Rights 4 Sale

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 factions that argue for universal health care coverage point out that we are all humans and part of the human condition and that all humans get sick now and then, so sickness is part of the “human condition”.  Further, it is argued, if it is human to get sick, then it is natural to offer health care.  The continuity of the logic is subject to your view point, but some people believe that humans are naturally entitled to government provided health care.

If that is the case, then it is appropriate to extend the natural right one more level.  Since we all die at some point, it can be deduced that death is part of the human condition.  Therefore, the government should provide life insurance in amounts adequate for survivors to live in a manner to which they have become accustomed.

This would include burial costs, of course.

It is suspected that the same logic is true for food, employment, education and general happiness, to name a few areas of concern.

 

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.

 

The discussion regarding the existence of something spiritual and causative  can get deep and overly significant.

It seems simple – if you place two piles of dirt (or anything else) next to each other they only react to each other if there is a chemical or thermodynamic reaction.

Different elements react chemically with other elements in a predictable way and the science is called chemistry.  Further, temperature and motion have predictable effects and on elements and compounds and is covered by the subject of thermodynamics.

So, short of chemical reactions or thermodynamics, physical objects have no motion or volition of their own. 

While it doesn’t prove to absence of something spiritual, two piles of dirt stacked next to each other are not expected to produce much unless wind or rain (products of thermodynamics) blow or wash them away.

Now, let’s look at something different.  Make a picture of a cat in your mind.  Now make the cat purple.  Now, make the cat yellow.  While you may argue that the picture of the cat is chemical or even thermodynamic, the key question is, “Who’s looking at it?”

You can ponder the answer, but the only real conclusion you can eventually come to is that you are looking at it.  It comes down to you. 

Concerning the piles of dirt, you could leave the two piles of dirt, move one or both piles or change them in any way you like.  In every case, there is a demonstration of volition, decision and cause.  These things are qualitative.  These qualitative things are spiritual.  Corollary:  quantitative things are physical.  The piles of dirt, which are physical, are not capable of decision, volition or cause beyond chemical or thermodynamic interaction.

Belief in the spiritual side of life can manifest in many ways.  It can be seen in participation in organized religions, new spiritual ideologies or just personal spiritual observance.    Those who believe that there is no spirit or god are usually characterized by a lack of morals or ethical standards.  The concept of ‘no higher authority’ means that authority is what you can get away with.

Part of the success of the American Revolution was that, after the Revolution, people had confidence that it was safe to trade with or invest in the United States.  Consequently, trade with the US grew form year to year and allowed America to grow into a major economic force.

The value of any currency boils down to confidence that is will hold or increase its value.

The value of a stock boils down to the confidence that the company will perform in the future.

When you hire an employee, you do so with the confidence that he or she will do a certain job.

The popularity of a product is based on the confidence that is will fulfill wants or needs of consumers.

The popularity of a politician or political party or legislative bill is based on the confidence that there will be a net benefit for constituents.

In a more general sense, the economy is based on consumer confidence which is, in turn, is based on people’s outlook regarding jobs, disposable income, inflation, world events, politics and the real estate market.

Applied to the current economic situation; we will not recover until confidence is restored in the banking system, the real estate market and the job market.

 

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.

Everything is evaluated by comparing it to something else.  It’s a good apple or a bad apple, but only compared to some known or standardized theoretical apple.  Is this apple better than that one?  It must be a good apple.  If it’s worse, it must be a bad apple.

There is a line in politics that is little talked about.  But, where you stand in reference to that line helps define whether you are conservative or liberal.

 

 

 

 

The line is simply this:  if you think people can do for themselves you are conservative.   If you think people are stupid or unable to take care of themselves (and need the government to provide for them), you are liberal.

This is the common denominator to most issues. As a liberal, you are likely to support stiff regulation of the financial industry.  As a conservative, you would be likely to support more of a free market approach with fewer regulations.   In this example, the liberal believes that individuals can not fend for themselves and the increase in regulation (along with the increase in government) is well justified.  The conservative believes that the individual is capable of operating without the help of extensive government.  It goes without saying that liberals are not advocating totalitarianism and conservatives are not advocating a complete lack of structure.  There is an optimum level of government and regulation.

Politicians, these days, can speak or promise in one direction, but act in another.  The concept above can help you interpret what they really think.

 

When our country was founded, the laws were fairly straight forward.  All you had to do was read the Constitution and you knew where things stood.  In the first few years, the Congress passed a number of laws and the Supreme Court made decisions.  We also had common (British Law) to underpin and supply a background for our legal system.  It was simple in those days.

A lot has happened in 230 years and the laws and regulations have grown voluminous and complex.  This is no more evident than the Federal Tax Code.  With thousands and thousands of pages (60,000 pages), there are very few people who have a complete understanding of the Tax Code.  CPAs, attorneys and Enrolled Agents are expected to be experts, but it is doubtful that any of them could operate without access to extensive reference libraries.

Two states (California and Oregon) require tax preparers to be certified by the state.  These professionals probably understand simple tax returns, but utilize software and reference materials to handle the more complex returns.

Politicians and government bureaucrats don’t understand the Tax Code.  They have to consult with CPAs or attorneys or the IRS to get information.

Further evidence exists.  In tests, tax data was given to an assortment of CPAs, tax attorneys, enrolled agents and tax preparers.  Virtually none of them came up with the same results.  While many were close to each other, the bottom line varied drastically in some cases.  Can that be good – when experts all come up with different answers to the same problem.  Seem very subjective.

Without addressing whether we should have a flat tax or consumption tax, one thing is clear; the current system does not work.

The Tax Code provides guidelines for completing a simple tax return.  Add one complexity and you have to consult an expert or read pages and pages of instruction packed with “if/then” statements and complex calculations.  The bulk of the laws are there to provide loopholes for companies and people with above average incomes.

With a flat tax or consumption tax, we could do away with the IRS saving approximately $12 billion directly.  We would save additional billions (estimated at $300 billion) in tax preparation, planning and compliance.  We would also give executives more time to concentrate on business objectives rather than tax avoidance (not evasion).  The advantages are hard to ignore.

Some people argue that the tax rate should be progressive to give underprivileged families relief and to shift some of the burden to more affluent tax payers.  That seems OK, as long as nearly everyone makes some contribution.

There are other areas that have gotten too complex and it is worth some contemplation regarding how to reset the clock to simplify things so that the average person can understand it.  An idiot’s guide to laws, tax codes and regulations limited to 50 pages or so.

People can have different opinions about whether we should have a flat tax or a consumption tax, but the senior issue is that the Tax Code has become too complex to survive.  If it so complex that no one can follow it, then how fair or useful can it be?