Oh No . . . Not Another Patriot Act Renewal

By now, I'm sure that everyone is aware that the Congress and President Obama have decided to again renew the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

I had to search quite a while to find a roll call vote on the "Patriot Act Renewal". I finally found an article that explained why. The legislation to renew the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act AS IS were buried in a vote described as:

House Vote #67 (Feb 25, 2010)

On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments: H R 3961 Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-67&sort=party

I'm not sure what's worse; Describing a piece of legislation that erodes the liberty of U.S. citizens with a ridiculously contrived and appropriately Orwellian acronym which spells "USA PATRIOT" or burying the renewal of it in a bill about physician payment reform.

At least Peter Welch voted against it.

The Senate passed the bill by a voice vote with little or no debate.

Some Democrats, like Senator Leahy and President Obama will talk about how they really, really, really wanted to add more safeguards to protect civil liberties, but those Republican meanies threatened to filibuster, so they just HAD to renew the expiring parts of the law in its current form. The argument is completely absurd. I don't doubt that the Republicans were largely in favor of passing the renewal. However, if the Democratic majority was honestly attempting to protect our civil liberties, they had every opportunity to do so. As an aside, I think it's absurd to believe that it's possible to amend a bill that is a fundamental violation of civil liberties with any sort of provision that's going to "safeguard" civil liberties. However, let us assume that the Democrats were being sincere in their claims. With the expiration clause already built in to the legislation, the Democrats could have issued a clear ultimatum to Republicans. Either include these new measures to "safeguard" civil liberties, or proceed with your filibuster, and let the provisions expire as scheduled. If the Democrats had any genuine interest in protecting civil liberties, the idea of renewing the act in its current form would not even have been on the table!

When it comes to legislation that infringes upon civil liberties, otherwise increases the size and scope of Federal government, or enriches well connected special interests at the expense of the average U.S. citizens, Republicans and Democrats always seem to find that noble spirit of bi-partisanship

Social Welfare in a Free Society

Since most of us have never lived in an America without a government-run social welfare system it is sometimes difficult to imagine how a liberty-oriented society might take care of the needy. Last month the owners and employees of AirNow and the people and businesses of Bennington showed us exactly how community-based charity can work.

The local effort on behalf of the people of the devastated nation of Haiti began with a phone call to Michelle Van Ness, AirNow executive vice president, from the Evangelistic World Outreach (EWO). EWO asked Van Ness if AirNow might be able to provide a plane to fly supplies to Haiti.

This simple request morphed into a charitable effort that included people and businesses from all over Bennington and New England. Van Ness requested and then shared with family, friends and co-workers a list of supplies needed. Word spread and donations poured in - more than 18,000 pounds of goods filled thirty-five pallets within a few weeks. AirNow owner David Corey donated a plane and staff time to collect, organize and stock the supplies and pilot John Somero volunteered his skill and time. Within a few days of the initial request Somero had delivered his first planeload of supplies and then stayed in Florida to continue this work with the help of Agape Flights, a missionary organization which is helping defray fuel costs. Meanwhile Van Ness is looking for truck and fuel donations to transport the remaining supplies to container ships in Maryland.

Some might wonder that all of this has been accomplished without the help of one government bureaucrat. None of Vermont's congressional delegates held town meetings to spur people to action. The governor did not have to beg the people of Vermont to open their hearts and wallets nor was the president's soaring rhetoric necessary to inspire us to greater heights. We did it because we, and I include in that the vast majority of Americans, are good and generous people who instinctively understand how blessed we are and want to help those who are suffering or in need.

What's remarkable about AirNow's grassroot, unmandated charitable actions is how unremarkable they are in this country. Almost daily we read front page news stories about people freely choosing to help other people. Whether it be community members of all ages plunging into icy water to raise funds for Special Olympics or members of a local church sponsoring a pancake breakfast to help a local family raise money for medical expenses, we Americans routinely come together to take care of our own.

In the college textbook Social Work and Social Welfare: An Introduction, the authors review the history of social welfare in England and the United States. It is interesting to note that in early America social welfare was a community responsibility. The American frontier was a hostile place where settlers needed to work together in order to survive. Colonial government was a loose and haphazard network which assumed no obligation for the care of its citizens. Instead, neighbors and churches and then towns provided relief for those in need. Economic uncertainty actually grew as colonial America moved from a semi-feudal system toward a pre-industrial society and at the time of the American Revolution public relief was the largest expenditure in most major cities' budgets.

Certainly the founders were aware of this yet they did not consider social welfare the domain of the federal government. James Madison, primary author of the Constitution, said “…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

Was Madison just a mean guy who didn't care about the poor? More likely he realized the impossibility of a government far removed from individual communities providing efficient and effective relief for poor individuals. He probably also recognized the potential for abuse, corruption and waste in a system that requires money to be filtered through several parties before it reaches those for whom it is intended. And he probably understood that cities, towns and states were better positioned to assess the needs of communities and develop solutions that would truly benefit the physically, socially and financially needy.

When the federal government assumed (unconstitutionally according to Madison) responsibility for social welfare, first in the 1930s under the New Deal and then through the Great Society legislation of the 1960, it guaranteed a one-size-fits-all approach that actually fits none. Instead of creative, innovative and local programs designed specifically to meet the unique challenges of individuals and communities, it set up a heavily bureaucratic system that punishes work and discourages marriage, two of the best guarantors against poverty.

Under the current welfare structure the craftier elements of society quickly learn how to "game" the system to get the most from it. Unfortunately, those who are truly deserving of help are tainted by these actions. Meanwhile, conscientious and productive members of society grow increasingly resentful that their charity is not only taken for granted but also compelled rather than volunteered. Perhaps most destructive, the government now stands as a barrier between those who give and those who receive, which greatly diminishes positive incentives for both parties to participate in finding long-range solutions to both personal and societal economic problems.

Americans are beginning to see that big is not necessarily better, and this goes for government as much as it does for corporations and banks. Local problems are best solved locally, a concept the Founders understood when they created a Constitution in which most governing power rested with the states, not in Washington D.C. By removing a bureaucratic layer we could do more good with less money. As AirNow so aptly demonstrated, small groups of people freely participating in charitable work can accomplish great things. It's time for Washington to get out of our way and let us get to work.

Health Care Insurance: A Human Right?

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.