Bombing Obamacare Again

“Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans” -- Huffingtonpost.com

Not bad for a headline if your intention is to scare the “bejeezus” out of a large number of people.  This, and other headlines and articles about the “failure” of the Healthcare.gov. website are everywhere you look, with a false implication that “millions” of people are going to lose their healthcare coverage because of it.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Of course, Congress has gotten into the act, for here is another incident for the House Republicans to manufacture and seize upon as a “failure” or “scandal".”  So let’s see now, what are the failures exactly?

• Creating personal accounts is difficult
• Actually signing up online for a plan is virtually impossible
• The codes are too complicated and way too long
• The cross-overs between systems created by separate vendors is not going well
• Too much money has been spent on the contracts
• The administration made the decision beforehand to make people go through a verification process first and then choose a plan after they have been declared eligible; some sites do it the other way round: shop first, then apply
• Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, deserves to be fired

Don’t you love it?  None of these so-called failures has anything to do with the efficacy of healthcare reform contained in the Affordable Care Act!  Apparently, some of these critics have never been on a new website that has been constructed to handle huge numbers of visitors, and yet has miscalculated.  I remember when genealogists were greatly anticipating the opening of a new site for Ellis Island that would contain many ship’s lists of immigrants to this country in the 19th and 20th centuries.  Everyone tried to get on the site when it opened and it crashed almost immediately!  This same scenario has happened so many times, that it is not unusual at all in the cyber world.

Criticisms about decisions made by the Obama administration are not unusual;  glitches are not unusual; delays are not unusual; the complaints are not unusual.  So first of all, let’s hope that the critics, including Congress, get to the bottom of this mess by ignoring the usual and concentrating on the real problem: the private contracts and the contractors responsible for building this site.  Secondarily, the decisions and parameters given the contractors by representatives of the administration should be examined.  So far, it doesn’t look like the former will happen, if yesterday (the 24th) is any example.  Giving soft-ball questions to the contractors; passing-the-buck to the government by both questioners and contractors; nailing the Obama administration and the ACA for a big failure are all we saw -- that’s what Congress is doing.

I want to be perfectly clear about what I am saying here.  I am saying that much of the problem lies with one of the favorite mantras of the Republican party:  “privatizing government operations.”  I am willing to bet that had the Obama administration brought together the best and the brightest IT minds within government agencies, and the best and brightest from their own 2012 campaign, to build this site that it would have gone much more smoothly and turned out to be more effective.  One reason:  the government IT folks would have had some “skin-in-the-game” -- they would have wanted it to succeed beyond expectations.  Second, they would have already had some idea of the parameters that were needed, having worked on government systems before.  Third, they would have been able to translate the jargon spoken by government  bureaucrats that sometimes leaves outsiders from the private sector in a fog.

On what basis do I make these observational claims?  I personally took part in helping to build a system from scratch utilizing just such government employed IT’s.  I was the project director for a state-run Program that needed an automated system that could prepare payrolls and also track a myriad of individualized services of stipended mentors.  It was my job to work with the IT’s to help them understand our goals for the system, the outcomes we wanted, and the user friendliness that needed to be built in to the system.  My job was also to gather from my Program’s office staff and field staff their recommendations and hopes for outcomes, so that I could feed that into the process.  The IT staff and I, along with my staff at times, worked well together.  We mostly understood each other; we made accommodations where needed to the exigencies of a governmental system that we all worked within and knew well.  Testing the system at certain intervals was crucial to its success.  Roll-out was fairly smooth, but some glitches did need fixing before it was finally implemented.  Even after initial implementation, there were glitches and inadequacies that needed to be re-coded or adjusted in some way.  That is the nature of the “beast.”

I am saying that I think that having a number of outside private contractors work on this crucial government website may have been the biggest mistake of all.  Privatization either by devolvement or by contract is not always the best way to go!  However, let’s face it, choosing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to oversee this website’s construction and affiliated services, was probably not the best idea either. 

According to several sources, the CMS did not have the expertise necessary to manage the blending of all the different software and systems necessary to build this site.  According to the NY Times, problems that have arisen in the last few weeks are “not uncommon when software from several companies is combined into a large, complex system.”

So, if Congress wants to look at something in this particular case, let them look at the private contractors and the contractual components and behaviors.  So far, the hearings being held have not delved deeply into their shortcomings, allowing them to place blame on government failures to provide enough testing time or enough oversight and managerial coordination.  However, Luke Russert of MSNBC on Thursday, the 24th, hit the nail on the head when he said that the main focal point of any hearing should be the questioning of how contracts are distributed and the performance of the contractors.  Here‘s something of a guide for doing so, from my own experience:

1)    What was the preliminary process by which this private contract was initiated?

• How were applicants notified
• Was there an RFP process
• Who oversaw the process
• On what bases were applications (RFP’s) judged; were there standards for pre-qualification promulgated by the government
• How were finalists vetted - e.g. was past work explored; past clients interviewed or contacted
• What determined the final selection

2)    What was the process by which the final decision was made to award the contract?

• How many sessions or interviews were held with the contractor applicants before the contract was signed
• What was discussed at these sessions
• What goals were laid out for this project and for the contractor
• What were the outcomes or expectations laid out for the contractor
• Was there a full Plan or preliminary Plan discussed
• If preliminary, when was the final Plan expected
• Were past projects discussed with questions or glitches explored
• What were the deciding factors in the choice of the contractor

3)   Once the contract was awarded, what steps were followed?

• Which government personnel were assigned to work with the vendor in the construction of the project;
• who was assigned to monitor all aspects of the private contractor’s performance under the contract terms
• Who was assigned overall responsibility for the Project
• Was there a Tic-Toc (schedule of benchmarks or achievements) put in place
• What was the final Plan that was locked into place; was it included in the contract
• Were monthly progress reports required from the contractor
• What sort of testing procedures and schedule for them would be implemented
• Were there any penalties placed in the contract if the vendor missed or delayed deadlines or benchmarks; what liability for failure could be incurred
• Was termination of contract included without penalty to contracting government agency
• Was a plan of evaluation at certain increments placed in the Plan
• Who was responsible for evaluation
• Who were the responsible parties involved in each aspect of the Plan
• Were there any contingency plans placed in the contract in case of failures
• Who were the responsible parties assigned to these plans

The aspects of process are not something about which people get excited, but without some major attention to them, there is cause for alarm.  The process by which contracts are let by our federal government and other government offices is something that cannot be ignored if we are to solve the failures caused by inadequate contracts and by unregulated and unguided contractors.

