CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS –the only way to real reform!

It’s time to get serious about amending the Constitution of the United States.  Even the Tea baggers’ “Contract From America” agrees with that to some extent!  And - surprise, surprise - I agree with them, to some extent!  Unfortunately, we probably don’t agree on the wording or intent of the needed amendments.

One of the myths we must get beyond is the idea that the Constitution is sacrosanct.  It’s not and never has been.  Yes, the writers - the founding fathers - did a great job in turning out an instrument that contained unique and even revolutionary concepts.  We should always honor that.  However, we have to admit when the Constitution is inadequate, and it is becoming clear that it is inadequate to speak to some of the issues that have come to the forefront in the 20th and 21st centuries, such as campaign finance, earmarks, balanced budget, use of federal funds, term limits, etc.  All of these, and others, are inadequately addressed in the Constitution as presently constructed.  Instead of hoping for the best, or believing that Congress will legislate campaign reforms that actually threaten their livelihoods, we must take the plunge and begin to propose actual constitutional amendments to deal with these unresolved issues.  A movement (organization) called Common Cause was formed to deal specifically with the  issue of campaign finance.  After 40 years, they have brought little change that can said to be revolutionary, although they have influenced some reforms.  It is not something that can be addressed adequately by piecemeal legislation but must be written into the fabric of our democratic system by an amendment to our Constitution.

Of course, the language I have proposed for each amendment is my own.  It has not been “vetted” by any lawyer, nor has anyone else contributed their ideas.  With that in mind, I concede that some wording may be poorly done for an amendment to our Constitution.  Some wording may also lead to “loopholes” that I did not foresee but which might be taken advantage of by some who are always seeking for a way around the law so they can profit in some manner.  But, in all cases, I have at least made clear my intent through the comments attached to each proposed amendment.

All of my proposed amendments are in CAPITAL letters, and all of my comments are in Italics.  So, let’s get started, and let the chips fall where they may.

Article I, Section 2
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every THIRD 
second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each 
State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. TERM OF OFFICE FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES  SHALL BE LIMITED TO FOUR FULL TERMS OR A CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF TWELVE YEARS.

Comment: three years gives representatives space to work on legislating rather than always raising money and campaigning.  A limit of 4 such terms seems reasonable for the representatives in the “people’s” House.  Let more ordinary citizens have a chance at service; we don’t need “professional” representatives who have had little experience in other fields.

Article I, Section 3
    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.  NO PERSON SHALL BE ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF SENATOR FOR MORE THAN THREE FULL TERMS OR A CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF18 YEARS.

Comment: Senators should continue to have longer terms than representatives, because they do generally reflect a more deliberative body, and a more experienced background in the legislative and political process.  Nonetheless, they should not be able to mount a career in politics at the expense, often, of the people.  Eighteen years in the Senate is a reasonable limit and should prevent the kind of stagnation that has often occurred with “Senators for Life”.

AMENDMENT XXVIII:
ALL CAMPAIGNS FOR FEDERAL ELECTIVE OFFICE SHALL BE ENTIRELY FUNDED BY FUNDS DRAWN FROM THE TREASURY IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY LAW, AND BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT MAY NOT BE FUNDED BY ANY CORPORATE OR ORGANIZED ENTITY.  CONGRESS SHALL SET PRUDENT AND REASONABLE LIMITATIONS FOR SUCH GOVERNMENTAL AND INDIVIDUAL     CONTRIBUTIONS, AND SHALL PRESCRIBE MAXIMUM LIMITS FOR EXPENDITURES ALLOWED FOR EACH CONTESTED OFFICE.  ALL STATE GOVERNMENTS SHALL MAKE SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR    GOVERNMENTAL AND INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN     SUPPORT FOR ALL STATE AND LOCAL ELECTIONS, EXCLUDING CORPORATE OR ORGANIZED CONTRIBUTIONS IN ANY FORM, AND SETTING MAXIMUM LIMITS FOR     EXPENDITURES FOR EACH CONTEST.

Comment: we must limit the control exercised by corporations and unions over our elections; we must also undo the outrageous decision by the Supreme Court to introduce the concept of protected “political speech” rights for corporations and organized groups who already unduly influence our elections.  It is past time to enforce limited government funding and individual citizen contributions in our electoral process.  We must also get rid of the concept of PACs which was simply a way to get around public financing.  Citizenship must be meaningful, and the electoral process is one way in which citizenship is enhanced.  We cannot continue to let organized special-interest entities rob us of our right to fair and just elections.

Article I, Section 5
NEITHER HOUSE SHALL MAKE ANY RULE OR PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR OTHER THAN A MAJORITY VOTE ON LAWS, RULES OF ORDER, PROCEEDINGS, OR PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, EXCEPT AS ALLOWED BY THIS CONSTITUTION.

Comment: the cloture rule, and the Senate provision for filibustering, are abominations; they tie up the legislative process, too often exploit it for political gain,  for personal aggrandizement, or for the killing of legislation that should instead be thoroughly debated and voted up or down by majority vote. It is time to over-throw these ill-conceived rules that give tyrannical rights to a minority.

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO PROVISION IN ANY BILL THAT APPROPRIATES FUNDS TO AN INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZED ENTITY, CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OR STATE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF 2/3s OF EACH HOUSE.

Comment: earmarks, and other budgetary maneuverings that seek tax-payer dollars for limited and many non-essential projects in one district or state, are not appropriate without strong support in both houses; support that is equal to the vote needed to over-ride a presidential veto.  We have managed to overlook this perverted pork-barrel process for too long, even though it has brought us to a situation where our dollars are being spent frivolously and with little regard to budgetary debt or deficit.  It has to stop.   

Article I, Section 6
NO SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE SHALL, FOR THE DURATION OF FIVE YEARS AFTER LEAVING ELECTIVE OFFICE, BE ALLOWED TO ACCEPT A PAID POSITION WITH, OR BE ALLOWED TO ADVOCATE PARTICULAR LEGISLATION FOR, ANY ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION, UNION, OR OTHER ENTITY WITH WHICH THE OFFICE-HOLDER HAD A PRIOR LEGISLATIVE RELATIONSHIP OR MUTUAL AREA OF INTEREST.  THIS RESTRICTION SHALL EXTEND IN FULL TO ALL APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THIS GOVERNMENT.  

Comment: the “revolving door” that professional politicians use to line their pockets after their political careers are over, needs to be controlled. Representatives,or Executive appointees, who take jobs or positions with employers who were previously beholden to them for “helpful” legislation or attention should have to find other means of support for a period of time like any citizen who changes jobs. Special Privileges or Rewards for legislators and bureaucrats after they are rejected by voters, or leave of their own accord, is not appropriate for our representative democracy. 

NO SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE SHALL ACCEPT OR RECEIVE COMPENSATION,     SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, EMOLUMENT, GIFT OR ANY FORM OF CONTRIBUTION FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZATION OR SPECIAL INTEREST ENTITY THAT COULD DIRECTLY BENEFIT FROM THE OUTCOME OF PARTICULAR LEGISLATION, OF AN OVERSIGHT FUNCTION, OR OF A COMMITTEE PROCESS.

Comment: it is time to outlaw all contributions to legislators from corporate entities that seek to influence legislation.  No matter how used, it is “dirty” money meant to influence legislation that is favorable to one group or another without regard to the effects on other citizens or groups.  This is a form of privilege, for it gives access to legislators that not all citizens possess.  It must be stopped in its tracks now, or our democratic system will be in serious jeopardy.

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises 
shall be uniform throughout the United States; PROVIDING, THAT ALL NEW TAXES SHALL REQUIRE A 2/3s VOTE OF EACH HOUSE TO BECOME LAW

Comments: the tea party “Contract From America” has a point here, I think.  Taxes are so important to the operations of our government that new taxes should not be levied without strong support in each house.  Taxes are so burdensome now that this is incredibly timely.  Control of this process is long overdue.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.  HOWEVER, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS THAT EXEMPT CONGRESS OR ITS MEMBERS FROM APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF ANY AND ALL SUCH LAWS. 

Comments: the concept of no special privilege for any of our leaders is embedded in our constitution for a very good reason: the founding fathers wanted a more equalitarian system that would not set up privileged classes similar to those that were prevalent in England.  We have to be particularly sensitive to the concept of privilege because we have inherited a system of government that has kept alive the concepts of fairness, of equality, of justice, of freedom for all; often kept alive with the sacrifice of lives and fortunes of patriots and warriors and ordinary citizens.  We must attack privilege-making wherever we suspect its harmful intent.  Congress has no right to set itself up as a privileged few exempt from laws that apply to the rest of the people.

