Whereas in the present context, government has exhibited behaviors such that they have completely eroded my trust, I am opposed to any legislation that even minimally empowers them. Some might (and have) with knee-jerk style justification, concluded that I’m something of an anarchist. That, or at the very least a laissez faire capitalist longing for the days of sweat shops, pollution and the company store. The truth is of course that there is a rightful role of government, and it is only about the excesses that I object. When the individual motivations or business incentives of various decisions are such that they are detrimental to the society, and to the extent that polite words from a neighbor are insufficient to remedy a situation, laws and government play a vital role. When the private incentives to embark a goal are insufficient to accomplish an important objective for the preservation and furtherance of the nation and its citizens, government plays a role.
When it comes to implementing an extensive and punitive set of regulations and providing funds to create or impose a subjective vision of “utopia” neither the government, nor any individual or organization is within it’s rightful power to do so. Our government’s fundamental mission should be to ensure that such imposition never happens, and to create the conditions conducive to maximizing the ability of the citizenry to exercise their liberties. It is therefore abhorrent for the government itself to become the imposer or to create conditions which facilitate such imposition, be it by foreign powers or selectively chosen private organizations inside the nation. The nation that this government is sworn to preserve, protect and defend.
On issues with which specific rules, laws and procedures might come into conflict with individual liberty, it is incumbent upon our elected leaders to approach the idea with the utmost consideration for the latter. Fallibility is an inherent to the human condition, and even the most intelligent and well intentioned people or groups cannot escape the fact. It is therefore even more critical that government approach its role with the perspective of a minimalist. Their goals and activities should mirror broad support, while resisting the temptation to be simply populist, thereby ensuring to the utmost the protection of the individual from tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority. Government should not be doing ONE SINGLE THING to make a decent, law abiding, taxpaying citizen greatly concerned, upset or otherwise seriously troubled. Not one law should impose upon the freedom of the individual, including financial freedom, without the most logical and most important justification.
When I look at the litany of activities with which our government has failed in this mission, it should be of little doubt to anyone that a patriotic citizen should seek to prevent the accumulation of power by that institution, and to endeavor to strip it of the assumed authority which it is presently abusing so willfully and maliciously.
The Vermont economy is on life support and could slip into a coma without drastic changes in how our state government leaders approach their fiduciary responsibilities. This is the only conclusion a reasonable person can make after attending a presentation by Tom Licata, founder of Vermonters for Economic Health.
VEH is a grass-roots, citizen-led organization with a simple mission: to promote economic health and fiscal responsibility in Vermont. Its Web site can be found at http://www.vteh.org.
Licata's colorful graphs and pie charts juxtapose with his sobering fiscal facts to confirm what hardworking Vermont taxpayers already suspect -- that despite the incredibly high taxes we pay at every level of Vermont government, the coffers are empty. Well, maybe not quite empty -- they are actually full of IOUs.
In a nutshell, these are the facts we must face: Vermont has lived beyond its means for far too long. According to VEH's figures (derived from Vermont's Joint Fiscal Office), Vermont faces a $470 million shortfall in its general fund between 2011 and 2014. Astonishingly, between the years 2000 and 2007, state government payroll and employee benefit costs grew 70 percent, while inflation grew some 23 percent, a growth rate of roughly three times this inflation figure.
During this same time period, private-sector job growth was 0 percent. That's right, zilch!
This problem is also graphically illustrated in education finance policy. While Vermonters' incomes rose only 13 percent between 2005 and 2009, education property taxes rose 35 percent. Spending for K-12 education rose 23 percent, 200 percent over the rate of inflation. Even more frightening is this: over the next 20 years, Vermont faces billions of dollars in unfunded budget expenditures -- approximately $3.5 billion. The largest segments of these are made up of road and bridge repair, water system maintenance and upgrades, bonded debt and Medicaid shortfalls.
This $3.5 billion figure does not include $1.6 billion in unfunded teacher and state employee medical liabilities, nor does it include $466 million in unfunded pension liabilities.
"We have not saved and invested enough for road and bridge infrastructure or for retirees' pensions and health care," Licata said. "We've dug an enormous hole, and it's going to take a lot of work to get out of it." Especially since our fiscal rope is badly fraying. Most money for the general fund comes from income and sales taxes, Licata explained.
These revenues are shrinking as people lose jobs, investment income falls and a belt-tightening public consumes fewer goods and services. Also worrisome is the uneven distribution of tax liability -- about 5 percent of Vermont's tax filers pay about 50 percent of total income taxes. Redistributionists might applaud that figure, but remember this -- upper-income earners have the most resources and reasons to leave the state. If even a quarter decided to do so, Vermont's tax base would be devastated. Replacing these disappearing taxpayers from within seems unlikely.
Just prior to our recession, the state experienced no private sector job growth over this last decade. Since 2000, we have lost more than 10,000 manufacturing jobs while public sector jobs in health and education have increased by almost as much. Many of these jobs, of course, are sustained through tax revenue rather than privately generated wealth. Sadly, we are losing our young people at a rate of four times the national average.
Meanwhile, the number of retirees living within the state is expected to double over the next 25 years. The lack of revenue diversification is also illustrated in our reliance on federal government aid, which accounts for some 30 percent of our total budget. This kind of concentration of risk should keep those in Montpelier up at night, especially in light of our federal government's fiscal woes.
Next month Licata will be making his presentation to the Vermont Legislature in front of members of the House Ways and Means Committee and others.
Among other solutions, he will recommend spending limits and fiscal analysis of key legislation. He will also advocate for policy that creates a better atmosphere for creating jobs and thus expanding the tax base.
If you think your Vermont representatives need to hear this you might want to encourage them to be in Room 11 of the Statehouse on Jan. 6 at 2:30 p.m. for Licata's presentation. It's time our legislators get the facts and start using them in making decisions that affect us all.
Helping to solve poverty, one statistic at a time.
With the economy tanking and unemployment on the rise, Washington has taken a decisive step to combating the rising number of people who officially live at or below the poverty line. As you probably know, the Federal Government claims that a person is living in poverty if they make either at little less than $11,000 per year for single people or $21,000 a year if they are a family of four. While these numbers are not realistic or based upon any meaningful data about who much it costs to live, it is the number that the Government uses to assign benefits. In previous years the number of poor people in America ranges around 10%, a shocking figure for a nation of plenty. But as wages fall or remain stagnant and with more American’s finding themselves out of a job, this percentage will most certainly grow. Therefore, the powers that be have come upon an immediate remedy for the growing number of people who are considered poor, lower the poverty line!
