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.
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the family put...
- Jay Evensen: Should Utah raise its gas tax?...
- Letter: Patriots or serfs?
- Lois M. Collins: Sometimes, only the police...
- In our opinion: Moving forward following...
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws of war
- Letter: Wood burning an easy target
- Charles Krauthammer: Democrats use... 78
- Michael Gerson: The arrogance of... 51
- In our opinion: Police training should... 44
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 40
- In our opinion: Wood burning ban... 37
- Robert Bennett: More political... 36
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 32
- Paul Mero: Reasonable solution to... 30