Rights 4 Sale

When the Declaration of Independence was written, the Colonies alleged a number of abusive decisions and actions by England and railed against these actions being taken by King George III and the British Parliament without any representation.

These conditions guided how the Constitution and Bill of Rights were constructed.  Many of the provisions of the Constitution were adopted the preempt or prevent these abuses from reoccurring.

The government was also designed in such a way that it was difficult to alter the Constitution or pass unfair or unpopular laws.  The rules for amending the Constitution are provided within the Constitution.  The division of legislative, administrative and justice functions acts as a check and balance to tyranny.  The bicameral system of House and Senate balances what’s good for the country and what’s good for individuals.

The House is organized according to the population.   House rules are aligned with the idea that the House is there to directly represent the People.  The Senate is the “upper” house and is based on the Roman and British concepts or representative government.  While it only takes a simple majority to pass a bill in the Senate, it takes a 60% super majority to allow it to reach the point of consideration for a vote which keeps fringe issues from squeaking by on narrow, simple majority votes.   The intention is to prevent the tyranny of a 51% majority.

Recent attempts to restructure procedures by changing the requirements to pass a bill put us on a one-way street that permanently forfeits the freedoms built into the Constitution in exchange for short term and questionable benefits.

Maybe we should slow down and take a more prudent path.

 

Background

The Senate was designed to be the “upper” house.  Senators were given staggered, six year terms and members of the House of Representatives were given two years.  The basic reason for doing this was to provide more continuity to the Senate.  While, there was discourse about how to organize the legislative branch, it was hoped that the longer terms and the staggered terms would combine with the limit of two Senators per state (large or small) to create a conservative body that would respond more to the needs of the nation and less to the every-changing popular sentiment of the people.  The House of Representatives was organized to be responsive to the people, so representation and terms were designed around the distribution of population.

Cloture

To further stabilize the Senate and to prevent tyranny of the simple and/or hasty majority, the mechanism of cloture was “borrowed” from the British Parliament.  While it only takes a simple majority (51 of 100 Senators) to pass a bill into law, it takes a vote of three-fifths (60 of 100 Senators) to end debate or discussion and move the bill on to the voting step.   The motive here is to make sure those Senators who are in the minority regarding an issue have a fair chance to voice their opposition.  It prevents a simple majority (51 in this case) from overwhelming the minority (49 in this case).  It also provides some protection to small (as measured by population) states.

History

Cloture was proposed by the Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1917 and originally required a 75% (of the member present) majority.  It was modified by the Democrats in Congress in 1975 to three-fifths (60%) of the number of Senators seated in the Senate (rather than 60% of the Senators physically present).

Recent Change

Rather than calling it cloture, it has been repositioned and redefined as “a fair, up or down, simple majority” vote.  Long standing tradition in the Senate is that a proposed subject or bill is debated until 60% of the Senators agree to take it to the voting step which only requires 51% to pass.  This agrees with the conventional approach that has existed for 200 plus years.  The implication is that cloture is unfair and damaging the American people or cheating them out of something by requiring something more that a simple majority (sounds All-American; sounds fair) vote.  Statements are also leading people to infer that 60% approval is needed to pass the bill. The cloture procedure is being made to look anti-American so that current bills under consideration would pass through every step of the legislative process with a simple majority of 51 out 100.

Conclusion

The Founding Fathers talked about the tyranny of the majority where 51% can hold a hammer over the heads of the other 49%.  The Constitution gave us a structure that prevents outside or fringe ideas from becoming law.  For example, amendments to the Constitution require 75% approval from Congress and the States.  The filibuster rules have the same intention – a protection against imprudent attempts to pass less-than-rational legislation.

The legislative process is set up to accommodate proposals that have broad support by a clear majority.  Bills that are marginally popular have a more difficult time becoming law with protections like the 60% super majority in the Senate in order to get to the voting process.

Efforts to dismantle and change the traditional legislative process with a vested interest in getting specific legislation passed preys on people’s unfamiliarity with history, the Constitution or basic understanding of civics and democracy. 

