Tax Code Driving ObamaCare Implementation: California’s ACA Odyssey Preview

Click to access the Original Article by John Gonzales

John M. Gonzales reporting for the California Healthcare Foundation Center for Health Reporting wrote a must read article called, How the U.S. tax code will drive Obamacare implementation, starting April 15. I strongly suggest all read it.

The negative effects of Obamacare on costs and care were immediate, and the ongoing negative effects are just starting to be disclosed and to build. Yesterday, I participated at a Health Care Summit put on by

Could the Public Confiscation of Private Funds in Cyprus happen in the U.S.: Ask Ellen Brown!

Great Article in TruthDig by Ellen Brown

When my good friend Ellen Brown speaks I listen!  You should also.  I do not often reference others works as it is so easy to rely on the efforts of others to build a blog.  I believe that one should do their own thinking and work.  But sometimes, there are articles, like this one by Ellen, that say it all so well and elegantly, that

Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean?

Introductory Note:

First let me apologize for the personal tone of this article. I typically try to focus on issues and solutions and not on my own personal reflections. This past week, among other things, I have been working with a group of parents from the school where our 8^th grade children are about to graduate. We are working to create a video that captures the 8^th grade class’ experience from kindergarten to graduation. In essence, to marvel at the growth and maturation of these modern examples of humans as they move from cute cuddly yet blissfully ignorant small animals, into wonderful, intelligent motivated, caring examples of the best of humanity. And, to wonder at this progression as it prepares them for the next steps of their own lives and time

Charles Blahous Channels Wilbur Mills: Warns states to not expand MediCaid!

Charles Blahous, Medicaid Trustee warns state to NOT expand Medicaid (image by Charles Blahous)

In an excellent article, Charles Blahous, one of Medicare’s Trustees, warns states of the dangers of the expansion of Medicaid.  He makes many of the same arguments that I have been making for quite a while, his warning, as a Medicare Trustee, may finally cut through the background noise and get some people to actually pay attention.  You can read the full Report by Mr. Blahous here: http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Blahous_MedicaidExpansion_v1.pdf

Mr. Blahous reminds me of Wilbur Mills who

Steve Brills Article, “Why Medical Bills are Killing Us:” is a lesson of right and wrong at the same time!

Steve Brill’s Time Cover Story (Click to read)

Time Magazine contributor Steven Brill has created a bit of a sensation due to his recent, February 20, 2013, article and Time Magazine cover story entitled, Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us: http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/#ixzz2LkTuy5lv.  Mr. Brill caused controversy both due to the length of the article, 26,000 words, and his revelations about the high prices and seemingly arbitrary pricing methods in our so called healthcare system.  His article has prompted a number of other reporters to pick up the themes and provide both points

The President’s Plan and the Story of Sam!

Uncle Sam’s Pickle

The President’s Plan

In the State of the Union speech last evening, the president said many things.  He offered a real plethora, yes a plethora, of programs, benefits, stimulus, taxes, and other things that he believes will improve the lot of Americans–at least some Americans. Many were struck thoughout his speech by the breadth and depth of the things the president wants to spend money on.  He offered programs for immigrants, college students, environmentalists, women, minorities, the elderly, the sick, the middle class, teachers, the unions, the poor, the underserved, the military and just about every

The problem with “The Chart”

The Most Important Chart in American Politics (click for article)

This morning as I did my news walk, I came across this article talking about the most important chart in American politics.  And as you can imagine it caught my eye. I find charts and graphs to be either extremely informative or extremely deceptive. Seldom is there a middle-ground.  Often the deceptive charts are constructed specifically for that purpose. It is seldom a surprise to find such charts in an article about politics.

This chart was one of the exceptions that prove the rule.  But not in the way you might imagine.  “The Chart” is deceptive, but I do not believe it is purposeful in its deceit.  Why not, you may ask?  Because the story it is trying to communicate would be stronger if the authors actually new the truth behind the problem.  But, like so much today, the surface suffices to make an argument.  The other details make the argument more difficult to communicate as the story can get

On Football, Smoking, Soda and Obamacare: There is a spending problem!

Yes Football is a violent sport!

After reading a recent spate of articles on how the president should, could or would ban or regulate football, I started to wonder what my father or grandfather might say? Then I wondered, how we got to this place where things that others choose to do to themselves is now our responsibility to monitor, manage, restrict and pay for?

50 years ago if we  spoke to our parents about the federal government making laws regulating football, or restricting peoples access to cigarettes and punitively taxing soda, they would think we had lost our minds.  Cleary,

A Republic: If we can Keep it!

Constitutional Republic

Unfortunately for all of us, we are now faced with a huge crisis. The crisis is viewed differently on either side. Yet, it is a crisis all the same. On the one side, the crisis is seen as the final crusade to be able to assure that everyone in the U.S. is mandated as equal. Not equal in opportunity but equal in outcome. The key to this ideal, is the completion of a federalist agenda and the expansion of federal power to supplant most states control.  The opponents to this desire have painted the promoters as wanting to create a socialist or fascist state eliminate all personal holdings and remove profit from any equation creating methods to redistribute wealth to the poor and eliminate any that have been able to accumulate more than another. Much of the

More Challenges to the ACA (Obamacare)

No Taxation Without Representation!

From Boston Massachusetts

By now, we all know that the Supreme Court upheld the insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) also known as Obamacare.  To recap, 26 states brought action to have the mandate, declared as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power under the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, and as a minor point its taxing authority.  The Supreme Court agreed with the states and found the mandate unconstitutional under the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause. However, in what many felt was a stunning decision by Justice Roberts­—and judicial over reach, the court upheld the mandate as a

Eye of the Beholder: Me and my Arrow!

Eye of the Beholder

It was Lew Wallace (1827-1905) who said, “Beauty is altogether in the eye of the beholder.”

Since I began getting involved in Washington, DC with the debate over healthcare reform a number of years ago, I have wondered more and more about how we have arrived at such a place that every issue, every decision, every need is met with such partisan, fractional, divisive and inflammatory rhetoric. Today it seems that there are no discussions on any issue that doesn’t revert to, “they said this, and what they really mean, is that.”  Or, you can hear a statement from one side or the other to the effect that, “It’s clear that their agenda is to do X, Y or Z to harm us.” Any, and all, of these statements amount to “doodly squat” as Granny Hawkins would say! – a prize to anyone who knows this reference — without using the internet!

Spin is not a new concept

Nothing related to any issue facing our national interest today is devoid of some spin to gain advantage on some other tangential issue–related or not.  Not to pick on any one side, or the other, but how often do we now hear the phrase, unfortunately most recently attributed to Rahm Emmanuel, “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”  Or to be fair, the statement by Senator McConnell that the prime goal of republicans is to defeat the president. If you think Mr. Emmanuel or Mr. McConnell are the first to utter these kinds of ideas, that they meant them completely literally, or that it is not a practice by each side of the political aisle, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I am willing to sell you; if you can convince me you deserve it!

If you think hyper-partisanship and gridlock are new I again encourage readers to go to Google Books and look up some of the old papers from the late 1800s and early 1900s and read what was going on then. There are surprising similarities.

Agenda based legislation now the norm

During the drive for healthcare reform there were a series of changes to the goals of the legislation that occurred as the process spread to one committee after another.  Senator Kennedy began the current process of healthcare reform in the wake of the disastrous attempt during the Clinton administration.  The bill that he authored just prior to his death was the result of his long-term attempt to find some legislation that would be acceptable to people on both sides and improve the healthcare system.  The HELP bill, while clearly not likely to have conservatives jump up and proclaim it a triumph of modern legislation, was still a bill that he clearly had worked hard on to find areas of support from his political opponents and an honest attempt  to find methods to improve the healthcare system.

Fiscal Cliff: Does Familiarity breed contempt?

Maybe its best if we just jump!

About four years ago, I was working as an executive in a company where it became clear just such cuts needed to be made.  I counseled one of the many division presidents who reported to me that the horrible outcomes they were predicting would not happen, and as distasteful and unpleasant as the process was, in the end, her division would be much improved, her employee’s futures more secure, and the morale in her division would also improve.  Needless to say, the president, and likely many of her colleagues—although no others would openly tell me their feelings— did not share this view!  She shared this view willingly, passionately, with me on numerous

The Pit and the Pendulum: Party politics today!

Constitutional Republic: Can we keep it?

As the energy, of hate and discontent, from the election subsides and the act of actual governance once again begins to be considered the job of politicians, we are now hearing calls from the left, the right and the middle about all the things that are wrong with our political system.

Should the two party system be changed? Should there be a constitutional congress to amend our fundamental political system in order to better reflect our modern societal needs and wants? Should we make more fundamental changes and move from the constitutional republic constructed by the founding fathers to a simple democracy? (elimination of the electoral college is one such idea)

Do We Really Value the Truth? Preparing for November 6th

How much do we truly value the truth?  Sure we talk about it, we complain about it when we don’t get it, we have even gone to war over the ideal of it, and destroyed relationships over the lack of it, but do we really value the truth? Or, like some much of our lives, is it just a false value, a mythical thing, a posit that while we are willing to use the lack of it to our own advantage, we never expect to actually apply it to ourselves.

How often have you been told, or professed to others, that you would not have gotten in trouble if you had just told the truth.  Children hear this invective from their parents all

QE3 will crush the middle class: What appears as good news may not be after all

Quantitative Easing Crushes the Middle Class

The recent action by the fed caps a series of bad decisions that have had a demonstrably devastating effect on the middle-class in America.  An Article by Martin Crutsinger of the Associate Press, appearing in U.S. News Weekly screams, “Fed unveils bold, open-ended steps to aid economy.” Another paper that reprinted this article’s sub-head says, ” Move to buy $40 billion a month in mortgage bonds hopes to spur home buying, consumer spending.  While for many, this will look like it is a fantastic decision—the Federal Reserve is stepping up to once again to help “stimulate” the economy—the key question, that no one is asking, is will this actually help?  The answer to the question, unfortunately, depends on who is asking the question.  From the Government’s perspective, this is necessary. From the bank’s perspective

Debunking The Clinton Budget Surplus Myth

By now most Americans have heard that our national economy is in deep trouble.  With increasing frequency, articles are appearing discussing the steadily accumulating massive debt, the looming insolvency of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the inability of our congressional leaders to rein in spending, an increase in pending bankruptcies of many municipalities and perhaps soon some states, and the overall impact of this crisis on our own personal finance and lifestyle.  Yet for most of us, it seems completely abstract—more like a dream. Many simply ignore the facts, believing it will just go away.  After all, we have

President Obama describes his role for the middle class

On July 24, 2012, the San Jose Mercury News ran an article by Josh Richman and Matthew Artz, “Obama’s campaign hits Oakland. “Obama campaign hits Oakland.”

The article covers the typical campaign rhetoric. It has its requisite Romney and republican bashing, has the required promises that he will give us all everything we want if we just give him one more chance, how everything would be better already if it was not for those other guys, and of course it was all wrapped up with a large dose of scare tactics to convince those present in Oakland that the bogymen conservatives were about to take away their babies,

The Truth About Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security: Ok What Do We Do Now?

President Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act of 1935

“We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which gives some measure of protection to the average citizen and his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.”

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said as he signed the Social Security Act into law August 14, 1935.

