The Line of Liberty

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Happy New Year!! To all of my readers I want to give a very personal 'Thank You' for reading, responding and sharing information with friends and family as we all do our part to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Let us all resolve to spend just a little more time each week to educate ourselves and our loved ones on the most important issue of our time; the preservation of Liberty for future generations.

Let us begin today by reaffirming or perhaps firstly defining and understanding what is meant by the term, Liberty, as used and intended by our Founding Fathers. Some people have the misunderstanding that liberty in reality means chaos. This would be the anarchists definition of liberty. Each to his/her own, self interests, self preservation and self indulgence. In fact this is nothing close to the true definition as understood by the original Patriots. We must in fact include virtue in the discussion for without it there cannot be Liberty.

The big lie that is seemingly accepted as fact in modern political discourse is that there is a 'Left' and a 'Right' to the spectrum of ideology and that a natural state should exist somewhere in between; the so-called 'Moderate' position. The following graph gives a truer visual sense of where ideologies lie:

To the left you have total anarchy. Everyone for themselves, no laws, no leaders, to each his own. The principle of anarchy is a form of moral relativism; no one can deliniate right and wrong for another, therefore each determines right and wrong for themselves. As such, people are not capable nor intended to combine principles and form governments. Truly the call of the wild; humans are relegated to not much more than sophisticated animals.

In the center you have Oligarchy, rule by committee or group of 'enlightened' individuals. This ideology is based on the idea that Man is incapable of deciding rightly for himself due to his inherent evil and selfish nature. Therefore, an elite group of benevolent rulers should rightly decide what is good for us and then force us to comply thereby creating a perfect society among imperfect individuals. Individual freedom is subjugated for the collective.

To the right you have Totalitarianism, total rule by one. (Many wrongly think that this means one individual, a Dictator) In this ideology, the only way to control the outcome of society is complete control over all aspects of life. Property, commerce, labor, finance and human resources are under total control. The state can kill on the spot. There is no law other than the law of the leader. The concept theoretically implies a benevolent leader who loves the people and therefore takes all power to control society and abolish suffering and establish complete equality among the people, (except of course in regards to the leader). This rule of 'one' can in fact be a group of individuals, such as a religious council, but the difference from an oligarchy is that there is no room for experimentation or manipulation of freedom or commerce. It is a set ideology without debate exercising total control.

So, we see that the real description of political ideology is a line, with all points further on the line representing control by the government over the people. Zero control with Anarchism and Total control with Totalitarianism. A Constitutional republic lies somewhere just to the right of Anarchism; government control that is implemented and controlled by the people to protect and further their individual goals through community.

Communism/Progressivism/Socialism/Marxism all basically one and the same, lie to the right of Oligarchy. A group of enlightened ones to control the people for the good of the collective. A bee hive mentality where the worker bees are controlled by the internal hive protectors. As with a hive of bees, a group may splinter off, swarm if you will, to another hive with different environment and different goals, but the internal protectors will still control, though the goals may be different. This accounts for the many forms of communism we have seen in the last century. Each adopts to the people and culture where it forms. But the control of the people persists. The subjugation of the individual to the collective is paramount.

Islam lies just to the left of Totalitarianism if not at the very end of the line. Islam is a set of laws and principles that are beyond debate. A person or a group of religious leaders is established to achieve the goals of these laws and principles and have full power to control individuals to that goal. If the people abide by the laws and principles, they are left alone. To that extent this ideology may lie slightly to the left of the end of the line, but complete compliance is required. The implementation of this ideology is accomplished through any means including deceipt, manipulation, slavery, and force of all kinds from intimidation to all out war.

Now, I know this is a little extensive but very important. Please notice something about all of the above descriptions of ideologies: Only one requires education and virtue. Virtue is the developed ability to resist our natural tendancies of selfishness and combine our separate desires into community by means of free will. It is by virtue that we achieve self-governance. We institute a government amongst ourselves with limited powers to protect our life and property while preserving our rights to freely choose our path for the purpose of community of common interests. This nuanced combining of personal freedom with a goal of community to enhance that freedom, protected by self-governance, is Liberty. It is vital to the perpetuation of our national cultural traditions and values for every citizen to fully understand this definition of Liberty. Liberty as understood by the founders was not willy nilly individualistic freedom untethered; that is anarchy. Liberty is a combined virtuous agreement among a common peoples, to institute a rule of law for the protection of our rights and goals as a community with similar interests. The vital concept that is the linchpin of self-governance is virtue and education (Proverbs 24:3). A people must be aware that it is free will that enjoins us as a nation. It is understanding that this free will is given by God and not by Man, who can only protect it or steal it. A people must be aware that their Liberty is threatened, the consequences of such and the extreme difficulty of regaining that which is lost. Every move along the line toward more government control is not only difficult to reverse, it is exponential in nature. In other words, the further you allow a move along the line, the greater the next move will be. Once you approach an Oligarchy, as I believe we are very close to, movement back on the line is near impossible without the expense of blood. We must also be aware that all peoples have problems, but the subjugation of the many because of the misfortunes of the few is not an answer, it is indeed institution of problems. Therefore, communities must resolve to care for the unfortunate among them on a local level. So what if we don't? Then our society is at risk and we must take action. But that action is not to become subjects of collectivism, the action is to buttress education and virtue among our people to regain our footing in the community. There are no more caring and generous people than the American people. This is where the big lie begets tyranny. This is where the so-called moderates allow the move along the line. While in their minds they are making our community better, in fact they are moving us towards Oligarchy which inevitably leads to Totalitarianism. History is very clear on this. Remember the old saying, (sayings are old because they are true) the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

As this new year begins, as we struggle to survive our latest folly of Socialism/Marxism, as we despair at the lack of true leadership from which to choose; let us all resolve to understand what Liberty truly means. To educate ourselves and our children. To understand that a century worth of movement along the line will not be reversed quickly. To lay the groundwork for our progeny to re-establish self-governance through personal education and virtue. To comfort our souls and those of our friends and family that a people grounded in faith, educated in Liberty and armed with virtue cannot be enslaved, can and will enjoy self-governance and will always prevail over tyranny whether well-intentioned or nefarious in nature. In the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land."