So, what about that $93.7 million contract with CGI for the Healthcare.gov website?  And please, don’t forget those other vendors like Quality Software Services, Inc. (QSSI)-- a unit of the UnitedHealth Group, by the way -- responsible for the “data hub” that funnels information collected by federal agencies to and from the state health care exchanges ($55 million).  Or, how about Oracle, sub-contracted by QSSI to build the key “identity management system”, or maybe Teal Media, responsible for visual design, who created the “Look and Feel” of  the various windows, especially the “card motif.”  All told, the GAO reported in March 2013 that between fiscal year 2010 and March 2013, the total doled out on about a dozen contracts has been $394 million!  CGI itself has about tripled their original contract costs to $294 million! Could any of these vendors have had an ulterior motive for sabotaging their part of this project?  We can’t be sure.... 

But, with all contracts from government, the crucial question must be: what are we getting for the taxpayers’ money?  Another critic, Luke Chung, who heads a small software and site-building firm in Virginia, appeared on the Chris Jansing show on MSNBC Thursday to criticize the contractors for botching a relatively simple procedure of getting information and then having users fill out an application.  He was a bit brutal in his assessment of the final product. 

It appears what we have gotten is a system with certain inadequacies that does not begin to meet the demand of consumers for information and application.  Now the administration appears to be scrambling to bring in the best and the brightest to fix the problems.  One would think that’s what should have been done in the first place.  And that’s another reason why process is so important:  to try and avoid the type of situation we now find ourselves in.  Attention to a careful process at the beginning of contract-letting is superior to trying to fix problems after they arise!  For, as one technology and consumer expert has said: “With software, adding people at the end of a project to fix things that are broken or unfinished can actually do more harm than good.”   It may actually slow a project down even more.

I’d sure like to see those contracts -- wouldn’t you?  Sorry, we can’t get them unless we file an FOIA, and that sometimes takes up a lot of time, and garners poor results.  But here’s what the Washington Examiner had to say on the subject on October 13th:

“Federal officials considered only one firm to design the Obamacare health insurance exchange website that has performed abysmally since its Oct. 1 debut.

Rather than open the contracting process to a competitive public solicitation with multiple bidders, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid accepted a sole bidder, CGI Federal, the U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian company with an uneven record of IT pricing and contract performance.

CMS officials are tight-lipped about why CGI was chosen or how it happened. They also refuse to say if other firms competed with CGI, or if there was ever a public solicitation for building Healthcare.gov, the backbone of Obamacare’s problem-plagued web portal.

Instead, it appears they used what amounts to a federal procurement system loophole to award the work to the Canadian firm.

CGI was one of 16 companies that had been qualified by HHS during President George W. Bush's second term (emphasis added) to deliver, without public competition, a variety of hardware, software and communication products and services.  In awarding the Healthcare.gov contract, CMS relied on a little-known federal contracting system called ID/IQ, which is government jargon for ‘Indefinite Delivery and Indefinite Quantity.’

CGI was a much smaller vendor when it was approved by HHS in 2007. With the approval, CGI became eligible for multiple awards without public notice and in circumvention of the normal competitive bidding procurement process.

The multiple awards were in the form of ‘task orders’ for projects of widely varying size. Over the life of the CGI contract — which expires in 2017 — the IT firm can receive awards worth anywhere from the ‘$1,000 to $4 billion,‘ according to a contracting document provided by CGI to the Washington Examiner.

This is apparently the route chosen by CMS officials in awarding the Obamacare Healthcare.gov website design contract to CGI. 

Between 2009 and 2013, CMS officials awarded 185 separate task orders to CGI totaling $678 million for work of all kinds, according to USAspending.gov, a federal spending database. The Obamacare website design contract was for $93 million.”

Funny - no, more like ‘tragic’ - that the Obama administration seems to be carrying through on what the George W. Bush administration started which is an all-too-familiar and unfortunate pattern.  So, the first major failure is very simple: this should not have been a no-bid contract by any stretch of the imagination.  There was too much at stake.  

Let’s see what else we can find about these contracts.  The Washington Examiner points us in a second direction.

“CGI in Canada also suffered embarrassment in 2011 when it failed to deliver on time for Ontario province's flagship project of a new online medical registry for diabetes patients and treatment providers.  Ontario government officials cancelled the $46.2 million contract after 14 months of delay in September 2012. Ontario officials currently refuse to pay any fees to CGI for the failed IT project.”

Not only do we find a no-bid contract for a project of massive importance, but now we also find that this particular lead company failed to deliver on a similar product in Canada.  Since the contract with our CMS was signed in October of 2011, and the Canadian failure to meet deadlines began around July of 2011, this should have immediately raised a red flag for the U.S. government that something was amiss with this contractor.  An immediate investigation should have been launched as to their competency and their ability to fulfill the CMS contract. 

What else can we find out about this contract and this contractor (or others involved)?

According to the Sunlight Foundation’s website, there were an estimated “dozen or more” companies tasked with actually building the main healthcare.gov site.  But Sunlight reviewed contract award information from two websites that follow government contracts -- USASpending.gov and FedBizOpps.gov -- and found that 47 entities won contracts from HHS and Treasury to “manage support or service the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.”  Some top on-going government contractors show up in the list: Northrop Grumman, Deloitte LLP, SAIC, Inc., General Dynamics, and Booz Allen Hamilton, as well as Rand Corporation and MITRE Corporation.  All but one of the 47 contractors for the  ACA healthcare-related matters had worked for government prior to the passage of the ACA, according to Sunlight (for all 47 contractors and their contract amounts, see http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2013/aca-contractors/)

But here’s the really important thought to consider:  some 17 of the ACA private contractors “reported spending more than $128 million on lobbying in 2011 and 2012, while 29 had employees or political action committees or both that contributed $32 million to federal candidates and parties in the same period.”  Is this how business gets done in Washington?  You bet it is!

I can agree that, for some supply items that government needs quickly, it is probably best to have contractors available on a no-bid basis.  Otherwise, and particularly in the cases where the project to be done is as large and varied and complicated as the ACA website, if it has been decided that government cannot handle the project, it is far better to go to open bid so that a “scratch-my-back, I’ll-scratch-yours” perception is avoided.  The Obama administration has failed here to support open bidding, open government, innovation and transparency.  There is no excuse for that, except that every administration does it! 

But, that does not mean that the Republican House of Representatives can be excused for their part in accosting and distorting the ACA for their own purposes.  They now want the resignation or firing of HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, as the best outcome for this software problem.  Such nonsense.  Her firing would not accomplish a thing, which is, apparently, what Republicans in Congress seek, above all else!

More to the point is for Congress to look again at the waste and abuse involved in out-sourcing and contracting government services and programs to private contractors.

In 2010, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont inserted into the defense bill for that year a provision calling for an analysis of DOD private contracts, as well as ways for the DOD to punish violating contractors who had been disbarred or suspended for misusing taxpayer funds.  Sanders, at the time, pointed to the importance of reining in contractor abuse by saying that the deficit cannot be reduced without looking at the waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon’s budget.  In commenting on the published Defense Department report that he had asked for, Sanders said, “With the country running a $14 trillion national debt, my goal is to provide as much transparency as possible about what is happening with taxpayer money.  The sad truth is that virtually all of the major defense department contractors in this country for years have been engaged in fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money.”

