[youtube NsHFVKH6xd8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsHFVKH6xd8 youtube]

"why is it so evil for someone to be rich in this country?"

On any given day, I'd much rather deal with cold numbers, the logic of cause and effect, sound economic principles, and make the debate over constructive working solutions, but the reality is that even if we attribute the vilest rhetoric to the extreme fringes of the left, the vilification of the rich (bankers, brokers, execs, insurance co's, "Big Oil", etc.) has easily made its way into the mainstream media, and even middle America doesn't spare a jab at complaining about lofty salaries and excessive bonuses, whether they are contractual or not. It's as though even the most patriotic Americans will pledge allegiance, swear an oath to defend the constitution, and in the next breath murmur and complain and tolerate selective abandonment of contract law.

So, am I wrong, in considering the pile of legislation being jammed down our throats, that there's something far more sinister at foot? So, why is our society ready to single out the rich? Why has the language changed from mildly derisive to poignantly hateful?

I'm left only to conclude that for the Agents of Chaos it's easier to destroy than to build, because it's easier to inject envy than inspire action, because if they can convince the electorate that one person having more means you have less, they can raise their strawman villain and distract us from the emptiness of their agenda.

Along that line, rather than Congress and POTUS rushing head strong into over-exaggerating another contrived crisis and jamming another half baked solution down our throats, if they honored their Constitutional Oaths and cared for this country and her people, they would would show themselves as respectable leaders by calling upon the various states and using the bully pulpit function to lead the charge for state level reform of healthcare. Texas has different needs than California than Missouri than Ohio, and the Constitution in that way seems to be smarter than all the elite in Washington.

But I don't even hear this as an option. The strongest opponents of healthcare reform ("Medicare/Medicaid Redux") aren't even putting it on the table. There's hardly a debate that it's beyond the "few and enumerated" powers granted to the Federal Government and belong in the capitol houses of the 50 states. And where are the governors and state legislatures denouncing this intrusion? Why aren't at least some of the congress speaking out in defense of their districts to patriate this obsene abuse of power back to the states? Am I crazy?

What great insight in your comments. I shall return and comment myself when I possess an equivalent insight! Keep writing in!

Although Obamacare sounds great on paper I believe it will fail because combining government and private industry constantly falls short of expectations. Private companies exist to create wealth, and government was created to serve the states and, in the words of James Madison, “to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” Furthermore, companies manage expenses and try to ensure every dollar has a positive return, whereas the government has a tendency to spend liberally and measures returns in campaign donations and encouraging polling data. Additionally, they serve different entities, corporations serve customers and investors, while government serves special interest groups, voters, politicians etc. To understand troubles that public/private partnerships present, one must recognize the contemporary examples of Amtrak and the United States Postal Service. Congress created Amtrak in 1970 as a for-profit corporation. However, they have lost money every year since. Despite receiving $30 billion in federal subsidies it has never made a profit in a 39 year life span. The Postal service has achieved similar results over its existence. The USPS is run by a board of eleven, with the president appointing nine of them. This allows politics to be integrated in the company’s efforts and failure of tough business decisions to be made. The USPS lost $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2008 and expects to lose another $3 billion to $6 billion in 2009. These losses are being paid back from the population the companies serve, the taxpayers. I am a firm believer if Obamacare includes a public option another public/private partnership with insurance companies will result in a massive deficit increase and leave the taxpayers paying for another failed government venture.

Ideally, this should be done in such a way in which the States take the power from the Feds, NOT where the Feds simply voluntarily give up or delegate such power.

The reason for the exact method by which this is done being important is precedent.
If the Feds simply give up such power it establishes a precedent in which they could simply retake it later. Whereas if the States take it from the feds, establishes a precedent of where that power can be kept at the local level where it belongs, and even retaken back again, if the feds do later manage to again wrongfully take that power.

Precedent is important and so by whom and how this is done is important.