As I look through the countless Blogs and web sites that claim to be conservative while spouting a fountain of restrictive and oppressive thoughts and ideas, I am beginning to see the real problem with today's politics. It is not that the left has gone too far socialist but that the right has redefined conservatism.
At first I began to question my own position but having learned so much about our founders I know where I stand. It is the backfire of the leftist takeover of our education system that has created this disconnect between the conservatives and what it is that they wanted to conserve to begin with.
Our founders saw marriage as an act of religion, not of government. If the religion of a gay man supports marriage to another gay man then it is not for any other man (or government) to pass legislation that restricts or discourages that marriage.
Our founders believed in the right of a man to fail as much as his right to succeed. If one man wants to destroy his own life with drugs then it is between him and his family, not the government.
Our founders encouraged the belief in God and would not have condoned drug use or gay marriage. They were both charitable and compassionate but they they sought to spread their morals through teaching rather than through legislation.
I am a conservative but many who wear that shirt are not. When you begin to consider a solution to a political problem you should stand back and ask yourself "what would Jefferson do". Sometimes you might not like the truth but it is necessary to face it to keep our individual freedoms intact. Once the right learns to protect personal freedom again you will find that the vast majority of Americans will gladly huddle under the conservative tent and any politician who holds true to our founders will find great success. It has happened before and can happen again, do it for the Gipper!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Street Light Politics
Many people think that conservatives are opposed to government, they are wrong. The fact is that we want to keep government as small as possible, to oppose it would be anarchy.
Think of it this way... Every street corner is an open door to a serious car accident. The government puts signs up at those intersections in order to help prevent those accidents. This is good government because it provides the greatest amount of help with the least amount of interference.
Some intersections get very busy and a simple sign becomes restrictive to those who travel in one direction while encouraging others to pass in the other. The solution for this imbalance is to provide a signal light at that intersection, this allows equal opportunity for those who wish to choose their own direction. Again, this is good government.
The hard part for this government is deciding where those traffic lights should be placed. Politicians (of both parties) tend to want to place signs and lights where they are most likely to guide traffic to that destination which favors their own agenda. They are often inclined to make passage difficult for those who oppose them by putting up stop signs in strange places and call it "necessary for the betterment of society".
Conservatives want to keep the traffic flowing as much as possible which allows for a certain amount of risk while encouraging those who travel to be responsible for keeping that risk at a minimum. They would keep the basic signs in place but offer as few traffic signals as possible. The result of this is a fast paced network of traffic that is regulated mostly by those who frequent those roads.
Liberals see the risk of accidents inherrent in the conservative system and react in fear. They see a potential for danger at every intersection regardless of how busy it is, so, in order to protect us from those risks they tend towards placing traffic signals at every single intersection and thus seriously impeding the flow of traffic. I know you've gone down a busy street where there is a traffic light at every corner and sometimes you feel like you've been stopped at every one. This works to lower the risk of accident in two ways, it prevents people from coliding into each other through regulation and it causes many to refrain from traveling down that road through frustration. Once every road is that heavily regulated, most people will simply tire of traveling all together.
This is the flaw in the liberal ideology, they discourage economical progress through regulation designed to prevent economical risks. You see, Liberalism is not the opposite of Conservatism, it is the opposite of Anarchy.. Conservatism is the fulcrum between the two.
Think of it this way... Every street corner is an open door to a serious car accident. The government puts signs up at those intersections in order to help prevent those accidents. This is good government because it provides the greatest amount of help with the least amount of interference.
Some intersections get very busy and a simple sign becomes restrictive to those who travel in one direction while encouraging others to pass in the other. The solution for this imbalance is to provide a signal light at that intersection, this allows equal opportunity for those who wish to choose their own direction. Again, this is good government.
The hard part for this government is deciding where those traffic lights should be placed. Politicians (of both parties) tend to want to place signs and lights where they are most likely to guide traffic to that destination which favors their own agenda. They are often inclined to make passage difficult for those who oppose them by putting up stop signs in strange places and call it "necessary for the betterment of society".
Conservatives want to keep the traffic flowing as much as possible which allows for a certain amount of risk while encouraging those who travel to be responsible for keeping that risk at a minimum. They would keep the basic signs in place but offer as few traffic signals as possible. The result of this is a fast paced network of traffic that is regulated mostly by those who frequent those roads.
