Posts
My article on bill submission (See: What are his Constitutional Duties?) arose out of a Facebook post where I linked to The Obama Plan - a bulleted list of the health care plan proposed by our President. (It's here, if you're interested.)
It's a quick summary that is easy to understand. I posted the link to assist those who complained that President Obama had been vague about his proposal, and to reassure those who have been confused by the scare tactics permeating the internet and the airwaves. (See Health Care Howls for a discussion of this.)
The response to my post graphically illustrated why we have the current confusion-driven uproar over health care reform. The first reply was: The verbiage looks nice ... but ... where, in reality, is it, other than words on that web page? He's not turned in any legislation to Congress.
Not ONE of the responses I received discussed the merits of the Obama Plan. Instead, the conversation was sidetracked onto issues of WHO had actually written the bills currently under consideration, and WHY the president didn't write one, and WHEN would he start doing things the way they've always been done, etc.
It was such a human response. If we can't find fault with the package, let's find fault with the delivery or the messenger or the crack in the sidewalk. Let's run down a rat hole at all costs, to avoid sitting down at the table and confronting our own fears and prejudices. We ALL - left, middle, right - have this tendency, whether we're talking politics or religion or taxes or anything else that might make us lose sleep in the night.
It's an argument born out of fear. But fear prevents informed thinking. An ignorance-driven decision process is no process at all. We must quit fanning the flames of our - and our opponent's - fears. We need to sit down, in compassion and civility, and talk about the ISSUES.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
What are his Constitutional duties?
A conservative friend of mine recently expressed dismay that President Obama hasn't submitted his own bills to Congress for consideration, relying instead upon Congress to write bills. He said,
"Every President before him has sent bills to the Hill, including the annual budget. Obama didn't. Granted, there have been years when a President's budget was considered DOA as the Congress was controlled by a contrary party ... but still, they've submitted one."
This brings up a good question: why isn't our President doing it the way it's always been done? And IS this the way it's always been done?
I decided to go back to the Rule Book - the Constitution of the United States of America. I looked up the responsibilities of the President. The Constitution says, "He shall from time to time....recommend to Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
It doesn't seem to say that the President should pen detailed bills. It sounds like our founding fathers expected the Executive Branch to propose issues and ideas for the Legislative Branch to consider and flesh out.
It might help to clarify this by looking at the responsibilities of the Congress.
The constitution says, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. Among its duties: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
In other words, legislative powers rest in Congress, not in the Presidency. But wouldn't it be nice if the President made their job easier by writing a bill himself?
I would argue that this is - and has been - a colossal waste of taxpayer money. I do not want the executive branch spending time doing the work of the legislative branch - they have their own Constitutional tasks. Besides, as my friend noted, many former President's bills are dead on arrival. Why would I, as a taxpayer, want man hours (and money) spent on something that has no chance of success?
Doesn't it make more sense for the legislature to write the laws? Our beloved 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, believed this. He agreed with the Whig theory of the presidency, in which it was the responsibility of Congress to write the laws. Our first president, George Washington, wrote no bills. So it appears that 'every President' has NOT submitted detailed bills to Congress - in fact, some were philosophically opposed to the idea.
It is the opinion of this humble moderate that Abraham Lincoln & George Washington are better role models than George Bush & Bill Clinton.
Let each branch of government do their own job, as envisioned by the Constitution.
"Every President before him has sent bills to the Hill, including the annual budget. Obama didn't. Granted, there have been years when a President's budget was considered DOA as the Congress was controlled by a contrary party ... but still, they've submitted one."
This brings up a good question: why isn't our President doing it the way it's always been done? And IS this the way it's always been done?
I decided to go back to the Rule Book - the Constitution of the United States of America. I looked up the responsibilities of the President. The Constitution says, "He shall from time to time....recommend to
It doesn't seem to say that the President should pen detailed bills. It sounds like our founding fathers expected the Executive Branch to propose issues and ideas for the Legislative Branch to consider and flesh out.
It might help to clarify this by looking at the responsibilities of the Congress.
The constitution says, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. Among its duties: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
In other words, legislative powers rest in Congress, not in the Presidency. But wouldn't it be nice if the President made their job easier by writing a bill himself?
I would argue that this is - and has been - a colossal waste of taxpayer money. I do not want the executive branch spending time doing the work of the legislative branch - they have their own Constitutional tasks. Besides, as my friend noted, many former President's bills are dead on arrival. Why would I, as a taxpayer, want man hours (and money) spent on something that has no chance of success?
Doesn't it make more sense for the legislature to write the laws? Our beloved 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, believed this. He agreed with the Whig theory of the presidency, in which it was the responsibility of Congress to write the laws. Our first president, George Washington, wrote no bills. So it appears that 'every President' has NOT submitted detailed bills to Congress - in fact, some were philosophically opposed to the idea.
It is the opinion of this humble moderate that Abraham Lincoln & George Washington are better role models than George Bush & Bill Clinton.
Let each branch of government do their own job, as envisioned by the Constitution.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Health Care Howls
The furor over health care stuns me. As a micro-business owner who must forage for her own insurance, I am brutalized by impossible standards for insurability and by premium increases which equaled 50% over the past year-and-a-half. And I am a healthy individual with no ongoing issues, just the normal bumps and bruises. I can only imagine the heartache of those unlucky enough to suffer with ongoing treatment needs due to injury or illness. How can my fellow Americans NOT see the need for reform?
Where is the support from moderate America? It’s partly WHY we voted for Obama, because he promised to champion health care reform when he ran for election. And what is currently proposed is even milder than what he put forward back then. Where is the majority in the middle?
I believe that many of us do agree with the president but are being too quiet about our support, while others are allowing their fears to be stirred by the loud, angry voices of politicos who are not motivated by a desire for our country’s greatest good. Their refrain is fueled by their obsession for riding the wild horse of political power and fanned by their rage at losing those reins, which were ripped from their hands by a public who had had enough of war without sound strategy and economic policies that were rapidly leading our country to ruin.
We must remember that many of the people stirring the pot today are entertainment figures - shock jocks who have basically the same job as Howard Stern, only with more political content. For example, Rush Limbaugh has for years described himself as an entertainer, but people insist on listening to him as though he were a prophet. They forget that if he doesn’t have controversy, he doesn’t have a show. He understands this and admits it, which leaves us no excuse for not understanding and admitting it, too.
We need to ignore these voices. To understand and appreciate what the president intends, we should listen to him with our own ears. We should watch his speeches with our own eyes, so we can judge for ourselves his strategies and plans. And I believe by so doing we can be comforted and encouraged, because his ideas are sound.
Remember, we believed in him 10 months ago. He is the same person today. We can still believe. We must be vocal in our support.
Where is the support from moderate America? It’s partly WHY we voted for Obama, because he promised to champion health care reform when he ran for election. And what is currently proposed is even milder than what he put forward back then. Where is the majority in the middle?
I believe that many of us do agree with the president but are being too quiet about our support, while others are allowing their fears to be stirred by the loud, angry voices of politicos who are not motivated by a desire for our country’s greatest good. Their refrain is fueled by their obsession for riding the wild horse of political power and fanned by their rage at losing those reins, which were ripped from their hands by a public who had had enough of war without sound strategy and economic policies that were rapidly leading our country to ruin.
We must remember that many of the people stirring the pot today are entertainment figures - shock jocks who have basically the same job as Howard Stern, only with more political content. For example, Rush Limbaugh has for years described himself as an entertainer, but people insist on listening to him as though he were a prophet. They forget that if he doesn’t have controversy, he doesn’t have a show. He understands this and admits it, which leaves us no excuse for not understanding and admitting it, too.
We need to ignore these voices. To understand and appreciate what the president intends, we should listen to him with our own ears. We should watch his speeches with our own eyes, so we can judge for ourselves his strategies and plans. And I believe by so doing we can be comforted and encouraged, because his ideas are sound.
Remember, we believed in him 10 months ago. He is the same person today. We can still believe. We must be vocal in our support.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Let's Jail all the Moderates
At a casual gathering during the last presidential campaign, a discussion arose. The press had recently reported that staunch Republicans were changing party affiliations to vote in the Democratic national primary, thinking that since the Republican primary was already sewn up, they would use their vote toward the Democrat least likely to offer serious competition for their candidate. Democrats have done the same in prior elections. It’s largely ineffective, because the numbers who do so (in a nationwide election, anyway) aren’t large enough to sway results.
Anyway, at this party, an politically liberal acquaintance expressed outrage at this tactic, and blustered that it should be illegal. I replied that I regularly switched party affiliation (I spend most of the year as an Independent) in order to vote in the most interesting primary. He looked at me and replied, “You should be jailed.”
The problem is, that’s really the only option for moderates in a system of closed primaries. Our system allows for only two parties, unless we want the House of Representatives deciding every election, which is what our constitution requires when one candidate does not receive greater than 50% of the votes in a general presidential election. Imagine three strong parties with three strong candidates. It is possible, even likely, that EVERY election would be decided by the House of Representatives. Few voters favor that option.
So, for better or for worse, we are stuck with a two-party system. But the parties have become polarized in the past twenty years, and neither speaks well for the vast majority of voters in the middle. Many moderates just toss a coin and grudgingly choose an affiliation. Others of us register Independent, and change our affiliation to vote positively in the primary of our choice. Is it ideal? No. But until the parties are willing to offer open primary elections, it’s the only choice available.
Besides, I’m a taxpayer, and it’s MY money that pays for primary elections. Caucuses are paid for by the party itself. So unless the political parties choose to scrap primary elections for primary caucuses, I maintain that it’s my right as a taxpayer to participate in the primary election, and to change my party affiliation as many times as I legally can.
So jail me. Jail all the moderates. At least then the majority of the country would finally get free health care…
Anyway, at this party, an politically liberal acquaintance expressed outrage at this tactic, and blustered that it should be illegal. I replied that I regularly switched party affiliation (I spend most of the year as an Independent) in order to vote in the most interesting primary. He looked at me and replied, “You should be jailed.”
The problem is, that’s really the only option for moderates in a system of closed primaries. Our system allows for only two parties, unless we want the House of Representatives deciding every election, which is what our constitution requires when one candidate does not receive greater than 50% of the votes in a general presidential election. Imagine three strong parties with three strong candidates. It is possible, even likely, that EVERY election would be decided by the House of Representatives. Few voters favor that option.
So, for better or for worse, we are stuck with a two-party system. But the parties have become polarized in the past twenty years, and neither speaks well for the vast majority of voters in the middle. Many moderates just toss a coin and grudgingly choose an affiliation. Others of us register Independent, and change our affiliation to vote positively in the primary of our choice. Is it ideal? No. But until the parties are willing to offer open primary elections, it’s the only choice available.
Besides, I’m a taxpayer, and it’s MY money that pays for primary elections. Caucuses are paid for by the party itself. So unless the political parties choose to scrap primary elections for primary caucuses, I maintain that it’s my right as a taxpayer to participate in the primary election, and to change my party affiliation as many times as I legally can.
So jail me. Jail all the moderates. At least then the majority of the country would finally get free health care…
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Minsky Moment
Hyman Minsky was an obscure microeconomist who died 10 years before the recent economic crash, but he predicted it as a natural outcome of Keynesian economics. In reading Keynes' works, Minsky came to the conclusion that unmonitored capitalism was unstable and would lead to crashes just like the one we have suffered. The Boston Globe has an excellent article about his theories and how they predicted the recent financial collapse. Read it here.
Did he have suggestions about how to recover from economic recession? He did. Just as the government became the lender of last resort to failing financial institutions, Minsky suggested that the government also become the employer of last resort, offering minimum wage jobs to anyone who wanted one. Workers could provide basic services such as childcare, street cleaning, etc. He felt it would significantly lower welfare costs and would keep higher-skill job salaries from plummeting. This plan contains socialistic elements which are unpalatable to most conservatives and many moderates.
An article from Mises Institute counter-argues that federal regulation of the banking industry is what led to our crisis. However, a totally unregulated market is unpalatable to most liberals and many moderates.
What's behind door #3, Monty?
Did he have suggestions about how to recover from economic recession? He did. Just as the government became the lender of last resort to failing financial institutions, Minsky suggested that the government also become the employer of last resort, offering minimum wage jobs to anyone who wanted one. Workers could provide basic services such as childcare, street cleaning, etc. He felt it would significantly lower welfare costs and would keep higher-skill job salaries from plummeting. This plan contains socialistic elements which are unpalatable to most conservatives and many moderates.
An article from Mises Institute counter-argues that federal regulation of the banking industry is what led to our crisis. However, a totally unregulated market is unpalatable to most liberals and many moderates.
What's behind door #3, Monty?
Friday, September 18, 2009
Tidings from Texas
The state board of education in Texas is tackling the social studies curriculum under the jurisdiction of six panel members described as follows:
"Much of the groundwork for the debate was laid by a panel of six experts who were appointed by the board to help guide drafting of the standards by writing teams of social studies teachers and college professors.