“Care for the sick. Serenity for the fearful”

were the words Lyndon Johnson expressed some thirty years later

The Supreme Court Decision: It hurts to be wrong-but it hurts more to be right and still wrong!

Now that we have all heard the decision by the Supreme Court on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), perhaps it is time for some reflection.  I know as I read the decision Thursday morning, while I was waiting in the queue preparing for a radio interview on the issue, I felt both vindicated in my initial analysis, but also left wanting and inadequate for not seeing the sideways tax justification for its declared constitutionality.

First a recap

There were four questions heard by the Supreme Court in this case.

Obamacare Supreme Court Ruling Likely Tomorrow: What will it mean to me?

If the discussion around water-coolers across the nation, or if the intensity of the discussion I have been having at meetings, discussions, or speeches I have given lately is any indication; then regardless of the decision from the Supreme Court tomorrow on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare if you prefer, the nation will once again find itself in a vitriolic and unnecessary national argument.

If you want to find out about the background of the core issue, you can read my Health Care Mandate and the Commerce Clause Articles or you can read, Supreme Court to hear arguments on Obamacare: An enigma, based on a canard, wrapped in a conundrum and read how the decisions could come down.

Regardless of the decision, it is clear that we will again have a major upheaval over any decision.  Passions are still running extremely high, and everyone seems to think this is the “be all and end all” of our future life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  And all of us are wrong!

The decision, regardless of how it comes down, will neither further harm our healthcare system, nor will it improve our healthcare system because we just do not have a system in the first place.  What we have is clearly not a system.  In my recent book, The History and Evolution of Healthcare in America: The untold backstory of where we’ve been, where we are, and why healthcare needs more reform!, available at Barnes and Noble and  Amazon, and other fine bookstores, I discuss how we got to what we have today, how the practice of healthcare has evolved over the years – sometimes not for the benefit of patients – how we arrived at the point where what we believe and expect from healthcare is more mythical than reality, and some ideas on what we need to do to make available both choice and effective care for all.  It is a result of our collective mythical vision of healthcare and inaccurate focus on the symptoms, not the problems of our healthcare system, in the current bill, that we find ourselves with a collective national angst that will in the end just yield political discord not fix the fundamental problems.

As I write this, I am listening to the debate on the Eric Holder contempt of congress issue, also pending determination tomorrow.  Again we are in the middle of a huge national division and if one is cynical enough, we may come to the conclusion that this is all part of some diabolical plan. Since we have come to the place where instead of citizen politicians, we now have a professional political class whose job is to sell us free stuff and fulfill our wants, more than our needs, in exchange for our votes, and thereby significant power and riches; perhaps this is why we seem to have become a nation of thirds who argue everything, and find our leaders unable, or more likely unwilling, to fix the problems.

We are now composed of about 1/3 hard left progressive, 1/3 hard right conservative, and about 1/3 of the nation seem caught in the middle.  You should wonder, what would politicians have to get reelected on if they stop giving us free stuff; and how, on earth, would they get us to give them money so they can afford campaigns, if we are not mostly extremely irritated over something?  I am starting to think it is not our integrity and character that gets us engaged in critical issues anymore, but more likely it is just our passions.

There are some who declare that “Fast and Furious,” was a planned effort to create a national outrage in order to continue to clamp down on gun rights and perhaps severely restrict the second amendment.  Some label this actual fact, and some call this nothing more than wild conspiracy theory.  We all participate in this to some extent because we now habitually believe there can only be one extreme or another, not some logical blend in the middle.  The problem for those of us who are not trying to find conspiracy at every corner, is that we are at a nexus of a number of events created by the actions of the current and prior administrations that all seem to have at least some conspiracy elements in the actions.

In addition to “Fast and Furious,” you have the the actions and events over immigration reform, and the President’s recent unilateral action to implement some form of a dream act. You have the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona Law and the administrations action to shut down the rulings effect by suspending the cooperation between ICE and Arizona’s police departments, and if you look back at the Affordable Care Act debate in congress. You have on the record, statements from people like Barney Frank and Charlie Rangle, and some others, who stated that the health care bill would be the path to a National Single Payer Healthcare system.  While you can look at each item discretely, and argue there is no Machiavellian agenda, when you look across the entire spectrum one needs to wonder if there is some agenda at work after all. And of course, the answer becomes; Yes -  there is an agenda.

Of course there is an agenda, and hopefully it is because those pursuing it truly believe what they are doing is right for America and Americans.  But being right for America and right for Americans may not always yield the same decision.  If may seem right for Americans to have congress conflate the promise given by the Constitution to all for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness into an extrapolated promise of free heath care for everybody paid for by the government.  Conversely, at the same time it may not be right economically for the viability of America, to assume what historically was a personal responsibility if the assumption of these costs would bankrupt the nation.  Both decisions, in the narrow view, are good and reasonable decisions.

One path to a decision, has the benefit of giving something to political constituents that will help endear politicians to their electorate and gain reelection.  The other, could change the last fifty years of building the expectation that it is the government, not the individual, that needs to be responsibility for their own heath.  Regardless, this is just not a good situation for any of us, and it is partly why the bill that passed to become the law that is Obamacare is not really liked by either side or the middle.

While the 1964 extension of Social Security Act to include Medicare and Medicaid, was sold as a safety net, the reason for the passage was political gain, clearly on display if you listen to the Johnson tapes available today on-line.  And, subsequent to passage, regardless of whether or not there really was a Machiavellian plan, we have continued to want, and/or allow, Congress to convert the “safety net” into a national entitlement.  The end point is the same.

This is the reason that as we await the decision from the Supreme Court tomorrow, I do not think it will matter one iota in actually addressing the problems that we need to solve or developing a real system to make available both choice and effective healthcare for everyone.

Socialism again triumphs in France and Greece: Is America next?

Socialism trumps austerity in Greece, and France, is America next?

“Socialist Francois Hollande elected in France”

So, in both France and Greece, voters rejected the backers of austerity measures—Surprise, Surprise! This is no doubt the thought that most Americans had as they saw this headline in their morning paper.  For some the next question may be, “Is America going to be next?”

The two headed snake

America faces two major problems that could lead us to a French or Grecian style disaster. One is that we have the same problem in our economy; albeit we have been able to forestall, some say cover up, the problem since 1972. The second issue is we are deviating from the basic premises and rules our founding fathers established to preserve the American Republic and our engine of prosperity—capitalism.

Economic Collapse

America is very likely already at risk.  Our economic issues, the rapid unaccountable increase in currency since 1972, have caused a significant “hidden” inflation.  We have been able to avoid dealing with the fiscal realities because once we were off the gold standard and as a result of being the world’s benchmark currency most countries have had a vested interest in not calling us on the carpet.  While we have increased the amount of money in circulation from $500 Billion in 1972 to over $16 Trillion today, by most accounts an increase of over thirty-five times, no one believes that we have at the same time really increased the tangible net worth of the U.S. economy thirty-five times. Even accounting for the gains driven by technology, most would project only a $5 – 7 trillion economy at this point.

Constitutional Erosion

We were formed as a constitutional republic, specifically not as a democracy.  While early in General Washington’s first term as President of the new republic, a schism opened between John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and other “Federalists” who believed in a strong central government structure vs. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other “Democrats” who believed strongly in resting much of the power in the hands of the states; none of these protagonists were advocates for a change in the U.S. Constitution to that of a democracy.  All of the founding fathers knew that democracies simply did not survive.  They realized that while the idea of democratic principles had a place in government to preserve the voices of, and provide protection for, the people; only a republic, backed by a constitution could provide the pragmatic offset to self-serving rules benefiting the masses at the long term expense of the republic itself.  They knew from history that democracies had a way of falling into revolution on the one hand and anarchy, socialism, or communism on the other.

While it can be said that the U.S. Constitution has served us well and that the strength of the republic carried us though many international crises since our founding, it has not protected us against ourselves and our own instincts to seek an easier road to survival or a weakening of our requirements for personal responsibility.  Beginning in the early 1900’s the so called progressive movement attempted to re-frame our nation as a democracy.  Slowly, our own view of our role as Americans has shifted from what we can do for our country, to what we expect to have our country provide for us.  This shift became so dramatically clear after World War II, that on January 20th, 1961, then President John, F. Kennedy in his inaugural speech felt it necessary to try to remind America’s youth that there was a higher ideal they should aspire to. He said clearly, to all Americans, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you— ask what you can do for your country.”

Many scholars now believe that there has been a steady erosion of the constitutional basis for our republic as a result of many historical actions to affect short term problems.  Conspiracy theorists believe there has been a conscious effort to change us from a republic to a democracy by those in the Democratic Party.   Conspiracy theories are hard to fathom because it would need to attribute way more intellect and forethought to human beings that experience and evidence suggests.  History simply shows us that a series of decisions and events, each made for short term pragmatic reasons, have culminated in an ever increasing loss of core values.  You see core values are hard, they require sacrifice, they require risk, they require adherence to principals larger than us. It is by their very difficult nature that we define these values as part of one’s character, and it is this reason that we innately want to find ways to rationalize away these very responsibilities.

For about 100 years, we have been rationalizing away these values.  We have softened our education system and stopped teaching the detail of what it means to be a republic or an American.  Ask any American, under the age of sixty, what form of government we have and more often than not you will hear that we are a democracy.  If you press the point and ask what being a democracy means, they will say that the majority is supposed to rule. Interesting is it not that an ideal that brought unanimous approval to the Constitution of the United States by the founding fathers is now a tenant of which most of us are woefully unaware!

What is even more illustrative of the change to our national values and psyche, is the fact that Jefferson, Madison, and others, who were the foundation of the original Democratic Party, were strong advocates for a weak central government and felt that governing power needed to be as close to the people as possible thereby vested in each state. Also, I find it fascinating that the term “progressive”, now used as an invective by republicans as a cudgel to hammer democrats was originally an outgrowth of the republican ideals of the early 1900s. How is it that the party personalities can have so radically changed yet we remain blissfully unaware that the way we encapsulate ourselves is so transient?

Is America next?

While many of the same people who today believe we are a democracy—and believe that democrats stand for big government, that republicans want to hurt the middle class for the benefit of the rich and have no interest in helping the poor—also believe that there is no way that America will suffer the same fate as Greece, or France, or many other countries. Maybe it is time we asked ourselves some hard questions:

• Have so weakened our own understanding of who we are, what our country is founded on, and what it is that protects us from such a declination that we no longer know how wrong we are about our own base assumptions?
• Have we allowed this gradual debasement of personal responsibility, in favor of government entitlement and forced corporate reallocation of wealth, to go so far that a fundamental shift away from the principals of our own constitutional republican form of government is unrecognizable?
• Are we electing leaders that are doing what is in the best long term interest of America, or are they simply willing to do whatever will get them the votes to be re-elected?
• Do we really believe that a safety net for the helpless is the same as entitled services for all including the clueless and the worthless (fraudsters)? And do they believe that after years of hyperinflation of the currency we can continue to just print money out of thin air to pay for it or that the so called “rich” in America have enough to pay for everyone else?
• Are we really immune to the fate of these other countries, or have we already suffered the economic collapse and have just been covering it up by printing more money and manipulating our economy to rationalize the perception of great gain?
• When will this all come crashing down on us, or has it already started and we are just ignoring it? Is this why it is now so much fun to watch reality TV and revel in the catastrophes of other’s lives because it allows us to feel we are still better than them? Is it possible that is why the spectacle of the Coliseum in ancient Rome became so popular, because it helped hide their reality of the oncoming demise?