Liberals see the risk of accidents inherrent in the conservative system and react in fear. They see a potential for danger at every intersection regardless of how busy it is, so, in order to protect us from those risks they tend towards placing traffic signals at every single intersection and thus seriously impeding the flow of traffic. I know you've gone down a busy street where there is a traffic light at every corner and sometimes you feel like you've been stopped at every one. This works to lower the risk of accident in two ways, it prevents people from coliding into each other through regulation and it causes many to refrain from traveling down that road through frustration. Once every road is that heavily regulated, most people will simply tire of traveling all together.
This is the flaw in the liberal ideology, they discourage economical progress through regulation designed to prevent economical risks. You see, Liberalism is not the opposite of Conservatism, it is the opposite of Anarchy.. Conservatism is the fulcrum between the two.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
PROVE ME WRONG!
The left still does not get it. Actually, lots of people are still in the dark about what the Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives or Republicans really want. For this reason I will try to begin fundamentally defining each group. I encourage you to put in your two cents (providing you are honest with yourself) and either expand on those definitions or correct me where I'm wrong.
Republicans__ These are mostly politicians but there are many party line voters out there. The politicians are power hungry businessmen with no integrity. They only believe in that which will get them elected and that which will keep them in power. They think that they should lean left when the populous does and lean right when they need a few more votes. they generally oppose Democrats because they have convinced the ignorant masses to do the same and it helps to keep them in power. The followers are the type who generally follow very little politics but know from email bombs that the Dems are bad and must be defeated. this is how guys like Mccain can gain so much power with so few real values.
Liberals__ They are the real tree huggers. They live in a world consumed by emotion. Generally they are very good people who would do anything for a friend and there is no better friend to have. They tend to vote for Dems because the Dems tend to appeal to emotions rather than reason. While liberals make great followers they seldom find their way to lead. they are so concerned with searching for an equal solution to problems that they often react too late to those problems. It is their big hearts that consume the blood that would usually feed their mind. It is not a bad thing to care but they are controlled by caring at their own expense. The down side is that they often feel that they should force others to care as well, that's where they become tyrannical.
Progressives__ This is the German socialist party of the early 20th century. Seriously, look it up. They believe that the only way to have civility is to run society. They see the Constitution as an obstacle to a "great society". If they want to quit smoking they simply outlaw it so nobody can do it. If they want to be vegetarians they outlaw the eating of meat so everything will be fair. They blame the rich for the poor not getting paid to watch the rich work. They hate inequality and feel as if they alone can define what is fair. They are mostly educated but have no common sense. In fact, most of them have spent a lifetime being taught but have never been forced to learn. Think of it like this.. You can be taught that you need a certain amount of flour, sugar and eggs to bake a cake but if you have never made one and tasted it then you've really never learned to bake. This is the case with progressives, they usually hold jobs where they are judged by tenure rather than merit or productivity. Teachers, politicians, government jobs, lawyers and some medical jobs are predisposed to being progressive because they seldom are responsible for earning payroll, it just seems to show up (thanks to taxpayers).
Conservatives__ We are the keepers of the key to liberty. We choose to conserve the philosophy of our founders and hold the Constitution sacred. We believe that government is need to establish a very basic order and to keep people from encroaching on the rights of others (oh, and to provide for common defence). We usually have a great deal of faith, however it is not required. Conservatives (according to every source I've found) are the most charitable group in America. We make decisions mainly on logic and experience rather than emotion. That is, if our dog is in pain and nearly dead, we kill him rather than letting him suffer. We tend to have careers where we are required to solve problems and we are held accountable for those solutions. We are the hunter gatherers, we ask nothing of others but to let us live our lives as we see fit and we prefer to do the same. We know that all rewards require risk and are willing to live with the results of those risks. We protect freedom, even for those who fear it. We fight for liberty so that others can ignore it. We embrace integrity in the face of disintegration.
Republicans__ These are mostly politicians but there are many party line voters out there. The politicians are power hungry businessmen with no integrity. They only believe in that which will get them elected and that which will keep them in power. They think that they should lean left when the populous does and lean right when they need a few more votes. they generally oppose Democrats because they have convinced the ignorant masses to do the same and it helps to keep them in power. The followers are the type who generally follow very little politics but know from email bombs that the Dems are bad and must be defeated. this is how guys like Mccain can gain so much power with so few real values.
