The Absurdity of It All

Do you know why a can of soda loaded with sugar is so cheap while healthy fruits and vegetables are so relatively expensive? Its because of farm subsidies. While subsidizing sugar farmers, the government is increasing the availability of sugar in our food stream, increasing obesity. Yet, this is the same government that says it is now going to solve our health care system.

What Happened to Our Government

It seems as I look at our elected officials in washington and at the state level more and more, not with disgust (although that happens quite frequently), but with disappointment. Why? Because they are acting more and more like children. When was the last time we heard a civil discourse? When was the last time we went a week without our elected officials calling each other names?

I am disappointed because other countries have historically looked to America as a shining example of what to do. If we go back to our early days, yes there were insults, but people looked down upon others that refused to remain civil. We have stories of presidents and former presidents going at each other's throats in debate and yet maintaining a level of respect and dignity that the office demanded.

I am even more disappointed because the loss of respect and dignity is merely an indicator of our society. We no longer respect each other's opinions. We no longer appreciate differences. It seems as though we must be a plain jane country in order for us to get along. You know what, that is an awful awful place to be. The ability to work within our differences is what made America great. The respect and admiration of our differences is what made America America.

Yet, with the greed of power and money and our own inflated opinions of ourselves, we have lost that, and it shows in DC, in our state and at our local governments.

This is why I refuse to be a part of either of the two major parties. I like hearing people's differences. I apprecite the value system underlying the differences and I know the importance of taking differences into account.

I am a free thinker. I am an independent. I am a moderate. I am a Whig.

Prove It!!

America will come back from this economic downturn, but one thing is clear, both Republicans and Democrats are going to claim victory. The Democrats, and especially Obama in 2010, will claim that the stimulus bill was the key factor in keeping this great nation from going under. The Republicans will claim that the stimulus did nothing other than to delay recovery and add to our deficit. The simple fact of the matter is that, we have no idea what really happened. And that is how these parties operate.

Both Republicans and Democrats refuse, absolutely refuse, to put in real, measurable metrics to determine the effectiveness of spending bills, and for good reason. They both want to confuse and confound the unwary public of their alleged success or alleged failures. In other words, both sides refuse to hold themselves accountable.

But, while refusing to hold themselves accountable is clearly and issue, and one that needs to be corrected, this goes back to another issue that is not talked about, and that is the competency of Congress. Most in Congress have little to no business experience. Obama's administration has less than 10% of people with any experience other than academic experience. Yet, somehow, because of a misplaced belief in their own capabilities, Congress believes that it knows whats best. And that is simply wrong.

Now, take the issue of the refusal to hold themselves accountable. We know that it is a power play, but it also shows a complete and utter lack of fundamental business principles. Taxes are an investment by the public in its goverment. The government takes that investment and performs functions. Sounds like a non-profit business. Well, what non-profit business refuses to hold themselves accountable to their investors? What non-profit refuses to track and measure the money being spent? While a non-profit in the real world would surely be sued not only by its investors but also but the government if it acted this way, for some reason, the government itself does not hold itself to the same laws.

And that is pathetic.

Gay Rights

If you have read this blog, you probably already know that I have an issue with current state of affairs with regards to gay rights. But, you would also know that my issue is not due to any moral or religious belief (I do not want/need my government to enforce my religion), but due to a sheer Constitutional error.

Okay, in simple terms, according to our Constitution and to what we try to endeavor to be as a society, the rights granted to a man are the same as or equivalent to the rights granted to a woman. In other words, under our Constitution, Man = Woman.

Now, currently, under Federal law, a marriage is a man and a woman, e.g. Man + Woman = Marriage.

But, if we are true to ourselves and our belief in the Constitution, each component is substitutable because each are equivalent. In other words:

Man + Woman = Marriage
Man = Woman, therefore

Man + Man = Marriage or
Woman + Woman = Marriage.

So, those that oppose right given to gay people, do you oppose equal rights among the sexes or do you oppose marriage?

Modern Whig: Florida Whig Party has left the MWP

As some of you may know, the FWP has left the Modern Whig Party. The FWP left, according to their website, because of an unfulfilled request for information from the leadership of the MWP. Although there have been disagreements between the FWP and the MWP, this temporary separation is actually a good thing for both entities. First, it gives the MWP time to determine whether or not the FWP is a centrist, moderate organization with the same goals tenants of the MWP. Second, it gives the FWP the necessary separation to fully focus on their candidates. They are currently running three candidates for national office, which takes a lot of time and money. And finally, it allows for a cooling off period.

When you get people that are this passionate about changing things, oftentimes you end up with disagreements and hurt feelings. Passion is a great motivator but can sometimes be harmful if things get out of hand. What the FWP did was exactly what they should have done. All of us involved with the Whig movement are passionate and emotional about this. We do not get paid but spend a lot of our off time trying to do something that has not been done before, and that is, build a viable, moderate national party. We get emotionally vested, deeply vested, in the party.

It will be interesting to see if the FWP remains separate and a MWP chapter is established there or if they come back to the MWP. But, regardless, their success as a third party can only help the MWP movement, and thus, I wish them the best of luck.

Modern Whig: Expected Attacks

There has been an anonymous blogger that has decided to take it upon himself or herself to try to discredit the founders and leaders of the Modern Whig Party. They are attacking the record, integrity and patriotism of veterans and other leaders, and that is unacceptable. I ended up being part of this attack, and they tried to use my name to accomplish their goals. About a week ago, I sent an internal letter to the leadership of the MWP notifying them that I will be stepping down as chair of Georgia. The vicechairman will be taking my role. I felt it was best for Georgia as the vicechairman has a unique vision that will help Georgia, and I wanted to make sure he had all the resources he could to bring that to fruition. Well, the blogger at "The Truth About the Modern Whigs..." found out and decided to turn a letter in which I praised the organization and the people and misquoted me. It is unfortunate, but I am now consulting with other attorneys and am considering legal action against this blogger. But, there is a lesson here, in that what has been done is typical of what is going on now in politics. When our politicians disagree with each other, instead of being agreeable, they attack each other, often ending in personal attacks. Despite what you hear, most of the people that are elected are good people.

Here is a screencap of a posting about my transfer. the blogger took it down, but I had already saved the misquoted posting.

Ideologies: Their failure

People keep asking me how I can say I stand for something when I continue to refuse to adhere to an ideology (i.e. lower taxes, bigger government, etc). I often struggle with the discussion because we have been lead to believe that ideologies are solutions, when in fact, they are soundbites to lure an unwary public into voting for someone. I have discussed before concrete evidence of how ideologies simply do not work (republicans increase debt; democrats failure to solve poverty). But, I want to put it into a simple story.

A bridge manufacturer has developed an expertise in designing and building bridges using lightweight, composite materials. In fact, all they do now is build bridges using that material. Composite materials are more expensive than steel and do not have the same physical properties, but this manufacturing company is so sure of the benefit, that is refuses to build using anything else.

along comes a village in the north atlantic. they hired this company to build a bridge over a river. the crossing is buffeted by winds and freezing temperatures most of the year. ships pass through the river, creating unique currents. the conditions present a unique challenge to the company, but they are so sure of the superiority of composite materials, they convince the villagers to buy their bridge. oh yeah, since it costs a lot more, the bridge design is not as robust, but that is okay, because composites are superior to steel. the villagers believe them and spend their money on hiring the company to build the bridge. two months after the bridge was built, a cold spell hit the town. they were used to this level of temperature, but the company did not realize that it gets that cold in that part of the world. at the same time, an iceberg splits into several massive chunks which start impacting the bridge. this is normal too but the extent unknown to the bridge company. and last, but certainly not least and not unexpected, a freezing rain hits the village. as we can guess, the composite material could not handle the conditions and the bridge fails and several villagers die. it is later discovered that the use of steel would have been a superior choice at half the price.

What happened? the company was so sure of the superiority of composite material that they used all their energy into fitting it into the problem. the use of composite material was the solution (for them) and they were going to do whatever it taked to make sure that the solution they wanted was used. but, there were big problems. first, they ignored completely the issue at hand. there were unique conditions in this village that the company did not know of or bother to understand. instead, they fully relied upon prior knowledge and assumed that this situation was going to be similar. the small differences made the difference. second, they already had the solution before they analyzed the problem. they were hell bent on using composites. if they had gone into the problem with open eyes, they would have realized that composites were a bad design choice. and finally, they cut costs. the villagers could not pay for the expensive bridge they wanted, so they cut costs to still build a bridge despite the fact that the cutting of corners would seriously hamper the safety of the bridge.

Now, take that story and apply it to what we hear day in and day out from politicians. we are told we have to believe something. the democrats' solution for everything is bigger government. the republicans solution for everything is lower taxes. each problem is unique unto itself, and we deserve more than soundbites, we deserve solutions.

I end with this. Conservatives and Republicans hoist Reagan as being the beakon of conservative government. "He lowered taxes." "He decreased the size of government." go to factcheck.org or look around. You will quickly see that he did not. Reagan's genius was not in actually implementing a conservative ideology. His genius was in fooling others into believing that he did. He knew you needed to look at problems individually, and he did.

Where are the jobs?

Last november, all we heard from the Democratic leadership was how they were going to focus on jobs. Along the way, several heard the call from Rahm Emmanuel saying to not let a good crisis go to waste. So, instead of focusing on job creation, for the entire past year, Congress has essentionally been focused on healthcare reform. What amazes me is that while America bleeds jobs, Congress focuses on the largest spending program in history. It is unfortunate, but a political reality, that people who would rather not live off the taxpayer dime are forced to. There is one thing the Democratic leadership has been good at since the unfortunate passing of JFK: the creation of victims.
And the Republicans fare no better in this debate. Their proposals are loaded with special interest plays as well.

