Common Sense Politics

The United States’ House of Representatives passed a health care reform bill known as H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act on November 7th, 2009 by a vote of 220-215.  A total of 219  Democrats and one Republican voted for the bill.

The people have spoken. Why haven't representatives listened?

So this narrow passage must reflect at least a narrow demand by the public for such health care reform.  In fact, our representatives are supposed to moderate and temper our more extreme demands, so it is reasonable to assume that an even greater disparity might exist between the percentage of Americans that want the sweeping health care legislation and those who oppose it.

Well, as Rasmussen Reports polls suggest, this is not the case at all.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  A plurality (and sometimes even a majority) of Americans seem to be against the health care legislation.

So a majority of Democrats (and a Republican) in the House decided that they will not vote along with the greatest number of their constituents nationally, but will instead vote with their party’s leaders and ideology.

What is at fault here, is what one of the chief architects and fourth President of this great nation, James Madison, referred to as “factions.”

In the Federalist #10, Madison used the term “faction” to mean “…a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

Factions may sound harmless from this description, but Madison addressed a popular complaint of factions of his day,

Factions overwhelm minorities.

Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.

President James Madison was our fourth President, a chief architect of the constitution, the key author of the Federalist Papers.  He embodies the term “Founding Father” and yet he denounced something that now seems ingrained in our political system.

Factions, today, take the form of interest groups, political parties and the like.  With the way the health care bill was pushed through the House with nearly no support from moderates and Republicans and despite opposition by a plurality of the American people, it is clear that the evils of factions as described by Madison are at work.

In the days that Madison helped to craft the Federalist papers, whether to adopt the constitution was the main issue at hand.  Often stated as an irreconcilable with the Republican form of government, the immense size of the United States was touted as problematic by Anti-Federalists.

But Madison saw the size of the United State as a positive way to combat factions.

… it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.

Madison believed that the sheer vastness of the United States would provide too much ground for oppressive regimes to communicate and organize effectively and that the size of the population would provide enough different viewpoints and groups as to eliminate the ability of a single faction to garner massive power and influence over the others.

But with the advent of new technologies such as high speed travel and long distance communication, this safeguard has evaporated and we are left with massive Republican and Democratic political parties, massive interest groups such as the NRA or the AARP, and groups such as ACORN.

Today’s polarized partisan politics and oppressive policy making (such as health care), are a result of the ability of factions to take hold in the way that Madison and the other Founding Fathers sought to prevent.

“A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.”

Such “wicked projects”  are taking shape in a potentially dangerous way.  But with the public outcries such as the tea-party movement taking shape, perhaps Americans have not lost sight of Madison’s distaste of factions.

“In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.”

Senator Edward Kennedy died on August 25th. So the question arises, how does the state of Massachusetts go about filling Kennedy’s now vacant seat in the US senate?

Well, prior to 2004, the method was for the Governor of Massachusetts to appoint a temporary replacement until a special election could be held a few months later.  But in 2004, during the presidential election between President George Bush and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry,  scrambled to change the law.

The Governor at the time was Republican Mitt Romney.  Under the original law, he would have been able to appoint a (Republican) replacement to Senator Kerry’s seat should he have won the election.  Thus, legislation was passed by Democrats who assured everyone that the will of the people should reign supreme and that the seat should remain vacant until a special election could take place.

But now with Deval Patrick, a Democrat, sitting in the Massachusetts governor’s chair, democrats in Massachuestts flip-flopped and decided that the law needed to be altered once more to allow the governor to appoint a temporary Senator until a special election take place in January.

It might strike some as odd as to why elected officials cannot just allow the Senate vacancy to exist for a couple of months until a special election.  But with the stark partisan environment currently present in the Senate, the loss of a Democratic Senator seat could prevent Democrats from achieving a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority.

President Obama and the White House issued this statement on the entire issue, “I am pleased that Massachusetts will have its full representation in the United States Senate in the coming months, as important issues such as healthcare, financial reform and energy will be debated.”