Liberals__ They are the real tree huggers. They live in a world consumed by emotion. Generally they are very good people who would do anything for a friend and there is no better friend to have. They tend to vote for Dems because the Dems tend to appeal to emotions rather than reason. While liberals make great followers they seldom find their way to lead. they are so concerned with searching for an equal solution to problems that they often react too late to those problems. It is their big hearts that consume the blood that would usually feed their mind. It is not a bad thing to care but they are controlled by caring at their own expense. The down side is that they often feel that they should force others to care as well, that's where they become tyrannical.
Progressives__ This is the German socialist party of the early 20th century. Seriously, look it up. They believe that the only way to have civility is to run society. They see the Constitution as an obstacle to a "great society". If they want to quit smoking they simply outlaw it so nobody can do it. If they want to be vegetarians they outlaw the eating of meat so everything will be fair. They blame the rich for the poor not getting paid to watch the rich work. They hate inequality and feel as if they alone can define what is fair. They are mostly educated but have no common sense. In fact, most of them have spent a lifetime being taught but have never been forced to learn. Think of it like this.. You can be taught that you need a certain amount of flour, sugar and eggs to bake a cake but if you have never made one and tasted it then you've really never learned to bake. This is the case with progressives, they usually hold jobs where they are judged by tenure rather than merit or productivity. Teachers, politicians, government jobs, lawyers and some medical jobs are predisposed to being progressive because they seldom are responsible for earning payroll, it just seems to show up (thanks to taxpayers).
Conservatives__ We are the keepers of the key to liberty. We choose to conserve the philosophy of our founders and hold the Constitution sacred. We believe that government is need to establish a very basic order and to keep people from encroaching on the rights of others (oh, and to provide for common defence). We usually have a great deal of faith, however it is not required. Conservatives (according to every source I've found) are the most charitable group in America. We make decisions mainly on logic and experience rather than emotion. That is, if our dog is in pain and nearly dead, we kill him rather than letting him suffer. We tend to have careers where we are required to solve problems and we are held accountable for those solutions. We are the hunter gatherers, we ask nothing of others but to let us live our lives as we see fit and we prefer to do the same. We know that all rewards require risk and are willing to live with the results of those risks. We protect freedom, even for those who fear it. We fight for liberty so that others can ignore it. We embrace integrity in the face of disintegration.
Monday, December 14, 2009
BREAKING NEWS!
Breaking news! Micheal Jackson died.. Breaking News! Tiger Woods had affair... Um, that happened a while ago so why does my TV still say Breaking News every time they talk about that nonsense.
Seriously, these TV networks put BREAKING NEWS! under every story regardless of how old it is. Do they expect us to believe anything they tell us when they try to get our attention by calling every story BREAKING NEWS. I've given up on Fox and CNN because I know I can't trust either one of them anymore. Can somebody please report the news again without all the fan fare and bull crap.
Imagine a news channel that comes on and the reporter (without telling us his name every five minutes) says "here is the news". After that the tells us the facts of an event without using any subjective words at all. Just Who, What, When, Where and Why.. that is if the why is confirmed and not speculated.
Here's an example.. "Last night, at 1:00 am, the police were called to the corner of main street and vine. There was a Nissan maxima wrapped around a tree and the driver, jane Doe, was killed."
Fox or CNN would have reported that same story like this... " Late last night, when most people her age should have been sleeping, Jane Doe drove into a tree after witnesses say she had been swerving all over the road. Some of those who claimed to have seen the accident stated that she seemed to be drunk, however, police will not say how much alcohol was in her blood stream. While Ms Doe was dead when the police arrived we do not know if she had taken her own life before the impact but we do know that she had purchased an automatic handgun with a high capacity magazine, capable of shooting 15 deadly bullets, only weeks before. Her husband did not know where she was returning from but we believe she was involved with another man because her credit card statement had multiple visits to a local hotel on it.
Yes, this is the same group of reporters who give us the very political news by which we choose our leaders.. Scary as hell isn't it!
Seriously, these TV networks put BREAKING NEWS! under every story regardless of how old it is. Do they expect us to believe anything they tell us when they try to get our attention by calling every story BREAKING NEWS. I've given up on Fox and CNN because I know I can't trust either one of them anymore. Can somebody please report the news again without all the fan fare and bull crap.
Imagine a news channel that comes on and the reporter (without telling us his name every five minutes) says "here is the news". After that the tells us the facts of an event without using any subjective words at all. Just Who, What, When, Where and Why.. that is if the why is confirmed and not speculated.
