Liberals are experts at framing debates in a way that disguises bad policies.

A classic example is forcing employers to pay for insurance for abortions, sterilizations and contraception, even when that mandate violates employers’ religious beliefs. Obama frames the debate as women’s rights and health. But the real issue is constitutional.

The government is interfering with the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. For liberals, “separation of church and state,” a term not found in the Constitution, treats religion like an infection that must be quarantined to protect the public, for example, no public displays with religious content, nor reverent activity like praying.

But the constitutional safeguard is just the opposite. “Separation” protects citizens from tyrannical interference by government, one of those pesky “negative liberties” that bother Obama so much.

The same tactic is evident in the debate on Medicare. In spite of escalating costs, liberals insist costs are affordable, per the act’s title. But Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee chairman, frames the issue with a more accurate term, “unsustainable.” Lacking a budget, liberals cannot prove that the current spending is sustainable.

The Obama plan cannot be sustained for many reasons including:

1. Programs like Medicare have always cost much more than original estimates. The latest CBO estimate is that Obamacare’s 10-year cost is $1.76 trillion, a cost growth of 100 percent in just two years.

2. Increasing future deficits due to lower revenues and higher outlays because the ratio of active workers to retirees will be drastically reduced by the approaching flood of baby-boomer retirees.

So the issue is not about Ryan’s changes to Medicare. It is whether there will even be a Medicare program 10-plus years from now. If we continue to follow Obama’s policies, these unsustainable expenditures will inevitably destroy Medicare.

Wes May

Pinehurst