The history of the United States is mired with many tragic events, wars, popular and unpopular political leaders and outspoken critics of government. Certainly there is no shortage of those types of folks today, however there is a key difference between the political leaders of history and those of today. The missing ingredient – in this writers eyes – is honor. Many, and dare I say most, of our political leaders lack honor. Not ’honor’ in the classical sense, but rather an honor that is so deep that it is espoused as a permanent and integral part of their essence. This honor is of the highest magnitude, it surpasses doing what is right simply because it is right and it holds a stronger bond than any familial blood line; no, this honor is about doing what is right because not doing it would grate infinitely harsh against the inner core of your being, such that you would rather suffer immeasurable and irreparable harm than fail at preserving it.

Too often our political leaders view holding office as a power grab, despite their assertion otherwise. It ends up being their golden parachute or fulfilling an internal desire to be famous. Whatever the reasons may be, it is seldom that we find true statesmen. Who do we have, or have we had in our midst in the last 20 years that would begin to measure up against the bar set so high by those such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams. Certainly they exist, but unfortunately they are very rare. The political climate of today instead reflects the poor quality of self-deserving politicos who would rather do what is expedient for the purposes at hand and forgo doing that which is honorable.

The interesting thing here is that it stems not from politicians, but rather the citizens of this once great country who vote them into office because their personal needs would be better served by a political type buying votes as opposed to one doing what is right and just – honorable. Of course we must not forget those who do not vote, as an abstained vote is tantamount to condoning the status quo or roughly the same as a vote against the trailing candidate. But then this isn’t a lesson on why one should vote, but rather why it is important that we maintain the utmost respect for an institution that transcends individual desires.

“A Republic … if you can keep it.” Those words, attributed to Benjamin Franklin during the evening hours of September 17, 1787, spoke into being a rich history of our nation, its founding and the establishment of our Constitution as the rule of law. The Constitution was written, debated, edited and debated further until a consensus of the Constitutional Convention was reached. In his closing speech, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged, “I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution.” This republic afforded the people of the various sovereign states representation on an equal basis based on the population, these are our representatives in Congress. The states were given an equal say in states matters in the Senate. Together the Representatives and Senators would comprise the legislative branch of our government that would direct the laws and policy of these United States.

Order Out of Chaos

Much confusion abounded during the time of the convention, bickering among the participants was considerable. However, one item echoed throughout the process that today most folks would deride as folly. During the final debates, Mr. Elbridge Gerry expressed the concern that the Constitution as it was written would lead to a civil war because it didn’t adequately protect republicanism. It was argued that in his home state of Massachusetts, there were two political parties, one devoted to Democracy, “the worst thought of all political evils” and the extreme opposite. Without a guarantee that the Constitution would protect the nation against such extremes, he refused to sign and subsequently argued against ratification because of the lack of a bill of rights that limited the power of the government.

The republic that was formed allowed each state to have 2 senators that were selected by the various states to ensure the government would never impinge upon the sovereignty of the individual states. This bi-level system assured that the states acting in concert could not impose legislation on the country as a whole without the consent that comes from the people through their representatives. The representatives and senators thus each are required to produce legislation and have it approved through both houses assuring the needs of the people are met and the sovereignty of the states is ensured.

States’ Rights Dealt Death Blow

The 17th Amendment, if doing nothing else, brought about the demise of states rights and effectively neutered the republic. When the Senate passed the amendment on June 12, 1911, they were voting for themselves the ability to be elected by popular vote and whether knowingly or not, they changed the face of the country. A senator elected by the people, will ultimately do the will of the people, or at very least the will of the people who ensure their continued re-election. This holds true for appointed senators as well. Those appointed senators would be loyal to the state legislature. The move from the states’ legislature selecting senators to the people removed the loyalty to the state and put it squarely in the lap of the people. The republic that Ben Franklin announced that historic day in 1787 had been lobotomized.

The Arguments

There are several arguments for the repeal of the 17th Amendment:

• It removed states’ representation from the federal government and essentially abolished state sovereignty and the states no longer have a representative voice in the legislature.
• It removed the balance from the legislative branch of government. A congress made up of elected officials from the enumerated people, plus two from each state essentially gives the people additional representation greater than the enumerated representation allowed by the constitution.
• Power has become centralized in Washington. A senate without loyalty to the individual states takes away the rights of individual states to pass any meaningful legislation, and causes the legislative power to reside in the federal government.
• It has increased partisanship in government. Political parties exist to give a stronger voice to like-minded individuals. Since individuals belong to political parties, their will is pressed in the senate as well as the house. The states on the other hand, do not belong to political parties and usually consist of a varied mix of several political views.
• The Senate is now directly responsible to the people. This means that if they don’t do the will of the people, they can be replaced. While this sounds good, the senate was never designed to do the will of the people. It was designed to do the will of the states. This effectively removed whatever protections the 10th Amendment provided.