One last point to ponder!  If you think that we really have not lost a national understanding as to how our government functions, think of this.  No one can explain why we still have the election of the President of the United States conducted by an electoral college instead of by popular vote.  There are many who argue this is an anachronism, a relic of days before computers, and broadcast media but this is sophistry that would make the ancient Greek philosopher, Zeno, very proud. The electors have always had a duty to vote for the best candidate, not the most popular, and not the one that promised the most free-stuff.  The best candidate, the one that was best for all of America is the responsibility that rested in the elector’s hands. Now, many states have changed their laws to alter the rules for the electors to now only vote for the candidate that receives the majority of the popular vote—winner take all.  What happens if that candidate commits a heinous crime, or it is discovered that he is morally corrupt, or that he or she is conspiring to damage the country?  Are they still bound?  They did not used to be!

The final question is, “Are we about to become France, and Greece, or have we already suffered the same fate, and all that is left is the counting?”

History and Evolution of Healthcare in America now released

The History and Evolution of Healthcare in America is now released. Click here or on the image to order your advance copy today!

You can order your very own personalized copy here.

NEWS!!! Now available at great prices from Amazon.com

and Barnes and Noble.com

Here is what others are saying!

From the beginning of mankind, health and health issues have played a major role in life, but the issues and care have evolved enormously from the time when the first settlers set foot in America to the present. In The History and Evolution of Healthcare in America, author Thomas W. Loker provides a historical perspective on the state of healthcare and offers fresh views on changes to Obamacare.

Insightful and thorough, The History and Evolution of Healthcare in America offers a look at

• what healthcare was like at the birth of the nation;
• how the practice of providing healthcare has changed for both caregivers and receivers;
• why the process has become so corrupt and expensive;
• what needs to happen to provide both choice and effective and efficient care for all;
• where we need to most focus efforts to get the biggest change;
• what is needed to get control over this out-of-control situation.

Loker narrates a journey through the history of American healthcare—where we’ve been, how we arrived where we are today, and determine where we might need to go tomorrow. The history illustrates how parts of the problem have been solved in the past and helps us understand what might be necessary to solve our remaining problems in the future.

Phillips $10 million dollar $60 light bulb: just your average government project part 4

Phillips $10 million - $60.00 light bulb

Each morning I look forward to reading the morning paper.  Since she got an iPad, a little over a year ago, my wife keeps saying why don’t you cancel the paper and just read the paper on-line.  It is a routine, I know, but this habit helps me start the day and get my mind in gear—usually.  And maybe now I am ooooollllllddddd fashioned.  Or perhaps just old, but I really appreciate the ritual—ritual sounds much more mature than routine and lends an air of distinction to this anachronistic practice don’t you think?

Well, as I was reading once again I am presented with yet one more justification on why we need to have a serious discussion about the national economy, the role of government in the economy, and why we need to move much of the ‘new found’ federal responsibility back to the states, and the private sector; as if any more justification was needed on top of, Cartagena Hooker-gate, GSA let’s all meet and have a party at the taxpayer’s expense-gate, and Solyndra-gate.

The point of today’s reflection is an article, in the Boston Globe by Peter Svensson, “Rebates to ease shock of a $60.00 light bulb.”  I think everyone needs to read this article, if you have not done so already.

Having been in the technology sector for many years, and having a few friends who have either invested in or started, “green” energy companies, I have a passing familiarity with the basis for the creation of this bulb.  There was a $10 million contest, sponsored by our federal government to stimulate the production of more energy efficient light bulbs, driven by political pandering to the let’s save the environment from the evils of incandescent light bulbs crowd.

The justification was that incandescent bulbs convert a large amount of energy to heat, therefore it is wasted.  This is a valid point.  Another point is that from these group’s figures, the average life span of a 60 watt incandescent bulb is 1,500 hours and therefore the contest was for not only a green bulb but one that lasts longer so the cost could be justified.

The contest rules were for a bulb that lasted much longer and it had to cost $22.00, or less, in the first year, with the assumption that the price would go down as adoption and production increased.  Oh yea, it was an American program, and you would think it was also to stimulate American jobs and American business? Nope!  Only one company, Phillips, and if you don’t know Phillips is based in the Netherlands, entered the contest.  Of course they won.  But there is a catch!

The bulb will cost $60.00 not $22.00 or less.  Of course the argument from the groups is they are forcing electric companies to provide rebates for the purchase of the bulb so the price will be offset by $20 or $30 dollars, but if my math is correct $60 – $30 is still $30 which is more than $22.00, last I checked.  And now, as this is coming to light (so to speak), Phillips says they will offer an initial discounted price of $50.00 so the price will be in the $20 to $30 range… Great deal isn’t it?  They got $10 million so you can bet the discount will last until they sell the first million bulbs (that’s $10 million divided by the $10 dollar discount). And let’s not even ask the question if the chemistry in these bulbs might be more hazardous to the environment once they are disposed of.

The thing that gets me about this whole program is that all of this “savings” are coming from us in the first place, so we are not saving anything.  The rebates are charged back to us in the form of higher cost per kilowatt, and the $10 million came from us in taxes.  Most importantly, we are increasing the cost of light bulbs from about $1.10 per bulb to over $50.00. And this is predicated on saving the planet, lowering our energy costs, and stimulating the American Job market . . .  Well forget the American Job market part I guess . . .

Last point I have on this subject is, if the statistics I hear quoted about incandescent bulbs are accurate, then I am the luckiest S.O.B. in the whole world because . . .

The earth killing $1.11 incandescent light bulb

They claim that an incandescent bulb only lasts for 1,500 hours.  I have by a quick count at least twenty-eight, 40 – 60 watt incandescent bulbs in my house now.  I have been in this house for over ten years. I replace on average two bulbs a year. Most of the lights in my house burn five hours a day, some more, some less, but this is my best guess on the average.  So, my lights are lit about 1,825 hours per year.  Given the 1500 hour average life, according to these green groups, I should be buying and replacing about thirty bulbs a year.  But you know what, I don’t . . .  I never have.  In fact, the reason that incandescent bulbs burn out as quickly as they do, albeit much more slowly for lucky me, is because the vacuum in the bulb at manufacture is not as complete as it could be.  And it only costs me $1.11 cents to buy these evil, world destroying, 60 watt bulbs, or $2.20 per year.  This means, I theoretically change them all once every fourteen years.

Now, if I buy twenty-eight of these new bulbs that are supposed to last twenty years, even with the discount, it will cost me $840.00.  I can buy 756 of my old bulbs for that price, which would have lasted fifty-four years at my current replacement rate.

Light bulb manufacturers, all the way back to old Tom Edison, knew they could make bulbs that lasted for a long, long, time—10 to 30 years. In fact, they have, by accident and random chance.  My grandfather’s house had some of the original Edison bulbs with a base the size of a ping pong ball and a filament that looked as thick as a pencil lead.  If they were not broken over time, they would all probable be burning today. Good for homeowners, but bad for GE, Sylvania, etc.  These guys new that bulbs could be cheap because you bought a lot of them every year, and if you only buy a few every twenty years then they will cost a whole lot more.  And guess what, they were correct back then and they are correct now!

Since I am now living in California, and I can’t buy many incandescent bulbs because they have been outlawed, I have a few CFL bulbs, and so far I have had to replace these bulbs at least once a year and in one case, in the globe ceiling fixture in my closet that has two 40 watt bulbs, much more frequently.  In fact, if one of these suckers blows out in the fixture, the other one dies, seemly out of sympathy, in just a few days.

Due primarily to labor and benefits costs, and secondarily because we have a dwindling lower wage labor pool because everyone must go to college, we are already non-competitive in manufacturing.  Now, we will begin increasing the cost of lighting by almost fifty times as we move to these “save the planet” bulbs.  Many supporters of these bulbs argue that in the long run we are going to save so much more in costs of energy because of their efficiencies.  Well, due to past experience I am both skeptical of the claim, and dubious that the short term increase of costs on an already non-competitive economic structure will ever be offset.  And even if it theoretically will lower costs in the long run, I am starting to doubt we will be around as a vibrant economy for it to matter anyway; which means we won’t be buying a lot of $60 light bulbs because we won’t be able to afford them.

While I am all for limiting the impact we have on the environment, like everything else in life we need to also maintain some viability.  In this case, the viability is tied to our cumulative cost and its impact on our economic i.e. national and cultural viability. Perhaps If we really want to save the planet then we should likely all agree to commit suicide now.  Then we will no longer have an impact.  I guess, that is, after the ecosystem once again returns to stasis after the population blooms of bacteria, predators, carrion feeders, etc. — all go through their own population explosion-die off cycles as the excess food sources from the rotting polluting corpses we leave behind are finally consumed and absorbed into the ecosystem.  On second thought, this will likely be a bigger polluting source that all the incandescent bulbs so maybe we should just keep the incandescent bulb and balance it by what we save by not committing suicide in the first place—Cap n’ Trade at its finest.

Oh yea, can’t use cap n’ trade, cause the state is going to use that to pay for the High-Speed Rail to nowhere!

Medicare-Medicaid: A Chicken in Every Pot

“. . . I think we’ve got you something that we won’t only run on in ’66, but we’ll run on from hereafter!” - Wilbur Mills to President Johnson on Medicare in 1965.

As Congressman Wilbur Mills commented to President Lyndon Johnson, in a taped private conversation in 1965, he was encapsulating the primary benefit that the democrats of the day felt they would gain from the Medicaid and Medicare extension to the Social Security Act of 1935, and the primary reason that President Johnson and his team pushed so hard for the reform to include new entitlement programs for the elderly, the disaffected, and disillusioned.

The Historical Perspective

Wilbur Daigh Mills, democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, was considered, by many, to be the only person in Congress who truly understood the actuarial basis of Social Security, and was recognized as the Congress’s primary tax expert.  At the start of the war on poverty in 1964, Mills had serious concerns as to the affordability of the existing Social Security Act of 1935 for the nation, let alone any extension of the current benefits to include what was then viewed as a health care “safety-net” for the underserved and the elderly.

Mills did not believe that the nation’s tax system could fund the liability of Medicare.  In his paper, “The Origins of Medicare,” published in 1999, Robert B. Helms writes,

Even in the face of strong political pressure from other Democrats, Mills had been so consistent in his opposition to adding a medical benefit to Social Security that many suspected him of being sympathetic to the AMA’s socialized medicine arguments. He used his detailed knowledge of Social Security to question both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations’ cost estimates and to point out that estimating future medical costs was a much more difficult task than estimating the future costs of a cash benefit.

In a 1964 speech, Mills said: “In practical terms, this meant that if the hospital insurance system which would be created by the bill was to remain sound, the taxable wage base would have to be increased by $150 each year. Clearly, this would be a case of the tail wagging the dog.” (The taxable wage base increased an average of $46 per year from 1959 to 1964)

In that same speech, he pointed out that hospital costs were increasing at a rate of 6.7 percent, while average earnings were increasing at only 4 percent (1955 – 1963), and that he saw no reason to assume that the situation would change. His support for the final version of Medicare in 1965 was apparently due to the effects of Democratic gains in the House in the elections of 1964, President Johnson’s personal appeals for support, and the many technical changes that he was personally able to insert into the bill during its various stages of development.