If Republicans are really after deficit and debt reduction, then they must take seriously the need to look at the contracts let to private contractors for this ACA website and accompanying services and systems.  How could the CGI contract balloon to three times its original size, without someone taking notice and calling that company to account?  If oversight is the business of the legislative body, then it is time to focus efforts on waste, fraud and abuse inherent overall in government contracts, and in this one in particular.

ACA itself is not the problem.  Kathleen Sebelius is not the problem.  Barack Obama is not the problem.  Government IT employees are not the problem.  The 5,000 lines of code are not the real problem (they can be fixed).  The real problem is a Congress that has failed again and again to look seriously at the waste of taxpayer dollars, especially involving large and small private corporations that feed at the public trough without being called to account for their poor performance.  Look at the contracts let by Congress to private companies, look at the contracts for the healthcare website and the ACA implementation, and then look beyond that to other departments of government. The private sector must not be allowed to get away with defrauding the United States Government.  It is part of the job of Congress to see that it doesn’t happen, and to fix it when it does!

Any other approach to the performance of this website and its relationship to the ACA will be nothing but a political side-show, and another waste of taxpayer money by a dysfunctional Congress that seems to be incapable of honing in on real problems!

What Would YOU Do?

During a grassroots Rally to protest government inaction on the government shut-down, I was asked by a TV reporter: what would you do about this issue if you were in Congress?  I responded that it was a very good question, but one that was difficult to answer.  Perhaps I should have said that it is a question that’s been made difficult to answer because of all the shenanigans surrounding this budget debacle.  In fact, the answer that I would have given if there was time, was far too complicated to approach in a brief interview.  So here is an attempt to redeem myself just a bit.

Let me start with a recent occurrence in the House of Representatives.  Available in the House was a piece of legislation (H.J. Res. 59) already approved by the Senate that supported a Continuing Resolution of the federal budget at current levels for a period of time so that a budget deal could be worked on, and the debt ceiling issue attended to.  After the shut-down had entered its second week, Rep. Chris Van Holland (D-Maryland and ranking member of the House Budget Committee) and others, decided to use Rule XXIII 4 to present the Senate-passed Res. 59 under that rule as a matter of privilege.  But the House Rules Committee had previously voted to change that rule for this one specific bill. They added language dictating that any motion "may be offered only by the majority Leader or his designee." They then obtained enough Republican member votes to put that new rule into effect. 

When Democrat Chris Van Holland tried to present H.J. Res. 59 for a vote. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah temporarily occupying the Speaker’s chair, denied his motion, based on the new rule in H Res. 368.  Van Holland was outraged and said aloud, “Democracy has been suspended.”  Congressional historians agreed that it was highly unusual for the House to reserve such power solely for the leadership.
 
For me this means the first thing to be done would be to limit the rule-making power of both houses, either through legislation or by means of constitutional amendment in order to prevent the shut-down of democratic procedures.  Things have gotten so out-of-hand that I would opt to introduce an amendment that would remove the 60-vote majority that has become necessary to pass major legislation in the Senate (because of the filibuster/cloture rules), and then limit both Houses from making any rule that applies solely to one piece of legislation.

Next, as long as I had started down that road, I would introduce other constitutional amendments.  Most important would be to overturn the Citizens United decision of the SCOTUS by denying corporations the ability to be seen as individuals, and forbidding any contributions by other than individuals.

Then I would introduce amendments (or legislation) to:
-- make public financing the accepted method for all elections with possible exception of allowing restricted individual contributions
-- prevent the states from promulgating legislation that restricts voting and allow for voting in many different ways (early voting; online voting; voting at federal or state offices) throughout the country along with setting a national election “weekend” that would keep polls open for two days
--set strict term limits for both Senate and House members, as well as judges;
--prescribe maximum expenditure limits for all elections
--disallow any 3rd party financing of a candidate or any advertisements for that candidate; --in that connection, submit legislation that would re-instate the equal free-air time for any candidate who has been demeaned personally or had his record distorted by the opposition; a non-partisan citizen commission would be necessary to decide who deserves such free time
--close the revolving door from office-holder to lobbyist after term is complete
--ban all donations and contributions intended to influence legislation and legislators
--ban earmarks
--place ordinary citizens into advisory roles in every branch of government
--permit only non-partisan commissions to re-draw congressional districts every ten years.

Next, I would have a plan for immediate legislation on major issues.  Since I wouldn’t necessarily have a number of terms during which to formulate and offer legislation, I would see to it that a plan was put into effect almost from the first day.  Here are some items I would want to address right away:

Social Security must not be allowed to be attacked by those who want to privatize or disrupt it, so I would propose legislation:

--that would make privatization illegal. 
--to raise the level of taxed income allowed for purposes of SS; include other than wages in that calculation, i.e. interest income and capital gains 
--that would increase benefits because the age of eligibility for full pension has been raised and is still rising.

In the same way, Medicare must be protected against those who would dismantle it.  I would sponsor or co-sponsor legislation that would:
--raise the amount of taxed income for Medicare purposes; no one should be exempted
-- call for annual evaluation of Medicare contracts; of savings from waste & abuse;  of quality care innovations

Medicaid must also be attended to and protected from those who want to devolve its administration to the states.  I would propose the following:
--prevent devolution from occurring
--restore provisions for long-term care
--propose a citizen advisory committee made up exclusively of Medicaid  recipients with powers of evaluation, audit, and making proposals for changes; but responsible to HHS director.
--generally, in relation to health care, propose a single payer system utilizing the best parts of Medicare and Medicaid with a time certain for its implementation; the system would take into account both the UK and Canadian systems

My next area of concern would be support for those issues that President Obama has recently identified:
    -a workable, fair and just budget
    -comprehensive immigration reform
    -a strong farm bill

The next area for concern would be that of programs aimed at helping those living below the Federal Poverty guidelines.  I would propose:
    -creation of jobs and repair and refurbishing of infrastructure
    -increases in food stamps, WIC, and support for child care & transportation
    -restoration of Head Start funding with increases based on evaluation of measurable program outcomes
    -restoration  and increases in scientific research into the causes of childhood and other illnesses as well as environmental causes for illness
    -gun violence control legislation which would expand background checks, eliminate automatic rifles, restrict ammunition clips to at most 10 rounds
    -legislation to address the flaws in the mental health system of this country, such as the inability to share or address violent tendencies in children and youth across disciplines and authorities
    -education reform, starting with the equalization of resources available to school districts which could be accomplished by ending the use of property taxes to fund schools, and substituting a small national education tax based on total income, not just wages.  Those who pay no income taxes would be required to pay this tax through their local  tax office, except that in-kind contributions to schools,  including community service on behalf of a school, could be used as payment (other reforms have been covered in previous Blogs, including the one for September 1, 2013)

Admittedly, this is not only an ambitious agenda, but one which many would call unrealistic.  It is only unrealistic if one holds to the viewpoint that there is nothing amiss with our representative democracy.  The main work of government right now, in the wake of the budget battles taking place in Washington, is not the winning of elections, but the reform of our dysfunctional governing processes.  We must start on the long-term road to reform and renewal, or we shall surely forfeit what has been the best democratic structure for governing that the world has ever seen.  We must repair that structure beginning right away!