As someone once said, no new law or benefit is worth giving up our liberty in order to get it.  If it can’t get though the legislature, it does not seem justified to change the traditional process or lower our democratic standards.  Maybe the legislation itself should be changed until it has the approval of the majority.

It is also misleading to dissect the issue and show that people agree to various parts, therefore they (probably) approve of the whole.  It is disingenuous, for example, to say that people want health care reform and then extrapolate that everyone, therefore, likes a particular proposal.

A pile of half-truths still doesn’t add up to one full truth.

 

It has hard, if not impossible, to be pan-knowledgeable about one subject, let alone all of the subjects that make up current events or the world of political and civics issues.

Frequently, people latch onto one point, learn something about it and then harp on that.  They may understand all of the nuances of this one subject and may even understand how this one subject relates to other concerns.  More often, people work out something that they personally understand and can talk about and then consider that they have a well developed political point of view.

Most successful propaganda consist of data that is easily assimilatable form, can be remembered and can easily be repeated to others.  To someone who has difficulty making their own analysis, this drive-thru, fast-food-like delivery of minimal political  knowledge is all they need to sound smart.

Harping is easy to recognize.  The Harper drones on and on about one subject, usually repeating popular talking points, and can not or will not answer questions about other subjects.  They can’t debate a subject, but resort to tactics like personal attacks, throwing out red herrings and revising history.

Most political parties don’t do a good job of educating their followers.  Platform planks are usually singled out, featured and spun to address current political events in a way that benefits that party.  Citizens are fed propaganda in the form of talking points or slogans unsupported by understanding.  Under this way of operating, people don’t become informed voters.  They become loud harpers.

What’s missing these days is discourse.  In Colonial days, debate was ubiquitous.  Today, Ideologues don’t want their critics to be able to express opposing opinions because Ideologues can’t argue their points of view without exposing their real objectives. 

True discourse is letting all sides express, without suppression, their points of view.  It should be resurrected.

 

 

Often politicians say that something must be done and they need something else before they can do anything about it.

For example, there are numerous examples where someone is denied health care because of this problem or that loophole and the solution is an all-encompassing heath care bill that creates sweeping changes in all health care in order to solve some of these problems and loopholes.

In this case, the politician says that we need the health care bill in order to solve the problem.  We have to have something in order to do something.

But, a common sense question would be, “Why not just solve the problem by changing the rule or regulation?”  Why not change the health care provision so that the person is not denied coverage.  It doesn’t take a new health care bill to effect a change.

It’s the same in a number of areas.  Laws are on the books that would solve a lot of problems if law enforcement or prosecution would just enforce them.  We don’t need a new law before we can do something.  Just follow the laws we already have.  Borders and immigration.  Guns and their misuse. 

Quite often, the request for new laws means additional restrictions and a lessening of liberty by having the new law go further than the existing law in order to solve the “problem”.

So, be suspicious when you hear that we need the have this in order to solve that.  There is usually a simpler solution or even an existing solution that is being ignored.

 

In the Fifties, Madison Avenue had a phrase they used to extend the life of many products.  New and Improved was used for almost everything.  Any minor change in the ingredients or packaging earned the right to call it New and Improved. As the consuming public became more aware and more questioning, it started to challenge some of these claims only to find that the label New and Improved was not always deserved. 

The same happens in politics.  When you see the term Progressive, just think New and Improved.  If you look up all of the products and groups that call themselves progressive or label their ideas progressive, it’s usually because they don’t want to be associated with something old or established.  The Health Care Bill has had a number of names and the elements, especially the contentious ones, have been renamed a dozen times.

There are almost no Democrats, now.  There are lots of Progressives.

The new Progressive Party no longer wants to be known as the Democratic Party.  The label progressive is supposed to confer approval upon everything so labeled.  Ideas, planks in political platforms and the aims of political parties are called progressive to make you think it is modern, young (and not fuddy-duddy), hip, cool and up-to-date.  It is also used to reposition something that has a bad image, needs an image makeover or needs to get some new attention.  Just call it progressive and your good to go, again.