We now know that Chairman Mills’ skepticism was justified: In 1964, the administration projected that Medicare, in 1990, would cost about $12 billion in 26 years (which included an allowance for inflation); the actual cost was $110 billion. We may not know until the year 2025 if today’s actuaries are any more accurate than those in 1964 in making twenty-six-year projections, but at least the current crew is leaving no stone unturned to tell everyone who will listen that the Medicare Part A trust fund does not meet their standards for short-term or long-term actuarial soundness.

Despite Mills’ dire warnings, and his correct calculation that the wage base would have to increase by 300% each year over the existing rate to afford this new entitlement, Johnson felt he was swept in with a clear mandate from the people due to his landslide victory in the 1964 election. So, to help drive increases in the Democratic Party majority in congress, he made the push for Medicare one of his primary platform goals. Johnson was so focused on getting Medicare pushed through congress, he was willing to leverage anyone, and everyone, with every tool he had at his disposal to get this divisive legislation approved. The following transcript, of a taped meeting with his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, in the first days after the election, is quite telling.

Johnson: “They are bogged down. The House had nothing this week-all god-damn week. You and Moyers and Larry O’Brien have got to get something for them. And the Senate had nothing . . .  So we just wasted three weeks . . .  Now we are here in the first week in March, and we have just got to get these things passed . . .  The ones that I’m really interested in . . .  one of them is education, one of them is Medicare, and one of them is Appalachia . . .  I think the medical care will go through like a dose of salt through a widow-woman . . .  You’ve got to look each week and say, what is the Senate doing in Committee this week and when will they be through, what is the House doing . . .  You’ve got to be running into these guys in the halls, and going over and having a drink with them in the evenings . . .  I want that program carried. I’ll put every Cabinet officer behind you, I’ll put every banker behind you, I’ll put every organization that I can deliver behind you . . .  I’ll put the labor unions behind you.

Johnson’s election didn’t just change the Democratic Congress’s advantage over Republicans; it also changed Mills’ political view. Seeing the writing on the wall, Mills made another speech where he announced, “I can support a payroll tax for financing health benefits just as I have supported a payroll tax for cash benefits (meaning social security).”
Thus, began what has been termed by many as the greatest Ponzi scheme to ever be foisted on the American people. With Mills’ support, the measure passed. There were still several hurdles to overcome, but in the end, Johnson got the legislation he wanted, regardless of the consequences. On March 23, 1965, Johnson’s Oval Office taping system records the call he has been waiting for from Wilbur Cohen (architect of much of Social Security and Medicare), Wilbur Mills (Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee), Carl Albert (Democratic Majority Leader) and John McCormack (Speaker of the House) telling him the bill has just passed out of the Ways and Means Committee. It is the first time Johnson finds out what Cohen has just actually agreed to in Johnson’s name: (Listen to the Johnson Tapes on-Line)

Mills: We wound up, and I got instructions, we’ll introduce the bill at noon tomorrow, and will report it at 12:15 . . .  I think, we’ve got you something that we won’t only run on in ‘66 but we’ll run on from here after.
Johnson: Wonderful. Thank you, Wilbur.
Mills: Now here is Wilbur Cohen.
Johnson: When you going to take it up?
Mills: We could have it on late next week, if not, early the following week.
Johnson: For God sakes, let’s get it before Easter.
Mills: Oh, there’s no doubt about that.
Johnson: . . . I sure do congratulate you on getting this one out . . .  I congratulate you and thank you.
Cohen: I think it’s a great bill Mr. President.
Johnson: Is that right?
Cohen: Yes sir. I think you got not only everything that you wanted, but we got a lot more . . .  It’s a real comprehensive bill.
Johnson: How much does it cost our budget over what we estimated?
Cohen: Well, it would be, I would say, around $450 million more than what you estimated for the net cost of this supplementary program.
Johnson: What do they do under that? How is that handled? Explain that to me again, over and above the King-Anderson, this supplementary that you stole from Byrnes.
Cohen: Well, generally speaking, it’s physician’s services.
Johnson: Physicians. All right, now my doctor that I go out and he pumps my stomach out to see if I’ve got any ulcers, is that physicians?
Cohen: That’s right.
Johnson: Any medical services that are M.D. services?
Cohen: Any M.D. services.
Johnson: Does he charge what he wants to?
Cohen: No, he can’t quite charge what he wants to because this has been put in a separate fund and what the Secretary of HEW would have to do is make some kind of agreement with somebody like Blue Shield, let’s say, and it would be their responsibility . . .  that they would regulate the fees paid to the doctor. What he tried to do was make sure the government wasn’t regulating the fees directly . . .  the bill provides that the doctor can only charge the reasonable charges, but this intermediary, the Blue Shield, would have to do all the policing so that the government wouldn’t have its long hand . . .
Johnson: That’s good. Now what does it do for you the patient, on doctors. It says you can have doctor’s bills paid up to what extent or how much? Is there any limit?
Cohen: The individual patient has to pay the first $50 deductible, then he’s got to pay 20 percent . . .  of everything after that . . .
Johnson: That keeps your hypochondriacs out?
Cohen: That will keep the hypochondriacs out. At the same time, for most of the people it will provide the overwhelming portion of their physician’s costs.
Johnson: Yes sir, and that’s something nearly everyone could endure. They could borrow that much, or their folks could get them that much to pay their part . . .  I think that’s wonderful. Now remember this, nine out of ten things I get in trouble on is because they lay around. Tell the Speaker, and Wilbur, to please, get a rule just the moment they can . . .  That damn near killed my education bill, letting it lay around. It stinks. It’s just like a dead cat on the door. When a Committee reports it, you better either bury that cat or get it some life.

In the end, Medicare and Medicaid became the law of the land. And, as can now know, Mills was correct to have his doubts about the actuarial basis of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security when the bill was passed in 1965. But, like the Social Security Act of 1935, the 1965 Act was not an ending, but a beginning of a perpetual series of expansions of the benefits provided by these programs.

It is now painfully clear that Wilbur Mills was correct in his initial assumptions about both the solvency of the original Social Security Act of 1935 and its unprecedented expansion in the 1965 amendment that pushed through for significantly political reasons by President Johnson.  Mills estimates of what would be required in real taxable earnings gains in order to fund this “safety net” were eerily prescient. By 1974, the failure of the GDP to support the nation’s expenses for these entitlements, and the accumulating trade deficit, had placed the country in a significant cash shortage with few means of escape.

President Richard Nixon took us off the gold-standard, and by the late 1980s the significant, arbitrary increases in the currency had elevated almost everyone’s wage base to where they began to feel prosperous once again.  But, the costs were just being temporarily outpaced by the injection of this new currency, the day of reckoning was still coming and finally hit with a vengeance in 2009. It is now starting to become clear that the feeling of prosperity we all experienced was not the reality of our economy just the benefit of more baseless cash.

The Modern Perspective

Enter a few days ago our current President, Barack Obama. In the past few days, it is clear to me that the president still believes what Wilbur Mills told President Johnson in 1965.  He clearly believes that he should be able to run on the entitlements of Medicare and Medicaid to secure the votes for this free stuff, just like President Johnson.  The concept of “a chicken in every pot,” i.e. votes for free stuff, was not as much the hallmark of the Democratic Party prior to President Johnson.

Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt leveraged these ideals to help the country rise out of the Great Depression and prepare for WWII, and Herbert Hoover is often credited with the phrase; “A Chicken in Every Pot” is a quotation that is perhaps one of the most mis-attributed in American political history. Variously assigned to each of four presidents serving in the years between 1920 and 1936, it is most often associated with Herbert Hoover. In fact, the phrase has its origins in seventeenth century France; Henry IV reputedly wished that each of his peasants would enjoy “a chicken in his pot every Sunday.” Although Hoover never uttered the phrase, the Republican Party did use it in a 1928 campaign advertisement touting a period of “Republican prosperity” that had provided a “chicken in every pot—and a car in every backyard, to boot.” You see, we need to understand that political duplicity is not a democratic or republican affectation; it is a politician’s con.

But here we are once again, and even though President Obama is not uttering this phrase, it is clear that this is what he sees as his ticket to re-election.  Perhaps I am too cynical, but reading transcripts of committee hearings on what became the Affordable Care Act, listening to our congressional leadership saying things about the legislation like, “this is the path to a federal single payer system,” or “we need to pass it so we can see what’s in it,” and other equally ludicrous statements, and listening to the political agendas so blatantly expressed in the Johnson, or Nixon, tapes can do that to a person!

Based on my own experience, and backed up by the historical record all the way back to Mr. Mills, it is clear that the current system simply cannot work.  Frankly, and I don’t think I am telling anything out of school, none of our elected officials think it can work either.  They are currently almost evenly split between the “we know it can’t work and we need to fix it crowd,” and the “We know it can’t work but we can run on it again, and again, and again… crowd.” Regardless, to everyone it should now be clear that it can’t work.

So, it is astounding to me that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, now stands before the American people and making a reverse Robin Hood argument declares that the other party, Republicans, in this case, those evil people, want to take everything you have away and give it to the rich!  And what is more astounding is he says this is not class warfare!  People seriously can’t believe that such a bald faced lie can be true, can they? I have met many of our congressional leaders; republican and democrat.  I have not met one that was not concerned about all Americans.

To make a statement that one political party is dedicated to the destruction of poor and helpless people is beyond unconscionable it is simply irresponsible.  And it would be equally irresponsible for similar invectives to come from the other side as well.  We are in a significant national, social and economic crisis.  If our leaders do not get serious about solving the problems then we need to get new leadership.  If all we have left when someone talks of hard choices is to damn them as a pawn for the rich, then I do not see how we will survive.

As we move beyond this primary election cycle toward the presidential election, we need to elect a leader that will realize that he can’t promise America that there will not be a chicken in every pot.  You see Mr. Obama; the chickens have finally come home to roost!

(for those of you who may be interested in more on this issue, it is discussed in more detail in my upcoming book, “The History and Evolution of Healthcare in America,” go to my website at www.loker.com and sign up to receive notice of its release.)

The wheels of justice not only turn slowly they often confuse the common man

If you want to listen to the lengths modern law and its practitioners, lawyers, go to spin reality and obscure common sense to convince courts that which otherwise normal people would deem ludicrous, just go to and listen to yesterday’s oral arguments on the Tax Anti-Injunction Act part of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Supreme Court review of its constitutionality.

It is interesting to note that the Solicitor General, representing the government, seems to be schizophrenic as he attempts to argue for the Obama administration’s position that the court cant here the case because of the act—as the President does not want the decision to come till after the election—and on the other hand in representing the position of the government (the people in general) he tells the court that he thinks the court should hear the case.