Here's an example.. "Last night, at 1:00 am, the police were called to the corner of main street and vine. There was a Nissan maxima wrapped around a tree and the driver, jane Doe, was killed."
Fox or CNN would have reported that same story like this... " Late last night, when most people her age should have been sleeping, Jane Doe drove into a tree after witnesses say she had been swerving all over the road. Some of those who claimed to have seen the accident stated that she seemed to be drunk, however, police will not say how much alcohol was in her blood stream. While Ms Doe was dead when the police arrived we do not know if she had taken her own life before the impact but we do know that she had purchased an automatic handgun with a high capacity magazine, capable of shooting 15 deadly bullets, only weeks before. Her husband did not know where she was returning from but we believe she was involved with another man because her credit card statement had multiple visits to a local hotel on it.
Yes, this is the same group of reporters who give us the very political news by which we choose our leaders.. Scary as hell isn't it!
Friday, December 11, 2009
Defining the Battlefront
"All will bear in mind this sacred principle, that the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable: that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression". No more true words have ever been spoken and more ignored than those of Thomas Jefferson during his first inauguration.
He was trying to educate those who had never truly understood why we should be governed as a republic rather than a democracy. We could really use him today. This battle still bubbles up as people are pushed through public school where they are told that democracy is fair and that a republic is oppressive. This skew in reality has led to the success of the democratic party and is dragging us down the path to destruction.
The point that Jefferson was making is that it was very difficult to create a government that was fair. It would take constant work and tremendous sacrifice from those who were governed in order to prevent our nation from being overtaken by soft tyranny. If you're asking what soft tyranny is, it's simple... it's called Democracy.
Democracy is, by definition, oppressive. That is, it only takes a majority to gain total control the minority. From this the majority can do anything from redistributing wealth to outright slavery. It seems far fetched but this is is the goal and the mantra of the left. They want to satisfy the majority at the expense of the minority. This is why they are slowly destroying the Constitution, a document that they call "outdated". Once it has no more value they can usher in a new era of "mob rule" and the liberty that built this country will be nothing but a distant memory.
We, you and I, need to remind people of why we are a republic and shift the political debates away from doing what is popular and towards how to make this a better republic. We need to challenge common senselessness and fight for what so many have died for in the past. Please, feel free to ask me any questions you have encountered in debate and I will help you teach others what it is to truly be an American. We must win this battle, if we do not... there will be no safe haven of liberty left in the world!
He was trying to educate those who had never truly understood why we should be governed as a republic rather than a democracy. We could really use him today. This battle still bubbles up as people are pushed through public school where they are told that democracy is fair and that a republic is oppressive. This skew in reality has led to the success of the democratic party and is dragging us down the path to destruction.
The point that Jefferson was making is that it was very difficult to create a government that was fair. It would take constant work and tremendous sacrifice from those who were governed in order to prevent our nation from being overtaken by soft tyranny. If you're asking what soft tyranny is, it's simple... it's called Democracy.
Democracy is, by definition, oppressive. That is, it only takes a majority to gain total control the minority. From this the majority can do anything from redistributing wealth to outright slavery. It seems far fetched but this is is the goal and the mantra of the left. They want to satisfy the majority at the expense of the minority. This is why they are slowly destroying the Constitution, a document that they call "outdated". Once it has no more value they can usher in a new era of "mob rule" and the liberty that built this country will be nothing but a distant memory.
We, you and I, need to remind people of why we are a republic and shift the political debates away from doing what is popular and towards how to make this a better republic. We need to challenge common senselessness and fight for what so many have died for in the past. Please, feel free to ask me any questions you have encountered in debate and I will help you teach others what it is to truly be an American. We must win this battle, if we do not... there will be no safe haven of liberty left in the world!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Health Care has NOTHING to do with "General Welfare"
In today’s political arena there is one hotly contested proposal which has garnered the attention of the entire world. The debate over "Health care reform" has consumed the nation and forced many who have had little previous interest in politics into the battle. Clearly there are flaws in the current system and something should be done to fix it but is there a solid, logical and Constitutionally acceptable solution to our problem? As we all know, there are people from every side coming up with ideas which they think are fair and reasonable and, for the most part, they have some pretty good plans. The details and conclusions within these plans are a bit more debatable and have brought forth a flood of information and facts which has made the final decision much more difficult to reach. I have a much more unique perspective of how to resolve the issue and who is actually responsible for that solution. I contend that the widely accepted premise that the federal government needs to get involved on an operational level is seriously flawed. The United states Constitution does not give our federal government the liberty to control health care, rather, it reserves that power to the state or local levels.
