I cringe whenever I hear politicians say they want to be elected to office, because to “want” something implies a degree of ambition and zeal. Have you ever wanted something so badly that you would be willing to do anything to get it? If so, then at one time or another in your life, you have been a zealot.
Politicians, as a general rule, are by their very nature zealots whose ambition is for power, which, in a constitutional republic like the United States of America, exists in elected office.
Historically, U.S. politicians have sought office for a variety of reasons, among them: to advance a political agenda, to establish for themselves a forum to express their views, to achieve position, and to reap the monetary benefits of public service. But no matter how you slice it, what the bottom line comes down to is power.
There is power in pushing and leading a cause or agenda. There is power in standing on a soap box for everyone to see and hear you. There is power with achieving a higher social position. And, there is certainly power with money.
Power is narcissism, pure and simple. It is ego-boosting and self-aggrandizing, period. That is why so many politicians want it. And, as important as we’ve made self-esteem out to be in modern times, it is no wonder. After all, nothing really matters except feeling good about ourselves. If power makes a politician feel good, then so be it.
The trouble is, throughout human history, men and women have sought power with reckless abandon and relentless pursuit. You can trace the rise and fall of many civilizations, both ancient and contemporary, back to the pursuit of power. Rome crumbled from within because of the appetites of the Caesars and their successors. The Mongols collapsed because of power struggles between the Khans. Europe has been plagued with wars since the Dark Ages because of power—the last of which came at a cost of millions of human lives.
As different as their views and circumstances were, Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler were both zealots who sought power. Just look at the results of this zeal: Ninety years of human suffering under communism and fascism, resulting in the deaths of millions. Men like Lenin and Hitler spawned followers, such as Mao Zedong, Pol-Pot, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, the Ayetollahs and Shas of Iran, Moamar Ghadaffi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and yes, even Osama bin Laden. Their appetites for power have been the same, and the results of their power also comparable.
Julius Caesar’s ascension to power was the death of the Roman Republic and hastened the end of ancient Roman civilization.
The First Crusade of England’s King Richard the Lionheart to Israel led to a dozen more just like it and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Power and its pursuit have historically resulted in human suffering.
But human beings either don’t get this connection or just don’t care.
Closer to home, we see relative human suffering everyday with local economies reaping the consequences of overzealous politicians. Whether it’s a city councilor voting to raise taxes to pay for a state-of-the-art facility, or the President of the United States signing a bill that results in dozens of companies going out of business and thousands of jobs lost, there is a great toll on the human burden to fuel this power.
With great power comes great responsibility, to borrow a phrase.
There is a lot of truth in that.
Unfortunately, many of our elected leaders become so focused on the power that they lose sight of the responsibility that comes with it.
As such, I am not impressed by candidates who say they “want” public office. I am more impressed by candidates that express their interest as a duty and a responsibility, rather than a want or desire. God knows we could use fewer zealots and demagogues in elected office and more level-headed people who have a sense of responsibility and obligation to represent their neighborhoods, communities, districts and country.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
How to qualify for office
Every presidential election season seems to begin with a lot of talk about who is the most experienced, most energetic and most enthusiastic candidate for the office of President of the United States. But I dare say that none of these qualities are necessarily attractive when it comes to choosing the next commander-in-chief.
Experience is a fine thing when one is applying for a job. But a candidate for elected office should not be equated with a job applicant, no matter how often politicians like to use the analogy. While I submit that experience is appropriate for some elected state offices, it should not be so heavily weighted for elected representatives. For instance, a person with a law degree and who is a lawyer would be more qualified for the office of attorney-general than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. But just because a candidate has a law degree and is a lawyer does not mean he or she is more qualified to represent the people than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. I once read a letter to the editor that suggested our elected lawmakers needed to be qualified, meaning they should all be lawyers. Well, according to state and federal constitutions, the only qualifications to serve as a legislator are age, citizenship and residence. So, as long as you are a U.S. citizen, are of age to hold elected office, and you reside in the district from which you seek office, then you are qualified. This applies to candidates for city council all the way up to President of the United States.
There are no other qualifications. I cringe when I hear some media pundit, politician or voter question a candidate’s qualifications for office as though having a college degree and professional experience somehow raises their stock. Have you ever looked closely at your state’s voter pamphlet and the candidate biographies therein? Everyone lists their education, work experience and civic memberships first, as if being more educated or professional makes them a better candidate. Their ideas are always last on the biography.
That doesn’t mean these qualities can’t or shouldn’t be considered when voting for a candidate. Community involvement, leadership, work experience, and education are all feathers in the cap, and these virtues can often mean the difference in a close race or difficult decision.
However, in my humble opinion, the most important qualities of a political candidate are his or her ideas, beliefs, values, principles and opinions. Most people will not vote for a representative whose ideology and values are not congruent with their own. That is just a fact.
Why is it so important, then, for a politician to be “qualified” for the office he or she seeks? As long as a candidate meets the constitutional requirements for holding office, those should be the only qualifications we ought to be concerned about. Everything else merely contributes to the total package.
If you want to vote for a candidate because you think his or her law degree gives him or her an edge, then so be it. But please don’t insist that our lawmakers be qualified with the proper education or professional credentials, because it isn’t necessary, and it certainly isn’t a constitutional requirement.
America’s founding generation specifically designed our constitutional republic to be truly a reflection of the people by having “the people” elected to represent their own. That’s why the only qualifications to hold office are age, citizenship and residency.
A person with only a high school education is just as qualified to legislate as someone with a Juris Doctorate. Our founders believed that “the people” were entirely capable of representing themselves, and that they didn’t require people specially trained or educated to lead for them.
As such, the farmer and the cowhand are just as qualified to represent his or her community in elected office as the banker, the lawyer or the doctor.
Some may ask: Would I want a farmer making policy decisions for my state or the country rather than somebody educated in the law?
My answer to that is…heck yes!
I’ll vote for somebody with more common sense than formal education any day of the week over somebody with a dozen advanced degrees and more academic theories on the brain than practical sense.
Common sense isn’t learned in the classroom. We learn it through everyday living. Experience is the best teacher, or so the old saying goes.
But beware of experience. Only the right kind of experience provides common, practical sense. The wrong kind gives us the type of people who are running our communities, states and country now.
The wrong experience can lead to elitism and corruption. Experienced politicians, for example, can be dangerous because they know exactly how to say and what to do for re-election. They are skilled at pulling the wool over our eyes by telling us what we want to hear and erecting smokescreens between us and reality. They are adept at concealing their activities apart from their constituents and doing things under the radar of the electorate. And they artfully use verbiage and language that create loopholes for them in their campaigns and in the bills they propose.
And the scary thing is that most of these people are highly educated and well credentialed. They are just a little bit deficient when it comes to personal ethics and character.
The problems that often develop from experienced politicians are the very reasons why America’s founders settled on very basic qualifications that even common folks could meet. They wanted to encourage average people to serve as citizen legislators as a check and balance against the professional politicians, whose involvement and permeation into government even the founders understood would be inevitable.
Citizen legislators provide a counter balance to the public officials who are particularly skilled in politics, and who use those skills as a means to their own ends.
Unfortunately, there are too many voters who have bought into the false notion that a candidate for elected office is somehow less qualified if he or she doesn’t either have adequate education or proper experience. Modern culture deems a four-year college degree to be the minimum of adequate education, and civic involvement or prior public service to be the minimum of proper experience. It seems like the more political experience one has, the more attractive one appears as a candidate for higher office.
I don’t understand that mentality. It is as though the electorate is gradually reverting back to nobility and royalty, when Americans were ruled and governed by a monarch instead of an elected legislature of fellow citizens.
By expecting our candidates to have a minimum of a college degree and prior public service experience, we are adding qualifications that aren’t really there while alienating those citizens who don’t meet these expectations. We are essentially distinguishing between the privileged and the under-privileged by giving the former an edge over the latter.
Not everyone has a college degree, and not everyone has experience in public service or civic memberships. Some of us are just hard working, taxpaying citizens, residents and neighbors. We are raising our families and being responsible, productive members of society. Should we be written off or disqualified because we don’t have the expected amount of education or experience?
Elected office isn’t a job; it’s a leadership position. As such, the same expectations or qualifications required for employment shouldn’t be the same for leadership posts. Character, values and ethics ought to count more for public office than formal education or experience.
When the people lead, then leaders will usually follow. And where people lead, the leaders will often follow, too. But when the people leave leadership up to the leaders instead of taking it upon themselves, then all we ought to expect is calamity caused by political corruption.
