Third Party & Independents Archives

The Founder's Intent Has Been Incrementally Ignored

When the Founder’s put ink to paper a major fear was that the federal government would become to big. Several Founder’s were so concerned they chose not to sign a Constitution until a Bill of Rights was added to ensure the federal government would remain small and not infringe on God given human rights.

The Constitution, while brief in content, covers a lot of ground and has scholars working ever harder to ‘understand’ the document more fully. While the intent of the document is clear in most cases there are words and phrases, written in the language of the day, that requires some study or reference for proper interpretation. The Constitution defines our rights versus the rights of government.

When one looks at the size and scope of the federal government, and in the way the Supreme Court is so eager to misinterpret the Constitution today it is clear we have lost our way. It seems that almost before the ink was dry from the signing folks started working, incrementally, to change the new government to something more akin to the government of England. At present, we have gone beyond that, seeking to ‘harmonize’ our government with the governments of the world. Done, incrementally, over the last 30 years, in secret, no public debate and little outcry from the ignorant or non-interested citizenry. An often overlooked principle of the intent of the Founder’s is that the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee the rights of citizens of a state and not to protect the citizen from the laws of the US congress.

A perfect example of that intent is being played out even as I poke the teclas. Congress is in essence mandating a healthcare bill that the public doesn’t like but can only gnash their teeth and practice VOID with a vengeance come election time. However, some 38 states governments have formed to protest this mandated healthcare program as their budgets (the states can’t print money) simply will not support the added cost of mandated healthcare.
So, if the intent of the Founder’s was small government why have our checks and balances failed to check the growth of the federal government? I can think of a couple.

1) Beginning around the time of the discovery of oil in Pithole, Pa. corporations have managed to buy enough of the US government to gain complete control of their monopolies and side issues like health care and cap and trade.
2) The most pernicious effect on the balance of powers was the SC ruling that Corporations have certain human rights. Imagine how that would go over with the Founder’s in that somehow corporations have certain human or God given rights as people. And the people sat on the couches sucking sasferillas.
3) The second most pernicious effect on checks and balances was the SC ruling that Money is Free Speech. The Founder’s must have come out of their graves on this one. And, as usual the people, by this time are watching TV and sucking diet cokes.
4) Another major is the establishment of the IRS. Taxation by the Fed was of great concern to the Founder’s, to the point they believed taxation was pure extortion.
5) Perhaps the major cause for corruption in our government is that over time and incrementally we have allowed democracy to become the tail wagging the dog in the Republic-Democracy relationship.

Today, we are aware that the federal government has decided to give the San Juaquin valley 25% of their normal water since they had 129% of normal rainfall this past year. A state at the mercy of the federal government who claims control of their waters. In speaking on the Constitution Judge Napolitano said that if 180 degrees was tjhe complete opposite, then we have moved about 150 degrees relative to the Founder's intent. We now reflect a government more akin to England, from where we fled. Most people realize the problems but are uncomfortable as to what should be done to correct the situation. There are many organizations set up to attack one or two problem areas. We know that David took the jaw bone of a mule and beat the ass off 40k Philadelphians’ but where is the stone that David used to slay Goliath? I believe it is with the abolishment of Corporate Personhood that the most good for the nation can be accomplished. Abolishing CP would do much to restrict or severely limit the special interest and/or the money influence and expedite our return to something closer to what the Founder’s intended for a federal government. Of course, it can’t be done through politics as usual. It would require a new 3rd Party.

If the HC bill passes it is likely the congress and executive will ping-pong to the Republican’s in 2012. Recognizing that the Republican’s are the evil people we just got rid of, should we risk a repeat performance or should we opt for a new 3rd Party with a goal to restore the Constitution, our sovereignty and the democratic principles we once lived by? Otherwise, what course of action would you recommend to rein in a government too big to not fail?

Posted by Roy Ellis at March 19, 2010 7:03 PM
Comments
Comment #297575

Roy I wasn’t able to follow any of your links.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 19, 2010 8:09 PM
Comment #297577

Roy,

The Founder’s also crafted a Constitution that could change and grow with the nation, Roy.