To better understand my thesis we must first understand its merits. For this we will go back to the birth of our nation and the founding documents that bind our government to its responsibilities. The one phrase within the founding documents that has been the vessel for the federal involvement in social matters over the last hundred years or so is the "general welfare" clause. This phrase appears twice within the Constitution but is never clearly defined. The ambiguous phrase is found first in the preamble where it is written as "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America ". It is found again in Article I section 8 where it states that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". For some, this is an open door for the federal government to step in and make changes, on a national level, in order to prevent or repair anything that could be construed as a national crises. For others, it was put in place as a binder between the states for the expressed purpose of keeping the union whole and functioning as one single nation.
The debate over this matter goes back to the founders themselves at the very conception of this great nation. The argument of the time was over the use of federal funding to aid in the growth of manufacturing and was most bitterly contested between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Mr Hamilton believed that the country had a far better chance for success if the manufacturing sector was propped up through funding provided by the taxpayers and that its success would translate to prosperity to all citizens. Mr Jefferson, on the other hand, felt that it would be an encroachment on the rights of others to take the fruits of their labor in another mans interest. As in any debate, others involved in politics at the time were quick to choose sides but the vast majority of notable figures fell on the side of Mr. Jefferson. Only Benjamin Franklin was willing to speak on the side of Hamilton and even he was hesitant to accept the long term ramifications of that kind of federal power.
The premise of governing on behalf of the common good was the basis for an ideology known as Res Publica (public matter) which was the Latin origin of the word Republic.Thomas Jefferson along with the majority of our founding fathers were strict Republicans, in that, they believed that America should be governed as a Republic. .The fundamental premise of a Republic originated in Rome during the time of Gaius Julius Caesar. It was created in opposition to the empirical power structure and was designed to spread power evenly across the nation to help promote the "common good" of the people. According to The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral sciences, The Roman Republican Constitution of 509-49 bc was created to balance power between the government and the governed in order to promote the " common good, and never to the private will or domination ( dominatio ) of any private master". Jefferson wanted to create the same balance of power but where the Romans failed by not creating a defined separation between the powers, he was determined to make that separation a legal imperative. It was the desire to create a governing body which provided for the common good but favored no individual or group of individuals that led to the basic principles of our own Republic.
Prior to the ratification of our Constitution, there was another document which defined the governance of The United States known as the Articles of Confederation. This is not considered a "founding document" since it was actually replaced by the Constitution but it did serve as the base for its replacement and it was our first legislative federal document to contain the phrase "general welfare". The text of article III of the Articles of Confederacy reads as "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever". Clearly the spirit of this text offers no support to the Hamiltonian perspective of the phrase, rather, it serves as a binder to the states in the name of national unity. After taking time to himself to truly consider the words of the Articles of Confederation, James Madison wrote in his notes that "The Idea of voluntery complience with the law was sheer fancy since no state would willing submit to the laws of a federal congress" "sacrifice for the general welfare was wishful thinking" .."every general act of the union must necessarily bear unequally hard on some particular member of the union" . Mr. Madison goes on to explain that compliance between the states in the name of general welfare must be a legal obligation and defined as such in the Constitution. The transfer of this phrase into article I, section 8 of the Constitution was unanimously approved by the Constitutional Convention with no debate over its meaning what so ever and was rewritten as "general welfare of the United States". This subtle difference in phrasing was the justification for Mr. Hamilton’s dispute but was not taken seriously by most of those who were involved at the time.
I would be remised if I were to leave out the single most compelling argument for my thesis. On Saturday, January 19,1788, James Madison published "The Federalist #41". This would be the definitive explanation of the "powers conferred by the constitution", authored by the very man who had been recognized as the actual author of the Constitution itself. After hearing and reading about his detractors who feared that article I, section 8 could be misused, Mr. Madison wrote that "It has been urged and echoed, that the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction". He goes on to state that "Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it". He makes a clear point that all of the powers conferred by the Constitution are clearly detailed, including the powers allowed for the promotion of the "general welfare" of the states.