As President Obama himself suggests, this move is essential to important issues such as his extremely controversial healthcare reform plan.

Although Obama and Democrats may tout this as a victory for crucial state representation, this rhetoric is merely a farce.  This move contrasts what was said a mere five years ago about allowing the people to choose their own Senator.

President Obama and Massachusetts Democrats may claim the fairness of this law alteration and that it empowers the state, but in reality, this move is nothing but the manipulation of state laws to meet the needs of a political party and the people.

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  These words spoken by President John F. Kennedy still echo with importance today.  But perhaps with a connotation that they were not exactly meant to convey and in a way certainly not meant by our founding fathers.

The phrase now seems to mean, “Ask not what your government can do for you but what you can do for your government,” or “Ask not what you can do for yourself, but what others can do for you.”

Gone are the days of self-reliance and pulling oneself up by their bootstraps.  Instead of hard work or help from kind strangers, many demand mandatory help from strangers or forego hard work altogether.  Our governments mirror this shift in our own thinking.

Our government demands much of us.  It demands our money, it demands our children’s money and it demands our grandchildren’s money.  It demands much of our businesses.  It demands our understanding.  It demands our blessing.  It demands our liberties and our freedoms.

Fueled by the desire of many for others to support them, the government expands and expands.  With every expansion, we lose a little bit more money, a little bit more liberty, a little bit more freedom.

Ours is supposed to be a free nation.  As Jefferson penned, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Our nation was designed by wise men who vowed to create a land where people were free to pursue their desires as long as they don’t directly hinder the pursuits of others.

However, our rights and freedoms had to be protected.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” Jefferson said.

Governments are a necessary evil.  They are a pact by which men and women agree to forfeit slivers of liberty so that the rest of their liberty and free pursuits of happiness may be protected.

“If our people have a high sense of liberty, the government should be congenial to this spirit—calculated to cherish the love of liberty, while yet it had sufficient force to restrain licentiousness,” remarked the anti-Federalist Melancton Smith.

But this vision has veered terribly off course.  The fears of the Anti-federalists are coming to fruition.  The promises of the Federalists are coming undone.  The government, as Smith said, is supposed to be congenial to the high sense of liberty of Americans.

But this sense of liberty has been replaced with a sense of entitlement and complacency in many.

“In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger,” Kennedy said.  He did not lament, but welcomed the challenge to freedom and liberty.

“I do not shank from this responsibility – I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it — and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.”

And just as Kennedy said, we too should not shirk from our duties.  We owe America and Americans nothing but our best effort at allowing each and every American their freedom to pursue their own course in life.

It is in this way that soldiers serve their country and it is in this way we all must.  And so once again my fellow Americans, ask not what your country and fellow Americans can do for you but ask what you can do to preserve and guarantee the liberties and freedoms guaranteed by our forefathers.

Senator Max Baucus of Montana and the Senate Finance Committee that he chairs, finally concocted a bill Wednesday to address the hotly debated topic of health care reform.  This bill comes one week after President Obama addressed the issue of health care reform in a speech to a joint session of Congress and the American people and broadly outlined his own plan.

Many concerns about President Obama’s plan were touted in various circles including Republicans, Conservative and even some Democrats.  Senator Baucus’s bill seeks to address some of these concerns.

The most obvious difference is that the bill released by Senator Baucus and his committee  is that unlike President Obama’s bill, the Baucus bill eliminates a government run option.  This is a huge victory for those who believe in one of the most profoundly important tenets that this country was founded on:  small government.

However, the bill by Senator Baucus does not go far enough.  It contains multiple clauses and principles that are far from what is necessary or apt in reforming health care.  But there is one such idea included in the bill that is absolutely incompatible with our Constitution and the ideas of our Founding Fathers by whom it was crafted.