Yes, that’s right. In an almost unbelievable move the Federal Government will be changing the amount of a person’s income it considers to be at the poverty line. They will lower it to an unspecified amount that will be announced early next year. Not since the Reagan Administration declared ketchup a vegetable has such an incredible bit of stupidity ever been attempted by our anointed leaders. This bit of Stalinesque number crunching can’t be interpreted as anything else than an attempt to hide the true state of this economy and avoid the on-coming train wreck if promised “entitlement” benefits were actually paid to those who were originally intended to be their beneficiaries. Given the amount of real inflation in the economy, one would have expected at least an upward modification of the number.
Though no fan of the governmental dole, this changes seems to come right out 1984 and can not be a good sign for the economy. The announced reasons for the change are hardly worth repeating and clearly only a screen. However, given the size of our national debt, the on-coming governmental health care disaster, and the rising tide of “entitled” people, this move is a callous and dishonest play to limit their financial exposure while never addressing the central problem that the promises of a social safety net creates.
Yet, this maneuver seems to be one of several, propaganda tricks that Washington has been pulling the last few weeks. As an example, we are told that the Banks are paying back the TARP funds because they no longer need them and credit is freeing up. Only later do we hear that the President called the Banks to the carpet and demanded they make loans (I.e. There is still a credit crunch for the average consumer). Or that the Swine Flu vaccination effort was a success, but then we find out that a good portion of the vaccines were either too weak or administered wrong. Not to mention that the death rate is comparable to the regular flu thereby raising the question as to why the government spent millions of dollars on a vaccine that may not have been needed or effective. Overall, Washington seems to work overtime to remind me of an old Oscar Wilde quip: “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics”.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Another Chapter in the Annals of Government in the Land of Oz.
This weekend, without much fanfare or coverage from the media, one of the most popular bills before the House of Representatives was given the “Washington as usual” treatment. This treatment resulted in a very good and needed bill being tied to a horrible and counter-productive piece of legislation, thereby effectively killing it while providing political cover for those who do not want effective control over the Federal Reserve Bank. First a quick overview of the facts.
The Audit the Fed bill (HR 1207) was a plain, simple and popular piece of legislation meant to hold the secretive Federal Reserve Bank up to scrutiny for its past and recent actions with tax payer dollars. This bill was so popular that the public outcry for the bill caused every Republican Representative and a good number of Democrats to co-sponsor the bill. In total, this bill had 313 co-sponsors, enough to assure passage. The sponsors, in order to drum up more support and to get a wider audience for its central premise (that the Fed Bank had a lot to answer for) allowed the bill to pass through Rep. Barney Frank’s Committee on Finance, a brave move on their part. Despite a blatant attempt to gut the bill by some Democrats on the Committee, it passed the first major test of the Committee (the mark up). However, this would be the high point for this bill.
For you see that Committee Chair Frank also had another bill regarding the Federal Reserve Bank which was meant to create yet another agency to oversee our financial institutions and would expand the powers of the Fed Bank. As is his prerogative, Chairman Frank added HR 1207 as an amendment to this bill. As a result, every Republican voted against HR 1207, including Ron Paul, as it was part of a incredibly bad piece of legislation, while the Democrats got to vote for it. Meanwhile, over in the Senate, the members are ready to either remove HR 1207 completely or pass it with significant changes. The Companion Bill to HR1207, S.604, languishes in committee with only 30 or so sponsors and no hope of a floor vote, much less passage. If the bill just passed contains enough of HR 1207 coming out of the Senate or Conference Committee, the hopes of reviving the core ideas behind HR 1207 die with this bill. Additionally, Judd Gregg, Republican Senator from New Hampshire, has come out to say that he would filibuster any legislation like HR 1207.
This sad conclusion to our popular effort is an object lesson for us all. Even clear, popular and timely legislation doesn’t stand a chance in the current government we have. Washington appears more detached and further away than ever. The Byzantine ways of our Congress/political establishment has insured that the American People will never learn the truth about what’s going on inside this private, secret, all powerful bank. Our Congressional Delegation now enjoys the political cover of supporting HR 1207, but never really having to pass it. The many voices of citizens from around the country were drowned out by the hum of the business as usual machine in Washington.
But does this mean that we should lose heart? Should we give up? No, and a thousand times no! Instead, it clarifies something we have been saying for a long time, but have not heard ourselves. Washington is the problem, not the solution. Until we change how we see Washington’s role in our lives, Washington will not change. While Pat, Peter, and Bernie can stay snug in their governmental cocoons oblivious to our cries, we have at our finger tips another way. For change to occur in Washington, it has to start in Montpelier. We can’t camp out on the doorstep of Mr. Leahy’s, Welch’s and Sander’s Offices, but we can make our presence know in Montpelier and with our local representatives. We may not be a player at the tables of the powerful along the Potomac, but we have the power of proximity with our elected representatives in Montpelier. The change I speak about is not cosmetic or simply a question of personnel occupying an office, it is a sea change of expectations, ideas, and political atmosphere. Not just talking about legislation, but whether such legislation is required or appropriate. Not just talking about responsive representatives in Montpelier, but representatives who understand the appropriate role of government. Not just changing the attitude in Montpelier, but the attitude of all Vermonters, away from “let government do it” to “let's make it happen.” In all, instead of continuing the well-worn hobby of Washington, issue chasing, we must start a new, different effort toward enforcing and support fundamental principles that made this nation and state great. The first step, is to demand them at home, before we try them in the Land of Political Oz.
As longtime readers know, the Demographic Deathwatch is not a novelty dance craze but a recurring feature of this column. But it’s not just for Europe, Russia, China, and Japan anymore! Some parts of America are acquiring demographic profiles that would qualify them for EU membership.
Take the Green Mountain State. As Howard Dean was fond of saying during his 2004 presidential campaign, “Vermont is the way America ought to be.”
If it is, we’re all done for. Its marquee brands are either Canadian-owned (Vermont Castings wood stoves) or European-owned (Ben & Jerry’s ice cream) and any non-foreign economic activity in the state long ago had any life regulated out of it.
But never mind all that. I ventured across the Connecticut River the other day and picked up the local paper, the Journal Opinion of Bradford, Vt. And among the other front-page headlines (“Newbury Will Mail Town Reports”; “Upcoming Sand Pile Talk”) was a story on how local school districts were in merger talks. No underlying reason was immediately given for the suddenly pressing need to merge: It seemed to be accepted as a natural feature of life that you can’t do anything about. And then a gazillion paragraphs into the story, the reporter finally explained what was going on: Throughout Vermont, student enrollment at public elementary and secondary schools is declining. According to figures from the state’s Department of Education, there were 104,559 students at those schools during the 1999–2000 school year. Last year, that figure was down to 92,572. Which is quite a drop. In fact, Vermont school enrollments have declined 13 years in a row. Since 1996, they’ve fallen by 13 percent, slumping below 100,000 in 2004 and projected to fall below 90,000 in 2014. The part of the state that my corner of New Hampshire borders is admittedly rural, and it’s not an unusual phenomenon for small towns to drain population to the big cities. But a couple of days later I was in the capital, Montpelier, and its school board is in merger talks with the neighboring towns of Berlin and Calais.