Another point to note as it has very particular relevance is that in his argument yesterday, he describes the assessed fee for not purchasing insurance, under the mandate clause of the act, is a tax.  Tomorrow he will be arguing that it is in fact a tax.  This schizophrenic position has been confounding the government’s position since they debated the law and passed it in the first place.  In arguing why the case can be heard, Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, argues that the penalty is not a tax for the purpose of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.  Tomorrow he will argue that the “penalty” is in fact a tax to justify the federal government’s position that it can levee it and therefore it is not violating state’s rights.

It is very important to note that like congress and the president, the power of the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court is granted, loaned if you will, from We, the people of the United States.  As such, if the decisions rendered make no sense to We, the people, then it is either because they are wrong or not crafted to reflect well on our intentions as a people.

We need to begin to exercise our responsibility as the grantors of these very important and solemn powers and demand that all decisions and arguments be rendered with a standard of language that we can all understand and does not obscure whether or not our constitutional rights are being upheld.

I encourage everyone to take the time to listen to the arguments in the first person, not as reported by others.  Yes they will take a combined six to nine hours but to allow others to police our rights is to grant them the power to help obscure the elimination, or neutering, of our rights.

To quote and old friends mother, “Pay attention, you can learn something from a fool!”  I worry that in the end the fool will be us!

What is wrong with politics?

Constitutional Republic

People that know me well know that I read.  I read a lot.  I read incessantly, I read everything and anything. I read everywhere, written by anyone, left, right or middle—it does not matter.

I long ago came to the conclusion that whether or not I agree with the points made by an author, this should not be the guiding principal of what I choose to read.  I find that, in fact, I learn the most when I read things I do not innately agree with.  In reading the contrasting opinions of others, and for the most part with the intent of maintain an open mind, I can try to compare their journey of understanding, expressed in their logic, if it exists, and either validate, or repudiate, parts of my own logic. Hopefully, coming to a better understanding and opinion myself.

Whats the problem?

I am not so sure that this is what people really do anymore!  It seems to me more and more people are only interested in letting someone else tell them what to think!

Recently, I have seen a series of articles, from both sides, trying to answer the question of what is wrong with our political system.   Each side is spending lots of effort, and ink (or electronic bits), explaining how the system is not working because the other side is conspiring to subvert the system to harm something or someone, or to benefit something or someone at our expense.  They often formulate the basic justification as this is clear because we are not getting what we want from the system.

Wrong Premise

The problem for me, as I see it, is the entire premise is wrong!  By starting with the logic that something is wrong because we (pick either side in the argument) are not getting what we want, may be logical but it is not accurate on two levels.  First, the assumption that the system is designed to give us something that we want in the first place, is not a correct assumption.  Second, the idea that the system is designed so that whatever the majority wants is to be provided to us by the government, is also not true.

System is working fine

The reality is that our political system is still, for the most part, working as it was designed despite the slow erosion of some of the original checks and balances over the past seventy-five years.  If you doubt this premise, read any of the biographies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, or Franklin and it will quickly become quite obvious that this was the design.

No, the system is still working just as it was intended.  The problem is not the system. Although, if we do not begin to understand the impact of the gradual changes we have made, soon this may not be the case.  The problem with the system is we are now starting to get what we want, and compounding this problem we have been for the last fifty or sixty years.  We are, in every corner, probably right or wrong, getting too much.  No, it is not the system that is the problem it is:

1. The changes we have allowed to be made to the original system have weakened the checks and balances on our own greed and avarice
2. What we expect that we are due from the system has grown exponentially as we have gained more from the system

The system is being changed

Our system was designed to be based on part-time citizen politicians directly subject to the impact of the laws and policies they create, not a ruling elite political class exempt for their communities day to day trials and tribulations.  At the very beginning of the implementation of our new form of government, in April of 1789, the grand design of our form of government showed the promise of its innate slow and difficult process to sort out where power and responsibility resides and to make difficult the ability of the federal government to pass laws that affect us.  Rapidly, the two competing philosophies, which I believe are inherent in mankind, congealed into two political parties.  The federalists, who advocated a strong federal government authority to foment consistency, rapid growth, and strength, became one pole, and the republicans, who were concerned about the rise of a tyrannical aristocracy or hereditary monarchy developing a predatory system reducing the rights and prosperity of citizens through taxes and needless, unwanted, regulations who advocated for government controls closer to the people at the state level.

While for over sixty years our education system has taught more, and more, that we are a democracy, and that we are by nature a nation where it is the majority that rules, this was specifically and unequivocally not the government that the founders created.  We were, and to some extent remain, a constitutional republic.  The difference is; in a democracy people have a direct control through their vote, and in a constitutional republic the control is indirect through the election of officials who are supposed to weigh the will of the people against what is best for the country and consistent with the constitutional republican principals of our government as they make law and policy.

System is still fine—For Now!

Today we are clearly migrating away from some of these fundamental principals in two areas:

1. We now, as a people, no longer understand the benefits of the constitutional republic and many, if not most, simply believe we are a democracy, and
2. We have inadvertently allowed the creation of a stronger federal control by stimulating the creation of a full-time professional political class—potentially, just the kind of tyrannical aristocracy that Jefferson and Madison were so worried about at the beginning of America.

The question we all need to answer is, “Is this what we agree we truly need?”  If so, then we will have to accept the consequences of a pandering democratic machine continually taking prosperity from the individuals and granting it to the majority in exchange for the continuation of their livelihood as a full-time professional politician, and the continual erosion of the original system of government and its checks and balances on them and us.

If this is not what we agree we need, then there are some very hard choices and changes we will need to consider to recover the checks and balances.  Only then can we once again return to the constitutional republican form of government we had. If this is still what we want!  You see that is the question!

Still up to us to define our system for a while longer

The good thing is it is still up to us for a bit longer.  The more we continue the erosion of the checks and balances inherent in our original constitutional republic, the more we become a democracy.  At some point we will slip over the edge and soon, perhaps, there will be no going back short of another costly and divisive civil war.  If our leaders can develop a true process to decide this fundamental issue we may avoid a destructive conflict.

And the answer is?

So the answer to the question that headlines this article, “What is wrong with Politics?” is nothing at the moment, but stay tuned!

Stupidity or Duplicity: WE pay anyway!

Click to link to original ABC News Article

Do you think they just don’t get it? In a supposed attempt to find some “middle-ground” in order to make the “middle-men” whole as to the cost of birth control, the administration is acting like we are in the “middle-ages”—all poor and uneducated. First, the administration’s talking heads took the position that the cost of free birth control would be a savings for employers, now forced to pay for it because, pregnancies and abortions are much more expensive. The employers now have to pay for a product, to prevent a cost that their health plan is paying. The premise is that paying the lower cost birth control will lower the plan’s coverage cost and the health plan will then, in turn, lower the premium cost to the employers—not hardly!

Also, there is a big assumption that the rate of single mother and unwanted pregnancies will decrease because of improved access to birth control. I am not sure I agree with this either. Free or subsidized birth control is widely available, it just is not conveniently available everywhere. I am not attacking a woman’s right to have access to birth control. We have a very strong habit, of late, of confusing the discussion of access with no-cost access. It is the no-cost access I have the most problem with. The cost is not free, we all end up paying for it anyway, and the system that is based on mandates, despite the method of the mandate naturally inject inefficiencies and vagaries of control, so that a significantly reduced percentage of dollars spent actually go to pay for the good or service. Look at the healthcare debate numbers from the president’s round table at Blair House with republicans in 2010. By numerous authorities, from both sides of the aisle, only about 35 – 45 cents on the dollar ever make it to real care. So why do we do it this way?

The government now classifies birth control as preventative care, because the ACA or Obamacare requires health plans to cover prevention at no cost. Exercise prevents heart disease, so this should be classified as prevention, as well. Health plans really should cover gym membership at no cost. And, you know having fresh fruit prevents scurvy, health plans need to cover free fruit. Listening to peaceful music lowers stress levels, and therefor prevents high blood pressure and the risk of stroke so good music systems are preventative and should also be covered for free. And of course a warm, comfortable home is clearly preventative to lots and lots of health related problems so I guess “health plans” should provide this as well. This is the same issue I have with the insurance purchase mandate and the rationalization of its constitutionality by the extension of federal power justified by pointing to prior extensions of federal power under the commerce clause.

It is not the idea of helping people; women in this case, get access to care that is the issue. It is the duplicitousness of the need for access by extension to now mean everybody else needs to pay for it, and the effort to obscure the nature of the extension logic that I am finding most troubling. The argument that is being used, now over and over again, goes like this . . . Someone, or some group, needs access to something—or for political gain, we can convince them that they are being discriminated against because they do not have this access and we want to give them access so they will see us as looking out for them, what we are providing is now considered preventative, we passed the law that says if its preventative it must be provided at no cost, ipso facto, you have to pay for this group to get it because it’s the law.

The straw that is breaking the back of many on this issue is now that this administration is saying well, since you are objecting to assuming this cost, we, the government, will find some way to make you whole here, you won’t have to shoulder the cost. Everything the government does cost the people of the United States money. No matter how they try to spin this, it costs us money. We are the government and we are the only source of money. So nothing they can do at the federal level is going to make anyone whole without laying it on the backs of all of us in the long run. Simply saying OK we will let you get a credit to reduce something you pay us over here, just reduces the income the federal government needs to pay what is already spent ten years ago. Do they really think we believe they will not increase fees somewhere else to get the money? If they lay it on the back of some other industry, they are going to increase prices that we all pay so once again it is out of our pockets. There is no escape from zero-sum economics. Even if they just print new money out of thin air, as they have been doing for forty years now, it reduces the buying power of our currency and prices go up, again we pay.

Finally, it is time we realize that we only have finite resources, and everything we do costs us in one way or another. Paying for birth control for everyone is just reducing the money we need to pay for everything else. People are now living much longer and as we crossed from average life expectancy at the mid-seventies to where we are not in the eighties, the average cost of care has rapidly increased. Now we demand that heal plans no longer just cover basic life-saving procedures, we expect they also cover quality of life items as well. The technologies we have developed to make this real gain in median life span is based on very expensive technologies adding to the costs, and the magic bio-chemical bullets we have developed to fight the war with the other species, like bacteria, and viruses, etc. are increasingly costing more and causing more side effects as these species have evolved to be resistant. All of this, with some other reasons as well, is causing the steadily increasing cost for our healthcare. Sometime soon we need to begin to discriminate at what point people are individually responsible for at least some of these costs.

So I wonder are the people coming up with these ideas really this stupid. If they are not stupid, then do they think we are this stupid? Or are they simply Machiavellian? My initial reaction is they are not smart enough to be this duplicitous, but perhaps I am mistaken!

Supreme Court to hear arguments on Obamacare: An enigma, based on a canard, wrapped in a conundrum.

Enigma, based on a canard, wrapped in a conundrum!

March 26, 27, and 28 2012, become the next significant dates in the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare).  It is on these dates a little over two weeks from now that the Supreme Court will hear arguments both challenging the constitutionality of part of the legislation and arguments as to why the court should uphold the legislation. For most of us on both sides of the aisle, involved in the debate over healthcare reform, we see this as an enigma, for widely opposite reasons, as to how we have arrived today at this point.

For those of you that are interested in this current debate, you can find a number of places to read the arguments, or you can simply read someone else’s interpretation of the arguments.  Here, are some links:

• “Health Care and the High Court: Analysis of the arguments, Expert Commentary and a poll on the likely results” A Special Edition from the American Bar Association.
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Cases, a listing of the current actions and a good place to start if you want to read the detail of all the arguments.