When the cats are away the mice will play, so goes the old axiom. My suggestion, then, is more “cats” in the halls of Congress to keep the mice honest and in check. Because we all know how mice breed, don't we?
Experience is a fine thing when one is applying for a job. But a candidate for elected office should not be equated with a job applicant, no matter how often politicians like to use the analogy. While I submit that experience is appropriate for some elected state offices, it should not be so heavily weighted for elected representatives. For instance, a person with a law degree and who is a lawyer would be more qualified for the office of attorney-general than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. But just because a candidate has a law degree and is a lawyer does not mean he or she is more qualified to represent the people than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. I once read a letter to the editor that suggested our elected lawmakers needed to be qualified, meaning they should all be lawyers. Well, according to state and federal constitutions, the only qualifications to serve as a legislator are age, citizenship and residence. So, as long as you are a U.S. citizen, are of age to hold elected office, and you reside in the district from which you seek office, then you are qualified. This applies to candidates for city council all the way up to President of the United States.
There are no other qualifications. I cringe when I hear some media pundit, politician or voter question a candidate’s qualifications for office as though having a college degree and professional experience somehow raises their stock. Have you ever looked closely at your state’s voter pamphlet and the candidate biographies therein? Everyone lists their education, work experience and civic memberships first, as if being more educated or professional makes them a better candidate. Their ideas are always last on the biography.
That doesn’t mean these qualities can’t or shouldn’t be considered when voting for a candidate. Community involvement, leadership, work experience, and education are all feathers in the cap, and these virtues can often mean the difference in a close race or difficult decision.
However, in my humble opinion, the most important qualities of a political candidate are his or her ideas, beliefs, values, principles and opinions. Most people will not vote for a representative whose ideology and values are not congruent with their own. That is just a fact.
Why is it so important, then, for a politician to be “qualified” for the office he or she seeks? As long as a candidate meets the constitutional requirements for holding office, those should be the only qualifications we ought to be concerned about. Everything else merely contributes to the total package.
If you want to vote for a candidate because you think his or her law degree gives him or her an edge, then so be it. But please don’t insist that our lawmakers be qualified with the proper education or professional credentials, because it isn’t necessary, and it certainly isn’t a constitutional requirement.
America’s founding generation specifically designed our constitutional republic to be truly a reflection of the people by having “the people” elected to represent their own. That’s why the only qualifications to hold office are age, citizenship and residency.
A person with only a high school education is just as qualified to legislate as someone with a Juris Doctorate. Our founders believed that “the people” were entirely capable of representing themselves, and that they didn’t require people specially trained or educated to lead for them.
As such, the farmer and the cowhand are just as qualified to represent his or her community in elected office as the banker, the lawyer or the doctor.
Some may ask: Would I want a farmer making policy decisions for my state or the country rather than somebody educated in the law?
My answer to that is…heck yes!
I’ll vote for somebody with more common sense than formal education any day of the week over somebody with a dozen advanced degrees and more academic theories on the brain than practical sense.
Common sense isn’t learned in the classroom. We learn it through everyday living. Experience is the best teacher, or so the old saying goes.
But beware of experience. Only the right kind of experience provides common, practical sense. The wrong kind gives us the type of people who are running our communities, states and country now.
The wrong experience can lead to elitism and corruption. Experienced politicians, for example, can be dangerous because they know exactly how to say and what to do for re-election. They are skilled at pulling the wool over our eyes by telling us what we want to hear and erecting smokescreens between us and reality. They are adept at concealing their activities apart from their constituents and doing things under the radar of the electorate. And they artfully use verbiage and language that create loopholes for them in their campaigns and in the bills they propose.
And the scary thing is that most of these people are highly educated and well credentialed. They are just a little bit deficient when it comes to personal ethics and character.
The problems that often develop from experienced politicians are the very reasons why America’s founders settled on very basic qualifications that even common folks could meet. They wanted to encourage average people to serve as citizen legislators as a check and balance against the professional politicians, whose involvement and permeation into government even the founders understood would be inevitable.
Citizen legislators provide a counter balance to the public officials who are particularly skilled in politics, and who use those skills as a means to their own ends.
Unfortunately, there are too many voters who have bought into the false notion that a candidate for elected office is somehow less qualified if he or she doesn’t either have adequate education or proper experience. Modern culture deems a four-year college degree to be the minimum of adequate education, and civic involvement or prior public service to be the minimum of proper experience. It seems like the more political experience one has, the more attractive one appears as a candidate for higher office.
I don’t understand that mentality. It is as though the electorate is gradually reverting back to nobility and royalty, when Americans were ruled and governed by a monarch instead of an elected legislature of fellow citizens.
By expecting our candidates to have a minimum of a college degree and prior public service experience, we are adding qualifications that aren’t really there while alienating those citizens who don’t meet these expectations. We are essentially distinguishing between the privileged and the under-privileged by giving the former an edge over the latter.
Not everyone has a college degree, and not everyone has experience in public service or civic memberships. Some of us are just hard working, taxpaying citizens, residents and neighbors. We are raising our families and being responsible, productive members of society. Should we be written off or disqualified because we don’t have the expected amount of education or experience?
Elected office isn’t a job; it’s a leadership position. As such, the same expectations or qualifications required for employment shouldn’t be the same for leadership posts. Character, values and ethics ought to count more for public office than formal education or experience.
When the people lead, then leaders will usually follow. And where people lead, the leaders will often follow, too. But when the people leave leadership up to the leaders instead of taking it upon themselves, then all we ought to expect is calamity caused by political corruption.
When the cats are away the mice will play, so goes the old axiom. My suggestion, then, is more “cats” in the halls of Congress to keep the mice honest and in check. Because we all know how mice breed, don't we?
Experience can be a liability, too
Whoever said, “Experience is the best teacher,” probably was not referring to politics.
All too often, we tend to equate political competence with experience. But, in my opinion, political experience is more like political savvy. And when it comes to electing ethical people to public office, political experience can and does often get in the way of honest wholesomeness. Give me a naïve Jefferson Smith any day over any one of the savvy elitists we have in Washington, D.C., these days.
Truth be told, there are far too many Joseph Paines in office and precious few Jeff Smiths out there to challenge them; too many career politicians with the experience to know how to fool enough of us today, tomorrow and next election.
Why is it that so many media pundits, politicians and even voters place such great weight on political experience in a candidate?
Dwight D. Eisenhower did not exactly have the political experience by today’s standards to qualify as a viable candidate for President of the United States. Yet, he served two terms and presided over a period of unprecedented social and economic growth. This is because “Ike” had the executive experience to get the job done as commander-in-chief. After all, he commanded Allied Forces in the European Theater of World War II and was the mastermind behind the offensive known as “Operation: Overlord,” or the Normandy invasion.
Compare Ike’s resume to that of current President Barack Obama, whose executive experience prior to his election to the presidency was nill. But even in his relatively short career as a politician, Obama has gained more political experience than Ike ever had. Barry went from the Illinois state senate to the U.S. Senate to the White House in just six years. He has worked his way up the political ladder and through the ranks the way a career politician usually does.
So, when we talk about the experience of an elected official, it can either be positive or negative. Skilled, practical experience applied from one craft to another is one thing, but experience using political savvy to navigate through the waters of corruption without tipping over your canoe is something else. I consider the latter to be a liability more than an asset in politicians. The more skilled they are in politics, the more dangerous they become.
We hear the political advertisements all the time touting a candidate’s experience and his or her ability to “deliver” for his or her constituents. Take U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, as an example. Here’s a guy running for his fifth term in the U.S. Senate. Originally elected to the Senate in 1986 Reid has spent 24 years on that side of Capitol Hill. He also spent several years before that as a U.S. Representative on the House side. Through the decades, Reid has indeed delivered for Nevada. He is particularly skilled at securing pork for his state, and especially for his home district of Southern Nevada and Las Vegas.
But during those years of wheeling and dealing Reid was evidently prepping himself for party advancement. When former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was defeated in 2004 Reid had been quietly positioning himself in the party to be the logical successor to that partisan post.
He had worked his way up to Senate Minority Whip at the time Daschle was ousted. Then, in 2006, when the Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, Reid, as acting Senate Minority Leader, became the new Senate Majority Leader, which is arguably the third most powerful political position in Washington, D.C., behind the President of the United States and the House Speaker. (Sorry, Joe, but the Veep is not that powerful or influential apart from the POTUS.)
Every six years, Sen. Harry Reid is re-elected because he “delivers” for Nevada. Delivers what, though, money? There’s a lot more to representation than securing government pork for your district.
Reid didn’t regard his electorate in 2007 when a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens was considered in Congress. He sided with his party.
