Well, is it constitutional?

In this whole thought experiment the answer to that question just isn't that easy to come up with. Now I know if you don't like the healthcare bill you already have decided that it is not constitutional. This is the knee-jerk reaction of partisans who respond to the political success of the hated other wing. I heard tons of similar arguments during the Bush years. Idiot Seattle progressives yacked all the time about how Bush was crapping on the constitution, and often they were right but they really didn't understand why.

Whether you agree or not with the bill, a challenge on the constitutionality of the law will need to be brought by someone who claims they have been damaged directly by it. They must have a case. This will not be possible for some time until the law has been enacted for awhile. The threats of lawsuits by a few State Attorney Generals is merely symbolic and probably a ploy for free publicity as they gear up a future run for governor.

The type of case will need to come from shareholders of an insurance company that may claim that they were ruined directly by the law. This will hardly be possible as the Federal Government can protect any insurance company from failure with an executive order. It may be brought by a doctor who claims that his disassociation from a 3rd party payor is infringed. Most certainly this is a reasonable claim, but will it be taken seriously by court that thinks the meaning of laws are as elusive as holding a water weiny? Once the law is in place and someone can be damaged by it...then and only then can someone bring a case on the slow journey through the federal courts on its way to the Supreme Court. The Court must consider the claim of someone damaged as they view any enacted law as the will of the people...whether you like it now or not.

As I've predicted over and over that President Obama will be re-elected, it is quite possible that in the year 2014 the Supreme Court will have that quaint living and breathing view of the law of the land. The kind of view that will make amendments obsolete because its words will evolve into the useful meaning of the day rather than original intent.

And by the way...this bill is not socialism. Not even close. This bill is just more good ol' fashioned Corporatism where the winners and losers will be chosen in DC. It's significant but hardly radical. Not nearly as radical as say...attacking a sovereign nation who never attacked you...just sayin'.

Oh, and a message to you angry GOP morons out there. Maybe you would've been more believable in this whole argument had you whined and protested like this during the Medicare prescription plan a few years ago that so many of you voted for. You expanded the state by throwing bill after bill at a president who didn't veto any proposed legislation until well into his second term. It's so frustrating to watch someone else expand the state while you have to just sit back and watch isn't it?

As for me, this bill is not compatible with The Constitution I've read. It is not compatible with that of a free society...but neither was the former system. I have a replica of the constitution on the wall in my downstairs bathroom. I joke constantly that I can tell what political party my friends belong to when they use that bathroom. The Democrats look at it and ask what it is and the Republicans try to use it for toilet paper.

So anyway, get used to it. It's the law and will be for a long time.

Hooray Ninth Circuit!

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been busy lately. News from this court is a mixed bag as they are known for being the most overturned circuit court in our country. Two different rulings from this court over the last week have given me some hope as it relates to freedom and liberty.

First, a seminarian (this is a dude training to be a Roman Catholic Priest) sued for overtime pay as his duties at the seminary, which included helping with mass, probably made his timesheet rather busy. The seminarian claimed that he was due compensation for time-and-a-half but the ninth circuit rightly ruled that he wasn't. Protecting the first amendment and his freedom of association (or diassociation) was key in ruling against him. He should try being Lutheran...just a suggestion.

Secondly, the court ruled in favor of the son of Texas oil tycoon Howard Marshall, who was married to Anna Nicole Smith back in 1994 after meeting him while working at a strip club. This one was tough as over 300 million dollars was up in the air. It either went to the oil tycoon's son or it went to the very young daughter of dead tycoon's wife who was also dead...whose only legal heir was her oldest son who was also dead. Seems like common sense prevailed and they decided to just let the tycoons keep their money. What's more American than that? It'd be nice if the tycoons setup a trust for the young girl just the same.

The 'No Earmark Pledge' is silly

The Democrats and Republicans are making an empty election year promise to not engage in the hated practice of congressional earmarks. Everyone hates it when someone else's congressman asks for a little of their district's money back in taxes. The dirty little secret is that it won't matter.

Now forget the argument that earmarks collectively don't make up much of the federal deficit. Let's just say that you agree in principle that any cutting in government is good and this pledge cuts at the heart of pork barrell projects. Even this so-called moral high-ground of principle won't cut even a single dollar in spending. But how can this be?

