperwork. The sure sign of a Conservative government.]

That form -- dubbed 1099-HC -- will require taxpayers to provide the name of their insurer and their subscriber number.

[i.e. Government intrusion. Even if you play the game their way and do what they want?]

The form will also allow individuals and families to claim an exemption to the law -- either for religious or hardship reasons. Those claiming exemptions will be asked to provide supporting information to back up their claim.

Those who still refuse to get insurance even after being deemed able to afford it, will see the penalties add up quickly.

[So far this doesn't seem to be an "employer mandate." It puts everything squarely on the back of the employee! But you'll see later how even this turned out to be not true.]

The monthly premium for the least expensive health care plan -- a so-called "bronze level" plan with no prescription drug coverage -- for a 37-year-old male living in Boston is $196.

Under the law, the penalty for not getting insurance could be up to half that cost -- about $98 a month, or $1,176 for the year.

[DID YOU GET THIS? YOU ARE PENALIZED FOR NOT GETTING SOMETHING YOU DON"T WANT! We used to call this "extortion."]

The actual penalty will be determined by the Department of Revenue that is charged with coming up with the fine structure.

A spokesman for the department said the goal is to keep the fines as simple and clear as possible so everyone knows the cost of not getting insurance.

[THE COST OF NOT GETTING INSURANCE???  It costs you money to NOT buy something? That's just perverse.]

Bliss said the department launched an outreach campaign this year to alert people to the new law, including mailing postcards and distributing flyers to taxpayers, setting up a web site and creating a video tutorial to walk taxpayers through the new form.

[But this is NOT government intervention or a government takeover. In fact, the government hardly has anything to do with any of this!]

Earlier this month, Leslie Kirwan, Gov. Deval Patrick's top budget chief and chairwoman of the Connector board, said estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts before the law took effect ranged from 370,000 to more than half a million.

[There's a reason for these numbers. Most of them want to be uninsured! They're single males under 50, who don't want (nor need) insurance!]

Bliss said officials will have a much better idea as people begin to file their taxes and are forced to say whether they are insured or not.

Forced? FORCED? Someone should throw up a 5th Amendment right claim here and gum up the works.

Back to Mitt Romney

When I took up Tom's challenge [which a Conservative would never had done], I assembled a team from business, academia and government and asked them first to find out who was uninsured, and why. What they found was surprising.

Here Mitt Romney departs from what he's said in his stump speeches. (What a surprise.) I have it on TiVo. In his speeches, he says that what they found was that most of the people who weren't insured were single males under the age of 50. (I'll try to put that up on You Tube if it's not there already. Someone please remind me if I don't get around to it after the South Carolina primary.)

The Bain way? DUH!

In his stump speech, Mitt Romney makes a big deal about how he gathered the data and "wallowed in it." All this to come up with the fact that it's single males under 50 who don't want health insurance? Duh! I could have told him that and I wouldn't have charged a million bucks to do it.


Now, I have been a single man under 50, and I lived quite well without health insurance. Isn't that my right? Since I'm a Conservative, I'm willing to take my chances and pay the price if something befalls me. Read the Wall Street Journal article about this, "The financial parable of 10 Virgins." THAT is Conservative.

In the parable, the 5 foolish virgins, those who did not plan ahead, they lost out. And rightly so. But in Liberalism, there are no consequences for bad decisions. The safety net will save them. Worse, you who are wise, who did plan ahead, you are the ones who will be forced to save the foolish.

In Mitt Romney's version of the Great Society, he's forcing everyone to live their lives HIS way. Now in Massachusetts, you HAVE to have health insurance. Well, you don't HAVE to, but the State is going to take your money if you don't, so you might as well take the money they were going to steal and give it to an insurance company instead.

Why does this remind me of Mafia "insurance?" (a.k.a. extortion?)

Solving a non-problem

The solution we came up with was to make PRIVATE HEALTH insurance much more affordable. Insurance reforms now permit policies with higher deductibles, higher copayments, coinsurance, provider networks and fewer mandated benefits like in vitro fertilization--and our insurers have committed to offer products nearly 50% less expensive. With private insurance finally affordable, I proposed that everyone must either purchase a product of their choice or demonstrate that they can pay for their own health care. It's a personal responsibility principle.

First of all, a true Conservative wouldn't think that the government can MAKE insurance more affordable. Insurance companies are private enterprises, driven by profit and loss and actuary tables.

Second of all, have any of you lived in New York or New Jersey? When I was there, both states had State controlled auto insurance. It was supposed to save us money. If you're really a Conservative, I don't have to tell you what happened.

And so, all Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance. [Whether they want it or not.] It's a goal Democrats and Republicans share [NO - I bet über Republican Rush Limbaugh doesn't want it], and it has been achieved by a bipartisan effort, through market reforms. [No it hasn't. It was achieved by a Governor meddling in the private lives of individuals, where government should never tread.]

How did the story end?

This next part is interesting.

My Democratic counterparts have added an annual $295 per-person fee charged to employers that do not contribute toward insurance premiums for any of their employees. The fee is unnecessary and probably counterproductive, and so I will take corrective action.

I wonder if Mitt Romney ever did stop this "fee" on employers. (He didn't. Read the American Spectator quote further below.)

And did you notice, Mitt Romney doesn't call it a "tax." Oh, no. It's only a fee. More Liberal Brian Lamb C-SPAN Double speak.

True Conservative?

This stinks. If you have the misfortune to live in Massachusetts (a.k.a. Taxachusetts), you will now be FORCED to pay someone $200 a MONTH for a service you did not want.

That stinks.

American Spectator weighs in

Oh, I almost forgot. Speaking of Michigan and economic recovery, this from The American Standard: Mitt's Mythical "Mass. Miracle"

One could take Romney seriously as an architect of economic redevelopment if he had displayed such skills as Massachusetts governor. Instead, his reign was a parade of economic stagnation and retreat. He even advocated an SUV-tax increase that would have hammered the very same domestic automotive industry he now says he champions.

Andrew Sum and Joseph McLaughlin of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Boston's Northeastern University placed Romney's rule beneath their statistical microscope. Let's hope what they discovered is not contagious.

"Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country," the researchers wrote in the Boston Globe.

On Mitt Romney's Hillary-care they said:

Romney's vaunted healthcare plan also disappoints. It forces individuals to purchase medical coverage and slaps the non-compliant with "tax penalties," as a state-government radio ad described them last November. These charges were $219 in 2007, equal to the personal exemption on Massachusetts' state tax. However, this year's formula could crank this figure up to $912. Businesses with at least 11 workers either must offer health insurance or face annual fines of $295-per-uninsured employee. This is consistent with Romney's statement at a January 5 GOP presidential debate: "I like mandates."

This program is run not by the free market, but by the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, a Romney-created government bureaucracy. For 2007, reports the Pacific Research Institute's Sally Pipes, RomneyCare is expected to have cost taxpayers some $619 million. That's $147 million and 31 percent above original projections.

Romney blames all this on tinkering Democratic state legislators.

Of course.

But go ahead. Vote for Mitt Romney for President. He's a true Conservative. He won't raise your taxes. Just fees and penalties.

He's really a wolf in sheep's clothing... in more ways than one. Secularly speaking, he's a Liberal. A Republican in Name Only. Like Mayor Bloomberg, he's trying to buy the election too. That's their way. By their fruits you will know them.