Categories
General

The Politics of Fear


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
Fear
photo credit: ag2r

I was listening to NPR this morning on the way to work and they were discussing the use of fear as a political tactic. The story was not what I would consider fair and balance as they asserted that only those who oppose health care reform are making use of the tactic, but one of the people being interviewed about why fear is such an effective tool in blocking legislation stated that fear has the effect of causing us to focus on the problem and divert our energies to addressing the cause of our fear. Of course the implication is that we stop being rational when we are motivated by fear.

As I thought about that it really irked me that they paint people as nothing more than animals – it’s all biology. The truth is that while we are prone to act less than rationally when we are consumed by fear we also have a heightened capacity to think clearly in many high-pressure situations. The key to thinking clearly is that we must not let the fear overwhelm us – let the adrenaline enhance our senses without letting go of our capacity to look at the evidence and make deliberate choices.

Categories
General National

Senator Ted Kennedy


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

After a constant barrage of news coverage and a few questions from my own acquaintances asking about my views on Ted Kennedy I thought it appropriate to pay this tribute to The Lion of the Senate.

Few men have likely done more to earn the title of “Senator” in the history of our nation. I say this with all sincerity despite the fact that my own political views are very different from those espoused by Ted Kennedy. Of course I did not know him personally, but based on all the stories that are told of his work in the Senate (and I have seen no cause to doubt any of the accounts) he was a rare example of a Senator who truly understood the nature of the work that elected officials in the senate are called upon to do. Comparing him to others who hold or aspire to hold seats in the Senate consistently results in the others looking like pretenders.

He was well known for his ability to hold fast to his principles while still knowing how to work with people who did not agree with those principles. Our own Senator Hatch is a prime example. Despite any personal weaknesses he was willing and able to stand firm against any opposition to a position he held on principle. I believe it is because of his unwavering devotion to principle that I discovered that when he disagreed with Senator Hatch (who is ideologically closer to me than Kennedy is) at least half the time it was Kennedy that I agreed with – it was when the two of them agreed that I was more likely to disagree.

Perhaps the highest tribute I could give would be to share my belief that, in a nation where more people identify themselves as conservative than as liberal it was the sustained effort of this one principled liberal in the senate for the last few decades that has ensured that out government has moved inexorably toward more liberal positions. I hope that I can one day see a conservative Senator who works as hard and holds to his principles as well as Ted Kennedy did for so long.

Categories
National

Constitutional Amendment 23


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Reacting to changes in society that the founders could not have anticipated, the 23rd Amendment provided representation in the electoral college to residents of Washington D.C. in presidential elections.

The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

To get an idea of how they might have made this oversight, we should look at what the founders envisioned for the seat of government. They would have anticipated an essentially agrarian society, a federal government with limited power, and therefore a city that would not draw any particularly large number of people. Many of those who would be drawn there would, in their expectations, have been temporary residents – members of Congress and federal employees – who would have the right to cast their votes in their states of residence.

Those who would live their permanently would likely have been farmers. The Constitution stipulates that the capital city not exceed 10 square miles which is 6400 acres. In 1865 freed slaves were initially promised 40 acres and a mule. I think it is safe to assume that, as this was a promise to ex-slaves, 40 acres was not a particularly large amount of land for one family. in other words, if the entire city were populated by farmers it would have a population of no more than 160 families – and representatives in Congress were to represent at least 30,000 people according to the Constitution. It is understandable that they would not think it necessary to give those few people a vote in the electoral college.

In many ways the 23rd Amendment was a half measure. Considering the expanded (and expanding) breadth of congressional authority (especially over Washington D.C.) it is very reasonable for the residents of Washington D.C. to desire a voting representative in the House. In order to achieve that we will need to pass another constitutional amendment.

Perhaps it is because they have been breathing the capital air too long (and because previous attempts to amend the Constitution have been rejected for overreaching by seeking full statehood) the residents of D.C. have spent their energy trying to circumvent the Constitution in their efforts to gain that otherwise well-deserved voting representation.

