Constitutionality of Health Care?

In this post I thought I would share my letter to Congresswoman Giffords about the Constitution and Health Care reform. I hope that both those on the left and the right can view the letter based on its factual content and if need be look up in the Constitution the Article and Section’s mentioned. For those interested, the Constitution can be found at our Government Archives web site.  For this argument the most important phrase in Article I Section 8 is:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Foregoing powers refers to the total of eighteen powers that the federal government possesses along with any other Constitutional amendments and no more. The argument to provide for the general welfare has been misused and trampled by Congress long enough. The Congress must use the 18 powers to provide for the general welfare.

Congresswomaneighteen18 delineated powers of the Federal Government does it grant the authority for the Federal Government to provide for a national health care plan and to compel citizens to have health care. The following is my recent response to her email.

“Your response included information from the Congressional Research Service. In your response you state: “Most of these statutes have been enacted pursuant to Congress’s authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” to carry out its mandate to … provide for the… general Welfare.”

You and your counsel have missed a few points. Providing for the general welfare, in Section 8 Article I, is defined by and restricts the Government of the United States to the 18 powers granted the federal government in the Constitution. Only those 18 powers may be used to provide for the general welfare. (It’s in there pretty clearly if you re-read the Constitution). In addition, the tenth amendment sealed the deal and prevents the federal government from assuming powers not granted to it.

Specifically you quote the last paragraph in Section 8 Article I, but you and your attorney failed to quote it properly. In it you can create all laws and provide for the general welfare by executing those powers vested by this Constitution to the Government of the United States. Remember, you are vested by the 18 powers only. You do not have broad reaching powers to decide what the general welfare is and to legislate whatever you want to legislate. You are bound and restricted by the eighteen powers and any subsequent Constitutional amendments. Despite the nice try by the attorney at the Congressional Research Service, you cannot change the Constitution.

You have a serious problem with the 2,000 page House health care bill and the very numerous items in the bill that violate your authority to legislate.

I desire that you will take your oath of office seriously and “…protect and defend the constitution…” by following the Constitution when you vote. I sincerely implore you to consider the Constitution before you radically change this nation forever and saddle it with another trillion dollars of debt. We all know this health care bill is not about health care and that it is about transforming this nation forever to a more socialist government. I never dreamed you were a socialist and still do not believe it. You are a smart business woman and hold a fiduciary and moral responsibility to the people of your district.

You can fix health care incrementally without trashing the Constitution and forever transforming our way of government. This bill is not the way to fix the problems of today’s health care system. You are better than that.”

It is time for every American left or right to hold our elected officials to the rules provided for them to legislate. No more unfunded mandates. No compelling citizens to have health insurance. No more spending that will break our economy and cause us to lose our national credit rating – it has been threatened by rating agencies who regularly rate sovereign governments. Remember that our currency is only backed by the full FAITH and CREDIT of the United States of America. When we lose our world credit rating, we will lose the power of our currency. This national health care bill in the House, of nearly 2,000 pages, is not about health care, because if it were, we could buy health insurance for all uninsured who want to be insured for substantially less that the $1 Trillion it will cost us. It is not deficit neutral, by an accounting trick – tax now then implement in three years. This plan will tax medical supplies in an effort to cut health care costs – I too don’t understand that one. We are told that it needs to be passed right now. Then why is implementation years off? This House bill cuts Medicare by $500 Billion dollars in an effort to minimize the cost of this TAX and HEALTH plan.

We can only hope that Congresswoman Giffords and other moderate members of Congress heeds my request and the request of many many others.

Why is the Cornerstone of our Republic at Risk?

Why is the decision by the Administration, through its Department of Commerce Census Bureau, to count all residents of the United States without regard to resident status in the 2010 Census a big deal?

Before we can answer this question, we need some background.  The United States Census is the cornerstone of our constitutional republic.   It is the ultimate arbiter of how states are represented in the House of Representatives and how the President of the United States is elected by the Electoral College.   Due to the cornerstone nature of the Census to our nation, it is unconscionable to make the 2010 Census subject to tampering, manipulation, a skewed citizen count, or an ideological interpretation.  Why will it be skewed if the current Census Director, members of Congress, and the Administration proceed as intended?

Article I Section 2 of our Constitution originally provided for the enumeration of “persons” of the several states.  At the time the Constitution was adopted, “persons” consisted of free persons and a three fifths fraction of the slaves inhabiting this land, with the exception of Indians.  Let’s look to a further clarification of the intent of the Founders at the time of ratification of the Constitution by the states.  We find in Article II, Section 1 instructions on the presidency eligibility: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”   Thus all persons residing in the United States at ratification were considered to be Citizens of the United States and thus the term persons referred to Citizens.  We also find that the Fourteenth Amendment in Section 2, which modified Article 1 Section 2, requires “…counting the whole number of all persons…” eliminating the fraction and the counting only of free persons.

Before you go off on a tangent about the callous use of a “fraction” of slaves, the compromise method was to prevent the people of the Southern States from having a lopsided vote and a lopsided representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College and a “super vote”, if you will, using slaves to inflate the population count, while only white men voted.    Now to the big deal!

The 2010 census operation fully plans to count any person legal or illegal, citizen or non-citizen—remember only citizens can vote.  We should be counting only “persons” which in the Constitution is synonymous with citizens.  Failure to do this means that states with an abundance of people who are not citizens made up of both legal and illegal residents, without the right to vote, will be unjustly rewarded with more representatives in Congress for law making and taxation and a greater weight to the Electoral College to elect the president of the United States.  If we grant more representatives and more electoral votes to these states, then we seriously skew the one person (citizen) one vote rule.  We end up giving the citizens of these states the power to cast what amount to those “super votes”.  Essentially, a smaller electorate will have the power of a larger state population. 

Senator Vitter of Louisiana, Senator Bennett of Utah, and Representative Chaffets of Utah, want to add a question to the Census Questionnaire, which asks “are you a citizen?”  They are not being received very well, by the Bureau of the Census and members of Congress.  Seems like a logical and appropriate constitutional question to ask during a census, as we are also asking many other questions that are not nearly as important as how many possible legitimate voters exist to apportion House seats and to be represented in the Electoral College—remember only citizens are supposed to vote and be counted in Congress.

We must be cognizant of and stand up to prevent this ideological effort to establish an unbalanced and truly un-constitutional apportionment in the House of Representatives and in Electoral College voting to states with a large illegal population.

The Story of Propaganda Stuff

Over the last few years our school children have been taught a new subject.  Let’s call it Capitalism Bad; Socialism Good.  You may not be aware but this socialist almost marxist propaganda has left college campuses and is now finding its way to our middle schools.  The theory and goal behind this video, produced by the “Tides Foundation”—a socialist redistribution driven organization, is to indoctrinate young children during their impressionable years, before they have learned to rationally think and question.

