Second term. Opportunity presents itself. Nothing to lose. It's not unreasonable to assume that certain [all] members of the administration would be happy to disarm all the citizens of this country. It's unlikely that the Attorney General's outlook on firearms is any different than when he made this video: http://www.mrctv.org/videos/1995-holder-wanted-campaign-really-brainwash-people-guns 

I've recently experienced the new requests for information.  We will now get to play Soviet citizen, getting our kicks by lying to our government keepers. Additional taxes, additional information, additional intrusion will lead to lawlessness. And I dislike the phrase “Nanny State”. It provides a gloss of humor where there is none. This is the beginning. Half of the Country has asked for more government, whether or not they know it, and all of us are going to be forced to eat the bitter fruit.

As the financial crisis exposed our debt-based, heavily rotted economy, re-electing obama has exposed the nature of our society. Expecting the citizenry to turn to limited government  and give a fig for personal liberty is waiting for the return of John Frum. Granted, it's gray and cold here in NY but still, I'm not given to optimism anymore when I see, "Obamacare, it's still vunerable!" Call me when something happens.

When I read an article such as Ken Burns' October 18th opinion piece in the Union Leader: Ken Burns: Why I am voting for Barack Obama: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20121019/OPINION02/710199989 I think, am I crazy? Really, does he actually believe all this so wholeheartedly? So simply. And if he does; a very talented individual and a student of history, what does this imply re what many other people believe? And how do you reconcile such differing views?  

FDR was certainly an optimist to think that the Federal Government was going to provide all the following without saddling future generations with debt or, that the Country would retain any of the qualities of individual liberty, industry and character that had made it great. Or that the 'rights" would have stopped with these.

 “The Economic Bill of Rights", January 11, 1944:  

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

http://www.fdrheritage.org/bill_of_rights.htm

 I must say that I have a catch in my throat after listening to Father Maletta's homily. He has spelled out quite plainly that which must be said, namely that what we are witnessing in the Obama administration's action is the application of non-reformist reform which seeks to hasten both the demise of non-government supervised healthcare and social services and diminish a competing provider of moral guidance. The regulatory State requires you to "go along" and if The Catholic Church does not conform, the State will seek to put it out of business or neuter it by compromise and thus turn it into a State approved worship outlet. In the progressive religion, the State is the deity. At the beginning of his term, when the Country was in dire straits, President Obama invested his and the Congress' time, at all costs, in planting the seed of a single payer healthcare system knowing that that is the cornerstone of a new relationship in which the citizen becomes a dependent client of the State. This is just the beginning. This Country has a big choice to make.

What is the burden of free loaders as a percentage of total health care costs? The future trajectory of such a precedent; the affirmation of the individual mandate, must be placed in the balance pan. We no doubt indulge numerous Government inefficiencies already. How tight are the tolerances to be on individual behavior to be?  Personal liberty is as least as important as an inefficiency. If not, we are in big trouble.

I was just at the Volokh Conspiracy web site and I bring to your attention a recent paper by Professor Illya Somin, George Mason University School of Law: A Mandate for Mandates: Is the Individual Health Insurance Mandate Case a Slippery Slope? It can be downloaded at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1960641##

Whenever this sort of story comes up I think, and? Assuming that you believe the worst to be true, what would you suggest be done? From what I've read our best efforts to reduce CO2 production here in the U.S. [and thus agreeing with the climate models] would reduce temperatures in the range of several hundredths of a degree over 50 years. And further, when I ask if individuals if would be willing to give up their two cars and multiple air conditioners, there follows silence. Much of this kind of handwringing is nothing more than the posturing of an affluent Westerner who does their part by carrying a filthy reusable bag when they go to the liquor store.

I don't see it sweeping the nation, but there are enough baby boomers with tenuous finances such that we might see a minor subset of the population living with friends or relations in an effort to stretch finances. Such experiments would be fraught with difficulties both legal and social but out of necessity, I do think that it will happen. The Sunshine Boys return to college. Sounds good, eh?

If there was ever a case to made for the robust exposure and review of a candidate's past behavior and positions it was made via the election of the unexamined Comrade Obama.

Perhaps....if you own more than one car and both exceed some fixed average mileage rating and you are about to replace one, then you must replace it with a car whose mileage is equal to or less than some fixed mileage rating. If the mandate passes muster via the SCOTUS, there will no longer be any need for: are you kidding? Are you kidding? The Republic of which Franklin spoke will be no more and we will be subjects, for there will always be a way to justify whatever the government wishes to enact. Always.

  A refreshing piece of video by Mr. Cain and I love his smile. Somewhat pathetic that a guy smoking a cigarette is such a symbol of revolt but there you are; the effect of government and government sponsored third-hand smoke research having infantilized society. I recently saw a calendar sporting that iconic photograph of Audrey Hepburn from Breakfast at Tiffany’s and the cigarette/holder had been erased leaving her awkward looking hand holding nothing. Shabby lies.

And what will be the solution? A single payer system? The legislation was intended to aid the destruction of the, admittedly deformed, market. 

 Some enthusiasm for 1) private enterprise rather than simply 'business' and 2) the health of small business would be in order. Obama's policies seek to yoke the power of big businesses like GE to the State and seek to shrivel the independence of small business.

 Ditto, thanks very much for the link. The President can't take all the credit for our present state of affairs, but he's entitled to feel the pride of having pursued policies that have ham strung the economy in so many ways.

I think that the unregulated, self-adjusting market is a myth. Markets, as free as possible, facilitate the best allocation of resources and are an outlet for the natural creativity of men and women. The top down directed economy is by nature stupid because it cannot know enough. And if you tamp down that creativity it will sour and manifest itself as law breaking or moral purulence. But there is a place for regulation. It must be, however, as simple and transparent as possible. I believe the increasing complexity of regulatory practice reflects corruption as much as any increase in market complexity. Complexity facilitates obfuscation and special accommodations. Similarly, the tax code. The health of the Nation’s economy typically springs from small business. Big businesses I view with a jaundiced eye. A company the size of GE is essentially a quasi-State with outsized influence. And the Obama Administration, in the Progressive manner, is forging relationships with big business to the detriment of smaller businesses. Big business is not = free enterprise. If the influence becomes too great the whole system is made rotten. Which is what, I believe, has happened.