Home » Politics/Government/Law (Page 6)
Category Archives: Politics/Government/Law
Freedom of Speech..well not really
A Gilford, NH father recently found out just how well the 1st amendment works these days in America after being arrested this past week for speaking out of turn at a school board meeting.
At issue is a book called “19 Minutes” by Jodi Picoult. The book has been a part of the Gilford High School curriculum since 2007. I have never read the book but it is supposed to contain a sexually explicit sex scene among other societal issues like a school shooting. Important themes for 14 year olds to read according to the school board . The father, William Baer disagrees and went to the school board meeting intending to voice his dissent for the book and wanting some kind of prior notification that his 14 years old daughter was going to be required to read the book. I agree with him and the school board since this incident has promised to provide such notification to parents regarding controversial topics. Why they never did this in the first place speaks to the kind of people that live in Gilford. Parents not too concerned about having their 14 year olds read sexually explicit material and a school board only too willing to keep pushing the envelop of good taste, and appropriateness.
The family was new to the school district and Baer was greatly disturbed by the book’s content as I believe most conservative people and those of religious persuasion would have been. During the meeting Baer took issue with another parent who seemed to think the book was fine and appropriate. Opinions and concerns at the meeting were restricted to two minutes only to allow for others to get a chance to speak Baer however refused to stop. He was so incensed that he continued to talk and when asked to stop he refused. Police responded and Baer was arrested after daring the police officer to arrest him over his protest.
I myself after reading a few articles concerning this story and something similar that happened to a Baltimore man regarding his protest of Common Core have also become incensed but not necessarily over his arrest although that is troubling too. You see I do believe in order especially when there is a lot to discuss and a lot of people wanting to get a chance to speak. I also believe that if a police officer tells you to do something that is in the interest of public safety or law than you had better listen and obey. To do so is to remain civilized. The trouble starts when law enforcement is used to “protect” people and institutions that by definition are not promoting freedom and democracy but instead repression and statist agendas.
In case you haven’t been paying attention we are in a cultural war presently in the USA and the conservatives are losing it. We have one side that thinks its appropriate for educators and government administrators to discuss sex and promote education of children at very young ages in topics of sexuality & homosexuality because after all they argue, they are going to do it anyway or be exposed to it sooner than later and need to know about it.
The other side believes it is the parents responsibility to teach their children about sexuality and impart upon them their values and morality. They reject the notion that the state’s job is to teach all children how to act and learn and what to learn and what not to learn.
Plain and simple teaching children about sex when they don’t have the emotional maturity to accept the responsibilities and unintended consequences that go along with having sex is a recipe for disaster. Do you know what they are teaching your kid at their school?
Public School
Mr Baer I believe had a right to voice his dissent and I think if he had others supporting him in the room should have been given time to speak his mind or if not then school administrators if they were smart should have offered to meet with him privately. The school board instead decided that Mr Baer was a threat to their authority and needed to be arrested and taken away because he violated the two minute speaking rule.
So a concerned father who had been temporarily silenced has now made national headlines despite his new legal trouble. All this because a school board thought they know what’s best for Mr Baer’s and other children in their charge. Perhaps more people like Mr Baer need to stand up to “authority” instead of quietly, sheepishly going along to get along. The price of remaining free is high and so far, not enough of us are willing to ever pay for it. The consequences of that inaction are all too readily seen.
The founding fathers in their wisdom in writing the Constitution allowed for federalism and the states to make their own laws and let the people decide if they were good ones or bad ones and if they did not like them they more or less voted with their feet and moved to a different state. This process is what our “leaders” in Washington are trying to prevent with the promotion of Common Core. By promoting federal government education standards no citizen of any state will ever be able to escape the filth and indoctrination promoted so ardently by the left in this country unless they can afford private school.
For now if I had a young family and was contemplating moving to Gilford’s school district I might just have to say No Way. But that is my choice.
The Man Without a Country
“I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do.” Edward Everett Hale
Ronald Reagan once said at an address to the annual meeting of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce March 1961 “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
I think maybe Reagan was wrong. Extinction is probably a lot shorter than a generation away given today’s advances in communication where lies can be spread at light speed to reach the empty headed. Add to this the current geo-political climate, the economic instabilities of the US and the very real threats of terrorism and you have the threats of the 21st century. The founding fathers could not possibly have imagined or contemplated these threats more than two centuries ago, yet the very principles they set forth in government so long ago are the only reason I believe this country still survives and has not already succumbed to totalitarianism in one form or another. The principles of respect for the individual and his personal property, division of government and specific limitations on the Executive have stood the test of time and allowed generations to live in greater freedom than most others have ever enjoyed on the planet.
