Tag: government

Federalist No. 38

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

It was very interesting to read in Federalist No. 38 that one primary difference between this Constitution and the constitutions of Greece and Athens (among other examples) is that this one was developed by a group instead of being drawn up by a single respected individual.

The bulk of this Federalist paper goes to show how lively and varied the debate was which surrounded the ratification of the Constitution. Warning – this is undoubtedly the longest paragraph in the federalist papers so far with a total length of 1100 words. It is worth the time to read it, but without paragraph breaks it is easy to lose you place in such a long passage. With the advantage of being able to look back it is interesting to see which changes that were being considered were added to the Constitution (e.g. the Bill of Rights) and which were left unchanged (e.g. the 20 year moratorium on discussion the issue of slave importation) by the end of the debate.

Tags Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, federalist, government, history

culture National

Bill of Rights Day

Today is Bill of Rights Day, the day when the Bill of Rights was ratified 217 years ago. This holiday, along with Independence Day and Constitution Day, represents the real celebration of the great country we should be striving to maintain. Interestingly, while Independence Day is the most celebrated of the three our independence did nothing to guarantee any future liberties in this country. Our Constitution was supposed to help preserve our liberties by setting up a government structure that would be capable of securing our liberties from both internal and external forces which would seek to infringe upon them. The structure that was devised could not, in itself, guarantee that the government itself would not be an abuser of liberty – that is where the Bill of Rights comes in. The Bill of Rights spelled out the rights of citizens where the federal government would not be allowed to infringe (in theory). This is where the rubber meets the road. A monarchy with such a bill of rights – where those rights are truly upheld – would be as good a government as the three pronged government that the founders defined in the constitution. The real difference being that a monarchy would more easily overrun the individual rights without the checks in place of an independent judiciary etc.

The original Bill of Rights had 12 amendments adopted by Congress. Numbers 3 – 12 were ratified in 1791. Number 2 was ratified as the 27th amendment in 1992. The first amendment proposed has not yet been ratified.

On this Bill of Rights Day I look with trepidation at a government and society where the first question of government is "What responsibilities can be assigned to the government?" The question should be "How can the government more fully ensure liberty among her people?" The first question brings an intrusive government which attempts to do the impossible. The last question would bring a government which is content to enforce liberty, thus setting the conditions where the society could accomplish greater things than ever before.

Tim Lynch of the CATO Institute has a great rundown of how our Bill of Rights is faring in modern government. Jim Babka has some ideas about how we can get our government to protect those rights that they are so prone to trample.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, government, history, holidays

General

Federalist No. 37

I really enjoyed Federalist No. 37, it was very interesting to have a paper which began to examine the process of creating the proposed Constitution as opposed to simply looking at the provisions of the Constitution itself. As it specifically recommends moderation and deliberation in our political/civic dialog I think that everyone ought to read this paper.

The other thing that I found interesting was a more pronounced and direct reference to assistance by "the Almighty hand than I have ever noticed before:

The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution. (emphasis added)

I found the closing paragraph to be a helpful reminder as well about the process of politics:

. . . we are necessarily led to two important conclusions. The first is, that the convention must have enjoyed, in a very singular degree, an exemption from the pestilential influence of party animosities the disease most incident to deliberative bodies, and most apt to contaminate their proceedings. The second conclusion is that all the deputations composing the convention were satisfactorily accommodated by the final act, or were induced to accede to it by a deep conviction of the necessity of sacrificing private opinions and partial interests to the public good, and by a despair of seeing this necessity diminished by delays or by new experiments.

Party animosities are a natural companion to the discussions of deliberative bodies. We must ever be seeking to rise above such natural animosities and yet we are nto truly rising above them if we fall to the abandonment of our honest principles. In keeping true to those honest principles we will need to recognize the proper instances when we must accept a compromise.

Tags compromise, Constitution, documents, federalist, government, history, republic

General life Local National pictures

Federalist Nos. 30 – 36

Federalist 30

Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution.

We do not seem to recognize the corollary today that excess money, like excess food, leads to gluttany and an unhealthy government.

Federalist 31

I love the direct logic in the opening here. The assumptions are laid out and unless you can dispute the assumptions it is difficult to dispute the conclusion.

IN DISQUISITIONS of every kind, there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings [sic] must depend. These contain an internal evidence which, antecedent to all reflection or combination, commands the assent of the mind. . . Of this nature are the maxims in geometry, that "the whole is greater than its part; things equal to the same are equal to one another; two straight lines cannot enclose a space; and all right angles are equal to each other." Of the same nature are these other maxims in ethics and politics, that there cannot be an effect without a cause; that the means ought to be proportioned to the end; that every power ought to be commensurate with its object; that there ought to be no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation. (emphasis added)

I also think it is interesting to note that the idea of the federal government seeking handouts from the states seemed repugnant, but today we see the repugnance of states which are almost entirely financially dependent on the federal government as was warned by the opposing argument that "an indefinite power of taxation in the {federal government} might, and probably would in time, deprive the {state governments} of the means of providing for their own necessities; and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the national legislature."