Finally, I want to leave you with this thought in your mind. Beware the siren's call of those who purport to be smarter or more sophisticated with modern sensibilities. Modernity changes not the nature of Man nor the history of civilization. The very reason that history repeats itself is because of 'modern' intelligentsia who make claim to a higher understanding that makes older knowledge irrelevant. It is a lie. Historical knowledge is never irrelevant. Our Founding Fathers based our form of government on the nature of Man and on our virtuous and faithful traditions. Nothing has or will change from then to eternity in regards to these truths. We don't need a new system. We only need ever more fervent defense of the system they devised. It is not just a generational battle; it is indeed a perpetual battle. For as long as Man is on earth, we will be flawed. Our choice is only that of self-governance as designed by our Founders, or incremental slavery ultimately resulting in chaos. There is no 'third way'.

May God Bless you all and may God Bless the United States of America.

by: Keith D. Rodebush

Supporting Sophism Supplants Constitution

__________________________________________

One of the most difficult things to do in the modern political environment is to be ideologically pure. Political correctness has so thoroughly permeated the discourse that nothing deemed intolerant will be tolerated. Let us look closely for a moment though. If you are not pure in your ideas, do you have any basis for those ideas? I remember an exchange between a conservative woman and a libertarian conservative over the issue of prostitution. At some point he asked her if she would do it for a million dollars. She struggled to answer saying that a million dollars was a lot of money, but ultimately admitted that she probably would. He then asked if she would do it for $1. She got very flustered and asked him, "What do you think I am?" to which he replied, "What you are Madam, has been established, it's now just a matter of price." The point is that if you allow an exception to a belief then you have no belief. The only hope remaining for this nation is to apply principle to every vote for every politician. One strike and you're out.

So called conservatives these days are constantly guilty of this perversion of their 'principles'. Take the balanced budget amendment that so many tout as a way to reign in government spending. On the face of it you may think this is a good idea but it is a horrible idea for two reasons. One, it is an excuse to raise taxes. Two, it is an admission that spending at this level is necessary and must continue. Neither of these things is good for America and in the case of the spending, most of it is unconstitutional. The principled stand is that the federal government must discontinue unconstitutional programs, lower taxes and return prosperity and power to the people and the several States as intended by the Founders of this nation. The balanced budget amendment is capitulation by an inadequate and vacuous bunch of cowardly legislators.

Another example is oil subsidies. Congressmen right and left will argue this is necessary for development of our resources while the government does a plethora of other things to diminish same. The truth is that it is simply a bone thrown to a private sector that offsets another bone thrown to another sector, i.e. ethanol subsidies. Every time a so called conservative argues for oil subsidies to continue he/she by default argues for other subsidies to continue. The federal government has no standing constitutionally or morally subsidizing any business. The very bedrock of free enterprise capitalism is that industry should stand on it's own, driven by a free market to determine what is best for the citizenry. If a product is necessary, efficient and priced properly it will excel in the market. If not, it will and should fail and make room for something more adequate.

Thirdly, and I will get in big trouble here, abortion is one of the most egregious of the cases of unprincipled exception. Being such an emotional issue it is rife with instances of otherwise good conservative folks willing to vote for bad laws simply to reduce the slaughter. You will find no more pro life person than I. I believe that Roe v. Wade is completely erroneous and has zero basis in the U.S. Constitution. I believe that the fetus should have a doctor and that no government entity should be able to come between the fetus and his/her doctor. I believe that a doctor that knowingly exterminates the life of a child is guilty of murder with the mother being at the least accessory to the crime. That being said; recently Texas passed a law that would force women to see an ultra-sound of their fetus before an abortion could be done. Again, on the face of it, you may think that's a great idea. In fact, it may save a few babies short term. Indeed the bill was watered down with amendments to the point that no woman actually has to view it, but that is not the point. The point is this; if you vote for a law to allow the government to come between you and your doctor, even for a noble purpose, then you open the door legally for another law to be made for nefarious purposes. This is how law works. Once you set a precedent, then future advocates for other intrusions into your health care can point to it and say, "See, the government can and does intervene in medical care. Now we want to intervene also." This is the basis for socialized medicine which will cause untold pain and suffering if ever fully implemented. In fact more abortions would be approved, less care for elderly and even euthanasia for terminal patients or special needs children. In other words, far down the road, the precedent you set with a bad law, can result in exponentially more damage than you prevented. Again, the principled stance is that all abortions are wrong and should be illegal with only one exception, the life of the mother. Even then it should only be done with the explicit approval of the mother. There are some mothers who will choose to die to let their child live and that choice should be respected. But in the case where one must die, it is unfortunate but logical that the more viable developed life should survive to possibly reproduce again. This is the cruelty of nature. A hard, but necessary choice. We must be willing to take this stand and remain vigilant. The minute we allow any other exception we immediately lose the argument and will never prevail, causing even more babies to be murdered. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

The facts are clear to those willing to see. Compromise is for the weak and unprincipled. One should stand morally and ethically ensconced in ones beliefs and let them prevail or fail based on the merits alone. If we fail, we come back to fight again with more fervor and clearer communication. In the end right will win. However, once you compromise even once, you cannot again take a stance on principle for your enemies clearly see that you have none. This means that your presence in the debate is in fact detrimental to your stated cause. Even Ronald Reagan, my favorite president of the last century, famously stated that 85% was better than nothing. Well, he went on to compromise with liberals and the increase in revenues from his tax policy was eventually dwarfed by the continued out of control spending on unconstitutional programs. Later liberals would use his compromises as ammunition to argue for further compromise. It just goes on. Now we are on the brink of bankruptcy, not from Obama's spending, bad as that is, but from unconstitutional entitlement programs that have been voted for in various forms by both parties for over 100 years. The entire entitlement structure owes its life to unprincipled conservatives who caved, compromised and compounded the problem leaving future generations bankrupt and stripped of their right to inherit constitutional government and Liberty. Once again the devastation that will be wrought on children and grandchildren, worldwide, dwarfs the perceived gain in the short term of our lives. How despicable must be the view of our generation by future historians when the true cost of our selfishness and lack of honor or principle will be known.

America, I implore you to take a stand for principled constitutional government and nothing else from this day to your death. To do otherwise is to put yourself into the long, sad, and pernicious line of evil that is destroying the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

by: Keith D. Rodebush

Solutions: Education

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Every American citizen understands the importance of education. That is not to say that we all agree on the type of education that should be promoted, i.e. college preparation versus the 'Three R's' approach and even vocational training. I propose that all are important at some level. But then I shouldn't have a say in the child being educated in Chicago for instance. That is for the community to decide. They may feel that vocational skills which can be useful in preparing for manufacturing jobs or small business management would be beneficial to the majority of their kids. And likewise, it is not for them to tell folks in rural midwest towns how they should educate their children. They may feel that Agricultural programs are the most beneficial. One community might find the team skills, discipline and competitive spirit of sports programs worthy skills for children to learn, while others may feel that's a waste of time and strict academic regimens are necessary to prepare for the professional degrees available. While still others may determine that all of this is good and should be available at some level. But what level? Who should decide? The community? Or, a bureaucrat in an office in Washington D.C. sipping latte and reading statistical charts? Reasonable people understand that local communities are the best equipped to decide what is best for their children.

Does that mean that the federal government has no role whatsoever in education? Well, yea. That's exactly what it means. You see my fellow Americans there is nothing written in the U.S. Constitution which gives the federal government any power at all to manipulate education. In fact a 1973 SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruling verified that there is no federal constitutional right to education (pg 2- 1. b). This was left to the States. Once again, the Founding Fathers were very deliberative in the powers given to central government. They understood that something as vital as education could not possibly be trusted to corrupt politicians who have no qualms about using our childrens future as a tool for their own personal wealth and power, witness teacher unions and their donations to the democrat party. It is the responsibility of the states to educate their people.

Okay, so now we know that the Department of Education is entirely unconstitutional. What now? Well, you should insist that every politician who wants your vote should vow to abolish the D of E. If they don't do so, vote them out in the next primary. Again and again. You see, this Liberty stuff is hard! We have to be vigilant and tenacious. You cannot ever give in...the socialists never do. They are like a virus constantly mutating to defeat the immunity system of our nation. They have become airborne folks via the education system and if we do not innoculate our children with the antibodies of the truth of our founding and the importance of Liberty and Free Market Capitalism, this nation will fall; make no mistake about it.

Now, what type of education should we demand for our children? I submit that the best education is one in which our children are not taught 'what to think' but are taught 'how to think'. Any testing should not be based on certain information found in textbooks, it should be based on the idea that given a certain set of facts, what conclusion can be reached? Scientific theory of experimentation should be rigorously used to show how anyone can gather facts and experiment with unknowns and come to a logical conclusion based upon what is known. We should teach our nations history and the liberation of understanding that Rights come from God or the enslavement of believing they are gifts from Man. We should be teaching kids to question the facts and force proof of same. Above all, teach them to accept facts once proven regardless of personal wants or opinions. These principles and techniques allow us to filter the world around us through a prism of logic where reason and truth shines. In this way, when some idiot 9/11 truther says that steel doesn't melt in fire, a reasonable educated kid will immediately recognize that melting steel is exactly how it's made. Furthermore, said child will understand that steel doesn't have to completely melt to undermine structural integrity. Why they might even understand that the structure of the World Trade Center was unlike any other at the time and had an 'exoskeleton' design whereby except for the stair core, there were no columns but those at the perimeter of the building in the form of the unique frame which gave the building it's window shapes and distinctive look. A child so educated might understand that the federal government is abrogating it's duty under the Constitution to protect a state against invasion if asked to do so by the Governor of said state under Article VI section 4. And therefore, when Arizona passes a law to protect itself from said invasion, our children might not be inspired by communist teachers to go out and protest against the protectors of American rights and might instead go out and protest against a federal government which does not live up to it's constitutional mandate. But I dream do I not? Heh heh. We can't have an educated populace like that now can we? Can we? I mean come on, how would a democrat ever get elected in that type of intellectually prejudiced environment?

by: Keith D. Rodebush

further reading: Constitutional Requirements Governing American Education - Federal Constitutional Requirements, State Constitutional Issues, Conclusion

Solutions: Taxes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello all. We are going to embark on a series of articles here to try and bring the scope of problems facing America today into perspective. This is an open ended series which I don't expect to go beyond five articles.

The politicos of our day would have you believe that our problems are so deep and convoluted that it is nigh impossible for mortal Man to figure them out. This is lie number one always extant in modern political discourse. The purpose of said lie is to convince you the 'customer' that the politicians 'job' is so hard and complicated that you have no idea the extent to which their brilliance and intellect is challenged daily just to keep the wheels from falling off of this magnanimous and ever difficult thing we call government. The truth of course is that any God-fearing person with a basic understanding of our founding and an eighth grade reading level can discern the Constitutional mandates for federal government. In fact, most politicians are at best petty crooks and at worst radical idealogues that threaten our entire system. The second reason for the lie is to explain why nothing ever really gets done to change any of it. We will dispell that myth in the course of these next few blog posts, you and I. I doing basic research, applying common sense and principles of Liberty; You, reading, researching, confirming and finally agreeing with passion that if not exactly my conclusion; a simple conclusion can be had to every one of these issues so daunting to the supposed 'smartest guys in the room' today. The first article I submit to you is on Taxes. The ruse our politicians enslave us with is that this is a very complex issue requiring thousands of pages of federal regulations, an entire arm of government instilled with the power of confiscation of property, threat to citizens Liberty and even imprisonment or death if you dare to dispute their power over you and your finances. I submit to you, my fellow Americans, that it is not nearly that complicated.

TAXES:

The powers that be would have you believe that it's just impossible for the government to live on the tax receipts from hard working Americans income. Now commonplace in every legislative cycle is an attempt to extract more and more of Americans hard earned dollars to feed the veracious appetite of an all encompassing totalitarian government. To be sure, to try and deconstruct this Communist Goliath of socialist structure will not be easy. What I propose here is simply an intellectual exercise to prove beyond any doubt that major changes can be made, with dramatic positive consequences. All that is required is the will and fortitude to weather the maelstrom of negativity that will befall the unfortunate politician who dares to truly care about his country, his progeny, the Constitution, Freedom and his constituents.

The total income for the United States of America according to the presidents recent budget is approximately $13 trillion dollars (13,000,000,000,000.00). This number is low because the very tyrannical nature of today's government entices otherwise good Americans to hide cash transactions, perform accounting tricks and otherwise attempt to diminish the confiscation of personal property in modern day America. Now let us suppose that we levied a simple percentage tax on this amount. No deductions, no waivers, no excuses, no redistribution and no political favors. If you make a dollar, you pay the percentage. If you make 10 billion dollars, you pay the percentage. Let us further assume that if 10% is good enough for God, it should also be good enough for ungodly government. That of course would be the maximum and allowing for unforeseen circumstance we should provide a buffer. Therefore, I propose a 7% flat tax on all income, not to exceed 10%. All efforts to raise said tax must be approved by a two thirds majority of both houses of Congress. At 7% this would give the U.S. government 910,000,000,000.00 or $910 Billion. The following is a line item budget as gleaned from the presidents latest budget proposal. The first number is the 2010 actual budget amount and the second column is the proposed 2011 budget.

The bright ones amongst you have already noticed the glaring omission; Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Why? Because these are unconstitutional programs that have no business in the federal budget. They have worked exactly as intended and have become a 'toy manufacturer' for every politicians' consituency toy box. 'See the nice new toy that Daddy is going to give you? All you have to do is let me steal just a little more Liberty and it is yours.' Americans unfortunately have become addicted to the toy of the year and many polls show they don't want to give up these programs. Fine. Pay for them. These programs should be taken off of the books, run independently and more important funded independently. If Americans want their toys, they will have to pay for them. This alone will let them see the bright shiny toy they are buying for the kid who doesn't play with the rest of us or do his chores. All the while we are stuck doing our chores and playing with the old stick horse.

This leaves the above outlined budget for federal spending; again notice that my flat tax does not include any SS or Medicare/Medicaid taxes, just a simple flat tax for running the basics of federal government. As stated above, the first line is the actual 2010 budget and the second is the presidents proposed 2011 budget. Let us first determine that in the dire economy in which we now exist we should revert to the 2010 budget and, as opposed to raising it, we should tighten our belts like any normal business entity would do under the circumstances. I propose a 5% across the board cut. Everyone gets cut, no exceptions. Any department head that says they cannot possibly cut 5% from their budget in lean times is either incompetent, a liar or both. Next since we have separated Social Security and Health programs from the government we don't need the Department of Social Security or the Department of Health and Human Services; that saves $93.7 Billion. Again these will have to be run and funded independently and will therefore need to be revenue neutral. If you want it, pay for it. Is there any more abysmal failure than the Department of Education? A Jimmy Carter legacy. Education should be controlled by states and local authority. That is the only way we can educate our kids the way WE see fit. Therefore, axe the Department of Education. That saves $64.3 Billion. No one can convince me that the Environmental Protection Agency has done anything but stifle business and given a home to the Van Jones, "Let's give human rights to Mother Earth" types of the world. Therefore, we don't need that in a federal agency. They can raise their own money and save the snails all by their lonesome. That saves $10.3 Billion. Everyone who has an ounce of common sense knows that the Department of Energy, another Jimmy Carter fiasco created to 'lessen our dependence on foreign oil' is an abject failure and in fact stifles production of energy hurting our economy. That's gone. There's another $16.6 Billion. By the way, please note that this is the part that excludes the National Nuclear Security Administration, we can keep that part. One of the few government programs that actually does something. How efficient is another story. Okay, Housing and Urban development, responsible for most of the slums in America today, partially responsible for the housing bubble and subsequent economic meltdown of 2008. If urban areas want to develop, then let them. Don't do it on my dime though. I'm attempting my own development. Gone. That saves another $42.8 Billion. State and International Programs; I think they can get by with $40 Billion baseline, that saves $9.8 Billion.

Well the results are in: Out of a baseline budget of $1.0844 Trillion dollars we have managed to slash $237.5 Billion. That leaves a baseline of $846.9 Billion. Now personally, I think we are not as appreciative of our veterans as we should be. Therefore, I propose we double their budget, we'll round it out to $100 Billion (adds $46.9 B). That gets us to $893.8 Billion. Now we slice off our 5% austerity measure and that puts us at $849.11 Billion. As you can see, this fits nicely into our 7% flat tax revenue of $910 Billion with $60.89 Billion left. There you go, budget balanced. Now we must of course pay the interest on the debt as well as pay down the debt itself. And that is the beauty of it. If the federal government balanced it's budget, took entitlements off the books and made them balance themselves, and taxes were simplified and only took 10% or less of anyones pay, our economy would soar like you have never even imagined. Freeze spending or minimize it to very small increases and the additional revenue goes to the debt. Additionally, a temporary 2% tax could be implemented by 2/3 vote of Congress and all of that put to the debt. That alone would bring in a minimum of $260 Billion a year. Add that to our $60.89 Billion surplus and that gives us $320.89 Billion a year that could be put to the interest and the debt. Again with rapid growth in the economy this number would grow exponentially.

So there it is. With a little homework and some down to earth sensible thinking, this government could have this problem licked in a weekend. But they won't do it will they? Why? If someone could cure our country's financial problems but refuse to, are they your friend or your enemy? You see, the tax code is how they subjugate you, give power to themselves, hold business hostage, empower lobbyist who in turn empower politicians. It is all one big rat's nest of corruption, selfish greed and idealogical social experimentation. Now that you know this can be done, will you vote for any politician who won't do it? I know, I know one man alone in the wilderness cannot possibly turn around this monstrous machine, blah blah blah. I'm sick and tired of hearing excuses how about you? Not a single politician who isn't working tirelessly to change the tax code and change the spending habits and devolving power from Washington D.C. deserves to set foot in our beloved capitol building. We must put up primary challenges to all of these snakes slithering around infecting our nation and stealing our childrens heritage. They are despicable swine and deserve nothing but your contempt and close scrutiny. The one or two who may indeed be working tirelessly for our Liberty deserve our help and respect regardless of which district they live in. We can no longer afford to marginalize ourselves to our districts. What each and every one of these crooks does affects us all. We must watch them all, network with each other to inform, notify and support opposition against every career politician who is unserious about turning this nation back to the Constitutional Republic we have been charged by history to protect for future generations of Americans.

by: Keith D. Rodebush

Sources:
Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Deparment of Commerce. News Release BEA 11-14 dated March 28, 2011 - "Personal Income and Outlays: February 2011"

"Fiscal Year 2011 Budget of the United States Government" dated February 1, 2010

Further information concerning health care and the government can be found in previous blog posts written in August of 2009. "A Case Against Government Health Care" and "Health Care Solutions for America"

Health Care Solutions for America

Are we not all Americans? We the people are united, not in political discourse, but by a much stronger and enduring bond. We are united by an innate belief in the undeniable rights of Man as articulated so brilliantly by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. No cynic or cunning strategist should be allowed to divide us on these basic truths. The rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were singled out as those most worthy of defending by Mr. Jefferson. While other rights may be considered such as the right to worship freely one may argue that they would be included in the pursuit of happiness. What is not included, and should not be included are necessities, i.e. food, shelter, health or companionship. Rights in this context are endowed by our Creator. Our Creator did not endow us with the right to food. He provided a planet populated with plants and animals for our use. He did not endow us with a right to shelter, He provided materials and a curiosity and intellect that allows us to provide our shelter as we see fit. And - he did not endow us with a right to health care. He gave us multitudes of medicinal plants; He gave us a superior brain that allows for innovation and invention; and He gave us the capacity of sympathy for our fellow Man.

For the sake of discussion let us consider the following as goals agreed upon by all Americans:

- All Americans should have access to quality health care
- Americans with unavoidable chronic illness should not be denied health care
- Truly needy Americans, incapable of self-reliance, should receive assistance from their fellow Americans

My previous post, A Case Against Government Health Care, is an intensive study of the folly of government programs designed to address the above goals. It is critical that you peruse that article before continuing. Any reasonable study of government run programs cannot conclude other than; they are inefficient, costly, encourage unwanted behavior in the citizenry, and through mandates, regulation and bureaucratic control infringe on the liberty of the people and deny the rights guaranteed in the X Amendment.

Therefore let us, within the framework of the U.S. Constitution and the principles of the free market, determine viable methods to reach the above stated goals, as Americans, as neighbors, as children of God. The following solutions are put forth with an understanding that current federal programs cannot and should not be capriciously ended and would necessarily need to be phased out with strict guarantees to all current participants.

Constitutional Free Market Solutions to Health Care:

1. The federal government shall embrace it's constitutional role in regulating interstate commerce and remove all barriers, including federal regulations, to the purchasing of health insurance.
2. All federal regulations regarding the access, provision, delivery, payment or cost of health care services shall be repealed.
3. A state Attorney General, I suggest Texas but I'm prejudicial, shall sue the federal government under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for usurping the rights of states and the people, thereby creating a SCOTUS opinion that will permanently bar the federal government from interjecting itself into a private industry.
4. Pursuant to Article I section 8 of the Constitution the federal government will pass a law regulating all commerce related to the provision of health care amongst the states in regards to the peoples right to access to services without discrimination. This is the only constitutional power of the federal government in this issue.
5. Congress shall pass a law putting reasonable limits on the amount of damages that can be levied against a health care professional or institution who/which acts in good faith on behalf of their patients without regard to injury by tragic accident. Gross negligence being proven against an individual health care provider shall have no such restriction. Gross negligence being proven against an institution will result in limited damages in addition to penalties and censorship, with multiple offenses resulting in loss of privelege to provide medical services. Additionally, the right of the people to sue for discrimination will be protected. (I am not a lawyer, but this should include discrimination for age in the case of someone who carrys insurance for some period of time. In other words, insurance companies should not be allowed to drop someone's insurance because of an illness or an arbitrary age has been reached. While this will necessarily raise rates across the board, other provisions herein should result in a net decrease in insurance costs.)
6. The states, with discretion to their individual constitutions and in cooperation with county governments will pass laws establishing community health centers for the dispensing of basic health care services. These centers are to be not for profit entities subject to local inspection and control. Pricing for services will be based on known business & accounting standards on a cost + 2% basis. The 2% shall be kept in reserve under state control for emergency assistance during unforeseen circumstances such as an epidemic. (states would also be free to use some portion of this percentage for the indigent care proviso)
7. State government shall levy a tax to be used for indigent health care and care for persons with unavoidable chronic ailments. It would be preferrable for these taxes to expire every 6 years at which time the state legislature should review the program and reinstate the tax.
8. State and federal government should do everything possible within the constitution to encourage competition among the insurance and health care industries. Insurance companies or any other industry should not be allowed to collude in regards to pricing of goods and services. Personally, I am for banning national unions or associations. This falls under the federal governments constitutional mandate to regulate commerce among the states. Collusion for the purpose of setting rates and stifling competition is in direct opposition to the free market and should not be allowed.
9. State boards should be set up to review the cases of citizens with pre-existing conditions in regards to eligibility for indigent or chronic assistance. Criteria should be drafted with attention paid to the circumstances surrounding the loss of coverage. In other words, the case of an able bodied person who voluntarily quits working and subsequently cannot pay premiums and loses insurance should not be equal to the case of a person laid off during times of recession who subsequently cannot afford to keep insurance. Pre-existing conditions are the most difficult for insurance coverage. It is akin to wrecking your car and then asking the insurance company for a policy that will grandfather in the recent crash. No business practice could sustain itself with that policy. However, states should look to fold these citizens back into the insurance customer base after they can afford coverage, perhaps with tax breaks, grants or cooperatives.

I have purposely shied away from specifics such as the type of insurance that should be available. The free market should determine this with the federal government insuring free access enjoyed by all. Personally, I believe that educating the public to the reasonable approach to purchasing catastrophic coverage while maintaining a Health Savings Account, or simply using cash for day to day health care such as colds, cuts, broken bones etc. is the most prudent path for most families in America today. These choices need to be promoted and encouraged, but the final choice remains the individuals. If one prefers maximum coverage for a maximum rate then so be it. If one prefers no coverage at all, then so be it; just don't complain when illness assaults you. Regardless of our choices, good or bad, no person should be denied basic life saving care such as what is being provided in our emergency rooms today. This is NOT the same as treating sniffles and minor cuts and bruises in emergency rooms at your neighbors expense. This does not include long term world class care for fatal diseases such as cancer. If an individual freely decides to expose his/herself to risk, then they do not deserve extensive care. This is wasteful and unreasonable. They should, however, receive basic care and pain relief out of compassion, paying what they can afford, and relief of liability for the remainder.

One of the most important aspects of this plan is that the states are not mandated by federal law regarding their citizens health care. They are required to have equal access to care. The citizens of the country will vote with their feet. States with reasonable coverage and freedom will keep people and business. States with too much involvement will discourage business and have higher taxes. Their economy will suffer, prompting changes. States with too little coverage will lose taxpayers, again prompting changes. This is how the forefathers intended our country to work. They were very smart and intuitive and I challenge all of my fellow citizens to read their writings again and again until it soaks in just how deep their understanding of government and freedom was. They were voracious readers and they studied every government past and present before designing this wonderful republican government we have so far enjoyed. Let us be dutiful in passing these liberties to future generations. Libertas! God Bless America!

A Case Against Government Health Care

Politicians have always used fear to rule the people - always. The health care debate is no different. Propagation of fear has many Americans asking themselves a variety of questions. Is the government trying to incrementally take over the health care industry? Is government run health care efficient? Do politicians really have your best interest in mind? Is it compassionate to bankrupt my grandchildren and great-grandchildren for my care? Does it matter if government run health care is constitutional? If a politician or a party uses your fear of disease and dying to support their quest for power; deem them unworthy of your support; meriting only your contempt.

The first serious foray into government provided health insurance was by the Progressive Party under Theodore Roosevelt (TR) in 1912. It is important to understand that this was in the context of an overall strategy by TR to gain control over what was perceived as a blight of runaway corporations who were engulfing the resources of the country and hoarding indefensible profits on the backs of the common worker. The industrial revolution was in full swing and the astronomical growth of the economy (a good thing) had caught government off guard. The inherent slowness of government to react reasonably (a bad thing) had resulted in a huge populuous movement to reign in the corporate powers and restore the riches of the country to it's 'rightful' owners, the people who produced it. If that sounds familiar, it should. Several liberal politicians of our age have echoed the same sentiment, though I propose, with much less sincerity than Mr. Roosevelt. There was a sense that balance needed to be restored between business, labor and consumers. While Woodrow Wilson proposed doing so by weakening business, Roosevelt believed in doing so by strengthening the other two. As part of this attempt, the Progressive party endorsed social insurance as part of the platform in an attempt to beat Wilson and Taft in the upcoming presidential election. Another important note to make here is that it was more political than altruistic. (TR The Last Romantic, H.W. Brands 1997. -- Timeline: History of Health Reform in the U.S., Kaiser Family Foundation 2009 [kff])

TR's cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) would again take up the banner for universal health coverage during his terms as President of the United States. However, FDR was acutely aware that this could end up torpedoing his primary concern, the Social Security Act (1935). In the end, FDR abandoned the inclusion of universal health coverage in the Social Security Act in the interest of easing it's passage through both houses of Congress. Interestingly, this began a decades long give and take between the American Medical Association (AMA) and government, in which the AMA fights legislation in the beginning of the political process but then lobbies for access and control, quite successfully, towards the end of the process when legislation seems eminent. (Despite popular belief the AMA does not represent 'doctors'. Only 20% belong.)
One must not diminish the importance of this administration in the eventual takeover of private industry by government. FDR was much more liberal than his public persona, believing in "cradle to grave" protection, including health insurance for all Americans. He always believed that these programs would lead to an ever more dependant class needing ever more government assistance, from guess which party? Within the first hour of their meeting to determine her nomination for Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins and FDR had agreed upon much of the social welfare system as it has existed since. To Ms. Perkins astute observation; that much of this government involvement would be considered unconstitutional; FDR stated that "...we can work something out when it comes." This of course, would lead to the famous Supreme Court packing incident that was the eventual demise of FDR's perpetual presidency. (FDR was the first and only president to break with George Washington's tradition of only serving two terms as President of the United States) Make no mistake about it, this again was about power and money, not charity to the American public. As the debate in Congress was going on about the New Deal proposals, FDR waivered back and forth as the political winds blew. Frances Perkins was ever frustrated at his lack of solid support. Another clue into the political as opposed to ethical aspect of these programs was the fact that negroes need not apply. Yes, that is correct, Social Security, unemployment insurance and minimum wage under FDR all had employer exemptions that allowed for discrimination against blacks. New Deal programs lead to the fundamental change of the federal government from one that was meant to protect a citizens rights and access to the means to 'pursue' happiness, to one that provided 'happiness' in the form of security. Politicians to this day are abusing this corruption of the Constitution to bring fear to elderly and poor citizens claiming their 'rights' will be taken away if they vote for the wrong party. (The Defining Moment-FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope, Jonathan Alter 2007.)

Though FDR did not include health coverage in the Social Security Act (SSA), it in no way stopped the government infusion into this private industry. While politicians from Truman to Kennedy attempted to gain traction for universal health care a plethora of government programs, mandates and regulations began the long trek towards complete government takeover. These include but are not limited to:

The inclusion of grants for Maternal and Child Health in the SSA, essentially restoring the Sheppard-Towner Act.
The Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate Health and Welfare Activities.
National Health Survey.
Department of Health and Human Services is established as Federal Security Agency.
Attempt to pass the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill in 1943 for cradle to grave coverage.
FDR's economic 'Bill of Rights' 1944.
Social Security Boards call for compulsory national health insurance.
Hill-Burton Act 1946.
1949 SCOTUS affirms National Labor Relations Board rule that benefits may be part of collective bargaining, strengthening labor unions.
1950 National Conference on aging.
1951 Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals.
Federal Security Agency becomes the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

In 1965, the Johnson administration pushed through the Social Security Act which included single payer health care for seniors (Medicare) and single payer coverage for the 'poor' (Medicaid). At the time opponents to the bill claimed that the predictions of costs were grossly understated. History has shown that even they had no idea how much of the federal budget would eventually be spent on these programs. Once again, the original intent was to have complete government control of healthcare, but once again they were willing to use an incremental strategy.
In 1995 Robert Ball (Social Security administrator under Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon), made the following astounding admission...30 years after the fact:

"For persons who are trying to understand what we were up to, the first broad point to keep in mind is that all of us who developed Medicare and fought for it...had been advocates of universal national health insurance. We all saw insurance for the elderly as a fallback position, which we advocated solely because it seemed to have the best chance politically. Although the public record contains some explicit denials, we expected Medicare to be a first step toward universal national health insurance, perhaps with "Kiddicare" as another step."

Robert M. Ball, "Perspectives on Medicare: What Medicare's Architects Had in Mind," Health Affairs (Winter 1995): 62-72

Think about this for just a second. Here is a top administration official, admitting that the entire administration was consistently lying to the public in order to achieve their utlimate goal. If your goal is simply helping people, why on earth would you have to lie? However, what if your goal was more sinister? What if your goal was centralized governmental power over the people? What if your goal was known to be completely unconstitutional? Now THAT is a reason to lie!

If you still do not believe in the incremental approach to full governmental control of health care, peruse the following list of additions to Medicare/Medicaid since 1965:

1967-Social Security amendments broaden Medicaid coverage and add Early and Periodic Screening and Diagnostic Testing (EPSDT) benefits
1972-Medicare benefits are extended to persons under 65 with disabilities (the definition of which will change over the years) and persons with End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)
1974-Health Planning Resources Development Act mandates state programs for health planning
1977-Health Care Financing Administration established under the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
1980-Home Health benefit under Medicare broadened. Medi-gap supplemental insurance brought under federal control
1981-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 81) puts additional mandates on states regarding pay and coverage of Medicare services.
1982-States allowed to expand Medicaid coverage to certain children with disabilities. HMO's are added as an option to garner more plan participation. Hospice benefits are added.
1983-Federal employees are required to participate in Medicare
1985-Medicare mandatory for newly hired state and local government employees
1986-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 86) loosens qualifications for coverage for the poor
1987-National Medical Expenditure Survey collects information on households from medical and insurance providers
1988-Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act greatly expands Medicare coverage. Though the act is repealed the next years, some elements are maintained such as state mandates for paying premiums for poor.
1989-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 89) mandates coverage for pregnant women and children under 6 at 133% of the poverty line
1990-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 90) mandates coverage of children 6-18 under poverty line
1993-Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax applied to all wages rather than the lower capped SS amount. States required to expand coverage and benefits. Clinton Administration attempts complete health care takeover by the government but fails amid stiff resistance.
1997-Balanced Budget Act mandates extensive changes in Medicare and Medicaid. Some intended to cut administrative costs, others to expand coverage and benefits including Medicare+Choice (optional managed care plan). Interestingly, payments must be reduced to providers to maintain solvency of HI which began only 4 years previous. State Childrens Health Insurance Program is adopted with block grants to states to cover federal mandates. States are allowed to cover working disabled up to 250% of poverty line.
2000-Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act allows Medicaid coverage for breast and cervical cancer treatment regardless of income or resources
2003-Medicare Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act creates a voluntary prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Benefits provided under private plans and Medicare Advantage (formerly Medicare+Choice). Interestingly, many seniors opt for this plan without knowing their benefits actually decrease and they pay for services previously covered under Medicare (field observation by RN).
Legislation allows for Health Savings Accounts (HSA's) in conjunction with high deductible insurance plans.
2005-Deficit Reduction Act makes broad changes in premiums, cost sharing, benefits and asset transfers
2007-Many legislative attempts are made to expand or limit Medicare coverage, change tax exemptions and deductions, or extend S-CHIPS. All fail to be passed by Congress and/or signed by the president. Political divide on government provided health care widens with democrat Congress and republican President.
(kff, -- "Medicare, a profile, Celebrating 35 Medicare, Chronology of Legislative Activity" 1990)

This list is thorough but not comprehensive. Regardless of the obvious good intentions or seemingly charitable outcome, the stunning reality is that once government becomes involved in any industry, the tendency is to become ever more restrictive in that industries day to day operations. If you care to read any of the above legislation pay particular note to the use of the words: allow, mandate, require, regulate, fine, tax and fee.