Sounds interesting, but what does that mean?  Well, here are a few thoughts:

--I would start by forming an Advisory Council of local constituents who represented a broad cross-section of ordinary citizens to advise me on all matters of legislation and appropriations;  it would meet on a regular basis
--I would set a schedule of visits to local areas and constituencies of my district on a regular basis, to include people living in poverty, groups of concerned citizens, programs and services operating with federal money, and many other citizen groups or organizations such as Business, Labor and Veterans, in order to understand the frustrations, the accomplishments, the needs, and the desires of a broad spectrum of the people of the district.  These visits would not preclude privately held appointments, but would instead open up access to me  and my access to the people.
--I would try to have a system set-up that would meet constituent needs for assistance, but would not simply involve visits to the Congressional offices, but would occur during, and as a result of, my visits to constituencies as well.  My feeling is that congresspersons need to get closer to the people and not burden the people with always having to seek out the congressman.

--I would institute a practice regarding monetary contributions that would put donors on notice that their money does not equal automatic access.  I would have every large donor (under present circumstances they are necessary) sign a memorandum of understanding that would outline how I would use their contribution, and what they could expect from me for donating.  More precisely, I would outline for them the services that any constituent can expect, and make clear that they would not have any special access to me, or any control over what I do based on their contribution

--I would become a “revealer” and a protestor.  Every procedure or activity that I perceived as anti-constitutional, a distortion of facts, or favoritism for one class over another, or the taking of special privileges based on holding of office, I would challenge or reveal, through the usual media channels and by way of social media as well.  Is this counter-productive, given that others‘ support is needed to pass legislation?  Perhaps.  But how else are the people going to know what is actually going on behind the scenes?  Without truth-tellers, we shall find ourselves being ruled by an elite that cares little for our concerns or our issues, and caters only to a small group of people who are like-minded and basically like them in almost every aspect

--I don’t believe in “compromise” as the quintessential strategy for governing or for writing laws.  Compromise is defined as: “a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an adjustment of conflicting claims or principles by yielding a part of each; arbitration.”  I’d like to start at a different point, and that is from the perspective of problem-solving, in which compromise may play a part, but so does fact-finding and brain-storming and testing solutions and “consensus”.  The latter implies a more active and positive concept of seeking agreement rather than passively assenting to a watered-down version for all involved.  In some cases, it implies the giving up of some strongly held positions in order to join in supporting the consensus of the group. 

--I would not, under any circumstances, put winning of an election above the importance of principles or of meeting the needs of people.  Being of a certain older age, allows one to not care as much about being elected but to care more deeply about being a public servant in a real and demonstrable way.

--I would make sure that legislation was in place to prevent any exemption of congressional members and staff from provisions of laws passed by the Congress.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

--If I were in Congress, I would operate on a problem-solving model that actually has steps that can be followed to a workable conclusion.  And, I would push hard for training in that technique to be a must for all staff  and members, so that the Congress could get about the business of problem-solving and not just of “posturing” in order to win elections.

So, you ask, what is this but just the same old liberal clap-trap?  Well, the first difference is, I would not implement any legislation until I had looked carefully at the problems that exist out there in the real world and try to put them into words that actually describe a real situation.  In other words, I would not simply legislate based on an ideology or personal agenda.  I would use every resource at my disposal to actually study the problems in these areas of concern and try to define them with some specificity based on facts, figures, interviews, and surveys.  So the first difference is the approach to legislation as a solution to a real and well-defined problem.

The second difference would be the way in which possible solutions to the well-defined problem would be collected.  I would seek the input of colleagues and staffers and educators and researchers.  But I would mostly rely on the thoughts and opinions of those most affected by whatever the problems are.  That’s a major difference.  Instead of proposing legislation that never has input from the people most affected by it, I would invert this and get the most information from those who would be most affected!  I’m tired of the tendency of too many legislators to base their legislation on what special interests or rich people or what constituents say on paltry and insignificant “questionnaires” sent out by congress persons in order actually to raise money and to seek pre-arranged agreement with their views.  These questions, and the resulting answers, do not provide enough real information upon which to base a problem statement or a solution to a truly well-defined problem.

Another difference would be in the testing and evaluation of possible solutions.  What used to happen much more than it does today is that legislators often found ways to test out or pilot certain ideas or solutions before a full-blown solution was legislated.  Not a bad idea.  I would return to that concept and try to test out possible solutions before they became law. 

And finally, I don’t see the making of a law or laws as the end of the process of legislating.  I believe in evaluation based on established criteria and expected outcomes from the proposed solutions.  Once a law goes into effect, the Congress usually steps back and lets the Executive branch take over.  If the law doesn’t do what they intended , then they hold hearings and blame the bureaucracy for messing up.  This is time spent wastefully by the Congress.

Instead, problem-solving legislation should have built into it the criteria for evaluation, with reporting scheduled in certain increments, and the expected outcomes or results of a program or service outlined as a matter of course in all such legislation.  The Executive branch should be responsible for reporting their findings back to the Congress so that Congress can then build a better piece of legislation and thus better programs.  And, it wouldn’t hurt for the legislative and executive branches to work together in this endeavor.  My inclination would be to support legislation that called for ordinary citizens to be involved in the evaluation and adjustment stages so that the result would include the concerns of those affected by the legislation and by its unexpected outcomes.

We certainly have a long way to go to arrive at such a point, but that is why a legislative plan and a problem-solving technique are needed.  One can’t waste time and energy playing political games.  All one’s energy must be devoted to rational and reasonable efforts to define problems, to gathering precise information, to testing and implementing solutions that will then be evaluated according to certain criteria.  Sound like some method to my madness?  Yes, there is, and what’s really appalling, is that such a modus operandi is missing from our dysfunctional Congress wrapped up in crippling fights of ideology and politicking.  We need a more rational approach to one of the most important processes in our representative democracy: that of legislating what is tried and tested and found to be most helpful for the greatest number, or most vulnerable segments, of our citizenry. 

