Jul 17, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
The U.S. Constitution requires that states remain a republic and gives the federal government authorization to mandate such (Art. IV, sec. 4), but does it work the other way? Can the states require that the federal government remain a republic and not turn into a socialist state? With the Affordable Care Act one seventh of the economy is turned over to the federal government.
Such is the question posed by Arizona in a new initiative that just qualified for the November ballot. If passed it would give Arizonians two ways of ignoring federal law that exceeds the constitutional powers of the federal government as identified in the U.S. Constitution, either by vote of the Arizona Legislature with the signature of the Governor, or, by the people through a ballot measure. All other powers “are reserved to the States, or to the people,” as noted in Amendment 10 of the Constitution. Arizona acknowledges the U.S. Constitution as “the Supreme law of the land” but will add to her state constitution language prohibiting the U. S. Constitution from being violated by any government, including the federal government.
One of the reasons that the states took three years to ratify the constitution, as submitted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787, was because of their paranoia of big government. Having expelled British tyranny, the last thing that they wanted was to have it return in an American form. They wanted a list of “thou shalt nots;” things that the federal government could never do to them under any circumstances. They called it a Bill of Rights. In the 10th Amendment of that document, they made it clear that all power not listed belonged to the states so the “Arizona take” is clearly constitutionally implied. The federal government is to act only in the 17 areas listed in the Constitution. The word health, or anything like unto it, is not there so such is clearly a state issue. Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling and Justice John Robert’s judicial legislation, the federal government has stolen state authority and in doing so has violated the Constitution.
Both democracy and socialism are hostile to the basic elements of a republic which is decidedly weighted in limited government, is based upon natural inalienable rights, and favors individual differences rather than absolute equality in its philosophical orientation. How far into socialism we have traveled and at what point we are no longer a republic no one can say, at what point does gray become black or pink become red, but certainly one law turning over a seventh of the economy to the federal government is a giant step from a republic and should concern all. It does Arizona.
It isn’t just the one issue of health care where Arizona is concerned but it is the pattern of the never-ending enlargement of the powers of the federal government, at the expense of state prerogatives, and the 10th amendment, that is transforming the federal government from a republic, as understood by the Founders, into something else. It is Constitutional defilement to them and the use of Amendment 10 is central to the restoration of freedom from government and the return of checks and balances of which state jurisdiction is essential, before all power is housed at the federal level and we are no longer free.
Examples of federal overreach are everywhere. Proponents of this change in the Arizona Constitution cite federal speed limits and the federal ban on incandescent light bulbs, as examples of other intrusions into state power (Arizona’s Secession-lite plan, by Alex Seitz-Wald, July 6, 2012) but they could list dozens more. This has to stop they contend and with an overreaching compliant court, they are rightfully using the 10 Amendment tool to do so. Certainly in upholding the 10th Amendment to the Constitution other states should join them.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jun 4, 2012 | Constitution, Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
On January 30, 2012, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg surprised many by advising those attempting to create a new constitution in Egypt not to use the U.S. Constitution as its model. “I would not look to the US Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she told the Egyptian people on national television. “I might look at the constitution of South Africa. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution: Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world,” (U. S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg To Egyptians: Look to the Constitutions of South Africa or Canada, Not to the U.S. Constitution, MEMRI TV Al-Hayat, Egypt, Jan. 30, 2012)?
Those who wish to undermine the Constitution infer that our Constitution may not be a good fit for other cultures like Egypt. On this score they would do well to remember that we have assimilated every language, culture, religious and ethnic group on earth and we did so because all humans share the same basic need for freedom from excessive government to fully flourish. The Constitution is the most flexible governing document with respect to diversity ever written, and unless modified by progressives such as Ginsburg, it always will be.
Implied is the assumption that because it is old, it is outdated and therefore irrelevant to the needs of our day. This document will always be relevant because it is designed to harnesses the negative aspects of human nature and is based upon natural law; items that do not change from century to century. Man is still power hungry, and the people need to be protected from such hunger, whether man rides a horse, drives a car, or flies an airplane. Our Constitution minimizes these forces by dividing, restricting, and listing power. Should some overreach their power we have elections and impeachment to remove them. Finally, we have a Bill of Rights that further harnesses excessive government. None of these measures have shown themselves to no longer be needful. Justice Ginsburg does not seem to understand this.
When confronted with this “horse vs. airplane” nonsense, I ask my students, “What in the Preamble to the Constitution, which is a statement of the needs of man to which government attempts to address, is no longer relevant? Outdated if you will?” Year after year the answer is the same. Nothing! “Were these the same needs of people 600 years ago and will they be the same for those 200 years from now?” Yes!!! “What would you add?” Again, nothing! Then, the basic needs of man do not change and the Preamble must be the most complete summation of those needs ever recorded. It is based upon a long history of human nature that the well-read Founders understood.
But it does not guarantee housing, or medical rights, as does the South African constitution, some might say. Actually it does not distribute wealth or guarantee anything except the freedom to use one’s own talent to do that for himself and in doing so the Constitution created the most energized and therefore the most universally prosperous society in recorded history such that even the lazy have more wealth than those who worked hard in yesteryear. The U. S. Constitution has made this nation the envy of the earth. General Douglas Mac Arthur virtually forced the Japanese to adopt our Constitution and within a single generation they too became a wealthy country even competing economically with our own.
The problem with using a constitution to redistribute wealth, as in the countries cited by Justice Ginsburg, and, as is the socialist dream, is that it kills the incentive to produce of both the productive and the non-productive elements of society. The productive, because their wealth is by force taken from them and given to another, are disincentivized to work harder as are the less productive because the wealth of the more productive is given to them anyway, so why should they work harder? Ironically, the redistribution of wealth does not help the poor unless wealth actually exists to redistribute, and that does not happen unless incentive to produce exists, no matter what the government says or guarantees.
No, Justice Ginsburg, the U.S. Constitution has proven itself to be the most relevant, flexible, wealth producing, governing document on earth and you, of all people, should have made that case to the Egyptians. Strict adherence to the principles locked into this document would make them a more prosperous nation also. All that you gave them were examples of shared poverty. I fear that your lack of incite, in this most fundamental constitutional matter, may facilitate your helping to bring shared poverty to us as well.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 16, 2012 | Economy, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
For nearly two decades the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal have teamed-up tracking and rating the 184 nations of the earth on economic freedom. In their 2012 ratings “Hong Kong and Singapore finished first and second in the rankings for the 18th straight year. Australia and New Zealand ranked third and fourth, and Switzerland fifth. Canada finished sixth, … falling out of the group of ‘free’ economies into the ‘mostly free’ category;” a fall made by the United States in 2010. The U.S. also slipped from a three-way tie for ninth place last year to tenth place today. Even Mauritius, taking eighth, a small island off the coast of Africa, was seen as more economically free than we, as were Chile and Ireland taking seventh and ninth.
The 484-page rather complex document, rated countries in ten types of freedom: labor, business, trade, fiscal, government spending, monetary, investment, financial, property, and freedom from corruption. These ten then were evaluated on the basis of “the rule of law, the intrusiveness of government, regulatory efficiency, and the openness of free markets.” A country’s overall score was the average of these categories.
The average economic freedom score for the world dropped two-tenths of a point from 2011, primarily because countries tried to spend their way out of recession and failed. “Rapid expansion of government, more than any market factor, appears to be responsible for flagging economic dynamism. Government spending has not only failed to arrest the economic crisis, but also—in many countries—seems to be prolonging it. The big-government approach has led to bloated public debt, turning an economic slowdown into a fiscal crisis with economic stagnation fueling long-term unemployment,” they concluded.
The United States was no exception with respect to the mounting burden of reckless government spending. The U. S. economic freedom score dropped by 1.5 from last year, a drop attributed to “deteriorating scores for government spending, freedom from corruption, and investment freedom.”
The solutions proposed by Heritage’s Index of Economic Freedom basically amount to undoing much of what has been done since 2008. The authors especially cited the need to unwind government intervention and reduce government involvement in commercial decision-making. They advocated the abolition of the TARP program followed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Congress should “repeal all U.S. government regulatory measures that interfere with mortgage markets.” This should be followed by the “repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which discriminates against small firms and reduces competition.” The overall guideline, as historically it once was; “companies should be allowed to fail, and laws and regulations should create no expectation of a future bailout.”
With respect to reducing government involvement in commercial decision-making, they concluded, “Congress must eliminate the insidious practice of earmarking, which corrupts the legislative process. The government needs to divest itself of all assets acquired in connection with the financial crisis and recession and refrain from interfering in bankruptcy cases. These reforms, like the others, would both complement and reinforce the overall restoration of America’s economic freedom.” Examples might be the return of General Motors to the private sector and the housing market, now largely owned by the federal government, as well.
Why does economic freedom matter, the Heritage Foundation asks and answers? Because it “is a crucial component of liberty. It empowers people to work, produce, consume, own, trade, and invest according to their personal choices.” Indeed, each person controls the fruits of his or her own labor and initiative. Government produces nothing but takes from those who do produce and redistributes it to others. To that extent freedom to keep the rewards of one’s own labor is impaired.
For most of our history we were the freest nation on earth with no significant competition resulting in our people becoming the most abundant ever. Now we are almost out of the top ten and out of the “free” and into the “mostly free” category with the resultant loss of that abundance. Such is inexcusable and indefensible. Our answer is simply less debt, less taxes, and less government. It has always been so.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Mar 1, 2012 | Economy, Globalism
By Dr. Harold Pease
Three of the four remaining Republican presidential candidates and the present occupant of the White House appear to be, or are favorable to, provoking Iran for a response worthy of a preemptive strike. Only Ron Paul, of our options for president, is decidedly against.
Forgive me for not believing that the world is flat, as did virtually everyone before Columbus and that Iraq had something to do with 9 /11, or that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction as President George W. Bush told us. Once again, I feel drawn into another Middle East black hole of lies, no end wars, death of our young men and women, loss of our treasure, and yet another Patriot Act which only limits the liberties of American citizens. History repeats itself, but why so soon?
It seems to hinge on whether Iran is that close to getting a deployable nuclear weapon and if it really matters if it does? In a compelling article by Charles Scaliger, “Is it Nuts to Let Iran Go Nuclear?” recently published in The New American, Scaliger argues that our interests in the Middle East “boil down to oil and Israel.”
Oil should not be a major concern to us as we have a plentiful supply on “Alaska’s North Slope and the east and west coasts of the United States.” Presently, and strangely, these resources are made off-limits to drilling by our own government resulting in prices at the pump soaring to $4.40 per gallon; so inept are we in utilizing our natural resources. The price of gasoline per gallon when Barack Obama took office was $1.87. Moreover, we have access to the “Athabasca tar sands of northern Alberta (the world’s second largest oil reserves)” but instead our president vetoes the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would relieve our price pain by bringing crude oil into the United States. Instead, we prefer the “added costs (political and military as well as economic) of continuing to ship in our oil from hostile countries on the other side of the world.” All this brings meaning to the old adage, “We looked and the enemy was us.”
The second reason for caring about the Middle East is Israel. But Israel has demonstrated for over 40 years that it is quite capable of defending herself. As a young boy, I remember well when six nations in 1967, each larger than Israel, attacked this tiny nation and she defeated them all in just six days. It was called the Six Day War. I was envious of her strength and valor as the U.S. at the time was mired down in Vietnam, fighting an enemy equal to the population of New York State and geographically the size of Missouri. We lost that war. They met similar odds against Israel with similar results in 1948 and in 1973. Scaliger reminds us that in 1981 the Israeli Air Force destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq and in 2007 a nuclear facility in Syria. If Iran attacked Israel, there is little doubt who would win. Israel does not need our onsite protection.
But what if Iran did get a nuclear weapon as feared? Scaliger reminds us that China had one in 1964 but did not have the delivery system to put it on American soil for thirty years. India took 25 years “to go from its first nuclear test to the actual production of nuclear weapons….” and it took their Pakistani neighbors 26 years. Why the long delay? “Developing nuclear weapons requires mastery of a number of intricate technologies, among them engineering centrifuge cascades….” Scaliger notes, “There is a very big difference between having a nuclear ‘device’ and having nuclear weapons.” Iran is “many years away from creating a deliverable nuclear weapon that could threaten Saudi Arabia or Israel and probably decades away from creating an ICBM or submarine-launched missile that could menace the American mainland.”
Don’t forget that all Middle Eastern countries know that a nuke on Israel means nukes on them from us, and we do not need to be present to deliver. Mutual Assure Destruction (MAD) kept the peace during the “Cold War,” it will in the Middle East for the same reason.
So why is there all the hype? I cannot answer fully but suggest that we look to who benefits from perpetual war—The Council on Foreign Relations in its bid for world dominance and the industries that make the weapons of war. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first to warn us of the military industrial complex; perhaps it is time to take his warning seriously.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Feb 23, 2012 | Economy, Healthcare, Take Action, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Both parties have succumbed to the temptation of getting elected by promising ever more goodies from the public coffers, irrespective of constitutional limits, and to the point that they have irresponsibly enslaved our children with 15.25 trillion dollar indebtedness.
Everything is talked about in the presidential debates except this. We will just pretend it away. Why? Because both parties know that the cuts that have to be made to save the terminal cancer patient have to be drastic and advocating such to a population drunk with the idea that they are entitled to such is political suicide. Congress appears to be, or is, inept in solving this and other debt related problems.
Predicting a Super Committee failure, Freedom Works, a Tea Party affiliate, selected 12 of their own members and through the Internet invited 150,000 members to make suggestions on what should be done. Boldly they opened the unfunded liabilities door, Pandora’s box, the door neither party dares to open as potentially it could destroy career politicians and political parties.
What follows are their recommendations with respect to Medicare and Medicaid. Almost everyone knows that Medicare, 13% of the federal budget, growing at about 7% each year, is unsustainable. Formerly the favored method of controlling expenditures in this area was to limit reimbursement rates to healthcare providers rather than focus on fraud and the use of the free market to limit costs.
The Tea Party Debt Commission saw the Medicare program as outdated, inefficient, and corrupt and recommended six major changes that if followed would save, they predicted, $676,000,000 the first year and $2,030,843,000,000 in 10 years. These changes are first “let individuals opt out of Medicare under Senator Jim DeMint’s ‘Retirement Freedom Act.”’ Second, let all new Medicare beneficiaries after 2013 enroll in the Federal Employees’ Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) introduced by Senator Rand Paul as the “Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act.” Third, reduce Medicare subsidies to actual cost of hospitals’ graduate medical education. Fourth, maintain Medicare’s physician payment rates at the 2011 level. Fifth, convert the open-ended Medicaid program into a capped block grant to the states. And six, call on all states to reform their medical malpractice and product liability systems—tort reform.
Opting into the same Medicare program the members of Congress use, the second Tea Party change recommended, is much better for participants because it “relies on competing private insurers to provide benefits, and as a result has very little of the fraud and waste problems that plague today’s outdated and poorly designed Medicare system.” One wonders why Congress can make for themselves such a good system and leave us one with “somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of Medicare’s $450 billion annual budget being attributable to waste, fraud, and abuse….”
Converting Medicaid to block grants to states, Tea Party Debt Commission recommendation number five, is critical in stopping Medicare’s open ended liability. They argue that the program “has exploded into a semi-middle class entitlement that is bankrupting the states while providing low-quality care to poor families.” The conversion to grants “would give states the incentives and flexibility to focus scarce resources on those who truly need help.” It would also incentivize removing fraud.
Their answer to excessive medical malpractice awards that drive up medical costs for everyone was recommendation number six, state tort reform. They especially endorsed the “loser pays rule” so successful in the states that have it. Here those unsuccessful in winning frivolous lawsuits are punished thus discouraging such by others, especially lawyers, looking to benefit off the taxpayer. I once knew a woman who busied herself with multiple simultaneous frivolous lawsuits as a source of income because those sued would prefer to pay her, because it was less expensive, than to defend themselves.
Bottom line we can keep Medicare, even making it more efficient and sustainable, with six changes. It is not too late, but we need to realize our danger and move quickly to do so. Will Congress explore these changes with intent to make them? Not unless you ask them to do so.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Feb 1, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold W. Pease
The French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville in 1840, once prophetically said, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the publics’ money.” That day is here!!
Both parties have succumbed to the temptation of getting elected by promising ever more goodies from the public coffers, irrespective of constitutional limits, and to the point that they have irresponsibly enslaved our children with 15.25 trillion dollars indebtedness. Both parties are blatantly guilty with democrats far more so the last three years. The national debt has increased at an average of 4 billion dollars a day under President Barack Obama. The seriousness of this led Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to exclaim, “Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.”
Last summer both big government parties, Democrat and Republican, unable to come to any agreement, turned their authority over to what was called a “Super Committee” of six democrats and six republicans and still could not reduce the debt by 1.2 trillion dollars over ten years. Impasse!!
Everything is talked about in the presidential debates except this national security threat. We will just pretend it away. Why? Because both parties know that the cuts that have to be made to save the terminal cancer patient have to be drastic, career politicians, which they are, do not want the media to blame their party—which it will! So, the ship (the United States) will sink for lack of real leadership, each party blaming the other.
Not so fast! The Tea Party Patriot movement comes to the rescue again. They predicted correctly that neither party really represents limited constitutional government and both are addicted to debt. It is like an addict prescribing his own detox program. Consequently Freedom Works, a Tea Party affiliate, selected 12 of their own members and through the Internet invited 150,000 members to make suggestions on what should be done.
The Tea Party Plan cuts, caps, and balances federal spending. The budget is balanced in four years, without tax hikes, and remains balanced. Federal spending is reduced by $9.7 trillion over the next ten years. The plan shrinks the federal government from 24 % of GDP to about 16 %. Finally it stops the growth of the debt and begins paying it down. Within a generation there would be no national debt. Bold indeed!
These goals are accomplished, their report continues, by repealing ObamaCare, eliminating four unconstitutional, costly, inefficient Cabinet agencies—Energy, Education, Commerce, and HUD—and reducing or privatizing many others, including EPA, TSA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. The report calls for ending farm subsidies, government student loans, and foreign aid to countries that don’t support us—luxuries we can no longer afford. Social Security is saved and improved by shifting ownership and control from government to individuals, through new SMART Accounts, a program successfully tried in Chile. It gives Medicare seniors the right to opt into the special Congressional health care plan. Moreover, it suspends pension contributions and COLAs for Members of Congress, whenever the budget is in deficit.
The new plan offers a rational transition to ownership of our own retirement and more control and choice over our health care. Why did the government fail to accomplish the same thing—even behind closed doors? Remember, Congress, as Alexis de Tocqueville predicted, has learned that it can bribe the public with the publics’ own money. Their first concern is to protect their jobs and party. Outsiders, without a personal stake in the outcome, can see much more and do much more without the inevitable political wrangling. Will the media give this plan a fair hearing or will they simply ignore it?
I will follow in another column with Tea Party specifics on dealing with unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security which the two big government parties will never talk about.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