The idea is that each citizen would be mandated, by law, to purchase health insurance.  President Obama remarked on the idea during his speech as well.

And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek – especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions – just can’t be achieved.  That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.

The President continued with an attack on those who choose not to purchase health care.

“But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.”

This was a maddeningly audacious statement by the President that was reinforced in the Baucus bill.  This bill will force American citizens to buy something regardless of whether they want to or not.

One might argue that we already have to purchase auto insurance in many states.  But that is nonsense.  If you do not drive, you do not have to buy car insurance.  Only must one buy insurance if they choose to engage in an activity that can physically harm someone if done improperly.

The idea that the government of the United States would force citizens to purchase something against their free will would make the Founding Fathers cringe with disgust.

William Penn may have put it best when he explained what governments are supposed to do.

Government in its general sense may be defined a human institution by which certain powers are delegated by the people to one or more citizens to preserve their national existence, and secure to each individual, the enjoyment of his natural rights:  otherwise, in the words of the constitution of Massachusetts, It is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.

“..and secure to each individual, the enjoyment of his natural rights..” Penn made it clear that government is supposed to simply provide the safe atmosphere in which people are meant to live freely and enjoy their rights. A government is supposed to protect those rights and not hamper them.

The US government is attempting to overstep its bound by snatching up a natural right from the American people. The right to economic freedom. The right to enjoy the fruits of one’s own labor in a manner they see fit and not a manner the government says that they must.

Patrick Henry made an even more emotional case for the freedom of Americans, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Henry explains (quite emotionally) that governments are established by citizens who relinquish a minute amount of personal liberty for the protection of their liberty as a whole. But he goes on to question whether being safe and secure is really worth being a slave to government control. His answer was no, and that he would rather die than lose his freedom.

And so one must weigh the situation:  Are we Americans going to give President Obama and our government the ability to tell us how to further spend our money?  Are we going to surrender our liberty?

Upon seeing the title “Our One-Party Democracy” at NY Times, I thought it was going to be an informative piece detailing how our government had effectively become a one-party system because of how Republicans and Democrats both crave reelection and are often more concerned with themselves than the American people.

Regardless of which party is the majority, the legislation that Americans want always seems to be curtailed or watered down to the point of ineffectiveness.  Each party suggests that the other is the true enemy of the American people and this is their con that allows them to avoid dealing with the issues and unfavorable politics that may be good for Americans in the long run but bad for their reelection in the short term.

But instead of something of this nature, I was treated to a sample of the con described above in action.  Instead of delving into the details and severity of certain issues and how exactly a plan and/or bill must be formulated to address and eliminate them, the author decides to take the more politically beneficial road (gaining readership) of blaming.  Instead of having to address and solve the difficulties with enacting the change that he seems to crave, he simply states that an entire party of men and women is simply evil and wants to prevent any benefit to themselves, their families and Americans.

The author chooses to ignore the possibility that there is a serious (and large) group of Americans that opposes the change that he and President Obama seek to enact on a legitimate level and are merely opposing the President, the Democrats and himself simply for the pleasure derived from being reelected and depriving people.  This a base and shallow commentary that does nothing but stoke the fire between the polarized extremes of each political party.  Left to dangle in the wind are the large group of Americans who are in the center, left-center and right-center of the political spectrum.

Instead of listing and explaining a series of solutions to various problems that could be undertaken by women and men together regardless of party, he chooses to highlight the shallow party differences even further.  Instead of promoting compromise on every side, he simply insults the Republican Party by comparing its past glory days (which I doubt he agreed with then).

He does make some very interesting points however.  He explains why China has apparently jumped out ahead of us in progressive terms.  Sure their stern government has gotten a good jump on new industries, but this, as usually is the case, is at the expense of human rights and social progress.