Federalist 32

It is interesting to see that even where he is wrong (believing that this danger was not real), Hamilton illustrates the very dangers that we face today as the states have almost entirely melted into the background in the face of the federal government.

Federalist 33

I found this to be an insightful and succinct delineation of the difference between laws and treaties:

If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact . . . must necessarily be supreme over those societies . . . It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment.

Unfortunately today most of our laws are apparently nothing more than treaties that are being ignored – including the Constitution as a whole (only the form – three branches including a bicameral legislature – remains).

Federalist 34

When Hamilton explains that 93% of the expenses of the British government are dedicated to paying for war, war preparation, and war debts it should open our eyes to the foolishness of our perpetual expansion of our domestic expenses as if we could add increased military expenses when the need arises.

Federalist 35

I was interested in the recognition that representatives would not be elected from different professions in proportion to how those professions were represented in society. There is an inherent degree of inequality dues to the differing demands of different professions. Hamilton argues that those who understand money and financial realities are the best able to produce good government.

Federalist 36

Hamilton makes a passing remark that makes me think twice about the merits of expanding Congress as suggested by Thirty-Thousand.org – a larger body eventually reaches a size where they are unlikely to have any wisdom beyond the general populous – the only real question is what size is that?

Tags documents, economics, federalist, government, history, taxes

National

Our Tranquil Times

I’m glad that our country has so few problems that, in order to feel useful, we have a Representative proposing a bill to end the BCS system. I’d hate to think what kind of legislation we would be getting out of such a Congress if we were living in turbulent times with a depressed economy, poor foreign relations, and/or large social issues that fuel the passions of voters (like altering the definition of marriage).

Oh, wait – I guess we get the worst of both worlds right now.

Tags government, issues

National

Oath of Ignorance

I thought the following idea was laughable in light of something I heard recently:

[Charles Tiefer, whom Congress appointed earlier this year to the new Commission on Wartime Contracting, which oversees Pentagon contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan] says, federal employees take an oath to [support and defend] the Constitution, while private contractors are just motivated by their own economic interest. It’s a lovely vision, and apparently some people actually believe it.

Of course David Boaz is rightfully skeptical of that fairytale view of federal employees. I have a friend who used to work for a federal government agency. He told me last week that he recently read the Constitution for the first time – long after he quit working for the government. He did take the oath mentioned above, but did so without ever reading the Constitution despite high school and college educations here in the United States. I am not blaming my friend – he’s hardly unusual in what he did except that now he has read the Constitution.

The idea that federal employees deserve some special trust for taking an oath of office is laughable. Most of those employees (like so many elected officials above them) have never read the Constitution they have sworn to protect in that oath. How can we expect them to fulfill their oath and defend the Constitution when they are ignorant of what it says?

Personally, I view federal employees (as a group) just like private employees – they’re just earning a living and doing a job. I don’t think that they have a clearer vision of what they are doing or why they are doing it than anyone else.

Tags Cato, connections, government, media, Oath of Office

culture

One Thing Is Sure

I have enjoyed a number of discussions about politics and our current economic crisis over this Thanksgiving break. During those discussions my father-in-law made the observation that those who advocate for allowing this crisis to run its course without government intervention need to consider the implications of that course and ask themselves if they are prepared for the extremes of lawlessness and social breakdown that could accompany a deep depression.

Call me a fatalist, but I am among those who does not believe that our current approach of large and poorly applied bailouts is going to save us from such a depression. It might delay it slightly but I see us falling into the same (or worse) deep depression with these bailouts as I would expect without them. The proper solution to this crisis is to identify and return to solid financial ground. We have to abandon the practices of excessive risk and inattention to the rules of sound business that we have been ignoring for so long. Paul Krigman has a few thoughts in this direction that we should consider.

Whether we we pursue our present bailout course or not, whether we experience a deep depression wihtint he next two years or not (I just invented that timeframe up off the top of my head), there is one thing that is absolutely sure – we all should ask ourselves if we are ready for the social breakdown and lawlessness that can always potentially occur. Whether we ever face such a situation or not it is always smart to be prepared for it.

Tags economics, government, New York Times, prepare

National State

“Free Market” Health Care

The call for Lawyers to join health-reform efforts was a not so subtle reminder to me about how "free" our health care market is currently. We can’t really pretend that the cost of services or the services rendered are determined by patients and providers. In fact, they are not even determined by a combination of patients, providers, and insurance interests.

Malpractice lawsuits, whether as threat or reality, skew a provider’s treatment decisions to the legal safe side, members of the Legislature’s Health Care System Reform Task Force were told Tuesday. That approach, in turn, adds to the amount of redundant testing and is a significant but so far unaddressed factor in the reform process.

The cost of malpractice-insurance premiums for providers also is rising rapidly, Rep. Gregory Bell, R-Fruit Heights, and an attorney, told fellow task force members.

