About Me

Name: BrianR
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

A Commiefornia Constitutional Convention?

 
There’s been a lot of talk recently, particularly in light of the recent budget debacle, of holding a constitutional convention here on the Left Coast to try to “fix” our broken system.
 
Though I agree that our current state government is pretty much a picture-perfect example of dysfunctional chaos, I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that anything that would emerge after a constitutional convention would be any better; and in all probability would be even worse by orders of magnitude.
 
Why? The answer is very clear to me. Because of who would inevitably be the delegates to such a convention: the same professional political hacks who have managed to drive the bus of this state over a cliff.
 
Once such a convention took place, by its very definition EVERYTHING would be on the table. The very few safeguards we currently have – such as the Prop 13 safeguard against excess real estate property taxation and the 2/3 requirement for imposition of tax increases – would be at high risk.
 
There's already a very good historical example: the original constitutional convention that resulted in our current Federal Constitution was convened to address and amend shortcomings in the Articles of Confederation. Once in session, the first order of business was to broaden the scope of their goals, with the end result being a completely new charter for the country that had almost no relationship whatsoever to the original charter they were supposed to amend.
 
In that example, the outcome was a good one (though that document is pretty much ignored nowadays in formulating public policy), but our political classes here in California are in NO WAY of the caliber of the Founding Fathers.
 
We'd have a better chance of getting a good result if the names of the delegates were chosen at random out of the phone book.
 
As a matter of fact, I think that's the only way I'd support this idea.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (247) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The False Issue of “Partisanship”


There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the “partisan” nature of political debate in this country, especially as Obama’s healthcare initiative has heated up. As congresscritters have been holding “townhall” meetings in their districts during the recess, they’ve been confronted by citizens outraged by the proposed government takeover of the nation’s medical industry, and lately some of the factions supporting this policy – such as the unions and Obama’s “community organizer” groups – have finally managed to organize themselves enough to show up and try to counter the complaints voiced by the policy’s opponents.
 
Since Obama’s assumed office, his supporters – such as Pelosi, Reid, Garofalo and others – have tried to dismiss and belittle his opponents as simply unthinking tools of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, and the GOP, a tack that started with the Tea Parties in the spring and has intensified as this healthcare debate has heated up. They constantly accuse opponents of being “partisan”.
 
Putting aside for the moment the incredible hypocrisy and chutzpah of such an accusation coming from the side of the political aisle that’s been wallowing in these same tactics for decades, let’s examine what that really means.
 
The reality is that any person who has an opinion on a preferred outcome on ANY issue is “partisan” on that issue, by the very definition of the word. It has nothing to do with being affiliated with any political “party”. If you support a particular outcome, you’re a “partisan”. It doesn’t matter if you try to make your point quietly and reasonably, or shout it from the rooftops.
 
There’s a further implication that “partisanship” is loud, strident, unreasoned, irrational, and undesirable. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’d posit the exact opposite: that a quiet, complacent, unquestioning, and compliant population is a population of victims waiting to be led meekly to the chopping block by the political classes. Which is exactly why it’s the politicians themselves who are the most upset and threatened by it.
 
This country’s ethic is firmly rooted in a loud, raucous, and boisterous political arena. We were founded through violent armed revolution. Our Founders themselves were sometimes mean, nasty, and vicious. Alexander Hamilton didn’t die of the flu. He was shot by Aaron Burr in a duel over political differences. Davy Crockett told his fellow congressmen to “go to hell” before leaving Washington and heading to Texas to fight at the Alamo. John Adams was a world-class political schemer and a man of monumental ego who didn’t think twice about backstabbing his opponents. Andrew Jackson completely ignored a ruling by the Supreme Court, saying: “Justice Marshall has his ruling. Now let him enforce it”.
 
The whole idea behind this country is that competing ideas should be argued vociferously in the public arena, with the hope that the best of those ideas would get the most support and thus become public policy. The idea that we’re all supposed to act like little children sitting in a classroom is, frankly, absurd.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (140) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

“Healthcare Reform”, Part 2… “Co-Ops”?