Finally, I would have to say that I would set a term limit for myself.  Two terms would bring me to the age of 80.  That’s long enough.  But it would also lend a freer hand to all that one might try to do.  The plans outlined above would be very difficult for someone who is younger and ambitious and looking to make a career of public service (or of what public service could lead to, perhaps).  I think it is a mistake to think of the holding of congressional or senatorial seats as a career.  That is why we need term limits.  Career politicians are the bane of our existence as a representative democracy, for public service can too easily turn to feeding at the public trough, or making a name for oneself, or becoming so self-important that one starts running for the Presidency on a full-time basis even though the citizenry has not given its approval or its consent. 

It comes down to that old adage that we need citizen politicians not career politicians representing us.  Anything else is inconsistent with the nature of the office, which is to represent a constituency for a time and then to return to take one’s place as an experienced representative who can teach and mentor and advise and enable others to be better citizens and better representatives of the people.  The vision of what a representative ought to be has been eroded by systemic flaws that persist to the ultimate degree in our day.  We must go down a different road. 

Thanks to that reporter’s “difficult” question, I’m trying to think this through, and I hope you will as well. 

Dominion or Domination?

Last week, I spoke about Senator Ted Cruz’s father who is a “Christian Dominionist.”  I also indicated that Ted Cruz is tainted by that particular theology and that he has been “preaching” it in connection with his very right-wing views of a large central government shut-down and destruction, as being integral to that particular end-time philosophy.  However, the fleeting references of last week did not satisfy in terms of understanding the depth, or potential strength, of this movement. 

Mentioned at the same time, was the fact that other members of the Tea Party Caucus also hold similar views.  And, guess what?  Up-popped this particular reference, originally posted to Hunter on Tue Oct 08, 2013 and also republished by Street Prophets and Daily Kos.  It is quoted from the latter source:
 
“Leave it to Michele Bachmann…to take this new theory to its only logical conclusion: the End Times are upon us.
‘…as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists," she said. "Now what this says to me… as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that… we are to understand where we are in God’s End Times history.”
"Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand," Bachmann added.

“Rep. Michele Bachmann is… one of the people currently celebrating the shutdown of the American government as being a fine thing…whether we need to bother with government at all or need to abandon it all and dedicate ourselves instead to writing WELCOME BACK JESUS in gigantic, burning oil-fueled letters written across the middle of the North American continent.”

To review this terminology for a moment, Wikipedia reminds us that the term "Dominion Theology" is derived from the King James Bible's rendering of Genesis 1:28, the passage in which God grants humanity "dominion" over the Earth.
‘And God blessed [Adam and Eve], and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

“Christians typically interpret this passage as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over the Earth, but the distinctive aspect of Dominion Theology is that it is interpreted as a mandate… in civil affairs, no less than in other human matters.  Thus, “Dominion Theology or Dominionism is the idea that Christians should work toward either a nation governed by Christians or one governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.” 

Some elements within the mainstream Christian right have been influenced by Dominion Theology authors. Indeed, some writers have applied the term "Dominionism" more broadly to the mainstream Christian right, implicitly arguing that that movement is founded upon a theology that requires Christians to govern over non-Christians.

In the early 1990s sociologist Sara Diamond and journalist Frederick Clarkson defined Dominionism as a movement that is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.  In his 1992 study of Dominion Theology and its influence on the Christian Right, Bruce Barron writes,

“In the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus.”

According to Diamond, the defining concept of Dominionism is "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns". In 1989, Diamond declared that this concept "has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right" in the United States.  Journalist Chip Berlet added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists assert a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society."

In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:

1.  Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2.  Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3.  Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles

There is some attempt to discredit the use of the term Dominionism as an accurate description of conservative thinking.  In fact, some right-leaning authors would say that it is used inaccurately and as a false criticism of the Right, especially when the concept of conspiracy is emphasized unduly. 

Fair enough.  But one can also say that the use of terms that define Dominionism in political speeches only serves to heighten the thought that this is part of the ethos of the radical Right!  Cruz and Bachmann have been guilty of using political speeches to put forth a religious view involving end-time theology and have even referred to the end-time as something on its way. 

So, in my estimation, it comes down to this:  Dominion theology does influence the thinking of some of our Tea Party adherents and other right-wing conservatives, enough so that it is used to define what must happen with government.  That is why I am predicting today that, just as the radical Tea Party Republicans have taken a major part in allowing Sequestration to happen and government shut-down to occur, they will attempt to influence the House to allow default on the debt to occur by blocking action on expanding the debt ceiling!

Dominionists like Ted Cruz and Michele Bachmann are playing a far different game than the usual representatives to Congress.  They are focused on a biblical interpretation that most of us would not accept: that governments and power structures in this world must be transformed into Christian entities in preparation for the end of time and the Second Coming of Jesus the Christ.  Dominionism, says one Blog writer, Mike Nash, “simply means that Christians have the responsibility to take over every aspect of society and to govern solely in accordance with Biblical law. These Christians believe that until we have a theocracy, Jesus will be delayed in His return.  In short, Jesus will come only after Christians succeed in establishing Christian rule over the earth.”

Consequently, Dominionists cannot be dissuaded from their views by mere politics or mere politicians.  They view their mission as sacred, not mundane.  They are committed to  either a shut-down of secular governments world-wide, or to the take-over of national government by God’s “bankers” and “kings” -- white, fundamentalist, evangelical Christians!  After all, of what consequence is shutting down the national government or defaulting on the national debt when Jesus himself will be on His way down to officially deliver their ideological enemies His final eschatological judgment?

That kind of talk is simply gibberish to most commentators and media mavens.  Take Chris Matthews on MSNBC, for instance.  He freely admits he just doesn’t get it as far as these right-wing radicals are concerned.  He doesn’t understand how they can keep the government shut-down in the face of opposition and derision from their own Party members.  He doesn’t understand how they can even consider defaulting on the U.S. debt when it would throw the world markets and governments into something resembling chaos.  He doesn’t understand what motivates them.  And he is not alone. 

Are there others in the Tea Party who share this Dominionist philosophy?  In a book review of  “Christian Nation” by Fredric C. Rich, Richard Loebe, who calls himself a “foxhole atheist”, comments not only on the book, but on certain people he identifies within our government who are allied with, or part of, this Dominionist movement.  Ted Cruz, of course, is on the list; so is Michele Bachman.  But most surprising of all is that prominent Libertarian, Rand Paul! 

Although Rand Paul keeps a very low profile about this part of his philosophy, according to Loebe,
    “Unlike his father, who wanted to push away the authority of the government from your private lives, Rand wants to ensure that Biblical Law becomes the law of the land.”  Further, Loebe claims “He is allied with Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, and David Lane. He regularly confers with big donors from these far right religious organizations. He has even called for a “holy war” on the LGBT community.  Paul was a speaker this last July at the very secret religious summit in Iowa (along with Cruz) that was hosted by David Lane and the far-right wing Christian Fascists.” 