Same is probably true for Conservative or Independent.  It’s not fashionable to say something is Republican anymore.  But, say you’re a Regan Conservative or Independent and you’re OK.

But, only fundaments can tell you whether something is Democratic or Republican – liberal or conservation.   I can be labeled Progressive and it’s something new, but keep in mind it may only be the Madison Avenue version of New and Improved.  Look at the underlying fundamentals and you will know how to label it correctly.

 

The function of the United States Constitution is to establish a government that is by the people and for the people, to establish and protect inalienable rights and to provide products and services that are most efficiently and better provide by federal or state governments.  It is written which further solidifies its existence and force.

The Constitution established itself as the law of the land.  It also provides a procedure for changing the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers knew that events would unfold that they had not envisioned and that there would be pressure to change the Constitution according to popular trend.

Were there no provision for changing or amending the Constitution, it could be argued that the Constitution should be treated as a living document.  But, better than leaving it to ambiguous interpretation, the Framers left us an amendment process that requires an exact description of what is to be changed and ensures discourse between proponents and opponents of the change.

To suggest that the Constitution should be changed, based on some individual’s particular interpretation, is ignoring extant procedures as described in Article V of the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers didn’t give it a passing comment; they gave it a whole Article because it was such an important point.

Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate.

To bring change by working outside of this process is to work outside of the law and to bring about illegal or unconstitutional change.

The Framers made it difficult to amend the Constitution ensuring that future changes were unquestionably supported by the majority and not vulnerable to whimsical  and ethereal thoughts or actions of a people acting as tyrants.

Proponents of a Living Constitution cite “that which is written is insufficient in light of what has transpired since” as their justification.  Another point of view would say “if it is so important, then amend the Constitution to reflect the new circumstance.”

Any branch of the government that operates outside of the law should be impeached immediately and constitutional order restored.

 

The heath care plan, in almost any iteration you pick, is really the best pratical program for reducing carbon emissions.  Look at it this way:  increased debt will mean less discretionary spending on a personal level encouraging people to have smaller families.  This lowering in reproduction will mean less people putting carbon dioxide into the air in the future.

Looked at from a different point of view, health care rationing will decrease the number of people using the health care system.  This reduction will cause a corresponding reduction of people living longer and thus will bring down the level of carbon dioxide being released into the air.

As a green program, nothing holds a candle to health care in reducing the carbon footprint of humans.  For those who survive a delay or denial of health care, cost will rise dramatically, but the air will contain lower levels of carbon dioxide.  Since trees and plants use carbon dioxide, we will have to watch their tendency to flourish and prosper from the presence of more carbon dioxide.  Perhaps, as a prudent kind of “thinking ahead”, we should be prepared to kill targeted trees and plants keeping the precarious balance between carbon dioxide and oxygen.

Health care could be the ultimate answer to carbon dioxide.

 

In a society where the government controls everything (a dictatorship, for example), it really doesn’t matter if the press is free.  As a practical matter, the press is probably totally controlled in a dictatorship.

In a democracy, the press has a role in finding and reporting the truth about issues that matter to citizens.  Some would call it a responsible and vital function.  The Founding Fathers recognized that a press that was free to report on tyrannical activity was essential to the survival of democracy and the country.  If the press was controlled, a tyrant could manipulate it to unfairly influence or control the population.  To prevent this, the First Amendment of the US Constitution provides for freedom of the press.   The main point is that the Framers to the Constitution wanted the prempt tyranny and providing a free press was part of the formula.

Further, a fair and balanced press would contribute to the general understanding of the populace. 

In general, good reporting contains the five Ws and one H – who, what, when, where and why combined with how.  Certain journalistic ethics are expected including truth, objectivity, fairness, accurateness, professionalism, public trust, independence and accountability.  There are other kinds of journalism, like opinion journalism, sports journalism or trade journalism and each has its own idiosyncrasies.   What we know as news journalism has the above ideals and this is what we expect when we read or watch a story from the mainstream news media.

