WE NEED LEADERSHIP, NOT DICTATORSHIP

THE RIGHT SIDE

BY BUDD SCHROEDER

FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WE NEED LEADERSHIP, NOT DICTATORSHIP

            This is an opinion column and this is strictly my opinion.  I recognize that my intellectual capabilities are modest, but my opinions can be somewhat controversial.  I have learned to live with that.  I hope my readers can cut me a little slack on this controversy if they disagree.

            Today’s column will deal with the premise on a subject we have discussed before about the people we elect to office.  We vote for people with the idea they will represent us only to find that there are legislators and executives who go beyond that and believe they are in office to rule us.  How may laws have been enacted that cost us more than we can really afford to pay, just because a majority of legislators have decided that they can spend our money on programs THEY decided were the best for us?

            How many freedoms have been taken away from us because these legislators and/or executives decided we were not smart enough to figure out things for ourselves?  The seat belt law is a good example of this.  No intelligent person disagrees that buckling up while driving is a smart thing to do, but does it really need a law?  Well, the use of seat belts does save lives, but should responsibility for saving a person’s life rest with the government or should it be a personal responsibility?  The debate can continue, but the requirement is the law and should be obeyed.

            However, the power of the politician keeps growing and the freedoms of the people keep diminishing.  The government has nothing that it doesn’t take from the people which is obvious with the tax laws.  We are supposed to rely on the politicians to protect our freedoms, not to modify or deny them.  Our past columns on gun control have given examples of the abuse of political power with some of the draconian laws to deny or at best, modify Second Amendment Constitutional rights.

            Now, President Obama has gone father and with a stroke of his pen decided that the Catholic Church has to provide contraceptive products although it is against their doctrine. Then, because he was getting flak and possibly the loss of a voting base, he announced that he was willing to make a compromise.

            Now, the church organization doesn’t have to provide the benefit, but the insurance company must provide the benefit for free.  Hello? Who pays the premium to the insurance company?  Will the insurance company absorb the cost by lowering the compensation to their management?  Hardly!  They will just raise the cost of the insurance to the Catholic institutions that buy it.  Hardly a compromise!

 I am a believer in birth control as something responsible for people who want to have only as many children as they can afford.  I disagree with irresponsible people who keep having babies and expect them to be supported by checks from Social Services (the taxpayers).   There are some who will argue that free birth control will actually reduce abortions. 

            I am against abortion except if it is absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother. I’m a bit ambivalent regarding exceptions for rape and incest.  I really don’t like to get involved in that discussion.  Then again, I have met some people who made me think birth control and abortion should be retroactive.  But that is just another opinion.

            My big argument against Obama’s directive is that he is forcing his will (and opinion) on organizations that have a moral objection and church doctrine against what he has dictated.  I believe that is absolutely wrong, especially in a health insurance policy.

            Pregnancy is not a disease and health insurance policies should be dedicated to curing and preventing disease.  The cost of preventing pregnancy should be the sole responsibility of those who can cause or be pregnant.  This is an issue that smacks of true intrusion on the responsibility of individuals. 

            Like Obamacare that was jammed down the throats of Americans, this provision should be eliminated from making the church subservient to government.  In fact, one could make the argument that it is a violation of the First Amendment.  Remember this in November.