Something Max Baucus said today caught my attention when he was speaking to reporters.
Listen to this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MAX BAUCUS, D-MONT.: We have a moral obligation as Americans to pass health care reform this year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
A moral obligation to do this.
A moral obligation to do health care reform.
I have great respect for the senator. One of the few politicians I know, at least trying to come up with a way to pay for this.
So a question for him: Is it immoral then, Senator, to oppose this health care reform? Is it immoral to fear this reform doesn't reform? Or this health care for all doesn't cover all? Is it immoral to worry about saddling future generations with a bureaucracy whose costs we cannot fathom? And whose web of regulations we cannot see?
Is it immoral to consider costs for all Americans, very concerned about picking up the tab for those who might not even be Americans? Is it immoral to fear including health care for more might compromise quality health care for all?
Is it immoral to worry about rationed care? Or cheapened care?
And is it immoral to point out the immorality of a government assuming all obligations?
You say the latter won't happen. Is it immoral for me to ask you to prove it?
You're right, Senator, we do have a moral obligation to look after each other. But we also have a moral obligation not to kid each other.
You are a bigger and better man than the government whose morals you value.
Please do not find me immoral then if I have trouble equating that government with morals or anything of value.
I too want to leave things better for those who follow me. With something reasoned and rational. Not rushed and irrational.
Perhaps you find me immoral for raising such objections.
Senator, I'd be immoral if I didn't.
— Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org