The hidden formula for a story that sells is a little different.  A story can be rated by how many of these elements are present.  Lower scores are awarded for “hinted” or “suggested” amounts of these elements.  The elements are; sensationalism, celebrity, sexual (mis)conduct, money, illegal activity and betrayal.  The ideal story would be about one or two celebrities who had illicit or adulterous sex while breaking one or more laws for money and then betrayed each other.  High score.

Political journalism or opinionated journalism uses the same rules substituting politicians for celebrities.  The best political story would be about a politician who is caught (exposed) having (illegal) sex while (illegally) spending taxpayer money betraying his wife, family and constituents.  High score.

We have learned by trial and error that journalism without the positive attributes of truth, objectivity, fairness, accurateness, professionalism, public trust, independence and accountability do not serve the public interests.  In fact, it harms the public.  We’ve also learned by trial and error that anything less than a free press only serves tyranny.

Without a free and ethical press, we are all slaves.  Tyranny wins.

 

The Declaration of Independence is probably among the best known documents of all time including the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the British Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.

To better understand why certain issues were addressed in the Declaration and the Constitution, it is helpful to look at the events and activities of Colonial America during that time period.  Before 1776, there was strong loyalty to one’s own state, but there was an undeveloped sense of any national loyalty.  While states existed, like New York, Pennsylvania or Virginia for example, there was no official recognition of the United States (which did not officially exist). 

Concurrently, continued abuses by King George III and the British Parliament covered everything from taxation without representation to lack of due or fair process under the law.

Democratic concepts, never practiced by the majority of countries, were intermittently present throughout history.  Europe was evolving its own attitudes about individual and human rights as a part of the Age of Enlightenment.  The introduction to the Declaration relies heavily on the philosophical and political ideas of the Enlightenment period of 18th century Europe, including the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and, most particularly, John Locke.

England had just undergone its Glorious Revolution which saw the introduction of a British Bill of Rights in 1688.  The concept of individual rights was making progress in Europe, but King George III ignored the concept when dealing with the recalcitrant Colonies.

To demonstrate the transgressions against Colonial America, the Declaration list twenty seven complaints or abuses and describes them as:

 

• The King interfered with the colonists’ right to self-government and for a fair judicial system.

 

• The King and Parliament are guilty of outright destruction of American life and property by their refusal to protect the Colonies’ borders.

 

• Acting with Parliament, the King also instituted legislation that affected the Colonies without their consent.

 

• This legislation levied taxes on the colonists. Taxed without representation.

 

• The British required Colonist to quarter British soldiers.

 

• The right to trial by jury was removed.

 

• British Army Located Among Colonies.

 

• Common defense prohibited by British.

 

• States militia were not well armed, not well trained, not strong as a whole.

 

• Accused citizen of the Colonies were sent to England to be tried.

 

• Redress was used against Colonists.

 

• No right to due process justice system.

 

• Citizens of the colonies were impressed into (captured and forced to join) the British Navy.

 

• Colonists were not allowed to have private property.

 

• No privacy was afforded to inhabitants of the Colonies.

 

• The British prevented the Colonist from trading freely. 

 

• The British confiscated American ships at sea

 

• British intended to hire foreign mercenaries to fight against the Colonists.

Based on their experience with the British, those who advocated independence were concerned about and included the following in their demands:

                                               

• Freedom of Speech

 

• Freedom of Religion

 

• Freedom of the Press

 

• Freedom of Assembly

 

• Right to Petition

 

• Due Process Under the Law

 

• Right to Privacy

 

• Right to Property

 

• Right to Bear Arms

 

• Freedom from Quartering Soldiers

 

 

The Declaration of Independence was written by Jefferson with several different objectives in mind. 

The most obvious was to declare independence from England. 

