The Ban on Texting Bill: A prime example of what’s wrong with Montpelier

Recently in the media and in Montpelier, a certain bill out of the Vermont House is getting a lot of attention. That bill is H. 496, entitled “PROHIBITING TEXTING WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE.” On its face, this bill seems yet another effort by our legislature to do some good in the world, but the reality is that this bill is a prime example of what’s wrong with the way our government works.
The bill makes it a crime to use your cell phone to text message while driving. It provides for a graduated penalties from a $750 fine and up to two years in jail for a first offense, all the up to five years in jail and a $2,500 fine for a third offense. The bill clearly takes a very hard line on distracted driving. So what could be the problem? Actually several things are wrong with this bill.
First, how did this bill suddenly come up and get traction? It appears that the Federal Government decided that the states needed to clamp down on this issue, so they tied a portion of their federal highway funds (I believe 25%) to the passage of this bill. In other words, you will only get 75% of your yearly federal money for highways if you don’t do as we say. While such coercion has been ruled “constitutional” by our Supreme Court, this smacks of a federal intrusion into state affairs. Another move to render the 10th Amendment meaningless. A clear move to usurp local control by a centralized authority. On principle alone, I would vote against this bill, but principles seem to carry little currency these days.
Second, the bill is redundant. Vermont already has a anti-texting law in place, its called “negligent operation” (23 VSA Section 1091). Negligent operation applies to any driver who operates his vehicle in a negligent manner. Negligent operation is defined as “negligent operation in violation of this subsection shall be ordinary negligence, examining whether the person breached a duty to exercise ordinary care.” Clearly texting while driving is a "breach of duty to exercise ordinary care.” Ergo, a law enforcement officer can cite any driver for texting while driving as it is negligent operation almost by definition. Additionally, the penalties provided for in the Negligent Operation Statute are similar if not the same as ban on texting. So if the crime is the same, and the enforcement is the same, and the penalties are the same, then why do we need another law when we should be enforcing the existing law we have on the books? More laws don’t make a better world.
Third, the bill does nothing to prevent the offense, only punish it after the fact. For those who think that laws serve as a deterrent, think again. Responsible people don’t break laws, generally. And my experience has been that no one currently sitting in court or in jail really thought to themselves, I shouldn’t do this because it is illegal. Most don’t think they would be caught, much less whether it was legal or not. Some people are incredibly stupid and no amount of additional law making can make up for that. People do stupid things and innocent people get hurt. I am not sure how having an additional law on the books will make up for the tragedy that results nor necessarily prevent them. Citing a teenager for texting after she/he rapped his/her car around a tree seems of little use or significance. The key is how do we prevent the behavior, not how to punish it.
My point is that the legislature has two ways to seek enforcement, either as a primary offense or a secondary offense. A primary offense is one in which the officer can conduct a motor vehicle stop if he suspects that an offense is or has occurred. A secondary offense is one in which the officer discovers a violation subsequent to a legitimate stop for another offense. An example of a primary offense is a missing headlight. The officer drives by and sees one of your lights out. He can stop you to investigate the condition of the car. A secondary offense would be if the officer stopped you for a missing headlight and found that you were not wearing your seatbelt. He could then cite you for a seatbelt violation.
With this bill, the legislature will have to decide when enforcement takes place. If it is after the fact (secondary) then the law is almost meaningless unless the offender was stupid enough to continue texting after being pulled over. If it is before the fact (primary), then it opens a whole can of worms. How would an officer know that someone was texting? Wouldn’t such a law provide an easy pretext for Officers to conduct random stops? Since such a stop would be considered a legal investigation, the officer would have the right to visually search your vehicle even if in the end he can’t prove you did anything wrong.
My fourth and final point is this bill assumes that we are all children and know not what we do. Seriously, does Montpelier believe that parents, students, driving instructors, and the rest of society does not understand that trying to text while driving is a bad idea? I have yet to meet any parent, teacher, or young adult who thought it was a good idea. I have a daughter who is learning to drive, and I have yet to encourage her to drive while distracted. In fact, both my wife and I emphasize to her that any distractions (food, conversations, phones, radio) lessen her ability to drive safely. And we do this in absences of any bill to that effect. So how does this bill do something we aren’t already doing?
Overall, like so many other pieces of legislation passed in recent years, the ban on texting while driving bill sounds really good, but does very little. It treats the average driver like a child. It creates redundant laws ripe for abuse or rendered meaningless by circumstances. It serves only to highlight the intrusive nature of the federal government and the subservience of our state governments. Ultimately, it’s a feel good bill that further clogs the statute books, courthouses, and jails without significantly addressing the real problem is claims to correct. It is the prime example of what’s wrong with Montpelier

An Open Letter to Scott Brown

Just over a week ago the liberty community was waiting with baited breath as Massachusetts voters took the fate of the nation in their hands and cast their votes in a special senatorial election. Fifty-two out of every hundred voted for Scott Brown and by nine o’clock that night the word was in – Brown had painted a loud smear of red across a state that was considered pure blue. The second American Revolution was on.

As much as I appreciate the people of Massachusetts (have you noticed that, unlike Martha Coakley, I can spell the state’s name?) and admire Brown and his advisors for running a smart and effective campaign, I have become too jaded by what I’ve seen in the past to trust Brown or any other politician. Almost from the moment I watched him take the podium last Tuesday night I started composing a letter in my head that would set a few things straight with Mr. Brown. Considering some of the discussions and observations of the past week, I think it’s time to put that letter down on paper, or at least out in electrons.

Dear Mr. Brown,
Congratulations on recognizing the most important political trend of the decade, the liberty movement, and hitching your wagon to our excellent team of horses. Though I suspect you do not agree with much of what we stand for (your yes vote for Romney care was our first clue), you were wise enough to at least pretend you do. My advice for you is that you keep right on pretending. You also might want to start incorporating some of those principles and values into your own value system, as well as your speeches. I noticed that your acceptance speech last Tuesday night was long on “I” and “me” and rather short on specifics of political philosophy. I suggest you immerse yourself in the study of the fundamental positions of our nation’s founders took regarding limited government, states’ rights and fiscal and personal responsibility and anchor yourself with that document in which they incorporated those values and principles – the Constitution. Though I understand the Constitution repels most of the current congress like garlic repels vampires, you might want to make like marinara sauce and add as much garlic as you can. To use a well-known radio talk show host’s famous dictum, learn it, love it, live it.