The first real test involving the powers granted by the "general welfare" clause came about during the debate over Roosevelt’s "New Deal" programs. During the early twentieth century immigration was at its peak and the jobs were not keeping up with the population. We saw a sudden influx of uneducated workers with little understanding of the fundamental design of our political system. This massive shift in the populous opened the door for self proclaimed "socialist progressives" to gain popularity and led to the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. Regardless of his popularity, his federally funded social programs were continually being struck down by the Supreme Court as "unconstitutional" under the
"reserve clause". Mr. Roosevelt reacted by attempting to restructure the Supreme Court by adding enough new members to "stack" it in his favor. While he failed in this effort he did garner enough support through his "fire side chat" to turn the Supreme Court’s decision on Social Security and a few other programs. On May 24th, 1937, the supreme court upheld the decision to give the federal government power to collect taxes to provide payments of "Old age benefits" . In the opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Cordozo, it was noted that " When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by congress, not the states".This suggested that the power granted by the constitution through the Supreme Court decision would leave the highest level of government with a great deal of "moral authority" for the first time in American history. Despite the courts discomfort with this power, they felt that the responsibility must lay on the national government because any one state who would implement this system would become "bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere". What bothers me about this decision is that they recognized that the system would be harmful on a local or state level but ignored that it would have the same effect on a national level. Now, instead of the needy migrating from state to state in search of "haven of repose", they are migrating from other nations and placing the predicted burden on our entire country.
The fact that the Supreme Court chose to grant the federal government a level of power that is not granted by the Constitution does not make it Constitutional. It simply means that the topic needs to be revisited and clarified. I believe that a Supreme Court who would act on behalf of supporting the Constitution, as it was defined by its authors, rather than acting on the perception of moral imperative, would find that the proposed health care reform does not comply with the Constitutional requirements. I also believe that a statewide version of this bill would be Constitutional but would create the scenario defined by Justice Cordozo where those who are needy will flock while those who provide will flee. As an alternative solution to the health care problem, I would consider creating a federal medical loan system. A pot from which people in need of care could draw a low interest loan that can be repaid through their own taxes. This creates an incentive for those who use the system to research their options and make decisions based on the balance of quality and cost of services rather than just taking what they can get and leaving others with the bill. Because my system is a "user pay" system, the costs will be merit based and controlled by market forces which would keep those costs substantially lower. The federal government would be operating a bank instead of an entire national medical system which would free up a good amount of bureaucratic costs and lessen the tax burden on American businesses. As we know from past evidence, when Americans get to keep more of their own money they are much more charitable. In short time there would be charities created to help those who cannot repay their medical debt due to their medical condition. My proposed system stands up to Constitutional scrutiny because its usage is not obligatory and its costs are distributed only among its users. Beyond that, the universal access to this program would force insurance companies to offer a much more competitive alternative than they do now.
To better understand my thesis we must first understand its merits. For this we will go back to the birth of our nation and the founding documents that bind our government to its responsibilities. The one phrase within the founding documents that has been the vessel for the federal involvement in social matters over the last hundred years or so is the "general welfare" clause. This phrase appears twice within the Constitution but is never clearly defined. The ambiguous phrase is found first in the preamble where it is written as "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America ". It is found again in Article I section 8 where it states that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". For some, this is an open door for the federal government to step in and make changes, on a national level, in order to prevent or repair anything that could be construed as a national crises. For others, it was put in place as a binder between the states for the expressed purpose of keeping the union whole and functioning as one single nation.
The debate over this matter goes back to the founders themselves at the very conception of this great nation. The argument of the time was over the use of federal funding to aid in the growth of manufacturing and was most bitterly contested between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Mr Hamilton believed that the country had a far better chance for success if the manufacturing sector was propped up through funding provided by the taxpayers and that its success would translate to prosperity to all citizens. Mr Jefferson, on the other hand, felt that it would be an encroachment on the rights of others to take the fruits of their labor in another mans interest. As in any debate, others involved in politics at the time were quick to choose sides but the vast majority of notable figures fell on the side of Mr. Jefferson. Only Benjamin Franklin was willing to speak on the side of Hamilton and even he was hesitant to accept the long term ramifications of that kind of federal power.
