Why are liberals in favor of a federal mandate that forces people to hand over their money to private insurance corporations to buy their products?<\/p>\n
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules (on Thursday, we’re told), liberal support for the individual mandate is a telling commentary on where the Democratic Party is today.<\/p>\n
The party of civil rights and the little guy? Think again. The party of Barack Obama – who once opposed the mandate – and Nancy Pelosi is about power and nothing more.<\/p>\n
“If things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t,” Candidate Obama told Ellen Degeneres in 2008. But it does solve the problem of giving more power to the state – and, by extension, the Party of Government.<\/p>\n
Today’s Democrats – like health care socialist John Dingell long before them – have figured out the way to the permanent majority is through health care. The ends justify the means.<\/p>\n
Forcing an individual mandate? No civil libertarians here. Force\u00a0publicly-funded abortions<\/a>? Bart Stupak looks the other way. Trample the First Amendment to force Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives? No problem. More power for Washington justifies all – even throwing “the little guy” under the bus.<\/p>\n “In Massachusetts, the only state with a so-called individual mandate, the threat of a tax penalty has sparked little public outcry since the state’s landmark health care law was signed in 2006,” writes AP, the Obama News Service.<\/p>\n Not true.<\/p>\n