Category: National

Under-Informed Health Care Debate

Post author By David
Post date October 1, 2009
18 Comments on Under-Informed Health Care Debate

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

Considering how widely discussed the health care issue is and how long running that discussion has been it is easy for people to think they have all the available and relevant information on the subject. The fact is that despite the appearance of coverage you can only scratch the surface of available information unless you search beyond mainstream news sources. Here’s a letter in the Salt Lake Tribune yesterday as a case in point:

To President Barack Obama and Congress, I say: Negotiate the various health care reform bills — soon. Get the Blue Dog Democrats on board, and pass a bill — soon, before your public becomes so weary of partisan infighting that we oppose anything you pass.

The Republicans, for all their bluster, have not offered any alternative, except our Sen. Bob Bennett with Oregon Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden, and that bill has received only token Republican support. . .

The author is right that the Health Americans Act by Wyden and Bennett has received only token Republican support – largely because it is only fleetingly different from the various Democrat only bills in circulation. On the other hand, he is far from right that Republicans have offered no alternatives – that’s just the line that Congressional leaders and the administration have been feeding to the media. Just browse the sites of Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Jim DeMint to get an idea of some of the Republican counter-proposals that have been offered. Then consider that for every idea presented by those two members of Congress there must be dozens of ideas that were offered in negotiations before the Republicans left the tables that never received even token consideration by leaders of the various committees.

On the very day the letter was being published Rep. John Shadegg (AZ-03) was talking about one of those non-existent Republican plans that was apparently introduced back in July and cosponsored by Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-01) among others. (h/t Right Truth) As always in the health care debate, each bill should be measured against the findings of David Goldhill to see if it actually addresses the real problems in the health care system. (Shadegg’s bill appears to do better than the bills actually acknowledged by the media from what I’ve seen.)

Although I maintain that being truly informed requires that we look at more information sources than the mainstream media that also means that we have to be discerning about the accuracy of each information source. I think it’s safe to doubt the accuracy of anyone (especially an MD) that believes that our current health care system suffers from a “lack of government regulation.” I’m amazed that someone could seriously argue that the current proposals under consideration represent free market solutions and that solutions based on free market principles would be a good thing while also arguing that the free market is the cause of our health care woes.

Tags Bob Bennett, connections, discourse, health care, Jim DeMint, media, Rob Bishop, Ron Paul, Salt Lake Tribune

National State

We Must Be Clear About This

Post author By David
Post date September 25, 2009
7 Comments on We Must Be Clear About This

photo credit: roberthuffstutter

Bob Henline is promoting Electoral Equality today at Non-Partisan. The sentiment is admirable, but there are a couple of things that need to be cleared up before anyone jumps on the bandwagon here. Let’s look at his description of what he is promoting:

For those of you unfamiliar with it, National Popular Vote is an organization that is trying to bring some semblance of equality to American presidential elections. NPV is doing this through legislation at the state level, legislation that would create an interstate compact to award each of the member states’ electoral votes to the candidate that receives the nationwide popular vote majority . . . It’s a long road, but shorter than the other alternative, an amendment to the Constitution.

Thankfully Bob is upfront about the fact that this really should be pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. On the other hand, this movement is technically legal unlike other Constitution skirting movements. So there’s the first problem – they are not pursuing an amendment which would be the proper course.

The second problem is much more problematic and it holds true even if this were pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. The goal of removing the Electoral College or simply rendering it obsolete moves us further along the path that the 17th Amendment set us firmly on, namely the path of fundamentally altering our structure of government from being a republic to being a democracy. I admit that some people would openly pursue that change, but I highly doubt that most people even recognize the difference and thus they are unqualified to decide which form is more advantageous to the nation.

Tags amendments, Constitution, Elevated, federalism

National State

What is the Job of a Representative?

Post author By David
Post date September 22, 2009
3 Comments on What is the Job of a Representative?

One of my favorite questions to ask candidates in the past has been “in your own words, what is the job description for the office you are seeking?” That continues to be one of my candidate questions because observing the representatives I have had (as well as members of Congress in general) convinces me that most of them do not understand what their job is. I have described many of them as representing the party or the government to their constituents rather than the other way around.

How would I answer that question? First let me say that my answer is generalized to apply to either Representatives or Senators. For one thing I would say that once elected they will be required to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. As keeping their oath is a mark of the integrity that is central to any position of trust, I would say that keeping their oath of office should be first and foremost in any description of the job of their office. I would also say that the exact opposite of what so many seem to do (representing party and government to constituents) is another primary task of the office that they are seeking. In other words they should be representing the interests of their constituents (that’s different than representing the interests of their campaign donors) to the legislative body they are elected to be a part of. I do admit however that representing the government and the wider perspective on the issues of the day to their constituents does have a place in their role. One of the advantages of a representative form of government is that those chosen to represent each group of people have the opportunity to help the people they represent to gain a greater understanding of issues than their local perspective would otherwise afford them.

A more complete description of what a legislator should do would take much more than one post. I hope to expound upon what a legislator is and should be in a series of posts in order to demonstrate how our current system has gone astray from the system that was designed and bequeathed to us by the founders of our nation.