Of course, parents are kept in the dark, by the “all knowing” educators, who have embraced this ideology.  The lead instructional lesson is called The Story of Stuff.  This is a twenty minute video complete with a classroom quiz and related teaching and study material.  The Story of Stuff provides questionable information that is contrary to what is the economic model that has made this country great, capitalism. This video is filled with false statements and half-truths.  The clear intent is to mislead impressionable minds; to convince these minds that the ideology presented is common fact.  This video is clearly propaganda indoctrination.   Here is what that bastion of conservative think, The New York Times, has to say about this video in “A Cautionary Video About America’s ‘Stuff’”  

“…The video is a cheerful but brutal assessment of how much Americans waste, and it has its detractors. But it has been embraced by teachers eager to supplement textbooks that lag behind scientific findings on climate change and pollution. And many children who watch it take it to heart…”

 In a blog of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation called “The Real “Story of Stuff” about Capitalism and the Free Market” you will find a reasonable analysis of “The Story of Stuff”.

 “If you want freedom, peace and prosperity for people all over the globe, you want capitalism. Protestors at the G-20 Summit would have us believe otherwise. So would the creators of the Story of Stuff, an anti-free-market film seen by tens of thousands of school children who now believe capitalism means trashing the earth and stealing resources from poor people.

 It would be good if our schools began teaching intellectually honest economics. But most do not. What if all policymakers understood the connections between peace and personal liberty; prosperity and free markets; justice and risk?…”

 You may want to go to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation website and learn who they are and their mission.  This appears to be a solid and balanced organization.

 The New York Times article states that

 “…Which is one reason ‘The Story of Stuff’, a 20-minute video about the effects of human consumption, has become a sleeper hit in classrooms across the nation.” 

A sleeper hit with whom?  Is it a sleeper hit with parents?  Have parents been told that it would be in the lessons?  The piece states that the government exists to take care of us, well James Madison and the other Founders are rolling over on that statement alone.  It is wrong about how much is spent on defense and how must forest remain.  It even uses a military tank to represent the government—how balanced is that?

Iran’s Nuclear Enablers

Iran, Russia, and The Peoples Republic of China are fermenting unrest throughout the world.  In actuality, Iran is the point of this troubling spear and Russia and China are the enablers.  Both Russia and China have important trade arrangements with Iran.  Oil, again, is the root of the unresolved Iranian nuclear problem.  China obtains most of its oil from Iran and this oil is critically necessary to fuel China’s growing economy and military—China will protect this oil life line fiercely.  Russia has a lucrative trade export arrangement with Iran.  This trade includes conventional arms, among other manufactured goods, making Iran one of its key export partners.

Neither China nor Russia is interested in an embargo of Iran because they depend heavily on Iranian trade.  Thus Iran has been able to buy time and hold off the international community in its effort to develop a nuclear weapon.  Without the strongest support of China and Russia, the international community including the United States is neutralized.   Take note of today’s announcement at the international G20 meeting by the leaders of the U.S., the U.K., and France about sanctions, in that neither Russia nor China was present.

The Europeans are afraid of pushing Iran hard and are more interested in appeasement due to the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s grip on the world’s oil supply.  Back in March of 2008, I wrote:  Oil, It will destroy us!

“Have you noticed that there is a direct correlation between worldwide tensions and oil?  If you might be wondering why Russia’s Vladimir Putin [now Medvedev and Putin] has started to flex his muscles and become obstinate in the fight against global terror…you should be. If you are wondering why Iran has become so independent and belligerent of late…you should be. Have you looked at our own hemisphere lately? Take a good look at Venezuela and how Chavez is as bold as can be in creating an anti-U.S. socialist state more powerful than Cuba ever was….Well! It is all about oil!

Ask any military strategist and they will tell you that one of the reasons we cannot leave Iraq as we want to, is that we are afraid Iran will…make Iraq a satellite country in its attempt to create a worldwide caliphate (A caliphate is a fundamentalist theocratic form of tyrannical government, that unites all Muslims covering a wide swath of geography in the world, under one rule). This is not a good thing for the west. This could place Iran in a position to directly control 10% of the world’s oil (includes oil equivalent products in the production) and to indirectly control 44% of the world’s oil exports which are shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, by shutting down the Strait or creating the caliphate. In addition, today the group of thugs known as Russia, Iran, Venezuela could conceivably directly control 29% (with Iraq, 32%) of the world’s oil production, and indirectly control exports, when the Strait is included, to bring the overall control to 66% of world oil exports. An Iran controlling Iraq and the Strait of Hormuz would be one very powerful entity–an entity that has a culture and a philosophy directly opposite ours. Iran is a country that does not do well with negotiation, especially when we are in a position to lose and they are in a position to gain. Is it possible to successfully negotiate from weakness? NO! Are we in a position of weakness in such a negotiation? YES!

Considering that since our oil import consumption is at 31% of the world’s oil exports, and the control of 66% of the world’s oil exports by Iran and its new very cash rich friends can be a quick reality, we should be worried and reactive. Yet we are not!…

What do we do?  In the short term we are powerless and our national oil policy has been the problem.  Had we had a robust domestic drilling program for oil and natural gas, we would be in a position to sell China its much needed oil and natural gas.  Instead we allowed China to become dependent on Iran for its economic lifeblood, crude oil, and Iran knows this.

Selling China that oil and natural gas that we have under our land and off shore, and did not go after, would have had far reaching effects internationally:

First it would have made China less dependent on Iran, allowing China to support intense pressure on Iran and have avoided the thwarting of the international community’s efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  In addition, China could also have put pressure on North Korea to keep that rogue power from selling missile technology and parts to Iran.  These missiles are the delivery vehicle for the nuclear weapons.

Second, by selling China oil, we would have had an opportunity to balance our trade deficit with China.  China would have been an equal trade partner and not our banker/lender.

Instead we chose to be flat out dumb on the use of our abundant untapped offshore and arctic natural resources, oil and natural gas.  It is not too late to work toward making China an equal trade partner, rather than the one sided arrangement we currently have.  It may be too late to solve the Iranian matter, but there will be other international troubles, including North Korea.  China can be instrumental in providing support to manage those matters.  They are a pragmatic country when it comes to protecting their self interests and this can work in our favor.

Our country continues to eschew the leverage oil would bring us as an international policy driver.  Why do we continue to do this?  I know, we want to save the planet, but if we don’t obtain the leverage necessary to control the spread of nuclear weapons we may not have a planet to save.  Right now oil and natural gas are the best tools God has given this nation to keep world peace and we are blind to it.  As a peacemaker, oil and natural gas in the right hands are the keys to world stability.  In the wrong hands they are a flash point.

Dissent Is Now Racist!

When reading print media pundits, like Maureen Down, or listening to cable media pundits and our black Representatives in Congress, I have become seriously distraught.  Throughout my life, I have learned that when you disagree with someone or find them misrepresenting the truth—lying, you could call them out on the statement or statements based on the facts.

Now, I am finding out that when I or another —shall I say it—white person call out or simply question a person of color about a disagreement of ideology or simply thought, I am a racist.  When I need to question statements of incorrect fact from a person of color, formerly known as lying, then again I am a racist.  I am so sorry for the previous indiscretions and failure to understand that I have become a racist.  Apparently I need to apologize.  But how and to whom?

This brings up another bit of recent confusion.  How and to whom do I apologize?  Apparently, as Representative Joe Wilson found out, there is now an extensive protocol to an apology involving dissent of a far left liberal of color.  As a newly identified racist, I apparently must apologize to the party who was misrepresenting the truth, his Chief of Staff, the Vice-President, both in writing and by telephone, and then finally apologize to the political community as demanded by another person of color, Congressman James E. Clyburn.

I wish someone would provide a manual on this racist apology thing.  I also hope that someone includes in the manual a section on:

• How do I tell a person of color that they are misrepresenting the truth, lying, or that they are just simply misguided?
• Will this section in the manual suggest that I just sit on my hands and close my mouth—saying absolutely nothing?
• Would this be acceptable?

Perhaps, there might be some sort of color code.  If I feel a person of color is not telling the truth or is misguided, perhaps I can hold up a color coded card.  Choice of color must be absolutely correct of course or I might inadvertently move to the bigot category.

Maybe we can use a nondescript muted red color to tell a person of color that they are misrepresenting the truth.  A bland off white—oh, that will not work—white may be offensive as I am white, thus it may be interpreted by the far left as I am right and they are wrong.  Wait, we can use a bland gray—the equal mix of white and black can be used to indicate that I disagree with the potentially offended person of color.

I have it now!  When I confront a person of color who is lying, I will just hold up a red card.  When I just disagree, I will hold up a gray card.  This system, I hope will keep me out of racist hell and avoid that bigot label.  I certainly hope this will be acceptable to the far left, the pundit police, and our Representatives in Congress who are not  Caucasians.

Alternatively: All these folks can get real and not use the now heavily over used “racist” label to attempt to intimidate and quiet dissent, as they have been doing.   Generally and often calling a person a racist when they disagree with a person of color can only be the last arrow in the quiver of the far left in their fight to move an unpopular agenda and to quiet the other side by intimidation.

Requiem for the Mass Media, the Fourth Estate has Died.

The funeral for the main stream cable broadcast media is occurring today.  At this writing, note this post’s date and time of 2:05 PM EDT, the Mall in Washington, D.C. is filled with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents.  TV pictures reveal that the Mall is tightly packed from the Capitol to the Washington Monument, with overflow, as  a CBS affiliate reports, onto Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House.

The Fourth Estate, aptly brought to life by Edmund Burke in the House of Commons on a particular session during the 19th century, is the press.  The clergy, nobles, and commoners being the other three.  These estates were essentially the makeup of the British government at that time.  He referred to the Fourth Estate as the most powerful of the estates present that day in the House of Commons—they were in the gallery.  Closer to home, our Founding Fathers believed the Fourth Estate was similarly powerful and sufficiently independent to keep the three branches of our new government in check.  This is why freedom of the press is clearly written into our Constitution.  They were depending on the press to keep government honest.  In no way did they ever believe that the press would become complicit with the government and withhold key pieces of news, slant the news coverage, and become the house organ of two of the three branches of government.

Incredibly, at this writing CNN is broadcasting a Barack Obama speech on reform before a large  partisan audience.  It is yet another speech by him in three or so days on healthcare reform—are they expecting him to say something new?  The President is stumping in relatively Democratic conclaves trying to repair the breach in his Party over health insurance reform—this breach has gone mostly unreported by CNN.  At this writing, MSNBC had planned a televised mystery / crime documentary which must be quite good and must serve the public interest to allow them to skip reporting about a long time planned event at the Mall in the nation’s capitol, now mostly filled with grass roots demonstrators made up of every day citizen protestors.  It now appears that MSNBC did manage to do some reporting of the event after all.  These protesters are mostly against big government and big spending, regardless of political party.  If this were an anti-war rally, MSNBC would be reporting.  If this was a Obama campaign rally, they would be reporting with flourishes.

The estimate for the attendance by the Park Police is 60,000.  Recently, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, issued a memo claiming that 2 Million will show.  She was setting ultra high expectations, so she could later minimize any protest significance.  Well if the Mall is filled, depending on how tightly packed it is, it can hold anywhere between 1.7 Million to 2.1 Million people.  TV pictures indicate that the Mall is filled.  Remember CBS reported that crowd overflow filled Pennsylvania Avenue.  Of course, government estimates, the Speaker’s estimates, and the news media’s estimates will be substantially minimized to accommodate their agenda.  The Washington Post had an article written at the inauguration of President Obama about how many people the Mall can hold—Mall information found at the Washington Post click here.

Based on the broadbased main stream media failed reporting on the just broken high impact ACORN story and the failed or minimal reporting on the Tea Party protests around the country today, I can only state, if you are depending on this dead media for information, you are uninformed.  The exceptions are those of you who are getting your news from Fox or by searching the internet for real news, not a blog like mine, otherwise you are seriously in the dark and cannot make informed decisions about our nation’s future.  If you meet this uninformed criteria, then careful, you are being manipulated with all the news these “news” operations deem you should have, with the slant they want you to have.

This ideological conspiracy is an attempt at censorship plain and simple.  MSNBC and now apparently CNN among other complicit news organizations are attempting to feed the populace with what they want us to know and are withholding selected news.   If it weren’t for Fox News Channel and the internet—call it the Fifth Estate, they would be successful in using censorship to manage government propaganda.  Are we living in a free nation or are we in a government and media controlled society, like Venezuela and Iran?   

I for one will not be steered and will not comply.  Want more? Read The Acorn Story Truly Exposes Main Stream Media.

The ACORN Story Truly Exposes Main Stream Media — RIP

We can officially declare September 10, 2009 the day honest media was laid to rest.  The breaking ACORN story—a viral internet story—broken by a new internet site “BigGovernment.Com”, and specifically James O’Keefe is a first class newsworthy story.  The story is clearly seriously detrimental to ACORN and the multitude of politicians in Congress and in the White House who have allied themselves with ACORN.

The Story, the back story, and extensive video can be seen at BigGovernment.Com: click here and review all the video clips, including the Glen Beck of Fox News clip.

 The story is big since ACORN receives millions in federal money—our tax money—and will receive Billions from the recent stimulus bill.  We know of ACORN activities from reports of rampant national voter registration fraud allegedly perpetrated by ACORN during the 2008 election cycle.  We also know that our President was a community organizer attorney advising ACORN for years.  We know of his intimate relationship and his history with ACORN during his Illinois Senate days, United States Senate Days, his campaign, and now his enthusiastic interaction with ACORN while President of the United States.

ACORN is clearly affiliated with SEIU, the Service Employees International Union—those folks who wear the purple shirts—through common related management and common addresses.  SEIU was instrumental in fostering an Obama victory by providing heaps of union dues money and plentiful union volunteers.  Of late it was utilized to picket the homes of financial executives in Connecticut over bonuses.

This story is huge from so many directions and it, if completely developed, could lead right to the White House and Congress.  Yet, no major news outlet is running with it to any legitimate extent, except Fox News.

Remember these ACORN folks specialize in helping community people to get the most from their government and regularly provide help and advice on how to maximize their members’ opportunities with applications for welfare, other government monetary assistance.  And now we see they have mortgage specialists providing “special” assistance.

Big Questions:

• How many mortgages that ended in foreclosure and helped tank our economy were made possible by the apparent “extreme” advice provide by ACORN to non-qualified applicants?  How many non-qualified applicants qualified due to the “extreme” mortgage application and supporting documents advice provided by ACORN around the country?  I use the word “extreme” to indicate that where there is smoke, etc., …well you get the point. 

• Just how much do our Representatives and Senators, such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd among others in Congress, know about ACORN’s activities and why haven’t we seen any Congressional investigations operate with a full head of steam?  John Conyers was going to initiate an investigation, but cancelled it saying that “powers-to-be decided not to investigate”.  Who are the powers-to-be?  Who is protecting ACORN in the Congress and possibly the White House?

• Why is the main stream media complicit in playing down or simply not reporting what appears to be massive fraud?  Is there a conspiracy of major media to lead us down the primrose path to socialism with a generous helping of organized community groups and political corruption tossed in for flavor?

The media is more concerned with Fox and now O’Keefe of BigGovernment.Com than with the real story.  The trusting public has been steered by most big media to support the current administration and the current administration was not and is not vetted and challenged.   Either big media is complicit with intentionally steering the populace or it is just terrible incompetent and gullible. Either way Americans who still get their news from the big media, other than Fox and a few other outlets are woefully uninformed.

Recently Robin Roberts of ABC interviewed President Obama about his healthcare proposals and she asked him about the distraction of losing Van Jones.  Bill O’Reilly of Fox News expertly pointed out on his show that Roberts more correctly should have asked him why was Van Jones picked to be in his administration as an unconfirmed Czar.  She should  have asked what is and how deep is Obama’s relationship with this avowed communist and ex-convict.  (Have we ever had an ex-convict be a Presidential advisor?)  It appears that either Roberts is incompetent or she is attempting to help our President achieve his goals regardless of all the issues surrounding those goals. 

We simply cannot trust most main stream media any longer as, with very few exceptions, honest media died some time ago—it was officially laid to rest yesterday.

Simple Health Insurance Reform!

While listening to our President last night, I heard a very partisan person asking for a bi-partisan approach.  I heard someone condeming anyone who dared to question his facts or his plan.  I heard slight of hand causing one very frustrated Representative to inappropriately blurt out “You Lie” or something similar.  President Obama has been stating for over a year that we have 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance and need to be covered.  This number has all along included illegal aliens, yet all along the White House has stated that illegal aliens will not be covered.  He simply can’t have it both ways.  In last night’s speech the number of Americans without health care suddenly dropped from 47 million to 30 million.  How did that happen? 

 The President in the past has indicated that a number of plans are working their way through the House and Senate, yet last night he kept saying “my plan” and “the Bill”.  We must assume that the bill he is referring to is H.R. 3200—the only bill that is out of committee.  The Democrat plan (H.R. 3200) is far too complicated, probably due to the incredible amount of social reform laced throughout the document.  It does not include one word on tort reform, likely due to the strong financial tie between Democrats and the trial lawyers lobby and heavy contributions to Democratic candidates campaigns by trial lawyers.  We really do not need a thousand page bill (H.R. 3200), because reform is simple, i.e. if you are not trying to re-engineer society with social reforms. 

My simple plan:

 Tort Reform

Bring on massive tort reform at the state level.  Cap both plaintiff and defense attorney fees.  Cap or eliminate punitive damages.  Make the loser pay all court costs and attorney fees.   Provide federal financial inducements to states that are proactive in passing this reform.

A Wall Street Journal article on defensive medicine can be found at: click here.

A PricewaterhouseCoopers study on waste in healthcare including defensive medicine revealed that defensive medicine was a significant part of the cost.  An excerpt from the report follows.

“Our research found that wasteful spending in the health system has been calculated at up to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion spent in the United States, more than half of all health spending. Defensive medicine, such as redundant, inappropriate or unnecessary tests and procedures, was identified as the biggest area of excess, followed by inefficient healthcare administration and the cost of care necessitated by conditions such as obesity, which can be considered preventable by lifestyle changes. PricewaterhouseCoopers’ paper classified health system inefficiencies into three “wastebaskets” that are driving up costs…”

You can read the full PricewaterhouseCoopers report including key findings at: click here. 

 

Eliminate employer provided health insurance

Remove both the public and private employment sector from the burden of providing health insurance benefits – this includes our Representatives in Congress.  Do this by taxing all employer provided medical benefits as income and providing a deduction for the cost of healthcare insurance to off set this sudden change.  This taxation change becomes tax neutral for most tax payers and the federal government.  Provide a tax credit for the purchase of health insurance for those under an income limit – this is far cheaper than turning health insurance on its ear.  This places all Americans on an equal footing.  This also allows for insurance portability, price, and plan selection. 

 

Larger pools for health insurance bring down health insurance costs

Permit health insurance companies to sell across state lines.  Many years ago the federal government established the National Banking System, wherein nationally chartered banks can operate across state lines without complying with local banking department regulations.  Do the same for medical insurance by creating a National Health Insurance System, chartering insurance companies to operate nationally and simultaneously making them subject to national insurance regulations similarly to how national banks are regulated today.  Generate a national level of competition.

 

Safety from loss of insurance when unemployed and from catastrophic loss

Often when you take a loan for a car purchase you are offered insurance that covers you for payments in the event of loss of income.  Life insurance policies often have loss of income riders to insure premium payments are made when there is a loss of income.  Offer with every health insurance policy an extra cost rider providing premium payments for a period of time to cover loss of income from a job loss.  Make this premium tax deductible.  Offer with every health insurance policy an extra cost rider providing catastrophic coverage to keep people from losing everything.  Make this premium tax deductible.

 

This simple plan will dramatically lower the cost of healthcare making health insurance more affordable, allow plan portability and greatly reduce previous medical condition insurance issues, because fewer people will need to change plans.  The bill to create this reform need not be over 100 pages.  Most importantly, keep our representatives from extensive tinkering with our health care, for they know not what they do.

Security From Health Insurance Reform

I have just visited the White House web site on health insurance consumer protections and it says:

THE SECURITY YOU GET from health insurance reform:

• No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
• Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
• No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
• Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
• No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
• Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
• No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
• Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
• No Gender Discrimination
• Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
• No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
• Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
• Extended Coverage for Young Adults
• Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
• Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
• Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won’t be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

After reading the above, anyone with math skills can determine that the required additional cost to the insurance companies will force a precipitously large increase in health care insurance rates.  This alone will force more people to lose coverage because they will not be able to afford insurance.  So much for affordable health insurance as the bill is named.  The next step will be to cap rates to make insurance affordable.  If the rates are capped and insurance companies cannot raise rates, they will leave the business.  So what then, do we all move to a public option—this seems like the real plan.

Instead of trying to take costs out of health care by addressing tort reform, a major component of rapidly rising medical costs, the Congress and President Obama opt to force insurance companies to take on more cost via H.R. 3200 and then opt to add overall national cost by insuring 45,000,000 more people with the same number of doctors—supply and demand anyone?  This is a recipe for out of control costs and then rationing of medical care.  There is not one word is in the bill, addressing the crisis of medical malpractice litigation, out of control damage awards, and exorbitant attorney fees—a prime contributor to out of control health costs.  You should really ask your Congressman and Senators, “Congressman/Senator, if you are truly intent on and sincere about reducing my cost of health insurance and health care, why is there not one word in a twelve hundred page bill, H.R. 3200, about tort reform?”  Ask them “if the real issue is to have the federal government take control of our society in a move toward socialism?”

Let’s call the Pelosi, Reid, Obama health bill, health care redistribution.   We can place this health care redistribution effort right along side the Pelosi, Reid, Obama wealth redistribution efforts.  I ask you, will we have anything left to “redistribute” when they get finished with health and wealth, or will they have achieved the fundamental building blocks of a socialist government?

Roe V. Wade Restricts Government Intrusion Into Health Care

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Roe v. Wade seems to apply to the current debate on health care—the right to privacy.  In that ruling, the Supreme Court established what is said to be “settled law” that a right to privacy is found in the constitution, even though not specifically stated.

Today’s health care bills include companions to H.R. 3200 in the Senate and the House.  These bills and especially H.R. 3200 have a common element.  It is the stripping of privacy from American citizens.  Just as a woman has the sacred right to manage her reproductive rights (per the Supreme Court), millions of Americans who would be fined for not having health care insurance have the right of privacy on how they manage their health care.

An excerpt from Mr. Justice Blackmun’s deliverance of the opinion of the court states:

 “…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”

Essentially, I argue that any provision in the various bills circulating through Congress that could or would limit, direct, or propagate medical direction based on age and/or the condition itself is unconstitutional, under the right to privacy and other tenets of Roe v. Wade.

I argue that the degree of medical care suitable and available for the cure, prevention, or repair of an individual’s medical condition is up to the individual and the individual’s physician.  The available cure, prevention, or repair must be based on equal application of accepted general medical opinion on the cure, prevention, or repair of an individual’s condition and cannot be restricted or directed by the federal government or any state in any manner. 

I argue that any requirement requiring an individual to attend mandatory counseling sessions on life decisions is a violation of that individual’s right to privacy.

I argue that any fine for failure to keep health insurance is a violation of the right to privacy established under Roe v. Wade. I am a guy, but  I can still do with my body as I choose.

I argue that the federal government in its desire to create a nanny state is trampling on the precious tenets of this 1973 Supreme Court decision—a right to privacy for the individual. 

I argue that any attempt to house my or another person’s medical records with the government or any type of quasi-government agency, a requirement also found in these bills, is a violation of search and seizure and the aforementioned right to privacy.

Angry Mob or Defenders of Personal Liberty!

Members of Congress have taken to calling those who are angry and attend health care town hall meetings “un-American” and a “right wing mob”.  Anyone who has viewed segments of these meetings should come to the opinion that while some may be on a mission from an organization, the crowd in general seems to support the more outspoken attendees. Speaker Pelosi has demonized anti-health care bill protesters at town hall meetings.  Her demonization of these very upset and frustrated people confirms that she is a hypocrite—watch in her own words.

Perhaps the anger goes deeper than the actual health care bill.  Perhaps the anger reaches all the way to defending one’s rights against a federal government intent on rolling right over the individual.  In this bill are requirements for citizens to attend counseling sessions and to create a board which will decide what procedures are good or bad for the people based on a formula.  As in other counties being held up as bastions of humane treatment by providing health care for all, this formula will look at a person’s age or health status to determine if the individual is entitled to a procedure, a type of care, or a pill.

Here is the $64 question!  Where does the federal government derive its authority to dictate how an American obtains health care or insurance and where he or she obtains health care or insurance?  What part of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, provides the federal government the right to make these decisions and interfere with the lives of its citizens’ freedom of choice about health care management?

Our Constitution is unique in that it provides the federal government with limited specific powers and it attempts to protect the citizens from their own federal government.  At some point in the last twenty years, we have forgotten this important constitutional keystone of our republic.  We must assume that the Speaker of the House and the Majority Whip of the Democratic Party in the House in their leadership positions should be acutely aware of the freedoms provided citizens in the Constitution and the limits on the federal government.  If they are not aware, then they should not be in those positions.

Since there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to minimize the health rights of the citizen, the anger being seen at town hall meetings may very well encompass more than simply a disagreement on healthcare.  These attendees are furious over the federal government’s unconstitutional attempt to regulate the health care of individuals and thus appear to be an unruly organized mob.  Their anger, most likely, also extends to the recent out of control spending by Congress and the prior and present administrations.

If you listen carefully, there is distrust of government and government representatives reflected in the comments of the attendees.  And if you listen more carefully to the comments from the Democratic hosts of these town halls, you will hear often disingenuous and trite statements and a desire not to listen to the attendees.  Often these disingenuous or trite comments inflame the already angry attendees to an even higher degree.

Since much of this healthcare bill is a gross violation of the powers provided the federal government under the constitution (if you don’t believe me, read it here or for a simpler version here), the attendees are being driven to frustrated ugly mob status because no one appears to be listening.  These deaf ears are attributed to the leadership in the House of Representatives and other federally elected officials.

Consider that this healthcare bill, specifically H.R. 3200, is enormous and hard to digest; the Democrats often themselves do not understand what is in the bill; and yet are attempting to unconstitutionally takeover one sixth of our economy while in the dark about the bill.  This is not only inadequate representation, it is also unconstitutional behavior.

If these actions by our elected representatives do not make you angry, you are not paying attention or you are getting your information from the wrong sources.  You need to join the angry mob, if only to defend the freedoms granted you in the constitution.  These freedoms are a bigger issue than little old healthcare.

Forget Democrat and Republican: Which Functions Better—Public or Private Sector?

Let’s for a moment put party labels aside.  The Republicans, Libertarians, independents, and the Democrats are no more, for the sake of this post.   Let’s look at politicians and advocates only as proponents of public sector or the private sector.

The proponents of public sector support the government’s caretaking of its people, either through public or co-op option medical care, providing money for car purchases, subsidizing power generation, and so on and so on—spending everywhere.

The private sector proponents seek growth of industry and economies, healthier paychecks for all, faith based options for caretaking, and wealth generation for reinvestment into greater wealth generation for all.

The public sector advocates want to spend resources on all sorts of programs but struggle with how to pay for the largess.  Remember the public sector produces nothing.  It is simply a drain on the economy and cannot be sustained.  Taxing the rich and businesses will generate funds for near term projects, but over time the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the cupboard runs bare.  There is a limit to how much money can be pulled out of an economy to pay for public sector programs—the limit is what gets put back into the economy to replace what was spent.  Remember as you grow the public sector you shrink the private sector.  Soon the private sector will disappear and the public sector will have to provide less and less for the populace—rationing.

Remember the empty store shelves in the Soviet Union?  Well this will happen here if the production economy does not grow.  Unless we find a way to grow our economy we will not survive.  This country has been a consumer and not a production economy for nearly 40 years.  All this has done is deplete our reserves, build debt, make the dollar weaker, and make us unable to replenish what we are spending—we simply consume.  As a nation will will run out of whatever wealth we have left.

Just look at how the government has reacted to the current fiscal crisis.  It was brought on by debt.  Now we are fixing the problem by growing the public sector and we are borrowing to get out of debt—does this make sense to anyone. We should have ignited the private sector by placing a moratorium of income taxes for two or three years—it would have cost the same as the unproductive stimulus, but it would have already begun paying big dividends.

 The private sector advocates want smaller government, with the government being a small drain on the results of the private sector economy.  If the private sector is supported by the government through lower taxes, less restrictive rules, use of natural resources that allow the private sector to produce, the economy will produce, export, grow jobs and this will feed on itself, as if it were a perpetual engine—okay I exaggerate a bit.

If this government fosters a strong small business segment and a somewhat controlled big business segment usually through competition, but with legitimate— not choking —government regulation, the private sector over the long term will grow, and provide prosperity.  Since the public sector produces nothing, and is a 100 % drain on resources, it can never produce prosperity, that is unless we can have a replay of the miracle of the loaves and the fishes .

There are those who say that profit is bad, well unless these anti-profit people can offer another way to grow and replenish an economy to continue to deliver these goods and services, private sector profit is the only way to go.  Remember, how long can government deliver these goods and services without replenishing what has been used?  Remember the Soviet Union store shelves. 

Now I make the leap to government medical care.  Forget about the lack of efficiency and effectiveness in anything the government does.  Let us simply look at the non-replenished resources from a stagnant public sector economy.  How much time will pass before medical rationing must occur in a service driven by an economy that does not grow—it only shrinks.

Anyone who has not as yet joined the flat earth society should seriously consider that when you vote for a representative, that representative should be a long term thinker and always vote to build and grow an economy by producing.  If the person is a short term thinker and only believes in picking the fruit from the tree without ever feeding or water it, then you will get the diminishing public sector option and everyone will be equally poor.

GOP Health Care Reform: addressing the prime reason for costly health care—malpractice lawsuits

Today the Republicans announced their own health care reform plan.  The so called party of “NO” has come up with a comprehensive, simple to administer, $700 Billion plan.  Assuming we can pay for the plan, it does not grow government, does not try to tell us how to live, does not terminate seniors to save money, and it keeps medical decisions between you and your doctor.  This plan does what the Democrats will not do.  It takes on medical lawsuits—tort reform.

The out of control malpractice legal industry with out of control awards is the prime reason that healthcare has become less and less affordable, yet the Democrats do not attempt to touch this issue.  Why? Democrats, in their unswerving devotion to trial lawyers, the trial lawyer lobby, and trial lawyer campaign contributions have not included one word on tort reform in their socialist health care manifesto.  They ardently protect the likes of John Edwards.  Remember, Edwards amassed up his fortune on the backs of physicians and medical providers with malpractice tort claims.

It is a shame that the Democrats in an effort to take over how we live and die, will not give one iota of attention to this plan.  They will just continue the power grabbing march to socialized medicine at any price to us—financial or personal.  The Associated Press overview report on this plan can be read at: House Republicans Unveil…

Perhaps we should require our Democrat Representative to consider this plan—it is most likely easier to read, simpler to administer, and easier to pay  for.   Yet it helps make health care affordable to all citizens—wasn’t that the original goal?

When the plan is fully available, bloggers should post it word for word so all can learn that there is a way other than socialism. 

The Democrats promise that you can keep your current plan, but language in their bills will require a change to the public option for any change of you coverage.  In addition, the Democrat socialist plan will put the government in competition against private insurance companies—over time this will force private companies out of providing coverage, because they simply cannot compete with your tax dollars.  The real overall Democrat goal is to offer only a single payer government plan over time.  Just think of this when you go to the Post Office or call the IRS for information.  Just ask the Iraqi and Afganistan veterans about the care provided by the government. 

Remember the Democrats will not control costs—it is not in their DNA.  Sure. they will keep costs down, not by controling frivolous lawsuits, but by limiting your coverage.  Warning, under the Democrat plan—don’t grow old. The Democrats always state that they will not touch your social security if you are a senior, instead they will just control the number of recipients as a means of bringing social security under control.

 

An answer to John’s comment under comments:

John you cannot look directly at tort claims for the answer.  You must also look at two major areas of cost—peripheral costs.

• The first is physicians performing more tests than needed.  This is done to insulate them against malpractice lawsuits and with less lawsuits or lower payouts they have lower malpractice insurance premiums.
• Second, too many physicians today go into specialties right out of residency to earn more money to make it easier to accommodate medical malpractice insurance premiums.  The fewer number of primary care physicians means that the patient load on a PCP is higher and the PCP, again to reduce the risk of malpractice claims which lowers malpractice insurance and to lower patient load refers more patients to specialists.

Now, take out your calculator and add up all the costs of more, often unnecessary, expensive tests, the heavily intensive use of high priced specialists, and of course the malpractice insurance premiums.  If anyone is interested, don’t believe me, just ask your primary care physician—I have asked mine.  Medical cost increases are heavily brought about by malpractice premiums, resulting form too many either frivolous suits or excessive awarded damages.  Not only do physicians suffer here, but hospitals and medical equipment and pharmacy providers suffer here as well.  All these costs are rolled up into fees for medical visits and procedures.  Thus they are a primary reason medical costs are rising almost uncontrollably.  One other cost is the cost of development of new medicines and equipment—this is also a prime mover in costs, but it is a good mover as it improves medical care.

Democrats Deny Seniors the Right to Complete Health Care!

Why do the Democrats feel that the only way to reform health care is to ration healthcare to seniors and soon to be seniors, as a means of cutting health care costs?  It does not take a genius or in this case a Congressional Representative and a President to cut health care costs by taking away health care options.  Anyone can provide less and say see it’s cheaper.  Real leaders will attack the real issues, tort reform, attorney fee caps, larger insured pools, more primary care physicians, and so on and so on.

If you don’t believe that the Democrats are trying to build a reformed health care plan on the backs of seniors, then why is there a plan in the bill to ration health care, especially to seniors, and to REQUIRE that seniors, attend every five years, a MANDATORY counseling session on hospice care?  This would be required whether the senior is ill or in perfect health.

We are continually being told that we have a substandard health system and President Obama is earnestly trying to provide better health care.  First our catastrophic disease survival rates are better than countries with government managed health care.  In fact, we have an above standard health care system.  Second, why are Mr. Obama and the Democtats trying to reduce the quality of care by rationing care — how will this make our health care system better?

The effort by the Obama administration with a “we must act before August 7th” rush approach was disingenuous at best.  It was and is an outright sham and a power grab toward socialism including health re-distribution along with wealth re-distribution at its worst.  The plan to rush this savage bill through Congress was intended to get it done before the populace knew what was in it.  If it was a benign bill that only improved matters, the need for clandestine secrecy and pedal to the metal speed would not be needed.  Notice that the bill does not take on the trial lawyers — a primary cause of the health care cost problem.

We must be alert and stop this horrendous affront to seniors and all Americans.  What is next, euthanasia?   Where do we stop with this limited health care to those who are not as productive to society as others?  Do we now give less health care to those with down syndrome – these citizens require above average amounts of health care, but their productivity to society is less than the norm.  Is this group next in line after seniors.  If you think I am an alarmist then take the time to listen to:

Betsy McCaughey: CNN and an audio piece from the Fred Thompson Show.

Listen to the head of the Congressional Budget Office speaks on his organization’s cost analysis of the Obama health : CBO’s Douglas Elmendorf on health care savings

Read a news story of the Congressional Budget Office report on savings found in the health care bill.  It states per Reuters:

“Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf told lawmakers on Thursday(that) legislation to expand health care coverage would increase federal healthcare costs “to a significant degree” and revenue will need to be found to keep from increasing the deficit…”  click here for the full story—http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE56F6GT20090716

About the Congressional Budget Office:  This Office is a non-partisan budget analysis office of the United States Congress.  It was created to provide Congress with accurate and non-political numbers to adequately weigh pending legislation.  For more click the link to a government site that provides backgroung on the CBO.

Fixing Health Care The Smart Way: At The State Level, Starting with Arizona

With the very questionable and incredibly expensive and poorly though out presidential health care initiative appearing to be in trouble, one state among others remains in a high cost medical environment.  Arizona doctors, especially primary care physicians are leaving for more conducive legal environments.  One state, Texas, has had great success in attracting both primary care physicians and specialists, since it enacted wide-ranging medical tort reform.  Tort reform, however, is only part of the solution. 

What is wrong in Arizona?

1. A shortage of primary care physicians exists – patient to doctor ratio is and has been rising for some time.
   1. Too many Arizona trained doctors opt to leave Arizona.
   2. Too many opt to go into specialties.
2. Health care costs in Arizona and the nation continue to dramatically outpace inflation.
3. Too many tests ordered, too few primary care physicians, too many expensive specialists, too many frivolous malpractice suits, too many dollars awarded as punitive damages.

Why is it wrong?

• Two medical schools in Arizona.
  1. University of Arizona, turning out only 110 doctors per year.
  2. A University of Arizona location in Phoenix will not significantly add to number of physicians output – output may be only and additional 24 doctors per year.
• A.T. Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine in Phoenix will have its first graduating class next year and produce only about 110 each year.
• The cost of medical malpractice insurance forces primary care physicians to order too many tests to protect themselves from malpractice claims.
  1. Damage Caps
     “Arizona does not place a cap on the amount of damages recoverable in a medical malpractice action. Article 2, § 31 of the Arizona constitution prohibits the enactment of any law limiting the damages one may recover for personal injury or death.”
  2. Statutory Cap on Attorneys’ Fees
     “Arizona does not place a limit on the fees recoverable by an attorney in a medical malpractice action.”
         Source for damage caps and attorney fees is McCullough, Campbell, and Lane LLP, attorneys: http://www.mcandl.com/arizona.html
• Physicians opt to become specialists seeking higher income to repay crushing student loans and cope with malpractice insurance premiums.

How does Arizona fix it?

1. Arizona should spend $500 Million annually to pay for the operation of “free” medical training for M.D.’s and D.O.’s.  This should allow for the doubling of doctor output from the 250 per year to 500 per year.  “Free” is not really free.  Doctors agree to work in primary care or community health care for 10 consecutive years in Arizona after becoming doctors.  Each year worked, eliminates 1/10th of the student loan made to the student who attends an Arizona medical school.
2. Quality of enrollees sours.
3. Double the output capacity for the two medical schools in Arizona, an initial expense of $200 Million.
4. Address tort reform in Arizona by seeking to amend the state constitution to:
   • Limit damage caps to actual damages, less contributory negligence from the patient.
   • Cap attorney fees.
   • Require mandatory initial medical arbitration, before referral to the courts.
5. Provide for a loser pays all cumulative attorney and court fees – if partial damages, then partial reimbursement of fees.  No one gets rich on malpractice.

Why will this work?

1. Costs across the board will be reduced.  Health insurance rates drop.
2. Malpractice premiums will drop in Arizona.  Health insurance rates drop.
3. Malpractice suits and awards will be diminished in Arizona.  Health insurance rates drop.
4. The number of new primary care physicians will reduce the current patient load.  More primary care physicians per capita means better health care.  Health insurance rates drop.
5. A higher percentage of D.O.’s become primary care physicians, than do M.D.’s.  More D.O.’s means more primary care physicians.
6. New doctors will not have crushing student loans to repay.
7. Fewer specialists, due to the better financial situation of new primary care physicians, as they no longer need to become specialists to increase earnings to repay loans and pay malpractice insurance.
8. Less need for specialist patient medical referrals to protect against malpractice – fewer higher cost specialists per capita needed.  Health insurance rates drop.
9. Fewer costly tests will be ordered in Arizona, lowering medical costs.  Health insurance rates drop.
10. Tort reform brings even more physicians to Arizona just as the tort reform in Texas has brought physicians to Texas. Supply and damand – Health insurance rates drop.
11. More primary care physicians actually doing hands-on medicine instead of being gate keepers will lower health care costs.  Health insurance rates drop.
12. Health care insurance becomes substantially more affordable to all in Arizona.  Many more people will be covered.
13. More small businesses in Arizona can now afford to provide health care insurance.
14. Small businesses migrate to Arizona, creating Arizona jobs.

Issues to overcome:

1. Malpractice attorneys are unhappy and fight the changes.
2. Progressives and liberals who want to control the population via health care are unhappy.
3. Coming up with the initial $200 Million to increase the capacity of medical schools and $500 million annually to fund the student loan / waiver program.  This equates to $30 per head and $77 per head respectively based on Census 2008 population estimates for Arizona.  Actually if  the federal government gave each state $500 million each year to cover this cost, it would cost only about $2.5 Billion annually and not the Trillions projected by out dysfunctional federal government.

Also included is a link to McCullough, Campbell, and Lane LLP, malpractice attorneys http://www.mcandl.com/arizona.html and a link to the School of Osteopathic Medicine web page explaining the difference between D.O.’s and M.D.’s http://www.atsu.edu/soma/programs/osteopathic_medicine/index.htm.

States Rights!

With the Congress out of control, with 14 now 34 Czars and counting not answerable to the Congress reporting to President Obama, with U.S. Government ownership of GM and Chrysler, with first position bond holders tossed aside in favor of a union – forever altering the investment landscape where for hundreds of years bond holders were protected and now are no longer protected – forever dampening the economy and causing future corporate fund raising to be very difficult and expensive,  with the Treasury’s refusal to let some banks pay back their TARP money, with the proposals to establish national health care and a valued added tax to pay for it, with the marching order from the President of the United States to get this done by August, it is clear that the Federal Government looks at states as little fiefdoms subservient to the federal government.

Well, it is the other way around.  Someone in Washington D.C. and particularly in the Obama Administration should read the Constitution.  On more than one occasion President Obama has indicated that the Constitution is too restrictive of the federal (central) government and that the constitution should allow for the central government to make more rules to deliver services to the populace – often services not equally targeted toward all Americans.  His appointment of an activist judge for the Supreme Court is his attempt to make law and make constitutional law from the bench of the highest court in the land.  This must stop and stop now.

I have written the following similar letters to Governors Sanford of South Carolina, Perry of Texas, and Freudenthal of Wyoming.  This is the letter written to Rick Perry.

June 4, 2009

Rick Perry, Governor, State of Texas

Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Re: States Rights

Dear Governor;

I sent this note yesterday to Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming.

Owing to the recent actions and planned actions (it all can’t be interstate commerce) by the Federal Government which are not within the 17 enumerated powers provided the U.S. Government in the Constitution, and the Obama supporting Congress, have you considered a law suit in Federal Court re-asserting the rights and powers of the states found in the Constitution? The goal is to stop this runaway madness and socialization of the private sector.

I suggest Wyoming because you have the greatest Republican majority of any state legislature. I also suggest a state file the suit since there should be no question about legal standing in the courts. This will probably work its way up to the Supreme Court.

Clearly as a state, Wyoming has the right to require the federal government to limit itself to the 17 powers and the few amendments describing the limits of power of the U.S. Government.