Going along with this, I suggest you pay close attention to any communication you receive from well-informed and thoughtful constituents. You’ll know who they are – they’ll know the names and numbers of pending legislation, might include some important facts and data and will display an overall tone of honest concern for this country and the direction it is taking. Save your form letters for the many communications you will receive from those who want you to do something for them; save your energy for those who want you to do (or not do) something for the country. Engage those citizens who offer you well-informed commentary and put forth workable and creative solutions. Recognize that Congress is not the only place things get done – in fact, it is probably the last place things get done, at least wise and helpful things. Honor the hard-working and innovative people of this country who make it work and make it your mission to allow their voices to join the public discourse. The frustration felt by the middle class, go-to citizens who make this country run is reasonable and real. Acknowledge that and do everything in your power to alleviate it. Give a voice to the truly voiceless – Mr. and Mrs. Good American.

If you are busy listening to the people who make this country work you won’t have much time to listen to your party bosses and that’s a very good thing. Perhaps you could make this your inner manta – “People and principles over party.” Repeat that every time you stand in from of a mirror to shave or brush your teeth. Have a little sign made up and place it on your desk. Scroll it across the bottom of your emails. The false dichotomy that is the two-party system doesn’t leave much room for all the other points of view out there and it certainly doesn’t leave much room to diverge from politics as usual. How about if you try the politics of the unusual? If you think it can’t be done I have two words for you – Ron Paul. I suggest you talk to Mr. Paul and ask him how he has managed to be re-elected time after time while carving his own niche within the House of Representatives. We need more Ron Pauls – those men and women who have developed a foundational philosophy of governance by which they stand no matter what. Build your own foundation, Mr. Scott, and stand upon it. Even if it does not include all the building materials we might have used we will respect you for your integrity.

Don’t get too caught up in your current superstar status Mr. Brown. Celebrities, be they in entertainment, business or politics, tend to fade when the next Lady Gaga comes along. Enjoy your current popularity but do so with a sense of humor and a sense that this is a temporary state thrust upon you by superficial circumstances and shallow people. Remember where you came from and keep yourself grounded in reality. Appreciate the earnest and sincere among your staff and your constituents and turn to them for advice and guidance. Remember your religious principles and use them to help direct your course. I believe you are a Christian so I encourage you to follow the example of Jesus Christ in his interactions with people: teach rather than dictate and serve the people who gave you the gift of higher office with humility and thankfulness. Never forget why you are there.

And that brings me to my last point – never forget how you got there. Sure, there are plenty of factors in your electoral victory but the most important one is this – the foot soldiers in the liberty movement got you elected. First they recognized and capitalized on their own and their fellow citizens’ dissatisfaction with the federal and state governments. Then they started meeting, learning, rallying, writing, organizing, questioning and working to change things. They had a near-miss in the NY-23 special election but learned from experience. You, Mr. Brown, reaped the rewards of this newly active and savvy group of ordinary citizens doing extraordinary things. I’m not convinced that your election was a victory for liberty but I am convinced it was a victory for the liberty movement. After months of being ignored, minimized and mocked we showed ourselves a force to be reckoned with. I will repeat here my favorite Ghandi quote – “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.”

We won in Massachusetts and we plan on winning in many other states. Though they are not admitting it, politicians are now looking over their shoulders for those big yellow Gadsden flags. They should be – and so should you, Mr. Brown. Because we put you where you are and we can send you home. Be very careful and, whatever you do, don’t tread on us.

Vermont Campaign for Liberty's Core Principles: Fiscal Responsibility

At no other time in American History has there been a been a greater need for fiscal restraint. Yet, our government, whether led by either of the major parties, seems unwilling or unable to live within its means and structure our state and national finances in a sustainable way. Their irresponsible actions and spendthrift ways stand in stark contrast with the frugal intent of our founding fathers or our heritage of fiscal responsibility.

This heritage also extends to the framers of our Vermont Constitution who in Chapter 1, Article 18 gave this admonition to both citizens and politicians alike:
“That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free; the people ought, therefore to pay particular attention to these points, in the choice of officers and representatives, and have a right, in a legal way, to exact a due and constant regard to them, from their legislators and magistrates, in making and executing such laws as are necessary for the good government of the State”.

You will note that the writers of our Constitution specifically enumerated the attributes of good government as “moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality…”. Clearly in their minds, our founding fathers new the importance of fiscal responsibility and sober deliberation about our budget. Yet, the adherence to these words and the practice of their clear guidelines seems to be wanting in Montpelier.
Over the last few decades, our government has exceeded it power by recklessly spending our money and weakening the private sector. Social and Corporate handouts, ever expanding and unfunded social programs, and a growing bureaucracy has led this state to the edge of bankruptcy and an overwhelming future debt load. Heavy taxation serves as a major drag on the economy. A government that can not manage its fiscal house will soon bring all of our houses down with it. The only answer is to return to a fiscally sound government that focuses on its essential functions and not wasting taxpayer’s dollars on pork-barrel projects, feel-good programs, and expanding governmental involvement in people’s lives and wallets.

Governments do certain things very well like roads, courts, and law enforcements. However, Government does a very poor job when it intrudes upon the market, or people’s lives. Governments are especially destructive and wasteful when it tries to be everything for everybody. Today, we are saddled with the last example and it is costing us dearly for so little return.

Over the last 40 years, the United States has had six recessions of at least a year each in length. Each time, our State Budgets go into crisis. Each time, our legislature takes half-measures, temporary fixes, and band-aid projects to try and ride out the storm. Once its over, its back to business as usual. Yet, as the recessions come and go, they grow worse.