The Repeal

In the political climate today, the likelihood of a repeal of the 17th Amendment is remote. There have been attempts to do so in the past, but they failed due to obvious reasons. As recently as August 2009, there were bipartisan attempts to amend the 17th to prevent the appointment of senators by state governors.

Constitutionally we must live within the law, and when those laws seem unjust or no longer are appropriate, it is the duty of the people to change those laws. The expansion of the federal government has put us on the edge of a crevasse that will soon give way to a calamitous action. We must act with purpose to restore the proper balance to a union of nation/states. Each state being sovereign, each person being secure in their liberty and the strength of the nation improved through a cooperative federal government instead of the bastardized monstrosity we are currently relegated to deal with.

Without so much as a thought, we can flip a switch, and turn on a light in a dark room, operate this fancy computer I get to use on a daily basis, and charge up the ipod, and all manner of portable appliances we have become dependent upon in our daily lives. When we are thirsty, or need to wash our clothes, the turn of a faucet handle will provide a seemingly unending supply of fresh water, and almost if by magic, the things we find no longer useful in our lives, can be put in the trash bin to go off to who knows where … but it isn’t here, and that is the important part … or is it?

When I began considering the massive integration and collective cooperation we have as a society, the geek in me began to see subtle flaws in its implementation; then the more I dwelt on the issue, the more important these flaws became, until I can no longer take anything for granted; danger, grave danger, lies everywhere, and we as a society are blind to its inherent flaws. Sure, I like a nice hot shower, probably more than most folks; to get that shower though, I have to rely upon lots of other people; people I don’t know, to do things that quite frankly, I don’t understand. The public works people maintain the public water supply, and actually keep the city’s waterline in proper working order; send off water samples for tests, treat waste water, and scope out new well sites among the vast number of other things they are required to do, to actually get water out of the ground, or reservoir, and out to the populous. The electrical workers have to maintain not only the power generation plant, but they also have to install and maintain tens of thousands of miles of high power electrical lines to get the power out to the customer. Power generation facilities across the continent are connected in very complex and highly volatile network, and require tens of thousands of people, on a daily basis, just to keep it working. Our trash is collected and consolidated into huge holes in the ground, designed to hide the excess of our ways. In essence, we just live our daily lives and use these things without a thought about any problem or potential problem that might exist in the system … and that is a very dangerous situation to be in.

Last week when the news broke, about the earthquake in Haiti, we were complacent … oh, another earthquake in a place most of us had never given a second thought to … but when the gravity of the disaster began to become real for us (thanks Anderson Cooper), we realized that this was much more than your run of the mill earthquake; if there even is such a thing. No, this was much worse, this was the complete collapse of an entire society of people; an entire country is in turmoil, and despair is the nicest thing they have going for them. This was devastation like we have never seen before. Outside of collapsed schools, homes, businesses, and government buildings, were throngs of people, hundreds of thousands of people, displaced. There are perhaps, 2 million people or more, whose daily lives are affected to a degree that we can barely fathom, yet here we sit oblivious to the dangers our own highly integrated society has built for itself; oblivious to the havoc we would face if we were to have our own infrastructure-quake.

Consider that you are reading this, likely on a computer, powered by electricity, generated by a power plant, that runs on uranium, coal, oil or gas. What happens when there is a failure at a power plant? Can’t happen? Think again … across this country, there have been numerous catastrophic plant failures, explosions at solar power facilities, core leaks at nuclear plants, massive turbine failures, collapse of steam pipes, and wind and ice damage to transmission lines … and that was only in the last couple of years. It doesn’t seem that bad though, particularly if you were not one of those affected, without power for weeks on end. As any computer expert would tell you, in order to have a secure and reliable system, you must have redundancy … lots of redundancy. Look at how NASA works … there are redundancy protocols, for redundant systems, for redundant protocols, for backup systems, for backup systems… and yet they still have a track record of having catastrophic, irrecoverable, problems.

That hot shower we take for granted, would be of little concern for those who rely upon a public water source, were that source to become contaminated or unavailable. Consider that, in a town my size, as many as 50,000 people could be left without so much as drinking water, much less bathing water, if a single system goes down. The idea that bigger is better, and consolidation for the common good, is of little concern if you are thirsty.

What we can learn here, is that, smaller, more localized handling of the needs of people will provide a much better solution than massive projects to provide for the masses. Multiple, neighborhood water supplies, will ensure that, in the event of a single failure, the least number of people are affected. If one or more wells stop functioning, there may be a lower capacity of the remaining supplies, but the lower supply is a better alternative than no supply. Electricity generation is another very similar situation… If we have more plants, much smaller than the gazillion megawatt plants of today, spread out in more communities, with shorter transmission distances, the failure of one in a huge network, will be much less problematic than the failure of a single plant providing power to an entire quadrant of the country.