I represent no faction or organization. I write as an individual. I am not an attorney. I am an individual who sees the best of this nation disappearing more and more each day. President Obama and his Treasury among other Departments and the Congress are out of control and need to be reined in. Will you do it? Can you do it?

Governor Perry, perhaps you might contact Governor Freudenthal and encourage him to file that suit. Perhaps you may wish the former Republic and the State Texas to join him. Unless the states take action now, states rights will be gone forever and we will not recognize this nation by the next Presidential election. I will also be writing to Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina. I am not writing Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, as I do not believe she has the fervor for righting this Constitutional wrong.

With the sincerest pleading, I am

Ken Moyes

I suggest that anyone who reads this post and feels that the federal government is out of control and is assuming the rights provided the states under the constitution (see Today’s Federal Government is Unconstitutional)   should write to their Governor or to the Governors listed in this post   Just go to a search engine and enter the state followed by “governor” and it will bring up a link to that state’s governor.

Unless we do something now, we will not recognize this country by the next Presidential election.  Stand up and be counted!

Sotomayer nominated to the Supreme Court – legislates from the bench?

Do we really want judges making law from the bench based on their own beliefs of how things should be?  Do we really want to obfuscate the legislative process by having unelected jurists – a party of one – make our laws?  President Obama has stated, as recently as yesterday, that he wants jurists who render decisions based solely on the law and to look at the existing law and U.S. Constitution for their decisions.

If he really believes this than why did he nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?  Once again we have to watch both hands when he speaks.  He appears to be shaking your hand with his right hand and quietly picking your pocket with his left hand.  I say this because Sonia Sotomayer is clearly a jurist who openly brags about making policy from the bench.  She has laughingly talked about legislating from the bench. 

We do not need to look at her prior decisions, when she has openly, and I might add arrogantly, admitted legislating or making policy from the appellate bench.  A recent YouTube clip says it all!  Yet she is nominated for the highest court in the land, and is young enough, that if affirmed, will serve for the next thirty years.  Is this what was intended by checks and balances?  If you don’t believe me and you have not seen the clip click here, remember she is the one speaking to law students.  She is explaining where they might best pursue a law career.  She is suggesting appellate court experience, since that is where policy is made.

If we continue to allow jurists to make decision on how they wish the law to be and not how it stands as written, an enterprising defense attorney will, sooner or later, use the “I disagree with the law as written and I feel it should be different, just as Justice so and so does on a regular basis” defense.

Had enough yet?  If you believe in the rule of law and not law of the judge, you may want to get on the phone with your Senators and tell them to keep looking for a balanced jurist.

We Deserve Better from Congress!

Recently the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives sought to move a global warming bill – a 900 page bill – that has not been read or digested by any legislator, out of committee and to the full House for a vote.  Congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat, the committee chairman, acknowledged publicly that he did not fully understand what was in the bill.  He simply wanted to move the bill out of committee and to the House for a vote.  At 900 pages, this an enormous bill covering intricate “cap and trade” and other environmental regulations.

“Cap and trade” potentially represents a radical change in the cost to the people of this country of our industrial infrastructure and power generation.  This bill has the potential to devastate our economy beyond the economy’s current volatility and yet no one person really knows what is in it.  What makes this plan even more flagrant is the cavalier attitude and approach by the Democratic leadership on passage of this bill.

When the committee Republicans were insisting that the bill be read aloud – their right under our Congressional procedures – Chairman Waxman hired a speed reader for the clerk’s staff and threatened to have the entire bill read by the speed reader.  Remember, speed readers are those folks no one can understand and are found in comedy routines.  Are our legislators this arrogant and whimsical about how they represent us in Congress?  Instead of taking bill content knowledge seriously, the Democrats just want to pass an ideologically radical, economically risky 900 page bill without any one legislator knowing what is in it.

Don’t we as citizens deserve more?  When we elect someone to Congress, we expect them to represent us on matters of legislation.  We don’t expect our legislators to abdicate learning about bills before them so they can make a prudent and intelligent vote.  If they are not going to bother learning what is in a bill, then we can either use a dice roll or hire chimps to vote.  Hiring a speed reader is not a funny or laughable matter.   It is an arrogant abuse of power and a mockery of our constitutional republic.   Just how many bills will these legislators vote on without reading?  This flagrant approach to bills started with the unread $770B stimulus package.  We deserve better.

Party of the fiscal conservative – Yes! – “Democrat lite” – NO!

Uh! Hello!  You folks in Washington D.C., remember us, the forgotten fiscal conservatives.  The Democrats among you have decided to buy votes from the “have nots” by offering them everything under the sun, at the expense of the “haves” and our children and children’s’ children.  The Republicans among you feel that remaking the Republican Party to Democrat “lite” will place you back in power – what are you smoking?

I am seeking a party and candidates who will not spend me into oblivion.  The people of California after being threatened with the release of violent criminals from their prisons, in an effort to scare the voters into voting to raise taxes so California can continue spending, rejected that plan and voted for spending cuts.  Perhaps they sent a message to all legislators of today – stop spending to buy votes.  Aren’t there any candidates who find spending money we don’t have, abhorrent?  If you are out there let me know. 

Maybe, we can start our own party – let’s call it the Republican Party, since the old republicans are now democrat lite.  We can be for a federal government that follows the constitution and only exercises the nineteen enumerated powers found in the constitution.  We can be for a government that only spends what we can afford.  If you are one of those candidates who finds out of control spending abhorrent, then we can use you in this new novel party – the party of the fiscal conservative.

Another party plank might be: let poorly run businesses fail.  Can’t cut it in business, than Darwin says you should be allowed to fail.  How about we have a plank that says government managed business or healthcare is a mistake?  Perhaps we could adopt a plank that says if a baby can regularly live outside the womb, such as a seven month old premature baby, aborting this child is murder – no more cruel horrific late term abortions, unless the mother’s life is in imminent danger.  Basic common sense dictates that when seven month old babies regularly live outside the mother’s womb, we must assume that they are persons under the Constitution – any other thought process is self serving, myopic, selfishness and down right hypocritical.  Mr. Obama, a late term abortion advocate, wants to minimize abortion.  If abortion is not a terrible thing, then why does he want to minimize it?  I digress, but I don’t believe he qualifies to be in our new Republican Party, since he is a mainlining socialist democrat.

I am sure we can find more planks, but we want this party to have a big tent.  Let’s start small by saving this country from financial ruin and from killing seven month old persons – or are we starting big?

If you don’t believe that this country is headed for financial ruin, then ask the Chinese why they don’t want anymore Treasury Bills.  If you don’t believe that this country continues to head for moral decay, than you don’t know that 100 million people voted for the American Idol, while only twenty million more voted in the Presidential election.  How many of the 100 million Idol voters know who the Speaker of the House is?

Under what Constitutional Authority is the Federal Government taking over Health Care?

Here are questions about the Federal Government.

• Under what specific power granted to the federal government in the Constiution is the government permitted to establish a government health care organization?  They want to tax soda as part of the fund raising to pay for the health care – the sixteenth amendment provided the right to levy an income tax.  There is no federal authority to tax soda to pay for health care – while soda is interstate commerce, health care is not and there is no authority to tax for a commodity.

• Under what power is it permitted to invest in corporations or make loans to corporations?

• If you don’t know, then contact your Congressman or Senators and insist on an answer.