Edward Everett Hale April 3,1822- June 10, 1909 was an American author, historian, and Unitarian clergyman. Photo Source: Library of Congress
Edward Everett Hale was a 19th century American author, historian and Unitarian clergyman who wrote a story called “The Man Without a Country” first appearing in The Atlantic Monthly in 1863. In the story a lieutenant is found guilty of treason and after proclaiming he never wanted to hear another thing about the US, he is given the unusual sentence of being kept aboard US warships the remainder of his life and never to be permitted to set foot on US soil again and never permitted to learn any more news good or bad about his former country. His guards and no one else are permitted to speak about the country to him ever again. The man after many long years traveling from ship to ship and without a homeland and starved for news of it, learns to love his country but far too late. He becomes so distraught that he laments to a young man just before his death: “Remember, boy, that behind all these men … behind officers and government, and people even, there is the Country Herself, your Country, and that you belong to her as you belong to your own mother. Stand by Her, boy, as you would stand by your mother, if those devils there had got hold of her to-day !..” At the time Hale wrote this our country was deeply divided and fighting for its very survival in the Civil War. Hale was promoting the idea of patriotism and the preservation of the union. The story resonated with many Americans.
Today with so many threats to our lives from outside our borders we fail all too often to see the very real threats that exist from within them. I’m not speaking of terror cells living within the US, greedy Wall Street corporate raiders, or illegal immigrants for that matter sponging off the rest of us taxpayers. I am talking about all those Americans so eager and willing to just surrender their personal responsibilities and with that their freedom, in exchange for the false promises made by politicians, of greater safety and security. The promises of Big Government never end and neither do the costs to fund them. We must refuse to allow our fellow Americans to steer us to extinction. For each new burdening regulation and perversion of the Constitution; for each new usurpation of power by the President or the courts we allow for our own good or for extra security and safety; we surrender that which made us different, exceptional, and free. Piece by piece we are creating our own demise by growing this government leviathan until some day we may be the ones looked upon as that traitor and forced to live without a country, telling our children’s children what it was like to live in a free country for they will not know of any and their history books will criticize it as dangerous.
We are fighting to not be that man, our home and way of life is under siege by fools and power hungry men and women. What are you going to do about it?
Ignoring the Constitution
Many of us look at our country today and wonder where the experiment in self-government went wrong. With the President’s approval rating as of an April 2014 Gallup poll of 43% and Congress’s approval rating hovering around 12% to 14%, more and more Americans are feeling disenfranchised and want to blame the Constitution as the source of the problems saying its outdated, needs changing or should just be eliminated altogether as some die hard socialists and communists advocate. 
The truth however is not that the Constitution does not work, it’s that all too often it’s just ignored or bypassed as a matter, the politicians claim, of practicality. The passing of the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare is a good example of this bypassing of the founders intent. Art. I, Sec. 7 part 1 of the US Constitution states
“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.”.
Known as the Origination Clause, it basically means that all bills proposed related to taxing the people shall originate in the House of Representatives. The thinking behind this was to create an institutional protection against repressive taxation since members of the House of Representatives faced the shortest terms in office and they would, in theory, be more accountable to the people. The powers of the purse strings were given to the House, however over the years the Senate has taken on this role through a process called gut and replace bypassing the original intent of the Constitution. The Senate by law can only propose changes or agree to existing house bills related to taxation. Where the perversion of this law takes place is when the Senate takes a House originated bill, guts all of the language out of the bill but keeps the bill number thus staying in compliance with the Origination clause’s technical meaning while rejecting its intent of allowing the body of Congress closest to the people to have control of the purse strings. 
The Affordable Care Act started out as H.R. 3590 “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act.” It was unanimously passed by the House in 2009 and provided tax cuts and breaks to veterans. The language of the bill upon arrival in the Senate however was completely gutted out and replaced with Senator Harry Reid’s Heath Care bill which included many revenue (taxation) provisions and the health care mandate which the Supreme Court would later rule as a tax. The house bill number was retained in order to stay in compliance with the Origination Clause. The Democrat controlled House rather than object to the revenue bill produced by the Senate which they could have, instead passed it without a single Republican voting for it. On March 23, 2010 President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. There are numerous cases being heard across the country right now challenging the authority of the Affordable Care Act and among some of the arguments being presented to throw out Obamacare was the manner in which it was passed using gut and replace. This is but one poignant example of how our Constitution is being perverted and circumnavigated by supposed representatives of the people. 