Earmarks don't add to spending, instead they say where spending will be prioritized. The congress will approve a budget that leaves in it room for discretionary spending. This is where the real problem is. Once it is in the approved budget, it's up to members of congress to start carving out where this money should be spent. So what will happen if no earmarks are submitted? One of two things will happen: The president will spend the money instead of congress or they will define in law what the proportion of spending will be by state and just allow for grants that can be applied for. How much money will be saved by either of these moves? Not a penny.

Don't be fooled by this. They're not interested in spending less and most of you don't want them to stop bringing home the bacon either. We should at least stop pretending that earmarks are the cause of all of our problems.

Another Income Tax? Not so fast.

My state legislature is working on an income tax proposal to help offset the huge budget hole Olympia is in. Apparently over the years we just haven't paid them enough taxes to do everything they want to do so they're simply going to need more.

It's not as if there is no support for it in this state though. Like almost every state, citizens here walk the irrational tight-rope of wanting fewer taxes, more services, and more laws enforced.

Washington state currently operates with a state-wide sales tax (food is exempt), a handful of excise taxes and property taxes. Each apportioned equally and every citizen subjected to the tax pays the same. In the minds of most on the western part of the state this is considered a regressive tax as it impacts the poor more because they may pay a larger portion of their income. It's hard to know if this is correct or not as normally the poor do not subject themselves to the sales tax associated with big ticket items...but I'm sure there's a statistic for it somewhere.

The current solution in Olympia is to lower the state's portion of the sales tax to 5.5% (from 6.5%) and impose a 4% income tax on people who earn an income of $200,000 annually. This will be attractive if it goes to voters...nevermind that if it passed this $200,000 figure would slide its way down to impact anyone necessary to pay for the next budget hole that will inevitably occur.

There's one glitch though. The law of our state probably won't allow this. Our state's constitution is horribly old fashioned when it comes to taxes. Courts have repeatedly upheld that income is property. The state's constitution requires that all taxes on property be apportioned. To expect a segment of society to pay 4% on their property and others to pay nothing isn't going to work without an amendment...which in this state could happen. Likely what will happen is that any bill will be amended to include a modest income tax on everyone until the amendment is passed. The important part is to get the income tax on the books...after that it's simply a matter of parliamentary procedure in a one-party state.

But in the meantime, I'm thankful that I have lived (if even temporarily) in a state where all taxation was voluntary and that I could choose whether or not I wanted to subject myself to any tax.

Why Charities are Dying

With the growth of government intervention over the last decade, the empty suggestion that private charities could step in and take back the role of helping the less fortunate is laughed at. Why does it have to be this way?

My mom was born in a charity hospital. Today there are no more charity hospitals left in my state. Were they forced out by giant corporations or an aggressive medical industry? Were they closed due to lack of funding or excess regulation?

Over the years, charity hospitals closed due to the Great Society legislation of Lyndon Johnson. In this legislation and expanding legislation since, the government can treat all hospitals like charity hospitals through programs like Medicaid. This isn't all bad on paper. A person can go to a hospital and get treated and if they qualify for a subsidy, they can get it. The hospital gets paid no matter if it's a county hospital or a Presbyterian hospital.

Charities are having a hard time competing against the government primarily because a charity can only spend what it collects as a foundation. The government can spend more than it collects and pretends that everyone enrolled in their programs are treated just like all citizens. Of course this isn't true.

Charities, unlike corporate businesses, are not allowed to have a learning curve for raising and allocating funds. A business is allowed to adjust their business model and even deny their investors a profit to shape their business. The first hint that a charity is not releasing a certain percentage of their funds and they're on the radar of their state's Attorney General. Perhaps a new taxable non-profit status would allow new charities to build powerful foundations for causes without the fear of unreasonable regulation.

Many doctors resent taking patients that are on government assistance. They know in advance they're not going to get paid for their costs. My mother who was born in the charity hospital and received treatment for polio in that same hospital today finds herself having problems finding a doctor who can treat her with post-polio syndrome under medicare. Her choices for doctors are very limited due to location and their acceptance of the insurance she is forced to have as a retired American citizen. How is that charitable? Most elderly people out there don't have children who insist that so-called government assistance is never an option for them.

There are charities out there battling away trying to help her and many have...but any shortfall is made up privately. And by privately I mean it's ME competing against bottomless government dollars.