Reid didn’t hear the voices of his constituents during the Bush years. While a majority of Nevadans asked for political cooperation in a time of war, Sen. Reid decided follow the commands of party leadership and go on the offensive as the democrats’ noisiest attack dog. He turned up the heat, opposing the POTUS at every turn and given every opportunity. He fought tooth and nail the way a stooge usually does by assaulting the president’s credibility, even his personal character.
Harry Reid has even undermined the efforts of the United States military. He was the one who was infamously quoted as saying “I believe this war (in Iraq) is lost.”
Reid went on to bite at the ankles of the president just the way a political attack dog is expected to. His attacks, in fact, were incessant and unceasing. Every day in the news there seemed to be a new sound bite of Senate Majority Leader Reid directing some negative comment about the war toward the president.
What a coincidence that Sen. Reid hasn’t made one negative peep about the wars on terror in the Middle East since a member of his own party has been in the White House.
Yes, indeed, Sen. Reid has delivered aplenty for Nevada, bribing his district with as much pork as he could wrestle away from Uncle Sam. The more money he figured to get for his state, the more likely his electorate would look the other way with regard to his activities inside the Beltway. Another word for it is “hush money,” a concept the Las Vegas mob and political powers that be in Southern Nevada, like Reid, know very well.
But Sen. Reid is merely a microcosm of the problem that exists across the country. In local, state and national politics, career politicians like Harry Reid abound. Every one of them is angling for position to advance in the political arena. They all want to be adored demagogues that are placed on pedestals and canonized with monuments.
They do what they do not for you and me, but for themselves; to feed their own egos and histrionic narcissism.
Political demagoguery is nothing new. It has existed for millennia, from the very beginning when men and women placed crowns on their heads and proclaimed themselves kings, queens, emperors and empresses, chieftains, Caesars, Khans, Pharoahs and Sultans over others.
Even here in the United States, where monarchies do not exist, demagoguery still does. Ours are elected, though, not anointed. They are better known as career politicians who like referring to their long tenures in office as “a lifetime in public service,” as though this service has come at a great personal sacrifice.
Balderdash.
A perfect example is the late Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy, who relished for years in the perpetuated myth that he was not only a great defender of the poor, but also the last of the legends of Kennedy Camelot. Teddy helped create the welfare state as we know it today. He was behind President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s push for a “Great Society” of progressive socioeconomic egalitarianism.
In his late years, Teddy was heralded as a champion of the less fortunate. Upon his death, thousands of people mourned him with Teddy Bears. Spare me.
Edward Kennedy did what he did for himself; not for anyone else. He was a womanizer, an alcohol abuser, and an irresponsible, spoiled rich beneficiary of the Kennedy Estate and Trust. How many black tie parties did Kennedy attend or host either at Martha’s Vineyard or in Washington, D.C., where the poor and less fortunate were invited? I’m sure he partied hard in honor of them, but I am not aware of any functions he attended in their presence. He was always surrounded by members of the social and/or political elite.
How much caviar did the late, great democratic senator from Massachusetts consume in honor of the poor, hungry and destitute?
America’s career politicians, like the late Edward Kennedy, have feathered for themselves quite comfortable nests through their decades in power. The only sacrifice, perhaps, is a lack of privacy. But then again, demagogues and narcissists relish much more in the attention they get than their privacy. How can they be worshipped by others in private?
Career politicians have built for themselves castles and exclusive, members-only kingdoms in their public arenas of power.
Worst of all, the American people have not only allowed this to happen, we have perpetuated it by continuing to return these ungrateful and expectant demagogues to power.
Thankfully, there is a current movement to end the monopoly that career politicians hold in America’s centers of political power. I’m not talking specifically about the TEA Party; although it is part of this movement. I refer to the general angst and anger among the populace over a government that has become too big and too invasive thanks to the efforts of political demagogues.
There’s no telling how long this sentiment is going to last. The mood of the electorate, after all, is the impetus of changing political winds.
But maybe this year, this time around, the career politicians will get called to the carpet and the demagogues will finally get what’s coming to them.
Abraham Lincoln once said very candidly, yet artfully, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Hopefully, the year 2010 will be the latter.
All too often, we tend to equate political competence with experience. But, in my opinion, political experience is more like political savvy. And when it comes to electing ethical people to public office, political experience can and does often get in the way of honest wholesomeness. Give me a naïve Jefferson Smith any day over any one of the savvy elitists we have in Washington, D.C., these days.
Truth be told, there are far too many Joseph Paines in office and precious few Jeff Smiths out there to challenge them; too many career politicians with the experience to know how to fool enough of us today, tomorrow and next election.
Why is it that so many media pundits, politicians and even voters place such great weight on political experience in a candidate?
Dwight D. Eisenhower did not exactly have the political experience by today’s standards to qualify as a viable candidate for President of the United States. Yet, he served two terms and presided over a period of unprecedented social and economic growth. This is because “Ike” had the executive experience to get the job done as commander-in-chief. After all, he commanded Allied Forces in the European Theater of World War II and was the mastermind behind the offensive known as “Operation: Overlord,” or the Normandy invasion.
Compare Ike’s resume to that of current President Barack Obama, whose executive experience prior to his election to the presidency was nill. But even in his relatively short career as a politician, Obama has gained more political experience than Ike ever had. Barry went from the Illinois state senate to the U.S. Senate to the White House in just six years. He has worked his way up the political ladder and through the ranks the way a career politician usually does.
So, when we talk about the experience of an elected official, it can either be positive or negative. Skilled, practical experience applied from one craft to another is one thing, but experience using political savvy to navigate through the waters of corruption without tipping over your canoe is something else. I consider the latter to be a liability more than an asset in politicians. The more skilled they are in politics, the more dangerous they become.
We hear the political advertisements all the time touting a candidate’s experience and his or her ability to “deliver” for his or her constituents. Take U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, as an example. Here’s a guy running for his fifth term in the U.S. Senate. Originally elected to the Senate in 1986 Reid has spent 24 years on that side of Capitol Hill. He also spent several years before that as a U.S. Representative on the House side. Through the decades, Reid has indeed delivered for Nevada. He is particularly skilled at securing pork for his state, and especially for his home district of Southern Nevada and Las Vegas.
But during those years of wheeling and dealing Reid was evidently prepping himself for party advancement. When former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was defeated in 2004 Reid had been quietly positioning himself in the party to be the logical successor to that partisan post.
He had worked his way up to Senate Minority Whip at the time Daschle was ousted. Then, in 2006, when the Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, Reid, as acting Senate Minority Leader, became the new Senate Majority Leader, which is arguably the third most powerful political position in Washington, D.C., behind the President of the United States and the House Speaker. (Sorry, Joe, but the Veep is not that powerful or influential apart from the POTUS.)
Every six years, Sen. Harry Reid is re-elected because he “delivers” for Nevada. Delivers what, though, money? There’s a lot more to representation than securing government pork for your district.
Reid didn’t regard his electorate in 2007 when a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens was considered in Congress. He sided with his party.
Reid didn’t hear the voices of his constituents during the Bush years. While a majority of Nevadans asked for political cooperation in a time of war, Sen. Reid decided follow the commands of party leadership and go on the offensive as the democrats’ noisiest attack dog. He turned up the heat, opposing the POTUS at every turn and given every opportunity. He fought tooth and nail the way a stooge usually does by assaulting the president’s credibility, even his personal character.
Harry Reid has even undermined the efforts of the United States military. He was the one who was infamously quoted as saying “I believe this war (in Iraq) is lost.”
Reid went on to bite at the ankles of the president just the way a political attack dog is expected to. His attacks, in fact, were incessant and unceasing. Every day in the news there seemed to be a new sound bite of Senate Majority Leader Reid directing some negative comment about the war toward the president.
What a coincidence that Sen. Reid hasn’t made one negative peep about the wars on terror in the Middle East since a member of his own party has been in the White House.
Yes, indeed, Sen. Reid has delivered aplenty for Nevada, bribing his district with as much pork as he could wrestle away from Uncle Sam. The more money he figured to get for his state, the more likely his electorate would look the other way with regard to his activities inside the Beltway. Another word for it is “hush money,” a concept the Las Vegas mob and political powers that be in Southern Nevada, like Reid, know very well.
But Sen. Reid is merely a microcosm of the problem that exists across the country. In local, state and national politics, career politicians like Harry Reid abound. Every one of them is angling for position to advance in the political arena. They all want to be adored demagogues that are placed on pedestals and canonized with monuments.
They do what they do not for you and me, but for themselves; to feed their own egos and histrionic narcissism.