The whole point is, when you put all of your proverbial eggs into a single basket, no matter how big and strong that basket might be, there is a flaw in that basket, a flaw you don’t see … and grandma knew that… thats why she always carried two baskets to the hen house, and why she went twice a day. If one of the baskets failed, she didn’t lose all of the eggs. As a populace, it would do us well to remember that … we need to have many baskets in order to have the least collateral damage in the event one fails. If you learn nothing from the plight of the Haitians, learn this one thing … almost always, a little something is better than no something … and right now, the basket that contained the Haitian infrastructure, has been dropped to the ground by an earthquake nobody predicted.

I am a member of or have been a member of many different organizations in the last 25 years or so. Most of the time they are specific cause charities, for example boys clubs or scouts. For the purpose of this entry, I’ll not identify the organization I am writing about because I really do believe in their cause, and wouldn’t want the people involved to become pawns in yet another political debate.

I wasn’t the first nor the last to enter the board room as the meeting was getting underway. As is customary, the opening ceremony was completed and the course of business had gotten underway. When it came to new business, it was posited that considering the substantial devastation in Haiti and the fact that aide organizations across the world are clamoring for funds to get supplies and people on the ground there to help, it would be nice if we too would contribute to the cause. On the face it seemed like a great idea, although our annual budget is pretty low, we could put together a care package of $250, it might not be much, but it would certainly help. If more people did it, then the dollars add up pretty quickly.

Now spending money is something that I enjoy. I also really like helping people, regardless of their situation, I call it my compassionate guilt complex. When I am able and sometimes when I am not, I give of my time and money to help others. This is a weakness that I have, but I am willing to bear because of the joy that I get from knowing I was able to help someone in need. But this was different. This was money from an organization that had come together for a specific purpose, whose charter laid out the rules of conduct and whose members agreed to abide by that charter.

In many ways it is very similar to our federal government and our own system of laws. To draw a complete comparison, we can liken the Constitution to the club charter, the President would be the board chair, and the Congress would be the board members, finally the citizens of this country would be akin to our club members.

The ‘President’ called the question … after the requisite motion and second as required, ‘Congress’ entered into debate over this bill. The sentiment was unanimous. The people in Haiti are having a really tough time of it and we have the desire to help them. Considering there wasn’t alot of real discussion going on, I asked a simple question. “Mr President, does our constitution allow for us to spend money on the people in Haiti?”. The ‘President’ was honestly shocked by the question, and after a couple of minutes simply stated that it did not. So I followed up with “If our constitution doesn’t allow for us to do this, why are we even entertaining this bill?” The resounding, almost unison response from the ‘Congress’ was “Its the right thing to do to help these people. We can and we must!” … now if that sounds like a mandate, it surely did to me … its the right thing to do, we can do it, so we must do it … At this point there was much bickering and arguing back and forth between those who saw that the truth is, regardless of whether we want to do it, it is neither right nor can we just do it. As an organization bound by laws and rules, we must abide by those or risk losing the confidence in the citizens that elected us to our position. When the final vote was cast, the bill failed by a 1 vote margin.

Clearly this wasn’t our government in action, but it was a really close approximation in the private world, however the reaction was right on par with what one might see from the citizens who desperately wanted to see this bill pass. Immediately I began receiving comments about how I must hate the people in Haiti or how can I ignore their plight. These sentiments, while on the surface seemed to be correct, they were far from the truth. Regardless of how many times I said I had nothing against them and really wanted to help them but my hands were tied, as it would have been against our charter to authorize such an expenditure, they would have no part of it.

Finally, I made a comment that would cease the discussions and quieted the naysayers. I reached into my pocket and pulled out a $50 bill and laid it on the table. Of course it was already earmarked for gas, but I needed to make a point. I told the entire committee that I was donating $50 toward the recovery efforts in Haiti right then and there, and I would gladly accept any personal donations from the members of the board, up to a total of $250. After a few seconds of shock, the murmuring quieted down and I instructed the members to see me after the meeting so we could coordinate our $250 donation. Amazingly, but not unexpectedly, there was not one person who took up my offer to fund a private initiative.

Sure it was OK as long as it was someone else’s money they were giving away, but the end result was that I made my point. People feign compassion when it makes them look good, they feign conservatism when it makes them look good … in fact people generally do whatever they can to make themselves look good, except, and this is a big one, except when it requires that they actually do the deed.

So what does this teach us? If you are really concerned about people, don’t be a fake conservative, don’t let your compassion go awry and by all means, don’t fall for the rhetoric about certain things being the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to live within the constraints of our laws and rules, and if you don’t like them, work to change them. 