Charities are slowly dying because they must compete against a government that doesn't even bother to count receipts anymore when they spend money on these programs that are designed to help people. Only when charities are able to forcefully make you donate to them, or print their own money will they ever play a significant role in America again. That's very sad and very true.

Apparently we can't afford it

Listening to the GOP responses in the Healthcare Summit was again laughable and demonstrated clearly that Republicans have no real principled ideas about how to solve the problem of healthcare prices.

They hemmed and hawed and reminded the president and the public that we simply can't afford his plan and we need to start over with a fresh debate. Why? Because they're stalling and waiting for the 2010 elections to happen where they are certain to be able to stop any plan from moving forward. Now what's wrong with this?

What I never heard from any Republican was that the Federal Government intervention in healthcare was not just a bad idea, but largely an immoral and inefficient way of using tax payer's money. What is wrong with reminding the public that it is fundamentally unbecoming of a free country to take money from citizens for the benefit of other individuals or corporations. What's wrong with reminding the public that only through peaceful exchange and voluntary association (on a level playing field) can prices remain low and quality increase? I'm sure it never entered their heads.

But instead, in a very empty argument, they complained about costs while these same jokers were responsible for endless deficits during the Bush years. If you used the same cost argument for the war in Iraq or Afghanistan you'd simply be dismissed as naive or unAmerican.

In 2010, our country will likely throw out one set of bums in exchange for another and claim again for a few months that they've really made a change. I'll believe it when I see it.

Census Schmensus

Aside from telling the US Census how many people live in my home and how many are of voting age, they're not likely to get any more information from me.

Is it because I think the government wants to spy on me? No, probably not. They're not that good at spying frankly...how good could they be? I mean they're relying on me to answer their questions. That's not good spying.

Is it because they will not protect my personal information? No, I think they'll keep it from say...my neighbors, people who read my blog, and people who are not smart enough to hack into the information.

So why am I not going to respond to the 2010 Census?

Simply because I don't like how they use the information. Whether you're a Conservative or a Liberal, you shouldn't either.

Hey Liberals, do you know that information collected from the Census Bureau was used to fight against a public option of health care?

Hey Conservatives, do you know that information collected from the Census Bureau was used to concentrate information to give more of your Income Tax to failing public schools...to which many of you don't send your own kids?

While they insist that they're protecting your information, they do not guarantee that your information won't be shared with other governmental agencies including law enforcement. If this is true, are you covered by the 5th Amendment by refusing to answer their personal questions that could be used against you later? They say you're not.

They insist that the Constitution gives them perfect authority to gather information by Census every 10 years but fail to remember that it was simply for counting us. Besides that point, they're sending information gatherers out monthly to collect data for things like the Consumer Confidence Index to find out what kind of things you're buying so central economic planners can figure out how to get you to spend more of your money in the name of the keeping a good economy.

They tell me next that if i don't respond my community may not be eligible for public funds. In other words I won't have access to YOUR wallet for the benefit of my community.

So...I'm not answering their stupid questions. I'm not interested in qualifying for your "public funds" to benefit from the fruit of your labor. I'm not interested in them playing political games with my information for left and right wing agendas. The Constitution authorizes the government to count us every 10 years so that our federal representation is properly apportioned. Nothing more.

Oh and one more thing: I didn't respond in 2000 either.

What 4th Amendment?

Of course you don't know what that amendment is. Why would you? It's usually the ones we can't remember that we take for granted and are generally protected well. It's the one that goes like this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Basically government agents of force cannot search you or take your stuff unless they've convinced a judge to allow them to look for a specific thing. No open investigations allowed...just permission to look for specific evidence.

But now the Obama administration continues the hope and change express started by the Bush administration. They argue that warrantless tracking (of cell phones) is permitted by the constitution because American's "enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to the tracking of their cell phones. They continue to argue that any information about yourself that is stored by a 3rd party (bank, school, doctor, church) is not protected by the 4th Amendment and that the government has every right to it.

The issue is before the 3rd Circuit Court.

Iraq to sue US and Britain

They'll never see a dime, but Iraq seeks compensation from the US and Britain over the rise in birth defects and cancer after we used depleted uranium bombs to force democracy on their nation.

Maybe if we pay them off with a huge settlement they'll finally welcome us as liberators.

Negative interest rates are coming

Logically it had to happen right? Artificially low interest rates are to stimulate the economy, but you can only hold them at zero for so long before people are already tired of hearing about a "jobless recovery". So how does negative interest rates work? The Federal Reserve in its wisdom will actually charge member banks for holding onto money. This will force them to lend at a time when the public isn't looking to borrow.

Didn't we just go through this? How are the banks going to lend money if no one is lining up for the loans? And how are they going to do it without being accused of predatory lending practices?

You may not know the economic term now, but if you watch the news over the next year you'll becomes familiar with it: Moral Hazard

Oh and one more charming thought...if you're on Social Security or another style of fixed income...you will become poorer this year while simply trying to tread water. This is how your benevolent overlords in Washington watch out for you. They dare not tax you during these economic woes, so instead they rob the value of the money you hold in your purse, wallet, or mattress.

Shame on this government, both Republicans and Democrats. A pox on both of their houses.

I got a radar detector for Christmas

I couldn't be happier with it.

I'm not a particularly fast driver. Many in my family say I drive too slowly, but I do drive alot of country back roads that have become aggressively enforced over the last year. With the dip in economy and the loss of revenue to local governments...apparently traffic safety has never been more important...and profitable.

I've seen on county roads motorcycle police standing in the middle of the road with a radar gun with chase cars on the radio nearby to pull over cars that come down a hill too fast. I figured I may as well even the score and just be warned of speed traps before I come up on them. I don't know if it has saved me from a ticket thus far but I have successfully been warned of law enforcement well before I could've seen them with the naked eye. This happens on a daily basis.

One thing that has surprised me is that I've come to find out there are more speed traps than I was ever aware of. Now when I see certain bands of radar being detected I look all around trying to find them. I've found them in places I pass by all the time, but they were hidden away unknown to me. It's become a game of "find the cop".

I think cars should come standard with them frankly (yes, I'm aware that they are illegal in Virginia and the District of Columbia) as they make you more aware of your speed. It could be argued that I drive closer to the speed limit now as I have a constant reminer of potential enforcement right there on the dash.

It has become little more than a game in the car than it has been getting away with anything, but I am enjoying it. If you've considered getting one I would recommend it. I may write more later on which model I'm using if anyone shows any interest.

Get ready for more 'change'

A vote for change in Massachusetts would've been to elect Joseph Kennedy (I) rather than simply electing another neo-con to the US Senate. Oh, I know...some of you are so happy that Ted Kennedy's seat didn't go to another self-anointed Democrat. Part of me is glad too...but in the end, more war, more deficits, more foreign intervention will now be the believed mandate from "the people's seat" of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

God help this country.

Finally!

Finally someone gets respectful treatment from a police officer despite aggressively resisting arrest.

Apparently a North Charleston woman had too much to drink and was caught doing 65 in a 40mph zone.  After a short chase she finally pulled over.  She mouthed off to the officers and even physically resisted arrest.  There was a scuffle that caused her to have a bloody lip but she was never tazed, beaten or threatened with a firearm.  Eventually charges were dropped and she was allowed to go home.  This woman's encounter with police is an example of how there are some cops out there that aren't interested in having a power trip in every encounter with the public.

Oh, did I mention the person they pulled over was an off-duty police officer?   That couldn't have had anything to do with it...could it?

You decide.

Police worship

I wrote last year about how the actions of rogue cops would end up eventually killing good cops. It's not been a good time to revisit this topic as in the Puget Sound area we're growing tired of all-day televised police funerals. One is being held again today, this time in the Tacoma Dome and will be attended by thousands.

In this area people are worshipping the police as "heroes who keep us safe" even though the courts have repeatedly held that it is not the job of the police to keep any individual free of harm. So while we mourn, we also rightfully pour money in to help the family(ies) left behind, usually with small children, any criticm of police is well...sort of poorly played.

I wish there was similar public support behind the victims of local police like Christopher Harris.

Happy New Year!

I can't believe it's been 10 years since I sat in my bunker with plenty of provisions and waited for Y2K to erupt.

Not a bad decade all in all. Here's my top 20 memorable moments in no particular order:

1. I got engaged.
2. I got married.
3. I got laid off 3 times.
4. I started a blog.
5. I bought a house.
6. I bought two cars.
7. I had probably about two dozen kidney stones.
8. I gained weight.
9. I lost weight.
10. I built a large retaining wall.
11. I have a son who I not only love, but like as well.
12. I wrote a book.
13. I rewrote a book.
14. I had my mom live in my living room for eight weeks.
15. Had a good cat...who died earlier this year.
16. I have an awesome wife (who I purposely don't mention on this blog).
17. I got to be part of a podcast that is rapidly growing in popularity.
18. I went to Yellowstone National Park.
19. Got to visit NYC before 9/11.
20. Went to Washington DC and saw everything possible.

So c'mon 2010...let's see what you got.

See you next year everybody!

Healthcare Bill

Merry Christmas America. I hope you like crap.

Meet Gary Johnson

This post sort of reminds me of one I made several years ago about Ron Paul.  I ran into Congressman Paul in the Commons House Office building in DC while visiting my congressman (Jay Inslee) and told Mr. Paul that if he ran for president, I would support him.  He laughed and then punched me in the face while DC Police tazed me repeatedly (I made up that part) but I only meant it as a compliment because I liked him so much but I knew he was not really electable.

Even among his relative popularity (New York Times best seller list, on Jay Leno, huge rallies) it was more about educating people about the role of liberty in their lives and exciting people about things that make this country awesome....like true tolerance, personal freedom and responsibility, and uh...junk like that.  But Ron is a congressman.  He has never governed.  While idealistic and provocative, some of his ideas don't always translate easily into action.  People want action, which makes non-intervention a challenge when so much of the action needs to be rolling back the harm that has been done over the years.

Allow me to introduce to you Gary Johnson.  Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico for 8 years.  He ran as a Republican in a state that is largely Democrat dominated.  He governed in a border state and promoted immigration.  He lowered taxes.  He left the state government with fewer employees than when he started without firing a single one.  He reduced the priority of enforcing silly and expensive drug laws.  He's a normal guy that has to force himself to sound like a politician.  He angered his own party and was called “America’s most dangerous politician”. He is a libertarian. For me personally I agree with Gary Johnson more than I do Ron Paul on a number of key issues.

Gary Johnson is interested in running for president.  He has written a book and started a public advocacy committee which is customary when you're trying to raise your name recognition while pretending you’re not running for president.  Sadly, with all the early primaries you have to prepare for the next election before President Obama and his family celebrates their first Christmas in the White House.  So it has begun.

I plan to support Governor Gary Johnson for president if he decides to run and I don't care if he is able to win or not.  Lots of people run, but only one wins.  It’s been shown over and over again that many of those who lose, can make a larger impact than those who win. 

I've already stated that I believe President Obama will be re-elected no matter what happens in 2010. For me, the important thing is to put someone on the national stage who can give America confidence in freedom again.

Federal Mandates

Where in the laws of our republic is the Federal Government granted the power to mandate an individual to purchase anything? Just wondering.

I'm not sure what passes for weird anymore

Ben Bernanke is man of the year.

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

Palin rises to the national stage and quits the job that got her there.

The country will go bankrupt if it doesn't take over the healthcare industry.

Hillary Clinton has all but disappeared.

We use stealth drones over a country that has no radar...but people can see them.

Maybe it's just me.

Hey Mr. President

I'm still anti-war. Remember when it was cool to be against the war...ya know...until YOUR guy became in charge of it?

Where is the anti-war left these days? Turns out they've found that war can be useful, hell...maybe even fun when you're wing of the political spectrum is leading the charge.

What I heard tonight was a guy who thinks the world is a better place when we use force of arms to spread democracy. I heard that our country is safer when we impose our military might on over a hundred countries on the planet. I heard Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and yes...George W. Bush.

Hey Mr. President! Your aims in Afghanistan are a fool's errand. It may not be fashionable anymore to tell people that our country is less safe when we over extend our military presence in the world but I'm going to keep doing it. It may not be popular to tell people that we can't force democracy and freedom on people...that liberty must be fought for by the people who seek it...but I haven't changed my mind.

I will tell every fool that voted for you (and I know plenty of them) that you all can send YOUR children to fight in Afghanistan, but you will not send mine. Many an empire has come to end fighting in that land for no good reason. I love my country too much to see American lives and treasure going to waste there.

Hey Mr. President, bring our soldiers home.