Political demagoguery is nothing new. It has existed for millennia, from the very beginning when men and women placed crowns on their heads and proclaimed themselves kings, queens, emperors and empresses, chieftains, Caesars, Khans, Pharoahs and Sultans over others.
Even here in the United States, where monarchies do not exist, demagoguery still does. Ours are elected, though, not anointed. They are better known as career politicians who like referring to their long tenures in office as “a lifetime in public service,” as though this service has come at a great personal sacrifice.
Balderdash.
A perfect example is the late Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy, who relished for years in the perpetuated myth that he was not only a great defender of the poor, but also the last of the legends of Kennedy Camelot. Teddy helped create the welfare state as we know it today. He was behind President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s push for a “Great Society” of progressive socioeconomic egalitarianism.
In his late years, Teddy was heralded as a champion of the less fortunate. Upon his death, thousands of people mourned him with Teddy Bears. Spare me.
Edward Kennedy did what he did for himself; not for anyone else. He was a womanizer, an alcohol abuser, and an irresponsible, spoiled rich beneficiary of the Kennedy Estate and Trust. How many black tie parties did Kennedy attend or host either at Martha’s Vineyard or in Washington, D.C., where the poor and less fortunate were invited? I’m sure he partied hard in honor of them, but I am not aware of any functions he attended in their presence. He was always surrounded by members of the social and/or political elite.
How much caviar did the late, great democratic senator from Massachusetts consume in honor of the poor, hungry and destitute?
America’s career politicians, like the late Edward Kennedy, have feathered for themselves quite comfortable nests through their decades in power. The only sacrifice, perhaps, is a lack of privacy. But then again, demagogues and narcissists relish much more in the attention they get than their privacy. How can they be worshipped by others in private?
Career politicians have built for themselves castles and exclusive, members-only kingdoms in their public arenas of power.
Worst of all, the American people have not only allowed this to happen, we have perpetuated it by continuing to return these ungrateful and expectant demagogues to power.
Thankfully, there is a current movement to end the monopoly that career politicians hold in America’s centers of political power. I’m not talking specifically about the TEA Party; although it is part of this movement. I refer to the general angst and anger among the populace over a government that has become too big and too invasive thanks to the efforts of political demagogues.
There’s no telling how long this sentiment is going to last. The mood of the electorate, after all, is the impetus of changing political winds.
But maybe this year, this time around, the career politicians will get called to the carpet and the demagogues will finally get what’s coming to them.
Abraham Lincoln once said very candidly, yet artfully, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Hopefully, the year 2010 will be the latter.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
A farewell...not a swan song
This is going to be my last blog entry for a while. I don't know yet how long "a while" is going to be, but first things first.
Yesterday my god-daughter graduated from high school. The keynote speaker at her graduation talked about chasing dreams. I was reminded of similar words spoken at my own high school graduation 18 years ago.
What made the words spoken yesterday so poignant to me was that, although the speaker was directing his speech to the graduates, he was really speaking to all of us.
I remember meeting my god-daughter for the first time seven years ago when she was only 11 years old. Now she is a grown woman and a high school graduate. I am humbly reminded of just how quickly time passes and things change.
I am also humbly reminded that the years that pass cannot be recovered. They are gone forever.
When I graduated from high school, I had a dream, a talent, a gift and a passion that I wanted to pursue. Eighteen years later, I am not only still pursuing it, but have admittedly been spinning my wheels in that pursuit.
With a new baby and a household to provide for, I have been so busy these past few months working at work and working at home without so much as a breather or a break. You parents know what I'm talking about. Even when you're not working, you're working.
Well, driving home last night from our god-daughter's graduation, I turned to my wife with a revelation. I told her that I had to pursue my dream once more; not just because the keynote speech was a keen wake-up call, but also because I now have a five month old son to be a role model for.
What message am I sending him if I continue to procrastinate on my dream, my passion and my life's pursuit? If I tell him to follow his heart and his dreams, and that the hard work and sacrifice to achieve them are worth it, will there be any credibility behind those words of wisdom? More poignantly, will he believe me if he sees that I have given up on mine?
Dreams only die when we stop chasing them, and nothing is impossible if we put our trust in Almighty God and boldly pursue the opportunities He presents to us. The Lord doesn't just drop things in our lap. He actually expects us to assert ourselves. Admittedly, I have not done a very good job of asserting myself with the opportunities He has afforded me.
I wish to change that today.
But being a family man now with parental responsibilities, a full-time job, and chores at home, I find my time to be a preciously shrinking commodity. I must make changes to fit my pursuits into my daily routine if I am to continue chasing my dream.
Therefore, I write this commentary as a farewell, my last for a while. I don't know when I will resume my blogging; maybe in a few months, years, or maybe never. Who knows? It really isn't that important to me anymore, and in order for me to make the changes necessary to follow my dreams, I must be willing to give something up.
I have chosen to give up my participation in the conversation here. I'm not giving up my involvement in politics or my responsibility to stay informed on the issues. I still feel very strongly about one day representing my community in elected office and continuing the political conversation, because I think that it is very important.
However, the blogging I do on this site and others is less important to me. I've devoted a lot of time to it over the years, and probably excessively so. Things must change if I am going to break the cycle of dead or dying dreams; those that get conveniently placed on the shelf with the intention of coming back to at a later time only to become forgotten.
I don't want to do that. I don't want to be one of those people who, in his old age and sunset years, looks back on his life with regret over the things he didn't do or dreams that died because they weren't being chased anymore.
I can't get the last 18 years back; but I sure as heck can try to make the most of the next 18 years by making up for lost time.
After all, when my son is old enough to begin following his heart's desires, I want to be able to counsel, advise and guide him with the authority of somebody who has done it himself. I don't have to succeed, but I do have to try.
While there is still opportunity left in the United States of America, I want to take full advantage of this freedom to pursue my dreams. If nothing else, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I got up and danced when I had the chance; I didn't spend it all as a wall flower looking back afterward and wondering "what if"?
God gives us this one life to make the most of ourselves for His sake, His glory. If I do nothing with the gifts and talents He has blessed me with, then how am I honoring Him by letting those things go to waste? The truth is, I am not.
Yes, my responsibilities as a husband and a father come before even my dreams. But nothing is impossible if we are determined enough to do the impossible, and trust in the Lord to deliver us to our Promised Land.
No doubt some, or perhaps most, of you will be relieved to see me go. I can only imagine how painful it is to read my very long posts. They are the kind of blogs that you have to brew a cup of coffee in the middle of just to finish. LOL
Others, I'm sure, will be happy to see me go simply because they detest anyone who dares identify himself as a traditional American conservative. One less conservative voice, after all, brings them that much closer to a left-wing, progressive utopia where everyone is the same, has the same and thinks the same way.
But I know there are a few who I will miss with all my heart.
This doesn't mean I'm hanging up my musket and giving up the fight. Far from it. What it means is that I will resume the life of a quiet leader in my household, my neighborhood, and my community. When the war drums beat and the bugle calls, I will answer armed with the Bible, the Constitution, and a will to fight for their protection.
I won't let my country down.
I won't let my son down, either.
I am about to do what I've said all along to myself that I would do, and I will mean everything I say.
When all is said and done, I will be able to look at myself in the mirror with contentment, happiness and satisfaction knowing that I gave it my all, my best shot. I will have tried, and my efforts will not be in vain.
My very best wishes to each and every one of you. May the wind always be at your back. May the sun always shine upon your face. And may the grace of God bless you as it has blessed me.
God bless you and keep you. And remember: Dreams only die when we stop chasing them.
Yours very sincerely,
Dagwood
Yesterday my god-daughter graduated from high school. The keynote speaker at her graduation talked about chasing dreams. I was reminded of similar words spoken at my own high school graduation 18 years ago.
What made the words spoken yesterday so poignant to me was that, although the speaker was directing his speech to the graduates, he was really speaking to all of us.
I remember meeting my god-daughter for the first time seven years ago when she was only 11 years old. Now she is a grown woman and a high school graduate. I am humbly reminded of just how quickly time passes and things change.
I am also humbly reminded that the years that pass cannot be recovered. They are gone forever.
When I graduated from high school, I had a dream, a talent, a gift and a passion that I wanted to pursue. Eighteen years later, I am not only still pursuing it, but have admittedly been spinning my wheels in that pursuit.
With a new baby and a household to provide for, I have been so busy these past few months working at work and working at home without so much as a breather or a break. You parents know what I'm talking about. Even when you're not working, you're working.
Well, driving home last night from our god-daughter's graduation, I turned to my wife with a revelation. I told her that I had to pursue my dream once more; not just because the keynote speech was a keen wake-up call, but also because I now have a five month old son to be a role model for.