The premise of governing on behalf of the common good was the basis for an ideology known as Res Publica (public matter) which was the Latin origin of the word Republic.Thomas Jefferson along with the majority of our founding fathers were strict Republicans, in that, they believed that America should be governed as a Republic. .The fundamental premise of a Republic originated in Rome during the time of Gaius Julius Caesar. It was created in opposition to the empirical power structure and was designed to spread power evenly across the nation to help promote the "common good" of the people. According to The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral sciences, The Roman Republican Constitution of 509-49 bc was created to balance power between the government and the governed in order to promote the " common good, and never to the private will or domination ( dominatio ) of any private master". Jefferson wanted to create the same balance of power but where the Romans failed by not creating a defined separation between the powers, he was determined to make that separation a legal imperative. It was the desire to create a governing body which provided for the common good but favored no individual or group of individuals that led to the basic principles of our own Republic.
Prior to the ratification of our Constitution, there was another document which defined the governance of The United States known as the Articles of Confederation. This is not considered a "founding document" since it was actually replaced by the Constitution but it did serve as the base for its replacement and it was our first legislative federal document to contain the phrase "general welfare". The text of article III of the Articles of Confederacy reads as "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever". Clearly the spirit of this text offers no support to the Hamiltonian perspective of the phrase, rather, it serves as a binder to the states in the name of national unity. After taking time to himself to truly consider the words of the Articles of Confederation, James Madison wrote in his notes that "The Idea of voluntery complience with the law was sheer fancy since no state would willing submit to the laws of a federal congress" "sacrifice for the general welfare was wishful thinking" .."every general act of the union must necessarily bear unequally hard on some particular member of the union" . Mr. Madison goes on to explain that compliance between the states in the name of general welfare must be a legal obligation and defined as such in the Constitution. The transfer of this phrase into article I, section 8 of the Constitution was unanimously approved by the Constitutional Convention with no debate over its meaning what so ever and was rewritten as "general welfare of the United States". This subtle difference in phrasing was the justification for Mr. Hamilton’s dispute but was not taken seriously by most of those who were involved at the time.
I would be remised if I were to leave out the single most compelling argument for my thesis. On Saturday, January 19,1788, James Madison published "The Federalist #41". This would be the definitive explanation of the "powers conferred by the constitution", authored by the very man who had been recognized as the actual author of the Constitution itself. After hearing and reading about his detractors who feared that article I, section 8 could be misused, Mr. Madison wrote that "It has been urged and echoed, that the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction". He goes on to state that "Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it". He makes a clear point that all of the powers conferred by the Constitution are clearly detailed, including the powers allowed for the promotion of the "general welfare" of the states.
The first real test involving the powers granted by the "general welfare" clause came about during the debate over Roosevelt’s "New Deal" programs. During the early twentieth century immigration was at its peak and the jobs were not keeping up with the population. We saw a sudden influx of uneducated workers with little understanding of the fundamental design of our political system. This massive shift in the populous opened the door for self proclaimed "socialist progressives" to gain popularity and led to the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. Regardless of his popularity, his federally funded social programs were continually being struck down by the Supreme Court as "unconstitutional" under the
"reserve clause". Mr. Roosevelt reacted by attempting to restructure the Supreme Court by adding enough new members to "stack" it in his favor. While he failed in this effort he did garner enough support through his "fire side chat" to turn the Supreme Court’s decision on Social Security and a few other programs. On May 24th, 1937, the supreme court upheld the decision to give the federal government power to collect taxes to provide payments of "Old age benefits" . In the opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Cordozo, it was noted that " When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by congress, not the states".This suggested that the power granted by the constitution through the Supreme Court decision would leave the highest level of government with a great deal of "moral authority" for the first time in American history. Despite the courts discomfort with this power, they felt that the responsibility must lay on the national government because any one state who would implement this system would become "bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere". What bothers me about this decision is that they recognized that the system would be harmful on a local or state level but ignored that it would have the same effect on a national level. Now, instead of the needy migrating from state to state in search of "haven of repose", they are migrating from other nations and placing the predicted burden on our entire country.