My advice to you is, don’t rely on others interpretations, read the source documents for yourself.  Everyone, including me, are bringing their own bias to their review; some unintentionally, many intentionally.  This has become the partisan issue of this decade.  None of these arguments is a simple read for the non-lawyer.  I would argue that it is the view of a non-lawyer, the view of a common citizen that is now most required to be heard.  The lawyers now are so wrapped up in the history of all judicial actions, and their arguments are both driven by, and necessarily constrained by, the rulings that have preceded; the legal principle of stare decisis—Latin for stand by the decision—the obligation for the court to uphold what has gone before.  It is now, that someone, not a lawyer, needs truly to ask what is the right principle.

As James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” This
constitutionally mandated division of authority was “adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.”

I am not a lawyer, and I have my own biases.  I write this, not to tell you what to think, but to tell you how I have chosen to understand this issue.  I hope you will use this as a stimulus to plot your own quest for an answer.  We are at a point in our history that if we do not reengage as citizens, in an active role, in the formation of our governance, we will find that the government that we end up with, will be consumed by forces we do not want, nor can we afford.   The power of our “constitutional republican” form of government is based that the power comes from the people, is enacted by our representative people (the extension of us, not a special or elite class), and is for the benefit of us, the people. We are now at a critical juncture, where we, as a people, need to review the decisions we have allowed to be made and expanded like weeds in an uncultivated field, over the past seventy years.  We need to determine if what we now have accurately reflects what we intended; and if not, we need to no-longer allow the subtle expansion, and extension of federal powers, to continue indeterminately.

I am not arguing if we do, or we do not, agree with the constitutionality of the mandate in the Affordable Care Act.  That argument should come, but it needs to come after we determine if the precedent decisions, beginning with the pivotal case of Wickard v. Filburn reflect what we intended: and if it does not, then the pending arguments will continue to leave us sliding down the slope.  If it does, then we all must now accept the ramifications and understand the fundamental change to our current constitutional republican form of government that will fall out of these next actions.

For a review of the historical actions that have led to the current belief that the Federal Government can enact such a law, feel free to read my prior articles: Health Care Mandate and the Commerce Clause Articles, Entitlement vs. Safety Net: It’s not a matter of degree!, U.S. District Court of Appeals “Reaches” for the answer to the purchase mandate, and ACA, Politics, Mandates and the Commerce Clause.

The Arguments

As the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, the controversy and the challenge began immediately.  Within hours of passage, states’ legislatures and attorneys-general began filing actions to block its implementation.  Some of these actions were new state laws that helped limit the laws effect.  But, the more effective challenges were the suits filed by the states to block the federal law’s implementation.

Numerous arguments were originally made to challenge the law.  Arguments that the act violated the constitutional right of privacy, violated the free exercise of religion, and even violated the thirteenth amendment prohibiting slavery, along with many others, were made.  As the cases have moved through the judicial system, the plethora of arguments has continually been pared down to a remaining few.  In a little over two weeks, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a subset of the original arguments.

There are now two main questions pending from the original challenges and two additional questions posed by the court itself.

• Remaining Questions

1. Does the Individual Mandate clause exceed congress’s enumerated powers?
2. Does the expansion of eligibility of Medicaid to include all legal citizens less than 65 years old and earning less than 135% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL)—approximately $37,500.00 per year—force the states to implement what is federal legislative power thereby violating the separation of powers principle?

• Additional Questions

1. Does the Tax Anti-Injunction Act bar the court from hearing the case?
2. Is the mandated coverage constitutionality question severable from the remainder of the act?

Supreme Questions

In reading through the briefs and the summaries, available through the links above, I see the arguments breaking down this way. On the side to overturn the legislation, the arguments are framed as to whether, or not, the original intention of the commerce clause in the constitution, grants this right to the federal government, or does it remain as a right of the people i.e. the individual states.  The arguments for the act to be upheld seem to me based on legal tricks and gimmicks to justify the extension of the power based solely on the extensions that have gone before.  Perhaps this is not fair but I believe the fundamental question needs to supersede those decisions that have gone before, with which I think most Americans would also disagree.  I think it is mere trickery to cite one bad ruling as the basis for another if the root decision is in question.

Despite the tricks and histrionics on both sides, the basic argument comes down to, is it the federal government, or the state government, that have the authority to enact  legislation governing personal behavior.  The main argument for this federal right is the precedent cases, not the root argument of what the Commerce Clause actually means.  For me, it is this framing of the debate that is now the problem.  If the arguments are bound by the principle of stare decisis, then I believe the logical conclusion will be a 5 to 4 decision in favor of upholding the mandate in the ACA.  If the issues revert to the principal determination of whether, or not, the commerce clause was framed to grant any of the rights, now assumed by precedent, to the federal government, then I think we will have a 5 to 4 decision overturning at least the mandate portion of the law.  And, without the mandate, most believe that the ACA law becomes moot.

The secondary argument made by those in favor of the mandate follows the “everything now is interstate commerce” logic because if people do not conform to this mandated behavior then their actions become a fiscal drain on the rest of us, because either the industry, or the government now must go provide for their needs, and the cost will get passed back to the rest of us.  But, this argument is a canard.  The cost to us for lack of action by others is a real cost, but it is predicated by a government action of over forty years ago that mandates that we are going to provide the services in the second place when the individual fails to take appropriate steps to be responsible for their own needs in the first place.  By the way, I am not talking about eliminating a safety net.  We need a safety net!  Safety nets should be provided for the helpless.  What we have today is not a safety net, it is an entitlement, and while some helpless get benefit, predominantly it is providing support for the clueless and the worthless.

The recent Birth Control debate is a timely example.  Forget the religious argument; this is mere political theater at this point.  The argument goes like this.

Someone, employers or insurance companies, i.e. us due to cost shifting, must pay for birth control for women because it costs too much and they cannot afford it.  They will have sex and some will get pregnant.  They will then have babies because they cannot afford, or do not want, to get abortions. Then the government will have to pay to birth these children and support the mothers and their children causing a larger fiscal drain than the cost of birth control itself.

This is a canard because the requirement for the cost for the voluntary pleasurable act of sex, a biological drive, that may result in pregnancy and birth of a child, only places the cost of birth and support of the mother, and child, on us, because we have chosen to accept the responsibility of these costs in the first place.  I am not arguing whether or not we should do this.  I am simply saying we made a choice to do this, and to take the responsibility for the act off the participants and place it squarely in our collective laps.  To swallow the argument that one now begets the other is to believe that the requirement for us to absolve the participants of their personal responsibility and accept the burden of their actions is somehow inviolate and must remain so for all time.  This is simply false.

The humanistic, moral and ethical implications aside, we should be under no perpetual obligation not to revisit the original decision as to who is responsible for what in society.  There are many other cultures around the world that do not accept this responsibility at all, and often these acts result in poverty, pain and in some cases death to mothers and children.  We choose to be more humanistic, and believe ourselves more moral and ethical, and have chosen to believe that we are obligated to support those that will not support themselves.  Understand I am not arguing we should not do these things, I am just pointing out that this decision is both cause and effect on many others we now face.  It is political gamesmanship to present one side of a justification as fait a compli, this is routinely done in the body politic these days, and often fools us into limiting the debate and choices, yielding ineffectual results.

Another argument by the supporters of the ACA is based on the following quote,

“Opponents of the health care law say that if it is upheld, then government can force people to buy an American car or eat broccoli.  But, a person can opt not to drive a car or eat vegetables: no one realistically can opt out of health care.”

This argument follows, what is called in sales, “the Reverse Ben Franklin Close.”  In effect, this technique is geared to obscure the argument, by saying that you can be forced to buy a car and to eat broccoli if you are also forced to buy healthcare insurance, but unlike the others, you do need health care.  In effect, leaving the impression that they are not equivalent and therefore, the worry is not valid. The technique, not the argument, obscures the real issue.  Yes, you almost certainly will need healthcare as you live, and your need will grow proportionally to the length of time you live. But, the argument is that we have to pay for your healthcare not the fact that you need healthcare and don’t need broccoli or to drive.  We don’t pay for your car or vegetables.  That is ultimately the key question.  It is not the benefit of the ACA. The question is, at what point does a safety net come into play to serve the needs of the helpless.  How do we define the helpless?  And, how do we filter out the burden of the clueless and the worthless? Currently we have chosen to propound the philosophy that all people are now entitled to healthcare, regardless of their personal choices or life planning.  We do not as yet entitle people to a car of free vegetables.  The worry by some is that this is coming next.

Does the Individual Mandate exceed congress’s enumerated powers?

This question has become the key question and the key argument for, and against, the viability and continuance of this legislation.  Is the federal government authorized to require citizens to purchase health care and in effect penalize them in the form of a tax or a penalty if they do not buy insurance?  The crux of the argument, for this federal power, is a U.S. Supreme Court case that was argued in 1942, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111.  I have written about the case in my article, Health Care Mandate and the Commerce Clause. I will not rehash the case here but encourage you to go read the article and read the link to the case.

In reading this case, and the other cases that piggybacked on top of Wickard to justify the expansion of federal power, I have come to my own conclusions.  As you read those articles, you will find clearly what I believe.  The question is not what I believe, it is what you believe, and more importantly, what do we, the people, believe is the appropriate border line between where the state’s power begins and the federal power ends.

Does the expansion of eligibility of Medicaid to include all legal citizens less than 65 years old and earning less than 135% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL)—approximately $37,500.00 per year—force the states to implement what is federal legislative power thereby violating the separation of powers principle?

This issue in the end is a non-issue.  The crux of this argument hinges on one of the same tenants as the Mandate—where do the federal powers end and the state powers begin.  This argument began at the formation of the constitution in Philadelphia, and has continued to rage since the formation of the government, and the election of George Washington as the first president.  It was the main factor in the initial fractionalization of the founding coalition government in Washington’s first term, into one that had the federalists, headed by the strong central government vision of Alexander Hamilton, on one side, and the republicans, headed by the anti-monarchists, state’s rights principals of Madison and Jefferson, on the other side

Medicaid is a federal program.  In fact, Medicaid is an extension of Social Security, as is Medicare.  But, if you listen to the current administration they want it both ways.  On the one hand, the president calls Medicaid a state program, but, on the other hand, he wants the federal government to set the rules.  The state governors clearly and uniformly call Medicaid a federal program, and since it is breaking the banks of the states, would prefer to remove the expense from their books.  The conundrum is because in 1965, as President Johnson was framing the extension of the Social Security Act, the legislators know that they had to make Medicaid a “state” program or it would violate the separation of powers principles.

Does the Anti-Injunction Act bar the court from hearing the case?

This argument was raised in the case I discuss in U.S. District Court of Appeals “Reaches” for the answer to the purchase mandate.  In essence, there is an argument that the court should not be able to hear the case, because this act prohibits courts from preemptively enjoining any federal collection of tax revenue until after the revenue is collected.  The base argument is the court cannot enjoin the federal revenue stream until there is real harm.  I actually think the premise of this argument restricting courts below the Supreme Court is valid.  This act provides a check on the courts by eliminating a mechanism where lower courts could effectively shut down the federal government by strangling its cash flow.  I do not feel the same way at the level of the Supreme Court, in that, if it also binds the Supreme Court, the law would grant an unequal power to congress to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of some laws prior to harm being done. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the peoples effective check on the powers of congress to create bad law. I don’t think most of the justices are inclined to agree that Congress can pass a law that prohibits them from reviewing congressional actions.