Categories
National

Big Government = Big Solutions


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
Bite Sized
photo credit: angel_shark

If you want to walk a thousand miles you do it one step at a time. If you want to eat an elephant you do it one bite at a time. The genius of big government is that Congress believes that since there are more than 500 of them they can swallow any elephant-sized problem in one bite time after time. They forget that putting two geniuses to work on one problem does not double their IQ nor guarantee that their solution will be twice as good. Not only do they forget that but they go further and assume that 100 Senators must produce legislation that is 100 times as good as what any one of them would propose, that 400 Representatives will produce a law 400 times as good as what one of them would come up with, and that the combined efforts of the House and the Senate will generate results better than what either chamber had passed in isolation.

Categories
National

Money Down the Drain


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

A little statement from an article titled “Cash For Clunkers”: Did It Work? got me wondering about the fate of three hundred million dollars.

When the $3 billion is exhausted, roughly 600,000 vehicles will have been swapped for more fuel-efficient models, based on statistics released from the government so far.

Do the math there and we find that if every single “Cash for Clinkers” deal returned the maximum $4500 to the person trading their car in there was still another $500 paid by the government for the deal. For 600,000 cars that makes $300,000,000 that went into someones pocket. (This does not count any other hidden costs of the system which may never be revealed in losses to other businesses or interest paid by people who already had a working vehicle that they owned outright.) I’d like to know how much of it went to dealers, how much went to paying for the destruction of the “clunkers” and how much was government setting up a website and processing paperwork.

One thing is for sure, we have a huge double standard operating when insurance companies are considered greedy when 2% of their gross income is profit while government is considered efficient when only 10% of their cost goes directly to program overhead.

Categories
culture National

The Economic Bill of Rights


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

During his final State of the Union address Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke about what he said could be considered a second bill of rights which may be referred to as The Economic Bill of Rights. In his address he said some important things that ring true such as:

We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people — whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth — is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

He described the original Bill of Rights as proving itself inadequate:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

This is very likely the first and most blatant blurring of the nature of rights ever promoted by a president. It has set the tone for our widespread misunderstanding of what rights are as a majority (or at least a vast minority) have come to view the following as rights equal to the rights described and protected in the Bill of Rights.

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

As someone else has said – these are all goods, but only one of them is a “right.” The only real right is the right to trade goods and skills in an atmosphere free from unfair competition. The rest of this list are only protected as far as that one right extends – that every person has the right to not have others undercut their efforts as they labor to acquire a useful and remunerative job, enough money to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation, a decent home, adequate medical care, protection from economic fears, and a good education.

Along with the first example I cited of things that ring true in his words is this:

People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

Both of those truisms however are incomplete. To the first I would add that no matter how low our standard of living we cannot afford to give up on true principles in exchange for popular sentiment. To the second I would alter it to say that people who are dependent on a central political authority for food and work are the true stuff of which dictatorships are made – being hungry and out of a job only make them ripe for recruitment.

It is interesting to note that as we have pursued policies to provide government funded education, economic security, and now health care in order to eliminate sickness and the economic distress of unemployment and underemployment the result is more widespread economic fears. Because of the ubiquitous belief in these so called rights many people wish to turn to government for security even where the government is the cause of the insecurity in our nation.

Categories
culture National

Constitutional Amendment 22


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Off and on in various circles the idea of mandating term limits for various elected officials is discussed with varying degrees of interest. I wonder if many of these discussions would  exist in the absence of the 22nd Amendment.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

The two sides of the debate can be generally summarized as “we need fresh ideas/faces in Congress, incumbents have too much advantage in elections, the office is more important than the person holding it” and “the people should be free to decide when to replace their elected officials without being tied to an artificial limit, these jobs benefit from experience, constant turnover favors special interests.”

In my view each side has some valid concerns. Conveniently the 22nd amendment seems to feel non-restrictive of the peoples ability to choose because only one president ever served more than two terms in 160 years under the Constitution before it was adopted and as far as I know only one president since has made any vocal portion of the voters wish to not be limited to two terms.

I have not yet decided for sure whether an artificial limit placed on a really good elected leader would be less burdensome than the common practice of perpetual incumbency – I suspect that it would. What i know is that I would like to see a lot more turnover among elected officials so that people are reminded that whoever they elect is replaceable – ideally that would happen without having to impose artificial limits as it has for our presidency for the majority of our nations history.