Medicare and Medicaid costs, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product has tripled since 1970. If left alone, Medicare/Medicaid spending could be as much as 19% of GDP by 2082. Government spending on health care now makes up approximately 45% of all health care expenditures in the United States. In the meantime, out of pocket expenses for recipients has gone down from 33% to 15% with projections of 13% by 2015. 25% of the beneficiaries account for 85% of expenditures. (Congressional Budget Office)
Social security, Medicare and Medicaid were over $1,000,000,000,000.00 in the fy 2006 federal budget. Despite popular belief, Medicare spending is only 53% funded by payroll tax. The rest comes from the general fund. (U.S. federal budget fy 2008 - Mandatory spending)

Now, put your thinking cap on. What happens when you give something to people, then you constantly expand what they can get while lessening their personal burden? Exponential growth, increased demand for benefits, ever expanding sense of entitlement. One thing that politicians will always rely on is the old adage that you can't prove a negative. In other words, no one can say what the condition of our health care system would be today if government had stayed out of it. Some historical data shows that the best way to increase medical care is to increase economic standards for all people. Our economy has grown by a factor of 20 in the last 40 years. How can anyone assert what the rate of uninsured would be if government regulation and control of almost 50% of our healthcare system did not exist? How can one know what the effect on the cost of health care would be if the government did not take out the needed revenue from everyones paycheck? How can one know how much more the economy would have expanded if government expenditures did not include government run health care? How can one know what the effect on the value of the U.S. dollar would be if the federal government was not so deep in debt? Very simply you can not. What one can do is to empirically prove what happens when government does control a large portion of health care. Costs go up, use expands exponentially, personal responsibility plummets, freedom is incrementally reduced, government mandates and regulations expand, free market solutions are stifled, doctors become disillusioned, etc. etc. etc. And the most tragic is that society tends to look only to government for solutions when in fact government is what is wrong.

All of the above is irrelevant. Yes, that's what I said, irrelevant. The reason is that everything that government has done, from Social Security to the GM bailout is unconstitutional. These things do not provide for the 'general welfare' of the U.S., they provide for the 'specific welfare' of individuals and businesses. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to 'regulate' interstate commerce. In the context of this clause, regulate means to 'keep regular' or to keep states from impeding each others ability to conduct business within these United States. A perfect example would be the ability to purchase insurance from another state. This is an area that the government should be involved in to the extent that it should remove barriers preventing this interstate commerce from occurring. The sad truth is that the exact opposite is being done. Government regulation now prevents such purchases! Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to take over industries such as health care, insurance, banking or car manufacturing. And yet, they do, and are even arrogant about it to the extent that any critics of this oppression are laughed off as extremists or out of touch. This arrogance and condescension is precisely why our founding fathers warned against too much control being afforded a central government. Never forget that power corrupts.

If allowed to continue, and there is little chance it won't, the federal government will indeed, one day control the entire health care industry. What this means for the average American is that almost every aspect of your daily lives will become a line item to the bureaucracy. Holding down costs will be their constant mantra, because without personal responsibility and with coverage for all and coverage for everything, the cycle begun by Medicare/Medicaid will only be exacerbated. That means that if you ride a motorcycle, you are at a greater risk to require medical care. If you don't exercise properly you will be more likely to need heart medication. If you swim, boat or participate in any sport your risks of injury will be higher. All of this will be studied, numbers will be crunched, recommendations will be made, regulations will be made, mandates will flourish and taxes will rise constantly. The government will allow some activities while discouraging others. Once medical care is completely provided by government, then all activities that may lead to medical care; in other words living your life day to day; will become a point of interest to the bureaucrats in Washington D.C. whose mission it will be to constantly work to lower health care expenditures and increase tax contributions. If left alone as is, Medicare/Medicaid will consume the federal budget before the end of this century. That level of spending is unsustainable. Cuts will have to be made and revenues will have to be increased.

The indisputable evidence is that the federal government has caused more problems in the health care industry than it has solved. It has taken responsibility out of the health care equation. It has caused costs to increase with regulation and mandates. It has corrupted the political process by collusion with certain industries and unions. It has spread it's power and authority without regard to it's Constitutional mandate. It has encouraged future constitutional abuses. It has methodically forced dependency on a large portion of the population. And, most despicably, it has bankrupted future generations for it's own short term power trip and called it compassion.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is about power and money. It has always been about power and money. It will always be about power and money. Our forefathers knew this. That is why they constantly admonished that all government by it's very nature is corrupt. The only way to minimize the effect on the liberty of the people is to diminish governments role in daily life as much as possible. It's not about the details, it's never about the details. It's about the philosophy. Big government=less freedom. Small government=more freedom. Freedom promotes ingenuity, invention and production. Government diminishes all three. The title of this blog is ignarus semino dominatus, ignorance breeds tyranny. The acceptance by a large portion of the populous of these States United, of Social Security and government health care are perfect examples of the truthfulness of this old idiom.

What is the solution? My next blog post Health Care Solutions for American will solve these problems constitutionally if we, the American voters, have the character and resolve to implement it.


by: Keith D. Rodebush

Charts for reference: