Fox is reporting that Obamacare will pass in part due to the Blue Dog Democrats, all of whom need to be voted out of office, specifically including conservative Democrat Bart Stupak, who is willing to take President Obama's executive order as final proof that the law will not fund abortion. It seems likely that Congressman Stupak was strong armed because no one makes a deal where one side can rescind the deal at any time and the other makes a final commitment. Stupak is willing to trust Obama, and despite the naive arguments of ethics professsors, trust is inappropriate to deal making in politics and business. Certain elements of trust are necessary for a successful society. For instance, we trust that Congress will not violate the Constitution and that the Supreme Court will reverse it if it does. But our trust in that case is misguided, and American society is not successful. But that is a discussion for another day.
Former Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey said at the recent Queens Village Republican Club Lincoln Day dinner that the bill would eliminate hip replacements, knee surgery and bypass surgery for senior citizens and that these operations have added significantly to the quality of life of the elderly. In other words, elective surgery is going to be curtailed. Boomers have been subsidizing the preceding generation through Medicare, Medicaid and insurance premiums, and now they will not receive the same level of care. On the other hand, it will inevitably be true that illegal aliens will receive benefits under Obamacare regardless of the provisions of the act as presently constituted. In other words, the Baby Boomer generation is a generation of suckers. It watched passively as the "greatest generation" sucked Social Security dry and enjoyed ever increasing Social Security and Medicare benefits. Then it watched Social Security curtailed in 1982 (for now the curtailment is merely an increase in the retirement age, but that will be increased further, mark my words). Now it sucks its collective thumb while Il Duce Pelosi subjects them to rationing of the operations to which their parents had open access. I have no doubt that planned suicide will be an important dimension of Obamacare, and progressives at the Washington Post have recently been singing the praises of planned suicide.
Boomers who want knee surgery will need to go to India or Arabia to have the operation done. The rates overseas are roughly five to 20 percent of the rates here in the US. However, they also will be forced to provide care to younger Americans and illegal immigrants with large families, whom Obama and Pelosi view as more worthy of care than middle class Americans. Nancy and Paul Pelosi, of course, are worth tens of millions of dollars and they will be able to pay for their knee surgery out of pocket, as will Barack Obama.
This is not a legitimate law. Congress as an elected body is traitorous, as is Obama. The American system of government has failed. It is time to begin considering a new approach to government, one that resurrects the Tenth Amendment and separates the nation into fifty quasi-independent states. I would like the freedom to move from New York to a free state.
Showing posts with label tenth amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tenth amendment. Show all posts
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Friday, April 17, 2009
Letter to Geraldo Rivera Re Gov. Rick Perry's Call for State Sovereignty
Dear Mr. Rivera: I chanced to see your appearance on the O'Reilly Factor while at a friend's house. I was disappointed in your reaction to Gov. Rick Perry's position on state sovereignty and I also disagree with you about Mayor Bloomberg, on whose campaign I worked in 2001 and 2005. In particular, you resorted to name calling, saying that Perry had resorted to a "fringe" position.
The question of centralization and decentralization ought to be placed in the context not only of American political debate but also of the development of managerial knowledge. The trend toward centralization began with William Jennings Bryan's candidacy, or perhaps with Abraham Lincoln, was carried forward during the Wilson admininstration, amplified during the FD Roosevelt administration and amplified further since the 1960s. By the 1920s managers of large businesses realized that decentralization is a more efffective managerial strategy than centralization. The fact that Republicans like T Roosevelt and Democrats like FDR pushed for centralization at the very time that leading managers like Alfred Sloan were recognizing the advantages of decentralization was a function of fallacies of the Progressive and New Deal ideology. We know that centralization is wrong because conglomerates that are well run have almost all resorted to decentralization. The federal government, where mismanagement is the rule, has insisted on centralization because of an awkward political inheritance that equates decentralization with racism. Your reference to this legacy was a sorry non-sequitor.
The tragic results of the centralizing strategic error that occurred in the 20th century have been manifold. They range from a bloated, ineffective federal government, to inflation due to the Federal Reserve Bank, to failed public benefit plans like Social Security and Medicare. I do not think it is "fringe" or "extreme" to judge that the increase in Social Security benefits in the early 1970s was ill considered and harmful to subsequent generations. It resulted from incompetent political decision making processes (i.e., overly centralized democracy resulting in transfer from later to earlier generations) and was harmful to future generations of an entire nation rather than of a single state. In contrast, the depredations on inner cities caused by urban renewal in the postwar era was more localized because it occurred on a state by state basis. Had Robert Moses taken his wrecking ball to the entire nation, the entire nation would have gone bankrupt in the 1970s instead of just New York City.
I don't expect you to be familiar with the range of managerial literature that emphasizes the benefits of decentralization, but such an idea is very much within the tradition of pragmatism. Sadly, the majority "consensus" of Democrats and Republicans that has emphasized a rigid and ill considered policy of centralization and reduction in state power over many decades might be better considered to be an "extremist" or "fringe" viewpoint. Majorities have been wrong many times, and this is one of them. In any case, calling people who disagree with you names like "extremists" is not a sign of clear thinking. It is a tactic in which the centralizers have long engaged, at least since Theodore Roosevelt. This sort of behavior might silence opponents, but it does a bad job of uncovering the facts.
I would add that your love of Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also ill considered. His association with the Independence Party from whom he recruited hapless "volunteers"; his failure to cut or improve New York City's government; his failure to attract new business to New York when times were good on Wall Street; his failure to reform the corrupt construction codes; and his indifference to the plight of small business people in New York, whom he has harrassed in a variety of ways, speak to a second or third rate mayor, not one to extol.
Sincerely
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
The question of centralization and decentralization ought to be placed in the context not only of American political debate but also of the development of managerial knowledge. The trend toward centralization began with William Jennings Bryan's candidacy, or perhaps with Abraham Lincoln, was carried forward during the Wilson admininstration, amplified during the FD Roosevelt administration and amplified further since the 1960s. By the 1920s managers of large businesses realized that decentralization is a more efffective managerial strategy than centralization. The fact that Republicans like T Roosevelt and Democrats like FDR pushed for centralization at the very time that leading managers like Alfred Sloan were recognizing the advantages of decentralization was a function of fallacies of the Progressive and New Deal ideology. We know that centralization is wrong because conglomerates that are well run have almost all resorted to decentralization. The federal government, where mismanagement is the rule, has insisted on centralization because of an awkward political inheritance that equates decentralization with racism. Your reference to this legacy was a sorry non-sequitor.
The tragic results of the centralizing strategic error that occurred in the 20th century have been manifold. They range from a bloated, ineffective federal government, to inflation due to the Federal Reserve Bank, to failed public benefit plans like Social Security and Medicare. I do not think it is "fringe" or "extreme" to judge that the increase in Social Security benefits in the early 1970s was ill considered and harmful to subsequent generations. It resulted from incompetent political decision making processes (i.e., overly centralized democracy resulting in transfer from later to earlier generations) and was harmful to future generations of an entire nation rather than of a single state. In contrast, the depredations on inner cities caused by urban renewal in the postwar era was more localized because it occurred on a state by state basis. Had Robert Moses taken his wrecking ball to the entire nation, the entire nation would have gone bankrupt in the 1970s instead of just New York City.
I don't expect you to be familiar with the range of managerial literature that emphasizes the benefits of decentralization, but such an idea is very much within the tradition of pragmatism. Sadly, the majority "consensus" of Democrats and Republicans that has emphasized a rigid and ill considered policy of centralization and reduction in state power over many decades might be better considered to be an "extremist" or "fringe" viewpoint. Majorities have been wrong many times, and this is one of them. In any case, calling people who disagree with you names like "extremists" is not a sign of clear thinking. It is a tactic in which the centralizers have long engaged, at least since Theodore Roosevelt. This sort of behavior might silence opponents, but it does a bad job of uncovering the facts.
I would add that your love of Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also ill considered. His association with the Independence Party from whom he recruited hapless "volunteers"; his failure to cut or improve New York City's government; his failure to attract new business to New York when times were good on Wall Street; his failure to reform the corrupt construction codes; and his indifference to the plight of small business people in New York, whom he has harrassed in a variety of ways, speak to a second or third rate mayor, not one to extol.
Sincerely
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The Coming American Civil War
Bob Robbins just forwarded this post at World Net Daily. According to WND lawmakers in eight states have proposed bills declaring state sovereignty due to "a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control.
"...The various sovereignty measures moving through state legislatures are designed to reassert state authority through a rollback of federal authority under the powers enumerated in the Constitution, with the states assuming the governance of the non-enumerated powers, as required by the Tenth Amendment.
"The state sovereignty measures, aimed largely at the perceived fiscal irresponsibility of Congress in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have gained momentum with the $1 trillion deficit-spending economic stimulus package the Obama administration is currently pushing through Congress."
These are exciting developments. The devolution of power to the states could throw a major wrench into the plans of the liberal establishment.
"...The various sovereignty measures moving through state legislatures are designed to reassert state authority through a rollback of federal authority under the powers enumerated in the Constitution, with the states assuming the governance of the non-enumerated powers, as required by the Tenth Amendment.
"The state sovereignty measures, aimed largely at the perceived fiscal irresponsibility of Congress in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have gained momentum with the $1 trillion deficit-spending economic stimulus package the Obama administration is currently pushing through Congress."
These are exciting developments. The devolution of power to the states could throw a major wrench into the plans of the liberal establishment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