What message am I sending him if I continue to procrastinate on my dream, my passion and my life's pursuit? If I tell him to follow his heart and his dreams, and that the hard work and sacrifice to achieve them are worth it, will there be any credibility behind those words of wisdom? More poignantly, will he believe me if he sees that I have given up on mine?
Dreams only die when we stop chasing them, and nothing is impossible if we put our trust in Almighty God and boldly pursue the opportunities He presents to us. The Lord doesn't just drop things in our lap. He actually expects us to assert ourselves. Admittedly, I have not done a very good job of asserting myself with the opportunities He has afforded me.
I wish to change that today.
But being a family man now with parental responsibilities, a full-time job, and chores at home, I find my time to be a preciously shrinking commodity. I must make changes to fit my pursuits into my daily routine if I am to continue chasing my dream.
Therefore, I write this commentary as a farewell, my last for a while. I don't know when I will resume my blogging; maybe in a few months, years, or maybe never. Who knows? It really isn't that important to me anymore, and in order for me to make the changes necessary to follow my dreams, I must be willing to give something up.
I have chosen to give up my participation in the conversation here. I'm not giving up my involvement in politics or my responsibility to stay informed on the issues. I still feel very strongly about one day representing my community in elected office and continuing the political conversation, because I think that it is very important.
However, the blogging I do on this site and others is less important to me. I've devoted a lot of time to it over the years, and probably excessively so. Things must change if I am going to break the cycle of dead or dying dreams; those that get conveniently placed on the shelf with the intention of coming back to at a later time only to become forgotten.
I don't want to do that. I don't want to be one of those people who, in his old age and sunset years, looks back on his life with regret over the things he didn't do or dreams that died because they weren't being chased anymore.
I can't get the last 18 years back; but I sure as heck can try to make the most of the next 18 years by making up for lost time.
After all, when my son is old enough to begin following his heart's desires, I want to be able to counsel, advise and guide him with the authority of somebody who has done it himself. I don't have to succeed, but I do have to try.
While there is still opportunity left in the United States of America, I want to take full advantage of this freedom to pursue my dreams. If nothing else, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I got up and danced when I had the chance; I didn't spend it all as a wall flower looking back afterward and wondering "what if"?
God gives us this one life to make the most of ourselves for His sake, His glory. If I do nothing with the gifts and talents He has blessed me with, then how am I honoring Him by letting those things go to waste? The truth is, I am not.
Yes, my responsibilities as a husband and a father come before even my dreams. But nothing is impossible if we are determined enough to do the impossible, and trust in the Lord to deliver us to our Promised Land.
No doubt some, or perhaps most, of you will be relieved to see me go. I can only imagine how painful it is to read my very long posts. They are the kind of blogs that you have to brew a cup of coffee in the middle of just to finish. LOL
Others, I'm sure, will be happy to see me go simply because they detest anyone who dares identify himself as a traditional American conservative. One less conservative voice, after all, brings them that much closer to a left-wing, progressive utopia where everyone is the same, has the same and thinks the same way.
But I know there are a few who I will miss with all my heart.
This doesn't mean I'm hanging up my musket and giving up the fight. Far from it. What it means is that I will resume the life of a quiet leader in my household, my neighborhood, and my community. When the war drums beat and the bugle calls, I will answer armed with the Bible, the Constitution, and a will to fight for their protection.
I won't let my country down.
I won't let my son down, either.
I am about to do what I've said all along to myself that I would do, and I will mean everything I say.
When all is said and done, I will be able to look at myself in the mirror with contentment, happiness and satisfaction knowing that I gave it my all, my best shot. I will have tried, and my efforts will not be in vain.
My very best wishes to each and every one of you. May the wind always be at your back. May the sun always shine upon your face. And may the grace of God bless you as it has blessed me.
God bless you and keep you. And remember: Dreams only die when we stop chasing them.
Yours very sincerely,
Dagwood
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Health care reform law a smokescreen
Backers and pushers of the new health care reform law are touting this legislation as an historic, landmark triumph for consumer protection and fairness. They laud it as though it is the next best thing since sliced bread.
And yet, the new law that left-wing progressives are so enthusiastic about now is a mere shadow of the reform bill originally proposed in either the House or the Senate by the same leftist leadership. Initially, the law appears to give more business to insurance companies, which have historically been a bane to the leftist existence. It would not seem to punish the insurance companies as the left-wing has been trying to do for years.
But look a little bit closer into the legislation, and one can see exactly why the left is so excited about the new reform law.
Most of the law’s supporters are the same ones who insisted on a public option. Well, this law doesn’t offer that, and yet somehow it is heralded as a great triumph.
One would assume that those wanting government-paid universal health care have got to be sorely disappointed with this law. But alas, they are among the revelers.
Why? The answer is because, eventually, its provisions and mandates will result in government-funded health care anyway.
Consider that the new health care law now requires insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. As such, additional cost is going to be incurred by insurance companies, which also will be unable to pass that cost onto their policyholders through higher premiums. In other words, insurance companies are being forced to eat these new costs.
Eventually, the profit-cost ratio—also known as the profit margin—is going to shrink to such narrow margins that insurance companies will be flirting with red ink more than they will black. And as demand for services continues to rise—as has been the trend for the past few decades—the cost burden will increase; meaning even higher costs to insurance companies.
It is not far-fetched to expect that, in the near future, insurance companies will begin operating in the red instead of in the black, thereby incurring more loss than profit. What may well result is an industry crisis not unlike the one currently being experienced by automobile manufacturing and financial credit: Too much owed and not enough money to pay for the debt. The end result will be bankruptcies.
When that happens, insurance companies will come groveling at the feet of Congress to beg for bail-out money. The government, of course, will hand over the cash along with its many strings attached; including de facto ownership of companies being bailed out.
Make no mistake: This is exactly what the new health care reform law is meant to do. It was designed to set the stage for an eventual government takeover of the health insurance business. And when government controls the purse strings, it shall control the entire health care industry.
That’s what the left-wing reformists really want: Government-run and government-funded universal health care like the kind that Canada and much of Europe have. The leftist progressives really believe universal health care to be the cat’s meow, the bee’s knees, and the answer to all of our health care ills (pun intended).
But they were unsuccessful in pushing this agenda directly through the front door of the American people; so they’ve settled for the backdoor approach, hoping to get what they want anyway without the consent of the people. They are hoping that the provisions and mandates contained in this new law will cause things to just go their way through a natural course of events; a chain reaction.
The burning question in my mind, though, is that if European style universal health care is so great, then why isn’t it leading the world in research and development, technology, and delivery of services? Why, in fact, has the world been led in overall health care quality and quantity by the free enterprise system of the United States of America, and not a socialist system providing universal health care to its citizens?
Unfortunately, leftist reformers aren’t interested in quality, quantity or even access to health care. They say different, but their motivations give them away.
What motivates our left-wing progressive leaders is the potential to expand their own power by seizing control over more of America via the federal government. Progressive followers just want more government; that’s what matters to them, because they believe government has the answers to all of a nation’s problems.
Whether or not the current approach is a success or a failure matters less to the progressive leadership than the drive for secondary monetary gain, power and control over peoples’ lives.
That is the Marxist way. It is the socialist way. And it is also the left-wing progressive way.
What really concerns me is that they may just get what they are after.
And yet, the new law that left-wing progressives are so enthusiastic about now is a mere shadow of the reform bill originally proposed in either the House or the Senate by the same leftist leadership. Initially, the law appears to give more business to insurance companies, which have historically been a bane to the leftist existence. It would not seem to punish the insurance companies as the left-wing has been trying to do for years.
But look a little bit closer into the legislation, and one can see exactly why the left is so excited about the new reform law.
Most of the law’s supporters are the same ones who insisted on a public option. Well, this law doesn’t offer that, and yet somehow it is heralded as a great triumph.
One would assume that those wanting government-paid universal health care have got to be sorely disappointed with this law. But alas, they are among the revelers.
Why? The answer is because, eventually, its provisions and mandates will result in government-funded health care anyway.
Consider that the new health care law now requires insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. As such, additional cost is going to be incurred by insurance companies, which also will be unable to pass that cost onto their policyholders through higher premiums. In other words, insurance companies are being forced to eat these new costs.
Eventually, the profit-cost ratio—also known as the profit margin—is going to shrink to such narrow margins that insurance companies will be flirting with red ink more than they will black. And as demand for services continues to rise—as has been the trend for the past few decades—the cost burden will increase; meaning even higher costs to insurance companies.