The author needs to step down from his soap box and tackle actual issues and problems; not his perceived notions of partisanship.  He needs to address the idea that other people may disagree with what he and the President think on intellectual grounds and not just because they enjoy saying “no” like a 5-year-old.  Perhaps he should provide a well-grounded and logical argument with some compromises to the ideology and wants of those who disagree with him in order to reach some sort of progressive accord.

Or perhaps he can fuel and stoke the fire of partisanship even further, allowing the con that is being perpetrated by our two major political parties; the parties that work for themselves and not for America.

One day after I talk about how scary Russia is, they step it up a notch.  Putin is more than likely aiming to make himself President again instead of his pawn Dmitry Medvedev in 2012.  And by President, I mean dictator.  Scary business.

As the Wall Street Journal explains, “[Putin] said he and Mr. Medvedev would decide together who should run for president in the next elections, due in 2012, taking into account the situation in the country at the time, their own personal plans, and the United Russia party, which Mr. Putin heads”.

That is far from harmless.  Be prepared for some grade-A takeover tactics from Mr. Putin.

The WSJ goes on to explain why it’s even scarier, ”After two terms in office, Mr. Putin was obliged by the terms of Russia’s constitution to step down in 2008. The constitution has since been changed to extend presidential terms to 6 years each. That means that if Mr. Putin were to return to office, he could potentially remain until 2024.”

The way is paved, by Putin himself.  Russian constitution and people damned, this is going to happen unless the people rise up and squash his attempt or with some pressure from President Barack Obama.

But there is no way that’s going to happen.  Russians are probably not going to speak for fear of reprisal (or support of Putin) and I’m sure President Obama won’t actually step up despite the US having a precedent for leaders overstaying their welcome.

Until the 1951, there was no term limit on the Presidency of the United States, you could run for the office as much as you wanted.

However, Washington, after two terms, decided to step down despite public support for him to run for another term in office.  He, along with other Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and George Mason agreed that oligarchy could result from one man holding the office for too long.

Two Presidents, Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt, attempted runs at a third term despite Washington’s precedent.

However, no man was able to succeed in being elected to a third term until President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to his third term in 1941.  Subsequently, he was also elected a fourth time but died in office in 1945.

Although commonly known as a great president, FDR set in motion the wheels of change.  With fear blossoming over how much power FDR had had and long he had remained in power, the 22nd Amendment was passed.

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

If Putin’s plan pans out, we should get to see exactly why our Founding Fathers feared having an executive position without term limits.

Once and for all.

It’s been about 18 years since the Communist Soviet Union collapsed and about 20 since the fall of the Berlin Wall.  The Soviet Union became Russia and various other small nations after which, the United States was left as the only remaining Superpower in the world…or so it seemed.

Why isn’t Russia considered a Superpower anymore?  Because the Cold War is over?  Because they are no longer a powerful voice in the global scene?

Russia is one of five Nations with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and in possession of veto power.  This is a position of extraordinary influence and power in the global scene.

NATO was created to protect Europe and the United States against a possible invasion by the Soviet Union and despite the fact that the Soviet Union has dissolved, NATO still persists and is at odds with Russia.

Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, has the second largest fleet of ballistic missile submarines and is the only country beside the U.S. with a modern strategic bomber force.

Russia has over a million personnel on active military duty, produces all of its own weapons and has been the largest international arms dealer for almost seven years.  The Russian military is undergoing a major equipment upgrade with about $200 billion to be spent on military equipment between 2006 and 2015.

Russia’s economy has seen tremendous growth since the new millennium and is steadily becoming an economic powerhouse once again.

Most importantly, Russia has become an energy and natural resource powerhouse.  Russia has the world’s largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves and the eighth largest oil reserves.  With our dependence on foreign oil and other natural resources, Russia is a pivotal player in our energy scene, at least until we become self-sufficient and depend on renewable fuels.

Russia’s economy is growing, as is their military.  The best thing for a nation attempting to grow powerful or to rebound and achieve former glory is go unnoticed, to escape the global spotlight.  While the US is scrutinized in the court of world opinion, Russia is able to grow free from scrutiny and attention as most people view the nation as a crippled shell of its former Communist empire.