Article I, Section 9

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of  Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the  Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time 
to time,
INCLUDING THE AUDITING OR EVALUATION BY GROUPS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS     APPOINTED JOINTLY BY THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, OF ALL FEDERAL FUNDS CONTRACTED, GRANTED, APPROPRIATED, OR LOANED TO ANY AGENCY, ORGANIZATION, CONTRACTOR, STATE OR COUNTRY.  THE RESULTING ACCOUNTING OF EXPENDITURES SHALL INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OR AGAINST CONTINUED FUNDING.

Comment: In their “Contract From America,” the tea partiers speak of an audit of federal funds.  I agree that we need it, but I take it a lot further, I think, in allowing for an evaluation by an outside group, and by calling for auditing of funds, however they are let out to groups, or countries, along with recommendations for future funding based on the audit.  It is far past time to stop the free handouts, and to demand accountability when federal dollars (taxpayer money) are given out to any entity.  On a personal note, as a former project director of a federally-funded program, I was responsible for how funds (that were meager in comparison with large government contracts) were expended in specific categories, for quarterly reporting of actions taken to meet goals and objectives connected to that money, and for an annual assessment of program progress that was done by a volunteer member Advisory Council; all of which were considered in relation to the next year’s funding.  I resent the fact that there are recipients of much greater sums of federal money who have no such obligation or accountability process.  It’s time that all recipients of citizen taxes had to account for their actions and outcomes or lose their funding.

Article II, Section 1

No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR A NATURALIZED CITIZEN, of the United 
States (at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,) shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible 
to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Comments: this is a nation of immigrants, and part of our strength is related to that fact.  Allowing only native-born citizens to hold this office sets up a special privilege that is not appropriate in a nation that prides itself on being a democracy and an example to other nations.

Article III, Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, BUT SHALL NOT SERVE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS

Comments: I find little merit in a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court or to inferior courts.  This is a form of special privilege that does not particularly enhance this branch of government.  Since most justices receive appointment after some experience, either on the bench, or in related occupation, it makes sense that the wisdom of age or experience is not at issue here.  But a justice appointed at say age 60, should be able to influence the Court to some degree in the 20 years allowed here.  In fact, this could be the most valuable 20 years that person has to offer.  New opinions, new views, new experiences, are valuable and should be sought from others once a person has served this many years.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, OR ON PETITION OF AT LEAST ONE-HALF OF THE POPULATION OF THE SEVERAL STATES, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified

Comments: amendment by the Congress and the calling of a constitutional convention by application from the States is provided for, but the calling of such a convention by the people is ignored.  It is time to make provision for this important branch of government to have an equal say in this process, particularly since the average citizen has much more education and political experience and involvement than at any other time in our history.  In fact, many citizens have more ability, life experience, and education than do some of those who claim to represent us in the Congress!   

FARCE TAKES OVER!

 

The political scene is fast becoming farcical!  Can you imagine that?  Now we have the very same people who rail against the federal government -- for being too big, ineffective (“can’t run anything right, especially health care!”) and interventionist -- now calling for the federal government to solve the Gulf oil spill disaster!!  It’s unbelievable!

Further, many of the very same people who LOVE big oil corporations and who want them left alone (“don’t interfere; de-regulate“, “leave the market alone“), are now mistrusting of the very people they so glaringly support.  That is, BP is now being said not to have the ability to manage this problem; instead, they say, the federal government needs to take over the sealing of the well AND the clean-up.  Oh brother, it’s amazing how the uber-right wing can tilt with the political winds.

Finally, here are the very same people who made sure that BP and all the BIG OIL corporations were able to write their own ticket; who invited them into the V-P’s office (remember Cheney) to make sure that the Bush administration gave them everything they needed to DO BUSINESS.  Now who’s complaining because the regulators didn’t have regulations in place to stop this kind of oil spill from happening in the first place?  You guessed it -- the same people who believe so strongly in de-regulation; the same people who support the excesses of wall street and the robber baron corporations, the same people who believe in the privatizing of government functions, and the “leave us alone” philosophy!

Why don’t we send the uber-right-wing privatizers down to the Gulf and let them come up with the solution to the problems that this spill will create for thousands of people?  And, let Rush Limbaugh lead them (who said, in essence -- not to worry: the ocean will take care of the spill!).  Farcical?  You betcha’.

Come To The Cabaret

A few days ago, I saw a revival performance of the musical “Cabaret”.  It brought to my mind the insidious takeover of government by a “militia group” (the Brown Shirts; Nazis), and the contrast that existed between the world of the Cabaret (seemingly insulated and oblivious), and what was happening in the world of politics.  Are we living in a similar time, with much of the population oblivious to, or ignorant of, what is happening around us?  With that in mind, let us explore some areas that may give clues to some of what is happening now that may have disturbing parallels to what happened then.

“Obama is a socialist - he’s taken over private enterprise and he advocates government takeover of our health-care system”  “Obama and the Democrats want to take away our guns”  “Obama is really a Muslim”  “The government is our enemy; it wants to take away our rights.”  “Hollywood and the media are nothing but a bunch of liberals trying to destroy our values” 
Do we hear in these phrases the possibility that some group feels that there is a CONSPIRACY or PLOT against ordinary citizens?

“There’s no such thing as global warming”  “We want Creationism taught in our schools; there’s no such thing as evolution” “Lock and load” “Defend your rights”  “I want the right to carry a gun to a political rally; to church; wherever I want to”
Is there a climate of anti-intellectualism and anti-science; does a certain group want us to believe that ACTION is what matters, not deliberative thought or reasoning?

“Obama and the Democrats are soft on terrorism; don’t they understand we’re at war” “Let’s nuke those bastards” “We can’t ever take the nuclear option off the table” “Pre-emptive war is a successful strategy” “Blast those scarf-heads”  “Let’s blow their factories up before they can develop atomic bombs” “Those peaceniks are anti-American” “The Congress needs to be investigated to find those members who are un-American”
Is there a group out there that always needs to be defining someone as ‘the ENEMY’ and that sees WAR as inevitable; or, that views diplomacy, negotiation, and other peaceful measures to be anti-American and even traitorous?

“Obama wasn’t born in this country so he’s not eligible to be President.”  “We must seal our borders” “Keep those criminals out of our country” “No amnesty” “Build that fence”  “Arizona has the right idea” “Stop illegal immigration now” “Those people are taking jobs from Americans” “They’ve ruined this town, state, country” “Profiling is very necessary”
Is there already a large group of Americans supporting the concept that there is a group of immigrants or FOREIGNERS that are at the root of our problems? Is there an appeal to a frustrated middle class that targets a lower class as the ENEMY?

“I’m not going to pay for your health care”  “Don’t ask for a hand-out; take some initiative” “Welfare Queen” “Stand on your own two feet; get a job” “You Retard” “We’re spending too much on entitlements” Do you remember the video of the well-dressed man taunting the seated man with cerebral palsy berating him and saying he wouldn’t pay for his health care?
Is there a group, or groups, out there who are targeting the WEAK in order to enhance their image as the STRONG?   

“Talking points” “Slogans” “Irrational tirades” “Attacks on liberals”
Is there already a media blitz of lies, distortions, banal slogans, diversionary speech, etc. which is the base of a “newspeak” that encourages IRRATIONALITY rather than critical reasoning; that encourages groups that are associated with all of the above?

To conclude, let me simply quote from a piece that may give us food for further thought:

In a 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism", the Italian writer and academic Umberto Eco attempted to list general properties of fascist ideology. He claims that it is not possible to organize these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it".
His proposed features of fascism are as follows:
+"The Cult of Tradition", combining differing cultural beliefs with a rejection of modernism.
+"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
+"Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
+"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
+"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
+"Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
+"Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" -     there must always be an enemy to fight.     
+"Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
+"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
+"Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

Are you being bamboozled by forces already committed to concepts that could damage our democratic Republic, our freedoms, our real values?  Don’t be too quick to judge, or too facile in your deliberation.  There are elements of fascism and governmental takeover in the Tea Party and militia movements that cannot be ignored (and some Republicans have supported these elements).  In the 1920s and 30s, that fringe element was ignored and look what it got us!    

Give Them What They Ask For

It’s difficult to believe the tea bagger groups when they say, “All we want is for government to leave us alone.”  Wow, what a simplistic statement.

I really think government should give them exactly what they ask for:  cut off their Medicare, their postal service and VA services for those who are vets.  Take away police protection and first responders.  Get rid of the national guard in their areas so they won’t have any help during an emergency or natural disaster.  Don’t let them have access to hospitals who receive federal funds of any kind.  And, how about cutting out those border guards so that illegal immigrants can pour over the borders where some of these tea baggers live.  Oh, and don’t let the FDA give any approvals on any drugs or treatments or foods, or the National Institutes of Health provide any support for scientific research.  In fact, remove all the government control and oversight agencies so that private enterprise can do whatever it wishes. Privatize the armed forces, so that they won’t have to deal with any government-provided defense. Yes, let’s give them what they ask for:  get government out of their lives.

Now ask:  what will they have left?  Why, private enterprise, of course.  They will have all those profit-seeking entities that actually seek every day to control them, manipulate them, fleece them, and to take away any semblance of control they think they have.  Without the checks and regulations of government, these private entities will go wild trying to squeeze out all that remains in the lives of these teabag radicals. Prices will rise without reason, loan rates will skyrocket, services will be slashed, jobs will be reserved for those who can bribe their way in; con-men will run amuck, rents will escalate, travel and health care will be available only to those who can pay for it on-the-spot; food, water, energy and other resources will be available to the rich, and tremendously limited for the rest of us; tax breaks for the rich will bankrupt many of the tea baggers and the rest of us.   Profiteers run amuck is not a pretty sight!
 
When simple concepts like: “get government out of our lives” become banal slogans, watch out!  You are being bamboozled, and you will pay the consequences: no services, no controls, no assistance, no protection, no defense, no fairness and no justice!

WHO’s in CHARGE?

BAMBOOZLED -- that’s the old word for being misled; scammed; fooled; lied to.  A perfect word to describe what the Republicans in Congress did with healthcare reform.

Their radical agenda is not in favor of healthcare reform or any other governmental “help” for anyone who may need a helping hand.  These extremists believe that nothing can be done well by government and that reform of anything can only be done by private entities like insurance companies, drug companies, banks, contractors, big corporations, etc., with the requisite help from  government to give them robust tax cuts, special privileges, tax breaks, lucrative contracts, and de-regulation so they can bilk the public every which way. 

So, are you being bamboozled?  Of course you are!  Consider this: the extremist Republicans have spent the last 30 years at least (and a whole lot longer actually) trying to divert your attention away from the real robber-barons, the real gougers, the real power-brokers, the real controllers of your lives.  By making “big government” the bogey-man and the nexus of control, they are clearly attempting to mislead us into believing that they are right about privatizing everything possible. 

But hold on a minute… have you forgotten the following:

• The health insurance companies that controlled you through provisions disallowing coverage if you had a pre-existing condition or got sick; that raised your premiums and co-pays every time you turned around; that made millions off the restrictions they imposed?
• The Wall Street firms that have forgotten whom they serve - the public - and have served up cooked-up investment instruments that have taken you to the cleaners, while they pay their employees and CEOs outrageous salary enhancements and bonuses?
  
• And while we’re on that subject, who in Congress is trying to prevent legislation that will curb Wall Street abuses of power?  That’s right - the extremist Republicans who want their friends on Wall Street to prosper (at your expense) so they can reap the rewards in their campaign coffers.  Oh-- and who helped them to do that very thing? - oh yes: the Supreme Court led by the right-wing justices who care nothing for the power of, by and for the people.
  
• Did you get Madoffed?  Bernied that is.  Well, lots of people did, and there are more Madoffs out there just waiting to feed on your gullibility and vulnerability.  Will right-wing Republicans protect you against them?  Not on your life.  They want you to believe instead that all the bad guys work in the federal bureaucracy!
  
• Carrying a credit card debt are you?  Gosh, another way for big banks to get your money with their outrageous charges and high interest rates, and their “minimum payment” scam.  Who did it take to pass legislation to take some control of these buzzards?  Democrats, not Republicans.
  
• Dealt with any big corporations lately?  After you get through the phone maze,  do they solve your problems?  How about car manufacturers?  Ever had a problem with a car - like a stuck accelerator - where the first response is to blame your way of driving?
  

We could go on like this, but let’s conclude with a pseudo-tribute to the huge lobbying contingent on Capitol Hill and in every capital city in this country.  Who’s in charge: the legislators?  OR, those who pay them, court them, manage their legislation?  The extremists desperately want you to believe that government is the problem instead of the solution, but right here we have the real story of power. 

While you are being distracted (bamboozled) by the Republican extremists to look to government as the problem, as the usurper of power and rights, here are the real culprits that the radical right profits from repeatedly.  They don’t want you to understand that too many of the banks, the corporations, the insurance companies, the brokers on Wall Street -- all of whom are represented by lobbyists in Washington (and elsewhere) - are the core of perverted power who are not in business for the good of society, but for their corporate and individual welfare.  These are the people in charge, and you don’t have a chance against them, unless that government you are being asked to despise, privatize and destroy acts to protect you through legislation, regulation, and policies that support “we the people.”
If you think I’m off the beam here, then ask yourself this question: when is the last time YOU were asked by a legislator what you wanted in a piece of legislation, like Mitch McConnell just did with wall street mucky-mucks?  Who’s really in charge?  Who’s protecting you? The Tea Party maybe?  As the blog Think Progress reported: "Despite… attempts to make the 'movement' appear organic, the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks ‘Americans for Prosperity’ and ‘FreedomWorks.’ The two groups are heavily staffed and well funded."

Stop being misled.  Stop being diverted.  Stop being bamboozled.  Choose to vote against those extremist Republicans, Tea partiers and Conservatives who want to blind you to the real takeover of your freedoms, your rights, and your power by the private sector robber-barons and their well-paid lobbyists.

I.M. PUBLIUS II

Moderate or Radical?

Are you a moderate or a radical?  Strange question?  Yes, but very revealing, especially in our present-day politicized environment.  Most of you would answer “moderate”, I’m willing to bet, but are you really?  Would you, as a moderate vote for someone who:

-- wants to gut Social Security for all those under age 55
-- will vote to allow private investment accounts for social security benefits
-- wants to privatize, promote vouchers, or completely change Medicare benefits
-- wants to get rid of Medicaid for the poor
-- wants to continue wars in Afghanistan and Iraq until we can be “victorious,” and wants a new war with Iran to be our primary response to them
-- opposes government-run programs and therefore, to be consistent, must work to privatize (out-source by contract) the Post Office, Border Guards, our Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, first responders, prison guards, national institutes of health, etc., etc. (all government-run)
-- will vote to stop tax cuts for the rich and big corporations, and work to give them bigger tax breaks than ever before
-- supports the ability of corporate entities to control all aspects of our society and government (recently enhanced by the Supreme Court)
-- enables terrorism’s recruiting by favoring torture
-- believes that government cannot help to create jobs; that only the private sector can

These are all radical ideas either proposed by Republicans, conservatives, or Tea baggers.  If you are a true moderate, be careful!  The Republican Radicals are out to bamboozle you, because these are the radical ideas that are already being proposed in actual legislation, in the Tea baggers’ “Contract From America,” and in other “contracts” and proposals from these same non-moderates.  Your votes have consequences:  you will reap all of these radical changes if you vote for radicals who masquerade as moderates and independents!

Government and Private Sectors Need Each Other

Recently, I read an opinion letter in my local newspaper that suggested one might think that Washington has given up on America.  The author alleged that government spending cannot fix our economic woes, only private enterprise, private investment and private industry jobs can fix the recession. No more tax and spend;  he opined, “ If a measure increases the government’s budget, vote it down.” A-a-ah, simplicity itself!
Does this mean we should oppose all measures that increase government jobs -- like those of military personnel, police and firemen, and how about all those Doctors and Nurses in the VA system, post office workers, or border guards?  Has the author forgotten that governments, from the federal to the local level, are major employers, and without their support, we would be in dire straits, because sometimes government must take the lead to solve national problems or to provide extensive services?
This problem of recovery is not that simple, unfortunately.  First of all, government can definitely help to create a supportive environment for the creation of private enterprise, investment and new jobs.  In my opinion, that is what has happened through the auspices of President Obama and supportive Democrats (and a few Republicans) in Congress who have created an environment in which small businesses and larger enterprises have the opportunity to create a lasting recovery.  And guess what?  To a great extent, recovery is already evident.   Unfortunately, many private sector banks aren’t cooperating in this recovery effort by increased lending, and thus the private sector is not hiring as it should.  In this case,  government is less of a problem than certain avaricious big banks! 
Secondly, some of the most effective programs and measures are those that combine the resources of government and the private sector.  For example, many government programs that utilize and encourage volunteerism in various areas of need -- like Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Vista, Older American Programs, Teacher Corps, Health Corps, and more -- have proven beyond a doubt that both government funding and private enterprise can cooperate to tackle problems of health, jobs, education, special needs of children--all at minimal expense for the U.S. Treasury. 
Third, putting all responsibility in the hands of private enterprise and private industry makes the same mistake as those who believe that government can solve all our problems alone.  Neither sector has all the answers; neither sector has enough resources on its own; neither sector can be fully trusted to act in a way that serves all the people who need service or help.  Simply saying that private enterprise will solve our problems is to forget that the private sector has another overriding interest: the profit motive.  Corporations like Enron, Halliburton and Toyota,  some banks and investment firms,  health insurers like Anthem Blue Cross in California do not necessarily have consumers’ interests at heart, and will not invest or initiate anything unless it pays off for them.  For instance, some have no compunction about taking tax-break or recovery money and raising rates, paying outrageous bonuses, hiring part-time workers with no health benefits, or making inferior products in order to save money and make more profit. 
We don’t need any more simplistic views of government and private enterprise.  We don’t need any more banal slogans and labeling that push simplicity into simplistic ideas.  We do need realistic and effective ways to assure that government and private enterprise work together for the benefit of our people and our society, and to make sure that both sectors are strongly challenged to initiate effective and efficient ways to solve problems and to provide services without overburdening our taxpayers and consumers.

Who Is PUBLIUS?

Publius, of course, as many of you know, is the pseudonym that the writers of the Federalist Papers used when writing to the people of New York State initially (and a broader audience later) explaining and defending the provisions of the new Constitution of the United States of America (as opposed to the Articles of Confederation). 
It was not unusual for essayists in the 18th century to use a well-chosen pen name (often having associations with the Roman Republic) in order to gain a hearing and readership for their views.  It also provided a convenient cover against potential charges of libel, and provided an extra meaning which extended and expanded the writer’s explicit arguments.
When the Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, resolved on September 28, 1787 to refer the proposed new Constitution to the states to be voted on in convention, there began one of the greatest debates in American history.  It basically lasted from 1787-1788 and was of brief duration in some states, but it certainly produced speeches and writings that had unique importance to the future of our country.
Probably the most remarkable of the writings were those that appeared as a long series of letters in the New York newspapers between October 27, 1787 and April 4, 1788, under the pen name of Publius, a pseudonym used by the authors: Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison.  By March 22, 1788, the essays that had appeared to that point were published as a single volume and by May 28th a second volume followed which incorporated essays 78-85 which had not appeared before this.  The title given the volumes was, of course, The Federalist Papers which rankled those who remained loyal to the Articles of Confederation and to the idea that the states were the core of power and that a confederated government was essentially the agent of the states.  In contrast, the Publius writers argued for a stronger central government and a stronger union than was apparent in a confederation or groupings of small confederations of states.

In an essay titled “The Paradox of Democracy” written for the  2008 National Paideia Conference, Terry Roberts gave us as good an answer as any to the question: who was the original Publius?

 
“Publius Valerius Publicola (died 503 BC) was a Roman consul, who with Lucius Junius Brutus governed Rome in 509 BC, traditionally considered the first year of the Roman Republic. According to Livy and Plutarch, the death of Brutus left Publius the sole consul of the new Republic, and the people feared that he was preparing to seize monarchical power. To calm the populace, Publius ceased construction on his new, ostentatious home and introduced two laws to protect their liberties: one providing citizens with the right of appeal when condemned in a court of law, and the second enacting that whosoever should attempt to make himself a king might be slain by any man at any time (this the law that would eventually be used to justify the assassination of Julius Caesar).  Like Washington, who would resist the temptation of absolute power in our own country, Publius was a founding leader who refused the role of Caesar and, in so doing, proved that the government could function without one.
“In part, then, Hamilton chose Publius as the Federalist pen name, intending to disarm those who would accuse him and his conspirators of the personal consolidation of power. But he also chose it because the Roman’s last name, “Publicola,” famously meant “of the people,” something that a surprising number of the original readers of the Federalist Papers would have known. Thus, we might legitimately say that in 1788 Hamilton and Madison intended the shadowy Publius to mean the man—or mind—of the people.”