Tags candidate questions, change congress, Oath of Office, thoughts

Local National State

Questions for Those Who Would Represent Me

Post author By David
Post date September 18, 2009
1 Comment on Questions for Those Who Would Represent Me

I like to ask questions to all candidates who would like to represent me in any capacity in order to determine where they stand politically both on specific issues and in their political philosophy in general. I have decided to maintain a list of the basic questions that I will ask the candidates who wish to represent me at the federal level. I plan to ask variations on some of these questions to those who would represent me at other levels of government (city, county, state) and hope that others will feel free to use these questions either directly or as inspiration to ask the candidates who wish to represent them.

I am open to suggestions of what questions need to be asked for candidates at the federal level. One of the things that I will do with each of the questions I post will be to answer the question myself so that my positions on these issues are not hidden and those who are or would be candidates can know where I stand on the issues I will ask them about.

I will also post the answers that I receive from candidates on every election. My intention is that this will be a consistent feature for every election cycle.

Tags candidate questions

National State

How and Why to Expand the House

Post author By David
Post date September 17, 2009
21 Comments on How and Why to Expand the House

I find it appropriate that on Constitution Day (“happy” 222nd) there is a story about a lawsuit seeking to expand the House in the name of fairness for voters across the nation. Of course, I am in favor of expanding the House but let’s look at this lawsuit summed up in two paragraphs:

The most populous district in America right now, according to the latest Census data, is Nevada’s 3rd District, where 960,000 people are represented in the House by just one member. All of Montana’s 958,000 people likewise have just one vote in the House. By contrast, 523,000 in Wyoming get the same voting power, as do the 527,000 in one of Rhode Island’s two districts and the 531,000 in the other.

That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761.

Tags change congress, Delaware, Elevated, fourth seat, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

culture National

Carter’s Race Card

When I heard the news this morning that Jimmy Carter thinks Obama critics are racist, my initial reaction was to reject the idea. Then I decided that it was only fair to consider the idea before choosing to accept or reject it. First, here is what he said:

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.

I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way. I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude towards minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans – and that racism inclination still exists.

Upon a brief examination I realized that my impulse to reject that idea was based on the fact that the opposition that I have expressed to various actions by the Obama Administration is based on ideological perspective, not race. The weakness of that rejection is the same as the weakness of Carters assertion – it is a hasty generalization because I am no more qualified to know the motivations of other people than Jimmy Carter is (that would be “hardly qualified whatsoever”) and therefore other people can be motivated by racism even when I am not. In fact there is no doubt in my mind that some people are in opposition precisely because of their racist feelings – although I believe the worst offenders will openly admit that fact.

The real question then is not whether racism fuels opposition (anyone who has an anti-black attitude will be in opposition to Obama) but whether racism represents “an overwhelming portion” of the opposition. Here is where I really doubt Mr. Carter – although I admit that where he lives (whether that is “in the South” or “in side his head”) racism being an overwhelming portion is more likely than in other places.

The other half of my reflection was why I was so unhappy with the mere suggestion of racism. Carter would certainly argue that it is because I am a closet racist (doubtless he thinks every white person is). The truth is that I dislike Carters use of racism as a red herring. His comments encourage us to drop the issues that divide us and concentrate on the motivations behind our differences. Of course our motivations can be an important factor in how we deal with differences, but claims of racism almost always cloud the issue in question when they are made rather than clarifying the issue.

Confusion is definitely not in short supply which is why I dislike the charge so much. Thanks Mr. Ex-President – you’ve just done another (dis)service for the country.

Tags current events, discourse, issues, Jimmy Carter, media

culture National

Re-Founding America

photo credit: Why Tuesday?

I don’t pay attention to talk radio because even though I am very conservative I find that the conservative perspective shared on talk radio is generally laced with too much thoughtless and inflammatory perspective that is designed to stir reactions rather than provide information. Despite that general disinterest I was intrigued when I heard about Glenn Beck calling for a re-founding of America. The idea fit so well with what I have been focused on that I thought I would share my perspective on the idea here.

On January 1, 2008 I wrote that what America needs is a new birth of freedom. Before I wrote that, and even more since then, I have been looking for exactly that within our nation. The final answer is as difficult as it is uncomplicated – we need people to be converted to the idea of America – no more is it enough to be born here – we must individually be converted to the idea of liberty that our founders fought and died for. During the last couple of years I have found two groups that give me hope for a way forward in giving this nation that new birth of freedom.

Tags connections, Downsize DC, Elevated, liberty, patriotism

General National

Future Amendment – Restore Federalism

Post author By David
Post date September 15, 2009
2 Comments on Future Amendment – Restore Federalism

The last of the four amendments I would like to see is actually an idea that is not ready for implementation. I would love to see the 17th amendment repealed – just like I would like to see the 16th repealed except that I’m not sure how I would deal with the issues that the amendment was designed to address.

I have previously discussed the problems caused by this amendment which is why I would like to see it repealed and true federalism restored. The two major issues that would have to be addressed if it were repealed are corruption in state legislatures that can arise based on their power to chose senators, and deadlocks within legislatures when attempting to make their choice. As far as deadlock goes, I think that states can learn to deal with deadlocks or suffer the consequences of being underrepresented in the Senate. Where corruption is concerned my best guess is that reducing the power of the Federal government and placing more power back in the hands of states might help to alleviate that problem so that picking senators is not important enough to generate corruption.

Tags amendments, Constitution, federalism, future

National

Takeaways From the Health Care Speech

Post author By David
Post date September 10, 2009
22 Comments on Takeaways From the Health Care Speech

photo credit: sgroi

Let’s pretend that we are starting from scratch on the health care overhaul push – that none of the existing proposals will be used as the template for a reform bill. In other words, let’s assume that the plan outlined in President Obama’s speech is the primary blueprint for the reform bill that Congress will have to consider. As I predicted he tried to strike a balance between being bold and rocking the boat too much calling both better and worse plans than his “a radical shift” that would be too much for something as economically large as the health care industry.

Now that I have read the entire speech I have four non-starters, one gem, two contradictions, and five questions after his speech that deserve public reaction. I’ll start with the non-starters because they are not non-starters put together, each one must be addressed before anything he proposes can be considered in any degree.

Tags current events, Elevated, health care, legislation, Obama, questions, reactions

National

Future Amendment – Fiscal Discipline

Post author By David
Post date September 9, 2009
2 Comments on Future Amendment – Fiscal Discipline

I believe I have been very clear about what I think of the 16th Amendment. For anyone who wasn’t sure – I think it should go the way of the 18th Amendment and be repealed. Not long ago I found a group that feels the same way and is pushing for the 28th amendment to do just that. Their website does not give their proposed amendment a prominent a place as it deserves so I will copy their proposal here.

Section 1. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. Congress may collect no revenue by any means other than a flat individual income tax not to exceed 15% of an individual’s earnings, a flat corporate tax not to exceed 10% of net revenues, and actual user fees for services. All citizens and businesses shall be taxed at the same rate, and no exceptions, exemptions or credits will be allowed.

Section 3.

A. Any budget passed by the Congress must be funded by actual revenues collected through taxes as described in Section 2. Except in time of War as defined below, no deficit spending, borrowing on future funds, borrowing from other entities or other mechanism to meet budget requirements will be allowed.

B. For purposes of this section, “War” shall be defined as hostilities declared by the President of the United States in his Constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief, and duly authorized by the Congress under the terms of the “War Powers Act” of 1973. Any funds borrowed shall be used exclusively for executing that War and shall be re-paid entirely no later than 15 years from the end of the War.

Section 4. All agencies, programs, entitlements and other devices that will be excised by budgetary requirements will be returned to the responsibility of the individual States. No federal regulations or legislation will dictate how the States fund or execute such devices.

Section 5. The Congress may not make State eligibility for redistribution of revenue contingent on compliance with regulations or legislation that has the effect of a nationally uniform standard.

Section 6. Those areas of federal responsibility prescribed by the original Constitution will have budgetary priority. No bill will be passed that funds any other concern without first meeting the budgetary requirements of these areas. No funding will be included in the budget for a concern that is the responsibility of and reserved to the States.

Section 7. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes”

This proposed amendment solves a number of problems that currently plague our approach to government spending. The first two sections remove the sixteenth amendment and replace it with an income tax that is limited to 15% on individual incomes and 10% of corporate profits with no deductions or credits. I’m sure the intent of those rates is to be somewhat close to budget neutral. Although I would like to see budget reductions I think a constitutional limit on income tax rates is a positive step.

The third section stipulates that we not engage in deficit spending except in time of war. Section 3(B) defines war – although I appreciate the mandate that war debts be repaid within 15 years of the end of the war I see two problems with this section: first and most importantly, the President is not authorized to declare war (their definition of war should require that war be defined as conflicts that have been declared by Congress); second, requiring funds to be repaid within a set time after the end of a war would be a disincentive to acknowledge the completion of the conflict (it would be far better to require deficit war spending to be repaid within a set time after the beginning of the war – that would encourage the ending of conflicts both to hold down costs, and to allow for the repayment in a timely manner rather than delaying the date when repayment was required by keeping the “war” open).

Sections 4 and 5 help to restore state sovereignty in the use of their funds consistent with the 10th amendment. In Section 6 I would strike the word “original” as it may be necessary at some time to fund something through the government that was not included in the original Constitution.

Section 7 narrows the much abused commerce clause so that the government no longer has any excuse to regulate what I choose to pay my neighbor for mowing my lawn simply because he purchased gasoline that had been shipped across state lines.

Overall I think this a good proposal to remind people inside and outside government that Congress was not intended to babysit every aspect of society and commerce in the nation. It’s sad that such a reaffirmation would have to be written into the Constitution – but evidence suggests that it does need to be reaffirmed legally in that document.

Tags amendments, Constitution, fiscal restraint, future, taxes