DAILY TOL: Tree of Liberty

As I read another story of the courts ruling against a nativity scene ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570308,00.html ) I began to wonder, as we completely purge all religion from public sites are we not essentially establishing atheism as our state religion?  By banning all religious symbols for fear that someone might confuse their presence as an endorsement, are we not going beyond perception and in practice establishing by force of law that the only allowable religion is a complete absence of religion?  If the “free exercise thereof” must occur  in private outside the view of anyone who might be offended, is the intended freedom of worship thereby protected or extinguished?

I took my daughter to the American Girl Doll (AGD) store a few days ago for lunch. The lunch was good, but expensive. The bill was $35 and change for the two of us. I will just rack it up to stimulating the economy. After lunch we took a cruise through the store. My daughter is on the cusp of out growing playing with her dolls, but to any female alive, the lure of the AGD store is mighty powerful. The clothes and accessories are all so beautiful and nicely made. I noticed a few other moms, with their daughters, in the store and they had big AGD bags filled to the brim with AGD stuff. Let me tell you, right now, if you don’t already know, that AGD stuff is not cheap. All I wanted to do, in that moment, was to buy my daughter what ever she wanted. But I couldn’t. I am too responsible for that. I did, however, buy her a nightgown that was $39…choke…cough…sputter. Read the rest of this entry →

Aside from hyperbole, what do the three nouns listed in this title have in common?

Surprisingly, there are many commonalities.  Others are free to list more within the comments but I’ll jot down a few as a means of providing a foundation for the rest of this article.

Racists, Rapists and Murderers

1. Have no place in civilized society
2. Should be punished for their actions
3. Make up a small fraction of our citizenry, however any number above zero is unacceptable
4. Are presumed innocent until proven guilty
5. If found guilty, are all guilty of the same sin…Theft

Theft?  I know that must seem a bit mild, but allow me to reference an amazing piece of literature and filmmaking to illustrate this point.  In 2003, an Afghan physician named Khaled Hosseini wrote a book called, The Kite Runner and in 2007 his book was adapted for the screen.  It’s a wonderfully moving bit of literature and filmmaking that illustrates how love, failings, and redemption are universal principles.  However, there is one quote that I found particularly moving and instructive with respect to both where we find ourselves as a country and the topic of this particular article.

The protagonist’s father, Baba, explains that there really is only one sin, describing it thusly:

Now, no matter what the mullah teaches, there is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft…When you kill a man, you steal a life, you steal his wife’s right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone’s right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness…There is no act more wretched than stealing. A man who takes what’s not his to take, be it a life or a loaf of naan…I spit on such a man.

Rapists commit violence on women.  They steal the purity and unifying characteristics of an intimate human act.  They steal the sense of control and of safety to which every person is entitled.  They do damage in so many ways that we will not suffer rapists to remain a part of our society.

Likewise, Murderers steal from their victim the very potential that resides within us all.

What of Racists? I contend they directly steal the humanity from those to whom their misguided views are directed and create collateral damage to all of us who witness their physical or verbal violence.  As a country, we have committed atrocities in the name of Racism.  Of this there can be no doubt nor any excuse.  However, unlike any other country we are built upon a idea and that idea is that all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

For a time we didn’t acknowledge that “All men,” included all Men and all Women of all Races.  We did learn that truth and we learned it over two generations ago.  I will stipulate that some refuse to accept that truth, just as there are some who will refuse to accept any truth.  However, as a nation, we have rejected racism and there is no better proof than the family that now resides in the White House.

That said, we must remain vigilant and continue to excise racial cancers where they are found lest our negligence allow it to spread.  To extend this metaphor, we must, as any good surgeon, be sure to identify the affected tissue and use a sharp scalpel. Imagine if a surgeon who was charged with treating a patient afflicted with a tumor in their left leg arrived in the operating theater with a hand axe and no idea in which leg the disease resided.

That my friends, is how some are treating racism today.  We have former President Carter stating that an “overwhelming portion” of peoples’ objections to President Obama’s polices are based on racism.  We have a noted columnist picking up that banner to state that racism is one of “driving forces” behind peoples’ opposition to President Obama’s policies.

This is completely unacceptable.  We cannot allow unfounded accusations of racism to be used as a bludgeon for political advantage.  We are not a nation of racists any more than we are a nation of rapists or murderers.

First, it is an insult to the memory of Dr. King, Rosa Parks, Ella Baker and countless others whose courage, sacrifice, and blood purchased for us all the progress we’ve made toward racial equality.  Second, it is a conversation stopper.  There can be no debate when one party accuses the other of an atrocity.  We can no more have a debate over healthcare when opponents are accused of holding their views because of racial animus than we could have a debate over abstinence if all those who engaged in premarital sex were allowed to be accused of committing rape.

To the proponents of President Obama’s policies, I say, “Strengthen your arguments or temper your ideology.”  You cannot rely on charges of racism as the fire break for policy failures.  We have come too far to let you do that.  We have come too far to let you bring us back to days where the content of a man’s character and the merit of his ideas were viewed through the prism of race.

If every policy fails because you rely on the bludgeon of racism to chill debate, then fail they must.

We are not Black, or Brown, or White, or Yellow.

We are the People.  We are Americans.  We will not go back.

Ok, so, I’m pretty sure this stands on its own

…and no, I didn’t create it

…and no, it’s not a race thing.  It’s Kanye is a Jackass thing.

Like many Americans, I am more than a bit frustrated with the current debate surrounding healthcare reform.  It’s not the rancorous tone of the debate that bothers me.  America was born of rancorous debate; we are a rowdy lot.  If things aren’t rowdy, then enough folks aren’t paying attention.

No, my frustration comes from the near complete lack of integrity with which the debate is being held.  If the goal of affordability and accessibility were truly in the hearts of our legislators, we would not be in the current state of partisan paralysis we now find ourselves.  These noble goals have been subordinated to the desires of special intersts:  Labor, Big Pharma, Trial Lawyers, Insurance Giants, etc.

When you consider that the goals of these special interestes are often diametrically opposed to one another is it any wonder that we have a legislative disaster on our hands.  It truly is a shame that the President has not shown more leadership on this issue.  In my opinion there are two reasons for this.  First, his advisors over-learned the lessons from Clinton’s attempt at healthcare reform to the point where the Obama administration completely ceded the legislative process to congress.  A bad idea in the best of times and with Nancy Pelosi at the helm, its far from the best of times.  Second, President Obama’s own ideology works against him in crafting something that garners broad-based support.  It’s a shame because had he legislated from the center he really could have had a chance to do some good here.

Now, I’d like to stipulate that nowhere in our constitution is the right to healthcare enumerated.  That said, as a modern, compassionate society, we have a different view on the human condition that that of, say, Dickensian Britain.  However, lets not build our solution based on misinformation.  The 45 Million some claim are without health insurance, are not a homogeneous group.  They tend to break down into four primary categories.

1. Those that can afford insurance but choose to spend their dollars elsewhere
2. Those that cannot afford it and are eligible for existing programs but do not take advantage of them
3. Those that are here illegally and cannot afford it
4. Those that cannot afford it and are not eligible for any program.

Those who have read my other writings may be surprised, but I favor quasi-mandates for category 1 people.  A pure mandate on health insurance would be easier but the Libertarian in me cries out for an escape hatch.  Those in category 1 are strongly encouraged to carry health insurance and this encouragement takes the form of the following stick.  Should such individuals believe themselves indestructible and choose to “self-insure” then there must be consequences to such decisions.  When life proves them wrong in the form of an emergency room visit, they will either pay for service or have their wages and tax returns garnished using the same structures currently in place to recapture child support from deadbeat dads.  Today, these “indestructibles” retain the dollars others spend on insurance but often do not adequately absorb the risk associated with that decision.  This must end.

Category 3 people will receive subsidies from the government to ensure they have access to care.  Formalizing this approach will be more cost effective than having category 3 folks seeking primary care via costly emergency room visits.  In addition to funding this via cost savings described later, I’d recommend having a $5 checkbox at the end of every tax return.  Government often discounts the intense generosity of the American people.  They will be surprised at how many of those tax returns will come back with that $5 box checked.  Doing so would either reduce a refund or increase the amount owed

In return for swelling the ranks of their customers, Insurance companies must provide for portability while eliminating preexisting condition clauses.  State barriers must be lowered to allow the 1,300 odd insurance companies to compete nation-wide just like automobile insurance.  This will both drive down prices and ease portability.

Tort reform.  There are many different approaches to this topic and it is inexcusable that this sacred cow of the Democratic party has not be asked to sacrifice along with other stakeholders in our national healthcare ecosystem.  There are passionate opinions on both sides of the debate with respect to capping victim claims, so I’d suggest taking that off the table for the first round.  This first round should focus on lawyer fees rather than victim compensation.  Currently many fees are calculated as a percentage of the amount awarded to the victim.  This incentivizes a great deal of undesired behavior on the part of lawyers.  Allowing a percentage of the award up to a cap retains the contingency arrangement that is often the only way low income plaintiffs can gain representation.  A cap, above which only documented hourly rates will be compensated, greatly diminishes the benefits of seeking outlandish settlements, while protecting victims’s rights.

Gold Plated Plans.  Most folks are not even aware such plans exist, but there are healthcare plans that have no deductibles, no co-payments, and cover treatments from botox to swedish massage.  These gold plated plans should be taxed above a certain point.  For example, let’s assume the average plan has a value of $10,000 a year.  Applying a generous algorithm one could then set the maximum tax free value at something like $18,000.  Under such an approach, if someone had a gold-plated plan valued at $30,000, the first $18,000 would be tax free and the remaining $12,000 would be treated as ordinary income for tax purposes.  This approach would both increase revenue needed to fund subsidies and decrease demand thus freeing up much needed headroom to treat additional patients.

Finally, there are pharmaceutical costs.  Big Pharma proudly stood with President Obama during an earlier photo op, where they pledged to wring billions out of their cost structure.  However, this was only after receiving a promised quid pro quo in the form of a ban on mass drug purchases from Canada or overseas.  This is just cost shifting.  All drug plans should be able to purchase pharmaceuticals from anywhere in the world assuming the source passes safety protocols.

In summary, this common sense approach to healthcare insures all but those who are here illegally and those who have the means to purchase insurance but choose, instead, to self insure.  The insured are protected from preexisting conditions and have portability for their plans which they can purchase from a plethora of providers nationwide.  Tort reform drives costs out of the system by reducing both malpractice insurance and defensive medical tests.

This approach is simple, understandable, and makes pretty much everyone a little bit unhappy, except, of course, the American people.  Just as it should be.

It’s been a while since I penned a post and thought I should bring something up this evening.

First, though I am the Founder of this little corner of the digital world, I do not see myself as its owner.  I also do not see those who I have currently designated as Authors in that role.  No, I see this site owned and operated by any who believe in the basic principles on which our country was founded.

Personally, I tend to view those principles through what many today would call a Libertarian or Conservative lens, but more and more I have received e-mails from those who describe themselves as “Old School Democrats”  or “True Liberals,” or many such terms.  Early on I tried to make it clear that all were welcomed here, but I’d like to make that clear again tonight.

As Thomas said yesterday, we must eschew the Red and the Blue, the Right and the Left, the Elephant and the Donkey.  Set aside the party chains that fetter us and in favor of the values that bind us.

Why tonight do I feel the need to write this.  Well, over the last 48 hours, we have had more new registrants than in any month prior.  Clearly those folks are just lurking around, which is totally fine.  However, I want everyone to feel free to make comment, post on our wall, or even make a submission for publication.

Heck, if you are feeling particularly adventurous, submit a piece and ask to become an Author.

In short, ask not for whom this bel ToLs; it ToLs for thee.

The framer’s of our Constitution were a non-trusting lot.  Even a cursory examination of how the three branches of government interact shines a bright light on either their intense paranoia or inspired genius.  They knew that in man’s quest for power and control, the people would fear a government that did not fear the people.

The best way, they reasoned, to keep a government fearful of the people is by keeping that government from amassing too much power.  The first step to keep a government from amassing too much power is to split it into three parts.  Then, just to be sure, our framers interlocked the three parts in such a way that any stretch by one part to gain power would place stress on the other two and thereby maintain the desired equilibrium.  Paranoid…perhaps.  Genius…undoubtedly.

We have the Legislative branch where the raucous House of Representatives provides the closest link between the elected and the electorate to which they have to answer every two years.  It is in the House that passions flare and the inspired ideas of the people are often first given voice.  If the House is the cup in which our passions boil, the Senate is the saucer that protects the People from scalding coffee that sloshes over the side.  The Senate…where one lone voice can halt the entire body and where 60 must agree before a vote can even be taken.  It is in this most deliberative of bodies where the President must go for advice and consent when appointing those who have their hands on the levers of power.  This advice and consent provides accountability to the People indirectly through their elected Senators.

We recently witnessed one of the most crucial examples of advice and consent with the confirmation of our new Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor.  This confirmation process isn’t optional.  It is clearly spelled out in Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution which states that all “high government positions,” are required to be confirmed.

How then is it that President Obama has more than 30 unelected, unconfirmed, high government positions currently filled with people answerable only to the Executive branch.  This is simply unacceptable and we must immediately demand that these positions either be confirmed by the Senate or explicitly require by Senate resolution that no appropriated funds can be used by, or in the service of, these Czars.

Because it is fashionable to place all Patriotic arguments in terms of Left and Right, Blue and Red, Donkey and Elephant, I include for your linking pleasure a pleathora of liberally inclined patriots who have taken serious issue with this egregious extension of power by the Executive branch.

• Salon
• Senator Byrd
  • CBS
  • NY Times
  • La Times
  • CNN
• CNet

Read for yourselves.  Become educated, which means doing more than mindlessly ingesting data without engagement or analysis.  This is our Republic.  Take responsibility for your role as a member of the electorate.  Hold your Senators accountable by demanding that these Czars, too, be held accountable.

No, it’s not a typo; my namesake wrote the documents…

Tomorrow I may be a CommonSensicrat™ just to keep things even.

First I’d like to thank Tol for giving me the opportunity to post on his site.  I don’t know how often I’ll have something to say, but I will certainly try to keep it well reasoned and pithy.

Today I’m writing about the Left-Right divide.

My lovely wife is a rabid conservative and one of her best friends is a left of center Democrat.  They love each other dearly but do tend to snipe.  Today I was struck that their sniping was more pointless than usual because they were actually on the same side of the issue.  However, the ideologues that owned their labels were, as usual, quite far apart.

This issue at hand was President Obama’s response to the increasing carnage in Iran and how those on the ideological left and right chose to react.

My wife, let’s call her Kate, correctly pointed out that Obama and many on his left were rather tepid in their support for Iran’s protestors.  Where was the outrage from the bastions of liberal thinking, asked Kate?  They cared more for the President’s poll numbers than for their ideals.  Her friend, let’s call her Edwina, took offense because many of her left of center friends had been openly supporting the Iranian protestors and encouraged a strong American show of solidarity.

In this case, both women were right…and wrong.

The disconnect arose largely because of semantics and context. Kate defines “The Left” as the vocal minority of talking heads and members of the permanent political intelligencia. In contrast, Edwina’s view was informed by left leaners in her personal circle. The Left establishment has power and doesn’t want to risk losing it so they are dipping their toes in an issue that represents great risk to their power if it ends badly. Their sin lies in a willingness to place politics above a clear moral choice involving the grave matter of life, death, and freedom.

The Right establishment does not have power and covets it, so they encourage ‘bold” action because, for them, there is much to be gained and little to be lost. Their sin is merely a dark reflection of those on the Left. The greater sin, IMO, lies with the establishment Left in that they espouse core beliefs that, in this case, they willing forgo to achieve political advantage.

In short, Edwina’s left-leaning friends have been acting on their ideals because those ideals are more important that US politics. Good for them!!  CommonSensicrats all.

The establishment Right has been saying the correct things in too strident a fashion and for all the wrong reasons.

The establishment Left has been doing the wrong things for all the wrong reasons, chief among them is fear and an unwillingness to do something the Right suggests, even when it’s correct.

To those that would defend Obama with the Hungarian example or simply the “meddling” defense, ignore that great swath of land called, “middle ground.”

There is no reason why our country couldn’t have said from the outset, “America stands now and forever with those who seek to obtain and protect Freedom. Our hearts are with the Iranian people in their peaceful pursuit and our eyes are on the Iranian Government with the expectation that, as a society of laws, it will respect and honor the wishes of its people.”

I am Thomas Paine and I reject the notion that our country is Red or Blue.  I reject the notion that ideologues who blather within their coastal echo chambers speak for me or can define the beliefs of my friends and family.  Let them excoriate each other while the wise among us note that they exist on a mobius strip of ideas where extremes of Left and Right are but a hair’s breadth apart, driving our nation to ruin.

I reject it all and I reject them…in favor of Common Sense.

Thomas joins us today and should be posting his first submission shortly. He’s our first new Author invited based on a submission and facebook link. Watch out folks, he’s not a Republican or a Democrat. As you’ll see shortly, he considers himself a CommonSensican™