Read her lips: no new bureaucracy!

Hillary did a Sunday morning talk show blitz, appearing on all five that are nationally broadcast to defend her socialist health care agenda. I didn't watch any of them, as is my normal practice, so I can only wonder how she "giggled." Is it really a laughing matter to her? I guess it's all fun and games to her that she wants to take money forcibly from those who produce things of economic value, and give it to those who don't produce as much (if at all).

Remember that the supposed 47 million Americans aren't as numerous as is claimed. Many Americans voluntarily choose not to have it, because while they can afford it, they'd rather pay out of pocket. Many of these "uninsured" are illegal immigrants (who should be deported into the Pacific, along with others who leech off taxpayers, before the rest of us are coerced into giving them so much as a goddamn penny). Under Hillary's plan, those of us who work will have to pay for every Pablo and Maria who come here for our welfare state, and every Akisha on welfare with her five out-of-wedlock children. But of course, Hillary will raise taxes only on the richest Americans, right? Never mind that, as I said below, everyone else's jobs depend on the saving and consumption of "the rich." When "the rich" are taxed more, and assuming the unlikelihood of them continuing to produce as much economic output, they'll have less to spend and save. As Bastiat taught us, in the end the money merely shifts. Instead of hiring yard workers, going out to dinner, and buying fancy clothes, cars and jewelry, "the rich" will be paying taxes for everyone else. So some landscapers, waiters, Mercedes-Benz car dealers, jewelers in the Diamond District on 47th Street, et al, will be out of jobs when "the rich" cut back -- but at least they'll have health care, right?

Notice how Newt Gingrich, often hailed as a real conservative, and the architect of the bullshit called the "Contract With America" (the lies the GOP told in 1994 to regain control of Congress), actually said, "Some things that she proposes are interesting and useful." There's nothing "interesting" or "useful" about her plan. That's the problem with Republicans: for all their talk, they also want a bloated government, just with different programs than Democrats want. What happens is that both sides compromise, leading to further expanded government.

I didn't see the interview, so I don't know if she repeated her claim that there would be no new bureaucracy necessary for her plan. Who really believes that a plan costing $110 billion a year (meaning we can count on easily double that estimate) will require no new bureaucracy? Oh no, she says, no new bureaucracy, even though government will need a way to force you into the plan unless you want to work an underground job. Or is she technically speaking the truth, in the same way that Bill didn't create new taxes (or did he?). He merely increased them. So Hillary won't create a new bureaucracy -- she'll just expand the existing Department of Health and Human Services.

But forget the argument about logistics and economic efficiency. Her plan is based on the immoral notion of a "moral imperative" to coerce people into giving up their property for others. That's all there is to say. Only a state-worshipper can fail to understand.