Lets look at how sports figures all across the world compete for that elusive crown of victory. Athletes are willing to put aside sleep, pain and family for the prize of achieving that ultimate goal at being a winner, to be great at what they do. There is no mountain too tall, no ocean too deep and no river too wide that will keep them from working toward that pinnacle. Frequently we hear how football players continue to force themselves to strive on despite having a torn ligament in a knee, something that would bring the toughest person down, but somehow, they push through the pain and continue. There are baseball players that seek to achieve greatness through the use of injections and supplements designed to increase muscle mass to improve their game, and yet, many of these sports figures, great in their own mind, fail to achieve what they want most.

In the political arena we have politicians who sell out their constituents for the promise of power and fortune, but in the end they end up despised and even hated. The ever increasing nature of divisiveness in politics has created but a few “statesmen”, the rest simply slip into obscurity for eternity, failing to reach that goal of being remembered for grand achievements.

Even in families and the workplace we have folks who go about their daily activities looking for that next grand scheme that will propel them into fame, that will grant them riches and glory, but alas here again, the vast majority of these fail to reach their goal.

Considering that my own life experiences has taught me a lesson or two or a hundred, I have to look back and see what I did that was so different from those who have achieved greatness, at least as far as I can tell. To do this I have to consider what kind of greatness I am observing. As best as I can tell, there are two distinct ways to achieve greatness as is defined by popular culture.

The first, which isn’t really greatness at all, is notoriety, being known for doing something that others have not, or would not. In this category, we have all sorts of people who believe they have achieved the reward. To see this, one need only look at people like Nero and Caligula, Dahmer and Kaczynski, Osama and Atta et.al.

The second, which is probably the more classic example of greatness, has people like Washington and Jefferson, Ghandi and Mother Teresa, Marino and Babe Ruth, and others who throughout their lives made it a point to do what they love and love what they do. To achieve greatness in the minds of others, to reach that lofty place where others would admire and respect their achievements. But what each of these have in common is not that they achieved greatness, but rather that they did so without the expectation of accolades .. ok maybe Marino and Babe Ruth wanted accolades, but it is a nice sentiment, and from all indications they took particular interest in their fans, something lost on many folks today.

So after all of this, if I haven’t lost you, the real question is; “How can I achieve greatness?” – it is achievable, but it isn’t easy. Remember those ball players who play through pain, you will have to play through your adversities as well. You will have to seek out those things that are blocking your goals and move beyond them, put them aside and reach for that elusive mark, but even then that mark is unsatisfying if you have not done it for the right reasons. There is one quality that supercedes all in the quest for greatness, and that is the motivation behind such a journey. If you are seeking greatness for the sake of greatness, then you are doing it wrong, however, if you are not seeking greatness, but you are doing what you believe in for the sake of others, you will achieve it.

We Can’t Afford Socialized Health Care

There are several factors to remember when talking about a nationalized health care system and the biggest of them is probably the fact that we can ill afford to pay for it. Consider the points I raised in the previous article regarding the fact that insurance is a business. Currently, medicare costs are bankrupting the system, and presumably the new socialized health care will follow a similar model … pay as you go. As it has been pointed out by many people other than myself, the current “pay as you go” mentality of the government is nothing more than a huge ponzi scheme whereby benefits to previous subscribers are paid for by new subscribers. This means, that at some point, as is now evidenced in both Social Security and Medicare, the new system will be ill prepared to provide for the combined proposed benefits of the subscribers and as a result will either have to cut benefits substancially or it will have to exact more taxation from the subscribers (you and I) to pay for this monstrosity.

Now before I get off on a tangent, let me explain why you cannot afford nObamaCare. Under the current proposal, every citizen in the US or under US control would be required to purchase insurance with the caveat being “if they can afford” to purchase it. I have checked out various insurance programs, considered their cost, and determined that the median family income of  $67,019 a year would probably allow some families to purchase group policies, while others would not. The reason for this is that outside of a group policy as provided by an employer, major medical policies can vary from as little as $350 a month per individual to $1700 a month for a family of four. Now if we consider that an insurance company is a commercial enterprise with aspirations of making a profit, you have to believe that the costs are that high for a reason, and that reason is they have to cover the costs of providing the care.

So what might put you, the average citizen, in the $350 category as opposed to something higher? Consider that your age, health care history, home state, and gender play a huge role in determining your rates, and while race is not immediately asked of applicants, you can rest assured that it plays a factor as well, despite the efforts by government and insurance companies to make us believe otherwise, it is quite obvious to insurance companies that African-American males have a higher health care cost than any other gender/race group of people. The insurance companies know this, and you can bet they have a method to insure they are not exposed unnecessarily. There have been reports of gender and race bias in the application of benefits that seem to unfairly target minorities. Whether this is by design or because of other social issues remains to be resolved. Regardless, the equitable access to health care is expensive, especially if you have any pre-existing conditions.