The hard truth is that the country is more divided politically now than it has for many, many decades. We have two major political groups vying for control of the hearts and minds of Americans. The Democrats, who reject many parts of the Constitution in principle and in actions when they are able, and want to make government the sole sovereign in this country. They do not believe that individuals can know what is best for them. They believe only trained experts can properly guide the population and provide happiness. We also have mainstream Republicans who like the principle of limited government when it eliminates burdensome regulation but has no problem using government to eliminate competition and provide them with subsidies often at the expense of their fellow countrymen.
Democrat Party Symbol
Democrat politicians want to stay in power so they promise to give the people what they desire, “free” stuff, which is not really free, but to the recipients of government charity ie social security, welfare, grants, healthcare, unemployment benefits, etc it appears to be free. They’re not paying for it so it must be free. They ignore the fact that in order for the government to give a person anything, it has to take it from someone else. This class of people think government owes them happiness and must really believe either that government is this separate entity that has endless funds to provide anything its citizens wants, or they must think it is totally appropriate to take from other people’s wealth and redistribute it to less wealthy. Who gets to decide how much is taken and who it’s taken from is left to their “experts” whoever they are. The politicians that represent this class of “American” know that as long as they continue to provide more goodies and protect the existing goodies they will continue to receive votes and be able to stay in power. These Americans will continue to vote for them and vehemently oppose any party or individuals that would threaten to take their goodies away. This I think is also why there has never been a hard push for immigration reform by the Democrat party. As more and more unskilled, poor, and needy people enter this country each year desiring the same “free” stuff the Democrats promise, the more these politicians will have a growing dependent constituency.
Republican Party Symbol
Mainstream Republican politicians also want to stay in power and promise to use government as a tool and provide goodies too. Government can be useful eliminating competition factors making the potential for profit greater. Government can also provide subsidies to certain businesses and industries. It can force foreign governments to open trade opportunities and use our military to ensure they remain open. It can also give tax breaks to certain entities. If mainstream Republicans were truly interested in protecting the Constitution why do they view the Tea Party political grass roots movement, which embodies the founding father’s principles, with such disdain? Could it be that the principles of limited government interfere with their use of government as a tool and source for goodies? I am certain of it. The idea that government was somehow created to provide for its citizens “goodies” is poison to our country and society . Take a moment to notice the words enshrined in one of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence. It says our founders believed that people have a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Note it does not say we guarantee happiness or outcomes, but instead the pursuit of happiness and to be what you want to be free from government prejudices, state religion, and class nobility restrictions. Nowhere does the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution guarantee that people will not go hungry, will have clothing, shelter, TV’s, no competition in business, health insurance, social security, etc… Individual responsibility for your lot in life was left up to you not some benevolent government, single sovereign or the greased palm of a politician.
“Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals; that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government; that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.” –Ayn Rand
Samuel Adams
![Samuel Adams, Engraving by C. Goodman & R. Piggot after painting by Copley. [Between 1810 and 1835.] Source: Library of Congress](https://paladinhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/samuel-adams.jpg)
Samuel Adams, Engraving by C. Goodman & R. Piggot after painting by Copley. [Between 1810 and 1835.] Source: Library of Congress
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” -Samuel Adams
One of America’s first rebel rousers and instigator of the American Revolution, Samuel Adams, was a vocal critic of British policy towards the colonies and its taxation specifically. Adams vehemently opposed Britain’s Stamp Act of 1765 and Adams played a vital part in organizing the original Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773.
Samuel Adams, second cousin to John Adams the country’s 2nd President of the USA, was instrumental to the American independence movement. He was a religious man and fervent revolutionary who would go on to be one of the fifty six signers of the Declaration of Independence. Adams in his political career served as Massachusetts state legislator; delegate to the Continental Congress, and later after the revolutionary war would become governor of Massachusetts.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”- Samuel Adams
Five things you can do today to make a difference
One of the best things about living in our country is the 1st amendment and the right to free speech. We can voice our dissent if we are unhappy. With this in mind I have written five ideas that can get you started on the road to being “involved.” Do it today!
1. Contact your legislators. Its sounds so simple and it is. If they do not hear from you and their other constituents they will assume they are doing things right. Remember they have huge ego’s. Think of something that gets your really angry or irritated about government. Chances are that won’t be hard to do. Find one that really stirs you up and then tell them about it. Call them up or easier still email them.
Contact your legislators
2. Join a local political grass roots organization that is interested in the same things you are. Their are thousands of organizations that support the same issues as you. Find one and join.
3. Educate yourself. This is probably the most important one. To fully understand the issue is the first step towards fixing it. The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are good places to start if you haven’t already read them. They are relatively short compared to say the new Affordable Care Act language. There are plenty of good places to find a copy and read them on-line or at your local library. Do it, you’ll be glad you did. Knowledge is power.
Educate yourself
4. Create a blog. They’re easy to do with plenty of free ones out there with tutorials. Put your ideas on paper then transfer them to the computer then tell your friends to come check it out, and repeat. You can even leave out the paper part. Everybody has got something to say, and now more than ever, so take advantage of technology and share your thoughts with the world.
Blog,blog,blog…
5, Lastly teach your family what you learned today or if you have no family share it with a friend or co-worker. Encourage them to take the same five steps you did.
The changes we have seen in our government over the years did not happen overnight. They won’t be fixed over night either. Making a course correction takes time and it starts with you and those around you. Make a difference and get started today!
…Truth, Justice, and the American Way
Feeding the Unemployed. Men at a soup kitchen in Washington, D.C., 1936. U.S. Federal Government photograph. Public domain.
The time was June 1938. America was still reeling from years of economic calamity brought on by the Great Depression. War was also in the wind. The beginnings of the darkness that would soon spread across multiple continents and cost millions their lives had already fully metastasized in Europe and far off places like Nanking, China. America’s hope of staying out of a second world conflict looked very grim.
Against this back drop two Jewish immigrants living in blue collar Cleveland, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, struggling to make ends meet and dreaming of using their talents someday, stumble upon an idea for a comic book serial. Siegel is later credited with saying that one night while looking up at the stars he imagined a powerful hero that looked out for those in trouble. A savior if you will. From that germ, the idea of Superman was born and in June 1938 was introduced to the American public, a public desperate for heroes and someone or something to look out for them.
Superman
To Siegel and Shuster both left leaning immigrants, Superman in early serial comic editions took on the role as social activist fighting against business corruption and dirty politicians. The character would later see greater notoriety not in comic books, but in radio broadcasts. By the 1940’s and 1950’s Superman began personifying the ideal American: quiet, humble, mild mannered, but with strong fortitude and desirable character traits like being truthful and just. It also didn’t hurt that he could fly and was virtually invincible.
Through the decades Superman’s mantra would change little. His beliefs in truth, justice, and tolerance could easily have been said to be the ideal “American Way.” An America where people do what’s morally right, believe in a system of laws that are just and not arbitrary, and are tolerant of all races and cultures.
Maybe that America never really existed, but it is a hopeful vision. Today as they did in Siegel and Shuster’s time, people look to government as the answer to all their problems. Back then it was Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Today President Obama could easily be identified by some as the personification of the superhero in red cape, who promises to stamp out injustice and corruption, intolerance, feeds the poor and provides for the uninsured. Superman was fiction then and is fiction now.
America needs it heroes, but perhaps instead of new heroes dressed in business suits, making speeches, and promising the stars, we just need to look further back in time. Maybe we need to try and reconnect to an older group of heroes than Superman. We need to look to the lives and lessons learned from super men who founded this country more than 200 years ago, or better still one Superman who was hung on a cross more than 2000 years ago and came back from the dead.
The roots of the IRS
When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans. -Ron Paul
Where did it all begin?
One of the most reviled of all US Federal agencies is the dreaded IRS or Internal Revenue Service. This agency created to help fund the US Federal Government’s never ending spending appetite has its roots in rebellion. In early 1861 President Abraham Lincoln, looking at the imminent secession of Southern states and the loss of their lucrative seaports, began looking at ways to make up lost revenue. Lincoln made inquiries of his cabinet members Edward Bates, Salmon Chase, and Gideon Welles wanting to know if he had the constitutional authority to collect duties on goods and services as well as import tariffs and property taxes. The end result was the Revenue Act of 1861 passed on August 5th 1861 and the first federal income tax statute of the United States. The income tax placed a 3% tax on all individuals whose annual incomes were above $800 per year. 
By 1862 however realizing the war was not going to be a short affair, the Lincoln administration passed of the Revenue Act of 1862 which established for the first time an Office of the Commissioner of Revenue. It also levied excise taxes on everyday goods and services and established the first graduated or progressive tax system in the US which separated citizens into multiple categories and taxed them based upon their abilities to pay. As the years would pass the revenue generated from this law was not enough to pay the burdensome debts the war was amassing and subsequent legislation would need to be passed. After the Civil War and ten years after the original income tax law was passed the largely unpopular law was repealed, only to be revived once more by Congress in 1894. The subsequent year saw the Supreme Court rule the law unconstitutional, based upon the fact that the income tax was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state. In 1909 President Taft would recommend Congress propose a constitutional amendment that would give the government the power to tax incomes without apportioning the burden among the states in line with population. In 1913 Delaware became the 36th and last state needed to ratify the 16th Amendment which established the federal government’s authority to enact income tax.
What’s next?
All governments throughout world history have levied taxes on its citizens to help pay off debts accrued by war and or other expenditures. Our country is no different and at times has had tax rates as high as 77% of income. Image that, 77 cents for every dollar earned was going to the government. That’s simply outrageous. If we allow our leaders to keep spending money like they are doing now we may well see tax rates that high again.
This is why it is imperative now upon all our citizens to understand the implications of Lincoln’s legacy, the establishment of the federal income tax system, and all that it entails. We are trusting our elected officials with our money and should they continue on the deficit spending track there will be dire consequences for all of us, to include higher taxes.
In my opinion we cannot afford to maintain global hegemony for much longer. We simply do not have the revenue to be the world’s beat cop, and defender of the free world. It’s time for the other nations to pick up some the slack.
It’s time to win the war for peace as we cannot afford to wage war in perpetuity. No nation can do that and survive.
We need to look at ending entitlement programs that do not change people’s lives for the long term. Investment in education and skill training instead of extending unemployment benefits for example.
We need to change our foreign policy so that it’s not so reliant on dollar diplomacy. We cannot afford to keep giving billions and billions in aid to foreign nations, some that do not even like us or have the same values.
Our leaders need to represent WE the People and not spend our hard earned money that the IRS is so hard at work taking away from us.
Sincere tyranny
C. S. Lewis Photo Source: Wikimedia.org
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
In today’s American society we are experiencing a soft tyranny of sorts sincerely exercised for the good of its victims, the American people. The modern Statist in America , as the author Mark Levin described the modern left wing liberal, is the living embodiment of the moral busybody. Firm in their convictions and intent on the destruction of what they view as dangerous personal liberty.
We live in an age where government decides or tries to decide for us among other things what food we should eat and how much; how much water we need to flush our toilets; what kind of light bulbs we can use; what type of gas we can put in our cars; and now what type of health insurance coverage we should have.
An outsider must wonder how America survived for over a hundred plus years without the modern Administrative State and its moral busybodies managing every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave.
Oh how we have lost our way America.
Religious Freedom?
At issue is religious freedom. The Obamacare mandate forces businesses to provide coverage for contraceptive drugs to include drugs and devices that will abort babies.
Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts store chain was providing 16 of the 20 contraceptive drugs available in the new healthcare law but refused to provide coverage for abortion inducing drugs which is at odds with the owner’s religious beliefs. The story has largely been portrayed by the media as Hobby Lobby refusing all contraception drugs which is just not the case.
The owners of the business feeling they had no choice filed suit against the government’s position and clear disregard for religious freedom . Making the owner choose between accepting the mandate and violating their faith or paying a per-employee penalty which in the case of Hobby Lobby would amount to millions of dollars is worthy of a fight.
Some have argued that the business is a corporation and the owners’ beliefs do not fully represent the stockholders views . The three left leaning women on the Supreme Court questioned how a corporation could be religious.
In my opinion, if a majority of the ownership believes one way then the majority should win the argument. Why is it any different than when a majority ownership decides to buy or sell off a division or take the company in a different direction? The majority ownership always takes the risk that if their decision is so unpopular their employees and stockholders might just leave or sell off their stock interests. Such is the case here too. If Hobby Lobby’s majority owners want to inject their belief system into their business, and they do they’re closed on Sundays for example, they take the risk that others will abandon them. That is their choice and something no government entity or court should be allowed to dictate.
What we are seeing is a good example of the kind of war on freedom the Obama administration and his Democrat supporters wage every day. Putting the state’s needs which they claim are just the poor and needy in front of the individual’s need. It appears that an overwhelming majority are meant to ignore their faith and suffer penalties if they ignore the government’s bullying because a small percentage of the population doesn’t have access to birth control drugs and the ability to kill their babies.