Three of the experts were appointed by Republicans aligned with social conservatives, while the other three were appointed by Democrats and other Republicans considered more moderate." excerpted from The Dallas Morning News, Sept. 17, 2009
The members of the expert panel who will make curriculum recommendations includes: a fundamentalist evangelist; a former vice-chairman of the Texas Republican party; the leader of a group who challenges ‘separation between church and state’; balanced by three members who are moderate Republicans or Democrats.
This Oregon girl questions the notion of this representing balance; to me it looks like a textbook example (pun intended) of a ‘stacked panel’. Maybe moderation will rule, but I think it more likely to be a bloody battle. (Of course, I think a board comprised of only moderate members would be much more efficacious in creating a balanced curriculum.) :)
Mavis Knight, one of the two Democratic members of the panel, commented,
“Some board members and some groups have indicated there will be a fight over many of these standards, and I believe there will be a fight, much as I would like to avoid it."
The other Democratic member said, “My main concern is to make sure we don’t try to rewrite history.” It is a significant concern.
For example, there is a proposal to delete the name of US Representative Henry Gonzalez of San Antonio from the curriculum, substituting instead the name of John Wayne or Jimmy Stewart, who were Republicans. Gonzalez was a Democratic politician who represented Texas in the US legislature for thirty-eight years. He chaired the committee that investigated the deaths of president John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. As a member of the Texas legislature, he set a record by filibustering a set of 10 bills on segregation for 22 hours. Eight of the 10 bills were abandoned.
He was undoubtedly a voice for the liberal left, but since he was re-elected over and over, most Texans obviously felt he was able to represent them. Does it serve the education of school children to remove a long-standing politician who significantly influenced the history of Texas and the nation and to substitute instead a movie star?
On the other hand, another challenge facing this panel is a question of verbiage. A language change has been requested in the 4th grade curriculum. Rather than calling our system of government ‘democratic’, it has been suggested that it be called ‘republican’. Of course, in reality we are neither – and both. Our system of government can be most accurately described as either a representative democracy or a constitutional republic. The point is that our government protects against the tyranny of the majority by protecting the rights and the voice of minority opinions. The textbook should be rewritten to accurately describe our form of government, which is neither purely democratic nor republican.
Another issue includes historical figures. It has been requested that talk show host Rush Limbaugh, the National Rifle Association, and former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich be included. Former Speaker Gingrich is a significant figure in our political history, and probably should be added. But a radio talk show host? A gun club? We may as well include Conan O'Brien & the National Garden Club. (No offense to either.)
In the fifth grade curriculum, it is proposed that ‘the individual right to keep and bear arms; and an individual’s protection of private property from government takings’ be added to the list of important individual rights. Do we not teach the entire constitution and amendments in our schools anymore?
Perhaps not, as evidenced by the police arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for entering his own home. They certainly did take his private property – I consider my own person to be private indeed. How would it have played out in court if he had shot the trespassing, person/property-grabbing governmental representatives and claimed the second amendment as justification? Proponents of strong second amendment rights would surely have supported his right to do so, and no doubt would have strenuously defended him in public and in court.
Wouldn’t they? :)
"Much of the groundwork for the debate was laid by a panel of six experts who were appointed by the board to help guide drafting of the standards by writing teams of social studies teachers and college professors.
Three of the experts were appointed by Republicans aligned with social conservatives, while the other three were appointed by Democrats and other Republicans considered more moderate." excerpted from The Dallas Morning News, Sept. 17, 2009
The members of the expert panel who will make curriculum recommendations includes: a fundamentalist evangelist; a former vice-chairman of the Texas Republican party; the leader of a group who challenges ‘separation between church and state’; balanced by three members who are moderate Republicans or Democrats.
This Oregon girl questions the notion of this representing balance; to me it looks like a textbook example (pun intended) of a ‘stacked panel’. Maybe moderation will rule, but I think it more likely to be a bloody battle. (Of course, I think a board comprised of only moderate members would be much more efficacious in creating a balanced curriculum.) :)
Mavis Knight, one of the two Democratic members of the panel, commented,
“Some board members and some groups have indicated there will be a fight over many of these standards, and I believe there will be a fight, much as I would like to avoid it."
The other Democratic member said, “My main concern is to make sure we don’t try to rewrite history.” It is a significant concern.