It is not far-fetched to expect that, in the near future, insurance companies will begin operating in the red instead of in the black, thereby incurring more loss than profit. What may well result is an industry crisis not unlike the one currently being experienced by automobile manufacturing and financial credit: Too much owed and not enough money to pay for the debt. The end result will be bankruptcies.
When that happens, insurance companies will come groveling at the feet of Congress to beg for bail-out money. The government, of course, will hand over the cash along with its many strings attached; including de facto ownership of companies being bailed out.
Make no mistake: This is exactly what the new health care reform law is meant to do. It was designed to set the stage for an eventual government takeover of the health insurance business. And when government controls the purse strings, it shall control the entire health care industry.
That’s what the left-wing reformists really want: Government-run and government-funded universal health care like the kind that Canada and much of Europe have. The leftist progressives really believe universal health care to be the cat’s meow, the bee’s knees, and the answer to all of our health care ills (pun intended).
But they were unsuccessful in pushing this agenda directly through the front door of the American people; so they’ve settled for the backdoor approach, hoping to get what they want anyway without the consent of the people. They are hoping that the provisions and mandates contained in this new law will cause things to just go their way through a natural course of events; a chain reaction.
The burning question in my mind, though, is that if European style universal health care is so great, then why isn’t it leading the world in research and development, technology, and delivery of services? Why, in fact, has the world been led in overall health care quality and quantity by the free enterprise system of the United States of America, and not a socialist system providing universal health care to its citizens?
Unfortunately, leftist reformers aren’t interested in quality, quantity or even access to health care. They say different, but their motivations give them away.
What motivates our left-wing progressive leaders is the potential to expand their own power by seizing control over more of America via the federal government. Progressive followers just want more government; that’s what matters to them, because they believe government has the answers to all of a nation’s problems.
Whether or not the current approach is a success or a failure matters less to the progressive leadership than the drive for secondary monetary gain, power and control over peoples’ lives.
That is the Marxist way. It is the socialist way. And it is also the left-wing progressive way.
What really concerns me is that they may just get what they are after.
Small change in health care
When this year’s health care bill was recently voted into law its chief champion, President Barack Obama, announced that America was witnessing the kind of change that he had been promising.
But just how much change is there in the new law as compared to the way health care is now?
Currently, the responsibility for health care management rests on the shoulders of the insurance industry. This had been one of the most significant complaints of those seeking to reform and change the way health care is managed and delivered.
Insurance companies are evil, after all—full of greed and avarice. Health care reform was supposed to take the power away from insurance companies and put it into the hands of patients and consumers.
Does the new law accomplish this? Let’s take a look.
Under the new health care reform law, every American earning above the federal poverty level is required to purchase health insurance. According to government bean counters, there are currently 30-40 million Americans living without health insurance. So, the new law is going to expand business for health insurance companies by an additional tens of millions more policyholders; meaning that insurance companies will have even more involvement in the health care industry than they do right now. The law gives insurance more money and more power, while summarily taking the power to choose away from the patient and consumer.
Since people are now going to be required to purchase health insurance, they can no longer simply choose not to buy; they have to buy. Even though insurance companies will be in competition for those 30 million more policyholders, they don’t have to go into a price war to get them, because the consumer is going to have to settle on an insurance provider eventually, or else face a fine. Consequently, one probably won’t see significantly lower premiums because insurance companies will have no incentive to lower their prices. The customer isn’t going to simply walk away; he is going to have to settle on some sort of health coverage because it is now the law that he does so.
Another promise of the health care law is that it will drive the costs of health care delivery down because adding another 30 million more policyholders will expand the burden of paying for health care and end up lowering the cost to each consumer across the board.
However, the backers of this law seem to have ignored the old, fundamental economics lesson of supply and demand.
The number of new physicians has been on the decline in recent years. The mere cost of medical school coupled with the realization of six to seven digit loan debt, and the prospect of having to carry that debt for decades has discouraged many potential medical professionals from pursuing careers in medicine; not to mention there’s the high costs of doing business once a new doctor has completed his or her residency and is ready to strike out on his or her own.
In addition to maintaining a license through respective state medical boards, a doctor must also carry substantial malpractice insurance to protect him or herself against egregious lawsuits. Malpractice insurance coverage is a very expensive endeavor these days because of the frequency and prevalence of litigation and the amount of damage awards sought. The higher the coverage sought for malpractice insurance, the higher the premium.
Experienced doctors currently in the field of medicine aren’t getting any younger either, and eventually, they are going to retire, leaving a void in care that may not be filled.
Sadly, the number of new doctors is not keeping pace with aging practitioners.
Furthermore, a growing number of experienced doctors have been deciding to leave their practices and quit medicine altogether; primarily because the cost of staying in business simply outweighs the benefits.
Supply is thus on the decline.
Meanwhile, demand is poised to rise sharply as a result of the new law and demographics.
To begin with, the law requires insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. That’s not to say it isn’t a good thing to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions. But there are consequences to doing so.
The chief consequence is that it is going to increase the cost to insurance companies, because they will be spending money that they might not have otherwise spent before. Not only will the increase in cost be shared by other policyholders, but there will be an added strain on medical services as well. More insured people in need of health care equals greater demand for services. And let’s face facts: People with pre-existing conditions are going to visit the doctor, the pharmacy, the emergency room, diagnostic centers, labs, and hospitals more often than healthier individuals.
So, as a consequence of the new health care law, demand is going to surge.
But the number of people with pre-existing conditions pales in comparison to the number of retirees that are going to require more care in the next few years.
The baby-boom generation—those Americans born between 1945 and 1964—is the largest age demographic in the United States. Many of these people are either retiring now or have retired, and more will be retiring over the next two decades. As the baby-boomers advance in age, the level of care will change from routine maintenance to more intensive health care needs. In fact, the first block of baby-boomers born immediately after World War II is already 60-65 years old. Chronic health problems are surfacing that shall require much more than just routine care.
Most of these people already qualify for Medicare and are on the public insurance dole. And many of them also have a combination of public and private insurance coverage to meet their health care needs. So, as the baby-boomers age and require more health care, the demand for services is going to increase significantly; and along with that, the cost to both the taxpayer and private policyholder alike.
There can be no denying that demand for health care services is going to continue to rise just as it has done for the past few decades. In fact, I forecast that demand will reach new highs never before seen in the health care industry because of the two chief reasons I just cited: pre-existing conditions and the baby-boomers.
If we think health care is expensive now, then let’s just wait another decade and the costs of care today may seem like a bargain.
The danger we are going to find ourselves in shall boil down to simple mathematics. The more demand for a product or service there is, and the fewer people there are to provide it, then the higher the costs, the longer the wait, and the less product or service one can expect to get for one’s money.
Let’s say 100 people all want an apple, but there are only 50 apples to go around. Either the cost of each apple is going to increase because there are more people wanting apples than there are apples to get, or each person is going to get less apple than they paid for in order to give all 100 people an apple; or both. In all likelihood, both scenarios are going to happen with regard to health care.
More patients minus fewer doctors will equal a higher market price for services and shall result in the consumer getting less for each dollar he spends on health care.
In other words, we won’t get anywhere near what we are going to end up paying for.
But the backers and pushers of the new health care law have convinced supporters that it is the next best thing since sliced bread.
I believe America is literally being sold a bill of goods. The salesmen (and women) have done quite a job selling their product as the best ever solution to the problems in the health care industry. They tout the new law as historic, landmark reform that is going to mean more affordable health care for everyone.
My question is simple: How so? When one analyzes supply and demand trends, one sees a different picture than the one being painted by the law’s proponents.
Furthermore, those who currently have fallen through the health insurance cracks because they can’t afford it are going to have to wait four more years before there’s even a possibility that they may be able to get coverage. In the meantime, what are they supposed to do? How does this historic, landmark reform help them over the next four years?
So the current problems with the health care industry won’t be entirely addressed by the new law for the next four years.
Exactly how is this helping the country, and more specifically, the health care consumer? How is it changing the way things are already done for the better?
I thought change that President Obama promised was supposed to be good. I thought it was going to make everything better. So far, I see darker clouds on the horizon than the storm we are currently weathering.
If this new health care reform law is representative of the kind of change that Obama campaigned on two years ago and has been promising us ever since, then we ought to start counting his change with pennies, because there will be too little of it to make a real difference one way or the other.
But just how much change is there in the new law as compared to the way health care is now?
Currently, the responsibility for health care management rests on the shoulders of the insurance industry. This had been one of the most significant complaints of those seeking to reform and change the way health care is managed and delivered.
Insurance companies are evil, after all—full of greed and avarice. Health care reform was supposed to take the power away from insurance companies and put it into the hands of patients and consumers.
Does the new law accomplish this? Let’s take a look.
Under the new health care reform law, every American earning above the federal poverty level is required to purchase health insurance. According to government bean counters, there are currently 30-40 million Americans living without health insurance. So, the new law is going to expand business for health insurance companies by an additional tens of millions more policyholders; meaning that insurance companies will have even more involvement in the health care industry than they do right now. The law gives insurance more money and more power, while summarily taking the power to choose away from the patient and consumer.
Since people are now going to be required to purchase health insurance, they can no longer simply choose not to buy; they have to buy. Even though insurance companies will be in competition for those 30 million more policyholders, they don’t have to go into a price war to get them, because the consumer is going to have to settle on an insurance provider eventually, or else face a fine. Consequently, one probably won’t see significantly lower premiums because insurance companies will have no incentive to lower their prices. The customer isn’t going to simply walk away; he is going to have to settle on some sort of health coverage because it is now the law that he does so.
Another promise of the health care law is that it will drive the costs of health care delivery down because adding another 30 million more policyholders will expand the burden of paying for health care and end up lowering the cost to each consumer across the board.
However, the backers of this law seem to have ignored the old, fundamental economics lesson of supply and demand.
The number of new physicians has been on the decline in recent years. The mere cost of medical school coupled with the realization of six to seven digit loan debt, and the prospect of having to carry that debt for decades has discouraged many potential medical professionals from pursuing careers in medicine; not to mention there’s the high costs of doing business once a new doctor has completed his or her residency and is ready to strike out on his or her own.
In addition to maintaining a license through respective state medical boards, a doctor must also carry substantial malpractice insurance to protect him or herself against egregious lawsuits. Malpractice insurance coverage is a very expensive endeavor these days because of the frequency and prevalence of litigation and the amount of damage awards sought. The higher the coverage sought for malpractice insurance, the higher the premium.
Experienced doctors currently in the field of medicine aren’t getting any younger either, and eventually, they are going to retire, leaving a void in care that may not be filled.
Sadly, the number of new doctors is not keeping pace with aging practitioners.
Furthermore, a growing number of experienced doctors have been deciding to leave their practices and quit medicine altogether; primarily because the cost of staying in business simply outweighs the benefits.
Supply is thus on the decline.
Meanwhile, demand is poised to rise sharply as a result of the new law and demographics.
To begin with, the law requires insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. That’s not to say it isn’t a good thing to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions. But there are consequences to doing so.
The chief consequence is that it is going to increase the cost to insurance companies, because they will be spending money that they might not have otherwise spent before. Not only will the increase in cost be shared by other policyholders, but there will be an added strain on medical services as well. More insured people in need of health care equals greater demand for services. And let’s face facts: People with pre-existing conditions are going to visit the doctor, the pharmacy, the emergency room, diagnostic centers, labs, and hospitals more often than healthier individuals.
So, as a consequence of the new health care law, demand is going to surge.
But the number of people with pre-existing conditions pales in comparison to the number of retirees that are going to require more care in the next few years.
The baby-boom generation—those Americans born between 1945 and 1964—is the largest age demographic in the United States. Many of these people are either retiring now or have retired, and more will be retiring over the next two decades. As the baby-boomers advance in age, the level of care will change from routine maintenance to more intensive health care needs. In fact, the first block of baby-boomers born immediately after World War II is already 60-65 years old. Chronic health problems are surfacing that shall require much more than just routine care.
Most of these people already qualify for Medicare and are on the public insurance dole. And many of them also have a combination of public and private insurance coverage to meet their health care needs. So, as the baby-boomers age and require more health care, the demand for services is going to increase significantly; and along with that, the cost to both the taxpayer and private policyholder alike.
There can be no denying that demand for health care services is going to continue to rise just as it has done for the past few decades. In fact, I forecast that demand will reach new highs never before seen in the health care industry because of the two chief reasons I just cited: pre-existing conditions and the baby-boomers.
If we think health care is expensive now, then let’s just wait another decade and the costs of care today may seem like a bargain.
The danger we are going to find ourselves in shall boil down to simple mathematics. The more demand for a product or service there is, and the fewer people there are to provide it, then the higher the costs, the longer the wait, and the less product or service one can expect to get for one’s money.
Let’s say 100 people all want an apple, but there are only 50 apples to go around. Either the cost of each apple is going to increase because there are more people wanting apples than there are apples to get, or each person is going to get less apple than they paid for in order to give all 100 people an apple; or both. In all likelihood, both scenarios are going to happen with regard to health care.
More patients minus fewer doctors will equal a higher market price for services and shall result in the consumer getting less for each dollar he spends on health care.
In other words, we won’t get anywhere near what we are going to end up paying for.
But the backers and pushers of the new health care law have convinced supporters that it is the next best thing since sliced bread.
I believe America is literally being sold a bill of goods. The salesmen (and women) have done quite a job selling their product as the best ever solution to the problems in the health care industry. They tout the new law as historic, landmark reform that is going to mean more affordable health care for everyone.
My question is simple: How so? When one analyzes supply and demand trends, one sees a different picture than the one being painted by the law’s proponents.
Furthermore, those who currently have fallen through the health insurance cracks because they can’t afford it are going to have to wait four more years before there’s even a possibility that they may be able to get coverage. In the meantime, what are they supposed to do? How does this historic, landmark reform help them over the next four years?
So the current problems with the health care industry won’t be entirely addressed by the new law for the next four years.
Exactly how is this helping the country, and more specifically, the health care consumer? How is it changing the way things are already done for the better?
I thought change that President Obama promised was supposed to be good. I thought it was going to make everything better. So far, I see darker clouds on the horizon than the storm we are currently weathering.
If this new health care reform law is representative of the kind of change that Obama campaigned on two years ago and has been promising us ever since, then we ought to start counting his change with pennies, because there will be too little of it to make a real difference one way or the other.
Friday, April 9, 2010
God is constitutional, atheism is not
Since the days of Clarence Darrow and the Scopes Trial nearly a century ago, God has been under attack in the United States of America for simply being Himself.
The assault against the Supreme Being escalated during the counterculture revolution of the Sixties. But God has never been in more danger of being outlawed than He is right now.
Atheists and agnostics alike are intensifying their efforts to remove any and all public references to God. They are trying to eliminate Him entirely from public awareness. And when I say "public awareness," I mean to say out of sight and, eventually, out of mind.
The most notorious of these efforts has come from atheist activist Michael Newdow, whose exploits include a crusade to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance by declaring it unconstitutional by virtue of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Newdow is not merely an avowed atheist; he’s an itinerant, practicing humanist who has even gone so far as to promote the atheist belief by establishing it as a religion, complete with his own formal church and congregation. He is the founder of the First Atheist Church of True Science (FACTS). Not to mention he is also a classic triple threat: an ordained minister of Universal Life Church, an attorney, and a doctor of emergency medicine.
The first thing that rubs me the wrong way about Newdow is that he comes across as a know-it-all. I suppose that is inevitable when one is a practicing attorney, physician and clergyman. I think he’s probably got too many advanced, professional degrees for his own good. It is no wonder that the guy is a professed atheist. He thinks he knows everything about human origin, human function, human behavior, human nature, and even human destination. He’s got all the answers, after all.
But I don’t take issue with Newdow’s atheism. He is free to subscribe to whatever beliefs he wants to, and practice those beliefs in whatever way he chooses. What I do contend with, however, is his premise that God is unconstitutional. Therefore, all public references to God—in particular “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency and “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance—should be removed.
As the basis for his argument, Newdow cites Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution and the specific clause that begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
The fundamental flaw in this argument is the notion that “God” is a religion.
He is not.
Religion is a belief system both in process and organization. It functions as a body of members that follow organizational laws and rules.
God, on the other hand, is a being. He is an individual to those of us who believe in Him. He may be pluralistic to those who believe in more than one god. He may even symbolize and represent the self for those who believe that they are their own gods.
So, to argue that invoking “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or on U.S. currency violates the Constitutional provision prohibiting an establishment of religion is fundamentally flawed.
The being of “God” may be the object of worship for several world religions, but He is not Himself a religion.
Furthermore, Newdow contends that “God” as invoked on our currency and in the Pledge refers to the Judeo-Christian deity. Therefore, public reference to “God” is the same as endorsing Judeo-Christianity.
He cannot prove this.
While he can make the case that the nation’s founders and legal framers were referring to the Judeo-Christian God in their writings, there is no proof that exists establishing that “God” as named on the currency or in the Pledge is the same Judeo-Christian God. Such an assumption can be made and implied; but one cannot prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that a generic reference to “God” is the same Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.