Without being presumptuous, the first aim of this blog is to speak as though “I am Publius too” (I.M. Publius II).  That is, to bring to the people, as much as possible, those concerns and issues that are "of the people,” affecting the people and the commonweal of this society.

Two concerns dealt with in the Federalist Papers are of primary effect upon some of the issues and concerns that I plan to present and upon which I shall endeavor to comment.
The first has to do with the fact that the first forty-six letters, more than half of the total essays, are concerned with the need for a strong central government.  That is what the new Constitution brought to the table, and that is what the writers mostly defended in their attempt to secure support for the ratification of the new Constitution.  For the writers, a more perfect union, that is to say, a stronger union could be counted on to secure internal tranquility, stability and order, and to provide for the common defense.  In other words, at the same time that the sovereignty of the people was preserved, a stronger union (or central federal government) was an important step toward a society in which Americans could hope to lead a free and secure life.

Thus, one of the themes that will re-occur throughout the posts on this blog is that a strong central federal government should not constantly be demeaned by those who favor private enterprise and states’ rights as an alternative to what they like to call “government bureaucracy.”  A strong central government (which for the Publius writers generally meant the legislative branch, but included the Executive and the Judiciary) is often essential to the solving of national problems, and indeed is called for explicitly in terms of certain functions:
“To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States; 

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; 

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; 

To establish Post Offices and post Roads; 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts; 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; 

To raise and support Armies, To provide and maintain a Navy; 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

 
That latter paragraph gives to that oft-demeaned “federal bureaucracy” the same power and authority as any part of the central government.  Those who deplore a strong central federal government must struggle with their apparent anti-constitutional viewpoint.

The second emphasis from the Federalist authors should give pause to those who advocate laissez-faire or unregulated power to corporate entities, other groups and organizations, including both the public and private sectors of society.  I am speaking of the authors’ view of the nature of human beings. The following discussion is based on the very helpful Editor’s Introduction to a 1961 edition of the Federalist written by Benjamin Fletcher Wright, long a professor at University of Texas-Austin.

 
There are scores of references in The Federalist to the motives that cause men to act as they do, and a variety of terms express this, including: springs, impulses, inclinations, inducements, dispositions, propensities, humours.  While Publius does not seem to believe that all these motives always lead to actions that are evil or harmful, he seems to assume that in the nature of man “antagonistic and immediate interests  have greater efficacy than true interests and motives of reason and virtue.” 

In other words, man’s motives seem to be related to passion versus reason and virtue, and to selfish immediate interests versus true or long-term interests.  While not accepting of the supposition of universal venality in human nature, he says in number 76 that “the acceptance of universal rectitude” is equally in error.
The greater part of his arguments about human nature in politics comes down to an evident conviction from history that there is more force in the passions and interests that tend toward antagonism and self-seeking than in those that make for friendly relations and the common good.  In the earlier letters, Publius reiterates that the reason for a strong union (central government) is that” man is not calmly rational or abounding with unfailing generous love for his fellow beings, but is rather passionate, jealous, and selfish”, which in terms of certain national and international issues, can lead to struggles, and even to war.

While there are some exceptions, the general principle or belief that supports the form and structure of the proposed plan of government, with its built-in checks and balances, is that no man can be trusted with unlimited power.
In various essays to come on this blog, it will be evident that this view of human nature will inform many of the arguments made for appropriate trust and mistrust, effective regulation and pragmatic de-regulation, as well as enlightened cooperation between the private and public sectors of society, in terms of their handling of power and societal problem-solving.
My first post on this blog is, in fact, an appeal to a more realistic view of both the public governmental sector and of the private sector that some, in my opinion, would err in trusting more implicitly.