For example, there is a proposal to delete the name of US Representative Henry Gonzalez of San Antonio from the curriculum, substituting instead the name of John Wayne or Jimmy Stewart, who were Republicans. Gonzalez was a Democratic politician who represented Texas in the US legislature for thirty-eight years. He chaired the committee that investigated the deaths of president John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. As a member of the Texas legislature, he set a record by filibustering a set of 10 bills on segregation for 22 hours. Eight of the 10 bills were abandoned.
He was undoubtedly a voice for the liberal left, but since he was re-elected over and over, most Texans obviously felt he was able to represent them. Does it serve the education of school children to remove a long-standing politician who significantly influenced the history of Texas and the nation and to substitute instead a movie star?
On the other hand, another challenge facing this panel is a question of verbiage. A language change has been requested in the 4th grade curriculum. Rather than calling our system of government ‘democratic’, it has been suggested that it be called ‘republican’. Of course, in reality we are neither – and both. Our system of government can be most accurately described as either a representative democracy or a constitutional republic. The point is that our government protects against the tyranny of the majority by protecting the rights and the voice of minority opinions. The textbook should be rewritten to accurately describe our form of government, which is neither purely democratic nor republican.
Another issue includes historical figures. It has been requested that talk show host Rush Limbaugh, the National Rifle Association, and former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich be included. Former Speaker Gingrich is a significant figure in our political history, and probably should be added. But a radio talk show host? A gun club? We may as well include Conan O'Brien & the National Garden Club. (No offense to either.)
In the fifth grade curriculum, it is proposed that ‘the individual right to keep and bear arms; and an individual’s protection of private property from government takings’ be added to the list of important individual rights. Do we not teach the entire constitution and amendments in our schools anymore?
Perhaps not, as evidenced by the police arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for entering his own home. They certainly did take his private property – I consider my own person to be private indeed. How would it have played out in court if he had shot the trespassing, person/property-grabbing governmental representatives and claimed the second amendment as justification? Proponents of strong second amendment rights would surely have supported his right to do so, and no doubt would have strenuously defended him in public and in court.
Wouldn’t they? :)
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
It's From the Dictionary, Folks...
In my research, I found urbandictionary.com, and looked up their definition of 'moderate'. Reading these, I laughed my head off. (Of course, as a moderate, I secretly agree with them...) Here they are:
A. moderate
1) a sane person;
2) someone with a political belief that sits between the two extremes of liberal and conservative, usually combining aspects of both (example: liberal on social issues yet conservative on economic issues);
3) someone who seeks compromise on political issues and as such gets insulted by the two extremes who just don't get the idea that this form of government survives by compromise;
4) someone whose political beliefs seem quiet and mild, and as such always ignored by the media, which seeks out people from the screechy Left and shrill Right because they make for better sound bites.
B. moderate
Neither liberal nor conservative. Contrary to popular belief, does NOT imply a political affiliation or lack thereof; someone with no political party is considered an Independent, but can still be very conservative or very liberal. A moderate is merely someone who isn't conservative enough to be on the right, and isn't liberal enough to be on the left.
C. moderate
1. By definition, the greatest political alignment on Earth.
2. A person who actually thinks for themselves instead of automatically adhering to all beliefs of a bipartisan system.
3. Someone who views political issues objectively and in a open-minded manner.
4. Someone who is actually willing to listen to another person's viewpoint without completely bashing their ideas.
Again, thanks to urbandictionary.com for these definitions!
A. moderate
1) a sane person;
2) someone with a political belief that sits between the two extremes of liberal and conservative, usually combining aspects of both (example: liberal on social issues yet conservative on economic issues);
3) someone who seeks compromise on political issues and as such gets insulted by the two extremes who just don't get the idea that this form of government survives by compromise;
4) someone whose political beliefs seem quiet and mild, and as such always ignored by the media, which seeks out people from the screechy Left and shrill Right because they make for better sound bites.
B. moderate
Neither liberal nor conservative. Contrary to popular belief, does NOT imply a political affiliation or lack thereof; someone with no political party is considered an Independent, but can still be very conservative or very liberal. A moderate is merely someone who isn't conservative enough to be on the right, and isn't liberal enough to be on the left.