Loebe foresees these Dominionists breaking off from the Republican Party and attempting to create their own “pure” party.  “If they follow the doctrine and theology of (the founder of Dominionism) then they may start calling themselves Christian Libertarians – just a fancy made-up phrase that sounds politicky but really means they want to politically stamp out everything they see as immoral in the eyes of Christianity.”

I recognize that this is far-out stuff, but it is not to be taken lightly.  The Christian Nationalists or Dominionists have been at this movement for awhile, and they are gaining a foothold in government that is disturbing.  I will simply conclude today’s Blog by listing some disturbing quotes and thoughts from, and about, this movement.  Is the Tea Party not a threat to our government?  Are these radical Christian Dominionists just a fringe element?  Or, are they already a threat-in-the-making?  Are they already having an influence far beyond their numbers?  Are they actually getting closer to their take-over vision? 

You decide; but first, you might want to read Frederic Rich’s Christian Nation: A Novel, about which one reviewer says: “a story that reminds us that America’s Christian fundamentalists have been consistently clear about their vision for a ‘Christian Nation’ and dead serious about acquiring the political power to achieve it. This novel takes us down the terrifyingly credible path toward theocracy, in which people realize too late that the Christian right meant precisely what it said.”  Here’s some of what they are doing and saying; or what is said about them:

“If as a nation we want to restore our freedom, and we are on the verge of being enslaved under Obama’s socialist Muslim inclinations, we must take our fight to a new level.  Let us…march into Washington, D.C., this November 19th, and rid the nation of the criminal who lurks in our White House. Let us send a message to the other corrupt government officials of all political persuasions, that this is our nation, not theirs. Let’s “Occupy Washington” and restore freedom to our shores!”  Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch (who has called for a coup to overthrow our elected government, and replace it with a new dictatorship)

“In 2010, the Texas State Board of Education’s conservative members took another major step toward indoctrinating American’s children toward a more “Biblical” worldview... they “corrected” the history text books.  Texas produces most of the country’s school text books…these changes will be taught as fact to millions of children across America!
Examples of the changes:

The board has diminished Thomas Jefferson’s role in history because of his belief in the separation of church and state.
Students also are required to learn that America’s founding documents were influenced by various intellectual traditions, “especially biblical law,” and principles laid down by Moses. The social conservatives, creationists and religious fanatics who dominate the Texas State Board of Education want to redefine the Constitution as an explicitly Christian document and highlight the role of God in the establishment of the US.
The amendments also cast the United Nations in a critical light, with students asked to evaluate whether the UN and its committees undermine US sovereignty – a familiar tune for conservatives.
Students would be required to learn about the “unintended consequences” of Title IX, affirmative action, and the Great Society, and would need to study conservative icons like Phyllis Schlafly, the Heritage Foundation, and the Moral Majority.
Toyed with the idea of leaving out the election of the first African-American President
The history books will no longer include the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state.” (‘Stuff That Matters’)

“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.  World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.”
(George Grant, Executive Director of D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries)

“When the Christian majority finally takes over this county, there will be no non-Christian churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil, and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil. (emphasis added)”  (Gary Potter of Catholics for Christian Political Action)

“We are a Christian nation. I think we should keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant. They’re quite clear that we should create law based on the God of the Bible and the 10 commandments, it’s pretty simple.”  (Sarah Palin)

“We are engaged in a social, political, and cultural war. There’s a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But the bottom line is somebody’s values will prevail. And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe. (Gary Bauer, Family Research Council)

“The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant–baptism and holy communion–must be denied citizenship.“  (Beverly LaHaye, Concerned Women of America)

“I’m not trying to be alarmist…but please don’t think it’s out of the question that the “Christian Taliban” could one day be at the helm here. Did you know that fourteen years before the first shot was fired in World War ll, Hitler announced his plan to destroy the parliamentary system in Germany, to attack France and Poland, and to eliminate the Jews? Why did ordinary Germans voting in 1932 not believe him?  He went ahead and did exactly what he said he was going to do.”  (‘Stuff That Matters’ Mike Nash)

“Can you think of other examples throughout world history in which fundamentalist, right-wing, religious extremists have gained power and plunged their country into a dark ages-like society of ignorance, oppression and fear? I’m sure you can – I can think of probably eight examples right now, without even using Google. So why couldn’t this happen here? All it takes are four ingredients, all of which are present right now in America.
1. A large group of religiously inspired fundamentalist leaders who are committed to seeing their religious texts made to be the law of the land.
2. A large group of religiously inspired citizens willing to follow and support said powerful people.
3. A perceived enemy.
4. A persecution complex.” (‘Stuff That Matters’ Mike Nash)

It’s Worse Than We Thought

The shutting down of the national government is not something that inspires confidence, especially when so many have dubbed it as “Foolish.“ But it is worse than that!  Shutting down the federal government is not just a ploy, a protest or a bargaining chip.  The Tea Party radical Republicans have, in essence, hi-jacked our national government, and advanced their stated goal to weaken, diminish and sabotage it. 

Yet, in Article VI of the Constitution, it is a requirement that all office-holders in these United States “shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution…”   Moreover, nowhere in the Constitution is there any provision for shutting down the central government; it is not a recognized function of the Congress, the Executive or the Judiciary. The act of shutdown is in itself a repudiation of the lawful orderliness of constitutional governance, and should be challenged in Court.

Notwithstanding, the primary question becomes:   Is this faction of radical rightists actually planning to take over the government and use central government powers to diminish and weaken those same powers?  The following thoughts occur to me and may serve to provide at least a partial answer.

1.  This is not “politics as usual.”  Anyone who thinks it is, has missed a very important change in attitude and actions.  These radical Conservatives are not in office to find a meeting of the minds, or to negotiate, or to compromise.  Those commentators and ordinary citizens who want this to happen, and who are always bemoaning the fact that these politicians are acting like children because they want their own way, are essentially missing the main point.  For instance, on the Rachel Maddow Blog for Oct. 3rd  Steve Benen said this, referring to a quote from a right-wing Tea Party Congressman:  “Republicans are being driven by a mindless radicalism. There's no meaningful policy goal in mind; there's no substantive motivation; there isn't even a strategic end goal. There's just a primal instinct and a right-wing id causing a national crisis.”

Do not forget that many of these radical Tea Party members are from gerrymandered districts where their constituency not only agrees with them, but applauds their actions!  They are there in office not to legislate by compromise but to seize power by any subterfuge and mechanism that serves their main mission: to diminish the role of the federal government and to devolve much of its power and most of its programs to the states and the private sector.  For them, there is no compromise on this point.

2.  This is not simply a matter of destroying the Affordable Care Act.  That was their entry-point into an active weakening of the national government, by attacking the signature piece of legislation promulgated by the Obama administration. Had they been able to repeal that Act, or any significant part of it, they would have made significant inroads into using a precedent of repeal to go after every progressive and liberal piece of legislation that exists, thereby again weakening the power of the federal government and getting rid of any vestige of its ability to promote, in their view,  programs and practices that support irresponsibility, a sense of entitlement, and illegitimate redistribution of wealth (“socialism“).  Why else have they been actively stalking Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, trying to make it seem as though those programs are failing, not thriving?  Why do you think the radicals rejoiced when the Supreme Court declared a part of the Civil Rights Act as being out of touch with modern day?  They knew they had begun to destroy another piece of legislation that had marked a grand success for the federal government. 

3.  This is not simply a matter of reducing the deficit or the national debt.  Never has been.  The reduction of the federal budget, its programs and departments, is of paramount interest only because it would lead down the road to a slimmer government, a weaker government, and a diminished Executive.  All of these are necessary if their mission is to be accomplished.  So don’t listen to those commentators who think that budget reduction is what’s important to these radical right-wingers. They miss the point.  All of the budget deals and ploys and bargains are aimed at one thing: to weaken and diminish the ability of the federal government to adequately fund central government programs.  The budget battle is secondary to the sabotage of the central government’s ability to function.

4. This is not about a “foolish” move to shut down the federal government.  This is about the right-wing strategy to bring the citizenry around to the attitude that maybe we can get along with a smaller, weaker, slimmer central government.  Those commentators (and there were a lot of them) who argued that the Tea Party politicians would not shut down the government (or earlier, would not allow sequestration to occur) again missed the whole point.  These two things are the biggest gifts that unsuspecting Democrats have given to the radical Republicans.  The Right-wingers could not be happier.  Every day they are pointing out that it’s not that bad.  Everyday they laugh at Progressive commentators who bring on one or two people affected by the shut-down or by sequestration.  In stark contrast, the Tea Party politicians and their colleagues continue to point out that they are passing (piece-meal) legislation to keep funding going for certain essential services (military, air traffic controllers, social security checks, etc.).

Why are they doing this little dance?  Because they know all it takes for them to achieve what they want is for a substantial plurality of the people to accept an austerity that is “not so bad,” but that does fund essential services. Once that is achieved, they will be half-way to their goal of closing off many federal programs and departments and offices with nary a whimper from the public.  Yes, in essence, I am saying that the radical Republicans want sequestration and government shut-down.  To them, they are heaven-sent gifts that propel them toward their primary goal: reducing or defunding most of the programs and services provided by the federal government, except those that THEY define as essential.

5.  It is not about certain state governors and legislatures simply being against Obamacare because they refused to set up  market exchanges in their states, or to expand Medicaid.  By now, you should understand that this is another goose-step toward their primary goal.  These right-wing states are not simply refusing to accept a program of the federal government.  No, they are denying the authority of the federal government to dictate to their states and to set mandates in which they had no part.  This is one more mechanism by which to set up the states as sovereign in many areas and to give them the power to set their own mandates, programs or services for themselves in their own way.  They are essentially killing two birds with one stone:  the supremacy and primacy of federal law, and the restrictions the federal government puts on states through federal grants, program regulations and special services.  They are preparing the ground for devolvement of Medicaid to the states; for opening of pipelines through their states; for scaled-down programs like public education.  They want a confederacy, not a republic, and they are laying the groundwork now. 

So why have a federal government at all?  Well, even the right-wingers accept the fact that certain essential services must be carried out by a Central Government:  the military and defense of our country first of all.  After all, where would all those private contractors and corporations be if we had no wars for them to exploit?  And we will probably still need some emergency services to help out wide areas hit by storms, fires, floods, etc. (and there is profit to be made in disaster zones, as well).  And we do have to take care of our veterans (even radical Republicans know that) but maybe some of that can be done by the states or private groups. And, we have to fund Homeland Security to protect our shores.  Oh gosh, I almost forgot: we need a federal government to protect and promulgate those values that we want everyone to embrace: no free contraception; no abortions, religion in all public functions and institutions; no affirmative action; no gay marriage.

6.  This is about privatization.  Why do the Tea Party radicals keep insisting on private accounts for social security, private vendors in military bases and outposts and where wars are taking place?  Why are we seeing more and more private contractors running prisons and charter schools?  It’s one more leg on this many-legged stool.  Privatization also kills several birds with the proverbial stone: it reduces the responsibility and budgets of state governments.  It provides projects for corporate friends and benefactors.  It begins to replace government services with privately run services.  It slims government more quickly.  And yes, it gives wall street bankers the opportunity of a lifetime: to get their hands on all the Trust funds in the federal government! 

So, in my view, this whole mess that is going on in Washington is not what we’ve been led to think it is.  It is not a bunch of politicians acting like children.  They are more accurately acting like a revolutionary cabal.  They are not concerned with how anything they do on the surface looks to the general public; they have bigger goals they are working on; bigger fish to fry.  They are a revolutionary cabal looking to over-turn a central government that has served this country well since George Washington’s first presidency.  One usually thinks of Conservatives as people who don’t want change;  who are more comfortable with the status quo as long as it serves them and their cronies.

Well, these radicals are less about the status quo than they are about the New Order. Watch Senator Ted Cruz.  You think he failed in what he did?  That is true only if you regard him as a typical conservative, but he is not.  He is the epitome of the New Order.  He did not blink when his filibuster had no effect on his colleagues; he even joined the unanimous motion to end debate  He does not blanch when colleagues, even Republicans, beat up on him for his foolishness in leading the fight against Obamacare.  Again, the point is missed.

Ted Cruz knows the end game of the radicals.  That is his quest as well.  Remember, Obamacare opposition is just the tip of the iceberg; what‘s underneath the waves is where Ted Cruz means to play out his mission.  He will be the Leader of the Reich (oops, I mean the Right!).  He will be the leader of the forces that bring all these ploys and strategies together.  He will not compromise; he will not change; he will not negotiate; he will lead his troops in a government that is slimmed down, powerful enough to lift all kinds of sanctions, regulations, restrictions on big business and wall street, while at the same time, powerful enough and authoritarian enough to bully the middle class into compliance with radical Right values and a new form of government run mainly by privateers.

Wikipedia reminds us about the definition of a Cabal.  “A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together, usually to promote their private views or interests in a church, state, or other community, often by intrigue. Cabals are sometimes secret societies composed of a few designing persons, and at other times are manifestations of emergent behavior in society or governance on the part of a community of persons who have well established public affiliation or kinship. The term  also holds a general meaning of intrigue and conspiracy. The use of this term usually carries strong connotations of shadowy corners, back rooms and insidious influence.” 

