John Florez tops his usual level of sophistry by conflating personal values and morals with laws and regulations ("Health care is a moral dilemma," Sept. 21). To rely on "provid(ing) for the common defense and general welfare" as justification for federal intrusion into health care is to ignore the remainder of Article 1, section 8 of our Constitution.
Why would the Founders so carefully enumerate the powers granted the federal government if carte blanche was intended by the general welfare clause? The intent was that power be confined to well defined limits, among three branches, to ensure individual freedom in perpetuity. To quote glowing estimates of "economic impact, (which) create 4,100 new jobs, generate $203 million in state and county tax revenues, and save $814 million in hospital and community center uncompensated costs" by participating in the federal Affordable Care Act is an act of unbelievable naiveté; akin to believing that the Social Security maximum taxable wage base remains at $3,000, taxed at 1 percent, as it was in 1937.
Move over Peter Pan, here comes Santa Claus.
- Join the discussion: Is feminism misunderstood?
- Dan Liljenquist: The economic impact of...
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the...
- In our opinion: Federal contracting executive...
- My view: Utah's Constitution requires state...
- Perceptions of Obama and his policies at home...
- Capitalism and the common good: Fairness,...
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'?
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 114
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act... 79
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 54
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 51
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'? 46
- Letter: Policy disagreement 45
- Join the discussion: Is feminism... 37
- Capitalism and the common good:... 37