Their Constitution would no more fit our nation today as ours with all its amendments and interpretations would fit theirs. Time marches on.

Much of what you critique is fighting issues resolved a century ago or more. State’s rights? Modified heavily by the Civil War.

Socialized policy began BEFORE the Constitution was ratified and continued constantly throughout our history. Only difference between the last century and the one before is this last century we had more money than land to give to individuals and groups and companies. The century before we had more land than money for the federal government to hand out. Even under the Articles of Confederation the Federal provisional government was awarding federal assets to aid in natural disasters, development of transportation and expansion westward. The Louisiana Purchase was doled out, at all tax payer’s expense to individuals, groups, and companies, for their individual benefit as well as the national interest.

The rules I observed when I was five, were vastly more simple and uncomplex than those I observe today at the age of 60. So, it is with our Constitution and laws from the 18th century to today. A nation that cannot adapt cannot grow and survive.

Lest anyone forgets, all this change occurred with the consent of the governed. That to was part and parcel of our Constitution, acknowledging Revolution is the consequence of government without the consent of the governed, which founded our nations Independence from King George.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 19, 2010 8:31 PM
Comment #297590

David, are you alright with this deemed to pass thing? If it works for HC/education they will use it on Cap and Trade, immigration, etc. Do you believe that in a full blown democracy a vocal minority ends up in control of the meek majority? Did you have a say in the NAU or NAFTA? Would you have voted for Corporate Personhood in the late 1800’s? Do you believe we have the best money government can buy?

IMO, the further down this path we go the harder it will be to recover at some point. May be impossible to recover at some point. Two wrongs, or several wrongs don’t make a right.

Until several wrongs are corrected we can never get real legislation for the people, IMO. We should start with Campaign Finance Reform which will require a 3rd Party with a different political attitude. By doing so you immediately pick up and turn the train in the opposite direction. A down hill ride from there.

Otherwise, we have the Corporacratic-Socialist government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 20, 2010 9:07 AM
Comment #297594

The links are now working. Dealt versus delt

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 20, 2010 10:39 AM
Comment #297596

Roy Ellis-
The passage of the reconciliation fixes in the Senate was the condition for the Democrats in the House to pass the Senate bill. Logically speaking, it’s equivalent to passing the bill with revisions.

You talk of a vocal minority facing down a meek majority. This is what the majority is forced to do to revise the bill so that House Democrats will pass it, and so the Senate can confirm those revisions with a majority vote.

Democrats wouldn’t go through all this trouble if the process were allowed to work at the Founding Fathers intended.

But of course, some folks are more interested in the politics of labels and philosophies than of actual function. Some folks think it’s perfectly alright to assume that elections don’t have consequences, and that it’s fair to effectively hamstring the majority because of their concerns, concerns drummed up by irresponsible politicians unconcerned about the unrest they create through their scaremongering.

My education has taught me that people are capable of justifying anything within a system of logic. We must discipline how we come to conclusions, let our beliefs be testable, expendable when they don’t meet the test.

sam-
The writers of the constitution were not perfect Gods who got everything right the first time, nor were their successors any more divine.

The constitution has changed, and its interpretation with it. You may not like it, but that’s a feature of a system with freedoms, a system where American citizens are not bound to honor one and only one official interpretation, but are free to consider and reconsider things.

You say rights are God-given. I say that might be true, but man is certainly capable of taking away what God gives, or affirming it in law. God, if you read Romans, gives authority to the leaders of nation to govern, to suppress evil behavior. So I say that whether or not they are God given, you cannot neglect the importance of the rule of law.

You rage at a style of government somebody’s spent the last few decades telling you will lead to our ruin. So, you are very sure of this. You’re entitled to that opinion. I’m entitled to think that you’re wrong. I’m entitled to think that you should realize, like the Democrats, that this is a country ruled from the center, and that the slippery slope of the other side’s politics is not endless. People are not just dumb automatons who can’t hold themselves in check, or their government.