When we talk about “healthcare reform”, we have to define exactly what we mean by using the term. If by “reform” we mean removing government-imposed obstacles in order to allow a more competitive free-market private-sector environment, well… then I’m all for it.
 
For example, allowing insurance companies to compete in all markets nationwide, without heed to state borders, strikes me as a good thing. Removing barriers to increased free-market competition is Basic Econ 101.
 
In today’s news (here) it seems Obama has finally realized that his plan to turn our entire health insurance industry into a government-run adjunct to Medicare and the VA system – the “single-payer” system – is falling into ruins at his feet. He’s “open” to the alternative of “co-ops” that are independently operated, purportedly abandoning his dedication to the “single-payer” approach.
 
If by “co-ops” we’re talking about the insurance industry equivalent of what credit unions are to the banking industry, I have no problem with this idea. As a matter of fact, this plan already exists. For example, Sears doesn’t use outside vendors to provide health insurance to its employees. It self-insures, which is essentially a co-op operated for the benefit of Sears employees. Many large companies do exactly this.
 
On the other hand, if we’re talking about “co-ops” wherein the government would still step in and use taxpayer dollars to pay the premiums of “poor people”, especially if participation is mandated, then this is simply the “single-payer” program in stealth mode.
 
There are three repugnant aspects of the “single-payer” plan: government funding; loss of the individual’s autonomy on issues of his own health care; and any “mandate” that people participate at all if they choose to not do so. ANY program that moves forward must avoid all of these aspects.
 
If the current national debate moves from “single-payer” and “public option” – meaning “supplied by the government at taxpayer expense” – to “co-op”, it’s going to become extremely important to keep a very wary eye on just exactly what that means. If “co-ops” are nothing more than government-operated and –funded programs, then this is nothing more than another cynical manipulation of language, just as “taxes” have become “fees” and “contributions”.
 
Some important facts to be aware of: according to the most recent Gallup poll on the topic, in November of 2007 (here), 83% of Americans rate the healthcare they receive as “excellent” or “good”, and 70% rate their healthcare coverage (insurance) as “excellent” or “good”. This is reinforced by other polls (here), which also reveal another very fascinating bit of information: only 8.4 million of the “uninsured” are dissatisfied with their healthcare in any way.
 
Wait a sec! I thought there were 40 million or so people who were being left out in the cold. What happened?
 
I guess our system is already set up to take care of the uninsured, through emergency rooms, charitable organizations, and other existing options.
 
There is no “crisis”. This whole issue has been manufactured out of thin air by nanny-staters to impose ever more control over everybody by Big Government.
 
 

UPDATE, 18 AUGUST

It looks like it’s a good thing I posted this essay when I did, because it’s already obsolete. Today, Obama flip-flopped on the idea of “co-ops”, reaffirming his support of the “single-payer” system. No surprise there; he was drawing too much heat from his own base.

Interestingly enough, the Democrat sponsors of this legislation in the Senate are saying that the “public option” has no chance of passing in that house.

What, oh what, is a boy supposed to do?
 

UPDATE, 25 AUGUST

Reported in this month's VFW Magazine, which I received yesterday:
"VA's backlog of claims and appeals was more than 905,000 as of July 18, according to VA statistics. That represents an increase of some 15% from last year.
 
"VA's baclog includes over 732,000 unprocessed claims -- of which about 20% had been pending beyond 180 days -- and approximately 173,000 appeals awaiting decisions."
 
VFW Magazine, Sep 2009, page 10.
 
I can hardly wait for the government to take over the REST of the healthcare system.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (160) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Big Three

 
In my last essay we examined the religion of “climate change”. Now let’s take a look at those two other totems of liberalism – “healthcare” and amnesty – and how those three policies in and of themselves have the potential of completely destroying – utterly and forever – the very essence of what makes this country what it is.

“Healthcare”

Many people are talking about “healthcare”, and how “the government” has some responsibility to step forward and make sure they have some form of “affordable” insurance. Under what constitutional theory do they make that assertion?

What part of the Constitution authorizes the government to provide one with health insurance? If you can't afford health insurance, why is that any problem of mine as a taxpayer?

Here's James Madison -- the "Father of the Constitution" -- on the subject: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents".

The Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity, not of outcome. Everyone has the same opportunity to buy the best insurance they can afford, and I’m sure that no matter what happens, Bill Gates is always going to be able to afford better health care than you or I can.

Let’s look at this another way: I have a right to own a Porsche. I can't afford a Porsche. How do I get the government to buy a Porsche for me?

But there’s an even greater danger that attaches, and it’s typified by the anti-smoking fascism that’s arisen in this country. I don’t use the word “fascism” lightly. Here’s the Webster’s Dictionary definition of the term: “1. A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a central autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. 2. A tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.”

That’s exactly what we’ve seen in the attack on smoking. Science has been subverted from the objective search for facts to the advancement of a predetermined political outcome as typified by the false and now debunked issue of “secondhand smoke”. Private property rights have been completely trampled; for example, if a bar owner wants to smoke a cigarette in his own bar, he has to leave his own premises to do so, let alone be any longer able to make the determination for himself of whether or not he wants to allow smoking in his own establishment.

All of this was justified as being for “the greater good of society”, a clear example of the rights of the individual being sacrificed on the altar of collectivism. On seeing the success of this jihad, years ago I forecast – including right here on this blog – that we’d see the same strategy employed against other “disapproved” behaviors, and that prediction has come to pass. The wars against “trans fats” and fast foods (and in fact just about anything that tastes good); the helmet and seatbelt laws; the early moves to address “obesity”… all as forecast.

Now consider the power the government can wield once it controls “health insurance”, and can justify laws concerning behavior control on the basis of actual governmental dollar expenditures through the actuarial cost of those behaviors to public “health insurance”. Nothing will be safe anymore. Do you enjoy skydiving or flying your own plane? Motorcycles? Surfing? Mountain climbing? Are you a few pounds over the “government-approved” weight for your height? Does your supermarket sell non-approved seasonings, “fats”, or sweeteners?

Anything and everything can be regulated, controlled, or banned based on the rationale of an actual dollar cost to “the public”. This opens the door to absolute and complete control by the government of any individual human activity, virtually without exception.

The Macro and the Micro

There are two comparative states of existence: the macro, having to do with the aggregate or overall body being considered; and the micro, having to do with the smaller components that comprise the macro. In a sociological context, the macro would be the society as a whole, and the micro would be the individuals that make up that society.

“Climate change” legislation empowers the government to control the macro aspects of our society through imposition of energy and emission regulations, cap-and-trade taxation, CAFE mandates, land and property usage restrictions, and a host of other broad and sweeping powers justified under the aegis of protecting society from its own collective activities. That’s complete control of the macro, i.e. society in general.

“Healthcare” legislation gives the government the ultimate power to approve any individual person’s activity based on the “costs” to healthcare of that activity. That’s complete control of the micro, i.e. the individual’s right to self-determination.

The macro and the micro, under direct government management and approval. In other words, everything. Individual liberty would no longer exist as anything more than an arcane idea and a chimera, a catchphrase used solely for political purposes and sloganeering. The actual right to make our own decisions for ourselves as to lifestyle and activities would be completely usurped by the government.

Now add amnesty

 
It is estimated that there are between 12 million and 30 million illegal aliens in this country, most under-educated and unskilled. If these people are given amnesty and a “path to citizenship”, the net effect will be to add that number of people – as well as those they can then sponsor into the country – to the rolls of people who are net consumers of government services and subsidies.
 
Once having attained citizenship, these people also become voters. Is this a demographic that’s likely to vote to reduce government programs on which they depend for their income and support? Of course not.
 
At that point, the game is finally over for this country… forever. Those who believe in traditional conservatism will be completely outnumbered at the polls… permanently. The liberals – primarily Democrats – will continue their massive government giveaways, essentially buying votes (an activity that if done by an individual is actually illegal) with government money. If they hope to win any elections at all, Republicans will be forced to accelerate their capitulation on core values and run even harder to the Left. There won’t be anyone left to promote basic American values anymore.
 
The cycle of destruction will be complete. The United States will continue to exist as a place on the map, just as Rome still exists, but the essence of this country – its traditional values and liberties – will be gone for good.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (206) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »