The Fiscal Year 2010 Budget from the White House is now being renamed by Obama's Treasure Secretary. While it was once described as “A New Era of Responsibility” it has now been labeled “an exploding budget deficit.” And do you think that the answer should be to tame that budget by cutting back programs that we cannot afford, the same tactic that all Americans employ when faced with a financial short come? No. We are being told that the answer could be a tax-hike for the Middle Class.
One of the latest additions to an already run-amuck budget: H.R. 3200. The H.R. 3200 bill, dubbed “America's Affordable health Choices Act of 2009,” seems anything but affordable. At the minimum it promises to add $1 trillion do our national debt and since President Obama doesn't want to appear irresponsible, rather than simply tack that onto our national debt (nobody wants that) his White House staff are leaving the door open to ask the Middle Class to foot the bill. When National Economic Council Director Larry Summers was asked if Obama would tax the Middle Class rather than keep his campaign word when he repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," Summers said "There is a lot that can happen over time... it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
Now, I know a number of Americans who would like to stick it to the high priced insurance companies and find a way to bring down the cost of health care. The trouble is that H.R. 3200 is so far reaching that it funds programs, makes decisions and eliminates choices faster than it brings in alternatives or a savings. To answer your question in advance, no I have not read the entire bill consisting of more than a thousand pages. But I have struggled through the first 50 pages, and it is painful. For the government to create an affordable competitive plan they first have to take over the game. In fact, for them to compete they have to pretty well fix the game. To bring to light a comparison, imagine the following scenario:
Imagine that the U.S. Government wanted to make buying cars more affordable. Well, according to this plan, first it needs a horse in the race. So it goes and buys a car company (hmmm... check that off the list.) But owning a car company doesn't make cars more affordable. So what does it have to do? Well, it needs to control the features on the car, “optimize” them to keep the costs down. How does it do this? By creating a committee that decides who (which Americans) get what features. That is the first part of the equation: keeping costs down. But how does it make it competitive? Well, private car companies could just offer nice features at a reasonable cost and keep the U.S. own car company out of the game, right? We all win then, right? Well, no. You see the U.S. also needs to define what it means to be competitive. How do they do that? Well, they allow existing car companies to maintain their existing cars for the next four years, at which point all non-government-owned car companies now have to play by the new rules as defined by the government. Literally all of the cars older than four years old would have to come off the road at which point everyone would have to get into a car that now played by the governments new rules. In other words, if you are happy with your car, feel free to keep it... well, for the next few years, at which point all cars will have to look like the government cars. Hmmm? And the committee keeps deciding whose car gets what features? You guessed it.
Now we do the math! If you are in the Middle Class then you are currently paying a good sum of money for your health care. Next, imagine that H.R. 3200 gets passed. Now you are paying for your private health care and at the same time paying for other peoples health care because your taxes just got hiked up. I thought this was supposed to be cheaper... or “affordable?” Apparently, it is only affordable if you aren't paying taxes at all. But wait for it! You might anyway. Since Joe Biden was voted into the White House as the Vice President he has headed a task-force to define WHO the Middle-Class really is. So, for all you know even if you make less than $50,000 per year (currently the cut-off for the Middle Class), soon you might fit into the definition of Middle-Class. At what point does this plan become affordable?
Well, if you are anything like me, you are seeing a pattern here. The American public was first duped when Obama said he wouldn't raise your taxes. During the election he defied John McCain when he confidently declared to America that he could pull off his budget plans without raising taxes. He named his first fiscal budget “An Era of Responsibility” but we all now know that it is “an exploding budget deficit” at the admission of his own Treasury Secretary. I am waiting for the same Americans who voted President Obama into office to finally realize that the “America's Affordable health Choices Act of 2009” is both not affordable and oxymoronically eliminates “choice” by simply becoming the gatekeeper for the definition of what our “choices” will eventually be.
As a sidenote to this health care debate: research the history on Medicare and Medicaid. These struggling programs are constantly in jeopardy due to the way they exist and are managed by Congress. While you are at it understand that H.R. 3200 is modeled after elements of both of those programs as well as the Social Security system all of which have been bailed out over the years due to the unsustainable fiscal reality of those programs. Why are we sitting on our hands imagining that Congress is suddenly able go from mismanaging those three programs and yet we are cool with them taking on something so much larger and further reaching!?
CALL, EMAIL or WRITE YOUR CONGRESS-PERSON and tell them NOT TO SUPPORT H.R. 3200. If ever a public health care plan was a good idea, this is not that plan (and Congress knows it... now you need to tell them you know it too!)
Showing posts with label federal government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal government. Show all posts
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Another $18 million down the drain
Recently I have read stories where we are being told that the economy is once again sound, but not quite back to where we would really like to see it. In other words, “Everybody relax, but not too much.” And why should we relax but not too much? Mostly because there is more fund raising to do. Current the Congressional Budget Office took a look at the recent government plans for health care and announced that it will now add yet another $1 trillion to our national deficit. This is on top of the few other trillions of dollars scheduled to be added onto the deficit since the conclusion of the 2008 election. It was at this time that now in an unprecedented reach-out to influence the Congressional Budget Office, the White House has invited the leadership of the CBO over for a private meeting. Hmmmm? If I am a betting man I would guess that the meeting might have to do with the unfavorable review of the financial outlook of the plan.
Back to the fund raising. While we should relax, one reason we shouldn't relax is because if we don't and health care keeps treading forward as it is today, then we are being told that we could be buried under the expenses of medicare and medicaid costs in future years. On that point alone we are told we should quickly approve this current government health care makeover plan. But, then again, these were the same people who told us to “act now” on the near trillion dollar bailout so that we can save jobs only to completely blow away their worst case scenario on national unemployment anyway (despite the fact that congress “act(ed) now!”) These were the same folks that admitted not long ago that the economy was worse off than they anticipated and that “they were wrong” about their understanding of it. Now we should relax, but not so much that we don't feel this new pressure to solve something else that they are likely wrong about as well.
And the newest, well, not so new fiasco has everything thing to so with how they intend to share information about all of the recovery dollars being spent. Recently Elijah Cummings, the Democrat from Maryland said “If we can't show them that we are doing the right thing with their money, we're going to have problems.” So how will they show us?
Check out the website... http://www.recovery.gov
This is a new website, but apparently it is not new enough. I know, the web moves quickly and this site has been up for what... a couple months now. That is like a century in internet years, right? We'll that is what the White House thinks. So, they recently awarded what will turn out to be an $18 million contract to a company called Smartronix from Maryland (isn't that convenient) that will... redesign the site? That's right. I know of a multimillion dollar company that revamped their entire e-commerce / website by simply putting a single company on less than $1 million annual retainer! They are doing fine! And yet for some reason Recovery.gov needs $18 million to pull this off? That is pretty amazing.
And here is the killer. What are they going to do for recovery.gov again. They are going to redesign the site. Let's take a look at their website.
Go check out... http://www.smartronix.com
Is this a web 2.0 demonstration of social interactive web technology? Does this group even advertise “website redesign” tallent in their top skillset? No!!!
And buckle up for the final note: How will this $18 million pay out? Over the next five years! Said another way, the White House would have us believe that the economy is sound, but could be doing better, so shift your focus to spending $1 trillion in deficit on national healthcare, but well, understand that we feel it is important to set into motion a 5 year plan on phase 2 of a website that explains how we are still recovering from this slump we recently shouldn't feel too bad about, but well, don't get too comfortable?
Are you feeling schizophrenic yet? Well, you should be feeling crazy. Because this current batch of politicians seem to be willing to say whatever the heck they want in completely contrary directions so people will do what they want them to do. What kind of suckers are we? What kind do they take us for?
If you watched TV tonight then at the minimum maybe you got a small feeling of levity when President Obama cracked a few jokes. He can be a very endearing and personable seeming fellow. I can honor that in the man. But it is time to get real people. He may be personally likable, but we don't have to like what he is doing with the other face he seems to have.
Back to the fund raising. While we should relax, one reason we shouldn't relax is because if we don't and health care keeps treading forward as it is today, then we are being told that we could be buried under the expenses of medicare and medicaid costs in future years. On that point alone we are told we should quickly approve this current government health care makeover plan. But, then again, these were the same people who told us to “act now” on the near trillion dollar bailout so that we can save jobs only to completely blow away their worst case scenario on national unemployment anyway (despite the fact that congress “act(ed) now!”) These were the same folks that admitted not long ago that the economy was worse off than they anticipated and that “they were wrong” about their understanding of it. Now we should relax, but not so much that we don't feel this new pressure to solve something else that they are likely wrong about as well.
And the newest, well, not so new fiasco has everything thing to so with how they intend to share information about all of the recovery dollars being spent. Recently Elijah Cummings, the Democrat from Maryland said “If we can't show them that we are doing the right thing with their money, we're going to have problems.” So how will they show us?
Check out the website... http://www.recovery.gov
This is a new website, but apparently it is not new enough. I know, the web moves quickly and this site has been up for what... a couple months now. That is like a century in internet years, right? We'll that is what the White House thinks. So, they recently awarded what will turn out to be an $18 million contract to a company called Smartronix from Maryland (isn't that convenient) that will... redesign the site? That's right. I know of a multimillion dollar company that revamped their entire e-commerce / website by simply putting a single company on less than $1 million annual retainer! They are doing fine! And yet for some reason Recovery.gov needs $18 million to pull this off? That is pretty amazing.
And here is the killer. What are they going to do for recovery.gov again. They are going to redesign the site. Let's take a look at their website.
Go check out... http://www.smartronix.com
Is this a web 2.0 demonstration of social interactive web technology? Does this group even advertise “website redesign” tallent in their top skillset? No!!!
And buckle up for the final note: How will this $18 million pay out? Over the next five years! Said another way, the White House would have us believe that the economy is sound, but could be doing better, so shift your focus to spending $1 trillion in deficit on national healthcare, but well, understand that we feel it is important to set into motion a 5 year plan on phase 2 of a website that explains how we are still recovering from this slump we recently shouldn't feel too bad about, but well, don't get too comfortable?
Are you feeling schizophrenic yet? Well, you should be feeling crazy. Because this current batch of politicians seem to be willing to say whatever the heck they want in completely contrary directions so people will do what they want them to do. What kind of suckers are we? What kind do they take us for?
If you watched TV tonight then at the minimum maybe you got a small feeling of levity when President Obama cracked a few jokes. He can be a very endearing and personable seeming fellow. I can honor that in the man. But it is time to get real people. He may be personally likable, but we don't have to like what he is doing with the other face he seems to have.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
America is Democrazy - Afterward
OK, I have investigated the history and a quick sampling of current events that contrast Socialism, Communism, Democracy and Republic governance. I can say that while this has in no way been a complete review of the history on these topics it has been very eye-opening. I am certain there is so much more to know and understand but I feel like my ever-so-slightly-less than superficial understanding of these forms of government has put some concerns to rest while giving birth to others.
Initially my reason for investigating this was in response to hearing people debate whether our current Congress + President is or is not moving our country toward Socialism. In addition to that I have listened to discussions where people want to talk about various sliding-scales of socialist ideals and how a government could employ an administration that is either more or less “socialist” without actually being or legitimately moving toward a truly socialist form of government. I have come to a few conclusions on these points but I think it is important that people read the included links to my 5 previous blog entries before entering into debate about my conclusions. Here are a few of my thoughts:
Social politics is a scale from a category I will call “complete automatons” on the left to “total personal freedom” on the right. In the case of utopian social control or “complete automatons” is complete and total fiction. And in the case of utopian liberty or “total personal freedom” you again have a fictional reality that will never be attained. So the scale seems to look like this, in short:
So if you have been thinking that Socialism is an issue of being “more socialist” or “less socialist” then you would be right because at it's nature it is transitional. The problem is in embracing an increasingly socialist-trending government. We know by definition, literally, where that is headed and it is unsuccessful.
I also found the tactics of Stalin's form of Communism an eye-opener. From the manner of propaganda to the intentional “cult of personality”, it reminds me of the current trend in American politics. These days I regularly read about how the opinion polls on Democrats and Republicans are down but the “Obama brand” is strong. This is very Stalin-esk in the light of history. All of that to say that I think we have nearly outlived our roots as a society and that the most basic political tricks are ruling public opinion these day. We are nearly ignorant of our history or of world history and as a result we are a living example of repeating that history.
Finally, in the Socialist example of Robert Owen I found too many parallels for the way he invested in the Socialist economy to what America is doing right now, HOWEVER, these investments will likely fail for the same reason Owen's New Harmony, Indiana, experimental community failed. To recap, like New Harmony, America's leadership is mostly sloppy with their theory and implementation at best and that for our investment to be a success we would have to subjugate some basic capitalist ideals such as personal sovereignty and self-preservation. I will be bold in saying that I am not in favor of such a plan succeeding under any conditions. I would rather be a person of values, knowing the importance of civic liberty and sovereignty rather than trade those values in for a socialist transition toward nationalized communism.
Understand that communism comes in many forms (it is all not Stalinism.) There is Maoism and a host of other variant from parts of the world with flavors of communism that seem far less tyrannical but that are all equally failing. If someone were to say “Socialism is a sliding transition toward communism” people today would be quick to call you a conspiracy theorist. But it is the very definition. And people continue to absorb the principles in those philosophies and styles of governance. For example, Socialism is primarily an economic theory. People who rage against “corporate America” yelling non-specific stereotypical accusations at people who support Capitalism are in fact siding with Socialist philosophy. It isn't like Socialism, rather it is part and parcel with the "class war" agenda against industrial development in a free market categorically that makes it Socialism specifically. Contrast that with people who talk intelligently about actual problems in a capitalist society that are not proposing Socialist solutions that contradict the values of Capitalism. Equally so, people who rage against any semblance of a faith-informed politics are actually siding with a number of oppressive tenants of Communism. Again, contrast that with people who don't demand that a person compartmentalize their life but rather allow their faith, education, intelligence all inform their decision process in a truly rational manner. Ruling out faith as an inappropriate informing factor is specifically an agenda item for the Communist model. I am not making these talking points up. It is in there!
I am learning to think through this stuff as I am sure we all are. But as an experience, I highly recommend people take the time to review history on this topics and not simply take someone else's word for it. In the mean time, TAKE MY WORD FOR IT... just kidding. Feel free to read my thoughts and come up with some of your own (as I am sure you will.)
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Initially my reason for investigating this was in response to hearing people debate whether our current Congress + President is or is not moving our country toward Socialism. In addition to that I have listened to discussions where people want to talk about various sliding-scales of socialist ideals and how a government could employ an administration that is either more or less “socialist” without actually being or legitimately moving toward a truly socialist form of government. I have come to a few conclusions on these points but I think it is important that people read the included links to my 5 previous blog entries before entering into debate about my conclusions. Here are a few of my thoughts:
Social politics is a scale from a category I will call “complete automatons” on the left to “total personal freedom” on the right. In the case of utopian social control or “complete automatons” is complete and total fiction. And in the case of utopian liberty or “total personal freedom” you again have a fictional reality that will never be attained. So the scale seems to look like this, in short:
- Fascist / Communist: Total tyrannical control.
- Socialism: Karl Marx said this is a temporary transitional form of government at best from capitalism to Communism.
- Capitalist / Republic: Values driven civic-liberty-focused governance with a free-market economy.
So if you have been thinking that Socialism is an issue of being “more socialist” or “less socialist” then you would be right because at it's nature it is transitional. The problem is in embracing an increasingly socialist-trending government. We know by definition, literally, where that is headed and it is unsuccessful.
I also found the tactics of Stalin's form of Communism an eye-opener. From the manner of propaganda to the intentional “cult of personality”, it reminds me of the current trend in American politics. These days I regularly read about how the opinion polls on Democrats and Republicans are down but the “Obama brand” is strong. This is very Stalin-esk in the light of history. All of that to say that I think we have nearly outlived our roots as a society and that the most basic political tricks are ruling public opinion these day. We are nearly ignorant of our history or of world history and as a result we are a living example of repeating that history.
Finally, in the Socialist example of Robert Owen I found too many parallels for the way he invested in the Socialist economy to what America is doing right now, HOWEVER, these investments will likely fail for the same reason Owen's New Harmony, Indiana, experimental community failed. To recap, like New Harmony, America's leadership is mostly sloppy with their theory and implementation at best and that for our investment to be a success we would have to subjugate some basic capitalist ideals such as personal sovereignty and self-preservation. I will be bold in saying that I am not in favor of such a plan succeeding under any conditions. I would rather be a person of values, knowing the importance of civic liberty and sovereignty rather than trade those values in for a socialist transition toward nationalized communism.
Understand that communism comes in many forms (it is all not Stalinism.) There is Maoism and a host of other variant from parts of the world with flavors of communism that seem far less tyrannical but that are all equally failing. If someone were to say “Socialism is a sliding transition toward communism” people today would be quick to call you a conspiracy theorist. But it is the very definition. And people continue to absorb the principles in those philosophies and styles of governance. For example, Socialism is primarily an economic theory. People who rage against “corporate America” yelling non-specific stereotypical accusations at people who support Capitalism are in fact siding with Socialist philosophy. It isn't like Socialism, rather it is part and parcel with the "class war" agenda against industrial development in a free market categorically that makes it Socialism specifically. Contrast that with people who talk intelligently about actual problems in a capitalist society that are not proposing Socialist solutions that contradict the values of Capitalism. Equally so, people who rage against any semblance of a faith-informed politics are actually siding with a number of oppressive tenants of Communism. Again, contrast that with people who don't demand that a person compartmentalize their life but rather allow their faith, education, intelligence all inform their decision process in a truly rational manner. Ruling out faith as an inappropriate informing factor is specifically an agenda item for the Communist model. I am not making these talking points up. It is in there!
I am learning to think through this stuff as I am sure we all are. But as an experience, I highly recommend people take the time to review history on this topics and not simply take someone else's word for it. In the mean time, TAKE MY WORD FOR IT... just kidding. Feel free to read my thoughts and come up with some of your own (as I am sure you will.)
Here are the links to the blog posts:
What is a Republic
A Republic is a representative-based government without a monarch. In a Monarchy the government is headed by an individual typically legitimized by heredity often thought to be christened by God. The leadership of a Monarchy typically rules their entire life or until they abdicate to a descendant. In a Republic the governmental legislators are legitimized by their Constitution and via selection by citizens.
There are a few versions of what makes up a Republic and in the case of America the politics are most well defined as a representative democracy. Contrast that with the early democracy of Roman where citizens voted in the Assembly in a form of direct democracy, America selects it's representatives and indirectly adheres to a democratic philosophy of governance.
The idea of a Republic comes from the Renaissance. The most basic core value of a Republic is Liberty. Said another way, a Republics first priority is value-based Liberty or Freedom for it's population. This is an interesting distinction. The latin phrase “libertas populi” means something more like “civic liberty” as opposed to the more nebulous “personal freedom” though both ideas can be found in that phrase.
The definition of liberty is where we begin to see a split between liberal and conservative citizens of a Republic such as the United States of America. Historically, liberals would bring an emphasis to the idea of personal freedom (it is good for everyone for individuals to maximize their freedom: to each his own) while conservatives would prefer to it through the viewpoint of civic liberty (it is good for everyone for individuals to adhere to a common standard: for the betterment of all) Neither of these overarching philosophical talking points address what is actually being stated in the Constitution under Article four.
In Article four of the Constitution it says that the U.S. government will “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” Because the concept of a guarantee has become so watered down today, and as well because we are more focused on federal governance than on individual State governance we might want to take a moment to talk about that phrase.
When the Constitution was signed the colonies were separate States. This means that they were sovereign but with both internal and external relationships to another governmental entity, namely the United Kingdom or Great Britain. The Constitution legitimized a federation of governance over a collection of States. And why would a State switch it's allegiance from G.B. to this new United States of America?
Well, the federal entity was guarantying (i.e. militarily protecting) the States sovereign right to implement a Republican government as opposed to being governed by the Monarchy in England.
What other roles does the new United States of America play other than military defense? According to the founding documents, it would liaise on behalf of those united State with other sovereign nations. It would also play a role in signing treaties between U.S.A. and other nations. How about education, healthcare, financial stability, retirement of its citizens, federal taxation? In all of these cases... it was left up to the States to decide. In the case of taxation however, it wasn't until the first World War that the federal government had grown so large that the constitution was amended to allow for federal taxation (something previously considered unconstitutional.) It was also the advent of federal taxation that lead to ever-increasing growth of scope of responsibility within the federal government (i.e. now that funding was available, so much more could be done.)
So what is distinctive about a Republic?
As you can see if you have been following the other blog entries, nearly all of the other forms of government are based on economic theory. At this point, a Republic stands alone. It's bold declaration that it values civic liberties as the foundation for it's guiding existence makes it revolutionary in it's approach to governance. You might now wonder if that is true in the light of the existence of Monarchies, but in that case you need to know that nearly all Monarchies were again also Republics (U.K. under the King/Queen, Italy under the Pope, etc.)
There have been attempts at drawing a distinction between Republics and Monarchies saying that Monarchies are about land ownership while Republics are about acquisition of wealth through commercial production but this is a fairly recent concept and it breaks down as an argument under certain living examples today.
The fact is that faith played a huge historical role in the formation of Republics. Take for example the Catholic faith. Many Republics in the Middle Ages were legitimized by their position with relationship to their King/Queen and how they related to the Catholic Church. Later under Luther and the Protestant Reformation there were many Republics created without being legitimized by the Catholic Church. This was a further move toward civic liberties often legitimized by Constitutions and not by the Catholic Church. But still, the formation of a Republic existed as a matter of united civic values relating to faith.
In the case of the U.S.A the colonial leadership they continued to feel that faith played a role in legitimizing their governance but rather than coming from the Monarchy, their power came from the people in a way that can only be described as a Republic. From the Declaration of Independence:
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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
And why did we form a Republic?
We often hear it had to do with “taxation without representation” like we seceded simply because of taxes! The fact is that they were struggling with the laws and the poor implementation of the rule of law in the States. In essence the Monarchy was on a power trip and living out a tyrannical set of abuses for whatever reason on the colonies. The colonies would have been satisfied to have been considered Republic-governed States, a part of the U.K. They were not being treated as such.
So with obvious faith when they wrote the phrases...
"... the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them ..."
"... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."
"... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world ..."
"... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
...they established a new Federal Government and in the Constitution promised that the new United States of America would "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."
So, is America a Republic?
It is clear historically that we are a Republic. But the founders of America were not ignorant. They understood that tyrannical leadership can spring up at any time and break, redefine, pillage and destroy what the generations before them suffered so hard to defend. In the Declaration of Independence it also says...
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...”
The “such principles” they refer to are the unalienable God-given rights they mention before that phrase. The Republic of America was not a government founded on economic policies but on faith that informs the politics of the nation.
So with the same understanding and educated effort of Ben Franklin, who after he helped to draft the Constitution was asked by a woman, “Sir, what have you given us?” when anyone asks us what kind of government America has, we should reply...
America is “A Republic... if you can keep it.”
Here are the links to the blog posts:
There are a few versions of what makes up a Republic and in the case of America the politics are most well defined as a representative democracy. Contrast that with the early democracy of Roman where citizens voted in the Assembly in a form of direct democracy, America selects it's representatives and indirectly adheres to a democratic philosophy of governance.
The idea of a Republic comes from the Renaissance. The most basic core value of a Republic is Liberty. Said another way, a Republics first priority is value-based Liberty or Freedom for it's population. This is an interesting distinction. The latin phrase “libertas populi” means something more like “civic liberty” as opposed to the more nebulous “personal freedom” though both ideas can be found in that phrase.
The definition of liberty is where we begin to see a split between liberal and conservative citizens of a Republic such as the United States of America. Historically, liberals would bring an emphasis to the idea of personal freedom (it is good for everyone for individuals to maximize their freedom: to each his own) while conservatives would prefer to it through the viewpoint of civic liberty (it is good for everyone for individuals to adhere to a common standard: for the betterment of all) Neither of these overarching philosophical talking points address what is actually being stated in the Constitution under Article four.
In Article four of the Constitution it says that the U.S. government will “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” Because the concept of a guarantee has become so watered down today, and as well because we are more focused on federal governance than on individual State governance we might want to take a moment to talk about that phrase.
When the Constitution was signed the colonies were separate States. This means that they were sovereign but with both internal and external relationships to another governmental entity, namely the United Kingdom or Great Britain. The Constitution legitimized a federation of governance over a collection of States. And why would a State switch it's allegiance from G.B. to this new United States of America?
Well, the federal entity was guarantying (i.e. militarily protecting) the States sovereign right to implement a Republican government as opposed to being governed by the Monarchy in England.
What other roles does the new United States of America play other than military defense? According to the founding documents, it would liaise on behalf of those united State with other sovereign nations. It would also play a role in signing treaties between U.S.A. and other nations. How about education, healthcare, financial stability, retirement of its citizens, federal taxation? In all of these cases... it was left up to the States to decide. In the case of taxation however, it wasn't until the first World War that the federal government had grown so large that the constitution was amended to allow for federal taxation (something previously considered unconstitutional.) It was also the advent of federal taxation that lead to ever-increasing growth of scope of responsibility within the federal government (i.e. now that funding was available, so much more could be done.)
So what is distinctive about a Republic?
As you can see if you have been following the other blog entries, nearly all of the other forms of government are based on economic theory. At this point, a Republic stands alone. It's bold declaration that it values civic liberties as the foundation for it's guiding existence makes it revolutionary in it's approach to governance. You might now wonder if that is true in the light of the existence of Monarchies, but in that case you need to know that nearly all Monarchies were again also Republics (U.K. under the King/Queen, Italy under the Pope, etc.)
There have been attempts at drawing a distinction between Republics and Monarchies saying that Monarchies are about land ownership while Republics are about acquisition of wealth through commercial production but this is a fairly recent concept and it breaks down as an argument under certain living examples today.
The fact is that faith played a huge historical role in the formation of Republics. Take for example the Catholic faith. Many Republics in the Middle Ages were legitimized by their position with relationship to their King/Queen and how they related to the Catholic Church. Later under Luther and the Protestant Reformation there were many Republics created without being legitimized by the Catholic Church. This was a further move toward civic liberties often legitimized by Constitutions and not by the Catholic Church. But still, the formation of a Republic existed as a matter of united civic values relating to faith.
In the case of the U.S.A the colonial leadership they continued to feel that faith played a role in legitimizing their governance but rather than coming from the Monarchy, their power came from the people in a way that can only be described as a Republic. From the Declaration of Independence:
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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
And why did we form a Republic?
We often hear it had to do with “taxation without representation” like we seceded simply because of taxes! The fact is that they were struggling with the laws and the poor implementation of the rule of law in the States. In essence the Monarchy was on a power trip and living out a tyrannical set of abuses for whatever reason on the colonies. The colonies would have been satisfied to have been considered Republic-governed States, a part of the U.K. They were not being treated as such.
So with obvious faith when they wrote the phrases...
"... the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them ..."
"... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."
"... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world ..."
"... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
...they established a new Federal Government and in the Constitution promised that the new United States of America would "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."
So, is America a Republic?
It is clear historically that we are a Republic. But the founders of America were not ignorant. They understood that tyrannical leadership can spring up at any time and break, redefine, pillage and destroy what the generations before them suffered so hard to defend. In the Declaration of Independence it also says...
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...”
The “such principles” they refer to are the unalienable God-given rights they mention before that phrase. The Republic of America was not a government founded on economic policies but on faith that informs the politics of the nation.
So with the same understanding and educated effort of Ben Franklin, who after he helped to draft the Constitution was asked by a woman, “Sir, what have you given us?” when anyone asks us what kind of government America has, we should reply...
America is “A Republic... if you can keep it.”
Here are the links to the blog posts:
What is Communism
Communism is like Socialism but with the safety wheels taken off. If you want to learn about some of the history of Socialism, you can read a previous blog entry in this set.
Communism is a social and economic political ideology. According to the founders of the philosophy, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (mid 1800s), authors of The Communist Manifesto, the exploited working class within a Capitalist society must rise up in a revolutionary manner to overthrow their Capitalist forms of government in order to implement a transitional Socialist dictatorship via the collective working class (think: philosophical modern Democracy ruled by only the “working class” ) in hopes to eventually evolve into a form of governance of communal classless society that equally shares ownership as well as the means of production.
Today there are a number of different forms of transitional Communism. The most famous forms are politically moderate Communist ideologies that push less for revolution and proletarian (working class) democracy but rather believe in parliamentary forms of governance where representatives would vote in place of the citizens. These moderate communist forms are often politically referred to as Reformists or Social Democrats.
In America in the 1800s New Harmony, Indiana underwent an attempting to form a Capitalist + Socialist form of economic experiment. Within 2 years it failed because Capitalism values personal ownership and personal sovereignty. But Socialism is only a transitional stage between Capitalism and Communism according to Karl Marx. In the early 1900 Vladimir Lenin lead Russia into a Socialist revolution which resulted in a similar incompatibility of values. 100 years earlier in America it was also said that the New Harmony Experiment failed because the leadership in the situation were all not embracing a purer form of Socialism (in the educated and motivated sense of the word.) Back in Russia Communism would not be allowed to failed because of such values.
After 4 years of civil war lead by the Bolsheviks under Lenin, a form of social communism had taken hold but the leadership still struggled with capitalist ideals like personal sovereignty. Joseph Stalin followed Lenin in leading the Russian Communist movement and crushed any remaining over capitalist ideals converting Russian Communism into a form now referred to as the Communist Totalitarian ideology. How did Stalin do this? Lenin opened the door to the Marxist economic philosophy in Russia. Stalin wanted to ensure that Communism continued and that he would remain the figurehead to that movement. As a result his implementation of Communism resulted in something called Stalinism which was most famous for maintain communism with him as the head by: enlarging the reach of his government in ways that reduced personal sovereignty, national and international spying, punishment by law enforcers that did not involve court-based judgments, political “purgings” by killing, suppressing or exiling political opponents, extensive use of propoganda to establish a “personality cult” around him in order to maintain control over the nation and his Communist party. This is what it took from the Stalinism form of Communism to crush the values found in Capitalism.
Nearly 80 years later we learned that the Soviet Union established by Lenin, bolstered by Stalin, was nearly bankrupt. America in the 1980 cranked up nearly every political and social pressure to hen reveal that the U.S.S.R. was a failed experiment in Socialism and Communism. By the end of the 1980s the Soviet Union was no more and former Soviet nations began to move back toward Capitalist economics.
So is America Communist? In my opinion, like socialist ideology in America, people still promote certain values found in Marxist ideals like “class war” or “political governance of the means of production”, or “the subjugation of personal sovereignty for the purpose of social reform” or even “communal ownership via federal governance (of certain resources or opportunities)” but fundamentally America itself and its founding documentation doesn't allow for the Elected to simply do away with our Capitalist Republic in favor of the current winner 's sociopolitical-economic ideology. Well, not inevitably. It will always take a revolution to undo our Constitution or Bill of Rights or the values found in the Declaration of Independence. That is not to say that various expensive sociopolitical-economic “experiments” could not be attempted in ignorance in such a way as to simply cause long and painful and sometimes irreparable harm to America without actually turning us into something we are not.
It is better that we know the definition of these ideologies and their historical experiments before we simply jump out-of-context into some new political movement.
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Communism is a social and economic political ideology. According to the founders of the philosophy, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (mid 1800s), authors of The Communist Manifesto, the exploited working class within a Capitalist society must rise up in a revolutionary manner to overthrow their Capitalist forms of government in order to implement a transitional Socialist dictatorship via the collective working class (think: philosophical modern Democracy ruled by only the “working class” ) in hopes to eventually evolve into a form of governance of communal classless society that equally shares ownership as well as the means of production.
Today there are a number of different forms of transitional Communism. The most famous forms are politically moderate Communist ideologies that push less for revolution and proletarian (working class) democracy but rather believe in parliamentary forms of governance where representatives would vote in place of the citizens. These moderate communist forms are often politically referred to as Reformists or Social Democrats.
In America in the 1800s New Harmony, Indiana underwent an attempting to form a Capitalist + Socialist form of economic experiment. Within 2 years it failed because Capitalism values personal ownership and personal sovereignty. But Socialism is only a transitional stage between Capitalism and Communism according to Karl Marx. In the early 1900 Vladimir Lenin lead Russia into a Socialist revolution which resulted in a similar incompatibility of values. 100 years earlier in America it was also said that the New Harmony Experiment failed because the leadership in the situation were all not embracing a purer form of Socialism (in the educated and motivated sense of the word.) Back in Russia Communism would not be allowed to failed because of such values.
After 4 years of civil war lead by the Bolsheviks under Lenin, a form of social communism had taken hold but the leadership still struggled with capitalist ideals like personal sovereignty. Joseph Stalin followed Lenin in leading the Russian Communist movement and crushed any remaining over capitalist ideals converting Russian Communism into a form now referred to as the Communist Totalitarian ideology. How did Stalin do this? Lenin opened the door to the Marxist economic philosophy in Russia. Stalin wanted to ensure that Communism continued and that he would remain the figurehead to that movement. As a result his implementation of Communism resulted in something called Stalinism which was most famous for maintain communism with him as the head by: enlarging the reach of his government in ways that reduced personal sovereignty, national and international spying, punishment by law enforcers that did not involve court-based judgments, political “purgings” by killing, suppressing or exiling political opponents, extensive use of propoganda to establish a “personality cult” around him in order to maintain control over the nation and his Communist party. This is what it took from the Stalinism form of Communism to crush the values found in Capitalism.
Nearly 80 years later we learned that the Soviet Union established by Lenin, bolstered by Stalin, was nearly bankrupt. America in the 1980 cranked up nearly every political and social pressure to hen reveal that the U.S.S.R. was a failed experiment in Socialism and Communism. By the end of the 1980s the Soviet Union was no more and former Soviet nations began to move back toward Capitalist economics.
So is America Communist? In my opinion, like socialist ideology in America, people still promote certain values found in Marxist ideals like “class war” or “political governance of the means of production”, or “the subjugation of personal sovereignty for the purpose of social reform” or even “communal ownership via federal governance (of certain resources or opportunities)” but fundamentally America itself and its founding documentation doesn't allow for the Elected to simply do away with our Capitalist Republic in favor of the current winner 's sociopolitical-economic ideology. Well, not inevitably. It will always take a revolution to undo our Constitution or Bill of Rights or the values found in the Declaration of Independence. That is not to say that various expensive sociopolitical-economic “experiments” could not be attempted in ignorance in such a way as to simply cause long and painful and sometimes irreparable harm to America without actually turning us into something we are not.
It is better that we know the definition of these ideologies and their historical experiments before we simply jump out-of-context into some new political movement.
Here are the links to the blog posts:
What is Socialism
Socialism is first and foremost an economic theory. If someone says “This country is socialist” they mean to speak specifically to the way politics manages the economic administration of the country.
So what does this economic perspective encompass? Traditionally, socialist (economic) political agenda includes collective ownership and administration of (1) the means of production, (2) the distribution of goods and it's fair distribution across the full spectrum of society in an egalitarian (aka all people are philosophically equal) manner.
To offer a little history the most famous promoter of the Socialist perspective was Karl Marx. He said that socialist ideals would be achieved via class struggle where the working class would fight to come into power. Said another way (that you have maybe heard in the press), Socialism would be achieved via a proletarian “class war” revolution.
In an American form of government we are ruled by a Constitution. All other laws in our country are based on and conform with the rule of law provided by the Constitution. If laws are suggested that do not comply with the Constitution then we hear that the ruling was “un-Constitutional” and the ruling is typically addressed and reversed.
In a proletarian (or working class) “class war” the only way an American form of government becomes truly socialist would be via revolution. A revolution would be required to abandon the Constitution which explicitly declared that we have a Republican and not Socialist form of government. Said another way, no matter who is elected in the American form of government, the elected rulers cannot simply convert the government from a Republic to a Socialist form.
As late as the late 1700 and early 1800 a man by the name of Robert Owen from Wales helped to co-found the Socialist economic theory. Mr. Owen believed that Socialism should be founded on three core philosophies: (1) people are a product of their environment and are not responsible for who they have become. They are a socially engineered creature and society is responsible and not the individual, (2) all religions are absurd and weaken mankind while general spirituality is acceptable to a degree, and (3) that the government should manage the output of the nation on an administrative level.
Socialism has not moved far from the days of Robert Owen. In fact in as late as 1825 Owen himself ventured to implement a form of Socialism within a Capitalist society. The experiment lasted two years, was placed in New Harmony, Indiana (USA), and was a miserable failure. Even though a lot of money had been invested in the socialist experiment (this was a historical hallmark of Owen's form of socialism... the large financial investment) it was said to have failed because the social mix in the planned community consisted of people who were well intentioned but contained others who were called “wrongheaded enthusiasts” or “lazy theorists.” Said another way, for Owen's Socialism to have worked in a Capitalist society it would have demanded that all those in power be well educated in the principles of socialist production, confirmedly well intentioned.
On the flipside Josiah Warren, a participant in the experiment, said that it was a plan doomed to fail from the beginning because it ran against traditional Capitalist values such as individual sovereignty and private ownership. It seems that Josiah had a grasp of the incompatible values between Socialism and Capitalism while Owen would have to subjugate Capitalism to the values of Socialism to be successful.
So is America Socialist? Well, I think this selection of history demonstrates that while America is confirmedly Capitalist that people from time to time attempt to implement Socialist philosophical economic theory into it. Because Capitalism is not compatible with Socialism one or the other eventually must step aside. And since Capitalism values personal individual sovereignty and private ownership and these value must be removed from society for Socialism to inevitably work, I don't see America truly embracing Socialism anytime soon.
As an additional side note, it took two years for Owen's Indiana experiment to fail. Again, recall that it required a large investment and as at war in Capitalist values and it still took two years to fail. If you increase the scale of the experiment to encompass all of the United States and increase the investment from, say, thousands of dollars to, say, trillions of dollars you can imagine that America could try a grander “Capitalism + Socialism” experiment again, but he result will likely be one of three scenarios:
1.Capitalism leaves the equation quickly and Socialism becomes the economic theory for America.
2.Capitalism leaves the equation slowly and Socialism becomes the economic theory for America but the investment is so expensive that it reduces everyone into either the “working class” or into the “administrative (governing) class” (read the history of Communism.)
3.Capitalism stays and Socialism leaves slowly, and we are again buried under the investment of the experiment in a new national great depression.
At the moment I don't think we are in a place that could truly afford the investment to make such an experiment a success (if it could be a success at all.) I worry that we might try however and end up in scenario #3 above.
Regardless of speculation, I do not believe America has a Socialist form of government. Based on this history I do believe we might be heading for a new experiment in merging socialist values with capitalist values.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that Karl Marx said that Socialism is only a transitional stage. History tells us that his assertion is true. Countries do not inevitably stay socialist. According to Marx, on one end of the economic spectrum lives Capitalism, on the other end Communism. Karl Marx said that Socialism is the transitional stage from Capitalism to Communism.
Read my blog entry on Communism to learn more.
Here are the links to the blog posts:
So what does this economic perspective encompass? Traditionally, socialist (economic) political agenda includes collective ownership and administration of (1) the means of production, (2) the distribution of goods and it's fair distribution across the full spectrum of society in an egalitarian (aka all people are philosophically equal) manner.
To offer a little history the most famous promoter of the Socialist perspective was Karl Marx. He said that socialist ideals would be achieved via class struggle where the working class would fight to come into power. Said another way (that you have maybe heard in the press), Socialism would be achieved via a proletarian “class war” revolution.
In an American form of government we are ruled by a Constitution. All other laws in our country are based on and conform with the rule of law provided by the Constitution. If laws are suggested that do not comply with the Constitution then we hear that the ruling was “un-Constitutional” and the ruling is typically addressed and reversed.
In a proletarian (or working class) “class war” the only way an American form of government becomes truly socialist would be via revolution. A revolution would be required to abandon the Constitution which explicitly declared that we have a Republican and not Socialist form of government. Said another way, no matter who is elected in the American form of government, the elected rulers cannot simply convert the government from a Republic to a Socialist form.
As late as the late 1700 and early 1800 a man by the name of Robert Owen from Wales helped to co-found the Socialist economic theory. Mr. Owen believed that Socialism should be founded on three core philosophies: (1) people are a product of their environment and are not responsible for who they have become. They are a socially engineered creature and society is responsible and not the individual, (2) all religions are absurd and weaken mankind while general spirituality is acceptable to a degree, and (3) that the government should manage the output of the nation on an administrative level.
Socialism has not moved far from the days of Robert Owen. In fact in as late as 1825 Owen himself ventured to implement a form of Socialism within a Capitalist society. The experiment lasted two years, was placed in New Harmony, Indiana (USA), and was a miserable failure. Even though a lot of money had been invested in the socialist experiment (this was a historical hallmark of Owen's form of socialism... the large financial investment) it was said to have failed because the social mix in the planned community consisted of people who were well intentioned but contained others who were called “wrongheaded enthusiasts” or “lazy theorists.” Said another way, for Owen's Socialism to have worked in a Capitalist society it would have demanded that all those in power be well educated in the principles of socialist production, confirmedly well intentioned.
On the flipside Josiah Warren, a participant in the experiment, said that it was a plan doomed to fail from the beginning because it ran against traditional Capitalist values such as individual sovereignty and private ownership. It seems that Josiah had a grasp of the incompatible values between Socialism and Capitalism while Owen would have to subjugate Capitalism to the values of Socialism to be successful.
So is America Socialist? Well, I think this selection of history demonstrates that while America is confirmedly Capitalist that people from time to time attempt to implement Socialist philosophical economic theory into it. Because Capitalism is not compatible with Socialism one or the other eventually must step aside. And since Capitalism values personal individual sovereignty and private ownership and these value must be removed from society for Socialism to inevitably work, I don't see America truly embracing Socialism anytime soon.
As an additional side note, it took two years for Owen's Indiana experiment to fail. Again, recall that it required a large investment and as at war in Capitalist values and it still took two years to fail. If you increase the scale of the experiment to encompass all of the United States and increase the investment from, say, thousands of dollars to, say, trillions of dollars you can imagine that America could try a grander “Capitalism + Socialism” experiment again, but he result will likely be one of three scenarios:
1.Capitalism leaves the equation quickly and Socialism becomes the economic theory for America.
2.Capitalism leaves the equation slowly and Socialism becomes the economic theory for America but the investment is so expensive that it reduces everyone into either the “working class” or into the “administrative (governing) class” (read the history of Communism.)
3.Capitalism stays and Socialism leaves slowly, and we are again buried under the investment of the experiment in a new national great depression.
At the moment I don't think we are in a place that could truly afford the investment to make such an experiment a success (if it could be a success at all.) I worry that we might try however and end up in scenario #3 above.
Regardless of speculation, I do not believe America has a Socialist form of government. Based on this history I do believe we might be heading for a new experiment in merging socialist values with capitalist values.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that Karl Marx said that Socialism is only a transitional stage. History tells us that his assertion is true. Countries do not inevitably stay socialist. According to Marx, on one end of the economic spectrum lives Capitalism, on the other end Communism. Karl Marx said that Socialism is the transitional stage from Capitalism to Communism.
Read my blog entry on Communism to learn more.
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Saturday, July 18, 2009
What is Democracy
The word democracy means “majority rule.” What does this mean in practical terms? Well, fundamentally it means that when faced with a decision that results in “rule” the majority of people decide.
Let's quickly imagine what a majority ruling could mean in reality. Think about various scenarios: race demographics, companies that employ us, folks on a camping trip, etc. And now imagine that for each situation there are no guiding principles but rather decisions voted upon by a group of available contemporaries and whatever that majority looks like in that moment decides what the current rule looks like. Sounds sort of wild-west doesn't it?
Now, you might imagine that a majority rule scenario was how we were founded, correct? But rather than voting on a moment requiring a ruling, we voted on a constitution that established a basis for future rulings. In that case you would be mostly right, except for the fact that we didn't vote as a country of people in an opportunity. A number of colonial leaders voted or rather drafted the Constitution which defined a new way of governing, not by majority rule but by a rule of law that outlined a limited form of government with a very particular purpose.So if Democracy means majority rule, how did the phrase get re-purposed to mean a select group of people rule? Is it still a Democracy if the majority does not rule but there is another guiding rule of law that is simply implemented by a representative minority?
Is America a democracy? Well, I believe as a philosophy, we could say that we are philosophically democratic. But in reality, we are ruled by established law and to this day we continue to refer to the Constitution as our basis for law and legal rulings.
To offer a little Democracy backstory, in ancient Rome if you were a citizen, you were allowed to vote in the Assembly (think about how big those meetings must have been!) This was a more true form of Democracy. In an American form of government you cannot vote with regard to Congressional laws unless you are a seated senator (and even there you will find certain exceptions.) So, clearly America may be philosophically a Democracy, but in reality and by all practical means, we are not a Democracy by that definition of that form of government.
By the Middle Ages, Democracies began to take a different form. The groups being allowed to vote became smaller and more representative rather than inviting citizens to vote. Some might blame the degree of education or lack thereof during the Middle Ages on the reason voting power became representative. Said another way, Democracies simply began to morph into an elite group of empowered individuals who ruled in their delegated minority and simply called themselves representatives of the majority. It is as if by the Middle Ages the notion of Democracy almost fully transitioned from a true form of citizen governance to simply a philosophy of words. In this sense of the definition for Democracy, America does partly fit this form of rule. But we still have a guiding Constitution which forms a basis for rule, which again challenges the notion of America having a Democratic form of government.
Finally America was established and we “Declared” and “Constituted” our rights and rule of law. Interestingly enough there is not a single mention of democracy in either of these documents. I find it interesting that while there were documented (not in these documents) various philosophies of Democracy, that our form of government is not described as a Democracy.
In the case that you might be thinking I am drawing up a straw man, I am not. You might want to ask me, “Well, just because they didn't say it, doesn't mean it isn't true, right?” Let's take an example of that:
If you were to say, “Steve is a fighter,” and your basis for this is founded in the probability that Steve didn't mention that he isn't a fighter, well, you might be right, but you might as well be wrong. Now, what if I did explicitly say, “Steve is a lover.” In that case would it not be more accurate to say, “Steve is a lover, not a fighter.” It would be more accurate yet to say “Steve is surely a lover, but he might also be a fighter,” as long as the two things aren't contradictory.
Equally as interesting, it is explicitly documented in the constitution under Article 4, Section 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...”
In the blog article for What is a Republic you can decide if it is possible for America to be both a Republic as well as a Democracy and if these ideas are contradictory.
Here is where you scratch your head. If you have been asked or asked people “What form of government does America have?” and the popular answer to date has been, “We are a democracy” then you might want to examine why the notion of a Democracy is now more popular that the answer “We are a Republic.”
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Let's quickly imagine what a majority ruling could mean in reality. Think about various scenarios: race demographics, companies that employ us, folks on a camping trip, etc. And now imagine that for each situation there are no guiding principles but rather decisions voted upon by a group of available contemporaries and whatever that majority looks like in that moment decides what the current rule looks like. Sounds sort of wild-west doesn't it?
Now, you might imagine that a majority rule scenario was how we were founded, correct? But rather than voting on a moment requiring a ruling, we voted on a constitution that established a basis for future rulings. In that case you would be mostly right, except for the fact that we didn't vote as a country of people in an opportunity. A number of colonial leaders voted or rather drafted the Constitution which defined a new way of governing, not by majority rule but by a rule of law that outlined a limited form of government with a very particular purpose.So if Democracy means majority rule, how did the phrase get re-purposed to mean a select group of people rule? Is it still a Democracy if the majority does not rule but there is another guiding rule of law that is simply implemented by a representative minority?
Is America a democracy? Well, I believe as a philosophy, we could say that we are philosophically democratic. But in reality, we are ruled by established law and to this day we continue to refer to the Constitution as our basis for law and legal rulings.
To offer a little Democracy backstory, in ancient Rome if you were a citizen, you were allowed to vote in the Assembly (think about how big those meetings must have been!) This was a more true form of Democracy. In an American form of government you cannot vote with regard to Congressional laws unless you are a seated senator (and even there you will find certain exceptions.) So, clearly America may be philosophically a Democracy, but in reality and by all practical means, we are not a Democracy by that definition of that form of government.
By the Middle Ages, Democracies began to take a different form. The groups being allowed to vote became smaller and more representative rather than inviting citizens to vote. Some might blame the degree of education or lack thereof during the Middle Ages on the reason voting power became representative. Said another way, Democracies simply began to morph into an elite group of empowered individuals who ruled in their delegated minority and simply called themselves representatives of the majority. It is as if by the Middle Ages the notion of Democracy almost fully transitioned from a true form of citizen governance to simply a philosophy of words. In this sense of the definition for Democracy, America does partly fit this form of rule. But we still have a guiding Constitution which forms a basis for rule, which again challenges the notion of America having a Democratic form of government.
Finally America was established and we “Declared” and “Constituted” our rights and rule of law. Interestingly enough there is not a single mention of democracy in either of these documents. I find it interesting that while there were documented (not in these documents) various philosophies of Democracy, that our form of government is not described as a Democracy.
In the case that you might be thinking I am drawing up a straw man, I am not. You might want to ask me, “Well, just because they didn't say it, doesn't mean it isn't true, right?” Let's take an example of that:
If you were to say, “Steve is a fighter,” and your basis for this is founded in the probability that Steve didn't mention that he isn't a fighter, well, you might be right, but you might as well be wrong. Now, what if I did explicitly say, “Steve is a lover.” In that case would it not be more accurate to say, “Steve is a lover, not a fighter.” It would be more accurate yet to say “Steve is surely a lover, but he might also be a fighter,” as long as the two things aren't contradictory.
Equally as interesting, it is explicitly documented in the constitution under Article 4, Section 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...”
In the blog article for What is a Republic you can decide if it is possible for America to be both a Republic as well as a Democracy and if these ideas are contradictory.
Here is where you scratch your head. If you have been asked or asked people “What form of government does America have?” and the popular answer to date has been, “We are a democracy” then you might want to examine why the notion of a Democracy is now more popular that the answer “We are a Republic.”
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
America is a Democrazy
Many terms get tossed around today as if we know what we are talking about, “America is becoming socialist,” or “What that guy said is communist,” or “America is a Democracy”… on and on, yet I would be curious if people really understood the meaning or ideas behind those concepts or ideologies or political types of government.
Then out come the old quotes that defend our personal perspective. It is funny how quotations work. In my mind, quotations are symbolism. They remind us of perspectives. Now, unless you are quoting from an academic study, you are likely dealing with a conversational quote. And like I said, those quotes are just symbolic. For example, for a while now I had heard about a quote from someone named Alexander Tytler, who was said to say that democracies only last about 200 years at which point voters vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Well, if you are a fiscal conservative (like me) then you look at that statement and you want to quote the piss out of it like you are naming something from the periodic table of elements. The trouble is, while the statement was first well circulated in the 1970s, nobody knows where that really came from. It could have been my grandma. We will never know. My point is, just because it is an old statement doesn’t make it significant or profound, but everybody pulls out their quotes. What is more interesting is history and the symbolism of quotation to provoke thought. If we abandon either of those, then we go brain dead.
So for a bit of history, here is the first of 6 blog-posts that will investigate the history of 4 different forms of political government: Democracy, Socialism, Communism and Republic. I will identify the major ideological perspective of that form of government and suggest how I think America is either like or not like those forms. I will also see if I can find out the state of those forms of government (do they work; are they successful; what makes them successful.)
Here is a video to get you interested in the topic:
This will be pretty therapeutic for me because I have been thinking that America is moving toward a Socialist form of government and feel that has proved to be a poor decision in the history of our Earth. You can help me keep it honest by not allowing me to turn this into a propaganda piece (which will admittedly be difficult… but we will see.)
I am going to try and keep this pretty short (I know, not my usual thing) so each post will be easier to digest. Hopefully that won’t result in an over simplification of the facts and symbols. All of the following blog posts will link to each other so that it is easy to read through the full thread when I am done. As I write these blogs posts I will go back and update the links.
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Then out come the old quotes that defend our personal perspective. It is funny how quotations work. In my mind, quotations are symbolism. They remind us of perspectives. Now, unless you are quoting from an academic study, you are likely dealing with a conversational quote. And like I said, those quotes are just symbolic. For example, for a while now I had heard about a quote from someone named Alexander Tytler, who was said to say that democracies only last about 200 years at which point voters vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Well, if you are a fiscal conservative (like me) then you look at that statement and you want to quote the piss out of it like you are naming something from the periodic table of elements. The trouble is, while the statement was first well circulated in the 1970s, nobody knows where that really came from. It could have been my grandma. We will never know. My point is, just because it is an old statement doesn’t make it significant or profound, but everybody pulls out their quotes. What is more interesting is history and the symbolism of quotation to provoke thought. If we abandon either of those, then we go brain dead.
So for a bit of history, here is the first of 6 blog-posts that will investigate the history of 4 different forms of political government: Democracy, Socialism, Communism and Republic. I will identify the major ideological perspective of that form of government and suggest how I think America is either like or not like those forms. I will also see if I can find out the state of those forms of government (do they work; are they successful; what makes them successful.)
Here is a video to get you interested in the topic:
This will be pretty therapeutic for me because I have been thinking that America is moving toward a Socialist form of government and feel that has proved to be a poor decision in the history of our Earth. You can help me keep it honest by not allowing me to turn this into a propaganda piece (which will admittedly be difficult… but we will see.)
I am going to try and keep this pretty short (I know, not my usual thing) so each post will be easier to digest. Hopefully that won’t result in an over simplification of the facts and symbols. All of the following blog posts will link to each other so that it is easy to read through the full thread when I am done. As I write these blogs posts I will go back and update the links.
Here are the links to the blog posts:
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Leftist Ideological Spying
Just when you think you’ve heard it all. In the news at the moment is a recent revelation that Walter K. Myers, a State Department intelligence analyst, is defending himself in a court of law for spying, a.k.a. sharing intelligence secrets, for Cuba against the United States of America. As we know spying for Cuba means spying for the Soviet Union since they back the Cuban Government politically speaking.
So what is the key defense that Mr. Myers is using? Well, it has been reported that he has grown frustrated with U.S. Policies. What does that mean exactly? Well, he used to complain to his politically liberal neighbors who would agree with him about feeling appalled by “the Bush years.” This is crazy talk since G.W. Bush was only President for the last eight years in his 30 year spying spree. So what does that mean?
Probably no surprise to anyone at this point, Myers complained to his diary about “greedy oil companies”, inadequate healthcare and “complacency of the oppressed” in the United States. Does any of this sound at all familiar? Wow, that sounds like the Democrat Political platform… literally.
So what happened to Myer in the 1970s? He made a two week trip to Cuba where he was supposed to be making an academic trip as a part of a United Nations effort. Interesting. Once he arrived for this little United Nations trip he was met and led around by a Cuban Intelligence Officer. The story spins out into a series of moves where he was recruited and eventually joined the State Department Intelligence community explicitly to spy for Cuba. Myers says that his growing frustration on the above mentioned points culminated in his eventual inspiration for a new American revolution: Communism.
Let me say that again. His liberal ideals leading him to buy into the typical Democrat talking-points eventually brought him to the ideological conclusion that America needs a revolutionary move toward those ideals, and the government-type that most well embodied those ideals was… communism.
I am not remotely surprised that this definitive example of such an ideological connection now has a walking-talking face. The closer we get to over-simplified political arguments that demonize the concept of democracy, or free markets, or that value a social ideology over personal freedom, the easier it is to see how a country under pressure can move toward Marxist ideals. The biggest tell-tale in a move toward a Marxist ideal is when people who are already empowered to make a difference hand over their power to a leader that will now advocate for the general welfare for the betterment of all. Go back and read about the history of Russia, the communist revolution or the short book “Animal Farm.”
This is why it is so important that we don’t just look at where we are but where we have been and where we are going.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Bad Financial Advice (or bad advice, period)
It is a bit morbidly entertaining to watch someone in financial disarray give financial advice. Tell me you haven’t observed this! You likely have an uncle or friend of the family that is full of get rich quick schemes, ideas for making money if it weren’t for a distinct lack of financing, and on-demand (or without request) advice for the would-be investor or the financially troubled.
This character has even made its way into movies. You’ve seen it, right? The semi-crazy street vagrant dressed in rags carrying around a disconnected rotary dial red telephone yelling “Sell, sell!” into the handset.
The world is full of self-proclaimed experts and as a result it is always important to ask the right qualifying questions before even listening to advice to plague your mental process. Take for example, an old lost friend. He used to talk about money quite a bit. If you were to simply ask him if he was a business magnate or someone of just relative success he would be quick to tell you about the number of entrepreneurial businesses he was brought in to consult with on their way to the big-time. If you simply said, “Well, that works for me!” you wouldn’t ever hear the part of the story where nearly all of those businesses took his advice and are currently either in various stages of bankruptcy or in some cases the executives lost their right to be executives in any business ventures for nearly a decade as a result of them taking advice from him directly. Asking the right relevant questions is as important as getting purportedly good advice from “experts.” You can’t outsource your intelligence.
Such is the financial political world in the U.S. at the moment. If you are finding yourself affected at all by or thinking about the new national direction on issues like welfare, immigration, taxation, lending, regulation, government (deficit) spending, ecology, environmental laws and policies, housing market trends then you might want to ask yourself, “Where are we getting our advice on these new moves?” The answer is, well, no single source really. But what a reasonable person can do is look at parallels and say, “Are there states or governments that have already moved in the direction our nation is now headed in and what is the outcome of the progress they have made as a result?”
This is by all means not a foolproof technique in estimating the potential for success, even if it is how most of us make our daily decisions on a broad cross section of situations (i.e. we consult friends who have been through similar situations and learn from their missteps or successes.)
Our best parallel on nearly all of these socio-political fronts is both a U.S. state as well as the 9th largest economy in the world: California. Since the end of 2008 and in the beginning of 2009 California is, for lack of an actual legal ability to declare itself as such, bankrupt. States can’t declare bankruptcy, while local community governments and cities (more specifically) can do so, and in the case of California have (or in some cases nearly have if it weren’t for Federal bail-out.)
When you look at the policies in all of these categories it is no surprise that California runs a regular annual budget deficit of over $30 billion. It has falsely propped up its housing market. It has publically funded healthcare and lax boarders that allow illegal immigrants the benefits of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens. It has the highest personal income taxes in the country. It has the highest energy costs partially due to so called "green" legislation. It has the second highest unemployment rate in the nation (at 9.3%, and second only to DC which is nearly 10% unemployment.) It has completely over-leveraged its value against its lending power. It has been bailed out by the Federal Government and it has its hand out again!
Now, if you listen to the New York Times, they would have you believe that this is a shared story amongst Americans. Our American spirit should have us rally behind supporting a Federal bailout for California (as they ask for it again) because, well, this will likely be our states story too, right? Well, unless you are in New York City, that just isn’t true. And the runner-up for “in between a rock and a hard place” NYC is still only half as hard off as California. All of the states in between these two monolithically self-important socio-politically similar communities are not nearly in the same situation financially and otherwise. Oddly, if you go back as "far" as October of 2008 you can see Nancy Pelosi claim that bailouts are "bad policy" as she spoke out against it then and later wrote checks to NYC and now possibily against her own advice, to California. So why would we bail out these clear exceptions to the rule if the rule across the country doesn't trend into the toilet like these less-than-apologetic examples that spend and legislate themselves into a hole (and don't look like they are about to change that trend)?
The answer is simple, and you’ve likely heard this on TV: we can’t afford to let them fail. What you haven’t heard is the reasoning behind that statement. The can-do-people behind such statements need California to be a raging success because they epitomize the model implementation of their current nearly-manifest dream for the nation. If California can’t survive, and all of the states between California and DC are being turned into little Californias (politically and financially speaking through legislative action and spending) then naturally, California cannot be left to fail.
Maybe in this context, the New York Times would then be correct for once. If we all become little Californias, then maybe our states would all genuinely have a financial fate similar to the aforementioned. Then the Fed will swoop in and buy up the political landscape through the power of bailout funding that forces states to conform to the new political agenda.
In response to this unparalleled federal spending spree that attempts to change the socio-political momentum of the country through the power of financial leverage using these bad-example-communities, I have decided to start a mock campaign against this very obvious political movement called…
“Bailout BONANZA! America sells low.”
I am thinking about creating bumper-stickers.
On a more serious note, I think the solution could be a whole lot smarter. If we allowed for the creation of state to state lending where profitable states could provide contingent financing for less profitable states, then we sell out less and can skip the more costly middleman (the Federal Government, who would have to take money from the more profitable states anyway.) And contingencies could be established by the more profitable states, demanding that states requiring bailout take a few lessons on management from those more well-off states and set into motion plans that move them in the right direction. Now, mind you, my bias shows through in this statement, because the most profitable states across America are all fiscally and politically conservative states. At the same time, and with less bias, the upside is that funding would come from real sources and not the Fed which would either print more money lowing the value of the dollar or by just taking it from other states in the least efficient manner possible.
This character has even made its way into movies. You’ve seen it, right? The semi-crazy street vagrant dressed in rags carrying around a disconnected rotary dial red telephone yelling “Sell, sell!” into the handset.
The world is full of self-proclaimed experts and as a result it is always important to ask the right qualifying questions before even listening to advice to plague your mental process. Take for example, an old lost friend. He used to talk about money quite a bit. If you were to simply ask him if he was a business magnate or someone of just relative success he would be quick to tell you about the number of entrepreneurial businesses he was brought in to consult with on their way to the big-time. If you simply said, “Well, that works for me!” you wouldn’t ever hear the part of the story where nearly all of those businesses took his advice and are currently either in various stages of bankruptcy or in some cases the executives lost their right to be executives in any business ventures for nearly a decade as a result of them taking advice from him directly. Asking the right relevant questions is as important as getting purportedly good advice from “experts.” You can’t outsource your intelligence.
Such is the financial political world in the U.S. at the moment. If you are finding yourself affected at all by or thinking about the new national direction on issues like welfare, immigration, taxation, lending, regulation, government (deficit) spending, ecology, environmental laws and policies, housing market trends then you might want to ask yourself, “Where are we getting our advice on these new moves?” The answer is, well, no single source really. But what a reasonable person can do is look at parallels and say, “Are there states or governments that have already moved in the direction our nation is now headed in and what is the outcome of the progress they have made as a result?”
This is by all means not a foolproof technique in estimating the potential for success, even if it is how most of us make our daily decisions on a broad cross section of situations (i.e. we consult friends who have been through similar situations and learn from their missteps or successes.)
Our best parallel on nearly all of these socio-political fronts is both a U.S. state as well as the 9th largest economy in the world: California. Since the end of 2008 and in the beginning of 2009 California is, for lack of an actual legal ability to declare itself as such, bankrupt. States can’t declare bankruptcy, while local community governments and cities (more specifically) can do so, and in the case of California have (or in some cases nearly have if it weren’t for Federal bail-out.)
When you look at the policies in all of these categories it is no surprise that California runs a regular annual budget deficit of over $30 billion. It has falsely propped up its housing market. It has publically funded healthcare and lax boarders that allow illegal immigrants the benefits of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens. It has the highest personal income taxes in the country. It has the highest energy costs partially due to so called "green" legislation. It has the second highest unemployment rate in the nation (at 9.3%, and second only to DC which is nearly 10% unemployment.) It has completely over-leveraged its value against its lending power. It has been bailed out by the Federal Government and it has its hand out again!
Now, if you listen to the New York Times, they would have you believe that this is a shared story amongst Americans. Our American spirit should have us rally behind supporting a Federal bailout for California (as they ask for it again) because, well, this will likely be our states story too, right? Well, unless you are in New York City, that just isn’t true. And the runner-up for “in between a rock and a hard place” NYC is still only half as hard off as California. All of the states in between these two monolithically self-important socio-politically similar communities are not nearly in the same situation financially and otherwise. Oddly, if you go back as "far" as October of 2008 you can see Nancy Pelosi claim that bailouts are "bad policy" as she spoke out against it then and later wrote checks to NYC and now possibily against her own advice, to California. So why would we bail out these clear exceptions to the rule if the rule across the country doesn't trend into the toilet like these less-than-apologetic examples that spend and legislate themselves into a hole (and don't look like they are about to change that trend)?
The answer is simple, and you’ve likely heard this on TV: we can’t afford to let them fail. What you haven’t heard is the reasoning behind that statement. The can-do-people behind such statements need California to be a raging success because they epitomize the model implementation of their current nearly-manifest dream for the nation. If California can’t survive, and all of the states between California and DC are being turned into little Californias (politically and financially speaking through legislative action and spending) then naturally, California cannot be left to fail.
Maybe in this context, the New York Times would then be correct for once. If we all become little Californias, then maybe our states would all genuinely have a financial fate similar to the aforementioned. Then the Fed will swoop in and buy up the political landscape through the power of bailout funding that forces states to conform to the new political agenda.
In response to this unparalleled federal spending spree that attempts to change the socio-political momentum of the country through the power of financial leverage using these bad-example-communities, I have decided to start a mock campaign against this very obvious political movement called…
“Bailout BONANZA! America sells low.”
I am thinking about creating bumper-stickers.
On a more serious note, I think the solution could be a whole lot smarter. If we allowed for the creation of state to state lending where profitable states could provide contingent financing for less profitable states, then we sell out less and can skip the more costly middleman (the Federal Government, who would have to take money from the more profitable states anyway.) And contingencies could be established by the more profitable states, demanding that states requiring bailout take a few lessons on management from those more well-off states and set into motion plans that move them in the right direction. Now, mind you, my bias shows through in this statement, because the most profitable states across America are all fiscally and politically conservative states. At the same time, and with less bias, the upside is that funding would come from real sources and not the Fed which would either print more money lowing the value of the dollar or by just taking it from other states in the least efficient manner possible.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Cap And Trade Market Is The New Wallstreet
The word on the street is that the Carbon Pollution (still only a theory and disproved more and more everyday by observed non-anomilic science) “Cap and Trade” is poised to make certain folks into quick billionaires. GE is one of those companies. There are many others. Here is how this will work.
For some time now a number of companies organized as a group called “USCAP” have teamed up to recommend how cap and trade works. The gist is, based on recommended levels for carbon pollution, companies in the US would be awarded credits. If you are beating the cap then you get credits and if you are exceeding the cap then you need to go out and buy credits due to your credit deficit. Over the course of the next 50 years those credits would be progressively reduced lower carbon pollution numbers (wait for it.) Here is the problem.
This also affects companies and communities. G.E. is not only a major participant in crafting the Cap and Trade recommendations to the US Government but it is the largest manufacturer of the purported consumer AND company AND community level “solutions”. Where will people buy windmills from? New generator? Updated "low polution" arcraft engines? G.E. And this is only one company in the mix.
Let's talk about oil. Since the beginning of AGW theories ExxonMobil has been quit public about disputing the science behind the claims. And while they have not publicly changed their position, they are surprisingly getting involved in USCAP to help shape those policies before they become laws. So they aren't debating the fact that they don't believe in AGW anymore today than they did yesterday. They are only reading the writing on the wall and grabbing a seat at the big table so they can be one of the key families in the new enviro-mafia.
So (like usual) let’s do the math:
Cap and Trade doesn’t solve any problems, it creates a new trade market.
Moreover it creates or IMPLEMENTS a scheduled problem for average Americans to which that same group “creating” the problem will then be the very group providing the solution. The last time I heard a storyline like this I think I was watching the movie “The Godfather.” I am just starting to really understand those funny new “Tea Parties” in the news these days. You know? Those blips in the news where the media tells you that a few people got together to complain about taxes? Well, historically, people got pretty pissed because England wanted to get more money out of the colonies, so while England controlled the tea being exported to the colonies, they saw an opportunity in controlling the taxes associated with them. To be fair, Cap and Trade is just a new Tea Tax. But in this case it isn't tea they are taxing, it is carbon - the most prevelant element in the known universe. Said another way, if America could tax you for breathing, comparitively they couldn't raise as much funding as the AGW carbon "polution" taxation market will be able to do.
So, am I nuts? Where do I get the guts to call Cap and Trade a planned ploy to create a problem and then pimp the only solution? Well, just follow the story for yourself…
OK, be a good American and read these two articles:
If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em: Industry owns Cap and Trade rather than really being about Green Legislation
…and…
Cap and Trade Slumlords: If going green is so altruistic, how did Al Gore go from a net worth of $2 million at the end of his vice presidency to over $100 million in only eight years due to the new green market?
...and if you prefer to watch video instead then check out...
For some time now a number of companies organized as a group called “USCAP” have teamed up to recommend how cap and trade works. The gist is, based on recommended levels for carbon pollution, companies in the US would be awarded credits. If you are beating the cap then you get credits and if you are exceeding the cap then you need to go out and buy credits due to your credit deficit. Over the course of the next 50 years those credits would be progressively reduced lower carbon pollution numbers (wait for it.) Here is the problem.
- Carbon pollution is not science nor are the standards. They are manufactured "Caps" (I will explain how these Caps came to be in the next point.)
- The USCAP group is recommending standards that stack the deck in their favor. If the government adopts their recommendation, then since those companies have a head start on adhering to the standard they would be awarded an inequitable number of credits.
As a result many other companies would have to go to them to buy credits. And companies like GE are then awarded in the billions of dollars. Years later after politicians are willing to agree with the current science debunking AGW and proving we are on a new cooling trend, rather than returning all of our money they will only claim we've now solved AGW at a globally and ecologically infeasible speed and now we can stop doing Cap and Trade and energy taxes... wait a minute, WHO AM I KIDDING?
If the government can crank up personal energy taxes, why would they EVER STOP? And if companies can OWN the Cap and Trade system before it even gets going, how hard will they lobby Congress to keep that cashcow alive long after Anthropogenic Global Warming pseudo-science is debunked publicly?
Well, the answer is, they won't stop. This is a new industry they are creating. And we are not talking about companies trading billions based on carbon credit trading alone. Here is where you are I come in.
Carbon Cap and Trade laws would very quickly affect the average American household at the rate of over $3,000 per year. This is already all over the news based on the plan being proposed. If you think you have a tight budget now, imagine finding another $3,000 per year to handle trickle down Cap and Trade economics. If you are single with a roommate renting a home, well then it will only be $1,500+ for you, but I am sure you are now doing the math. As energy costs go up, also due specifically to energy taxes, it is being estimated that people will retire older electronic devices and from who will they purchase those new devices? Two letters: G.E.This also affects companies and communities. G.E. is not only a major participant in crafting the Cap and Trade recommendations to the US Government but it is the largest manufacturer of the purported consumer AND company AND community level “solutions”. Where will people buy windmills from? New generator? Updated "low polution" arcraft engines? G.E. And this is only one company in the mix.
Let's talk about oil. Since the beginning of AGW theories ExxonMobil has been quit public about disputing the science behind the claims. And while they have not publicly changed their position, they are surprisingly getting involved in USCAP to help shape those policies before they become laws. So they aren't debating the fact that they don't believe in AGW anymore today than they did yesterday. They are only reading the writing on the wall and grabbing a seat at the big table so they can be one of the key families in the new enviro-mafia.
So (like usual) let’s do the math:
Cap and Trade doesn’t solve any problems, it creates a new trade market.
Moreover it creates or IMPLEMENTS a scheduled problem for average Americans to which that same group “creating” the problem will then be the very group providing the solution. The last time I heard a storyline like this I think I was watching the movie “The Godfather.” I am just starting to really understand those funny new “Tea Parties” in the news these days. You know? Those blips in the news where the media tells you that a few people got together to complain about taxes? Well, historically, people got pretty pissed because England wanted to get more money out of the colonies, so while England controlled the tea being exported to the colonies, they saw an opportunity in controlling the taxes associated with them. To be fair, Cap and Trade is just a new Tea Tax. But in this case it isn't tea they are taxing, it is carbon - the most prevelant element in the known universe. Said another way, if America could tax you for breathing, comparitively they couldn't raise as much funding as the AGW carbon "polution" taxation market will be able to do.
So, am I nuts? Where do I get the guts to call Cap and Trade a planned ploy to create a problem and then pimp the only solution? Well, just follow the story for yourself…
OK, be a good American and read these two articles:
If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em: Industry owns Cap and Trade rather than really being about Green Legislation
…and…
Cap and Trade Slumlords: If going green is so altruistic, how did Al Gore go from a net worth of $2 million at the end of his vice presidency to over $100 million in only eight years due to the new green market?
...and if you prefer to watch video instead then check out...
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Living On Credit Cards
Dear Friend,
For some time now my budget has been busted. I have been spending way more than I can afford or even have. And right now I feel so sad because the people around me are also suffering financially. So here is what I have decided to do. I have asked all of my friends to pool as much of their disposable income with me as they can.
Some can afford a little and some can afford more. Many are not giving at all. I am doing my best to lay on thick the guilt trip to those friends who are doing well (or at least better than me.) The tact I have taken is to make them feel bad for being a success when people around them are not. The trick is that I say this fairly loud and in the presence of people who aren't doing well. The people who are poorer than me even add to the angry feelings toward the folks that are doing well.
I mean, who do those wealthier people think they are after all? Why do they have money while others don't? Wait. Don't answer that. I don't even want to know. I just want to hear the sound of them opening their wallets.
Now, once I have created this pool of funds, I have decided to turn around and open a huge line of credit using those funds as collateral. Sure the interest rates are fairly high on this sort of fund, and I am having to borrow that money from people not in my neighborhood, but in the end, it feels soooooo good to hand out wads of cash to people. I mean, they need the money right? And I am giving it to them, right? How cool is that. By the way, I actually took the loan out in their name. So when the lender from the other neighborhood shows up to collect, well, let's just say that won't really be my problem.
It just feels good to help, well, to help right now. Right now is when we need it the most, right? I mean, sure, we are living on credit together, but as long as I keep handing out the cash, it seems to me that nobody is asking questions, you know? They just need the cash.
So what if in a while they figure out the cost of that cash? They need it now, no matter the cost. And I am willing to help, no matter the cost. Gosh, that makes it sound like I have values and like I am taking on the responsibility of that cost. I am not. My friends and neighbors are, but let's not get distracted by those details. Let's just be good neighbors and get out there and buy new microwave ovens and locally manufactured automobiles and homes.
Oh man, take the wad of cash I handed you and follow my example by getting out a loan against your wad of cash. It is amazing how you will feel, well, right now! Maybe later you will realize it costs more, and more for a fairly long time (how long have we all been making payments on those crazy credit cards now?) but that is the magic of living on credit. Sure you are paying for it until you die, but man what a house, right? Well, what a house until the not so close neighbor takes it away when they come to collect their loan back. But I just can't think about that right now.
Right now I need to do something. And not a smart well thought out something, but a right now kind of something. A quick close your eyes and sign on the dotted line and ignor the fine print kind of something. We don't have TIME for talking about alternatives or shopping for better loans or whatever! Because, in the end, I know that I will feel good once they hand me that briefcase full of money. And I know I will feel better once I am handing that out to my neighbors! Who cares if it comes from China, right? Who cares if we are paying for it darned near the rest of our lives. We just need to focus on the cash, people! Focus! Over here! Not over there, over here! Seriously, stop looking at the fine print over there and just look at the cash in this briefcase over here.
Clearly this is the answer. Just ask all of my friends. When the chips are down and we are out of money, we just pull out the credit card and go have dinner and movie, right? I mean, what else could we do? Wait. Don't answer that. Focus!
- America, 2009
Updated:
Hi! America here! That was me back in 2009. Wow, I was not really thinking of my future. I quickly found myself buried under amazing debt and it wasn't until I stopped panicking and started talking to all of my friends that I started to get things under control. Unfortunately, here in 2030 life is getting a little better. I have paid down a lot of debt, but it started with getting my spending under control. My friends called it a budget and while it took a few false starts to learn how to live on one, I am now doing much better. Budgets really help you to prioritize, I tell you. For a while there I was calling things priorities that should never have been. After the spending was under more control and I was doing a lot better monitoring my ability to live under my budget, next I was able to refocus a bit. It is funny. Living under a budget helps you set realistic goals (and in my case my goals were all over the place.) By re-examining my purpose I was able to focus on my goals again, pay down my debt and focus on that purpose. It's funny what happens when you are in a tight spot and panic sets in. I really stirred myself up and got all freaked out. Thank goodness some of my friends were not all joining me in my panicky freakout sessions. I even accused those friends of not caring because they weren't freaking out with me (I was such a dork!) If they hadn't been patient and forgiving I might not have chilled out and took their advice. It is funny. I really knew what I needed to do all along. It is just too bad I made the decisions I did anyway (I guess the fact that I am still paying for it serves as a good reminder.) In the end, I can say that being in a tough spot was somewhat my fault and somewhat not, but my reaction is something I needed to own up to. And I continue to own up to it each day. Thank God for caring, patient, long suffering friends.
For some time now my budget has been busted. I have been spending way more than I can afford or even have. And right now I feel so sad because the people around me are also suffering financially. So here is what I have decided to do. I have asked all of my friends to pool as much of their disposable income with me as they can.
Some can afford a little and some can afford more. Many are not giving at all. I am doing my best to lay on thick the guilt trip to those friends who are doing well (or at least better than me.) The tact I have taken is to make them feel bad for being a success when people around them are not. The trick is that I say this fairly loud and in the presence of people who aren't doing well. The people who are poorer than me even add to the angry feelings toward the folks that are doing well.
I mean, who do those wealthier people think they are after all? Why do they have money while others don't? Wait. Don't answer that. I don't even want to know. I just want to hear the sound of them opening their wallets.
Now, once I have created this pool of funds, I have decided to turn around and open a huge line of credit using those funds as collateral. Sure the interest rates are fairly high on this sort of fund, and I am having to borrow that money from people not in my neighborhood, but in the end, it feels soooooo good to hand out wads of cash to people. I mean, they need the money right? And I am giving it to them, right? How cool is that. By the way, I actually took the loan out in their name. So when the lender from the other neighborhood shows up to collect, well, let's just say that won't really be my problem.
It just feels good to help, well, to help right now. Right now is when we need it the most, right? I mean, sure, we are living on credit together, but as long as I keep handing out the cash, it seems to me that nobody is asking questions, you know? They just need the cash.
So what if in a while they figure out the cost of that cash? They need it now, no matter the cost. And I am willing to help, no matter the cost. Gosh, that makes it sound like I have values and like I am taking on the responsibility of that cost. I am not. My friends and neighbors are, but let's not get distracted by those details. Let's just be good neighbors and get out there and buy new microwave ovens and locally manufactured automobiles and homes.
Oh man, take the wad of cash I handed you and follow my example by getting out a loan against your wad of cash. It is amazing how you will feel, well, right now! Maybe later you will realize it costs more, and more for a fairly long time (how long have we all been making payments on those crazy credit cards now?) but that is the magic of living on credit. Sure you are paying for it until you die, but man what a house, right? Well, what a house until the not so close neighbor takes it away when they come to collect their loan back. But I just can't think about that right now.
Right now I need to do something. And not a smart well thought out something, but a right now kind of something. A quick close your eyes and sign on the dotted line and ignor the fine print kind of something. We don't have TIME for talking about alternatives or shopping for better loans or whatever! Because, in the end, I know that I will feel good once they hand me that briefcase full of money. And I know I will feel better once I am handing that out to my neighbors! Who cares if it comes from China, right? Who cares if we are paying for it darned near the rest of our lives. We just need to focus on the cash, people! Focus! Over here! Not over there, over here! Seriously, stop looking at the fine print over there and just look at the cash in this briefcase over here.