Give people a chance, and you might be surprised where you get.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2010 11:27 AM
Comment #297597

I bet the doom and gloom started right after the constitution was signed. No change, no surprise.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 20, 2010 11:54 AM
Comment #297601

Checking in on Rasmussen we find:
Health Care Reform
43% Favor Health Care Plan, 53% Oppose
Democrats in Congress are vowing to pass their national health care plan with a vote in the House possible by the end of this week. But most voters still oppose the plan the same way they have for months.
56% oppose Medicare cuts.
The president’s Approval Index rating has held steady in the first two months of 2010, after falling a total of seven points in the final three months of 2009.
The number who Strongly Disapprove of the president’s performance dropped two points to 39% in February. However, the number who Strongly Approve also fell two points to 25%. That leads to a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14.

What part of ‘we the people’ does the government not understand?

Right womanmarine. Alex Hamilton, Founder, started the 1st political party so as to coordinate political works among the men he believe would serve as the ruling clas of landlords and industrial masters. He immediately began work with the Federaoist party to help increase their economic and political power relative to the rest of the people. Structuring taxes to favor better capitalized businesss, distributing grants of monpoly power among the elite over some trade, manufacture, or service. Even sent an enire army of federal agents to squelch an antimonopoly rebellion in Pa. to enforce their claim on newly minted properties. But, along came Tommy Jefferson and all that.

We shouldn’t forget that Jefferson told us to get things right ever 20 years or so, not let wrongs lie to simmer. We should have listened, IMO.

A line from Barry Lynn’s book, ‘Cornered’. “Get down, on your knees, and snipe that Iraqi bastard, to protect China’s oil, so Chinese citizens can make what you used to make, and I will feed you and yours.”

From a recent Wash Post: China’s governmenthas embraced an increasingly anti-western tone in recent months - -“

“rolled back market oriented reforms by encouraging state owned enterprises to forcibly buy private firms”.

“Announced plans to force Western companies to turn over their most sensitive technology and patens to Chinese competitors in exchange for market access”.

“carried out more arrest and indictments for endangering state security over the past two years than in the five year period from 2003-2007”.

“reined in the news media and attempted to control the Internet more vigorously’—

“condmming US decisions to sell weapons to Taiwan and to have Pres Obama meet the exiled Tib etan leader, the Dalai-Lama”.

On Tibet we recall that China has that place in lockdown as finds of oil, gold and uranium has been acknowledged.

China’s latest annual legislative session was attended by 700k security guards. There were calls for all Internet cafes to be shut down and a declaration that all cell phones should be equipped with surveillance cameras.

All this from the number one exporting and number one economy in the world.

Relative to Google a Chinese minister stated “If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations, you are unfriendly, you are irresponsible, and you will have to pay the consequences”.

Another Wash Post article relates : Leading off-shore oil producer China National Offshore Oil Corp said Sunday that it has agreed to pay $3.1B to form a joint venture with a major Argentine energy firm, helping to expand China’s access to natural resources in South America.” This investment would give China a 50% stake in Briidas Energy who currently has exploration and production operations for oio and gas in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile.

Didn’t mean to ramble on. Was looking for an article that relates the large oil contract China has signed with Iraq, which goes to Barry Lynn’s statement above.

Otherwise, we have the Corporacratic-Socialist government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 20, 2010 12:51 PM
Comment #297609

Roy Ellis-
Other polling disagrees with Rasmussen, both on their model and their results. You might want to look at other polling on the subject as well.

We can talk about the incremental ignoring of the founders original will, but we should acknowledge that some of that ignoring was a built in feature of the kind of government they founded. They didn’t want us to slavishly adhere to everything they thought or believed. They made the system more flexible with that, so it could evolve with the country.

We don’t live in the same world as the folks of the late 18th century. A trip to Europe in their day was a matter of months. Now it’s a matter of hours. A message to Europe used to move as fast as that ship to Europe. Now it moves at the speed of light, at the fastest.

I will not belabor the point further, but I will say this: this an other technological and scientific advances have change the nature of the challenges this nation faces. History has changed this country’s geography, it’s demography, it’s society.