Is the mandated coverage constitutionality question severable from the remainder of the act?

This is another interesting set of arguments and important to those arguing for and against the legislation.  When congress wrote this law they specifically excluded a clause that would allow for any section of the code that was found unlawful, or unconstitutional not to affect the other provisions.  So, on the face it would be argued that it was the intention of congress that all part of this law stands together, and if one part falls they all fall.  Of course, the counter argument is that since there is no statement that says that it all stands as one and it is not dividable on the merits then it must be severable.  I believe this argument is window dressing for the most part.  I believe the justices will rule with a significant majority that the law is severable.

In the end, the main piece is the Mandate. If the mandate falls, for the most part, the law falls.  If the mandate stands, than the law stands: another step in the additional extension of power to the federal government will occur and despite the contrite arguments from both sides, this new precedent will become the stage for another expansion later on.  If the mandate stands, Hamilton and his federalists would have been thrilled, and Madison,  Jefferson, and their republicans, would have been horrified.

The conundrum is that despite our best intentions, intelligence, humanity, economic analysis, and strong convictions, we have now created a major problem based on fundamental disagreement over what the founders intended and whether we are to stay true to this intention or if we should feel free to change it at will.  Frank Zappa once said, “The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe!”  (There may be a few of you that actually know what this was in reference too, and for those that do, I apologize for the original context. If you know feel free to post in the comments area. I will post the explanation in a few days if others do not.)  I am using the statement to illustrate that the apostrophe of this conundrum is at the point that helping some people becomes detrimental to all people.  Spock said to Kirk, “Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”  This is a loaded statement, as the needs of the many may be affected in very dangerous and deleterious ways by catering to the needs of the many.  Sometimes, as in this case, society gets to the point where the definition of what is needed needs to be clear and it is imperative to prioritize the fundamental needs and eliminate the extraneous wants.

In the end, we are faced with an enigma, based on a canard, wrapped in a conundrum!  I hope we have the national and personal character to address the problems and find real resolutions.

 Note: I hope this article at least provides a process for you to seek your own answer.  I am sure once again we will be much divided, but perhaps the arguments can become fundamental and appropriate, and no longer tangential, and irrelevant. I ask you to come back and post your thoughts in the comment section.

I long for a Citizen Politician

Where have all the good men gone?

As I watch the current primary political spectacle, and await, with more than a modicum of trepidation, the coming presidential election of 2012, I long for the emergence of a “citizen politician” like those that founded, what once was, this great nation.  Where have they gone?  What has happened to our national values, that we no longer can produce such remarkable and dedicated individuals?  Have we so corrupted the elegant system, designed by the framers, that we simply cannot find those truly fit to serve the nation, instead of serving their own, or some subgroups desires and wishes.  Has the process been so corrupted that the simple citizens we most desire, and who would best serve, will not stand up to our current infinite scrutiny, or will not run because they do not want such public ablation of their character? We once had a collection of people, who felt that it was either their destiny, or their obligation, to serve their neighbors to build a better life for all, and to develop systems to assure that character, integrity, and nobles oblige, were the justifications for their fitness.

Recently, I have wondered, what were the characteristics that defined this group of remarkable men, those who risked and sacrificed so much to build this nation? Over the past year I have read a number of biographies of our founding fathers; men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin.  Each in its own way revealed bits of what united these men in such a grand and ambitious undertaking.  In another way, it has led me to wonder if we still have the tools in place to create others like these men, or if the circumstances of our modern world, our changed mores, faith, family, values, and education system have been altered so profoundly that we no longer build the necessary combinations of character, strength, conviction, patriotism, and dedication to generate leaders with a sense of purpose, responsibility, and faith in something grander than themselves with unshakeable and selfless commitment to their country and fellow citizens.  I guess the real question is, are we lost?

Our First President

George Washington was a complicated and interesting man.  All of us, who have studied history in modern schools, have read about Washington as the father of our nation, but the image of Washington that I learned in school both understates his contribution to the birth of this nation and fills our head with minor and false facts (like the story of the cherry tree) that do not provide a true measure of the man. To the continental colonists at the end of the revolution, George Washington, was more than any other, the father of this nation.

As the country was being forged, Washington, and many others just like him, felt a profound sense of duty to the rest of Americans to fight to the death against tyranny and eventually to build a great form of government to perpetually protect the nation’s people from the resurgence of tyranny from both abroad and within.  Today, we often hear as to what the framers felt was the role of faith and God in the creation, prosperity, and future of our nation.  Today, in our modern world of agenda based spin, we hear polar opposite views.  On the one hand, it is stated that the founders believed there is no role for religion in government.  Religion was not to have any part in the governance of the nation. And at the fringe, there are those that profess that it is a violation of the constitution to even allow and discussion, mention, or intimation of religion in any public venue, action, or event.  On another hand, we hear that religion is a clear part of our government, and became the basis for the governing system we chose. Further, at the fringe of this side, we hear that this, or that, religious view was inculcated into the constitution to promote this or that moral value.  Like everything else today, the truth is much more complicated than a sound-bite, and lies somewhere, nuanced, in the middle of the argument.

President Washington felt that National Policy needed to be rooted in private morality, which relied on “the eternal rules of order and right . . . ordained by heaven itself.” It was in consideration of the grand opportunity wrested by the sacrifice of the American people, through the providential victory of the revolution against England, that Washington’s held the view that this opportunity was granted by the unknown machinations of an almighty God. Washington wrote, “The sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly and considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

Washington and many of the other founders were big believers in the hands of some higher power guiding them to their destiny.  They also felt that only good and just men could reap the benefit of these grants from some higher power.  They believed in strength, justice, and the power of courage and conviction.  They were humanists, who felt it was their duty to help the downtrodden and the weak.  But, we should not confuse this humanistic view with their additional view that people were also individually responsible for their own destiny and lot in life.  As an example, Washington also wrote,

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity; religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

Washington also wrote,

“Let no one go hungry away . . . provided it does not encourage in them idleness.”

The New Constitution

In 1787, as the continental congress was meeting to establish the foundation for a new and necessary form of government to control this new nation, there was significant controversy.  Read either of the recent biographies of George Washington, Washington, by Ron Chernow, or of John and Abigail Adams, First Family, by Joseph Ellis and you will see that the current level of histrionics, division, diatribe, and intrigue are nothing new.  Further, most of America had no knowledge of what was transpiring inside the State House in Philadelphia, in 1787, or what kind of government was being developed by the men who had assembled to compose our new nation.  The mystery was so complete that after the vote by the members of the congress in approval of the new constitution, Benjamin Franklin reportedly was approached by Elizabeth Powell as he left the State House.  When she saw Franklin, she is reported to have inquired as to what form of government had been produced by the members inside the convention.  Franklin responded, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it!”

Like politics today, this new constitution was not immediately revered by all.

George Mason, a friend of George Washington, declared that the new form of government “. . . would end either, in a monarchy, or a tyrannical aristocracy.”

Looking at the current state of America and its politics I think many would argue it has met Mason’s fate. It just depends on which side of the political spectrum one is, as to whether or not it is now ended as monarchy or tyrannical aristocracy—Occupy Anywhere anyone?

Citizen Politicians

I think we need to find a way to alter the current political selection process, and fundamentally eliminate the position of professional politician from our culture and revert to the original concept of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  The “by the people” part was not designed to be rule by a professional political class as we are today.  Just what was the concept of citizen politicians at the time of the founding?

Many of the founders regarded any open interest in power as unbecoming of a gentleman. As a result, people like Washington, Adams, and Jefferson preferred to be drawn reluctantly from private life by the irresistible summons of public service.  Ron Chernow writes in his book, Washington, “George Washington felt even to say the word, president, or to merely broach the topic, even in the strictest confidence with friends would seem to betray some secret craving for the office on his part.” Chernow reports that Washington confessed his quandary to Alexander Hamilton in a letter where he said,

“For situated as I am, I could hardly bring the question into the slightest discussion, or ask an opinion, even in the most confidential manner, without betraying, in my judgment, some impropriety of conduct.”

John Adams and most of the founding presidents, all felt that nobles oblige, should be the guiding sentiment for their service.  As such, they did not believe that a candidate should campaign for the office.  They felt that people should be elected because their prior contributions and actions were so remarkable, as to render the populace unable to see any another as capable of assuming and performing in the office. As such, it was the fact that they had to go and actively campaign for such a position of power innately under-scored their lack of suitability for the job in the first place.

The solemn and grave nature of properly taking this almighty gift of independence and effectively creating and implementing a new government, worthy of the people who had sacrificed so much for this opportunity, led James Madison to create a strong metaphor for Washington to use to captivate the populace.  Madison wrote,

“. . . to be shipwrecked in sight of the port would be the severest of all possible aggravations to our misery.”

Meaning, that after we had collectively sacrificed so much, cut our ties to England, and now were left with such difficulty and strife if we fail to provide a just form of government for the people would just be the worst sort of failure and pain.  Madison’s view was predicated on the sacrifices and misery suffered by the new Americans in 1787.  How much more has been sacrificed and suffered in this quest to live up to our potential, and love of country and its promise in the past 225 years? Are our current politicians living up to the sacrifice of those who have gone before?

Nobles Oblige Often Led to Financial Hardship and Ruin.

For most of the first 152 years, elected public service was a significant economic burden. Many left political office with their business and personal financial interests in significant disarray.  These individuals accepted the service to their nation as a patriotic duty or to establish a historical place for their family name.  As an example, at the time Washington became our first president, his prior service in obligation to the needs of his forming country had left is estate on the edge of financial ruin.  As he was being elected president, he was left with no choice but to put his extensive land holdings in Ohio up for sale and to seek a loan of 500 pounds from Captain Richard Conway of Alexandria Va. Shortly after he made this initial request, he had to ask for an additional 100 pounds from Conway, to defray the cost of moving to New York and the cost of lodging so he could assume the new presidency.  So committed to the service to his nation, Washington still felt it was his duty, as he had throughout the Revolutionary war, to forgo any salary. Despite his dire fiscal situation, Washington informed congress of his intent.  Luckily for Washington, congress insisted that he accept his salary, so in some small measure, the fiscal burden was somewhat ameliorated.  Once again, when Washington left office, his personal fortunes had continued to suffer as a result of the demands of service to his country.

The Coming Storm

As I look at this year’s presidential primary election, and listen to both sides of the debates, I wonder if we have, in Madison’s words, been left shipwrecked in sight of our port.  I find myself more and more longing for a Washington, an Adams, a Jefferson, a Madison, a Monroe, a Jackson, or a Lincoln to emerge.  I yearn for some citizen politician, motivated by their love of country, their own nobles oblige, some sense of destiny to arise from the depths and steer us from the fate of the looming rocky shore. I desire the rise of a true citizen politician, one who feels it is unbecoming of the character of a gentleman to seek power or political office.  I know there are those who believe that in this larger and more expansive world, politicians must campaign actively and very extensively and obtrusively be in our face to gain election. I wonder, is this really and sadly the case?