Categories
General

Constitutional Amendment 21


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Closely tied to the Eighteenth Amendment (because it repeals it) the Twenty-First Amendment serves to validate the value and proper use of the amendment process.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Because government justly derives its power from the consent of the governed, and because the will of the majority cannot ultimately be held in check by a rule (no matter how good the rule) unless the majority choose to abide by that rule (thus giving their consent), the 18th and 21st amendments demonstrate that the high barrier of creating a Constitutional Amendment can be used to remove rights and grand government new restrictive powers but that leaving that possibility open is reasonable because it can also be used to undo previous poor decisions when the people change their stance on an issue that should never have been addressed in the Constitution.

The amendment process is powerful and should be used carefully, but it has been established precisely so that we have the possibility of making fundamental changes (when so desired by a large majority of the people at any given time) in a way that is essentially peaceful. There is no way to grant a power while guaranteeing that it can never be abused, but the amendment process does of good job of making it difficult to abuse the power while leaving the people ultimately sovereign over their government (if they will insists upon holding their government in line with their Constitution).

Categories
National

An Effective Response on Health Care


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Those who wish to oppose the current health reform plan wending its way through Congress will not succeed simply by opposing the current bill, nor by offering an equally complex alternative bill. This is a major mistake being made by those in Congress who are not ready to back the overhaul currently being proposed (mostly Republicans). The only hope is to offer a simple bill that can gain wide support and propose to pass it as a first step to real health care (or health insurance) reform.

A simple bill allowing the purchase of health insurance from other states could be just exactly the medicine this health care reform fiasco needs to turn it from the current monstrosity to a real, effective push for sustainable reform. This could not be a full solution to our health care problems but it could be an easily understandable bill that could gain wide support and show clearly that those opposing the bill being thrust upon us now are serious about reform and offering clear alternatives. In fact, such a bill plays directly to the president’s latest soundbite that the important thing to satisfy the President is that there be “choice and competition in the health insurance market.” (See remarks by Robert Gibbs among others.)

Perhaps passing such a bill would be just the thing to get the White House and Congressional leaders to come back to the bargaining table and work with the rest of Congress on this issue to get bipartisan reform (and preferably to approach reform as a series of small, easily understood bills passed in succession) instead of trying to craft their preferred bill (hiding who knows what in a massive reform bill that few people have read and nobody truly understands) and then trying to convince some Republicans to support it so that they can call it bipartisan.

I wrote to my congressional representatives to say as much. I told them:

Republicans in the House and the Senate should be able to put together such a bill (likely only one or two pages) and a coalition of support and be ready to present it in both houses of Congress as soon as the August recess is over. I’d like to see all my representatives sponsoring or cosponsoring such a bill within the first week after the Congressional session resumes.

For anyone who would like to send a similar message to their representatives (anywhere in the nation) they can do so by going to the Make Health Insurance More Affordable campaign from Downsize D.C.

Categories
National

Nobody Wants the Status Quo


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
Health Care Reform Plan
photo credit: planspark

Proponents of the current health care proposals charge that those who oppose these proposals only want the status quo. No honest Democrats have stepped forward to admit the truth that opponents of these measures have been offering alternatives and decrying the status quo. The leader among dishonest Democrats today is none other than President Obama (whom I have tried to refrain from specifically criticizing) who not only will not admit the truth about opponents of his preferred reform package but who goes further by holding “town hall meetings” where no opportunity for discussion is even considered (as do many of his followers) – these are not chances to discuss and enlarge public understanding of the issue, they are opportunities to indoctrinate the masses one town hall at a time.

Nothing I have said excuses the behavior of some protesters at many town hall meetings who are equally disinterested in any actual discussion, but any real leader would have to rise above such rabble and be willing to engage and explain rather than pontificate and cajole.

Among those speaking against the current reform proposals there is a common belief that has never been addressed by backers of the proposals – that the current prescription will actually be worse than the status quo (which they agree is not an acceptable situation). Not only are they speaking against the dangerous potential of the current direction but here are a few of the ideas that are not being offered to considered by our current leaders.