If schoolkids are thin on the ground, the state’s total population has held steady — 604,000 in 1999, 621,000 today. So Vermont is getting proportionately more childless. Which is to say that Vermont, literally, has no future. One school-board member whose enrollment has bumped from 600 to 500 and is now heading down to 400 told the paper: “What are we going to do? We’re not holding our breath that the state is going to solve this problem.”
I suppose by “the state” he means the department of education or, in a more general way, Montpelier. But in a very basic sense there is no “state”: Graying ponytailed hippies and chichi gay couples aren’t enough of a population base to run a functioning jurisdiction. To modify Howard Dean, Vermont is the way liberals think America ought to be, and you can’t make a living in it. So if you’re a cash-poor but land-rich native Vermonter taxed and regulated and hedged in on every front, you face a choice: In the new North Country folk wisdom, they won’t let you fish, so you might as well cut bait. Your outhouse is in breach of zoning regulations, so you might as well get off the pot. Etc. When he ran for president, Howard Dean was said to have inspired America’s youth. In Vermont, he mainly inspired them to move somewhere else. The number of young adults fell by 20 percent during the Dean years. And what’s left is a demographic disaster: The state’s women have the second lowest birthrate in the nation, and the state’s workforce is already America’s oldest. Last year, Chris Lafakis of Moody’s predicted Vermont would have “a really stagnant economy” not this year or this half-decade but for the next 30 years.
True, more gays appear to have moved in. In European terms, homosexuals are Vermont’s Muslims — no disrespect to either party, I hasten to add, before you press that fatwa button. And gay second-homers still require enough of a local populace to generate a scenic plaid-clad coot or two chewing tobaccy on the porch of a still-operating general store: It’s kind of a downer to drive past a bunch of abandoned farms and collapsed barns en route to your weekend pad.
Nowhere in the news reports of school-merger talks does anyone suggest trying to reverse the policies that drive out young families and make Vermont — what’s the word the eco-types dig? — “unsustainable.” When it comes to “climate change,” it’s taken for granted that we can transform the very heavens if only we cap’n’trade’n’tax’n’regulate you even more.
But the demographic death spiral? That’s just a fact of life, to question which puts you beyond political viability. The new Vermont prefers poseur politics and solutions for non-problems. A couple of years back, Gov. Jim Douglas, one of those famously moderate GOP New Englanders, finally noticed something was wrong in Green Mountain schoolhouses. So he acted decisively, signing legislation to protect the environment by forbidding school buses to run their engines while waiting for children to board.
Tough on the kids: On many buses, there are too few students to generate much in the way of body heat. But you’ve gotta be able to prioritize: “This is a great step forward for our state,” declared the governor. The wheels are coming off the Vermont bus, but at least its engine won’t be running as the thing falls apart.
The politicization of American History may be a natural outcome of our highly partisan society, but it is not an acceptable one. Many of the stories historians choose not to share have relevance to current situations and deserve to be told in their entirety. Partisan historians may not like the conclusions people draw from these stories, but still it is the people’s right to receive factual information and form what opinions they may.
One such story is that of the earliest New World colonists, in particular of the Pilgrims of Plymouth Plantation. With Thanksgiving upon us it seems a good time to revisit their experiences when they first settled on the American continent. The real story is much more interesting than the simplified version we learned as school children and offers valuable insight into solutions to our economic problems.
Over half of the 101 Pilgrims who first landed on Cape Cod were dead within the first few months of their arrival, victims of disease, harsh weather conditions and malnutrition. Over the next three years, 100 more settlers joined Plymouth Plantation, but the colony was barely able to feed itself. According to William Bradford, the first governor of the colony, the Pilgrims were so destitute that "many sold away their clothes and bed coverings [to the Indians]; others (so base were they) became servants to the Indians and would cut them wood and fetch them water for a capful of corn; others fell to plain stealing, both night and day, from the Indians ... ."
Why was this happening? New England may not have the most temperate climate or the most fertile soil, but the Native Americans had managed to grow food and feed themselves. What prevented the Pilgrims from doing likewise?
The answer, it turns out, was an incorrect political economic decision imposed on the colony by the investors in the Mayflower. Before you blame capitalism (a term which had not yet been coined) and bankers, however, understand that the cause of the Pilgrims’ problems was the decidedly anti-capitalist property distribution scheme these investors imposed. They assumed that common property ownership would be the most profitable arrangement under which the Pilgrims could work and produce in order to pay back the money fronted them for their voyage. These investors turned Plymouth Plantation into a collectivized farm.
The results were disastrous. Where there is not ownership there is no pride and little incentive. Governor Bradford explained it this way: "For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense." Those who did more of the work also felt it unjust that they should receive no greater reward than those who did little, Bradford said, and husbands resented that their wives were forced to cook and care for men to whom they were not married.
The problem was solved when each household was given a private plot of land to tend. "This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious," Bradford reported, "so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble and gave far better content."
Bradford blamed the failed collectivization experiment on "that conceit of Plato," referencing the Greek philosopher’s advocacy of collective ownership of land, and said those who believed communal property would make people "happy and flourishing" mistakenly thought themselves "wiser than God."
Those who blame the "greedy investors" for this debacle miss the point. The Pilgrims were not in conflict with those who had enabled them to flee to the New World but with each other. Some saw an opportunity to slack off while others supported them, and those willing to work became decidedly less willing when they saw no more benefit to themselves than to their lazy fellow colonists.
As is always the case when an economic system fails, it was a failure of human nature rather than the system. But since human nature itself is eternal and does not seem to change no matter how hard utopians try to force it to, it makes sense that a system which accepts human nature and works with it to produce the best results will succeed.
That system, then, as now, appears to be one of free enterprise and respect for property rights. Today, more than at any time in our nation’s history, we are moving toward a collectivist economic system. Socialism, wherever it has been tried, has failed to, in William Bradford’s words, create a society that is "happy and flourishing." Rather, collectivism more widely and equally distributes misery and poverty. The Pilgrims learned this lesson quickly and corrected their mistake. Why would we now condemn ourselves, as Santayana warned, to repeat history?
Audrey Pietrucha is interim county coordinator for the Bennington County Campaign for Liberty and founder of the Southern Vermont Liberty Council.
It has become politically popular to equate human desires and wants with human rights. This is, in fact, the battle cry of some factions in the fight for a government-run health care system. But is health care a human right? Let’s examine this premise.
The human rights of Americans are defined by our two founding documents: the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the Declaration, stated it thus:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”
The Constitution of the United States codified this philosophy by instituting a federal government limited in scope and function. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, specifically mention certain unalienable rights with which the government is forbidden to interfere. Among these are our rights to speak freely, both in written and spoken form; to worship according to the dictates of our consciences; and to bear arms for self-defense as well as protection from foreign enemies and domestic tyranny.
The founder’s understanding of what constituted a human right was informed by the writings of political philosophers from throughout history, from Plato and Cicero to Locke and Blackstone. When they wrote of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” they expressed their belief in the importance of the individual, his freedom to use his time and talents to pursue opportunities - though with no guaranteed outcomes - and his right to accumulate property in order to provide for himself and his loved ones security and prosperity.
A confusion of the term “right” has led to the current misunderstanding that anything deemed necessary or even desirable must be a right. But a right is something that, by definition, should not involve the usurpation of a fellow citizen’s rights.
Associate justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said “The right to sing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” In the case of health care, once the proponents of universal health care begin swinging their fists they are going to be hitting a whole lot of noses. Unfortunately, the kind of damage inflicted won’t be so easily taken care of in the local hospital emergency room, with or without insurance.
Though it is not in vogue to speak of financial rights these days, they are, in fact, supposed to be protected. They include the right to keep the fruits of one’s labor – these days that’s usually money – and the right to use those fruits as one sees fit. By expecting others to pay for healthcare, the “healthcare is a human right” crowd explicitly violates these rights. To put it bluntly, something cannot be a right when it forces others to sacrifice their own rights.
Another important argument against the concept of health care as a human right is the lack of a clear definition of what health care is. While in its most basic form one would expect it to include preventative care (for example, immunization), and medical and surgical treatment of established illness, does it also include organ transplantation, cosmetic surgery, infertility treatment and the most expensive medicines? For something to be considered a human right the minimum requirement should be that the right in question is capable of definition.
Slogans such as “Health care is a human right” sound reasonable and make great rally signs but, when examined, they do not bear up. Is health care a human right? No, it is a personal responsibility.
Audrey Pietrucha is Interim Coordinator of the Bennington County Campaign for Liberty and founder of the Southern Vermont Liberty Council.
It has been only a year and look how far we have come. On October 1, 2008, the Campaign for Liberty officially launched in Vermont with eight members and a little under 100 email only members. As of today, we now have 97 members and over 550 email only members. Back in October, 2008 we were only an on-line entity with little interaction with other, like minded organizations. Now we have a working relationship with several well established groups around Vermont and continue to support their efforts as our organization grows. In one year, we went from nothing to being an upcoming and important voice in Vermont Politics. Over the last 12 months so much has happened. We have had a State Convention with over 50 attendees and some really great speakers. We have had regular quarterly meetings of our Local Coordinators. We have help create tea parties on April 15 and July 4th. We sponsored a petition drive that brought all three of our Congressional Delegates to support the "Audit the Fed" effort. We had a hugely successful fair booth at the Rutland Fair this year. The Liberty Blog and the Vermont Campaign for Liberty site were launched. Finally, we have offered seminars to the public aimed at helping our fellow Vermonters become better citizens. Looking back we have accomplished a lot with such a small group in a very "liberal" state. But our progress does not end there. Come this January, we will be holding our second State Convention. In the Spring another round of Citizen Forums will be held throughout the State. We will be having information tables at New Hampshire's Freedom Fest and The Free State Projects' Porcupine Fest. Finally, plans are in the works to increase our presence in Vermont through media expansion and publication of our own material. All of this success has been as a result of our members contributing their time, wealth, and skills to further the Campaign. Make no mistake, this is your Campaign for Liberty and it can only grow and continue to succeed if you continue to help it. So, with the successes of the last twelve months in mind, let's work together to make the next twelve even more successful. We can do it, if we all contribute.
Recently a discussion has arisen in the Ron Paul Forums concerning the effectiveness of 10th Amendment Resolutions as a way to address Washington’s long history of over reaching its Constitutional Powers. As part of this discussion, a member noted that “ Our hope is not in, nor should it ever be in the Constitution”. After reading this entry, I felt compelled to write the following:
“The discussion over the Constitution misses a vital point that the previous writer has hinted at. Even the best crafted document is meaningless unless those it seeks to guide honor it. Classic examples are the Constitutions of the Soviet Union or Weimar Germany. Both, on their faces, are incredible documents which maximizes individual liberties, popular government, and a well reasoned system of governance. The only problem was that they also were only documents. Both the Soviet Union's and Germany's leaders hardly paid attention to either while paying lip service to them.
A nation of laws ruled by a government of men is a contradiction. If the rulers do not obey the law, then the law fundamentally is meaningless or at least unstable and subject to the whims of an elite, a mob, or personalities.
While agreeing with the previous writer that our hope is not in the Constitution, I disagree with his contention that "we must be good and elect good people to write good laws." Read Madison's notes on the Convention. Throughout the painful, slow process of crafting the Constitution, there was one assumption that all present held and periodically expressed. That assumption was that the American People, jealous of their liberties, would serve as a check upon the actions of a rogue government. In effect, they assumed that the Citizens would be a Fourth Branch of government. And, they felt that this assumption was so self-evident that they did feel the need to write it down.
For some reason we, as a people, have forgotten our traditional suspicion of government and our sense of ownership in our government. We, citizen's of the greatest republic known to man, failed to perform our office as citizens and let our vital role in that republic slip, leaving great power in the hands of those with great ambition, unchecked.
The simple passage of a resolution or even a bill will not effect the necessary change we seek. The fight over this bill or that piece of legislation will not alter the fact that government is treated as a separate and unrelated entity in the lives of Americans. Most Americans treat politics as a specialized field or as a seasonal sport and not directly effecting their daily lives.
For too long we have been trying to have good laws written, only to be bitterly disappointed by the works of our servants. For too long we have been trying to "elect good people", only to find that good people are few and far between despite the protestations of many claiming the role. If anything, history tells us that wanting and waiting for a white knight to come along is a sure recipe for dictatorship and disaster.
For the Constitution to work, we must make it work. We must hold everyone accountable to its provisions, regardless of party, for both have long abused this document for too long. We must demand that the lawgivers honor and obey the law first. We must keep everyone of their actions under scrutiny constantly and call them to account when they fail their office.
To do all of this requires something more than playing party politics or campaigning for this candidate or that one. It requires finding those few, precious few, citizens in a sea of people. Citizens who understand their role goes beyond Tax Day and Election Day. Citizen's who love their liberty and the fruits of it and are willing to work to maintain them. The reality is to effectuate change we don't need a majority, or a large minority. We only need an educated, motivated, and committed minority of people willing to work for the change we seek. To find that minority of citizens, true citizens, we need to look in our neighborhoods, churches, clubs, and workplaces. We must interact with the community and send out the liberty message and listen intently for a reply.
We all want liberty minded candidates to win. But in order to give them a fighting chance we must prepare the ground. Create an atmosphere in the public forum where his message will not be shunted aside. To do this, the public must be made fully aware of the message and create a network of liberty minded citizens willing to rush to his aid and work for his success. Ultimately, it requires us to model good citizenship for our neighbors and provide them with an opportunity to become involved.
Buying cold medicine. A great example of government overreacting.
Via the Terra Haute News:
Harpold is a grandmother of triplets who bought one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville pharmacy. Less than seven days later, she bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton pharmacy, thereby purchasing 3.6 grams total of pseudoephedrine in a week’s time.
Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law 35-48-4-14.7, which restricts the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, or PSE, products to no more than 3.0 grams within any seven-day period.
She was arrested! Class-C misdemeanor, which carries a sentence of up to 60 days in jail and up to a $500 fine.
I’m all for stopping the production of meth – but 2 boxes of cold medicine does not make a meth lab.
But it gets better (emphasis mine).
Harpold, who is employed at the Rockville Correctional Facility for women, feels her reputation has been damaged by the arrest, and that she has been wrongly labeled as someone who makes meth.
Her police mug shot ran on the front page of her local newspaper, she wrote, in a letter to the Tribune-Star, “with an article entitled, ‘17 Arrested in Drug Sweep.’”
I have only a few personal phobias or hang ups which serve as an endless source of amusement for my family. Cotton balls, dirty hands, and bees are partial list of items that I can’t stand. Another is the movie, “A Night to Remember”, a 1950’s black and white film about the sinking of the Titanic. I saw it once as a child and since then I have never been able to watch it or any other movie about that fateful night since. The utter sense of helplessness of the passengers and a feeling of deep frustration on my part somehow always strikes a painful chord with me. One scene that is etched in my memory is where a couple is standing on the foredeck of the Titanic looking at the stars. One of them spies a large object up ahead and comments on it. The other notes the object and comments, “its just an ice cube in a large saltwater bath.” A few seconds goes by and the first again notes the object, observing that it is approaching fast. Again, her companion dismisses it with the words, “the Captain knows what he is doing.” Not long after, they both begin to notice that the iceberg is a threat but try to calm themselves with assurances that the crew are able and the Captain experienced. You can see the desperate attempt to remain calm, and the mutual feeling of helplessness the couple felt. Then the ship hits the iceberg. You know the rest of the story.
I mention this because that same feeling of frustration and helplessness has come on to me recently. The signs up ahead are not good.
In conversation with friends and family, I hear that banks are offering incredibly low interest rates on CD’s and IRA. Lower than the rate of inflation. Also, banks are now offering very low (historically low?) interest rates on loans. Both indicate that banks are awash with money and finding few willing to borrow it.
Credit union and bank failures are coming hard and fast to the point where the FDIC and its credit union companion have been forced to pull additional funds from their member banks to offset the losses.
At the Northeast Conference recently held by the Campaign for Liberty, two economists both predicted that spending jag we have been on will come back to bite us with hyperinflation. A local banker I talked to also indicated that this is a real concern in the banking community.
While Ben and company sing their siren song of “the danger has passed”, a lot of people on the street and in positions to know, are not so sure. When the media tell us our Captain and his crew know what they are doing, I can’t help but recall the scene mentioned earlier.
Is there any hope? Yes, but it will require a change of Captain, Crew, and Course before we stand a chance of avoiding the on-coming iceberg. The real question, however, is do we have time?
Tuesday evening I attended a Healthcare is a Human Right forum in Montpelier. I wasn’t expecting much, really—a few heartstring pulling stories, empty rhetoric and/or fanatical support for a healthcare overhaul from attending legislators and a manipulated question and answer session. I think I must be a prophet because that’s exactly how it played out. I wanted to go because legislators from WashingtonCounty would be on the panel. I also wanted to learn a thing or two about organizing. I was happy to meet up with a few Tea Party folks and altogether the “opposition” camp amounted to 5 people.
Upon entering we came to a long table jam packed with information and paraphernalia from the Vermont Workers’ Center, the group which has made “Healthcare is a Human Right” (HHR) a slogan known in practically every household in VT and beyond. They have adapted an iconic symbol of Rosie the Riveter into a nurse who I would not want to look at the wrong way in a bar. The VWC has impeccable branding. The red shirts and signs are everywhere. This was the second HHR event I’ve attended. They are well organized and seem to have infinite funding. They even had free bottles of water and all the Ben & Jerry’s you could eat.
The turnout was lower than I had expected. The MontpelierHigh School auditorium holds 600 people. I’d estimate the room was about ¼ full. I’m not sure if this is considered good for this type of event but seeing as there was little to no public advertising (and I found out through the Tea Party list) I would give it a thumbs up in that area. I have a feeling the opposition turnout would have been slightly higher had the forum not been scheduled for what was GOP caucus night in most towns around the state.
A long line of tables was set up on the stage for the legislators. There was also a podium with a microphone and a desk next to it with a mike. The organizers provided interpretive services for the hard of hearing which I thought was a great touch. However, after the initial introduction I don’t recall seeing the interpreter signing.
Above the legislator table on the back curtain were 5 placards with the words “Universality”, “Equity”, “Accountability”, “Transparency” and “Participation” printed on them. All of the legislators from WashingtonCounty were invited but some did not attend (most notably Republicans). Seated at the table were Senators Bill Doyle and Ann Cummings, and Representatives Paul Poirier, Mary Hooper, Janet Ancel, Tony Klein and Topper McFaun. The meeting began at 7pm, Rep. Tess Taylor arrived at the table at 8:10.
The introduction consisted of a short welcome followed by a summary of Article 25 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For those unfamiliar with this Article, here it is:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
On the surface, who could argue with these noble assertions? That is until you follow the slippery slope that these folks are treading down the paths to universal provision of food, clothing and the very broad “social services”. Many of us would not consider the labor of one to be the right of another but I digress.
Following this we heard from 4 speakers. One gentleman had had a life threatening kidney problem which forced him to make the unconscionable decision between his money and his life. He went on to discuss how he had ended up negotiating with the doctors and hospital because he was uninsured. He ended up making a deal on the price of his surgery. He was even granted the option to pay as he could afford after the services were rendered. That’s something that a lot of these HHR people seem to forget—when you need services you get them, regardless of your ability to pay at the time.
The next speaker was a self-employed carpenter who has been uninsured most of his adult life. Health insurance that he could afford came along with a $10,000 deductible. And you know, I could kind of sympathize with the guy. I’ve been uninsured before, too. But I bet he wasn’t going to the doctor for a sniffle as many people with “good” insurance do, just because they have it and want to get their money’s worth. But again I digress.
What I found most shocking about his testimony was his assertion that the United States lacks creativity, innovation and ingenuity because people don’t have health insurance. Really, that came as quite a surprise to me. I had never drawn a parallel between the two before. That must explain the dip in my collage-production during the time I was uninsured. Apparently, using his logic, the fact that I haven’t created a really good collage in the last few years is directly related to my lapse in health insurance coverage.
After this revelation we heard from a woman who was diagnosed with lupus and given just a short time to live. Her testimony was very heartfelt. She’s a single mom and had to make the hard choice that so many have to make—medication or sustenance and shelter. I genuinely sympathized with this woman. I’m not cold and greedy, I think the health insurance situation in this state needs to be reformed. But I still don’t agree that the labor of a health care provider is a human right.
The fellow who came after her gave a brief, somewhat inarticulate description of what the principles on the placards above the legislators meant. I don’t fault him for not being able to move beyond the talking points, though. There is an overwhelming lack of detail in these arguments.
The legislators were then asked if they felt that health care is a human right. Bill Doyle was emphatic in answering in the affirmative and also stated that health care must be transparent. I somehow missed what Ann Cummings, Mary Hooper and Tony Klein had to say about this specifically. Poirier said that it is a "basic right" and that people ought to have equal opportunity and access. He also let us know that H.100, the House version of the single-payer healthcare bill is “going nowhere.” Mary Hooper stated that health insurance needs to be discussed more and that it should not be tied to employment.
Janet Ancel said that health care is a "basic human right" and recited talking points that left me a little glazed over. So it was a good thing Tony Klein was next. He was a fireball, ranting about how the problem is money and that “we” need to get people out of the way who are making the money. As you can imagine this got the crowd going and he got the biggest applause of the night on this one. Later in the conversation he assured the crowd that he would threaten Shap Smith with revolution if this issue didn’t get a fair shake in the legislature. And they call US radicals!
Topper McFaun, who has often bucked his party over health care reform stated that health care is "not a right but a public good" which should be handled similarly to the Police or Fire Departments. He said health care should be a non-profit industry and the government should ensure that everyone is covered. But his party affiliation did come through to some extent when he asserted that Vermont ought to have waivers which would allow the state to do what we want to do rather than what Washington wants.
Following this a Q & A session commenced. Written questions were to be submitted and then a moderator posed the questions to a designated legislator or the legislator of her choice. One question was what the roadblocks are to meaningful reform. An overarching theme (or just the natural result of having politicians speak one after the other) was the lack of political will. (This was when Tony Klein threatened revolution.) Bill Doyle kindly let the crowd know that they should be targeting the Health and Welfare and Government Operations Committees. One of the gals that I sat with had submitted a question asking the panel how they expected for these VT bills (H. 100 and S. 88) to work when universal coverage was passed in Massachusetts and is failing. The Q & A was conveniently wrapped up right after her question (the last, I believe) was submitted and disregarded .
We did, however, get a chance to speak with the legislators after the event—which was respectful and (mostly) intelligent and overall was much more satisfying than the forum itself. For the most part the legislators were approachable. McFaun and Poirier seemed to be the only 2 that really had their heads wrapped around the issue and were more than willing to engage now and in the future. Others, notably Mary Hooper, seemed to have a much looser grasp on the big picture and was caught contradicting herself a few times.
After all was said and done I left impressed by the organization of the event. The tone was very civil though that could be due to the fact that the “opposition” was very much in the minority. There are more of these going on around the state. I doubt the events will be any different wherever they are but I would encourage you to attend, if for nothing else than to observe the organization and talk to your legislators after the forum.
However there were an awful lot of unanswered questions—how would this undertaking be financed (McFaun offered up a sales tax, otherwise the only mention was on the flyer in a summary of the bills: “system of broad-based taxes”)? Would the “principle” of participation force compliance? The bills want every resident of Vermont to be covered. Would someone who moved to the state uninsured instantly be covered? Findings which support the creation of this bill mention the lack of sustainability in the current health care model. How would these bills fix that? How exactly would health care quality improve with a universal system?
You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. – Winston Churchill Fellow Americans we live in a time when to have enemies or to wage active opposition to the oppressions of our would be masters is to invite ridicule and scorn and in some cases outright prosecution and/or assault at the hands of our self proclaimed betters. Our legislative and czarist oppressors and their sycophants at large amongst the population have occupied the self appointed seat of “they who know better”. All we need do is acquiesce to their demands and we shall be taken care of. The new aristocracy aided and abetted by a willing media, Marxist “social” organizations and a Federal government bent on unifying all power unto itself have promised to meet your every whim, fulfill your every desire though first you must surrender your liberty to them. You must surrender individualism, freedom of expression and thought, the wages of your labor and your very body to the regime. Upon surrendering your birthright you will receive trinkets in the form of federal subsidies, universal healthcare, housing assistance, fuel assistance and any other desire the state can satisfy by first stealing from one and giving to another. This used to be called theft; today it is called equitable redistribution. In the end it is called tyranny.
Ultimately these people are not liberal’s, they are not centrists; they are not unifiers or the adjusters of social equity. They are the enemies of America and everything this nation stood for. Left, right, centrist, conservative, liberal. They are none of these. They are ENEMIES of the Republic. They do not stand for freedom, they do not promote the individual as sovereign, nor do they stand for liberty or the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property). They are statists at best, Marxist collectivists at worst. They and their thoughts, ideas, philosophies have already been proven wrong. One need only study the dust bin of history to see where their desires lead. They lead to pogroms, internments, mass graves the neutralization and ultimate elimination of liberty. Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Stalin’s Soviet Union. All promised the great lie; Freedom via slavery which resulted in the deaths of untold millions and the outright crushing of the human spirit.
In the final analysis they will never surrender their quest to subjugate mankind to their totalitarianism. They will legislate, they will berate, they will use organized thugs and in the end they will use animal like force to achieve their aims.
In response I will remind them that we are a nation born of rugged individualism and fierce independence. I will remind them that we have been here before and faced an equally able enemy who bested us in military force, economics, and in popular support. I will remind them that as little as three percent of our colonial forefather’s fought actively on the side of liberty and ultimately prevailed.
We will continue to redress grievance and use every peaceful means available to defeat the statist juggernaut seeking to crush and destroy our nation. However make no mistake; we will not surrender our liberties without a fight.
We declare this day, the 12 of September 2009 that we will not surrender one more inalienable right.
Environmentalist Advocates Ending the Modern Economy
Posted on July 13th, 2009 by Lee Doren in Bureaucrash HQ
What does an entire generation that has never faced evil do to justify its own existence? It simply invents an evil and devotes its energy forcing everyone else to fight it. Of course, I’m talking about radical environmentalism.
Previous generations had clear struggles to overcome. The greatest generation overcame Nazism and Fascism. The civil rights movement fought draconian laws that excluded entire segments of the population from participating in the economy. Now, with Communism defeated, how does a citizen progress? Well, if you’re on the political Left, you simply fight a gas that all humans exhale and force millions to believe that our very existence on this Planet is evil. That way the struggle is endless because Utopia is the ultimate goal.
Sadly, many people around the world who consider themselves environmentalists never actually read, or listen to, the ideas spouted by those who currently lead the green movement. While, most people want clean air and water, few in the “compassionate majority” would support what the radical minority seeks to accomplish. In fact, I just read an editorial that articulates the minority viewpoint quite well, “Taking Shorter Showers Doesn’t Cut It: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change,” by Derrick Jensen, Orion Magazine. posted July 13, 2009.
Unlike Carol Browner and others currently in power, Jensen does not hide his true intentions; although his views still permeate the green profession. Notably, Jensen begins his editorial by equating environmentalism with the struggle against Nazism and Fascism:
Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?
It takes someone with enormous intellectual depth to analogize the fight against throwing people in gas chambers to the fight against SUV exhaust. Like I said earlier, if there is no evil to fight, and no struggle to overcome, simply invent one. Also, it is rather disturbing that Jensen implicitly supports the Communist Revolution by identifying with those who fought the Tsars. History has demonstrated that the Communists made the Tsars look like saints despite the Tsarist oppression.
However, like the Reds of old, the Greens of today require everyone to support their cause. Jensen articulates this viewpoint quite well:
“[I]f we avidly participate in the industrial economy—we may in the short term think we win because we may accumulate wealth, the marker of “success” in this culture. But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses. If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. The third option, acting decisively to stop the industrial economy, is very scary for a number of reasons, including but not restricted to the fact that we’d lose some of the luxuries (like electricity) to which we’ve grown accustomed, and the fact that those in power might try to kill us if we seriously impede their ability to exploit the world—none of which alters the fact that it’s a better option than a dead planet. Any option is a better option than a dead planet.”
So, Jensen advocates remaking the entire economy, even calling electricity a “luxury.” I am sure those siting in hospital beds around the country, who are alive today because of high-tech electrical machines, would appreciate knowing that environmentalists advocate limiting electricity. Of course, Jensen’s argument is that if we do not follow his lead, the apocalypse is on the horizon so those dying in hospitals should sacrifice for the good of humanity.
It has in all objective measures become a religion. But, unlike most religions, environmentalism is allowed in our public schools and citizens generally tolerate forced adherence to its tenets. Jensen concludes with the Nazi analogy to remove all doubt that he truly believes in the moral equivalence of Nazism and environmental degradation:
“The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.”
Overall, it is extremely important that the public is aware of environmentalism’s true goals. It is not about saving the Environment. Instead, it is about rapidly changing everyone’s way of life and scaling back the prosperity that took thousands of years to create.
I have heard your arguments, warnings, and claims, ad nauseum, regarding why we should have governmental intrusion into health care. You refuse to listen to your constituents, like myself, and continue on in your disobediant ways. Since, you seem more than willing to disregard the voices of millions of Americans, I have been forced to call upon one of the great minds of 20th Century America who will make our position clear and hopefully he will be able to break through to you.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."- C.S. Lewis
America we have a choice before us. As August comes to a close and our congressional representatives depart their home states and return to the federal environ of Washington, D.C. we can choose to:
1. Adhere to the classical western and American ideal of sovereignty whereby the individual is master of his own destiny or
2. We can allow the federal government and its collectivist’s allies to force collectivism upon us the point of government gun.
The battle as of late whether it be in regards to the nationalization of health care, cap and trade, TARP and/or the plethora of “crises” that have been afflicted upon the American people by previous and current administrations comes down to control.
Who will control you, your family, your business, your money, your property and your choices? We are being asked to confer our individual responsibility, our very sovereignty to the federal government and their fellow travelers who have deemed the American citizen as incapable of administering their lives.
Largely absent in the current and past debate is should we be having this debate at all? Who decided that we require the nationalization of the private sector health care apparatus? Who decided that we need to spend billions and trillions of U.S. taxpayer monies in bailing out banks and private industry? Who decided American veterans and those that hold traditional American values are to be viewed as “enemies of the state” in accordance with the much publicized DHS domestic threat report?
Congress, special interest groups, lobbyists’, community organizers, read that as Marxist front groups, have all decided that you, Mr. and Mrs. American cannot be trusted to manage yourselves. Dare to speak out, dare to protest, dare to question the regime and quite clearly you are bought and paid for by some group. The collectivist mindset cannot admit that a rational, self synchronizing individual can exert their will and act for themselves.
We have arrived at a time and place in history where clearly we have two paths before us; the road to collectivism controlled and administered by the nanny state and their various apparatchik or the road to personal responsibility, freedom to choose, and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness (property).
One road will lead to despair, the destruction of the nation and ultimately the tyranny of the majority enforced through government force while the other will lead to individualism, freedom via personal responsibility and the continued existence of the shining light of liberty. Which road will we chose America? Whose America will survive into the future? Will it be an America whereby the political class and the new mandarins control your destiny or will it be one where the individual, exerting himself will make manifest his own destiny?
Two of the fundamental principles of a Constitutional Republic are a general respect for the Rule of Law and that all citizens are equal before the law. What these mean in practice are that everyone of us must conform to the law regardless of our personal and temporary circumstances. Also it means that Laws should be given great deference and not changed for light or transient purposes. Finally it means that ruled and ruler alike are expected to conform to the law despite temporary personal disadvantage. It is these requirements that make us a land of laws, not of men. They create an atmosphere that serves the needs of the many without infringing on the liberties of the few or the one.
However, these important concepts of our republican form of government seems to have been lost in recent years. Advocates and politicians for both sides of the duopoly have been disrespecting the law and treating it as their personal tool. The most recent example is what is happening in Massachusetts today. With the death of Sen. Kennedy, and at his pre-death request, the State of Massachusetts is seriously considering a change in their election law to allow the Governor of that State to appoint a replacement for the seat once held by Mr. Kennedy. The existing law requires that the seat remain vacant until a special election is held some months hence.
The motive for this move is the fact that without Kennedy, the Democrats who control the Senate would have a more difficult time ramming through the Obamacare Bill in the Senate. They need a firm democratic senator from Massachusetts to shore up their numbers. Given that he current governor is a Democrat, such a change in the law would assure this a result.
What makes this move even more damning is the fact that back four year ago, the law in Massachusetts provided for appointment by the governor of a senatorial replacement, exactly what is being advocated now. The twist is the law was changed because at the time the other senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry got the nomination of the Democratic Party and it looked like he would win the Presidency. If Kerry won, then the Republican Governor (Mitt Romney) would have been allowed to appoint a senator of his choice to fill the seat. So the Democratic Legislature rammed through a bill forcing the change to the current system. Now the Massachusetts Democrats are having “buyers remorse” due to a change of circumstances. It appears that no one in the Massachusetts legislature even thought about what would happen in the future or what were the long term consequences of the legislation. In essence, they changed the law for short-term personal political gain and for superficial reasons.
The above does not imply that the Republicans aren’t exempt from such dealings, only that the Kennedy case is a prime example of the rulers placing themselves above the law, thereby disrespecting it. It is no wonder that people no longer trust their elected officials and have such a negative view of the role of government. With actions like these, it is no wonder that the average person, special interest group, and lobbyist treat the power of government as a tool for personal gain. Our government has become little more than a gang of self-promoting elitists paying lip service to a love for the law while using the awesome power of government to fulfill their petty political needs. The citizens of Massachusetts, regardless of party affiliation, should be appalled by Kennedy’s request. All of us should be made aware of the destructive nature of this blatant gesture of political gamesmanship from Senator Kennedy which will live on as a final cancerous and black mark on his career.
The lawmakers and enforcers must be the first held to the requirements of the law. They must be held to the highest standard of conformity to the law. For if they are not, then how can we expect the average person to respect the law, obey it and support it. “But who,” you may ask, “will hold our leaders to this standard?” We, the citizens of our republic, must do so. For too long we have failed to do so and as a result our republic has suffered greatly in confidence, respectability, resources, and self-respect. Our laws are in shambles. Enacted with little calm, rational, and humble reasoning. Enacted without a clear understanding of the foreseeable consequences and with little regard for the possible abuses that they could cause upon the liberty, property, and opportunity of many in our nation. But for the want of a little forethought and caution, Massachusetts and this nation are faced with the wages of unintended consequences. Consequences which we can not afford now or in the future.
Once there were three little pigs who lived in a magical land where everything they said was true and money just appeared out of nowhere. While in this magical land, our pigs said and did things which were not all that good for their neighbors back home. In fact, as the three pigs spent and gave away, the forest began to lose its trees, wealth, and opportunities. Yet, the pigs didn’t care. “They are so small, docile, and far away,” Said our pigs, “that they can’t hurt us or do anything to stop us.”
One day, after a long time had passed, the pigs were finally forced to leave their golden land of lobbyist money, cocktail parties, and power lunches and return to the forest from which they came. All three were frightened. They hadn’t really been back in the forest for a long time and they had heard that the forest creatures were not happy and lurked about awaiting their return. The three pigs got together to decide how they would protect themselves when they got back to the forest.
So the first little pig said to the others, “I know what to do. I will find a small out of the way place in the far north of the forest. I will only let a few people know and only a day or two before hand. That way the other creatures will not find me.” As the other two pigs watched, the first little pig acted on his plan.
But you see the forest creatures that the pigs left back at home heard about the first little pigs plan. The forest creatures chose the pigs long, long ago to represent them. They seemed so smart and could talk so well, not like most of them. But now they found that the pigs had been gone so long that they forgot their forest. Now all the pigs wanted was to stay in their new homes far away where they caroused with other pigs and practiced their piggish ways. It seemed that the forest creatures were stuck with them, though once in awhile they would return to the forest to pretend they cared about things in the old woods. These creatures had for years tried to ignore the arrogance and stupidity of the three pigs. They tried to forgive all of the waste and destruction that the pigs had created while living in that magical land. Now, however, they had enough. Their forest was almost gone. Their hard work wasted away by those living in the magical land. Their future looked dim. They were angry and frustrated at being ignored and used by the pigs. So, once they learned of the first little pigs plan, they gathered together and met the pig in his far away place.
The little pig was shocked and frightened by the other forest creatures. He was hurt that they didn’t like his wasteful ways. He was angered that they didn’t trust him. Mostly, he was afraid that they didn’t believe his lies anymore. So the first little pig ran back into hiding and would only come out of his hiding place when no one but the media was around. The pig knew that the media would never confront him or ask embarrassing questions.
The second little pig saw what had happened to the first and was immediately afraid as well. “I don’t want to meet the other creatures,” he squeak, “I will run far away until they calm down.” So the second little pig jumped on a plane and flew to the land of good television, but bad teeth and stayed there until he was sure he could avoid running into the other forest creatures in his forest across the sea.
Finally, the third little pig, having watched his two colleagues run in fear, decided on what he thought was a better idea. “I know,” he said to himself in his heavily accented way, “I will trick the people and pretend that the forest creatures love me.” So the third little pig made a call to his friends the skunks, trolls, and lemmings that he new from the different forests in the land and said, “Come to my forest with me and pretend you are from my woods. I want you to shout down and attack the other creatures while singing my praises.” The lead skunk replied, “What’s in it for us?” “I’ll provide the transportation, signs, and t-shirts.” Replied the third pig. “What else?” growled the Trolls. “ahh….Money.?” The pig said. “You got a crowd.” Replied the skunks and the trolls. “Us too… whatever it is.” said the Lemmings.
So the third little pig held public meetings in the heart of the forest. But at each meeting, the trolls, skunks and lemmings filled the halls and chanted “go pig go.” When the local forest creatures tried to express their displeasure with and at the third little pig, they were met with howls and threats. Their voices were drowned out. The media that were there seemed surprised by the number of skunks, lemmings, and trolls that lived in their forest, but never questioned where they were from. Soon, the other forest creatures gave up trying to be heard and returned to their homes.
What would they do? How would they stop the three pigs’ wasteful and dangerous ways? I guess we will have to wait and see what the little forest creatures will do. But if they don’t act together and soon, the forest will be lost.
Whereas in the present context, government has exhibited behaviors such that they have completely eroded my trust, I am opposed to any legislation that even minimally empowers them. Some might (and have) with knee-jerk style justification, concluded that I’m something of an anarchist. That, or at the very least a laissez faire capitalist longing for the days of sweat shops, pollution and the company store. The truth is of course that there is a rightful role of government, and it is only about the excesses that I object. When the individual motivations or business incentives of various decisions are such that they are detrimental to the society, and to the extent that polite words from a neighbor are insufficient to remedy a situation, laws and government play a vital role. When the private incentives to embark a goal are insufficient to accomplish an important objective for the preservation and furtherance of the nation and its citizens, government plays a role.
