THE PEOPLE AS “LEMMINGS” OVER THE CLIFF

       It is not difficult to discern that a majority of Americans are being swept along by the Republican/”Tea Party” Bandwagon toward the November Mid-Term Elections.  It is now apparent that most of the People wish to follow the Republican lead because, truly: a.) they do not understand the nature of their rights and how they are “being played”; or b.) the governmental effects of their naive “acting out.”

             Most do not remember or understand: i.) the unique foundational history of America and the absolute protection of the right we have as a “People” to govern ourselves to the eternal exclusion of any despotic form of rule–as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; ii.) our recently shared history with a despotic band of usurpers who “sold” the people upon a “unitary executive” form of government, i.e., nothing more than a term-limited form of totalitarian rule created by the Republican Party under the aegis of George W. Bush–who, as did Fifteenth Century European monarchs, cast us as the invaders in a “pre-emptive” war brought only for his personal reasons, having nothing to do with Islamic extremism or the protection of the People; or, iii.) that it was the Republican fiscal policies to benefit only the very rich that have almost bankrupt the Nation and much of Western Civilization, as well as causing unemployment to exceed “non-Great Depression” all-time highs.

            For at least the last forty years I have lamented the portent of the ever-worsening state of America’s education system and the fact that graduation from high school and even from college have, in and of themselves, increasingly come to mean little.  Every academic discipline has been “dumbed down” by every state department of education to meet ill-conceived, artificial and self-defeating Federal regulations.  Since the mid-1960’s we have, except for a small bright, diligent minority, been placing wave after wave of graduates on the streets who understand little more than life “from day to day.”  And this mass ignorance portends the most evil of ends, for, since the People have proved themselves incapable of or unwilling to rule themselves, they have determined, as if children in a tantrum, to simply turn the Country over to “anyone but those who hold office now!”

            It is easy to see that the reason for the “lemming rush” over the cliff is not rational.  The People will scream as they leap: i.) “there are no jobs;” ii.) “no one can get a loan to buy a house now…;” and iii.) “that Arab (”N Word”) feller wants to pull our soldiers out of the wars in the Middle East–and, by Damn–we are Americans!  We don’t ever give up!”  (Not recalling that it was the fiscal and “unitary executive” totalitarian policies of the Bush Administration that caused each of these realities.)

            And neither have the People thought of what is at the bottom of the cliff–the consequence of their tantrum:  Huge boulders…continually doused by crushing waves of the People’s life blood, each wave crashing each creature into the boulders, draining the last vestiges of individual rights of the People to choose their own leaders and achieve their individual dreams.  Ranting and cheering Republicans are off shore cheering as we are all reduced to the “mortally wounded” lemmings that we, in our stupidity, actually sought to be, i.e., with no voice, with no will, with no rights….left alive only to do the wishes of the very rich “one-per centers” whom the Republican usurpers have always served and whom we will now also always serve.

            That is how the will and the rights of the People are destroyed.

Don Switzer

Rogers, Arkansas

September 9, 2010

  DOWN WITH “WALL STREET” !

       To really finish the title to this admitted diatribe, I, a “somewhat liberal Democrat,” would add to the addressees of this all of the hide-bound “money-changers”–political and otherwise–who, from their lofty, secure perches are so totally out of touch with everyday reality, and basic human dignity, that they have no understanding of nor care about what their actions are doing to an entire generation of wonderful, able, successful Americans. 

    I have a young friend to whom I am very, very close.  He and his family are in terrible straits today due to nothing ill of his doing.  Rather, he is a real world victim of those persons on “Wall Street,” i.e., troubled, asset-short mortgage lenders and securities traders which the Bush Administration (representing the taxpayers) in October 2008, and under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (”TARP”), “bailed out” by massive cash infusions to make certain that those lenders deemed “too big to fail” were able to continue to function. 

          The purpose of the program, of course, was an attempt to make certain that they would not lose money in situations where the value of secured property had dropped to less than it was when the loan was made, i.e., it was an “under water” loan, and, by extension, that our economy would not careen into yet another Great Depression.   Now, however, many of these institutions bailed out with taxpayer money, including the Little Rock branches thereof, refuse to follow the TARP program and have, to my mind, purposefully determined not to use the taxpayer funds for its purposes.

             My friend lives in Little Rock now, having moved back to his and his wife’s family’s home state only four or five years ago when offered a new job for which he was highly qualified and to be superbly compensated.  He had, after all, been the leading individual sales person, as well as National Director of Sales for his previous employer–based in a populous eastern state–which is a manufacturer of products essential to the residential and commercial real estate construction business.  He was very well known, even nationally, in his niche of the construction business, and he was highly sought by the “big boys.”  He is currently the District Manager of his new employer’s operations in Arkansas–one of the larger “chess pieces” that this World-wide company moves around on its very, very large, marble chess board.

    This wonderful person, a husband and father, came to Little Rock when the construction business, both commercial and residential, was still booming.  Everything was booming!  Only we have all since discovered that the failure of the economic system–with world wide echoes and impact, was due to the to machinations of “Wall Street” and its rapacious greed and stupid, illegal misuse of lending and accounting practices (I know, I am retired legal counsel to commercial real estate development mortgage lenders) that created much of the “bubble” and caused it to burst.  The end of the bubble, I might add, came very close and may still lead to a second Great Depression.

     This young man, the type of sales person who could, according to the salesman’s proverb, “sell ice to Eskimos”, came to Little Rock and, in hindsight, bought a home that was perhaps too big and too expensive.   But, what would most expect?  He was riding high, had a child with another on the way, he needed a big home, and he bought a nice one–which was, in 2005 or 2006 when he moved in, well worth what he paid for it.  And he was well worth the six figure income for which his new giant conglomerate employer hired him.

    But now, for systemic reasons within the scope of TARP, this young man is in great difficulty.  There is almost no commercial construction business in Arkansas now and has not been for more than two years.  The residential business has recovered somewhat, but the size of homes has decreased dramatically–so, there is substantially less product to sell.  Due to the erasure of that portion of his anticipated income based upon commissions upon all sales of his products, he made a contractual arrangement with the Little Rock office of a National mortgage lender to re-finance his home as the Bush Administration had envisioned.  Interestingly, we have learned that this lender was one of the very first lenders protected by the Bush Administration, to the tune of over Twenty Billion Dollars, and by its actions one could conclude it never intended to carry out the bargain.  It was two years of “We need more papers; More information please; what is you first son’s shoe size? etc.”   Oh, and they contractually required that he make no approach to any other potential lender for re-finance since they “…wanted to keep his business!!!!”

    At the end of the two years, just a few days ago, he was told he was approved.  He was, however, offered but a reduction of seventeen dollars per month in his mortgage payment!  And he was ordered to immediately pay all of the fifteen thousand dollars in principal that the lender had agreed to defer since the re-finance procedure had contractually started.  No lender, I assure you, that acts like that has any intent of doing anything but force this young man and his young family out on the street.

          This young man is not a dead beat; he’s one of the good guys, a “player” running in the right circles, known by everyone, a great husband and father and, seemingly, always the “smartest guy in the room.”  But when a man’s home becomes worth approximately one half of what it was when he bought it and his income is about one-third of what it used to be, there are no good answers except for the lender to follow the law–which protects the lender absolutely! 

         I was initially puzzled by the position taken by the lender, but it has now begun to make sense.   First of all, unlike most foreclosures this bank might have made, this is one that has little or no downside and possibly a large upside–for the young man was “foolish enough?”, “bright enough?”, to make a very large down payment, and the balance owing after a foreclosure would be very little…if any.  So, its thinking could well be that is could then just “mow grass” for a couple of years and make a ton of money on the home!

    I know, too, that it was anticipated that, nationally, over 250,000 “under water” loans were to be refinanced (with taxpayer money!!!) so that lenders would lose no money, but only 17,000 have been completed to date!   Then I happened to be walking through the den of my home a few days ago when I noted there was an interview being re-played upon CNN where some Congressional Committee was raking some lender representatives over the coals for their failure to comply with the TARP program–as is obvious from the numbers just noted.  One of the representatives was from the lender in question, and its representative stated with astounding clarity that the reason was that its senior executives had determined that such re-financing “…would not be a prudent thing to do with its shareholder’s money!”   All of which was, of course, actually taxpayer money.

    How about either Arkansas or the United States government (whichever be appropriate)  revoking this lender’s license to do business either in Arkansas or Nationally because of the company’s failure to follow the most basic tenet of corporate law?  Something of this nature must be done by the “government” to get the attention and focus of these people back where the law demands that it be.   Every corporation (bank or otherwise) is required by law and equity to operate with the welfare of all of its constituent/stakeholders in mind, i.e., not just its shareholders, but, also, it customers and the Public at large.  That is the “trade-off” all individual incorporators/shareholders receive from placing their capital into the business, which is at risk, but without personal liability beyond that investment.  Making business as we know it possible.

Don Switzer
2739 White Oak Drive
Rogers, Arkansas 72758
(c) August 23, 2010

          No, it now is absolutely clear that Christendom is divided into many subclasses and that if one is not in the correct class, he or she will be killed by those who are–and they will not wait until the Rapture; rather, they will make certain that there is what they refer to as a “Pre-tribulation Rapture” and that all, in addition to Heathen, not believing as do they will simply and joyously be eradicated.  I am not speaking of Evangelicals, for those are but the “Billy Grahams” of the Christian World who spread the teaching of the “Word” and seek converts to the way commanded by Christ.  Such Evangelicals and those who are converted have, per se, never bothered those of the rest of society who are either Christian or non-Christian–for they are but being converted to a world of love and hope.  Not even the most stolid atheist would have any rational reason to fear Evangelicals or such converts, as their entire belief system is based upon love.

          Now let us forget for the moment those who simply go to Church and merely profess to be Christian and do not believe in either the commandments of “God” or follow his teachings.  These are the non-believers…or the hypocrites.  These are the persons my Dad truly disliked (despised) hypocrites, for they pretended to be something they were not.  They went to Church on Sunday, acted pious, spoke publicly against the sins of fornication (adultery) yet were sometimes known to be “intimate” with their maids–usually African-American.  Then, they would undertake–pretending all the while they were acting in accord with God’s law–political movements to make certain that no sales of liquor were to occur in the county in which they lived (resulting in many lost lives on the road to the nearest liquor store in the adjacent State of Louisiana), had their yard men come out to our home to buy liquor for themselves, and they constantly and openly, and with feigned piety, discriminated against persons of other races, dismissing their own heresy by holding African-Americans and others to be inferior creatures.  To my Dad these persons were the most despicable “heathen” of “Creation” or “Evolution,” take your choice on the latter.  But the word “heathen” is the closest non-curse word of which I can think which has the same connotation as the words my Dad would really use to describe these contemptible, duplicitous persons. 

          No, I am for the moment not speaking of nor fearful of the Evangelicals, those members of “Mainstream” denominations, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus or even the most despicable hypocrites.  I am very fearful of the Right Wing Christian Fundamentalists, who, according to a recent estimate by author, New York Times investigative reporter and Harper’s editor Chris Hedges, now number in excess of thirty three million Americans!  These persons, for the reasons I will explain below, constitute a true cult and are a dangerous force on the world stage–not only one which is intent upon taking over the government of the United States and converting this Nation into a Theocracy, but one whose leaders joyfully look forward to the day of the death of all of us who do not close our minds to thought and analysis precisely as do they.  cf. American Fascists, Simon & Shuster, NYC, 2001.

          The roots of Protestant Fundamentalism are obviously dug deep into the soil of America.  I have not done much specific reading into this phenomenon, but it has shown up in many different cults that have existed, especially in isolated Appalachia, which espoused literal readings of the Bible and its supposed inerrancy, no matter how many internal inconsistencies and no matter how inconsistent be the good-hearted beliefs of the writers of the Bible may have had when their assertions are held up the light of Twenty-First Century science.  Faith and Science are not mutually exclusive, but these persons have always held them to be.  Those who believe in the theoretical and general conclusions of science as to the basis and process of evolution are damned as non-believers and condemned to death–both in disgraced former Reverend Ted Haggard’s New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (now bigger than ever!), as well as in prosperity gospel’s “poster child” Reverend Joel Osteen’s leased former basketball arena in Houston.

          There are many names and quotations of and from Fundamentalist Preachers I could cite from American Fascists and other such frightening publications, but I believe it best to simply set out a brief summary how the “program” operates (and that is what it is; it is not faith, hope and love in the sense most of us understand).  The program’s leaders primarily target three demographics:, viz: i.) those who for whatever reason, e.g. old age, infirmity, or family upheaval have become unanchored in their emotional lives and feel a great need for something “solid” to grasp.  Christian Fundamentalism, whether it be from one of the admitted Fundamentalist denominations or from the no longer truly “mainstream” Southern Baptist Convention which has adopted traditional Fundamentalist doctrine but not all of its strictures, offers a structured, always male-dominated matrix whereby the burden of independent thinking for oneself is forgone…and no longer either required or tolerated; ii.) unanchored and forlorn persons such as suburbanites (think Southern California) who in our American culture of the Twenty First Century are no longer tied to their traditional family, who most often have lives anchored only in the workplace and around the evening dinner table (if the bread winner or winners make it home in time) and who have no true friends or family upon whom they can depend for support…or simply friendship.  The Fundamentalists have such a pervasive program of intercession and home and faith community-based programs that, all of a sudden, once a family is “converted,” there need no longer be any voids in their lives.  It is no exaggeration to say that such “churches” do not allow a truly free evening for any convert and family, and the converts usually have no objection, for they are as fish merrily swimming in a stream without natural predators and led on by a very strong male presence; and iii.) persons who are simply overwhelmed emotionally or intellectually by the complexity of World events and who need someone or some thing in which or in whom they can trust to bring them assurance and certainty…and again take away the worry and uncertainty that comes with having to think about alternatives.

          Indoctrination is from “day one.” All Fundamentalist churches demand or strongly urge (demand is the better expression) that all children of the converted household be either home-schooled (with Church-approved history and science texts that do not mention Evolution or the age of the Earth as anything other than 6,000 years) or that the children attend church-sponsored “Christian” schools.  In such way, the Church doctrines are assured of being absorbed into American culture for years and years to come and the right Wing Fundamentalist cult or culture is destined to be a major force to be dealt with politically and spiritually, for much time to come.

          Since there are so many disparate political forces in America, and since the Fundamentalist churches and doctrines are by far the most well-organized, headed by its own National Policy Committee, and its adherents the most closely “policed,” it did not take much time for there to be a marriage between them and a major political party.  Although no one can “pin it” on him, the best bet (so to speak) to have first dreamed to establish a tight partnership was, or is, Karl Rove.  Mr. Rove is known to have been well aware of the strengths–and glaring weaknesses–of the Fundamentalist movement (coordinated by its own “Committee on National Policy”) and the dramatic effect that closeness with it would have upon politics in the United States.  He closely followed the demographics of every precinct in the United States and made certain that the policies espoused by the Republican Party conformed to those of the Committee on National Policy–originally and so ironically headed by Ted Haggard of Colorado Springs.  This move by Rove is known to have delivered at least twenty million votes in the 2000 election for the Bush-Cheney ticket, obviously assuring his victory in a much more dramatic fashion than did the Florida Recount fiasco–since it would not have even been possible other wise.  Immediately thereafter, Ted Haggard was appointed to the “Bush team” who became a frequent visitor to the White House and a close advisor and confidant of President Bush.   Grist.Com, October 24, 2004, by Glenn Scherer, ed. Blue Ridge Press.  Many politicians in Congress are elected by reason of their “toeing the line” of the Committee on National Policy, and, merely by example, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, Zell Miller, Roy Blunt and Mitch McConnell have in every year since 2000 had a voting record one hundred per cent in line with that of the Committee on National Policy. op cit.

          But that’s enough about the politics and the dangers posed by the Religious Right to the future of America.  The most dangerous thing I have read recently is that the Christian Right Wing (Fundamentalist Christians) have no fear of war at any level, for if it escalates it can destroy the World and thereby bring about its end (they say Armageddon) that much sooner…and the sooner they (and we, supposedly) can reap their “treasures” stored away in heaven.   That in itself explains one of the most absolutely terrifying moments I have ever experienced as shown on National television.  Back during the last serious “dust up” between Israel and Lebanon in 2006 there was every possibility that, because of that conflict and the ongoing War in Iraq, the end of the world might well come to pass upon or as the result of a few serious miscalculations by politicians right in the middle of this, there was a television broadcast of portions of the President’s Prayer Breakfast held annually in Washington, D.C.   After a speech by Reverend John Hagee dealing in part with this very subject, he walked off the stage to meet Joel Osteen heading up to be the next speaker.  I almost fell out of my chair as these two men, persons either of no conscience, zero intelligence, or filled with an unbounded malevolence, smiled at each other and exchanged “high fives.”  

Don Switzer

Rogers, Arkansas 

(c) August 7, 2010

* Note: readers interested in this article will profit by reading both American Fascists, supra, and also The Family–The Secret Fundamentalism At the Heart of American Power, by Jeff Sharlett, Harper Perennial, NYC, 2008.          

DEMOCRATIC VIEWS UPON MAJOR

POLITICAL ISSUES

          The issues of the day, here on July 8, 2010, facing all of us, are: 1.) Have the Republican Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee draw enough blood from Supreme Court Justice Nominee Elena Kagen, a former Dean of Harvard Law School,  to require her to get a transfusion; 2.) Whether the President be able  to convince his own Party of the need for a further economic stimulus–in light of the great unemployment to “jump start” the Nation’s economic engine and, hopefully, get things moving a little faster; and 3.) Has the President’s performance in the Gulf Oil Spill disaster exhibited sufficient gravitas? 

            I have to admit that I am completely frustrated because I see all, or at least many, of the issues which divide us in America today and which lead to confrontations and much, much dispute…even anger.  What I have discovered, however, is that often if one looks at all of the issues, it is not any one issue that defines a person in such as way as to predict that he or she will be “conservative” or “liberal” on all the other issues that are so volatile today.  The best example I can readily think of relates to what I call a “bait and switch” pulled by the Bush-Cheney Administration during the 2000 and then the 2004 elections.  In each election a political party looks for constituencies, or groups of persons whom they try to convert to their party because of something they believe in deeply, while to the new constituency’s surprise the party had no intention to act on that particular issue in the first event.  In 2000 and 2004 it was “putting the Bible back into the schools” and other “faith-based” programs. 

            This recruiting ploy brought millions of well-meaning Christians into the Bush-Cheney or Neo-Conservative camp when, in fact: 1.) the Republican Party had no intent to attend to this constituency’s interest, and 2.) it caused these good people to be aligned with the racists, with those encouraging torture of all prisoners (Americans and foreign nationals alike), and those not discerning enough (by 2004) to see the dangers in throwing away our Constitution  and its protection of all citizens whenever the Executive Branch (President) decided there were “exigent” circumstances. 

            The Founding Fathers created a “miracle” in the founding of the United States with a representative form of government controlled by three co-equal branches of government, the vaunted “separation of powers” doctrine.  But these fundamental Christians discovered after the fact that they had been “used” and unknowingly aligned with persons such as Messrs. Bush and Cheney who wanted to tear up these protections, this form of Government which have been the marvel of the world and has made the United States the longest lasting and largest democracy in the world.  They (and, candidly, the few members of our Congress who conspired with them) tried mightily to convert the United States into what they called a “unitary executive” form of government, while, in fact, it would have made the United States into simply another “tin horn” dictatorship.  If one takes a “long lens” view of governments around the world, he or she will recall and recognize that there is a very slight and fine line between a “temporary” dictatorship (or unitary executive) and a permanent one.  What is happening in Honduras, as we “speak,” is a good example of what almost happened to our wonderful Country.  Perhaps the last sentence is an overstatement, a little bit of hyperbole, but the historical events did take place as stated, and we were clearly at least “on the road” toward that sad end until the Presidential elections results of 2008 were in.

            It seems more than clear to me, then, and anyone may differ, that it is always a mistake for any person to give or “sell” his or her vote because of one issue, a “hot button” issue–no matter how strongly they may feel about it.   One must determine where their vote shall go upon an analysis of each and every issue they may see and how they feel about where the candidate or candidates or the party in question stands on each one.   Perhaps the hot button issue is still enough to determine the result—but I suggest in many instances a comprehensive analysis by each voter will result in a government which greater protect everyone’s interests.

            So, in an attempt to help each of us really think through all of this, I have made my best effort to figure out just what issues mean the most to Americans at the moment and which, as always, are subject to division, or different ways of thinking.  These are the ones that seem to divide us, and it is my hope that merely by looking at the different parties positions on ALL of these issues, we will be better prepared to see where we really want to be.  To that end I have listed each major political issue of the last Presidential campaign and of the first six plus months of the Obama Administration that I can recall at the moment.  And then I attempt to accurately set forth so-called “Republican” and Neo-Con positions and so-called “Democratic” positions. 

            I strongly suspect that if each of us examines each issue and the view of each “Party” upon it, he or she will find that even if he or she has a strongly held position with which he or she identifies in one of the two parties or interest groups, he or she will also feel strongly in favor of some of the positions held by the other party as well.  This is kind of like a self-graded “homework assignment” in that by looking at how many positions we have in common with our ostensible political foes in the “other” party, the conclusion each of us will likely reach is that we have so much more in common with one another than with the many positions of the National Parties–which is actually the very last thing that the professional politicians want us to recognize or understand!

Republican/Conservative                      Democrat/Liberal/”Humanist”Positions

 Points of View

I. Unrestrained Capitalism versus Reasonable Social Policy/

and Social Policy is not “Socialism”

A.  Republican Party asserts that unfettered capitalism with private business in charge of most societal functions is best for society as a whole; such assertions include the expansion of privately owned security-military forces to perform duties heretofore only performed by the United States Government;

B. Democratic Party asserts that without reasonable regulation in the public interest, private greed will unduly cant societal benefits in favor of the few, to the detriment of the many; further, only government is equipped to provide mass programs for the benefit of society in whole; it must be recognized that government regulation is only needed or appropriate with regard to businesses that are “particularly affected with a public interest;” examples of such functions that can only be done by government include water plants, highway planning and construction, providing for police and fire protection and National Defense, food and drug inspection, regulation of the lawfulness and fairness of certain business practices-insurance, banking, securities, even rescuing the society through affirmative action (”stimulus”) for which no private entity is equipped, e.g. reform failed financial markets and give financial grants to government and business–or, as some say, to “prime the pump…;”

II. Religion in Public Life

A.  Republican Party asserts that the United States is a “Christian Nation” and that God must be returned to the “classroom”, to our courthouses and to American life in general; many adherents of this view feel that it is the proper role of government to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” or “creationism” as science and to prohibit the teaching of Evolution; others propose merely that both views be taught as theory;

B. Democratic Party asserts the “Establishment” clause of the First Amendment prevents Government from supporting or preferring one religion over another, i.e., establishing an official State religion OR requiring that persons follow any religion at all; believe that while the Founding Fathers were, in the main, Christian, they had the wisdom to recognize that a great nation had to be open to persons of all religions and the right of all Men to worship as he or she wishes–thus the wording of the Second Amendment which establishes absolute freedom in this regard; since evolution is supported by most scientific evidence, it must be taught in the public schools as science, while creationism may properly be taught as part of comparative religion studies, as it, like all religion, is not a matter of provable fact, but, rather, a matter of faith;        

III. Immigration and Law Enforcement

A. Republican Party promotes a policy whereby the United States “must” forcibly return all “illegal” immigrants (ire is mostly focused at the moment upon Hispanics) to their Country of origin; recently an extreme sub-group has expressed its wish that the citizenship of the children born in the U.S. to one or more illegal immigrants have their citizenship revoked; asserts the wisdom of denying all welfare benefits to illegal

immigrants; wish to treat all such persons as criminal; and demand that English be declared the “Official” language of the United States; 

B. Democratic Party asserts that U.S. is a “Nation of Immigrants” and without the sequential heritage of e.g., Dutch, German, English, Turkish, Jewish, Iranian, Lebanonese, Spanish, French, Native American, Italian, Swiss, Swedish, African, Chinese, West Indian, East Indian, Scottish, Polish and Irish, the U.S. would never have acquired its riches and pool of talent due to having become the “melting pot” of the World; that every wave of immigrants has, in sequence, been met with resentment of “those already here;” that the  latest Hispanic immigrants differ from earlier waves (all simply seeking better lives for their families) only in that they did not have a vast ocean to cross—in some cases only having to walk across an un-marked land border, in others swim over a narrow and almost dry river; but in some cases submit themselves to great danger to cross in populated or desert areas, all sacrifices most Americans “already here” would gladly have made for their own families; by no religious, traditional or humanistic analysis are these persons ”criminals.;” whether there is an ”official” language is essentially inconsequential;  the best solution to all of these issues is for the United States to finally secure its borders and enforce immigration policy and work visa programs–which have all been ignored by governments headed by both parties for more than forty years because of big farming interests protecting their supply of migrant labor;

IV. Race, Pubic Policy and Security

A. Republican Party asserts that Blacks, Hispanics and Middle Easterners are inferior beings not entitled to the rights Caucasians and that all such peoples should either be segregated from Whites or deported; some assert that most if not all Arab or Middle Eastern-looking persons must be presumed to be terrorists bent upon killing Americans and other Caucasians and Asians;                                                                                   

B.  Democratic Party asserts that all homo sapiens are genetically the same  as Caucasians, and such differences as exist are due to cultural, religious and environmental influences; and that there are, of course, fanatics of every skin color and every religion;

V.  Imperialism and Torture

A. Republican Party asserts that the United States has the special right to impose its will and its beliefs upon the rest of the World, such as by implanting Democracy in a Middle Eastern Country as a “seed” by which it will grow the region into good people;  the U.S., unlike any other Nation, may torture captives (either Americans or foreigners) in any military or quasi-military conflict to elicit information which “…might save American lives…;”  also, objection to these policies and beliefs is either naive or subversive of the interests of the U.S.; also, the U.S. may by military, clandestine or covert machination support coups or changes of any other country’s government to make any other nation its dependency…

B. Democratic Party asserts that nothing in international law, U.S. law or “Natural Law” give these rights to the United States; in fact, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the Constitution, Federal statutory law and Treaties (many of which apply to torture) constitute the Supreme Law of the United States–this law negates every assumption set forth by the Neo-Conservatives and, by extension, the Republican Party on this issue; also, Amendment VIII to the Constitution prohibits any cruel and unusual punishments such as torture;

VI. Suspend Laws in “Exigent” Times

A. Republican Party insists that in extreme times the Constitution and other laws of the United States may be ignored…such as the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, the prohibition of assassination of foreign leaders, The Executive may rule the Nation without the input of the Congress or the Courts in such times …as the Executive Branch may deem emergencies; 

B. Democratic Party asserts that if we forget or ignore the Constitution, ”we become as they;” it is the Constitution and our voluntary adherence to it that makes us who we are and if we choose to ignore it, WE are the criminals;   

VII. Social Policy or “Socialism?

A.  Republican Party posits that all welfare programs, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, pubic schools, and any public interference with private enterprise as “socialism”;  also, if people are poor and destitute, that is simply a matter of their choice; if a man wants to work, he always can; 

B. Democratic Party affirms that such programs and acts and programs are “ameliorative social policy” and not “socialism” and well within the power of  representative democratic government to maintain a healthy economy, “full” employment, and the health and at least minimal welfare of the poorest of our citizens; and, sometimes people cannot work and support themselves or their families because of illness, drug dependence, lack of requisite physical or mental faculties or training, or injuries incurred serving in the military;  and in no instance should the United States be in the position of condemning such persons or their children to starve or live upon heating exhausts in the winters of Washington , D.C. in particular (which I have personally witnessed) or any city in general;  Socialism is, by the way, actually a way of government where both the means of production and the distribution of all goods and services are controlled by a central government; but the Republicans hide this simple truth from their constituent/targets.  There is a vast difference between socialism and  representative democracy with social policies designed to assist its citizens which in no way affects the economic system.

VIII. Abortion and “Right to Life”

A.  Republican Party (and the Catholic Church) assert that no woman may abort a fetus under any circumstances after the time it is conceived–for to do so is murder;

 B. Democratic Party asserts the right of any woman to under an   circumstances at any time abort a fetus, as the fetus is part of the body of the woman, and it is not to be considered apart therefrom; others assert that abortion be allowed in circumstances such as pregnancy due to rape or incest or in the event the child would be born with any of several horrific disability or diseased conditions; proponents of both arguments agree that abortion must be had before the fetus is viable;

IX. Healthcare Reform

A.  Republican Party insists that and bureaucrats do not have the ability, intelligence or expertise to operate a healthcare delivery system or a program of insurance attendant thereto; and even if they did, the costs and inefficiencies of such a system would be horrific …even astronomical; the effort to reform healthcare delivery would create “socialized medicine” and force citizens to attend physicians not of their choosing; persons would be disinclined to become physicians and such would ultimately do away with a healthcare system in the U.S.; in no event can the government properly inject itself into the healthcare insurance market, for without the efficiency provided by the profit motive, it would, albeit inefficiently, deliver coverage and benefits cheaper than private carriers and force private insurers out of business–and that would be an unconstitutional “taking;” the Republicans still plan to either repeal or use their connections on K-Street and with the Pharmaceutical , Medical and Insurance lobbies to denude the health care reform of any substantial meaning.

B. Democratic Party insists that the reform of the U.S. healthcare delivery system now underway is one that must be effectuated to correct the former reality that the United States has for over ne half a century been burdened by the most  ineffective and inefficient healthcare system in the World–despite the fact that we have had the finest doctors and the best medical training in the World; the flaws of the system now under reform are shown by the fact U.S. suffers from the lowest percentage of its citizens with insurance in the Western World and suffers from the highest infant mortality rate in the Western world; the reasons persons do not have access to healthcare is that the United States is the only country in the Western World that ties healthcare availability to the ability to pay; i.e., unless one is very wealthy or has health insurance, many cannot receive healthcare unless they are employed  by  some quite large employer which offers healthcare insurance on a “non-underwritten” basis, he or she may not be covered for pre-existing conditions; further, in most Western Countries, the ability to access healthcare is seen as a right of citizenship—not something to be auctioned off to a lowest bidder or be denied because someone is poor; finally, it must be noted that the U.S. is one of the few countries in the World that even allows the operation of “for profit” hospitals or other healthcare facilities;

X. The Second Amendment and Guns

A.  Republican Party asserts that the Federal Government under the new Obama Administration actively intends to outlaw private firearm ownership (this fear is confirmed by an enormous spike in the sale of firearms in the U.S.); asserts that this would violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution; believe that the enactment of strict gun control legislation by either the state or the Federal Government would presage the establishment of a dictatorial government; the “People” would be unable to protect themselves from criminals, from militias or even continue the time-honored pastime of hunting;  further, many believe that any action by any government restricting the right of the individual to own any type of weapon he or she desires would be but a first step  toward the end of gun ownership–in a time of much crime in cities both large and small; this position holds much sway with the leaders of the National Rifle Association (”NRA”), one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the United States; this group received a great victory in recent years when the Congress was persuaded not to renew the ban upon assault weapons–which means that any citizen may again own and use an automatic weapon designed only for killing human beings;

B. Democratic Party asserts the Second Amendment was intended to prohibit Congress from disarming the State militias; and that the decision of the Supreme Court of June 28, 2010 in McDonald vs. Chicago et al. (No. 08-1521) is an aberration purporting to overrule decades of controlling precedent and will likely be overturned by either the Congress or the Court itself shortly;  In McDonald, op cit., however, the final result is not yet known, as the Supreme Court has returned the case to the lower courts to determine which, if any, governmental powers of the states or cities may be exercised upon the individual’s right to own guns–which was the narrow focus of the McDonald case.

XI. GAY RIGHTS, GAY MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION

A.  Republican Party asserts that it is heresy and against the very will of God for persons of the same gender to have sex and that such is prohibited both by the Holy Bible  and “Natural Law;” that,  therefore, there must be no public approval or recognition of such ungodly acts and or relationships, whether referenced as marriage or as “civil unions;” to allow such persons to adopt children is wrong for all of the above reasons set forth above, but it is even more evil in that it purposefully exposes innocent children to such evil influences and may lead them to believe that such practices are accepted by the Almighty;

B. Democratic Party asserts that gays have the same rights and privileges” as any  Americans and, since homosexuality is not a disease but, rather, a pre-disposition, or psychological mindset that makes some humans prefer the “company” of those of the same gender, prohibiting such relationships or the right to raise children would be an unconstitutional discrimination.

            These are not all of the issues which may divide us, but they are a good start.  These, and perhaps a few more, are the ‘big questions” which need to be discussed and debated–not the subject of outrage.  And they can show that we really do not differ from our neighbors on most important issues.

Don Switzer

Rogers, Arkansas

(c) July 29, 2009

(Amended July 8, 2010)        

GATHER AROUND, CHILDREN

My wife, Linda, has been a public school teacher for over thirty years, and as most might suspect, there are times when I am by circumstance but another of her students, appropriately dazzled by her powers of perception.  She is a marvelous teacher, recognized as such by various teachers’ groups, her superintendents and principals over the years and most especially by so many of her students…in addition to me.  Teaching is a rewarding profession if the teacher is intelligent, loves children, and truly cares about helping them become better persons and obtain the ability to meet the challenges of our society…and increasingly, our world.  Linda fits that profile perfectly.

          Just yesterday after I finished mowing our yard in the sweltering heat and crawled into the cool refrigerated air of our home, I told her of another revelation I had just experienced.  Since I am now retired, much of my daily activity often involves pondering “matters political” as contrasted to matters of legal analysis and practice, or solutions to business problems with which I routinely dealt in a “prior life.”  I have found over many years that very often, without even attempting to think of the issue, the “answers” to some of my most pressing business and legal problems have just kind of magically “popped into my head” while I have been mowing the yard!  Which I always found marvelous–while a bit puzzling.

          Yesterday, Linda politely listened to my most recent of such revelations (which I shall share in a moment), and when I had finished, she simply said, “Well, it is now known that students learn subjects, or how to solve problems when: i.) they are presented with new information for approximately fifteen minutes, and ii.) then given “idle time” to allow the mind, in a relaxed state, to sort that information and process it. 

          While mowing the yard, my mind is always in “idle…,” and now I recognize that it is in a free floating mode unrestrained by the pressures of daily life and work.  And my Linda’s point was that during that time my mind had been subliminally processing an issue I had been considering earlier.  So, while I was least aware (or concerned) about the matter, the answer, or the best way to approach the issue, just came to me!  The teaching point makes good sense to me, for this phenomenon has truly been a regular occurrence for me while mowing the yard over the last thirty-five or so years.  It has helped me resolve innumerable cases and has helped a number of private clients and the Public whose interests I had sworn to protect.   

          Now the “free-floating” resolution of the current issue: Many of my friends and correspondents are of a “conservative” political persuasion (and a few are true “right wing nuts“).  Most of this latter group are always complaining about “Big Government” and asserting that everything would be better, more money would be made by everyone (Reagan and Gingrich’s “Trickle Down” theory), and the financial stability of the County would be greater, etc. if only people like Franklin Roosevelt’s and the Kennedy Boys’ ideological heirs, e.g., Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, John Dingell, Harry Reid and that “danged Obama feller” would just get out of the way and let capitalism “work its magic!”   

          And my problem was simply to come up with a readily understandable series of examples and reasons for the application of reasonable restraints upon capitalism in some cases; and as noted above they just hit me in the face while I was cutting the grass.  Capitalism is, of course, the best system the world has ever devised for generating wealth and creating an economically stable society–as opposed to various systems which involve concentrated state power and state ownership of the means of production.  But it must nonetheless be recognized that due to the nature of Mankind himself, Capitalism has never been perfect, and it has always required a little “nudge” here and there in order to truly work for society’s best interests–not just for the best interests of the few.

          But, OH! I just cannot get over the delusions from which my well-meaning “anti-government” friends suffer…to their own and our ill!

          Everyone has heard, or should have heard, the political and psychological dictum, or precept, first coined by the British philosopher  Lord Acton in a letter to Anglican Church Bishop and Bishop of London Mandell Creighton in 1871.  The line, stating a conclusion which we all really know is indisputable, reads as follows:

                   -Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

          Just a very few words, but they encapsulate so very much about the nature of Mankind.  When we are unimpeded, when there is nothing of note or seeming value or importance between us and our goal, we run pell-mell toward it oblivious of, for example, the wrens’ nest that is lying under the brush upon which, in our breathless rush, we are about to tread…and smash.  Extend that idea into the competitive business worlds of, let’s say, the sale of insurance, the development of pharmaceuticals to help mankind, the sale of leisure products for markets hungry for same, the drilling for and discovery of petroleum for sale to societies with an insatiable thirst for crude, the organization and conduct of financial markets and the allocation and re-allocation of great wealth associated therewith, and what does that do to our basic proposition?  It means that in both the small and great issues faced by Man and the determination of who “wins the game” in either of such venues, it is Man’s inborn nature to live by the belief that, “He who ignores the wren’s eggs under his foot will always win.” 

          Unless, of course, societal interest (some say “the greater good”) is made a part of the calculus of the game.

          I recall so well a lawsuit I handled twenty or more years ago where I represented a professional “master fishing guide” who worked primarily on a certain large impoundment, a lake, in this area of Mid-America.  Persons of the stature of this gentleman in his trade are, as a matter of course, given superb fishing boats and massive outboard motors by the manufacturers of same, receiving the new model each year, and, since the old “boat and motor” are the property of the fishing guide, he sells them when he gets the new models and keeps the proceeds.   In this particular lawsuit, however, my client had sold his “old” boat and motor to a certain third party who was injured by the outboard motor in a horrible accident–with the result that he lost a goodly portion of one of his legs.

          The manufacturer of the motor, one of the very best and well-known in the business, as it turned out, purposefully “cut a corner” in the manufacturing of that motor that particular year–to get a leg up on the competition…not seeing, or perhaps caring, that there was a nest of baby wrens underlying the decision process.  So, in this subsequent “products liability suit, it was ascertained that even though the “state of the art” in the manufacture of outboard motors in that particular model year called for an automatic “kill switch” to be installed on the control handle mechanism, the manufacturer decided to leave off the switch since it cost $2.76 per unit to install one!  So, the result of the unimpeded action of Man, the entrepreneur, was to take away a man’s leg–for two dollars and seventy six cents.

          Now the rule, or constraint that the manufacturer of the motor pushed to the side in this instance had been put in place by the common law system of “Products Liability.”  This is a theory of law established decades or actually a century or so ago whereby the maker of any product used in the course of business which might end up in the hands of an “unprofessional,” must be held in its manufacture to the “state of the art” in the manufacture of such devices at the time of the making of same.  If the maker does not, if there is no third party modification, and if someone is injured as in this case, liability for the injury lies upon the manufacturer, and it is what is called “absolute.”  No other questions asked.  The reason for the law?  To protect the purchasers of these outboard motors, the “wrens,” from the product manufacturer’s greed, i.e., the greater good.

          In the business of electrification, especially rural electrification, there was back during the 1930’s unrestrained and unregulated competition for business with every rural electric co-operative and every private power company buying up easements, digging post holes and hanging electric wire everywhere—so as to have its power grid as expansive as possible and to be better able to quickly bring service to the customers for which it was competing.  From the competitive angle, it all made sense–but from the angle of the simple beauty of the countryside, it was an atrocious practice, for rural Cherokee County, Oklahoma, for example, had as many overhead electric lines running everywhere, just as if it were the City of Chicago!

          To solve this problem every state in the United States (if there are exceptions I would like to hear of same) enacted “Rural Electrification Laws” which provided the impetus for the various states to create Public Utility Boards or Commissions, which, as just one part of their responsibility, was to create and then enforce the equitable division of electric consumer markets.  The reason?   To protect the consumers view of the Blue Ridge Mountains and the population of wrens.  The greater good.

          Back in the 1970’s the United States Congress and the President effectuated a new law known as the “Clean Air Act.”  The short explanation of the premise for the law was that industry in general, and electric generating companies in particular, must take every step possible to make certain that the O 2 that we all breathe is as healthy as possible.   A real problem for those of us humans who like to breathe and have well-functioning lungs was the sulphur dioxide emitted by all such plants in the process of burning the coal that ran the furnaces that tuned the generators that created the electricity. 

          The electric companies were faced with two options if they wished to remain in business and not be forced out of business, i.e.,: i.) perhaps use coal mined nearby that happened to have a high sulphur content and put sulphur dioxide “scrubbers” on the top of each of their “stacks”–each of these masterful bits of technology, however, costing several millions of dollars, or ii.) pay a huge railroad freight bill for having low sulphur coal shipped in from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin essentially in the middle of nowhere.  As any sentient reader would surmise, almost all coal-fired electric generating plants in the United States chose to ship their coal in from Wyoming–which had the direct effect of putting all high sulphur coal companies such as one of my firm’s clients into bankruptcy.  The reason? Yes.  The Greater good–human health. 

          (Of course we all know that with the current issues surrounding the production of petroleum, the calculus of generating power may at some point in the future change so as to require that more coal, even high sulphur “scrubbed” coal, be used than at present.  All to the greater good, of course.)

          This analysis can be applied to almost every area of business in our society–and I can give examples and reasons for each and every one of the regulations being railed against by the anti-government crowd–a group who, by definition, do not often bother to make such calculations.  All such regulations really do to them, of course, is to sometimes increase the expense of producing or delivering a product, but what they ignore is that if we have “good and fair government” and overcome the occasional problem of graft by lawmakers and law enforcers being “bought off” by some of each and every type of regulated business, all enterprises will still be competing, or playing, under the same rules.

          And, of course, we all know of the Great Recession in which our economy is still foundering.   How did it start?  President Bill Clinton’s good heart told Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who provide the entire nation with its secondary wholesale mortgage take-out) to stop enforcing the regulations on the books in order that poor families in America might have a chance to live the “American Dream”–even if the poor folks could not afford the debt they were assuming.  Add that ignorant move to President Bush XLIII’s de-regulation of the mortgage finance industry by the Securities Exchange Commission, and join in the nature of Man, and one inevitably has a “Great Recession” where all of the players–especially in the area of bundled mortgages being turned into derivative securities (of which Messrs. Clinton and Bush could never have dreamed) and then we have a world wide recession.

          The point in the latter sample situation is that the laws that would have prevented the recession were on the books but politicians chose to make them irrelevant.  No matter the so-called complex and convoluted  nature of the derivative securitized instruments, if the requisite “nudge” is not there and there is no regulation, given the nature of Mankind, we as a Nation and a World could not possibly have expected anything else.

          And what is the closing point?  Let us all be in favor of a growing, stable capitalistic, full employment society and economy; but we cannot  ever allow the Rush Limbaughs, Newt Gingrichs, Roger Aileses, Sarah Palins and Glenn Becks of this Country convince “the People,” and thus indirectly the idiot pandering politicians, that we will all be better off with no government power relative to the conduct of business.

Don Switzer

Rogers, Arkansas

(c) June 21, 2010 

(THE CYNICAL REPUBLICAN CONSPIRACY TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF HEALTH CARE REFORM–AND ITS LONG TERM RAMIFICATIONS)

I. THE FRIGHTENING CONTEXT

           As each day went by during the initial “Health Care Debate” in 2009 during the 111′th Congress, I became more and more frustrated over how the “game” was being played in Washington, on K Street and on “Main Street.”  I saw that the Democratic Party represented in the House and in the Senate, as well as the Administration, had set forth well-defined and directed proposals to address the problems with Health Care and the reforms that I personally felt were necessary in the public interest, although I would have personally preferred that somewhat more be done. 

          All of the opinion polls of the electorate at that time were consistent in demonstrating that a majority of the People recognized the need for such reform.  Then I began to become frustrated, but even more, “puzzled,” as everything began to fall apart during last years’ fall Congressional recess for no reason which even remotely addressed or refuted the Democratic proposals or which offered alternatives. It was almost a surreal “world” that took over what had previously been a one-sided “debate” and substituted in its place the anger of Americans at Washington, the fear of Seniors of losing their Medicare, fear of that “new President” turning their beloved America into a “socialist state”…and a dozen or more other nonsensical positions, not arguments, that revealed what had become a true “mob mentality.”   

          And I am now seeing precisely the same pattern beginning to unfold on the Republican move toward “repeal” of the just passed health care reforms; and it also may yet get back upon that wayward track with respect to the Democratic effort to achieve Financial (”Wall Street”) Reform.  I feel this is true despite several recent days of conciliatory pronouncements by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner to the effect that they will actually work with the Democrats to come up with a bi-partisan reform package on financial reform. 

          Those last referenced Republican announcements are impossible to believe because I have finally stumbled across the fact that the Republican Party has already begun effectuation of its Plan to destroy the effort to reform the financial sector of the economy and to protect the People from the predatory practices of “Wall Street”–just as it has been attempting to do with respect to Health Care Reform.  It mirrors the plan to destroy Health Care Reform…which, as noted, may still be successful.  As with the Health Care reform, it is clear that a majority of the Electorate recognize that major reforms of how the financial sector conducts business are needed to protect the public interest.  This is because, of course, the People fully recognize the real pain of the greatest recession in history from which we are just now beginning to pull ourselves out. The problem here, of course, is that the same “Wall Street” interests (whose recklessness, and likely criminality, caused the recession which reached around the entire world,) demand that nothing be changed!  This is, or course, in order that they, the huge investment banks, be allowed to continue to “reap the whirlwind” of the profits of: i.) a voracious rapacity for low-leveraged risk taken with consumer dollars, and, ii.) self dealing, under-the-table, proprietary trading –despite the devastating danger to each and every one of the rest of us.

          The health care “debate”, which did narrowly, very narrowly, lead to the ultimate enactment of the “Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection” and the “Reconciliation” Acts, was a lesson in politics at its absolute worst.  There was no real debate on any issue.  The Republicans and “Blue Dog” Democrats in both the House and Senate simply said “No” on every proposition for reform, without assisting in the drafting process–despite innumerable pleas from the Democratic leadership that they do so.  They even railed, again and again, about how many pages of text (!) there were in the proposed bills and drafts therefor.  At one point late in 2009, the G. O. P. tried to make points with the People on one of the Nationally-televised “open forums” when House Minority Whip Eric Cantor made an ugly, arrogant, ostentatious display of each page of every draft of each bill which had been discussed in each pertinent committee of the House and Senate to that date!  They continued this disruptive, negative campaign with television ads and with the tactic of openly disrupting Democratic “town hall” meetings during the last Congressional recess in an attempt beginning in May 2009 to effectuate the precise plan drafted by Dr. Frank Luntz, a frequent contributor to, consultant and tutor of the “talking heads” of Fox News. 

          That plan, purchased or commissioned by the Republican Party for the aforesaid purposes, can be seen in full at:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf

for sake of reference, if desired.  It was expressly designed to deceive the American people and subvert their will to have real and responsible health care reform–which Dr. Luntz and the Republican National Committee knew a significant majority of Americans believed from the outset was needed.  And in order to achieve the desired objective, they openly lied to the American People that they had a “better” plan–when in fact, THEY HAD NO PLAN, and their only object, paid for by the health care, insurance and pharmaceutical industries, was to have no new laws passed in accordance with the desires of their financial contributors, i.e., the health care, insurance and pharmaceutical industries! 

          The effect of this tactic, if it is ultimately successful, will be to render our representative democracy as a form of government irrelevant and unworkable.  That is because every issue would from this point forward be determined by whichever interest group has the most money to promote the spreading of the propaganda, the “Big Lies” with the linguistic techniques of Dr. Luntz and persons such as he to drown out the voice, thought processes and the actual will of those of the majority of the People.  It would settle the issue of who is really in charge and confirm the most dramatic power grab in the history of civilized society.  This is because the success of the Republicans would reveal once and for all that a government which the common man had since 1787 believed was a representative democracy was, beyond all dispute, nothing more than an oligarchy governed by only the very rich. 

II. THE CONSEQUENTIAL RULES

OF THE “GAME”

          The 2009 and early 2010 health care issues, I suppose, have been much more frustrating to me than many of the others I have fought for or against, because I spent the majority of my professional life as an insurance and healthcare attorney–both within the insurance industry and in the public regulation thereof.  I have lived with its problems, the horrendous pain it has caused the general public, and perhaps worst of all, the arrogance and contempt of the boards of directors of the major insurers held for the “man on the street.”  As a consequence of this experience, I know that I have understood these issues with more immediacy and insight than some.  Nonetheless, in the recent and current “debate” thereupon I have been and am still struck by the enormous and disparate impact of the vastly different “rules” by which the respective sides were playing the game–which I only recently discovered was because of the impact of Dr. Luntz and his  teachings in creating the Republican strategy.

          The Democrats were at a huge disadvantage from the “get go” because these issues on health care posed by Public Law 111-148 (the “Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection” Act) and Public Law 111-152 (the “Reconciliation” Act) are EXTREMELY COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN…by any standard.  And, worse, the Administration and the Democratic Party was facing a somewhat hostile audience because the provisions of the two laws do affect two facts of life in America, i.e.

(i) tens of millions of Americans have become dependent upon Medicare and are naturally wary of any “meddling” with it by this new government; plus,

(ii) Americans hate “Washington”–especially in an era when Washington has often not served them well, e.g., getting the Nation trapped in two simultaneous wars; choosing to rescue the Nation’s fractured economy, as the People said, by “bailing out” Wall Street, while Main Street was losing millions of jobs. 

          The Administration and the Democrats in Congress had the burden of truthfully explaining the intricate workings of the system, no matter the great advantages it would give to the People–as summarized below.  And they had to do it honestly and accurately; that is, they did not have the luxury of simply haranguing and obstructing. 

          There is also a significant segment of society that is more subject to being swayed by politics in the manner of Dr. Luntz.  There are, and we have to admit it, millions of undereducated Americans who will simply lie back in their recliners and absorb the negativity–without investigating or reading anything.  And by doing so, they are simply allowing their hatred and prejudices (being played to by Dr. Kuntz, certain “talking heads” on television and the G.O.P.) take over. 

A.  RULES APPLICABLE TO PROPONENTS

OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

          Naturally, the Obama Administration determined (as required by law, ethics rules and propriety) to “play it straight” and simply tell the Country the truth, that is, what the problems now are and what the law will do to address those problems  once fully phased in.  They could clearly have done a more effective job of “selling” the truth (even truth must sometimes be sold); and many pundits and political experts believe that President Obama made a mistake by merely advising Congress of four or five “yardsticks” by which he would measure its ultimate product and by not being more actively involved in the actual creation of that product.  I am certain he had his reasons; but, clearly, the results and the drama the G. O. P. was able to create demonstrate those reasons were not good enough.

          The major points of Public Law 111-148 and Pubic Law 111-152, were well described to the Public and the Media but not at all in a manner to generate enthusiasm; those changes can be summarized as follows:

(1) Universal Care/Subsidies:

          (a) the new law will cover those citizens not now covered by any form of health care–over 34,000,000 individuals;  

          (i) the Federal Poverty Threshold (FPL) is the “yardstick” by which the need for “affordability credits” or subsidies is determined; so, for sake of reference and example, the Federal Poverty Threshold for 2009 as set by the United States Bureau of the Census is:

          -One individual: $10,952

          -Two individuals: $14,001

          -Four individuals: $21,947, and, just for example of how the ‘”sliding scale” works:

-those who live below 150% of the applicable poverty threshold will be fully covered under an expanded Medicaid program which does away with asset tests except for long term disability coverage;

-those who live at 200% of FPL will have a premium limit of 3% of income and an annual out-of-pocket cap of $1,000;

-those who live at 300% of FPL will have a premium limit of 10% of income and an annual out-of-pocket cost limit of $8,000;

- full Federal funding for this coverage will be provided beginning in 2013;

(2) Funding: the key funding component is the assessment of an income tax surcharge of 5.4 % of adjusted gross incomes in excess of $500,000 (single) and $1,000,000 (joint).

(3) Insurance Practices: prohibit all carriers (insurers) from;

          (a) non-renewing or cancelling health coverage because of the mere fact that someone has become sick with a deadly or long-enduring (and expensive) illness and have exceeded so-called “lifetime limits”; or

          (b.) providing waiting periods of more than ninety days; and

          (c.) denying claims by reason of “pre-existing conditions;”

(4) Bend the “Cost Curve” on Health Care: bring the cost of health care in total (now approximately one-sixth of the Nation’s GDP…and spiraling ever upward) under control by several different methods–including:

          (a.) payment of physicians based upon results over time and not simply the numbers of patients seen and tests ordered–which is presently often a system handled precisely as if doctors–working with both proprietary and supposedly non-profit hospitals–were being forced to see just how many “cattle” they can push through the chutes in eight hours or so;

          (b.) reduce waste and fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid systems which is into the several billions of dollars per year–practices with which I am intimately familiar from both professional and personal perspectives–by expanding the capacity and power of the Medicare Fraud Division of the System; and,

          (c) increase efficiencies in the handling and processing of claims in Medicare, and, over several years, reduce the Medicare Advantage subsidized payments for the very wealthy by $14 Billion by shifting those payments toward benchmarks in Medicare services that will vary from 95 per cent of fee-for-service rates in high-spending states, to 115 percent of those rates in low-spending states.

(5.) Make Different Levels of Coverage Available: make available for all citizens more options for coverage by mandating systems in each state whereby citizens would be able to choose from many different carriers and from different plans–”Platinum” 10% co-pay, “Gold, 20% co-pay” “Silver 30% co-pay” and “Bronze 40% co-pay” levels of coverage and co-pay responsibility, as well as lowering maximum annual deductibles for  individuals to  $2,000 and for families to $4,000; 

(6.) Prohibit Anti-Trust Practices of Insurers: destroy the current “exclusive market” system of health carriers whereby they assign certain states to certain insurers and agree not to compete with one another in such states–or even certain cities and counties–giving rise to the ability of such carriers to charge whatever premiums they wish in many states which do not have the power of rate review or approval–much to the financial detriment of the consumer; (this simply involves a repeal of the anti-trust exemption that insurance companies have enjoyed since at least 1934;

(7) Allow Retention of Own Insurance and Physicians: allow individual citizens to continue with their current health carriers and keep going to see their current doctors if they so wish–or switch if they wish;

(8) Scope of Required Coverage: provide that everyone is required to obtain commercial coverage, subject to a number of exemptions, including those living below 133% of the “poverty line,” those working for religious organizations, those under age thirty, etc., and even those who can afford coverage but who decide not to do so are only forced (presumably with their income taxes), a penalty maxing out at $695.00 per year;

(9) Small Employers:  require that employers with FIFTY OR MORE “FULL TIME” EMPLOYEE EQUIVALENTS (fifty employees at thirty hours per week or more) provide “minimum essential coverage” for employees or pay $2,000 for each “employee equivalent;” [NOTE: this means that small employers with less than fifty "full time equivalent" employees are fully exempt from the Act's mandate];

          (a.) FOR EXAMPLE, if an employer has eighty part time employees (i.e., equal to forty “full-time equivalents”) and forty true full-time employees, he would meet a so-called “threshold” of fifty and be required to PROVIDE coverage for ONLY the forty full-time employees–with the OPTION of covering the rest OR paying a penalty of $2,000 for TEN employees per year for a total of $20,000–since there is a credit of thirty for this particular calculation to, hopefully, give an incentive to employers to provide coverage instead of paying penalties; but

          (b.) it has to be remembered that if any employer meets the threshold and fails to cover his employees and dependents, the penalties to be paid are more significant and complex to calculate depending upon precise circumstances,

(10) Incentives for Small Employers: INCENTIVES ARE PROVIDED to small employers with twenty five or less “full time equivalents” if they voluntarily provide coverage, as they will receive income tax credits on a sliding scale basis up to 35% of premiums paid calculated upon the income of the particular employees;

(11) Closing of “Doughnut Hole”: from the perspective of Medicare recipients, these Acts provide special relief from a cynical deal struck by President Bush and the Pharmaceutical industry in creating the “doughnut hole” in Part D prescription drug coverage; the new laws will provide a $250.00 supplement or reimbursement payment to anyone who ends up in that “hole” in 2010; a reduction of the percentage of cost (co-pay) paid for “name-brand” drugs (tier 3) to a maximum of 50% in 2011;  and, thereafter, the percentage of cost borne by beneficiaries will be reduced over the years on tier 2 (”preferred” or some name brand drugs), and tier 1 (generic) drugs until by 2020 all of the latter co-pays will stand at a maximum of 20% ; and     

(12) Reduction of Deficit; or not?  the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that in the first decade of 2010 through 2019, the combined effects of these Acts, the above provisions and many others including certain other tax increases upon the pharmaceutical and insurance industries will be to reduce the deficit by 143 Billion Dollars, and in the second decade from 2020 through 2029, the deficit will be reduced by 1.3 Trillion Dollars. A new report issued by the United States Department Health and Human Services on April 22, 2010, estimates that instead of decreasing costs as the above “best guess,” the plan might actually increase annual spending by one per cent. 

B.  RULES APPLICABLE TO REPUBLICAN AND “BLUE DOG” DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, TEA PARTIERS, VISCERAL CONSERVATIVES, K-STREET LOBBYISTS AND OTHER OPPONENTS OF REFORM

1.  No Rules.  In short, these persons and interests have not and do not have to play by any rules other than when sworn by a court or Congressional Committee.  These people may lie to the Public, misrepresent and play upon individual or group prejudices.  Members of Congress may lie to the Public and to other members of Congress at any time for any reason–with total impunity.  Members of Congress also often take campaign contributions (cash) or trips to places such as Boca Raton or Palm Springs in return for their votes–all of such being funded, in part, by the Pharmaceutical, Insurance and Medical lobbyists.

          The manner of such campaigns affecting some major player’s financial interest in a particular bill is always so predictable: the moneyed opponents have someone or some persons refer to the proposed bill on television or in a news column as fraudulent or “bogus“–but always without having to back up what they say.  An acquaintance of mine recently used a phrase which stuck with me, and which I will steal and use here to describe such so-called experts, i.e., they are “…those who live in a ‘bizzaro’ anti-Obama Universe!”

          Thus, during this year long “debate,” or battle, including last summer’s Congressional recess and the appearance on the National Stage of the Tea Partiers, we had to again endure the silly and stupid remarks we all heard during the 2009 Presidential election as well as those directed at the legislation, i.e., that:

          (i) our now new President, the Man who wants to take our health insurance away from us, is not a citizen of the United States, i.e., he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, or anywhere but in Hawaii as he claims and, therefore, he is not even eligible to be President;

          (ii) he is an “Eastern intellectual” and therefore not to be trusted;

          (iii) he is “not like us”–an indirect reference to his mixed race;

          (iv) he is a “socialist,” with most of the audience not having any idea what socialism really is, and even so, the only so-called “evidence” of such was that the President once attended a neighborhood political rally in Chicago which was also attended by a man named William Ayers, who was once in the period of 1970 to 1974 a member of the “Weathermen Underground” who is now a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago; and,

          (v) he is a Muslim and not a Christian–implying and sometimes directly stating ignorantly that all Muslims are “Terrorists.”

          But the most fascinating and important story is the power of the “Big Lie” and the campaign orchestrated by Dr. Luntz.  If you wish to see all of the lies, obfuscations, misleading references, and truly “slick” argumentative techniques that Dr. Luntz has provided to the Republicans to defeat any health care law passage,  go to the “link” to his entire plan set out above.  But here is a brief thirteen point “taste” of the talking points and the tactics involved:

1. “You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of Reform.  This is because the status quo at present is that the People want reform and you cannot turn the debate not to one of President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it.”

2. “Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans.  And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.”

3. Instead, Republicans must warn against a “Washington takeover” of healthcare and insist that patients would have to stand in line for their medical care with the hated “Washington Bureaucrats” in charge of healthcare.

4. You must often use the phrase: “One size does not fit all….”

5. “It could lead to the government setting standards of care, instead of doctors who really know what’s best.”

6.  ” It could lead to the government rationing care, making people stand in line and denying treatment like they do in other countries with national healthcare.”

7. “President Obama wants to put the Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare.  I want to put the medical professionals in charge, and I want patients as an equal partner.”

8. ” Humanize your approach. Abandon and [strike] ALL references to the
“healthcare system.”  From now on, healthcare is about people.  Before you speak, think of the three components of tone that matter most:  Individualize.  Personalize. Humanize.”

9. “Acknowledge the crisis or suffer the consequences.  If you say there is no health care crisis, you give your listener permission to ignore everything else you say.  It is a credibility killer for most Americans.  A better approach is to define the crisis in your own terms. ‘If you’re one of the millions who can’t afford healthcare, it is a crisis.  Better yet, ‘If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis.  And the best: “If you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that’s a healthcare crisis.”

10.  “Time” is the government healthcare killer.  As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on your side.”  Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of healthcare that the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially denied treatment, procedures and/or medications.  “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you.  But waiting for the healthcare you need–could.  Delayed care is denied care.”

11. “The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around politicians, bureaucrats, and Washington…not the free market, tax incentives, or competition.  Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of healthcare.  They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government healthcare because it’s too expensive (any help from the government to lower costs will be embraced) or because it’s anti-competitive (they don’t know or care about current limits to competition).  But they are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care - so they re extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach.  It’s not an economic issue.  It’s a bureaucratic issue.”

12. “Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford healthcare.  Here is the perfect sentence for addressing costs and the limited role for government that wins you allies rather than enemies.  Say that you want, “A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps healthcare patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”

13.  “WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs.  Make no mistake: the high cost of healthcare is still public enemy number one on this issue - and why so many Americans (including Republicans and Conservatives) think Democrats can handle healthcare better than the GOP.  You can’t blame it on the lack of a private market; in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days.  But you can and should blame it on the waste, fraud and abuse that is rampant in anything and everything the government controls.”

(All language set forth immediately above in points one through thirteen is that of Dr. Frank Luntz.  The emphasis is judiciously added by the undersigned.  I underline portions of his work, frankly, to point out both the hypocrisy and the grave danger works such as the foregoing display of Dr. Luntz’ s twisted genius pose to a representative democracy when placed in the wrong hands, but WHEN AND ONLY WHEN the People be not sufficiently educated to understand and rebuff such drivel.) 

III. CONCLUSION

          We are this early in the Administration of President Obama, dealing with a truly grave, perhaps the most grave concern a Republic can face.  For if the People are not capable of governing themselves, those who are more well-educated (generally the more wealthy of the society) will gladly assume that role.

          There are a number of famous quotations of Thomas Jefferson upon the inextricable link between education and the right and ability to self -govern.  These include:

          “It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan. –Letter of Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786; and,

“If a man expects to be ignorant and free, [and in a state of civilization], it expects what never was and never will be. –Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Col. Charles Yancey 1816.

          And that, I fear, is the drama that is now playing itself out in the United States.  The general educational system of the United States has been in chaos for so long that I know not the ability of the People, collectively, to protect themselves–even acknowledging the individual genius of so many of our people–which I believe is “despite,” not “because” of the system through which they were forced to proceed.  If the “Grand Old Party” succeeds in these efforts regarding healthcare and financial reform to defeat the will of the People, it will obviously be the fault not only of the failure of the Administration to persuade–but of the inability of the People as a whole to understand.

Don Switzer

Rogers, Arkansas

WWW.PoliticsandWhimsey.Com

(c) April 23, 2010

P.S.  If anyone is interested in reviewing the Luntz–G.O.P. “playbook” for defeating financial reform, he or she may find it at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26496557/language-of-financial-reform

          I have never met Dan Boren, the son of Oklahoma University President David Boren, but I know that the younger Mr. Boren is now running for his fourth term as a United States Representative from the Second District of Oklahoma.  He clearly comes by his desire for public service honestly, as his father was a Governor of Oklahoma, as well as a Rhodes Scholar and United States Senator of considerable National and International import prior to accepting his current position as President of Oklahoma’s largest and most prestigious university.  I have met with and done business with President Boren on a number of occasions.  My brother has done business with each of the Messrs. Boren on numerous occasions.  By all reports I have from friends and relatives who know the younger Mr. Boren, he is a fine man.

          The younger Mr. Boren completed his graduate education from the University of Oklahoma with an MBA in the spring of 2000.  It appears that he never held a job in the private sector other than as a bank teller and a high school counselor before he ran for the United States House of Representatives from Oklahoma’s Second Congressional District for the first time in 2004.  Before first seeking that first Congressional seat he had to establish a residence within the Second Congressional District in eastern Oklahoma, and he thus chose to move from Shawnee, Oklahoma, to Muskogee, Oklahoma, to become a “Little Dixian.” 

          The “political machine” of Little Dixie in Southeastern Oklahoma, has been run for almost fifty years by former Oklahoma State Senator and former lawyer Gene Stipe from the Little Dixie small city of McAlester, forty to fifty miles south of Muskogee.  It is very, very important in understanding young Representative Boren’s problems to reflect upon the long-demonstrated political leanings of the constituency of that district.  First, I would note that over his tenure in the Oklahoma House, Mr. Stipe was indicted numerous times for Federal income tax evasion, but on each occasion, and until 2003, the various Little Dixie juries before which he was tried (by Federal “venue” rules all such trials had to be held in McAlester) voted “Not Guilty.” 

          I was once engaged in the practice of law in Vinita, Oklahoma, in the northern area of the Second Congressional District of Oklahoma, but not in what is known as Little Dixie.  My practice over-lapped with Mr. Stipe’s tenure as a state representative and his active practice of law for just over thirteen years from early 1978 until mid-1990.  I never had occasion to personally do business with or oppose him and any of his clients, but my law firm did, and I thus became quite familiar with his State-wide reputation as the “boss” of politics in both Little Dixie, and, to a significant extent, the Oklahoma House of Representatives.  His power, reportedly, built up over many years, came by reason of the accumulation of direct and indirect control over  powerful committees in the said House and over certain State Agencies charged with enforcing the laws, including the Surface Mining and Reclamation Department of the State of Oklahoma.  At least one of my firm’s client businesses was forced out of business, in part, because it could not mine coal in its mine near McAlester in fair and effective competition with a coal company with many connections to Mr. Stipe, and pretty obviously under de facto control by him.   Fair competition was not possible because our client company dutifully complied with the Federal but then state-enforced Laws relative to surface mining reclamation and incurred expenses attributable thereto which had to be covered in its per ton sale price of its coal.  

          On April 1, 2003, however, circumstances compelled Mr. Stipe to enter a guilty plea for numerous violations of Federal Election laws in a prosecution that, under separate venue provisions of the Election laws, was commencing and was to be held in Washington, D.C.  Mr. Stipe, predictably, pled guilty to all charges, including perjury, as well as conspiracy to violate the Federal Election Campaign Act and to having obstructed an investigation under the Federal Election Campaign Commission Act.  The case all related to Mr. Stipe’s funneling of illegal contributions totaling $245,189.00 to a candidate for office as United States Representative for the Third District of Oklahoma.  Upon his sentencing on January 30, 2004, Mr. Stipe was a seventy seven year old man in failing health, and, as would be expected, was not sentenced to time in prison.  He was given five years probation, required to wear an ankle bracelet, fined $735,567.00, ordered to serve 1,000 hours of community service and to surrender his law licenses in several states.

          The above recitation of facts, while fascinating and worthy of a great biography along the lines of a “rural Al Capone,” does not apply to Representative Boren in any direct sense.  But this history is extremely relevant to him inasmuch as these “facts” reflect important aspects of a majority of the voting age constituency he serves.  They directly demonstrate what is likely the most difficult aspect of the job he has chosen for himself, i.e., to retain his own integrity and to have the ability to exercise his obvious intellectual potential while serving an electoral district which for a very long time, at least two generations, has been a bastion for rural, insular, separatist, anti-Federalist, racially intolerant, fiscally conservative, Christian Fundamentalist politics under the control of a political machine which could well be without peer outside of Chicago!  Representative Boren, as Oklahoma political realities compel him, runs his political races as a nominal Democrat, but he serves as a “Blue Dog” Democrat under the control of the national Republican Party and House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio in all votes upon National issues.  Notably, Representative Boren’s official web site touts the many Federally-funded “pork-barrel” projects made possible by the Federal government and taxpayers all over the Nation, while at the same time in many different ways it attacks that same Federal government that made the “achievements” for which he claims credit even possible.

          Representative Boren is, therefore, merely a nominal Democrat in a very Republican state who is, quite naturally, not counted as a Democrat by the National Democratic Party when it comes time to tally up important votes in the United States House of Representatives.  He has actively campaigned against his own Party’s President and essentially all of his President’s initiatives–which apparently make most of his constituents quite proud.  But the latter is important only if continued re-election were part of his job description and if able public service were not.

          John Boozman, MD, is a Republican Congressman who sits in the United States House of Representatives representing Arkansas’ Third Congressional District–who will shortly leave that seat to seek the Republican nomination to become Arkansas’ next United States Senator.  The “demographics” of Arkansas’ Third District are, upon consideration, remarkably similar to those of Oklahoma’s Second District–which demonstrates the similar challenges which Mr. Boozman and Mr. Boren face in representing their constituencies.  Obviously, I find it impossible to consider one of these gentlemen without also considering the other. 

          I cannot say that I personally know Representative Boozman either, but he and I have over the past two or three years carried on an occasional and cordial personal correspondence upon various political issues–as to which we have not yet been able to find “common ground.”  A close friend of mine, a retired physician as is Mr. Boozman and who knows that gentleman quite well, has nothing but praise for Mr. Boozman in terms of his personal character.  But their relationship has become highly “strained” of late as a result of personal failings of Mr. Boozman revealed during the universal health care debate of this past year.  

          And this problem has arisen in particular since my physician friend and I have each confirmed that Representative Boozman has done nothing but follow orders from Republican Party Leaders within the United States House of Representatives (Representative Boehner and the minority whip, Eric Cantor of Virginia) and that he, Representative Boozman, has chosen to vote with the Party even though he is personally aware that the Republican position regarding reformation of health care in the United States is both dishonest and counter to the greater good of the Nation and the good of his own constituency in northwest Arkansas.  Mr. Boozman, in my estimation and in the estimation of our mutual friend, has become little more than a parrot for the National Republican Leadership and the “special interests” represented by the big money lobbyists on K-Street. 

          I feel, as does my retired physician friend, that a representative in politics just as in agency law, owes his client, or in this instance the constituency with whom he lives and for whom he practiced medicine, the very best service of which he is capable.  The first ethical rule by which medical doctors are sworn to abide, i.e., “First, to do no harm,” is a particularly apt way of encapsulating the type of loyalty owed in politics as well.   And that means that the elected representative must not be but a mere vassal of men more powerful than he.  An elected representative in a Representative Democracy fails the interests of everyone to whom he owes both his fealty and his honor if he does not aggressively utilize his peculiar knowledge and expertise in performing that service.  And he will always fail if he does not have the personal courage to pursue the best course possible that he knows is the very best result that can be achieved for the People as a whole–even if that means he might possibly lose the next election.

          I am fully aware of and believe in the basic wisdom of the comment reportedly made by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck on August 11, 1867, i.e., “Politics is the art of the possible.”  Then, however, John Kenneth Galbraith, the renowned Canadian-American economist of the mid Twentieth Century, put forth a far more practical and realistic summary of the “art” in the modern age when he stated that, “There are times when you must be on the right side and lose.”  And, also, when he said that, “Politics is not the art of the possible.  It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.” The problem is that neither Representative Boozman nor Representative Boren has apparently ever attempted to work either “before the cameras” or “behind the scenes” to follow the basic rules, dictates which are one hundred per cent applicable to all honest and practical politicians. Thus, I would say that representatives Boren and Boozman are each engaged in a dangerous and one hundred per cent counter-productive exercise walking in “lockstep” with the Republican leadership and sometimes considering only the most vocal “wing nuts” of their respective constituencies (each party has many!).  One could also state this conclusion by pointing out that they are each clearly failing their constituencies by knowingly and repeatedly refusing to utilize their own individual intellect and experience as a guide to help solve their constituencies’ and the Nation’s problems. 

          Persons at the extremes of any political party or organization have long been referred to as “nuts; recently, however, some author has come up with the tag “wing nuts” as applying to extremists from both ends of the spectrum on political issues-and it is they who are being “played” by the power brokers in the center…and by those on the sidelines with the big bank accounts.  No assertion is being made here that either Representative Boren nor Representative Boozman should be categorized as a “Wing Nut,” i.e., persons operating on the fringe of what is reasonably possible…or rational.  They are merely regular, likely middle of the road by nature, representatives who lack the courage to do their jobs for the People. 

          In closing, I am somehow drawn to a memory of two particular portions of the original Articles of Confederation of the United States (effective from March 1, 1781, until March 4, 1789, when the Constitution became effective), which I believe, in some modified form, should have been incorporated into the Constitution.  Delegates to the unicameral congress were appointed by the several state legislatures but with the restriction that they could be recalled at any time and that in any period of six years could only serve three years; while the President of the United States, chosen from the Congress by the Committee of the States, was to serve but one year in any period of three years.  Also, it was stipulated that no person in the Congress would receive any salary, fees or emolument of any kind!  These concepts of  (i) term limits, and (ii) no income from service (each as necessarily modified to assure that a person could run regardless of financial status), in some form, would have assured that the people of the United States would have been served by representatives whose attentions were not so inordinately focused upon re-election and that they would be far more likely to actually consider the “greater good” of the United States–no matter how different one’s particular view might have been from the gentleman or gentlewoman next to him or her sitting in Congress Assembled.

          And, too, delegates, representatives or national officers subject to some appropriately modified provisions of this kind would certainly come much closer to Jefferson’s and Adam’s “ideal” of our being governed only by “citizen-legislators.”  And, it seems to me personally that the terms “Politics of Hate”, “Politics of Rancor”, and descriptions such as the “Party of ‘No’” would never have entered our National political lexicon.  Nor would Democratic United States Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana, a great servant of the People, have felt compelled to resign from the Senate in total disgust over what that once august and almost revered body has now become.

          I apologize, but I also keep thinking to myself that if matters had developed in this way, with one or both of these principles adopted, is it not just possible that there might not have been a role at all for national political parties?  It also makes me ruminate upon how much more “civil” and productive the Legislative Branch governing our Nation might have been.

Don Switzer

Rogers, Arkansas

WWW.PoliticsandWhimsey.Com

(c) April 7, 2010

EVER REALLY CHANGES

            It is March 22, 2010, and I sit here in my daughter’s home in Houston—helping with baby-sitting chores…which, of course, is not terribly difficult, challenging or in the least unpleasant.  It is a beautiful day here in Harris County, as opposed to the ice, snow (seven to twelve inches!) and bone-chilling wind my wife and I left behind in Northern Arkansas yesterday.  But now since the babies are taking their naps, I have taken a little time to peruse the on-line National newspapers reporting on the significant events of late yesterday.  I refer, of course, to the very probable success (the Senate vote and legal challenges are yet to come) of President Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s efforts of the past year in finally, late on a Sunday evening, passing the bill which will hopefully begin the long process of bringing about meaningful health care reform for America. 

Sadly, I have to say that in this reading I have re-discovered two very old sobering realities of the “law-making process.” 

FIRSTLY, in politics, the “bad guys” in the Legislative Branch of government never lie down nor admit defeat; for, I suppose, if they did, they would then lose their very reason for being.  Another way to view this interesting point is to accept Shakespeare’s notion that life is but a play—much like a jury trial—which means that “we” (e.g. life, the legal process, the orbits of the planets???) cannot continue without an “indispensable party” (in the legal sense)—or as Wm. Shakespeare would have made the point, a key dramatis personae!

            Clearly, there are in these newspapers a considerable number of positive comments about the enormity of the Democratic success, and some pieces even suggest that this legislative victory was so momentous as to “…secure President Obama’s place in history…”, which is, obviously, a little over the top.  Most revealing and interesting to me, however, is that John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the Republican Propaganda Machine have not slowed down one whit.  From the “well” of the House of Representatives Minority Leader Boehner of Ohio harangued his Democratic colleagues, with red face glowing and an undisguised contempt for his friends across the aisle, “…Shame on each and every one of you who substitutes your will and desires above those of your fellow countrymen.”  It was revealed that the Republicans and southern Democrats (Blue Dogs) have long been planning for this possible outcome, as they have already set upon their legal arguments, are saying they will attempt a direct repeal of yesterday’s action,  are ready to go to Court as early as this week, and they clearly plan to use any Democrat’s vote for the bill against him or her all around the Nation in the November 2010 mid-term elections—to supposedly demonstrate how irresponsible, “Socialist” and “anti-American” they were!

            And I must not forget to note the classic “insert foot into mouth” comment made by Newt Gingrich to CBS News late Sunday evening—which cast the whole episode in the racist tones that constantly seemed to sort of lie around this health care campaign just beneath the surface.  He brought it all into the open when he is said to have stated, “They (the Democrats) will have destroyed their Party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for forty years with the enactment of the civil rights legislation in the 1960’s.”  It seems to be as though we have a relative Human rights issue as between Former Speaker Gingrich and former President Johnson.  Mr. Gingrich (along with some of his followers and other Republicans and Blue Dogs) does not much value the rights and lives of persons who do not look quite like he does…while President Johnson had a heartfelt agenda to end such discrimination in America, if he possibly could.

Perhaps I should be ashamed of this and the small bit of arrogance that some might see in it, but I actually get a little bit of a “kick” reading about the Republican’ pre-packaged plans.  There are lots of reasons, but it is primarily the irony.  Boehner’s condemnation of the passage of the Bill and the entire basis of his “anger” (or mere pretense?) is the notion that the will of the “People” is being circumvented!  Almost all polls until a few of those in the past week have demonstrated, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the insurance industry, Big Pharma and U.S. Chamber of Commerce in propagating breathtaking lies and misrepresentations about the contents of the bill and what it portends for the average American, that a slight majority of the American people polled were still in favor of its passage!  Only in the last several days did the campaign of misinformation seem to carry some of the polls the other way…i.e., the “Big Lies” were finally beginning to sink in.

            And the true key to all of this process is indeed found in the Goebbels “Big Lie” concept AND in that of “informed consent!”  Boehner’s argument carries with it the absurd assumption that sworn representatives of the People are bounden to vote against the actual best interests of the People even when the representative of the People is more well-informed than are the misinformed or uninformed constituents…and even when he knows that would not be their position if they understood the relevant facts!  In this latter circumstance the elected representative must protect the People from what he or she may in good conscience believe is an evil that others are attempting to perpetrate upon those he or she represents. This is clearly seen when one considers that in all areas of our society, in every area of the law, of contracts, probate, in the giving of testimony, etc. no statement and no legal document is valid unless it is given by a party who is of sound mind, not under duress and whose opinion or view is being taken when he is fully aware of the pertinent facts, i. e., it must be an informed consent! 

And it is here that we see the greatest dilemma of a representative democracy—exemplified by many outstanding statesmen of history, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, but most particularly written of by British   statesman and Parliament member Edmund Burke and Harvard Law Professor Hans Kelsen.  They made the point that, on occasion, it is absolutely necessary for representatives to use their own minds, intellect and values and act not as mere “parrots,” venal, unprincipled politicians…or even “shills” for powerful vested interests.  He or she must protect his or her constituents.  In most such occasions such honorable statesmen are rewarded by the People, but even when not so understood by the represented when later the constituents still do not understand how they were used, the law-makers still know themselves that they have carried out their sworn duty in caring for the best interests of their constituents and the Nation.

Somewhere in all of today’s reading was the story of a Democratic representative from a very conservative district in Ohio (Boehner’s home state!!!) who said that he fully expected to lose this November’s election unless there be a miracle.  Yet he cast his vote for the bill despite this knowledge…and demonstrated that amongst all of the many questionable persons that now make up much of our Congress (much more interested in re-election than in doing their duty well), there are still some honorable men and women who take their duties seriously and give their best for the People…and who do not just follow public opinion polls.  [If anyone is familiar with statistical sampling and opinion polling, as am I, he or she recognizes that very few, if any, pre-action political opinion polls performed by firms paid by special interests are accorded true credence in any circumstance.]  If every elected official were to just follow some such poll, of course, what point would there really even be in having a representative democracy?  With the technology now available, we actually could have a National vote upon every National question by e-mail or “Twitter.”  Then, of course, the big money interests with the best advertising agencies would win on every issue, every time.  Thus, no matter its flaws, and as bad as our system might sometimes be, it is still the best one available.

One day last week I took the matter of the health care issues and the upcoming vote directly to United States Representative John Boozman’s office, who represents Northwestern Arkansas in the United States House of Representatives.  I was not able to see him, but I did in writing make many points with him regarding the health care process, the need for reform, etc.  I put the matter to him as a challenge, knowing all the while that he did not have the wherewithal to “buck” his party—especially since late this year he will be running for the United States Senate, having forsaken his practice of ophthalmology.  I know, however, that Congressman Boozman is much like a lawyer deeply involved in a case who becomes incapable of seeing any remote validity to the other side’s argument!  As one of my law partner’s once said to me, “Don, do you think you are perhaps breathing in a little of your own smoke!!!!”  Perhaps that is Representative Boozman’s problem.  But I cannot believe that is the problem of every other wealthy nation on Earth in addition to the United States which recognizes access to healthcare as among each citizen’s principal rights!

The SECOND major point is much more simple; and it reminds me once again of my favorite law school professor, i.e. Paul J. Hartman of the Vanderbilt University School of Law.  One of his recurring points, stated in different forms of homely vernacular from time to time, was simply that the “…law is what the Court says it is.”  All attorneys practicing before the Bar for more than a little while learn that at the end of the day, no matter what its own controlling precedents might have been, regardless of the fact that the Court’s actual role is to interpret law and not to “make law,” whatever the Court of last resort says, no matter how outrageous its reasoning, no matter what political considerations obviously be the real reason behind its decision (usually known by everyone closely involved), WHAT THAT COURT SAYS HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS THE LAW OF THE LAND.  Why?  Because in an ordered society governed by the rule of law, the Court’s decision MUST be accepted…or our “ordered” society, losing one of its three inviolable underpinnings, would simply fall apart…perhaps even into anarchy.

Thus, the dagger-like, incisive, all-encompassing message: we see in extremely rare “full frontal clarity” why the Supreme Court appointees of any President of the United States are so incredibly important.  Most of the time we see those justices as black-robed pillars of wisdom and judgment far beyond that of any mere mortal, but on these rare occasions, all of them highly memorable and precedent-setting, we see them as what they really are.  That is, they are human beings just as are the rest of us, with the same frailties as we, subject to the same prejudices—and sometimes feeling compelled, never admitting it of course, to reward those “politicos and the moneyed interests” behind them, for having made them lifetime appointees of the highest court in the Land.

And now we all sit back for the next several months, regardless of whether certain of us be involved in some part of the process, and, as now deceased Tulsan Paul Harvey always said, wait for “the rest of the story…” to evolve.

Don Switzer

Rogers, Arkansas

© March 22, 2010