C. moderate
1. By definition, the greatest political alignment on Earth.
2. A person who actually thinks for themselves instead of automatically adhering to all beliefs of a bipartisan system.
3. Someone who views political issues objectively and in a open-minded manner.
4. Someone who is actually willing to listen to another person's viewpoint without completely bashing their ideas.
Again, thanks to urbandictionary.com for these definitions!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
A Debate over Socialism
I'm having a fascinating dialog with my politically conservative friend. It's providing me a great opportunity to really think about what I believe and why. Here is a recent note from her:
"I believe that socialism crushes the human spirit and that every step we make toward bigger government and more government control of our lives is a move toward socialism. What do I mean by “crushing the human spirit”? When people are personally responsible for their own lives and those of their family, they are highly motivated to work hard, to improve their lot in life. As more and more safety nets are created, there is a shift toward waiting to be rescued. As government becomes bigger, more and more taxes need to be collected resulting in less motivation for business owners to create wealth which will only be taken away. The higher the taxes, the more sluggish the economy resulting in less wealth for everyone, the poor are actually the hardest hit when the economy slows."
I realized that I needed to do a little research. What are the definitions of capitalism, socialism and communism? We need a common understanding of terms in order to communicate. So, I did my homework. Here is my response to my friend:
‘Socialism’ is a very broad category. By strict definition, socialism believes in equal access to resources, and that people are compensated according to their contributions. In other words, those who work more, have more. Those who work less, have less. (Communism is the political system where all things are held in common and people are compensated equally regardless of contribution.)
Where socialism differs from capitalism is in access. Capitalism emphasizes private access – you want the opportunity, you buy the opportunity; whereas socialism emphasizes public access – everyone has access to the opportunity. Neither system, in its pure form, removes incentive. Of course, there are many different ‘flavors’ of socialism and capitalism – some get very extreme. But each economic form has its pros and cons, and in our society we employ a blend of the two.
For example, health insurance – in any form - is socialism. It provides equal access to medical resources. To be anti-socialism with regard to health care, one would need to refuse to purchase health insurance and to buy medical services outright when needed. The downside to the capitalistic approach is that if you can’t buy it, you can’t have it.
Today, we employ a capitalistic-socialist approach – those on the ‘inside’ of health care practice socialism, and with a sense of entitlement. I don’t see those with health insurance limiting their use of health care to the amount of money they have actually contributed, which would be a capitalistic approach. By using health care regardless of the actual monies we have contributed, we acquiesce to what is considered to be a socialistic perspective. But those on the 'outside' of health care experience a capitalistic approach - they have to buy the opportunity, if they can. Which often, they can't.
Really, the discussion isn’t about socialism, it’s about where we feel comfortable on the spectrum. What do we want/need in health care? As caring Christians, what do we want/need for our neighbors? Is it OK for some to die while others live, based solely on ability to pay? For some to be sick while others are healed? Is it OK for us/our children/our parents to die while others live? For us to remain ill while others are cured? What do our past actions tell us about what we believe? How as a society do we get where we want to be?
I think we all need to be willing to look at a variety of methods to solve our current situation, which most agree is not acceptable. Personally, I don’t agree with all of our President’s opinions on health care. I hold a Republican opinion in that I think employers should quit providing health care benefits for their workers.
I hold a Democratic opinion in that I think a public option is a good idea. It’s pretty much identical to SAIF Corporation here in Oregon. A publicly held private corporation, not-for-profit, self-sustaining, that keeps worker’s compensation costs down in Oregon. Private insurers howl about SAIF, but I notice they continue to do business here. That means it IS profitable here, but they can’t gouge employers to pad their own pocketbooks. And that’s a good thing. Every employer is grateful for SAIF.
Fear is not a good foundation for sound decision-making. That’s what concerns me about both left and right wing politics these days. A political perspective that depends on whipping its constituents into such a frenzy of fear that they act rudely and rashly is not one that is good for America. I’m not picking on one side or another - we see this on both sides. But we must get beyond fear, beyond partisanship, beyond the desperate scraping for power that currently permeates our political landscape. We must listen to one another and work together.
"I believe that socialism crushes the human spirit and that every step we make toward bigger government and more government control of our lives is a move toward socialism. What do I mean by “crushing the human spirit”? When people are personally responsible for their own lives and those of their family, they are highly motivated to work hard, to improve their lot in life. As more and more safety nets are created, there is a shift toward waiting to be rescued. As government becomes bigger, more and more taxes need to be collected resulting in less motivation for business owners to create wealth which will only be taken away. The higher the taxes, the more sluggish the economy resulting in less wealth for everyone, the poor are actually the hardest hit when the economy slows."