The bottom line, is do you trust government enough to allow them to dictate whether you can afford to pay $350 a month for single coverage or as much as $1700 a month for family coverage? I doubt most have that kind of faith in our government .. I know I don’t.

Limited Choices for Care

Under the proposed system, your health care will look similar to that of Europe or Canada where it has been reported that medicine is not provided because of cost or treatments denied based on where they live, in fact, under most conditions, patients are barred from paying for the procedures themselves.

According to British journalist Melanie Phillips, the British model, which many in our own government have taken direct clues from as to what they would like to see in the US, has become a matter of life and death with dire circumstances.

” Britain has some of the worst cancer survival rates in Europe, and as some doctors privately acknowledge, one reason is that NHS patients are prevented from buying the most effective drugs.”

She futher states as a matter of policy that the NIH causes physicians to cease treatment for an illness if the patient or patient’s family purchases any enhancements to the treatment. For those who are part of the envy class that hate people for being good money managers and savers instead of spenders, this means that evil rich people have to get the same crappy medical care as the rest of the population, except what they fail to realize is that refusal to allow a person medical care is the exact opposite of their mantra for improved coverage and improved care. I suppose it is only a bad thing if it is somebody else that is refused care. I have a sneaking suspicion that the lawmakers in Washington will not be forced to see the same sub-par medical practitioners as those who will be part of the socialized health care they are advocating so vehemently.

There aren’t many things that get me wound up like someone who cannot make up their mind about something. No, I am not talking about someone who delays an answer to a question or gives the ubiquitous answer “I don’t care” or “whatever you think”, especially when the question is of little consequence, like “What do you want for dinner?” or “Do you want to go to the movie theater?”. What I am talking about is the kind of failed decision making that we see, especially in elected leaders when they take one stand, many times in a very public and forthright manner, but at same time in the future, change their view so radically that it makes your head spin.

Good, Bad and Indifferent

I have seen people asked what they think of a particular subject, sometimes it is a politically charged topic while others are so insignificant that it makes me wonder why anyone would care. Recently on a television entertainment show, the question was brought up about a particular hollywood type, the value of an estate and how much cash one might be required to pay in a divorce settlement. As far as I am concerned, this is one of those questions where I am quite ambivalent. I recognize that there are a vast number of people who have wrapped themselves in a cloak of hollywoodism and live life vicariously through the lives of these very public figures, I just don’t happen to be one. I could care less, i.e. I am indifferent as to the answer one might get from this question. Of course, being a Philadelphia Flyers fan, I might get a little more animated when people ask me what I think of the Bruins or the Rangers, but then again, in the big scheme of things, these questions should realistically be listed in the “indifferent” column, mostly because they are a question of opinion and not of prime importance (sorry John, the truth is after all, “the truth”).

Then we have those decisions that we all certainly should be able to determine that they are either good or bad. Take for example a recent report of a man impersonating a federal agent who bypassed airport security and reportedly carried a loaded firearm onto the plane and into the cockpit. His decision to not only break the law to circumvent security was not only stupid, his subsequent action of duplicating it on a return trip indicates to this writer that he has an especially hard time making good, and dare I say rational, decisions. But then what do we expect from people who have something to hide?

What Do You Want To Eat

I don’t care who you are, this is an especially egregious question. You may as well ask about my level of euphoria when puppies are killed. The answer will always be the same … that is there isn’t any valid answer. I may want to eat a bug or perhaps a polar bear, and regardless of my answer, someone, somewhere, will be offended or put off by my insensitivity to their feelings. Seriously though, I once had a sister-in-law that would without exception, vomit every time someone would kill a bug. Now I am not the squeamish type, but I was made more sick by her reaction than that of the initial act, which brings me to the original point.

Own Your Decisions

I am a firm believer that whatever decisions you make will ultimately exhonorate or condemn the decision maker. If I make the decision to run a red light or decide to ignore a stop sign, the resulting damage to myself and others will be a telling tale on my character. Regardless of what intentions I had with regards to making a poor decision, the fact that the decision adversely affects others should be a clue as to the quality of the decision being made. The fact that Obama decided to release the photos of terror suspects under interrogation and/or reportedly being tortured and then his subsequent 180 to a position of vehemently arguing for the concealment of such photos, gives me pause to consider the possible off-the-cuff decision making painfully apparent in the Whitehouse and Oval Office. This obvious flip flop has visions of John Kerry flittering about in my mind. So Obama was for releasing the photos before he was against releasing them. It sounds too much like just another politician trying to satisfy everyone and in the end creating enemies from all walks of life. This is a no win situation politically, however, since the greater good must be served, and I believe the protection of Americans is of more importance than the protection of radical terrorists, I applaud this change of heart and pray that Obama will own this decision, not because it is his, but because it is the best decision under the circumstances.