The fact that the Supreme Court chose to grant the federal government a level of power that is not granted by the Constitution does not make it Constitutional. It simply means that the topic needs to be revisited and clarified. I believe that a Supreme Court who would act on behalf of supporting the Constitution, as it was defined by its authors, rather than acting on the perception of moral imperative, would find that the proposed health care reform does not comply with the Constitutional requirements. I also believe that a statewide version of this bill would be Constitutional but would create the scenario defined by Justice Cordozo where those who are needy will flock while those who provide will flee. As an alternative solution to the health care problem, I would consider creating a federal medical loan system. A pot from which people in need of care could draw a low interest loan that can be repaid through their own taxes. This creates an incentive for those who use the system to research their options and make decisions based on the balance of quality and cost of services rather than just taking what they can get and leaving others with the bill. Because my system is a "user pay" system, the costs will be merit based and controlled by market forces which would keep those costs substantially lower. The federal government would be operating a bank instead of an entire national medical system which would free up a good amount of bureaucratic costs and lessen the tax burden on American businesses. As we know from past evidence, when Americans get to keep more of their own money they are much more charitable. In short time there would be charities created to help those who cannot repay their medical debt due to their medical condition. My proposed system stands up to Constitutional scrutiny because its usage is not obligatory and its costs are distributed only among its users. Beyond that, the universal access to this program would force insurance companies to offer a much more competitive alternative than they do now.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Global Warmology 101
With all of this new information coming out about the e-mails concerning global warming, both sides are ratcheting up their efforts to gain support. The left, along with the majority of mainstream media, are simply ignoring the new evidence while the right is exaggerating and exploiting it's significance.
To be honest, I do not believe that mankind is capable of affecting the temperature of the entire planet, however, I know for sure that we are responsible for regional warming. I am sure that the reason the tornadoes always aim for trailer parks is because the shiny metal roofs reflect solar heat into the air above them creating a constant inward breeze that acts as a vacuum for small storms. Likewise, big cities are engines for local heating and cooling patterns. I am just as sure that those effects are restrained to the boundaries of those places.
What I do not subscribe to is a huge federally mandated financial overhaul in the name of saving the planet. That kind of tyrannical solution only polarizes half the country against the intended consequences. The general result is similar to the fact that it was Obama's history of supporting gun control that has created the strongest gun sales market in history. The whiplash has been a greater detriment to the cause than the original reasoning itself.
I would rather make a social effort to move people to take care of the environment for their own reasons. Try to follow me here.. Believe it or not, conservatives are a much greater force (in general) for environmentalism than liberals. A large number of hunters, fishermen and woodsmen are politically conservative. These are the people who are truly in touch with nature. They spend their leisure time in the woods or on the water and I can tell you from experience that they spew a dictionary of fowl and angry language when they come across a pile of trash left behind by some group of weekend warriors.
As an avid outdoorsman myself, I spend lots of time with friends on all sides of the political spectrum. With that in mind, i can also tell you from experience that it is the pot smoking, vodka drinking boaters and campers that preach about how greedy the rich are while they throw their trash where ever they go. It is the poor and uneducated that stand with their Obama shirt on and their hand out, in a pile of their own trash that is the real danger to our environment.
So, instead of preaching with condescension to the right about some fabricated global warming threat while prying money out of their pockets, lets just give them their own reasons and offer them some simple solutions that actually do help everybody.
To be honest, I do not believe that mankind is capable of affecting the temperature of the entire planet, however, I know for sure that we are responsible for regional warming. I am sure that the reason the tornadoes always aim for trailer parks is because the shiny metal roofs reflect solar heat into the air above them creating a constant inward breeze that acts as a vacuum for small storms. Likewise, big cities are engines for local heating and cooling patterns. I am just as sure that those effects are restrained to the boundaries of those places.
What I do not subscribe to is a huge federally mandated financial overhaul in the name of saving the planet. That kind of tyrannical solution only polarizes half the country against the intended consequences. The general result is similar to the fact that it was Obama's history of supporting gun control that has created the strongest gun sales market in history. The whiplash has been a greater detriment to the cause than the original reasoning itself.
I would rather make a social effort to move people to take care of the environment for their own reasons. Try to follow me here.. Believe it or not, conservatives are a much greater force (in general) for environmentalism than liberals. A large number of hunters, fishermen and woodsmen are politically conservative. These are the people who are truly in touch with nature. They spend their leisure time in the woods or on the water and I can tell you from experience that they spew a dictionary of fowl and angry language when they come across a pile of trash left behind by some group of weekend warriors.
As an avid outdoorsman myself, I spend lots of time with friends on all sides of the political spectrum. With that in mind, i can also tell you from experience that it is the pot smoking, vodka drinking boaters and campers that preach about how greedy the rich are while they throw their trash where ever they go. It is the poor and uneducated that stand with their Obama shirt on and their hand out, in a pile of their own trash that is the real danger to our environment.
So, instead of preaching with condescension to the right about some fabricated global warming threat while prying money out of their pockets, lets just give them their own reasons and offer them some simple solutions that actually do help everybody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