We have developed a pricing and practice environment based on a staggering concoction of laws, medical knowledge, middlemen, and advertising. Patients may demand unnecessary services or medications based on what they hear from advertisements. They may also have unreasonable expectations regarding how flawless our medical system is or should be – in other words, they may feel entitled to compensation for unavoidable tragedies. Governments step in to define what "unavoidable" means by specifying standards of practice which may bear little connection to medical necessity. Insurance companies can, by choice or accident, inflate the costs by demanding standards of practice and levels of compensation that can’t possibly take into account all the factors that should define the practice of health care and the commensurate compensation for care.

Care must cost more when malpractice insurance rates rise. Prices will increase when the salaries and profits of insurance companies must also be covered in the process of receiving health care. Checks against unnecessary care will disappear when those receiving care are not sensitive to the costs of individual procedures. Medical decisions will be skewed when manufacturers provide kickbacks to doctors and advertise their wares directly to customers who have no medical background.

While we use the Brass Serpent (the Nehushtan) as the symbol for the field of medicine we might find it convenient to use the Hydra as a symbol of the cost of health care.

The Hydra - photo by Craig Stephen
Hydra – photo by Craig Stephen

Somehow we need to slay this monster but while the sword of government may have a place in the battle it is not sufficient to complete the task – by itself the sword of government makes the monster more dangerous.

Tags Deseret News, economics, free markets, government, health care, issues, laws

National

Support But Don’t Trust

I am a strong supporter of our government. I obey the laws (even little ones like speed limits and seat belt laws) and pay my taxes without complaint and without seeking any tricks to minimize those taxes. Supporting the government, however, does not mean that I trust the government when they ask for expanded powers. I oppose the efforts of courts, congress, or the President to increase their powers in any area of society. In the financial sector that lack of trust has proven to be a sound policy recently. As September turned to October I wrote six different times opposing the bailout. All over the news and in many blogs people were saying that we should hold our noses and accept that plan because it was necessary. Now I am finding it ironic that some those same people who support the government managing more of our lives are unhappy as they see the mismanagement of the "necessary" bailout funds.

It seems that Congress is the special group in the world that can convince us to let them have more of our money based on how poorly they use it. Perot Charts reports that Theresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York testified testified in support of a plan that would "modify" 401K’s. Components of the plan include the following:

- All workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S, government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account which would be invested in government bonds that would accrue 3 percent per year.
- The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

This is extremely frightening considering that the 5% that you would be required to "invest" (at only 3% return) on a $25,000 salary is $1250 For that you would receive a $600 subsidy. This might appear helpful to those who make very little money, but the benefits of their savings are insignificant compared to their needs at retirement and come at a very high price for everyone who just lost their tax savings that encourage them to save in a 401K, not to mention the disincentive that this would be to business who have provided tax free matching for 401K accounts which do much better than 3% returns 90% of the time. Overall savings in the country would decline under this plan.

Is it any wonder that my support of our government does not include my trust. We should all support our government no matter who is in power, but support means that we watch them instead of trusting them. It means that we hold our leaders accountable for what they do. For me, it means that every chance I get I will encourage them to give power back to the people and the states. I like that 10th amendment – too bad it gets worse treatment than the other 26.

Tags amendments, connections, Constitution, economics, government, media, money, New York Times

National State

Post-Election Subjects

There must be something about the conclusion of an election that brings up the subject of term limits. I wrote about it a couple of times a year ago and have said nothing about it since then. Now the Standard Examiner has an article saying that It’s time to reignite the debate over term limits. The article talks about previous efforts to enact term limits in the late 90’s. In the comments section for the article Tired Old Argument says:

Term limits basically says, we don’t trust the voters to make a good, informed decision.

What Tired Old Argument forgets is that in a republic, such as the one we live in, the very structure of government says that we should not trust the voters to be able to be adequately informed for most major decisions – that’s why they are supposed to delegate the task to their best and brightest (which is who they would elect in theory). It turns out that our history suggests that knowing when to replace their elected representatives is among the things that voters are not very adept at doing.

This years numbers are instructive on this point. Congress has been mired with approval ratings hovering near 10% for most of the last year. Logically this would suggest that we would have a high rate of turnover when elections come amidst such an approval rating. In fact, approximately 90% of our elected officials are returning to Washington (this is not counting those who are returning as lobbyists or in appointed positions). What is even more telling is that of the 6 of the 10% who are not returning to elected office retired voluntarily. When 90% disapproval results in 95% retention that suggests that the voters are not very adept at replacing their elected officials.

As Reach Upward so astutely articulated in last year’s discussion:

. . . it may be good to toss even great statesmen because the office is more important than any person that may hold it.

(I will be quick to point out that Reach had no committed position on the issue of term limits at that time.) I would love to hear from anyone on where they stand on the issue after our elections this year.

Tags 2008, government, term limits