Clearly this is the answer. Just ask all of my friends. When the chips are down and we are out of money, we just pull out the credit card and go have dinner and movie, right? I mean, what else could we do? Wait. Don't answer that. Focus!
- America, 2009
Updated:
Hi! America here! That was me back in 2009. Wow, I was not really thinking of my future. I quickly found myself buried under amazing debt and it wasn't until I stopped panicking and started talking to all of my friends that I started to get things under control. Unfortunately, here in 2030 life is getting a little better. I have paid down a lot of debt, but it started with getting my spending under control. My friends called it a budget and while it took a few false starts to learn how to live on one, I am now doing much better. Budgets really help you to prioritize, I tell you. For a while there I was calling things priorities that should never have been. After the spending was under more control and I was doing a lot better monitoring my ability to live under my budget, next I was able to refocus a bit. It is funny. Living under a budget helps you set realistic goals (and in my case my goals were all over the place.) By re-examining my purpose I was able to focus on my goals again, pay down my debt and focus on that purpose. It's funny what happens when you are in a tight spot and panic sets in. I really stirred myself up and got all freaked out. Thank goodness some of my friends were not all joining me in my panicky freakout sessions. I even accused those friends of not caring because they weren't freaking out with me (I was such a dork!) If they hadn't been patient and forgiving I might not have chilled out and took their advice. It is funny. I really knew what I needed to do all along. It is just too bad I made the decisions I did anyway (I guess the fact that I am still paying for it serves as a good reminder.) In the end, I can say that being in a tough spot was somewhat my fault and somewhat not, but my reaction is something I needed to own up to. And I continue to own up to it each day. Thank God for caring, patient, long suffering friends.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Obama Youth Brigade
There has been a bit of buzz in various circles about what is being nicknamed the "Obama Youth Brigade." Here is part of an article from the website www.thevoicemagazine.com ...
This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it.
There are parts of this bill that read in a very shifty manner. The goal of this bill is to reshape volunteerism in America. The way they are doing this is to require all student loan recipients to server at least three months in an approved volunteer capacity. And there are two categories it seems: there are groups that receive federal funding for volunteerism, and then there are roles that are added to groups where the specific role is federally funded (less about the organization and more about the role.) What does this mean and why might it be shifty?
If you read the approval part of the bill is says the following...
SEC. 132A. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization, consistent with section 132.
Now, many groups may read this and loosely imagine that it implies that any student who is receiving loans cannot be involved with such groups for the period they are serving their minimum three month volunteer duties. This would basically imply that if you want to belong to or relate to a church, then you have to disavow any involvement for the service period to remain eligible for funding. I think there might even be folks who grant or govern such loan programs that attempt to read this section in that manner, but that isn't really what it is saying.
This really says that you cannot consider your "religious" service to be the thing that fulfills your 3 months of service. Why would that be? For the above reasons. It isn't saying that you can't be involved in such stuff. It is simply saying that you can't get federal credit for it. At one point it even contradicts itself a little more stating that if the role simply has nothing to do with the above list (let's say your role is to stand in a closet and take inventory of choir robes) then your time can count for that. As soon as you put one on and start singing, you are off the volunteer clock.
Is this a bad thing? I think it is, but not for the reasons you might suppose. What I think is crazy about all of this is that it has nothing at all to do with effectiveness. You could get credit at a food pantry that simply facilitates the lifestyles of people who need a food pantry simply because it has nothing to do with God. At the same time, there could be a food pantry around the corner that also helps get people work and retrains them for that work providing job coaches, but because the people in the program also believe wholeheartedly that God in the lives of people is a good thing, the government simple categorically says that program can't be supported as a location worthy of your volunteered time.
This is "life on a curve." Said another way, because the government decides to single out religion as a factor for prejudice apart from other criteria that it could assign prejudice to, our life's experiences favor a certain view of life if we want to accept that criteria in our life scenario.
But, Steve, what about separation of church and state? Hmm, let's say I feel like I get value from working with diverse groups of people. Let's also imagine the government wants to encourage that so it rewards (or rather doesn't penalize) my employer if my employer promotes this and hires accordingly. At the same time there are times in that environment of diversity that people do stuff that is offensive to me (this can happen in very diverse groups quite easily.) So do I turn around and say that the government is sanctioning their behavior or overtly supporting it because it allows it to occur within the greater opportunity called diversity? Heavens no. At the same time people in Congress think that in the middle of a diversity of service if "religion" exists, then allowing that to happen would be the same as sanctioning it and endorsing it. For them, it is more important to be prejudice in that scenario than to allow volunteers to experience effectiveness. Worse yet is the fact that they might hide behind the notion that to allow it is breaking down some sacred "separation of church and state."
The fact is that our constitution say that the government shall not establish a state religion, but that was not meant to imply that the government should categorically prejudice itself against the ever real and possible effectiveness of helpful programs that emerge from the religious world today. In fact, I think it is more constitutionally sound to imagine that the government should be a friend to all citizens equally and limit itself to that strictly, rather than attempt to have more influence than it ever should have had.
I think this prejudice is the real problem. If volunteerism was a relay race, and volunteers wanted to spend time with the fastest and strongest teams they could gain access to, then the government just rigged the race such that an entire "class" of teams that have been running this race for a very long time have become immediately disqualified for some of the worst criteria imaginable.
But, Steve, if they want to go volunteer in a church, nobody is stopping them... what is the big deal? The deal is that people are about to be forced to put in a minimum of three months of service IF they accept student loans. If you are a student and you do this, THEN you are in the program. AND if you are in the program, then you must agree to serve BUT just not with "those groups over there." Let's hope that these kids decide to make volunteering a life-long activity. At this point they will be busy in school, and only if they agree to bow down to the federally sanctioned volunteer opportunities with their extra time will they be eligible for funds. Maybe I am lazy, but if I were throwing 2 hours a week at helping my church food pantry out as a kid, that would likely go away under a program like this simply because the Fed has decided that my church isn't in the race. Now THAT seems wrong to me. I think I am just not seeing what the big deal is with sanctioning this prejudice. Why is it necessary? If you have ideas, feel free to share them.
This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it.
There are parts of this bill that read in a very shifty manner. The goal of this bill is to reshape volunteerism in America. The way they are doing this is to require all student loan recipients to server at least three months in an approved volunteer capacity. And there are two categories it seems: there are groups that receive federal funding for volunteerism, and then there are roles that are added to groups where the specific role is federally funded (less about the organization and more about the role.) What does this mean and why might it be shifty?
If you read the approval part of the bill is says the following...
SEC. 132A. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization, consistent with section 132.
Now, many groups may read this and loosely imagine that it implies that any student who is receiving loans cannot be involved with such groups for the period they are serving their minimum three month volunteer duties. This would basically imply that if you want to belong to or relate to a church, then you have to disavow any involvement for the service period to remain eligible for funding. I think there might even be folks who grant or govern such loan programs that attempt to read this section in that manner, but that isn't really what it is saying.
This really says that you cannot consider your "religious" service to be the thing that fulfills your 3 months of service. Why would that be? For the above reasons. It isn't saying that you can't be involved in such stuff. It is simply saying that you can't get federal credit for it. At one point it even contradicts itself a little more stating that if the role simply has nothing to do with the above list (let's say your role is to stand in a closet and take inventory of choir robes) then your time can count for that. As soon as you put one on and start singing, you are off the volunteer clock.
Is this a bad thing? I think it is, but not for the reasons you might suppose. What I think is crazy about all of this is that it has nothing at all to do with effectiveness. You could get credit at a food pantry that simply facilitates the lifestyles of people who need a food pantry simply because it has nothing to do with God. At the same time, there could be a food pantry around the corner that also helps get people work and retrains them for that work providing job coaches, but because the people in the program also believe wholeheartedly that God in the lives of people is a good thing, the government simple categorically says that program can't be supported as a location worthy of your volunteered time.
This is "life on a curve." Said another way, because the government decides to single out religion as a factor for prejudice apart from other criteria that it could assign prejudice to, our life's experiences favor a certain view of life if we want to accept that criteria in our life scenario.
But, Steve, what about separation of church and state? Hmm, let's say I feel like I get value from working with diverse groups of people. Let's also imagine the government wants to encourage that so it rewards (or rather doesn't penalize) my employer if my employer promotes this and hires accordingly. At the same time there are times in that environment of diversity that people do stuff that is offensive to me (this can happen in very diverse groups quite easily.) So do I turn around and say that the government is sanctioning their behavior or overtly supporting it because it allows it to occur within the greater opportunity called diversity? Heavens no. At the same time people in Congress think that in the middle of a diversity of service if "religion" exists, then allowing that to happen would be the same as sanctioning it and endorsing it. For them, it is more important to be prejudice in that scenario than to allow volunteers to experience effectiveness. Worse yet is the fact that they might hide behind the notion that to allow it is breaking down some sacred "separation of church and state."
The fact is that our constitution say that the government shall not establish a state religion, but that was not meant to imply that the government should categorically prejudice itself against the ever real and possible effectiveness of helpful programs that emerge from the religious world today. In fact, I think it is more constitutionally sound to imagine that the government should be a friend to all citizens equally and limit itself to that strictly, rather than attempt to have more influence than it ever should have had.
I think this prejudice is the real problem. If volunteerism was a relay race, and volunteers wanted to spend time with the fastest and strongest teams they could gain access to, then the government just rigged the race such that an entire "class" of teams that have been running this race for a very long time have become immediately disqualified for some of the worst criteria imaginable.
But, Steve, if they want to go volunteer in a church, nobody is stopping them... what is the big deal? The deal is that people are about to be forced to put in a minimum of three months of service IF they accept student loans. If you are a student and you do this, THEN you are in the program. AND if you are in the program, then you must agree to serve BUT just not with "those groups over there." Let's hope that these kids decide to make volunteering a life-long activity. At this point they will be busy in school, and only if they agree to bow down to the federally sanctioned volunteer opportunities with their extra time will they be eligible for funds. Maybe I am lazy, but if I were throwing 2 hours a week at helping my church food pantry out as a kid, that would likely go away under a program like this simply because the Fed has decided that my church isn't in the race. Now THAT seems wrong to me. I think I am just not seeing what the big deal is with sanctioning this prejudice. Why is it necessary? If you have ideas, feel free to share them.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Favorite Quote of the Day
"...and this is case-and-point that the Federal Government needs to get their heads out of their..."
- Government Consultant
I think there needs to be an OverheardInDC.com website like overheardinnewyork.com where people can add such quotes.
This was the tail end of a conversation about how the government is currently creating opportunities that allow certain bailout beneficiaries the ability to double-dip into deep Federal pockets (and by Federal pockets I really mean the pockets lined with money that is defered debt that will live like a weight on the backs of soon-to-be-employed generations like my young niece and nephew.)
Only in America do we entrust trillions of dollars to the same leadership that not only caused the problem but as well didn't see it coming. At a time when our government should be focused on putting out the fires across our enblazoned economy, they are spending money on making the fire department prettier.
- Government Consultant
I think there needs to be an OverheardInDC.com website like overheardinnewyork.com where people can add such quotes.
This was the tail end of a conversation about how the government is currently creating opportunities that allow certain bailout beneficiaries the ability to double-dip into deep Federal pockets (and by Federal pockets I really mean the pockets lined with money that is defered debt that will live like a weight on the backs of soon-to-be-employed generations like my young niece and nephew.)
Only in America do we entrust trillions of dollars to the same leadership that not only caused the problem but as well didn't see it coming. At a time when our government should be focused on putting out the fires across our enblazoned economy, they are spending money on making the fire department prettier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