Incidently, I agree with the latest stance made by the Oval Office regarding the release of photos and this is why. If these photos are released, they could very well incite further hatred and disdain for the American people in the world community. That being said, one must wonder what led to the original decision, without the benefit of insider information, all we can do is speculate … and since that is all that I can do, given my Whitehouse press pass hasn’t been approved or processed for that matter, I’ll speculate on the reasons.

Why We Won’t See The Photos

Much has been said about the release of the documents surrounding the reported torture of terrorists, some of it lacks any credible source, while alot of it is based in sound facts and is supported by the documents themselves. Initially we learned that “enhanced interrogations” were used on terrorist suspects and many were outraged. The moral superiority of these outraged people encited the administration to release hundreds of documents that showed how terrorists were subjected to “torture”, however, the opposition countered that there were hundreds of documents that prove the safety of Americans would have been compromised had vital information not been obtained from these terrorists. The counter claim, which had little to do with the rebuttal was that they would release photos showing that the “torture” was evident and ultimately the Whitehouse decided to allow the former administration to be subjected to an official inquiry and determination over whether we would see them tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention.

Now the CIA doesn’t like its internal operations to be meddled in by self serving politicians, so they released documents that implicate Pelosi, among other politicians in the waterboarding fiasco. Among the politicians are many high ranking Democrats, and since the documents are prima fascia evidence of their knowledge of “EIT”s and combined with the fact that they didn’t say anything or attempt to stop them leads me to believe that the sudden change of heart by the administration was designed quell a political backlash on themselves. The Democrats know that 2010 will be a key year that could spell the end of their free reign in Washington and if losing full control of Congress is the outcome of prosecuting Bush-era officials, then they likely would seek to stop the proceedings, after all, these are self serving politicians we are talking about. However, the Democrat leadership is betting on one thing; that is the historically short memory of their constituents. Unfortunately for them, the GOP and their mascot are well known for the length they can retain knowledge … and a year doesn’t seem that long.

The top two presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain posed differing stances on how to pay for and at what cost we as a nation should investigate a nationalized health care system. McCain proposed something that most agree, flies in the face of many conservatives – taxing heath care benefits. McCain proposed removing the tax break on the first $5000 in benefits paid on behalf of employees. This meant that health coverage costs for most employees would suddenly increase by their marginal tax rate, whether it is 15% or 39%. In an already expensive market, taxing health care benefits would mean that some employees would as a necessity lose their coverage because they could no longer afford it, thus putting an ever increasing burden on the national health care system were one instituted. Obama came out against this proposal pre-election and rightly so. Taxing health care is a politically charged topic with vehement opposition from all sides of the political spectrum. Obama continually beat that mantra into the minds of voters for weeks prior to the election about how terrible it would be to tax these benefits.

Arguments For Taxing Health Care

McCain argued that by taxing health care you could reduce the deficit, fund the failing and near bankrupt Medicare system and fund a multiple payer system whereby the employee would be able to choose health care coverage at a reduced rate. Certainly the IRS and congressional pickpockets would like no more than to dig deeper into your pocket and fund this program. Considering the fact that congress has seldom seen a tax it didn’t like or a bit of pork that they could fatten up for their constituents, so it isn’t hard to imagine then that for the people back home, the recipients of these massive government entitlement programs, there is an argument to be made for them, and thus an argument to be made for taxing health care to provide health care. It seems like the logical next move.

Government Success At Single Payer

Single payer has been around for many years, but it was historically used to fund the health care of aging retirees. Over the years Medicare has grown into a massive government entitlement that will likely be bankrupt by 2017. With the growing cost of health care and the explosion of retired Americans receiving Medicare benefits, it was certainly doomed to fail from the start.

Consider that when Medicare was originally instituted in 1966, the number of recipients of Medicare benefits versus the number of payers was roughly 20:1;  with 74 million Americans paying 0.35% into the system (employee and employer portions). The average wage adjusted for inflation was $32k and the maximum taxable income was $43k. Even in 1966 the average employee could conceivably exceed that limit and pay considerably less in Medicare taxes than in 2008.