With a growing budgetary crisis, real leadership and a firm adherence to our nation’s fundamental principles are needed. Montpelier must stop asking how to pay for everything, and start asking itself, “What should we be paying for?” “What are the vital functions of government?” “What is a sustainable budget that will work in good times and bad?” Until this discussion occurs within the State House, they will continue to spend our tax dollars without any hope that this cycle of budgetary crisis will end.
Fiscal responsibility requires that we all make the hard choices, and look not at immediate gains, but at the long term consequences of our budgetary decisions. Fiscal responsibility means paying for what government must do and avoiding the temptation of having government do something it should not. It means understanding the difference between needs and wants. It means handling the public’s money as a vital trust and not as if it were their own. It means recognizing that what sounds good right now may be financially catastrophic in the future. Ultimately, it means the knowledge that when government spends tax dollars it is really taking someone’s hard earn money and giving it to another. Therefore, the reason for this “theft” must be overwhelming and vital to the continue functioning of our nation and society. Our government has gone far too long operating in a manner opposed to this principle which has led us to this point. Nevertheless, it is the only road back to a sound and sustainable budget.

Why the working Vermonter should support the Vermont Campaign for Liberty.

In the media and out on the streets of Vermont and the United States, there is a tendency to portray the growing liberty movement as a conservative movement. This tendency claims that the core principles of the Vermont Campaign for Liberty and its allies in the movement have nothing to offer the average working Vermonter. Yet, the truth is quite the contrary. The Vermont Campaign and the Liberty Movements are not “conservative” groups, but citizen groups who seek to create a political, social, and economic atmosphere that will allow the average person a fair chance to earn a living, impact their community, and have a real say in their government. In fact, the core principles of the Vermont Campaign are perfectly in accord with the needs and concerns of the average person.
Fiscal responsibility is one of the core principles of the Vermont Campaign. We recognize that the dollars that our government spends is the tax dollars of the average person. We know that a spendthrift government ultimately wastes the working persons hard earn money and undermines their economic health. The government does this in three ways.
First, it devalues your wages by devaluing your currency. By turning on the printing presses and churning out billions in corporate bailouts, corporate welfare dollars, and gift giving to overseas interests, the wages of an average person become worth less. For each dollar they print and give away to these interests, your wages (which have not really gone up in over a decade) become weaker. You make the same money, but are able only to by less of the things you need to survive.
Second, the federal deficit weakens the dollar further in overseas markets which translate into higher prices for goods here in America. The once cheap imports are slowly becoming more expensive. Thereby, making it still harder for the average family to make ends meet.
Third and finally, the government’s spendthrift ways will and has caused an increase in taxation. So now for every dollar you earn 20-28 cents goes to your government. In other words, for every eight hours you work, at least 2 hours of labor are for the benefit of the government. Looking at the future unfunded liabilities created by a runaway federal government, our children and our children’s children are looking at paying an even greater share of their wages just to balance the books. And this situation does not take into consideration programs currently under consideration in Montpelier and Washington.
The Vermont Campaign opposes the growth of the American Empire which is caused by Washington’s on-going policy of intervention in foreign affairs. Our core principle of a Non-interventionist position does not mean that we should not defend ourselves from foreign attack. What it does mean is that we should not seek to invade foreign lands to impose our will. We should not declare war or send troops to other regions unless the safety and security of the United States is clearly in danger.
So why is this position pro-working Vermonter? Well the historical truth is that the rich declare wars and the working people fight them. Throughout this nation’s history, it has been the working people and the poor that populate our military, either voluntarily or, more often than not, by being drafted. The cost of war upon the average person, in economic and personal terms, are disproportionally high. Yet the benefits of war and the warfare state tend to be realized by those who have it easier. If we are to suffer these loses in treasure and lives, then the reasons for it must be vital to the continued existence of the nation and not the needs of the select few or interests outside of our own.
We will defend this nation to our final breath, but will not sacrifice one life for the temporary needs of global real politics.
The Vermont Campaign also believes that limited Constitutional Government is the best defense against the power of big business. Today, in Washington, it is not a secret whose viewpoints and needs are being responded to, mega- and multi-national corporations. This is of course not surprising. With such a concentration of power occurring within the 10 square miles along the Potomac, like moths to a flame, big business recognizes the potential profitability of big government. By pouring millions in campaign contributions, lobbyist, and resources, big business has used the power of a centralized government to manipulate the laws and the markets.
When this nation was founded, the Federal Government has certain limited powers in which to oversea the interest of the nation as a whole. Those powers were defined in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States’ Constitution. As the power of the Federal Government has expanded beyond those specific powers and have encompassed almost every aspect of our daily lives, corporate and special interests have seized upon this opportunity and made it their own. Now the United States’ Code is filled with special interest legislation. Our budget is weighted down with pork barrel and special interest projects. Our government intrudes upon the market not for the benefit of all, but for the benefit of the select few. Corporate welfare and bailouts compete with social welfare as the biggest items in our unbalanced fiscal house. And who ultimately pays the bill? The average tax payer pays.
Finally, the Vermont Campaign’s commitment to individual liberty should be very attractive to those who work hard for their livelihood. Everyday, you struggle to achieve the “American Dream” of a good home, a good retirement, and the freedom to earn a living as you see fit. Yet, on a daily basis, the government steps in your way and makes that struggle even harder.
Your land and what you do with it is always at the whim of some governmental board located either in Washington, Montpelier, or your town offices. Just the simple act of building on or changing the use of your property can involve substantial cost and paperwork. None of which serves as a barrier for those who can afford it.
Your retirement is constantly being debased by our fiat currency. It is subject to outrageous taxation after already being taxed once on the funds as you earn them. And with governments help, it can be confiscated without payment by your employer or his investment firm. (Enron anyone?) Right now, most Americans face a life-time of work without hope of real retirement in their golden years.
Adding insult to injury, the government controls how you may organize to fight for better wages and what constitutes a union. Even when you form a union, the government gets to decide who wins the labor dispute, whether you can strike, and what type of labor action is “legal”. The slow and steady death of labor organizing has come about in part by big business’s ability to fill the coffers of Washington politicians and thereby whittle away at the rights of the average person.
Overall it is a rare moment in a working Vermonter’s life when he, the fruits of his labor, and his property are left entirely alone by our intrusive and omnipotent government. For decades this has been the status quo. And now is the time to stop this behemoth and turn back the tide of government for and by the special interests and the mega-corporation.
This movement is about changing the status quo away from a massive government controlled by mega-corporations who use the power of government to get what they want. We want a state and country dedicated to service and obedience to all average Americans, not just some special or money interests. We feel that if we return to the founding principles of this nation and if more of us assume their responsibilities as citizens, that change is not only doable, but inevitable.

Amazing Insanity: Montpelier's non-response to the Budget crisis

With hard budget times ahead, Montpelier continues to amaze me with its almost unhinged attitude toward the fiscal state of our beloved Green Mountains. Last year, after receiving warning after warning about the huge shortfall in revenues the state was facing, our Governor and Legislature spent a vast majority of the 2009 session duking it out over gay marriage and other bills of substantially lesser importance. Cuts, the few there were, were hardly sufficient to provide for the danger ahead. Not surprisingly, the decrease in tax revenues were worst than projected and the budget had to be adjusted accordingly.
Now here we are entering the 2010 session and our troubles continue to mount. As many of you know, we are facing a $158 million dollar projected shortfall for this coming year. And we expect a similar amount, if not more in 2011. So what is the response from our fearless leaders?
Well, the Democrats feel that a massive budgetary crisis is the prime opportunity to expand the size of government by instituting a universal health insurance program. Yes, with the success of Medicare/Medicaid (bankrupt) and Catamount Health Care (bankrupt) in mind, the leadership in the legislature thought that it was high time to try yet another governmental scheme for health care. Unfortunately, it appears that few, if any, of these bills now under consideration serious contemplate how to pay for the program. But since magical thinking is the latest political craze, one can understand their somewhat twisted logic in doing so.
However, the Governor was not to be out done. Despite ample evidence that a top heavy bureaucracy is not sustainable in such a small and aging state, our Governor has decided that nothing can be eliminated. That all agencies currently existing are vital and necessary to the good functioning of government. As a result, he proposed across the board cuts in funding against all departments. While that sounds fair and just, the truth is these cuts will hurt our law enforcement agencies, judiciary, and infrastructure while maintaining redundant and wasteful agencies. In the end, even if his proposals were adopted, they will not provide for a sustainable future for Vermont’s fiscal house and will undermine those areas of state action which have traditionally been at the core of its function.
The honest and clear answer to this budgetary crisis is not the expansion of government, or raising tax rates. Nor is it the short-term whittling of agency budgets. In order to create a sustainable budget for both good times and bad, Montpelier needs to take a hard look at its spending and determine which involve the essential functions of government and which are beyond their office. Those functions that are essential should be fully funded. Those that are not must be eliminated. Courts, polices, jails, roads, and other infrastructure are essential to our state and its economy. Art councils, film boards, legislative studies, corporate welfare agencies, and the like are not. They are nice to have, but we can’t afford it.
Until Montpelier has a serious discussion as to what State government should and shouldn’t involve itself in, we will continue to face one budget crisis after another for the foreseeable future. Such a discussion will be a hard one to have, but it is obviously necessary if we are to have any shot at reaching a sustainable budget that is good for our economy and provides for effective, limited government.

One cheer for Mr. Brown!

The election results coming out of Massachusetts has been greeted by many in the liberty movement with great joy. Mr. Brown’s victory has been heralded as the turning point in American Politics and at least one prominent magazine declared that his victory was the signal for our nation’s “return to conservatism”. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to catch the enthusiasm that some in the liberty movement have over this election. And the reasons are simple, the real losers of this election is the liberty movement.

First of all, let me say “one cheer for Scott Brown.” Yes, his election creates the 41st vote which allows for a potential filibuster relative to the Democrats’ health care plan. Though in practice, the door remains open for an attempt push through by parliamentary procedure. So his election is not a total loss. However, that is as far as I am willing to go. Nothing coming out of this campaign indicates that Mr. Brown will serve to stop corporate bailouts, a run away fed, governmental violations of our civil liberties, an imperialist foreign policy, or big government in general.

The underlying reality is that Mr. Brown’s positions and voting record hardly leads me to think that he will challenge the status quo of statism in Washington nor will the individual liberties (personal and economic) of the average American find a spokesperson in him. Mr. Brown’s platform consists of statist proposals and federal involvement in local issues. His foreign policy is more of the same. He is almost totally silent on issues of individual liberty. Mr. Brown is hardly a fair representation of the liberty movement nor can his vote be considered an advance for the movement.

There are those on the tea party and liberty blogs who claim that we had to vote for Brown, regardless of his flaws, because the Democrats would continue down the road to disaster. Again, besides the health care issue, what makes any of them think that anything will change? And I have to ask, “if we can’t vote our conscience and our ideals in an important election, when can we?” Finally, “when will there be an election that this claimed state of emergency doesn’t exists?”

For the establishment GOP the answer is simple. We will always have to vote our fears and we will always be one election away from disaster if we don’t vote for them. One would think that after decades of this rather worn-out, and shallow argument, people would begin to realize that nothing will change until change is forced upon the establishment. A good example of when people vote their beliefs, not their fears is the recent election in New York, where a third party candidate almost pulled out a victory against his establishment opponent. And why did the status quo candidate win, because her GOP counterpart endorsed her!

Following the election in Massachusetts, I happen to be watching MSNBC, who were sent reeling by the results. During their extensive coverage, a series of polls were put up on the screen. The numbers they quoted should be a real source of encouragement for the liberty movement.

In part, these polls showed that both Democrats and Republics in Washington has a negativity ratings in the 60% range. That two-thirds of the public felt that the nation was still going in the wrong direction. That Obama’s approval numbers slipped below 50%. If anything, there numbers clearly indicate that people are tired of the status quo, the so-called “two-party” system, and the on-going neo-con and neo-lib agendas dominating Washington. They voted for change in November, 2008 and still want it despite their huge disappointment with Obama.