And here’s another opinion about what’s really happening from a group calling itself “Resist the Privatization of America.”

“…we are exploring and exposing how the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been engaging in a economic coup d’état against America and beyond, using the radical right wing ideology that they embody and promote. This coup, 40-some years in the making, and assisted by unlimited funding, access to more than 20 think tanks, and the assistance of other groups oft referred to as ‘The Other ALEC’s’ – which we refer to as the ALEC/Koch/TeaParty Cabal – is crippling our country. This is the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ and the largest source of money and corruption in our political system.
Key in their arsenal of weapons to establish this corporatocracy is privatization.

“The radical right tells us that privatization unleashes market forces to provide what have been government services – better and for less money. While the Cabal touts individual liberty, its real agenda is freedom for corporations to behave without reasonable and necessary government oversight. This has opened the door for ALEC and conservative ideologues like Charles and David Koch to become parasites in the running of our government. They have sold much of the population on a mistaken faith in the efficiency of the free market as compared to government, which has been paralyzed into ineffectiveness. In reality, privatization removes the checks on private and government power, eliminating accountability, transparency, and responsiveness, and profiting the 1% at the expense of the 99%.  By merging the State with Corporate power, privatization enables corporations to circumvent constitutional accountability, while the vast majority of us actually lose freedom and choice under these policies.”

Well now, this is beginning to sound a lot like a conspiracy theory about a New World Order, the kind of thing that has been advanced by right wing extremists (and others on the Left, as well) of many stripes for many years.  I want to say outright that I do not hold any fanciful ideas about the “New Order” that I mentioned briefly above.  But, I do want to caution my readers that ignoring the existence or power of elements of such a right-wing extremist cabal is just the kind of denial that got Germany and Italy into deep trouble in the 1930s and 40s.  An article yesterday in the New York Times evokes a similar cautionary tone --  “A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning”
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Mike McIntire.

In an article on HuffingtonPost.com, for Oct. 3, 2013, Morton Guyton analyzes the Dominion Theology to which Ted Cruz (and of a portion of the Tea Party as well) has been exposed.  Here are some excerpts from the article:

“On the eve of our government shutdown, I wanted to do some research into the theological roots of Senator Ted Cruz, the standard-bearer of the Tea Party Republicans behind the shutdown. I'm interested in understanding what account of Christianity creates the "no compromise" crusade that the Tea Party has become known for. It turns out that Ted's father, Rafael Cruz, is a pastor with Texas charismatic ministry Purifying Fire International who has been campaigning against Obamacare the last several months. He has a distinct theological vision for what America is supposed to look like: Christian dominionism.  In the months building up to the present showdown,  Senator Cruz has been giving speeches at Tea Party rallies and other religious right gatherings as part of a campaign to defund Obamacare.

“A more disturbing element of Cruz's speeches were his repeated calls for a "black robe regiment," a concept promoted by Christian revisionist historian David Barton who claims that clergy were the main backbone of the American Revolutionary War. Here's what Cruz had to say to the August 29th gathering of Heritage Action, the main lobbyist group behind shutting down the federal government:
‘It was pastors who were the backbone of the Revolution. Did you know where Paul Revere was going when he was saying the British are coming? He was going to the home of a pastor by the name of Jonas Clark... [who] was one of many that were called the black robe regiment. These were pastors that wore long black robes. Many of them had the continental army uniform under the black robe. They would preach in church on Sunday and then go out and fight with half their congregation for our independence. I want to encourage our pastors today not to hide behind their pulpits but take the spirit of the black robe regiment‘.”

“The theological ethos of Rafael Cruz's vision is in Christian dominionism; he talks about preaching a "message of dominion" that all Christians have received an "anointing as kings." I watched a sermon he preached on August 26, 2012 at the New Beginnings mega-church in Irving, Texas, led by Christian Zionist charismatic pastor Larry Huch. Huch incidentally had a very interesting prophecy to share when he introduced Cruz to preach:
‘We've been doing this series here that God laid on my heart: Getting to the top and staying there. A message for us as individuals, the kingdom of God, but also for America. It's not enough to get there. We need to stay there. I know that's why God got Rafael's son elected, Ted Cruz the next senator.
(And) here's the exciting thing...  in a few weeks… will begin what we call the end-time transfer of wealth. It's said this way: that God is looking at the church and everyone in it and deciding in the next three and a half years who will be his bankers. And the ones that say here I am Lord, you can trust me, we will become so blessed that we will usher in the coming of the messiah.”

Cruz shares that two types of people were anointed in the Old Testament, kings and priests:
“Priests were anointed primarily to minister the glory of God. They were anointed to pray for the people, to offer sacrifices, to care for the temple, to be God's representatives before the people... Kings were anointed to take dominion. Kings were anointed to go to war, win the war, and bring the spoils of war to priests so the work of the kingdom of God could be accomplished. The king needed the blessing of the priest in order to be successful in battle... The priest also needed for the king to be successful in battle because the priest needed the spoils of war in order to repair the temple, in order to carry out the ministry that God had entrusted him.”

“So to pull all this logic together, God anoints priests to work in the church directly and kings to go out into the marketplace to conquer, plunder, and bring back the spoils to the church. The reason governmental regulation has to disappear from the marketplace is to make it completely available to the plunder of Christian "kings" who will accomplish the "end time transfer of wealth." Then "God's bankers" will usher in the "coming of the messiah." The government is being shut down so that God's bankers can bring Jesus back.
And here's the thing. When you get a lot of people together in a mega-church, you can do some pretty impressive things with your mission projects. You can feed thousands of people and host… job training programs and medical clinics. And I imagine that seeing your accomplishments could give you the hubris of thinking we don't need a government at all to make our society run; our church can be the new government‘.”(emphasis added)

Is this Ted Cruz’s motivation for what he is doing?  Does he see himself as a warrior king intent on replacing our government with a church-type hierarchy?  Is this the new Christian Taliban?  I don’t know what Ted Cruz is thinking, but I do know that it is not a good idea to ignore warning signs of government over-throw when they begin to appear.  The radicals of the Tea Party persuasion are not foolish children.  They are seeking something beyond our typical political categories and understandings and norms.  To try to interpret their actions and philosophy in the old political terms leads to a miscalculation of what they are after. 

One more time: They are after the replacement of our national government with one of their own imagining.  All of their actions are meant to lead to that end. 

The following dictionary definitions should make us wary:  “any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against… the government or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will, or disaffection,” or “any attempt to overthrow the government…or well-being of a state to which one owes an allegiance.” Those definitions are applicable to words like sedition, disloyalty, and even treason.

I submit to you that these radical right-wingers are serious about obstruction, insurrection and even revolution, to the extent that other appropriate words come readily to my mind-- we must “recall,” “impeach” or “defeat” these potentially pernicious perpetrators of perfidy!