Today the average wage is roughly $41k with the Medicare cutoff at nearly $107k, this means there are more people being taxed more on their income just for Medicare, and Medicare is broke. The 2009 rate for Medicare tax is 2.9% (employee plus employer portions), however, considering the number of retirees and disabled Americans (and dare I say illegals) receiving benefits the revenues are falling short of the need. In 2008 the number of Medicare recipients vs employee was reduced to 3.5:1, and that number is likely to continue shrink. By looking at projected aging figures from the National Institute of Health we can see that the number of retirees and disabled Americans is expected to double in 25 years and add to that the waning birth rate in the US and there is considerable cause for alarm. If the US population continues its stagnant growth, and by some estimates turns to a negative grown rate in the next 20 years, we could very well be looking at a single payer system where the worker/payee ratio is closer to 2:1. Since the cost of medical care is certainly not expected to decrease over then next 25 years, it is certain that we will be looking at a combined tax rate of 6% or more or a complete failure of the system and either scenario has a problematic future.

The Obama Plan

Fast forward a few months and the tune has changed. Apparently the reality has hit the fan. It is now painfully obvious that the reduced taxation and the continued bloviating over McCain’s plan to tax medical benefits is suddenly a good idea. Score 1 for McCain. The Obama administration now feels that by taxing health benefits the taxes raised would suddenly and without problem raise a miraculous amount of cash to fund a far reaching nationalized health care system whereby your employer is forced to provide health care and you are required to pay for it, and to make it even better, it would necessarily reduce the amount of money being paid to doctors, thereby making the medical field a less appealing field for young graduates. Considering the only program the government has done even a marginally good job at is taxing citizens, we should have serious reservations about this program as well.

Under the Obama plan, your employer provided benefits would be taxed at your marginal tax rate, that being 15% for most taxpayers, but increasing to 39% for those in the top income brackets. The program would initially cover only those who did not have an employer sponsored health care program or were unemployed and did not qualify for other programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. However a flaw recently pointed out was that as the cost of medical benefits increase due to the taxation, many employers would simply drop coverage to allow their employees to seek coverage under the government program. To fix this obvious flaw, the plan would necessarily require that employers provide health care coverage, and thus employees would thus be required to take it or have no coverage. People who work in entry level positions, such as retail clerks and fast food employees, would still be unable to afford to have insurance, even if it were employer subsidized. To combat this flaw, another exception would be required to allow for low wage and under employed people to qualify for coverage. Suddenly the number of people paying for the system is significantly fewer than those using the system and therein is the recipe for failure.

To be fair, I didn’t support the McCain plan nor do I support the Obama plan, in fact, I think the government’s role in health care is non-existent. It has proven beyond a doubt that it cannot administer any program effectively, that it lacks the fortitude to cut such programs when it is no longer economically viable and the people most often in need of such a program are the ones who are most frequently disqualified by bureaucratic red tape. Obama should abandon this plan as being failed before it even begins. It is fraught with problems and will quickly become unwieldy. If the government wants to help millions of Americans with health care, then perhaps they should look instead at reducing the federal debt, balancing the budget, tightening border security and by getting dis involved from peoples’ lives. It would surely reduce the number of Americans on anti-depressants and allow those with ulcers to heal … well, at least it would for me.

It has come to my attention and the attention of hundred of thousands of others across this country that Congress has introduced legislation that would make it a felony, imprisonable by 2 years in federal prison for the mere act of offending someone through an electronic communication.

One has to find the irony in this bill, while it is a very serious matter there is the added twist that under this self same legislation, the writers of this document could conceivably be held liable under its language. The Congress, Senate and President; all of which have offended me to a degree, some more than others; are purposefully and with intent, posting this bill online to coerce me and others like me, to cease and desist.

In part the bill says: “Whoever” … this means you, me, congress, the President, everyone … “transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication” … this is all communication … “with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person” … this is the qualifier, you must intend for your communication coerce among other things … “using electronic means” … this means the internet, email webpages etc. … “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” … and the punishment SHALL be a fine and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years.

This seems all well and good, except with other laws currently on the books, one could conceivably be charged under the RICO act for continuing dates of enterprise or you could be charged each time someone is offended, each being a distinctly separate crime. This means that a single post that makes someone angry, could net the offender up to 2 years for each act and the sentence quite possibly could be ordered served consecutively. It isn’t hard to imagine that with as few as 10 people beng offended, your freedom can be removed from you for as long as 20 years, perhaps longer depending upon how they categorize each offence.

I have long been a proponent of free speech, not suprisingly I write very often with the express intent to get peoples’ blood pressure to rise, most often to get them to take notice and do something positive in their life; to stand up against tyranny and the unmitigated corruption running rampant in Washington. Our government, with the insane group of politicians who support such a bill needs to be turned out on their heads for writing such a piece of garbage. Of course I understand the purposes of HR1966 and that is to stop cyberbullys in their tracks, however, the chilling effect it has on free speech cannot and must not be tolerated. I will be waiting to see if the mass media gets behind this latest pile of excrement, but I don’t hold out hope.

I have read alot of hatemongering protected speech in my lifetime, and a great deal of it was through electronic media. I don’t subscribe to it, nor do I approve of the methods these people take in an effort to coerce and intimidate those who have opposing viewpoints. This is actually healthy, it is important that as a society we feel free to speak our minds without the burden of offending others and without the fear of government reprisals if we do. Our founding fathers knew that beyond any doubt. They hated (yes I know .. hate is such a strong word) the press. The media of the time were newspapers that would print all sorts of slanderous and demeaning articles with spins so fast they would make any fair-goer puke with disgust. However, they also recognized that when govenment becomes too big or unresponsive, it is the media who will ultimately incite the citizenry to rise up and squash just such a government.

We are to that point now … our government has methodically, with malice and intent, passed numerous laws and regulations that would never have been allowed in the 18th century. Our founders would have taken up arms and would have marched right down to the capitol building and demanded that those in charge be removed from office, but alas, our society today lacks the stomach to demand that such shenanigans be stopped immediately.

Now lets set the record straight; I don’t support cyberbullies, nor do I support the mean and hateful things people do in an attempt to demean and otherwise denegrate people, however, the far reaching unintended consequences of this legislation will certainly cause a severe curtailing of the expressiveness of people as individuals. I do however support the right of people, like minded or not, to state their true and honest opinions, regardless of whether I like their comments or find them offensive. In the meantime while this is being shuttled through Congress to effectively render the free speech protections of the Constitution meaningless, it is imperitive that every person who supports free speech contact the naer-do-wells in Congress to tell them that you don’t support such a bill.

The news is out and people in Pennsylvania and across the nation are trying to make sense of it. This news, while shocking to some and welcome by others gives me pause to consider the reasons behind the action. The news of course is the switching of parties by Arlen Specter. On Tuesday, Specter announced that after some serious soul searching and considerable thought, he has decided to change parties once again returning to the party he abandoned some 40 years ago, because it was politically expedient to do so.

This comes as a welcome move by the Democrat controlled Senate as it is another step closer to a filibuster proof majority. With a 60/40 split in the senate, the Democrats will have the power to pass any legislation and abscond with any requirements to work in a true and meaningful bipartisan manner. If you are a Democrat, you may find this appealing, however, a wise man once said “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The Senate majority will presumably have that absolute power, the next step is absolute corruption, and I fear that, regardless of which party is in control.

The detractors of this notion want people to believe that this is good for the nation, except for their own power grab, this is good for no one except those in power. The real losers here are the constituents in Pennsylvania who in good faith cast ballots for Specter because of the conservative stance he had taken in the past.

With recent polling numbers showing that many Pennsylvanians wanted Specter to be replaced, the majority of them being Republicans, it was painfully clear that he lacked the necessary constituency base to win in a statewide Republican primary. This evidently didn’t bode well for Specter, whose only alternatives would be to move to the Democratic ticket, retire, or become independent. Considering the options, I doubt that he would want to retire on a low note and his ego may have precluded that option. The next option was to switch away from the Republican ticket to remove the largest number of voters from the primary in which he would have undoubtedly lost. With 53% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans seeking change, the prospect of overcoming a significant deficit on the Republican ticket was surely a deciding factor. It would be far easier to mount a campaign to reduce a 3 point deficit than 16 points, particularly considering the large base of voters who disapproved of his vote for the stimulus bill. The only logical move would be to the Democrat ticket.

I am deeply concern with that move, not because I am anti-democrat, but because I have to question the motives of an individual who will change parties on a whim based on whether they can win an election. This shouldn’t sit well with Pennsylvania voters because many of them now feel betrayed and abandoned by their senator. This same senator who previously had vehemently rejected the notion of switching parties, has made a complete 180 and did exactly what he said he would not. This makes me believe it was about his fear of losing power and less about representing Pennsylvania in the senate. This should concern Democrats even more. You will now have a man in your midst, who has in the past has been outspoken about many issues the Democratic party holds as core beliefs. To have such a wolf in sheeps clothing should make the Democrats stand up and take notice.

He has already proven that he will change his party whenever it suits his personal needs and that he cannot be trusted to do as he has said, why should he change his tactics just because the letter behind his name has changed. If I were a Pennsylvanian, I would stand against his re-election, not because of ideological party politics, but because he has now proven himself to be in it for something other than doing the will of his constituents. It was clear the Republicans had already decided they no longer wished him to represent Pennsylvania and it is unlikely that a party independent Specter could garner the support to win. Democrats should look long and hard at him and take stock in who they really wish to represent the state; a man who would sell out his constituents for political gain or someone who has an idological stand nearly identical to their own. Specter could be the person for the job, but I suspect that many will see though his antics and attempt to give him a retirement sendoff in 2010. I know I would.