We have had a few this political cycle whose names have been floated for office, individuals apparently not overtly seeking election—people like: Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio.  Each of them to date has rebuffed the invitation to lead their party in this election for various reasons.  Despite their apparent reticence, there are some who are still actively interested in wresting them as candidates to the national stage.  Despite their resistance, feigned or real, sadly, they are also firmly entrenched as members of the professional political class.  Where are the real citizen politicians?  The ones who would be dragged to this lofty, powerful perch as a result of their sense of duty and obligation?  Can we not find some method to identify them and bring them to the national attention without the need for a popularity contest composed of little more than national character assassination? Though I do which this is not the case, perhaps it is simply a pipe dream to believe once again we have and can find such men.

I now most fervently hope that we will not soon be laying plans for all of our children to be reading Daniel Defoe’s, 1919 work, Robinson Caruso, as our new national survival guide!

The State of Whose Union?

The President Reads the State of the Union Address

I have tried to resist responding to the State of the Union Address last night.  I really have tried!  But, you guessed it, I can’t.  I was so astounded by much of the rhetoric that passed through the President’s lips as unassailable facts I still can’t believe much of it.

As I am want to do, let’s review some real facts for a few minutes….

The President said the State of the Union was getting stronger

Well this really depends on what you choose as your measures and of course how hard you decide to spin them.  Here are some key statistics that were not highlighted in the speech.

Some of the pundits, immediately after the president’s speech, were very quick to remind everyone that President Obama inherited this bad situation.  That’s true, and so have every president since President Lyndon Johnson. in 1964.  The fact that they all have inherited it is not the relevant fact.  It is the fact that every one of them neither fixed it, nor improved it one iota.  In fact here is another little fact.  Everyone of them in some way or another actually contributed to making the situation worse-Republican and Democrat.  All they did was find ways to patch it, give more to those they thought deserved it (meaning would give votes to get it),  printed more money to pay for it, and hoped it didn’t all come apart before they got their golden parachute.  Well it has come apart now, hasn’t it.

“Fairness for all, Responsibility from all”
- President Obama 1/24/2012

Part of the problem I have with last night’s speech is the President stating he is going to make sure there is “fairness” for all.  It is not his wanting for people to have a fair shot that bothers me.  Everyone I know, if asked, would say they want fairness.  But fairness like many other things in life is a frangible and perspective driven concept.  It means different things to different people, and sometimes different things to the same people on different days depending on where they are and whether they are the beneficiary of the supposed fair treatment or not.

I just do not think anyone can give another fairness.  Often, the act of a group, or government, attempting to make something fair takes the form of redistribution or reallocation of something from one group or individual to another.  Look at the controversy surrounding Affirmative Action in Education and the implementation of quotas to make it fair. I am not challenging whether this was a good idea or not,  I am pointing out that in creating a quota to make it “fair” for one person or group, you simply are redirecting the opportunity from another person to this person.  If the person your took it from had nothing to do with the disparity in the first place then they now are being placed in disparity. Even in California, one of the strongholds of humanistic belief and liberal thought, some of our most liberal politicians have recently stated that we all need to get used to disparity.  That after 40 years of public life she now understands disparity must exist ; no mater the cost it cant be eliminated. It seldom works to try to make something fair by treating others unfairly—ask any six year old!

Frankly, if you look at other countries and other systems of government, America is just about as fair as anything could be given human nature in the first place.  I mean really, you think most of Africa is fair?  How about China?  Russia? Saudi Arabia?  Most other places are decidedly less fair than America.  So when people say we have some very deeply built-in unfairness, they usually are speaking in narrow terms.

Historically, if you look at our specific history in a vacuum, we’ve had periods where specific classes, specific races, and specific genders were treated unfairly.  This is very true and not something to be proud of in our newest age of enlightenment.  But once again, the facts are, that while we had these uncomfortable periods of our history, contemporaneously America was still head and shoulders above the rest of the world at the time.  We can always strive to do better , to be better people, to be better to each other, but no government can impose fairness nor can it replace the personal responsibility and character we should all instill in ourselves and our families.

Responsibilities from all

He used the term, “Responsibilities from all”.  The phraseology struck me oddly.  While I suppose it is grammatically correct to say that responsibility comes from somewhere or someone, I am not comfortable with this statement.  After thinking about it this morning, I realize this is because I believe responsibility should be innate in each of us.  That responsibility does not come “from” anywhere.  I feel that responsibility is part of our character and while it may flow from us it does not flow to us.  To try to illustrate this point, let me say that part of my responsibility, as I see it, is to help others.  In fact if I do help others I am being responsible.  I also feel that if I throw a baseball and it bounces and breaks your window, I should be responsible to fix the window. Fault in actions are in some way offset (not excused) by the exercise of responsibility for the fault by, or within, the individual.

I do not feel, however, that if you robbed a liquor store that it becomes my responsibility to pay for it. I assume most feel the same way.  But, I also feel that I am not responsible for any of the third party circumstances that you may have encountered in your life that led you to rob the liquor store.  I worry that the president believes that we are responsible for what others choose to do.  That somehow it is our responsibility to make sure they do not do something harmful or at least find themselves in circumstances that lead them to do something wrong.

In my life,  I have listened to many people justify their bad actions based on some set of circumstances that led them to do what they did.  I have heard things like; I was abused by my parents, my mother was an alcoholic, my tire blew out and because of my crack addiction I did not have enough money to get a cab so I could not get to work. Often, somewhere in each of these excuses became an attempt to transfer the responsibility to me or others because we somehow allowed the parental abuse, the mothers alcoholism, or the existence of crack cocaine– all of which if eliminated from this persons past would have somehow supposedly stopped the bad action in the first place so therefore–ipso facto– it is my fault, or your fault,  they did whatever they did.

I think these are some of the fundamental differences that divide us today.  I think the concept is attractive to take the position that everything that affects me is someone else’s fault or greed. Words like compassion and fair-share sound so good against the backdrop of greed, oppression, poverty and sacrifice.  But frankly, this is not what the fundamental issues we face are about.  It is now about our viability–national and economic.  We have destroyed our economy, and our viability, because we have systematically, over the past 100 years, made decisions for self gratification and personal appeasement of abstract goals that have affected our production, our cost effectiveness and our competitiveness in this new one-world economy.

We used to be the world leader in fisheries, agriculture, clothing, steel, oil, coal, automobiles, aircraft, raw production, basic manufacturing and many others.  But we have made decisions that have altered our ability to be in these industries at all or to be competitive in them.  Child labor laws killed the textile industry in New England, increasing labor costs and environmental laws killed coal, steel, oil and fisheries. Increasing labor costs, over production and now subsidies have effectively killed agriculture.  And overall for the rest the increasing costs in general, including labor costs, taxes, mandated benefits and shrinking labor pool (skilled and unskilled) have killed much of the rest.  Along the way, we have become a nation or middlemen, service providers, who purchase most of what we consume from other countries than we make ourselves.  Each year we bleed cash from our treasury to other nations workers.  Since 1972 this has exceeded $12 trillion.  That 12 trillion dollars more spent in buying stuff from other countries than we have sold to other countries.  This is one huge reason, but by no means the only reason, that we are circling the drain the way we are.

We have abandoned many industries because we felt there was just cause to do so.  Again, I am not saying any of these decisions were good or bad.  You need to make that call for yourself.  But, we have willingly walked away from most of the industries that led us to our short lived prosperity.  As we have embraced the “one-world economy,” we have killed our own production, rapidly and drastically increased our costs, and decided that we no longer can try to influence who goes to college (destined for middle management) and who works in the fields, the factories, and the plants.  In order to feel good, everyone has to go to college.  When we need labor, we relay with a wink, wink — nod-nod on immigration.  Since legal immigration is expensive and takes a long time we have a large illegal immigration problem–and we sit and wonder why!

As we have been indiscriminately printing money since 1974 we have lived in a fantasy land.  It is a wonderful place to be, don’t you see:

• Everyone goes to college
• Everyone can own a house
• Everyone gets a car
• Everything is fair
• Everyone is a millionaire
• Everyone has everything they want
• No one needs to worry about getting sick
• No one needs to save – in fact we need to borrow and spend more
• Someone else will build it
• Someone else will maintain it and clean it
• Someone else will pay for it

In this fantasy land, the government will see to it that all the above just happens.  We don’t need to worry or pretty little heads just pay the taxes it will all be fair.

Shrinking Middle Class

The president has brought this up over and over recently.  Our president is a master at using language to infer that the middle class is suffering because of individual greed, because of Wall Street, because of corporations, because of millionaires and billionaires…. The truth of this is that the middle class are suffering because they have lost the value of what they earn disproportionately to everyone else–poor and rich. They are not poor enough to get in on the gravy train that is now the myriad government subsidies that over one-half of the population receive, nor are they rich enough to use investments to hedge the loss of value by playing the inflated earnings game that has been the finance,  investment, and real estate (FIRE) economy game for the past 40 years.  They have been screwed!  One reason the number of the middle class in the population is declining is we are raising the level of eligibility of programs for the poor. And along with that the cost of the additional program subsidies is coming from the middle-class and the rich in the form of taxes and higher costs, the rich just don;t feel it as much because they can invest enough of their money to offset the loss of value. Like the subsidies for industries and the poor, some portion of the new money ends up as liquidity in the stock market because the banks put it there! Can you say Quantitative Easing?

What was not mentioned by the president is equally telling

The Affordable Protection Act, his singularly biggest achievement — if you count it that way, was only mentioned in passing.  His own administration has had to admit that there are many things in the legislation that are either unfordable like CLASS, unworkable like the Medicare M.D. fix and the plan to have the IRS as the reporting agency, or potentially unconstitutional like the insurance mandate.

Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, like many other things are items that this president inherited.  Unlike most they are the biggest, and most insidious, causes of the loss of value to the middle-class and the destruction of our economy.  Once again, I am not making a value judgement on these programs or whether or not they should exist.  They simply have become what many feared at the time of their creation, much larger drains on our economy then was planned for.  Also, since most of the money that was created since 1974 has been needed to pay for these entitlements, along with the accumulating trade deficit, they are collectively the main reason that the money came into being and as such the main reason that the real value of the middle class has declined so drastically.

In the end, you have to ask yourself why the president spent so my time decrying the state of our economy, our industry and our people but then offered as a solution a panacea, of no pain, more money, more taxes, more subsidies, more for the poor, more from the rich, more subsidies for non-profitable industries no plan for increasing domestic primary production, and nothing about solutions for the real problems we face?  Well I guess it really is about re-elections not solutions.

In Closing

While the president may have appeared to be the brunt of my ire in this piece, it really is extended to all members of the full-time-professional-political class.  DNC or GOP the rhetoric and practice of opponent vilification and liberal application of what amounts to noting but wall paper paste needs to stop. Real solutions need to be proposed and vetted in this election process.  As a Mugwump, if a candidate does not start to tell me how they are going to fix the real issue and elucidate exactly what the pain points will be for everyone, then I am not voting for them regardless of the party.

If there ends up being no one; then I may not vote for anyone.  If that happens then it probably won’t matter because it will be too late.