With Russia’s last election, the legitimacy of their democratically elected government has become suspect.  Former President Vladimir Putin still retains much of his power as Prime Minister and may still have even greater influence and power than it seems.

Russia’s invasion of Pro-Russian regions of Georgia last year and pieces like this have piqued the world’s interest in Russia once again.  Perhaps they have tipped their hand and allowed the world to see Russia’s growing power before it is once again ready to match the United States’ might.  Nevertheless, Russia flexed its muscles in a manner similar to how it once acquired and conquered satellite nations during the Cold War.

Although Russia’s economy has become decrepit since the fall of the Soviet Union, it has rebounded in the past few years.

Russia is still a country inhabited and run by many men and women who grew up learning to despise the United States and what our country stands for.  Old habits die hard and I imagine that plenty in Russia would love for the nation to rise up to its former glory.

It’s easy to forget and overlook Russia with other issues on the global stage such as terrorism, disease and war in Africa, and our own conflict in Iraq, but I issue a stern warning.  Do not sleep on Russia.

Four American troops died in Afghanistan today.  13 Americans have died fighting in Afghanistan this month.  And for what?  To insure that the Afghani people can have corrupt political elections?

Although Presidential candidate Hamid Karzai received over 50% of the vote, enough to avoid a runoff election and claim the Presidency, a partial recount has been ordered.  Results from 600 polling stations have been put aside to be examined and certified separately.  The entire election and its results are now suspect and the Afghani people are losing faith in the Republican system we have promised them.

This begs the question of whether we should still be involved in Afghanistan and is our effort failing?  With recessionary problems and healthcare reform debate at home, should we be spending such resources abroad?

I believe, as I so often do, that the answer lies with our most prominent Founding Father, George Washington.  In his farewell address, Washington laid out a plan of action for dealing with foreign nations such as Afghanistan.

Would he approve?

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

President Washington makes it clear that we should remain independent from the political and internal affairs of other nations.  The concerns of other nations are “foreign to our concerns.”  Being involved in the affairs of Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and other nations is indeed unwise as Washington suggested.

I hold this view of political near-isolationism just as Washington did.  However, this thinking does not provide the answer to whether we should continue involvement in Afghanistan.

Washington himself makes it clear that we cannot abandon Afghanistan.  “So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith,” he said.

We have more than formed engagements with the Afghani people. We have involved ourselves and cannot leave with good conscience until we deliver the Republican freedom that we promised.  We must fulfill our voluntarily set obligations to the people of Afghanistan as long as they are troubled by the likes of Taliban and other terrorists.  Our own national safety and honor depend on it.

The United States government owes nearly $12 trillion.  Perhaps that doesn’t mean much to you because you’ve become desensitized to how much we owe or your mind just doesn’t grasp quite how much that is.  I know I certainly can’t grasp it.  But what if I told you, that if you spent $1 million per day (something that nearly no one can afford to do) that it would take you over 2,739 years to spend $12 trillion?

How did this come to be?  And what would our Founding Fathers think about it?  Well, I know what our most famous Founding Father thinks on the topic of national debt.  George Washington made many important and influential remarks and observations in his farewell address.  Among them is the following gem:

Would he approve?

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Would Washington approve?

Amazingly, we apply nearly none of this philosophy by one of the most wise and patriotic men in our nation’s history in practical terms today.  In fact, it seems that now, the further we get from Washington, the easier it is to disregard his sound advice.

The bottom line is, that our government is all too willing to spend money – money that it doesn’t have the right to spend and money that it doesn’t even have to spend.  We’re currently running up the largest budget deficit and debt since World War II, but unlike that time, it seems that we have no plans to pay it off.  Instead, it seems that quite the opposite is true and that we’re en route to spending even more and sending our economy further into the ground.