Some remembrance of what the Founding fathers wanted is of course warranted. But it’s suicide to expect a country to govern itself by the sensibilities of the late 1700’s.

Some principles are timeless, hold true no matter what. The means of speech may not have changed, but speech still should be free, and whether the press distributes its issues on paper or with electrons, it should be protected. A man accused of a crime should have a defense lawyer, and shouldn’t have to testify against himself. A woman convicted of a crime should be given a just and humane sentence for her crimes. And the wisdom of the fourth, and yes even the second amendment still holds true today.

But we have to adapt things to the modern day, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn’t mention wiretaps or e-mail, blogs or television channels.

And we have to deal with the corporations as they are today, not as they were back in Washington’s day. Folks already tried laissez faire economics before we did, and it didn’t work out any better for the average person then, than it did now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2010 2:20 PM
Comment #297613

Roy Ellis,

I assume then that you would like to abolish Medicare and Social Security? They ARE the ones eating the bulk of the Federal Budget excepting Defense.

Posted by: Henry Jones at March 20, 2010 3:01 PM
Comment #297616


At the web site, Founding Fathers .com, they make much to do about this statement from the Declaration of Independence:

“they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,”

They go on to announce what fate should be fall all who, in their eyes, betray this truth.

“When patriotic Americans won the Revolutionary War, many thousands of Tories (liberals) were stripped of their property and many tens-of-thousands fled the country.”

It would appear that our new government and it’s loyal citizens had no problem at all in denying these Tories (liberals) their unalienable rights granted to them by their creator. Perhaps the Tories (liberals) had another creator, one that does not grant men unalienable rights.

At least these people have given fair warning about what fate is in store for liberals (Tories)once the true patriots take back their country and their government.

Posted by: jlw at March 20, 2010 7:15 PM
Comment #297617

The Dem’s have decided to ditch ‘deem to pass’ and hold a regular vote. A couple of bombs have gone off in Greece over the last 24 hours. People in the streets again, as they are in DC.
Stephen, as I am aware the Rasmussen poll is the standard bearer or polls. I agree, checking around would result in different numbers. Kinda like the CBO on the HC cost. Garbage in, garbage out.
You wrote: “ They didn’t want us to slavishly adhere to everything they thought or believed.” Several wouldn’t sign the Constitution until they were assured of a Bill of Rights. I think that implies they expected more than a ‘remembrance’. Yes, technology has helped change us and the country’s geography, demography and society has changed some. All the more reason to hold the Constitution up, assimilate and educate, etc. We can certainly argue about the immigration thing. It seems to be the norm that people flock to their ‘favorite place’ and no sooner do they arrive than they want to change things to something akin to the place they came from. I’ve seen hundreds of little burgs through the applacian’s where folks bitched about no good jobs, no good hospitals, we need this and that. After they get all that they bitch about too many red lights, lines in stores, outsiders taking over, ad infinitum.
You wrote: “But it’s suicide to expect a country to govern itself by the sensibilities of the late 1700’s.” Sensibilities? Not sure how they relates. Some things that affect my sensibilities are Corporate Personhood, Money is Free Speech, the best government money can buy, ad infinitum.
You wrote: “Some principles are timeless, hold true no matter what. The means of speech may not have changed, but speech still should be free – Agree, while acknowledging that the admin is working their Progressive butts off trying to figure out how to silence the Internet without pissing a bunch of folks off. Maybe they fund a joint study with China to figure that one out. Could you tick off a few more ‘timeless’ principles from the Constitution? I’d be interested.
You wrote: “And we have to deal with the corporations as they are today, not as they were back in Washington’s day.” Reminds one of the ‘war of regulation’, 1771, where 2k small farmers and locals gathered for a battle at Alamance Creek in NC. They were small property holders fighting against rapious elites. They lost badly and retreated across the Blue Ridge mountains to the Watauga Valley in East Tenn. This Watauga Association was North America’s first independent republic. However, they did recognize the authority of the Cherokee before the revolution. The Valley became a base for attacks on the British. A key turning point in the war was at the Battle of Kings Mountain where the British army was routed. Similar Watauga ‘regulator’ movements happened in Mass. And Pa. at the close of the 18th century. From this area Andy Jackson worked as a lawyer before moving on to take the fight to the British and new homegrown monopolies. Through Watauga passed Abe Lincoln and family on their way to Kentucky and Illinois and Gettysburg.
Stephen, I take it you don’t want to return to the days of yore as it relates to the Constitution. Alright, let’s agree that taking one law back would not be an overwhelming setback to democracy. Let’s abolish Corporate Personhood and leave all the other laws alone. Can we agree on that small change, one law? Anxiously await your reply.
Henry Jones, while I’m not in favor of Medicare and SS as run by the Fed I do believe there needs to be a safety net for some. It’s clear government can’t run an efficient healthcare system. They can’t regulate the monopolies, which stifles competition and sends prices skyward. They can’t police the fraud, etc. It makes little sense to turn such things over to the states as that’s already been tried and they badly as well. That’s why I blog here constantly about the need for a new 3rd party with a different political attitude whereby, Party members serve as oversight for their elected/appointed members. If these officials don’t follow the peoples agenda then they are subject to rejection from the Party by majority vote. The first requirement for such a party would be to work to abolish corporate personhood as IMO, no real legislation can ever be achieved until CP is gone. Once the money influence is gone from politics and the rep’s start focusing on their constituents I think folks would be more amenable to a government program such as Medicare and SS. A 3rd Party ‘with a different political attitude’ is the only solution IMO. Check out the Republic Sentry Party as an example of such a party.
Otherwise, we have the Corporacratic-Socialistic government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 20, 2010 7:40 PM
Comment #297631

Roy Ellis

“Its clear the government cannot run an efficient health care system.”

Do you mean that just the American government cannot run an efficient HC system? The other G7 governments are able to,at considerably less per capita cost,I might add. You do realize,I hope, that the government already DOES run an efficient HC system,the VA. Most reports are favorable and the is no disputing its cost efficiency. I also wonder about your statement as being even relevent to the proposal before congress. The HCR bill does not represent a government take over of HC. Private providers stay private ,insurers stay private. It does not even have a public option. That is a straw man opposition point.

Did you know that Alexander Hamilton favored a strong central government and an industrial policy based on government investment?

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/civ/1791manufactures.html

Often those quoting the FOUNDERS are like people that quote the Bible. There is no viewpoint that cannot be backed up by some scripture no matter how hairbrainned. I find facts and common sense to be more persuasive.

Posted by: bills at March 21, 2010 7:29 AM
Comment #297634

bills, I try to operate from common sense and factual info, when available. I have heard that we pay, on average, two to three times what most other developed countries pay for HC. And, common sense suggest to me that you can’t include 32M additional folks and not have a cost increase.Some facts makes me believe that we have the best government money can buy and any legislation is carried out under duress. Common sense tells me that this is the Progressive’s ‘foot in the door’ and that, incrementally, they will press on for single payer/govt run HC. lSome information I’ve read suggest that the Progressive’s are looking to put in place the remainder of FDR’s ‘new deal’ which, if I recall, included HC, job security, right to housing and education. A ‘nanny state’ for sure.

Ditto on education, we spend more and get less. We had a good system 30-40 years ago. What happened? Incremental takeover by the federal government of the education system, IMO. Now, they want the whole enchilada as a ‘right’.

And, fact is that the intent of the Founder’s was for a small Fed. A bridge to far, IMO. Example: you don’t get no water in the San Juaquin Valley unless the Fed turns the spigot on.

Yes, on Hamilton favoring a strong central government. He also created our national financial system. Then he also set about to enrich himself and fellow elites by establishing the first inter-state alliance of would-be land, industrial, and trading lords, known as the Federalist Party. As Sec Treas he used his position to help his well-off friends and allies, like structuring whiskey taxes to favor the rich distiller over the small independent. Hamilton wanted independence from Britain so the elites would be freer to plunder. Madison and Jefferson weren’t angels either but they were far more inclusive of the small dudes.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 21, 2010 9:56 AM
Comment #297647

Seems even the Dem’s don’t trust the Dem’s, some asking for an express Executive Order from the President assuring them that abortion funding has ‘really’ been removed from the bill. The Pres will sign an EO to that effect after the HC bill is passed in the House.

Otherwise, HC is a done deal. But, ostensibly, there will be some lawsuits along the lines of Constitutionality. One such way to defeat the bill would be for 2/3rds of the states to demand an amendment barring the federal regulation mandating individuals purchase healthcare. Congress would then be forced to hold a convention. Then there’s the other half of ARTICLE V Convention which is a citizens right that has been denied forever and will remain that way.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 21, 2010 4:20 PM
Comment #297659

Roy Ellis-
Things are clear to you that are not so clear to me. I do not hold that government is better in all things than private enterprise. Rather, I hold that the market is one of the things that must be governed, within the same framework of rights and obligations, as anything else. I believe in the rule of law, and I believe the market is not a substitute for that.

The problem is that people can cheat the market. In the course of my life, which effectively encompasses the Reagan and Bush 43 era, the Rise and Fall of the conservative movement as a governing force, I have seen one financial crisis and crash after another. From the Bond Market collapse of 1987, to the S+L crisis, to the Dot-Com Collapse, to the Enron Debacle, to the Housing Market Collapse to the market meltdown of 2008, the free market’s been given plenty of chances to rule itself.

If you ask me, should there be a central government office making every decision, my response would be no. The market reacts well enough, when it functions like it’s supposed to.

Problem is, in an attempt to give their friends free money, folks relaxed safeguards that would have made it harder to fake doing good business. Result? People make decisions that are stupid and harmful to the market, but nobody catches them until it’s too late.

When I talk about regulation, I talk about defining responsibilities and obligations for those who do business. Its what functioning governments do. I don’t have any great love for needless complexity or bureaucracy. I like clarity. I like corporations being forced to tell their stockholders the truth about the company’s health.

I like a corporate charter not being a license to pollute, or cause injury or death to customers with impunity.

I am no fan of corporate personhood. What puzzles me is that so many are anti-corporation, but at the same time they buy the rhetoric of the Republicans on regulation and corporate policies. It’s pretty simple for me. The solution isn’t merely curbing corporate welfare, it’s defining the rules that govern corporation’s behavior so as to keep order in that segment of society.

I didn’t like what we had to do with the banks. I would not be opposed to measures breaking up the large banks and separating sectors within from each other. The people who write a corporation’s bond issues should not be the ones who finance its equity through their stock brokerage.

Human nature combines a chaos of randomness with a cosmos of predictability. There are certain positions you put people in, where if you don’t keep up the pressure, or impose legal restrictions, you will see folks give into unhealthy temptations. Some of these are predictable enough that you can pattern laws to anticipate and prevent these problems.

As an aficianado of the sciences, Chaos theory offers insight here: not everything is neatly predictable, but over the long term, seen from farther out, what seems random often has its own larger scale order. You cannot prevent every problem, every bit of cheating, but you can target behaviors that peek their heads out from the randomness.

As for Article V conventions?

My stance on those is well known. 34 States must all be in agreement at the end of the campaign in question. They have to want the same convention.

But all that said? The reason the threshold is set so high is simple: General interests, in the framers’ minds were more important targets for such action. They didn’t want one group or faction’s pet cause, they wanted the Amendments to deal with matters that had such consensus agreement behind them, that nearly all the states would agree to the changes to deal with it. After all, the constitution is a charter between States.

Short of that, the concentration should be on statutory changes. I think some people go to the Constitution too quickly because they want the biggest club to bash their opponent with. Trouble is, the bulk of the law is statutory, and the framers intentionally made it difficult to change constitutional law, requiring a nationwide political movement in the State Legislatures to pass things.

I’m not an uncommitted Democrat, but I am a very pragmatic, strategically minded Democrat, which means I will take an smaller earlier victory to take a greater one later. I will establish a beachhead at Normandy, before I start dreaming of pushing into Northern France.

What I advise conservatives and others is to think out what they want, and see what things get them closest to it. Worry less about winning some debate for all time, and more about establishing good positions for moving forward. And no, you will not get an absolute victory on everything. But this is democracy. No victory is set in stone. Nor should it be. Future generations should have the ability to set policy for themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2010 8:08 PM
Comment #297661

I was hoping you would answer my question. But, I think we do generally agree on some issues. I know of no one who is anti-corporation in that they would want a corporation absolved. I don’t see the Republicans as being more in bed with the corporations than the Democrats. When we say we have the best money government can buy we ain’t talking one or the other. We are talking duopoly, oligarchy, etc. So you will have a better appreciation of the Dem’s role I’ll cite an exemplar: Recall that the House negotiated with the drug co’s to cede $80B for their part in making HC more affordable. Then the drug co’s immediately raised their prices, more than recouping the $80B. A few headlines and then silence all around. Exemplar dos: SOP for the drug co’s is to market a drug for non-approved purposes, which is illegal. In 2009 Pfizer was fined $2.3B, Lilly $1.415B , Serono, 2005, $704M, Purdue Pharma, 2007, $634M, Schering Plough, 2006, $435M, Pfizer, 2004, $430M, and Cephalon, 2008, $425M. While it may cost pharma’s $1B to develop a new drug, and I would vociferously dispute that, the drug co’s like to make a little on the side illegally. For instance, Lilly’s ZyPREXA sales for 2000-2008 was $36B with fines of $1.42B. Generally takes 4 or 5 years to get a case into court and another year or two to reach a verdict. Just the cost of doing business according to the pharmas. Judge’s have been unwilling to use a criminal felony charge and there has been no action from regulators to change this SOP. I’ve heard nothing of the HC bill relating to this type of crime. One more with feeling – Globalized economy yet we can’t purchase drugs from overseas. I’ve not heard foreign drug co’s making any waves about it so they must be happy with it. Wasn’t considered by the HC bill committee as a way to save big bucks. And, think of the competition that would come from busting up the big Pharmas and Insurance co’s, the millions of jobs that would create and the large cost savings in drugs and insurance.
If you would agree on breaking up the financials why would you not feel the same for all corporations? Pragmatic here too, in that our current debt will double in 5 years and triple in 10 years. From political fact.com “ The Census Bureau estimated in 2007 that there were nearly 116 million U.S. households. The current debt held by the public — the money the government has borrowed — is $7.8 trillion, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The current gross debt is $12.3 trillion.

Presto, chango, carry the one, move the decimal point … and you get two different debt per household figures.

The household share of the debt owed by the public is about $67,000. The household share of the gross federal debt is slightly more than $106,000.”
So, we are looking at $200k debt per household now and in ten years we will be looking at $500k debt per household. Being an aficianado of the sciences I’m sure you would agree it’s impossible to pay off a national debt that large. I’m not sure casting a vote for your favorite Dem is going to save us Stephen. I think it will take a populist 3rd Party ‘with a different political attitude’, etc. With one major priority, abolish corporate personhood and money is free speech law. Doesn’t mean I dislike corporations. Just means there ain’t no sense in trying to pay down the debt until you fix the cause of the debt - - the best government money can buy.

Otherwise, we have the Corporacratic-Socialist government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 21, 2010 10:17 PM
Comment #297700

Roy,

The world is a complex place.

Your first assertion is where you take a wrong turn, in my opinion.

The Founder’s were the first to ignore their own “intent”.

Washington’s ride against the Revolutionary Hero Daniel Shay’s rebellion.

Adam’s Alien and Sedition act.

Jefferson’s “illegal” purchase of the Louisiana Territory.

The Monroe doctrine.

Posted by: gergle at March 22, 2010 7:05 PM
Comment #300263

why is fox news afraid of the book ( what hath God Wrought ) By Dr. William p. Grady and ( the hidden dangers of the rainbow ) By Constance Camby. ???

Posted by: AceOverKings at May 8, 2010 9:12 AM
Post a comment