The preamble to the Declaration tried to link theory and practical politics.  It also tried to express the values as fundamental values of the new American government.  This was needed to teach Colonist about their (own) rights and it was needed to justify their actions to other countries.  Approximately 200 originals were printed so that copies could be sent to key countries with the hope of engendering agreement for the Colonies’ actions and support for the Revolution. 

Jefferson also sought to explain the actions of the thirteen colonies in rational terms. Jefferson believed that governments exist to support the rights of men. Governments exist only through the power of the people that they represent. When a government fails to grant rights to the people and removes the involvement of the people, the people have the right to change their government in a way that will allow for their unalienable rights to be protected.

Anticipating that this document would influence rebellions elsewhere, Jefferson clarified that governments should not be overthrown for trivial reasons; it is not typical for people to change a system that they are accustomed to. However, when the people have suffered many abuses under the control of a totalitarian leader, they not only have the right but the duty to overthrow that government.

The Declaration was also written to align sentiment between the states and within the population regarding the need to move for independence.  Not all states and all people agreed with the Declaration.  In fact, many people were still loyal to the British and some states did not see a need to use its own resources to defend other states that were under direct attack.  The national esprit de corps had not fully developed and some states were only concerned about their own survival, not the welfare of the United States.

So, the Declaration of Independence was written with a multiple of objectives in mind:

 

• To establish the concept of Inalienable Rights

 

• To establish the Concept of Power to Govern Coming from Governed.

 

• To establish Concept that Government Exist to Protect Rights of Men.

 

• To establish Colonist about their own Rights

 

• To convince and Unite the States to Fight Together as One.

 

• To justify Actions to other Sovereigns and Solicit their Support.

 

So, the precepts contained in the Declaration were not just academic exercises, but were based on the real issues of the day and were included in the documents for a reason.  Knowing the history explains why the framers thought it was important and knowing the reason for their existence then may give us understanding for their use today.

 

Some of the criticism of health insurance companies is based on a gross misreading of the financial statements.  Service and manufacturing businesses have different ways of ways of reporting profit and loss based on understandable differences in how they operate.

A manufacturing business reports gross or net sales and then subtracts the cost of manufacturing the units that were sold.  The manufacturing cost is the sum of material, labor and factory overhead and is called the cost of goods sold.  What remains after subtracting the cost of goods sold is the gross profit.  The operating expenses would be subtracted from that leaving the net (per-tax) income.

A service business would report gross income and subtract payments and expected outlays to customers to get gross profit.  It doesn’t have a cost of goods that can be measure in material, labor and overhead.  Just like a manufacturing business, it would then subtract operating expenses to get net (pre-tax) profit.

The people who are most vociferous about health insurance profits typically take the insurance company’s gross profit number and misleadingly hold it up as the net profit number and then impute guilt for profiteering to the insurance business.  Leading people to think that the gross profits of a company are the net profits of a company is extremely dishonest.

This is not a realistic, apples-to-apples comparison with other companies.  Gross profits are good for measuring the strength or performance of a company within an industry, but gross profit is never a metric used in the financial market to measure the performance of the company, especially one business in one industry versus a business in another industry. 

Health insurance companies reported net profits in the 7% and 8% range which is below the average net profit for typical companies in the US which is about 12% (pre-tax).  Health insurance companies are not the most or least profitable in the public sector.

The statistics show that insurance companies are not making excess profits.

It is interesting that health insurance companies have a limited exemption from antitrust activity for 70 years.  While it would be illegal for other companies in other industries to do so, health insurance companies can get together and set prices or operate as a monopoly in a given state.

Health insurance companies have territorial protection, state-by-state protection and regulation, territorial restrictions, antitrust exemptions, medical malpractice considerations, waste and fraud issues and widespread pharmaceutical misuse.  It seems like a confused, contradictory word-salad.  It is hard to take any slice of the health insurance industry and hold it out as representative of the whole.  It is really important to view the industry as a whole and not fall for the demonizing propaganda based on half-truths that makes it into the mainstream press.

Is there any wonder that costs are escalating?  It’s time to throw out the system and build a new one.