I realized that I needed to do a little research. What are the definitions of capitalism, socialism and communism? We need a common understanding of terms in order to communicate. So, I did my homework. Here is my response to my friend:
‘Socialism’ is a very broad category. By strict definition, socialism believes in equal access to resources, and that people are compensated according to their contributions. In other words, those who work more, have more. Those who work less, have less. (Communism is the political system where all things are held in common and people are compensated equally regardless of contribution.)
Where socialism differs from capitalism is in access. Capitalism emphasizes private access – you want the opportunity, you buy the opportunity; whereas socialism emphasizes public access – everyone has access to the opportunity. Neither system, in its pure form, removes incentive. Of course, there are many different ‘flavors’ of socialism and capitalism – some get very extreme. But each economic form has its pros and cons, and in our society we employ a blend of the two.
For example, health insurance – in any form - is socialism. It provides equal access to medical resources. To be anti-socialism with regard to health care, one would need to refuse to purchase health insurance and to buy medical services outright when needed. The downside to the capitalistic approach is that if you can’t buy it, you can’t have it.
Today, we employ a capitalistic-socialist approach – those on the ‘inside’ of health care practice socialism, and with a sense of entitlement. I don’t see those with health insurance limiting their use of health care to the amount of money they have actually contributed, which would be a capitalistic approach. By using health care regardless of the actual monies we have contributed, we acquiesce to what is considered to be a socialistic perspective. But those on the 'outside' of health care experience a capitalistic approach - they have to buy the opportunity, if they can. Which often, they can't.
Really, the discussion isn’t about socialism, it’s about where we feel comfortable on the spectrum. What do we want/need in health care? As caring Christians, what do we want/need for our neighbors? Is it OK for some to die while others live, based solely on ability to pay? For some to be sick while others are healed? Is it OK for us/our children/our parents to die while others live? For us to remain ill while others are cured? What do our past actions tell us about what we believe? How as a society do we get where we want to be?
I think we all need to be willing to look at a variety of methods to solve our current situation, which most agree is not acceptable. Personally, I don’t agree with all of our President’s opinions on health care. I hold a Republican opinion in that I think employers should quit providing health care benefits for their workers.
I hold a Democratic opinion in that I think a public option is a good idea. It’s pretty much identical to SAIF Corporation here in Oregon. A publicly held private corporation, not-for-profit, self-sustaining, that keeps worker’s compensation costs down in Oregon. Private insurers howl about SAIF, but I notice they continue to do business here. That means it IS profitable here, but they can’t gouge employers to pad their own pocketbooks. And that’s a good thing. Every employer is grateful for SAIF.
Fear is not a good foundation for sound decision-making. That’s what concerns me about both left and right wing politics these days. A political perspective that depends on whipping its constituents into such a frenzy of fear that they act rudely and rashly is not one that is good for America. I’m not picking on one side or another - we see this on both sides. But we must get beyond fear, beyond partisanship, beyond the desperate scraping for power that currently permeates our political landscape. We must listen to one another and work together.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
An Alternative to Shouting
A very politically conservative friend of mine made the comment recently that she felt that those of her opinion could only get their way if they 'kept shouting'.
That comment really hit me hard. I realized that, as a moderate, my method for years has been largely to keep silent - in the interest of civility. But I am not serving my country well by keeping silent while those on the political edges (both edges) 'keep shouting'. I am shamed by the warfare, torture, and economic disaster that has unfolded in the face of my silence.
So my moderate voice will now be added to the symphony of sound as a quieter alternative to the 'shouting'. I made this decision partly to keep those whose views stray greatly from the middle from inferring that my muteness equals agreement with their ideology, and also to encourage like-minded individuals (who I believe are the majority in this country) to speak up, too.
The time for silence is over.
That comment really hit me hard. I realized that, as a moderate, my method for years has been largely to keep silent - in the interest of civility. But I am not serving my country well by keeping silent while those on the political edges (both edges) 'keep shouting'. I am shamed by the warfare, torture, and economic disaster that has unfolded in the face of my silence.
So my moderate voice will now be added to the symphony of sound as a quieter alternative to the 'shouting'. I made this decision partly to keep those whose views stray greatly from the middle from inferring that my muteness equals agreement with their ideology, and also to encourage like-minded individuals (who I believe are the majority in this country) to speak up, too.
The time for silence is over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)