Quite a few of the founders were self-described deists, who believed in the existence of God, but did not necessarily subscribe to Judeo-Christianity. Theirs was more of a philosophical belief in a Supreme Being responsible for intelligent design.
Certainly American Muslims don’t see God the same way that Judeo-Christians do. To Islam, God is Allah and His Word is the Quran.
To many American Indian tribes, God is the “Great Spirit” of the Earth, and His Word is contained in the stories and legends passed down from generations of tribal elders.
To Buddhists, who worship the self, “God” is the self. When one reaches nirvana or enlightenment, then one is essentially one’s own God.
Hindu, Shinto and other polytheistic religions may worship more than one god, but they defer to these gods in proper nomenclature of “Gods” out of respect for them and their powers.
Even atheism, which professes belief in no god, tends to endorse the idea of the self as God. By denying the existence of any being more supreme than the human mind, atheists propel human beings to a level of supremacy and divinity, to God-like stature. So, to the atheist, “God” may just as well refer to oneself.
The people of the United States of America subscribe to a plethora of different belief systems. The generic, but proper nomenclature of “God” pays homage to the spiritual and religious diversity that exists in our country because it is inclusive rather than exclusive. To invoke “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and on U.S. currency is to include the beliefs of many; not just a few.
So, if Michael Newdow wants to erase “God” from the public consciousness, he will end up offending much more than just the Judeo-Christian population; he will offend every religious or spiritual person in the United States of America because, by removing “God” from any and all public declarations, Newdow would essentially be forcing his belief in no God(s) upon everyone else.
That’s right: Newdow’s insistence on getting his way is tantamount to forcing everyone else to accept his belief system (atheism) while publicly forfeiting their own.
This is religious intolerance in its clearest form, and for Newdow to insist that the U.S. Supreme Court rule in his favor would be for the United States government to adopt the atheist point of view and force everybody in America to accept his belief that there is no God(s).
In and of itself, Newdow’s very own argument is unconstitutional. He wants to push his belief system (atheism) on the rest of us by means of federal force.
And make no mistake: Atheism is a religion to Newdow and to the congregants of his very own atheist church.
Therefore, because Michael Newdow has his own religion (atheism) and is trying to get “God” removed from public consciousness in order to conform to his own belief system in no God at all, he is in direct violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Newdow wants the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in his favor, thereby compelling Congress to enact legislation that supports his religious point of view of no God(s).
I don’t know how one can be more blatantly in violation of the First Amendment than that…or more intolerant of other religions or spiritual beliefs.
The credibility of this man is suspect, because he insists on the one hand that having a public awareness of "God” violates his rights, while on the other hand, he is willing to force his beliefs onto the rest of us through government action.
Sorry, Michael, but you can’t have “God” removed from public reference and still call that constitutional, because such a ruling would be “respecting an establishment” of your religion.
God isn’t a religion; atheism is by virtue of Newdow's own established church. Ergo, God doesn’t apply to the First Amendment, but atheism does.
The assault against the Supreme Being escalated during the counterculture revolution of the Sixties. But God has never been in more danger of being outlawed than He is right now.
Atheists and agnostics alike are intensifying their efforts to remove any and all public references to God. They are trying to eliminate Him entirely from public awareness. And when I say "public awareness," I mean to say out of sight and, eventually, out of mind.
The most notorious of these efforts has come from atheist activist Michael Newdow, whose exploits include a crusade to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance by declaring it unconstitutional by virtue of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Newdow is not merely an avowed atheist; he’s an itinerant, practicing humanist who has even gone so far as to promote the atheist belief by establishing it as a religion, complete with his own formal church and congregation. He is the founder of the First Atheist Church of True Science (FACTS). Not to mention he is also a classic triple threat: an ordained minister of Universal Life Church, an attorney, and a doctor of emergency medicine.
The first thing that rubs me the wrong way about Newdow is that he comes across as a know-it-all. I suppose that is inevitable when one is a practicing attorney, physician and clergyman. I think he’s probably got too many advanced, professional degrees for his own good. It is no wonder that the guy is a professed atheist. He thinks he knows everything about human origin, human function, human behavior, human nature, and even human destination. He’s got all the answers, after all.
But I don’t take issue with Newdow’s atheism. He is free to subscribe to whatever beliefs he wants to, and practice those beliefs in whatever way he chooses. What I do contend with, however, is his premise that God is unconstitutional. Therefore, all public references to God—in particular “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency and “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance—should be removed.
As the basis for his argument, Newdow cites Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution and the specific clause that begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
The fundamental flaw in this argument is the notion that “God” is a religion.
He is not.
Religion is a belief system both in process and organization. It functions as a body of members that follow organizational laws and rules.
God, on the other hand, is a being. He is an individual to those of us who believe in Him. He may be pluralistic to those who believe in more than one god. He may even symbolize and represent the self for those who believe that they are their own gods.
So, to argue that invoking “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or on U.S. currency violates the Constitutional provision prohibiting an establishment of religion is fundamentally flawed.
The being of “God” may be the object of worship for several world religions, but He is not Himself a religion.
Furthermore, Newdow contends that “God” as invoked on our currency and in the Pledge refers to the Judeo-Christian deity. Therefore, public reference to “God” is the same as endorsing Judeo-Christianity.
He cannot prove this.
While he can make the case that the nation’s founders and legal framers were referring to the Judeo-Christian God in their writings, there is no proof that exists establishing that “God” as named on the currency or in the Pledge is the same Judeo-Christian God. Such an assumption can be made and implied; but one cannot prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that a generic reference to “God” is the same Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.
Quite a few of the founders were self-described deists, who believed in the existence of God, but did not necessarily subscribe to Judeo-Christianity. Theirs was more of a philosophical belief in a Supreme Being responsible for intelligent design.
Certainly American Muslims don’t see God the same way that Judeo-Christians do. To Islam, God is Allah and His Word is the Quran.
To many American Indian tribes, God is the “Great Spirit” of the Earth, and His Word is contained in the stories and legends passed down from generations of tribal elders.
To Buddhists, who worship the self, “God” is the self. When one reaches nirvana or enlightenment, then one is essentially one’s own God.
Hindu, Shinto and other polytheistic religions may worship more than one god, but they defer to these gods in proper nomenclature of “Gods” out of respect for them and their powers.
Even atheism, which professes belief in no god, tends to endorse the idea of the self as God. By denying the existence of any being more supreme than the human mind, atheists propel human beings to a level of supremacy and divinity, to God-like stature. So, to the atheist, “God” may just as well refer to oneself.
The people of the United States of America subscribe to a plethora of different belief systems. The generic, but proper nomenclature of “God” pays homage to the spiritual and religious diversity that exists in our country because it is inclusive rather than exclusive. To invoke “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and on U.S. currency is to include the beliefs of many; not just a few.
So, if Michael Newdow wants to erase “God” from the public consciousness, he will end up offending much more than just the Judeo-Christian population; he will offend every religious or spiritual person in the United States of America because, by removing “God” from any and all public declarations, Newdow would essentially be forcing his belief in no God(s) upon everyone else.
That’s right: Newdow’s insistence on getting his way is tantamount to forcing everyone else to accept his belief system (atheism) while publicly forfeiting their own.
This is religious intolerance in its clearest form, and for Newdow to insist that the U.S. Supreme Court rule in his favor would be for the United States government to adopt the atheist point of view and force everybody in America to accept his belief that there is no God(s).
In and of itself, Newdow’s very own argument is unconstitutional. He wants to push his belief system (atheism) on the rest of us by means of federal force.
And make no mistake: Atheism is a religion to Newdow and to the congregants of his very own atheist church.
Therefore, because Michael Newdow has his own religion (atheism) and is trying to get “God” removed from public consciousness in order to conform to his own belief system in no God at all, he is in direct violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Newdow wants the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in his favor, thereby compelling Congress to enact legislation that supports his religious point of view of no God(s).
I don’t know how one can be more blatantly in violation of the First Amendment than that…or more intolerant of other religions or spiritual beliefs.
The credibility of this man is suspect, because he insists on the one hand that having a public awareness of "God” violates his rights, while on the other hand, he is willing to force his beliefs onto the rest of us through government action.
Sorry, Michael, but you can’t have “God” removed from public reference and still call that constitutional, because such a ruling would be “respecting an establishment” of your religion.
God isn’t a religion; atheism is by virtue of Newdow's own established church. Ergo, God doesn’t apply to the First Amendment, but atheism does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