So how do we give them the change they want? Well, you don’t start by compromising your beliefs to vote for the status quo. You start by getting the message out their that we have a vision of change. A vision that includes individual and economic liberty, fiscal responsibility, limited constitutional government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. We locate and support candidates how embrace this message, not because it is politically expedient, but because they too have that vision. We demand more from the parties and not simply take their sad knock-offs as “our only choice”. We use each campaign as an opportunity to challenge the statist and proponents of the status quo. Hold their pathetic records and poor planning up to the ridicule they deserve. Finally, we recognize that change will take time and won’t come out of Washington and the other halls of power, but will arise from our communities. When the people no longer compromise their beliefs for the vain hope of temporary gain, that is when change will happen. Until then, let us not labor under the delusion that a single election will somehow stop the ruling elitist and the big government plans.

Obama Appointee Advocates Government Infiltration of Citizen Groups

In a 2008 paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule, Obama appointee Cass R. Sunstein (Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) has some disturbing views regarding how the government should deal with political dissidents whom he labels “conspiracy theorists”. The full paper is available for download here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

The most disturbing section is where Sunstein describes possible government responses to political dissidence. He states that the government might enact a BAN on conspiracy theorizing, impose taxes on the activity, or use government or hired private parties to (covertly) engage in “counterspeech”. Sunstein goes on to state:

“Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.”

Reconcile that statement with his “possible responses”, and it’s clear that we have an official in the Obama White House who imagines a scenario where the Federal government might BAN “conspiracy theorizing”. Later in the paper he admits that: “Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true.” Add that tidbit into the mix and we have an Obama adviser advocating the covert infiltration of dissident groups to interfere with discussion and dissemination of . . . the TRUTH! This puts Mr. Sunstein clearly in the ranks of “domestic enemies of the Constitution”.

Sunstein states "The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper." To which I have the answer.

When the official narratives promulgated by central government and mainstream media sources are so obviously deficient in their facts and offer less than satisfying explanations, it lends an inherent credibility to alternative theories which might be largely speculative, but nevertheless fill the voids that "mainstream" sources fail to address. Furthermore, a history filled with numerous examples of government story lines which have been proven false by later revelations
creates natural doubts as to the authenticity or comprehensiveness of any official government narrative. Government attempts to secretly marginalize or stifle such alternative viewpoints (exactly what the paper advocates) also strongly suggest that such dissenting opinions represent a "danger" to the established power structure above and beyond that posed by a simple falsehood or unsubstantiated “theory”.

Mr. Sunstein cites statistics from various polls indicating that anywhere from 33 to 49% of respondents have serious doubts about the official story of the September 11th attacks. To the extent that there are widespread doubts about the truth, authenticity, thoroughness or conclusions of any sort of government study or investigation it is incumbent upon THE GOVERNMENT (by, of and for the people) to do thorough investigative work, gather relevant facts, and release ALL necessary information to satisfy the curiosity of the citizens to the maximum degree possible. Case in point, is the fact that the 9-11 commission does not address the destruction of World Trade Center building #7, and concludes that the sources of funds used to carry out the attacks is “unimportant”. The failure of the government to address these critical issues is an insult to the citizens of The United States. Government attempts to secretly undermine individuals and organizations which are questioning these ideas only undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the government itself.

If the government and official sources are so concerned about the "truth" and "facts" being available, and so averse to what they decry as misinformation from “conspiracy theorists” why would they attempt to spread the “truth” by COVERT means? Rather than infiltrate the groups using stealth methods, why not create an open, moderated forum (perhaps on C-SPAN) where government experts go head to head with the so called “conspiracy theorists” and use their preponderance of evidence to thoroughly debunk such ideas?

Just an idea:

Episode #1: 9-11 attacks: Government experts vs. Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley and a rep from “Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth”.

Episode #2: Financial Crisis : Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner vs. Thomas Woods, William Black and Karl Denninger

Why is the government afraid to do this? Are they so doubtful of their ability to confront political dissidents with factual and logical refutation that they must attempt to undermine alternative viewpoints in anonymity?

Note: This story is now breaking from multiple news sources, I don’t know who really “broke” the story, but Glenn Greenwald at salon.com credits the following blogger with digging up this 2008 paper

“http://theragblog.blogspot.com”

Constitutional Citizenship and Responsibility

Below follows the portion of my convention speech that I was able to read. There was a fair bit of ad-libbing, so this is not a transcript of what was actually said.


“Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?'

And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right.” MLK, Jr said that.

Are we going to stand up for what’s right? Will we protect the Constitution at all costs? Even if it makes us unpopular?

So long as those of us who claim to care about freedom and liberty accept personality and politics as a substitute for real leadership and governance we will never be able to turn back the tidal wave we’re facing.

Vermonters have a duty to principle. The 18th Article of the Vermont Constitution bears this title:

"Regard to fundamental principles and virtues necessary to preserve liberty"

It doesn’t get any plainer than this, folks:

“That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles,
and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality,
are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free;

the people ought, therefore to pay particular attention to these points, in the choice of officers and representatives, and have a right, in a legal way, to exact a due and constant regard to them, from their legislators and magistrates, and in making and executing such laws as are necessary for the good government of the State.”

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for you to vote for someone who is wishy-washy in regard to the law, decadent and self-indulgent.

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for you to vote for someone who will reward idleness, wastefulness and partiality.

It is YOUR DUTY to consider the fundamental principles of justice, moderation, temperance, industry and frugality when you vote! According to our Constitution they are ABSOLUTELY necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep government free!

After the votes are counted our elected officials swear an oath or affirmation. This is what they say:

“You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that as a member of this Assembly, you will not propose, or assent to, any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to you injurious to the people,

nor do, nor consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State;

but will, in all things, conduct yourself as a faithful, honest Representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of your judgment and ability. So help you God. Under the pains and penalties of perjury.”


I know more than a few of you can think of more than a few instances where this oath has been flagrantly ignored and violated.

It is YOUR DUTY “to exact a due and CONSTANT regard for them from your legislators and magistrates!”

The Constitution will not defend itself. It is up to WE THE PEOPLE to protect it—for future generations.

It is only by standing up and claiming your rights that the government will respect them. Do not expect someone else to do it for you. Do not sit down, do not be discouraged. There are many battles which must be fought if we are to win the war. HR 1207 is an example of one such battle. We had a hugely successful petition drive in which all 3 of our Washington delegation sponsored or co-sponsored legislation intended to audit the Federal Reserve.

Every single signature that was gathered was done so coupled with education about the secrecy of the private cartel of banks we know as the Federal Reserve. We had to educate ourselves about monetary policy and inflation so that we could then turn to our friends, neighbors and strangers and answer their questions about why an audit is necessary.

So even though politicians who owe more to the powerful banking lobby than they do to the people who elected them

were able to diminish the impact of the audit by attaching it to one of their famous “reform” bills, the fact remains that

thousands of Vermonters and hundreds of thousands of people across the country learned about the Federal Reserve. Personally, learning about the Fed was what led me to Ron Paul and then to the liberty movement and Campaign For Liberty. If it was a tipping point for me it was a tipping point for many.

Education is the key to good citizenship. But citizenship consists of more than voting and paying taxes. It consists of participating in your community, and knowing your neighbors and other community members. It’s in participating together in the process that we uphold the dictate of the founders.


The Bible says, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” I don’t know about you but when I shop for produce I pick up each piece. I turn it over in my hands because one side may look beautiful but the other side may be rotten. The produce stocker is good at making sure you see just the good parts. Just like the produce stockers, politicians are masters at making sure you see just the good parts, .

Sometimes you get a piece of fruit that looks great, you buy it, bring it home and cut it open only to find that shiny, hard apple is mealy and mushy inside. And so it goes sometimes with legislators. So do you eat that apple?

Do you go back to the store and ask for more of those apples that are beautiful looking on the outside but absolutely unpalatable on the inside? No.

So why keep doing it with legislators?

It’s not about personalities and politics! It’s about principle!

We have ceased to recognize this for far too long and this is part of the reason we find ourselves in the situation we are in today—being “ruled” by a group of elites who treat us as subjects rather than employers!

So I ask you, WHERE are the good apples?

Remember what Samuel Adams said, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.” The fact that you all are sitting here today shows that the brush fires have been set. As Jeff Probst says, “Grab your torches on the way out.”

The Danger of Political Labels

This is the text of the speech I gave on January 9 at the 2nd annual Vermont Campaign for Liberty Convention

Some of my friends in the liberty movement become furious when someone calls them Republican or Conservative or by any other political description. At first I thought the reaction a bit excessive considering the common practice of grouping people according to their beliefs and affiliations.

However, I've come to understand and share their frustration. When I first ventured into political activism about a year ago, I, too, struggled with what to call myself. Somehow none of the party names quite fit. I knew what I believed and what I didn't believe, yet no one label seemed to encompass or exclude everything. I was a person without a party.

Finally it hit me - I was not the problem, the labels were. For too long society in general and political society, in particular, have tried to create boundaries around our beliefs and force us into one-size-fits-all designations - Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives. These labels are notoriously inexact and also quite fluid. For example, exactly what does it mean to be a right-winger? In the United States it might mean someone who believes in less government and more personal and financial freedom while in the old Soviet Union the right wingers were those who sought to perpetuate government control of the population and the economy. Any term that changes meaning according to the group it is describing strikes me as rather meaningless.

Labels reduce us to members of groups rather than individuals, allow people to judge each other without really knowing each other, and sometimes cause us to behave and believe in ways that actually are inconsistent who we truly are. They also create divisions and animosity between people who should be united in their efforts to understand and sustain America’s founding principles and find solutions to problems that are consistent with the philosophy of limited government and personal liberty and responsibility.

Each of us is a unique individual with thousands of fascinating facets to our personalities, intellects and characters. Being grouped diminishes this uniqueness and helps remove barriers to unjust and even violent treatment from those who hold a different viewpoint or are in the "other group." Many years ago I read The Hiding Place by Corrie Ten Boom. The Hiding Place tells the story of two Dutch sisters who sheltered Jews from the German invaders and were eventually discovered, arrested and sent to concentration camps. Midway through the book there was a description that impressed on me the importance of accepting each human as an individual rather than as a member of a group:

Color drained from the man's face. He took a step back from me. “Miss Ten Boom! I do hope you're not involved with this illegal concealment…it's just not safe! Think of your father!” I pulled the coverlet back from the baby's face. The man bent forward, his hand in spite of himself reaching for the tiny fist curled round the blanket. For a moment I saw compassion and fear struggle in his face. Then he straightened, “No. Definitely not. We could lose our lives for that Jewish child!” Unseen by either of us, father had appeared in the doorway. “Give the child to me, Corrie,” he said. Father held the baby close, his white beard brushing its cheek, looking into the little face with eyes as blue and innocent as the baby's…”You say we could lose our lives for this child. I would consider that the greatest honor that could come to my family.”

The phrase that struck me at first reading and stayed with me all these years was "the tiny fist curled around the blanket." Through that image the infant's humaness overflowed on to the pages of Corrie Ten Boom's story and took him out of the confines of what was supposed to be a disparaging label. No longer was this infant merely a member of a group but instead was recognized as a child, a human being, an individual. Labels take away our humanity and we should never allow our personhood to be stolen from us.

Labels allow society to judge us superficially and, most often, erroneously. The most offensive result of identity politics is the ridiculous assumption that all the members of a group believe the same things and are working toward the same goals. When members of society judge individuals according to group designations rather than by the content of character, they assume much and know little. If someone has a negative viewpoint of your group, which in itself may have been formed from incomplete information, he thinks he knows you. Likewise someone may like you for no reason other than he thinks you agree with him. Both approaches reduce individuals to caricatures and are destructive to genuine human interaction.

When we identify with a group we experience cognitive dissonance when we find are in disagreement with that group. Sometimes we adopt the opinions of the other group members even though in our hearts we believe something different. It’s hard to defend these positions when we don't really believe them and we feel we are being untrue to our own understanding. We can also adopt positions in opposition to someone else's just because we don't normally agree with that person and his group. Both reactions stymie personal intellectual analysis and growth.

The first time I was aware that I was doing this was when the United States invaded Iraq. Most of what I studied about the situation convinced me that this invasion was neither justified nor moral nor even wise. Yet on the other side of the question were so many people with whom I vehemently disagreed on most issues that I thought "it must be the right thing." It took some political and philosophical navel gazing to admit that my group was not always right and the other group was not always wrong. This realization was not so much upsetting as it was both exciting and freeing. Though assuming the burden of thinking for ourselves can be somewhat daunting, stepping outside our groups puts us back in control of our own thoughts and opinions. We take total ownership of our own belief systems and move to new levels of knowledge, awareness and intellectual maturity. Thus we become worthy participants in the public discourse.