For Obama and his supporters asserting government’s position to that of sovereign over our lives and welfare is their mission and part of his hope and change plan. One doesn’t have to be a member of the Tea Party movement to feel the heel of government oppression on the throat of religious liberty. I reject them and so should you if you believe in religious freedom.
“Don’t tread on me”!
Elected Elites?
In a recent Linkedin story written by Richard Branson, the billionaire of Virgin Atlantic fame, he defends Democracy and calls on Democracies everywhere to consider looking at successful businesses and their structures as a role model presumably for better government. He makes note of China’s speedy economic growth and how they are able to move quickly and without gridlock. He then goes on to suggest government could cut costs by eliminating so many representatives we have now, and instead paying the remaining fewer representatives more money.
According to Branson:
“..Research has shown paying politicians more improves quality, and a talented, diverse new generation of people who would be attracted to positions where they could make a difference.”
First off I am not sure what research he is referring to but that sounds like a terrible idea. If anything we already pay politicians particularly US Congressmen far too much for too little return on investment. I fail to see how having less representatives somehow gives people equal or more representation than they already have now. It would appear Branson would like to see power concentrated into the hands of just a few representatives and given a freer hand to get things done. What “things” would remain to be seen, but you can be sure you and I won’t have a say in it if he gets his way.
Also, how does offering more pay for abysmal performance make for better representatives? For far too long we have elected people whose self-interest was the primary motivating factor for going into public service. You want to really start fixing things you have to change this paradigm. Political office currently attracts those seeking power, influence and money. How does that equate to good representation for the people? In the private sector money attracts more talent but does the type of person drawn to money, power, and influence make the best representatives of people who come from diverse backgrounds, cultures and economic conditions?
In today’s society once these money and power hungry people take office is it rational to believe that they will somehow shelve their own personal interests that have driven them their entire lives, and expect them instead to suddenly become altruistic and put their country and constituent’s needs first? I don’t think so. Offering more money like Branson suggests to attract a new diverse generation will only attract different sharks to the same pool, not better representatives.
We have drifted from the principle ideas of true representative government, perhaps out of ignorance or apathy I don’t know but we have grown too comfortable electing and putting our blind faith and trust in these type of people. The very same kind that thinks it’s okay to spy on you, lie to Congress, and ignore the Constitution.
In my view the compensation for any elected politician should be primarily the opportunity to serve the people. That should be reward enough. A small salary plus costs reimbursement should be in place but that’s it. Also there should be cumulative term limits for all those in public service. After eight or ten years in public life, that’s it, you’re off the public dole and you have to go find a real job or start a business of your own. The days of career politicians should be numbered.
The Congress is supposed to be a snapshot of the American people. All of them not just the successful power hungry ones that come from five or six different career professions primarily. One of the major problems I have noticed and have written about in the past is the demographics of the USA and the demographics of Congress are dramatically different.
In John Adams’s Thoughts on Government, Adams wrote about Congress saying
“..It should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them.”
Ask yourself the question, do our current Congressmen and woman think, feel, and act like you? They probably don’t and most of you would probably have little in common with them.
I wonder what kind of people would then be attracted to public service if pay for elected office was nominal, had little perks, and service was required to end after a few years. Would we be better off represented by Joe Citizen, the plumber, the baker, the teacher, or the software guy who took four or six years off from his live to “serve” a bigger purpose? Would we get a better return on our investment than leaving it in the hands of the “political professionals”? Would people step up and do the job? I think they would despite what other political hacks might think.
Lastly, while I oppose government bureaucracy just like the next guy, some gridlock is not necessarily a bad thing, despite what Richard Branson, the business mogul thinks. Our system of government was built with gridlock in mind to prevent hastily written laws that have bad consequences later. The intention was not to put laws in place that could easily be changed or circumvented at the whim of the people, businesses or political influences of the moment. The government was structured so that the passions of the people and various special interests were to be given time to cool off, and rational discussion and input from all interested parties could follow before legislation was to be enacted. As Justice Scalia once said in support of the argument that the Constitution should be interpreted as the framers intended “If the Constitution means whatever we think it means today, why have a Constitution. Just have a legislature.”
In summary Branson’s off the cuff idea would further disenfranchise the average American citizen and would concentrate more power into the hands of an elite few and keep it there. I think he should stick to his business and leave We the People’s business alone.
PaladinHouse.com 