Group politics are a dangerous way in which unscrupulous leaders can use people toward destructive ends. Throughout history despots have used labels to identify those who threaten their ambitions, and then encourage persecution of these people. Such actions eliminate opposition and solidify support. Labels such as intellectuals, peasants, workers, bourgeoisie, rich, poor, Jews and Christians are just a few examples of names that have been assigned to individuals in order to make them seem less human and therefore more deserving of either praise or condemnation.

At its worst group politics lead to state-sanctified theft and murder but even at best the tactic of assigning groups is destructive to the free and open exchange of ideas between members of society. When disparaging group names are attached to people who differ in their political philosophies the debate is no longer a rational discussion about the validity of ideas. Instead it becomes an ongoing collection of personal attacks. This discourages many from even entering the public discourse. When the people still watching from the sidelines hear liberty activists dismissed as teabaggers, racists or rednecks or described as “dangerous” or “nutty” by the media or the people’s so-called representatives in Washington they are not going to be anxious to enter the arena and fend-off these verbal punches. Opposition comes only from the few undaunted souls willing to withstand these blows and, though they may represent a majority opinion, they look outnumbered and their position seem unpopular.

Turning citizens into combatants also distracts them from watching the real enemy, those who seek dominance over sovereign individuals and use their power toward that end.Clever politicians use such opportunities to deflect anger from themselves actually justify their interference in our lives and liberty. Since we Americans “just can’t seem to get long” - someone has to take control. Then the same politicians who created the animosity in the first place can rise above the fray and assume the authoritative role they crave.

the time has come to discard the labels that separate us and put new emphasis on the basic principles we share. To be fair, this is not easy - old habits die hard. But the liberty movement affords us an unprecedented opportunity to come together as Americans through our love for this country and its founding principles as well as our respect for the embodiment of those excellent principles, the Constitution. Our reverence for the rights of individuals and our appreciation of liberty transcend partisan politics and unite us under the only name we should accept, the only designation that allows what is best in each of us to develop and flourish, the label that Americans can accept and should, in fact, demand - that of free citizens.

My January 9th VTC4L convention speech

The following is the text of the speech I delivered at the second annual Vermont Campaign for Liberty convention on January 9th 2010 in Montpelier. Note that although the content is substantially the same, it is NOT a direct transcript of the speech "as delivered".
==========================================
One of the core principles of The Campaign for Liberty is:

"We oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress. We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution."

There are two primary differences in the way that I perceive our current Federal government, and the way that I perceive our state government. I certainly have my disagreements with the government here in Montpelier, but I think that despite our differences, most of the folks here in Montpelier actually BELIEVE that their actions, though sometimes misguided, are in the best interests of the people of Vermont.

When it comes to Washington DC, I see a government that is almost entirely beholden to wealthy special interests and which knowingly pursues policies that serve the needs of those politically well connected elites at the expense of the vast majority of U.S. Citizens.

Furthermore, on the state level, I know that my voice is actually being heard, and I can see that I have the power to influence my government. One of the Representatives from Milton runs a convenience store in town, and I can stop by and talk to him on almost any weekday, about local politics, or politics in general.

I try to communicate with Welch, Leahy and Sanders, and I do so dlilligently, but I’m lucky to get the occasional e-mail response from them, and even when I do, it’s clear that they didn’t get the message. During this whole health care fiasco, I’ve been writing letters such as.

“Dear Senator Sanders, due to the fact that the Federal government has no legal authority to take over the health care system of the U.S. I urge you to vote no on any proposed Federal legislation”

Jan 6th “ Dear Mr. Kinney Thank you for your recent communication regarding health care reform, and your desire to see a strong public option in the final legislation.”

It won’t stop me from trying, but I definitely get that feeling of shoveling sand against the tide when it comes to influencing the government in Washington D.C.

I love Vermont. I really like my community, and I like being in a rural area with beautiful landscapes and living growing things. I go through the state and I see all these people working in their yards, shoveling their driveways, mowing their lawns, taking care of their homes. I see the hard working small business owners, and the people at the local farmer’s markets ...

What really bothers me is the fact that while these people are working hard, doing the right things, taking care of their families and their communities, there is this beast called the Federal government that is actively undermining their efforts. First and foremost by its direct and indirect efforts to confiscate the wealth that these people are producing, and second of all, by using that wealth in ways which are detrimental to the very people that they stole it from.

There’s a massive military industrial complex sucking up trillions of dollars to maintain a global military presence, and to fight illegal and unConstitutional foreign wars. I also see the blatant THEFT . . . Yes, THEFT of trillions of taxpayer dollars being transferred to the politically well connected banking and financial industries.

Then there’s this whole issue of Federal funding for various endeavors that are supposed to help the states. First of all, that's not "federal funding" it's OUR TAX DOLLARS, it's OUR wealth, or wealth borrowed from future generations, or these days it's money hot off the printing presses and undermining your savings account.


The Federal government takes our money, pockets a percentage, spends huge amounts to finance those special interests, and then forces the states to fight amongst themselves for a share of the scraps.

"We get more back than we pay in" That's an argument I hear ALL THE TIME. Can that be true of every state? Does Washington D.C. really have a magic money machine where EVERY state gets back more money than they paid in? Of course not! We're playing a negative sum game, and we shouldn't endorse this system just because WE sometimes happen to be benefiting disproportionately! The whole system is fundamentally unjust.

Now, that’s just depriving us of our resources. On top of THAT, I see armies of bureaucrats and law enforcement agencies eroding our civil liberties . . . and being paid with the fruits of OUR labor. There is NOTHING more hateful and frustrating to me than the thought of government taking my wealth, and then using it to erode the freedoms which they are supposed to be protecting. That seems to be the way the Washington DC bureaucracy is operating. We have people in air conditioned offices, collecting fat salaries with generous benefits packages and retirement funds far and above anything that the average U.S. Citizen has, or will ever have. Then, we have them dreaming up their vision of a Utopian society, and using threat, force and intimidation to impose that vision onto the real world.

Even if they WERE trying to craft policies that are in our best interest . . . like they SAY that they are, and are continually promising us, it’s just not feasible. A set of government policies that might work in downtown Los Angeles, probably aren’t going to be the right fit for rural Vermont. We have a diverse population. Every town, every city and every state has its own unique people, its own culture and its own lifestyle. Attempting to design a single policy that's going to serve each and every one of those communities effectively is an exercise in futility. Every place is going to have different problems and different needs, and every place is going to have different ideas about how to meet their needs and solve their problems.

Once one of these decisions is made in Washington DC and imposed on the nation, the decision makers are so far removed from the actual effects of that decision, they’re in no position to observe the results of those decisions or measure the effectiveness of their programs. They're not IN the local community observing the end results of
their policies, and they certainly can’t be in ALL communities observing the comprehensive consequences.

IF however, we have a state, county, or local program with which people are really unhappy, the people who are affected by the program have a lot of power to remedy the situation. A few hundred, or even a few DOZEN angry voters can have an impact on local elections. Even in a decentralized system, it’s obviously not possible to make everyone happy always, But the way to make the most people satisfied and consenting to government policy is to have a largely de-centralized system

Furthermore, the feedback mechanism is fundamentally broken. The bureaucrats can’t observe the end results of their decisions, and the power of the people to object to those decisions is weak at best.
Remember that idea about government getting it’s powers from the consent of those governed? Well, what if people are REALLY unhappy with a Federal program, what are their options? Complain to the agency? Write to their Representative and Senators . . . elect a new Rep and new Senators . . . we're talking years, and even then, what can THREE out of 535 actually DO to address the grievance? Honestly? Not very much.

No matter how you look at it, big central government is a FAILED experiment. The fundamental flaw in the Socialist central planning philosophy is that big central government COULD work if we could just get the right people elected, when in fact the problem is that big government itself is an unworkable solution. When faced with the frustrations of the fact that an independent and diverse set of people spread across a large geographical area can’t be served by a single set of policies, the only recourse is to mould the entire nation into their vision through the use of force.

That’s where the “dehumanizing” element comes into play. The only way they can make their centrally planned programs work is to turn the people into a set of clones.

This country became a great and powerful one through a bottom-up style government where a small Federal government was the servant of the various states. We didn't become great by sending vast sums of our wealth to a bunch of elite central planners and then squabbling amongst ourselves for a few handouts from well paid career politicians and bureaucrats.

The U.S. Constitution could not be more clear in granting the Federal government a LIMITED set of powers, and then explicitly leaving ALL OTHER POWERS to the States or to the People. It’s important to remember that this architecture was created by a set of people who had experienced life in a system where arbitrary centralized power was the rule of law, and rose up to oppose the blatant injustices of that system of government. With that experience in mind, they willfully and deliberately architected a new system based on DE-centralized power.

It was a wonderful idea, and it has been wildly successful . . . unfortunately, over time, our wonderful bottom-up decentralized system has broken down. We aren’t yet in a monarchy, but our system has been weakened and eroded to the point where our central government today more closely resembles the top-down style system that we fought to get rid of than the Constitutional Republic that our founders envisioned.

We have an overwhelming advantage that those people did not have. Prior to their courageous revolution, the system of law, however unjust, bestowed those tyrannical powers on the ruler. In our system, the rule of law is on our side, and it is our Federal government that is the criminal. So it is the legal right and within the legal power of this state to cast off the chains of a central power confiscating our wealth and telling us how to run our affairs.

Just as our founding fathers rejected the absolute authority of a monarch trying to run their lives from the other side of the Atlantic ocean, it's time that we, the citizens of Vermont, and the citizens of the other 49 states rejected the illegal authority of a renegade government hundreds of miles away in Washington DC. A government which has trampled the legislative jurisdiction explicitly reserved for the states and the inherent rights of the people, and a government which more closely resembles the monarchy we revolted against than the Constitutional Republic that our founders envisioned.
================================

PPIP: Yet another theft of taxpayer funds.

Yet another of the myriad of programs designed to transfer trillions of dollars of bank losses onto the backs of the U.S. taxpayers is the "Public-Private Investment Partnership" or PPIP. The stated purpose of the program was to purge bank balance sheets of "distressed assets" (i.e. worthless junk). The program involves putting up taxpayer(public) funds to provide an incentive for hedge funds and other (private) investors to buy some of this junk. The program had "moral hazard" written all over it from day one. In the best case, the taxpayer would bear most of the risk exposure, while the private investor enjoyed most of any upside potential. It was also obvious that the plan was wide open to abuse, and would most likely involve the taxpayer purchasing the so-called "assets" at above market prices. An article in Bloomberg News spells out the early result of the program, revealing it to be yet another scam for bankers to make a huge profit at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOU4QAVClHXI&pos=3

In anticipation of the government's willingness to pay inflated prices for garbage, the banks whose balance sheets the program was supposed to purge of bad assets (so they could provide loans to us average joes of course) actually INCREASED their holdings of "home loan bonds" and other garbage securities. These are the SAME banks that have been the beneficiaries of billions of dollars in bailout funds. As the Bloomberg article reports, the market prices of the securities has rallied in recent weeks as the banks began snatching them up so that they could turn around and sell them to the taxpayers for a profit.

In summary:
- Banks get bailout funds from the U.S. taxpayer
- Banks use bailout funds to buy even more "toxic assets" at rock bottom prices
- Prices of toxic assets goes up due to increased demand
- Banks sell assets to U.S. taxpayer at inflated prices

Barring a miraculous recovery in Mortgage Backed Securities (not going to happen), the next step in the sequence of events will be for the price of the "toxic assets" to fall right back to their REAL rock bottom market values. Worthless junk doesn't become any less worthless just because it changes hands. This is just another blatant ripoff of the U.S. taxpayer at the hands of the banksters and their good buddies in the Federal government.

It's clear that the Federal government is willing to openly steal from the citizens to enrich a few politically well connected private interests. Why ANYONE would want to put this same government in charge of something as important as the healthcare system is beyond comprehension.