It is frustrating to see this whole thing go down. Instead of analyzing the solution for what it was, each party has decided to implement their ideologies and try to find a solution that fits within those ideologies. The square peg in the round hole. No matter what the outcome, rest assured, the solutions have little to do with the problems of healthcare costs and are only based upon ideologies and special interests. We the taxpayer get caught in the middle. This is pure laziness and power grabs by the Democratic parties (and the republicans proposed plans). Lazineses. Blindly going along with ideologies. Smaller government, lower taxes - Republicans, I hate to tell you, but everytime you elect Republicans to control either one of the houses, deficit spending goes through the roof and taxes go up. Instead of listening to how Reagan allegedly reduced taxes and reduced the size of government, go to factcheck.org and start the process of learning it yourself. Reagan's genius was not in his adherence to ideologies (he knew that ideologies are not solutions). No, Reagan's genius was in his ability to fool the people into believing that he was implementing them.

And the Democrats are the same. Instead of looking at the issues in an unbiased manner, they set forth social agenda with little regard for the actual problem. For years, spending on social programs has increased (even under Republican governments), yet, the income gap is essentially the same. Throwing money at a problem does nothing. You need to empower the people. You need to give them teh ability to work through their problems. You need to give them the chance for a victory, on their own. You need to let them feel proud. you need to quit creating victims. And btw, if anyone thinks that Republicans are in the tank for corporations, look at the pattern of corporate giving. The Democrats fare much, much better.

The point of this post, other than to just vent, is to say that enough is enough. We need people in congress that are not lazy, know how to look at a problem and solve it. Quit giving us soundbites and give us real solutions.

The Rightful Function of Government

Although I realize beforehand that in order to fully explain what I write below will take an entire treatise, I am outlining what I believe to be the function of government, and its limitations.

The power of Government (local, state, and federal) should be limited to only that which is necessary to ensure or enhance the efficient operation of society.

The size and manner of operation of Government (local, state and federal) should be extended only to the point necessary to ensure its efficient operation.

The goal of any Government should be to minimize its influence upon the individual while maximizing its effect to cause an efficiently operating society.

The default should be, when solving a problem, to go from no government intervention to full government control not start at the opinion that government is the solution to solve a problem.

Any government program should, on a yearly basis, justify both quantitatively and qualitatively how its existence provides for a benefit greater than the burden required to fund such a program.

The government of a just society would temper the realization that the only guaranteed rights are those set forth in our Constitution with the fact that a large segment of our society has, by action of law, not been able to enjoy and benefit from these guaranteed rights until relatively recently.

Question about Gay Rights

In a discussion, I was asked my opinion on Gay Marriage. While I do not speak for the Modern Whig Party, much like the differing opinions in the Democratic party, I believe that the denial of Gay Marriage rights is unconstitutional. Currently, there is a national "right" called marriage. It is not really a "right", but a status that affords the citizens that obtain a legal marriage certain benefits which include tax and survivorship benefits. In order to obtain this status, a man and a woman must have a legitimate marriage, either performed as a civil ceremony or as a civil ceremony which is part of a religious ceremony. By having a legitimate marriage, individual states cannot deny certain benefits afforded on a national level (each state has different benefits, but the marriage must be recognized).

And this is where the ban on gay marriage runs aground Constitutionally. Assuming all else is equal, each citizen is supposed to have rights equivalent to others in the same position. In other words, a woman is supposed to have at least the same rights as a man, and a man in one state is supposed to have at least the same rights under the US Constitution in one state as another. The Constitution is a quid pro quo document. It is stated in the Constitution that there must be a separation of church and state. Taking all of those together, it is illogical, and mere ideological based thinking, to deny the right of a man to marry another man when they have the right to marry a woman. That would mean that in certain situations, rights are curtailed merely based upon gender. In other words, remove all of the religious and moral arguments. At the very core, the denial of gay marriage rights is gender based discrimination.

Notice how I did not insert any moral aspects. This is merely based upon case law and logical thinking. I can be opposed morally to gay marriage yet, if I believe in the Constitution, I have to affirm the right of marriage to those of different sexual persuasion.

But, for the sake of argument, let's inject morality into this discussion. The number one reason why people argue that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is tradition based upon the fact that this country was founded by Christians. While I do not want to get into a lengthly discussion of the Christianity of our founders, they were also white, men, and half slave owners, so by that logic, we should also remove the rights of minorities and woman and bring back slavery. Do you see the absurdity? But I digress. Let's get back to the moral aspects. So, if the union between a man and a woman is more moral than the union between a woman and a woman, why are their laws permitting divorce? Divorce is the absolute destruction of a marriage, and in some religious orders, a moral sin. Yet, we seem to be comfortable as a society with this aspect.

See, the problem with morality is that it only works for those with the exact same viewpoints. While it is great that we live our lives in a moral fashion according to our own beliefs, what is our right to force our morals onto others? I cannot remember where I heard this, but to me, this rings true. "I am fearful of the day in which my guns and my religion are controlled by the same organization."

Fortunately, for us, America is composed of people with morals and ethics that span opinions. While we must legislate baseline morality (e.g. no killing, no theft, etc.), we should rely upon our Constitution and our desire as Americans to include all rational and reasonable viewpoints. To me, although others in the Modern Whig Party may have differing opinions, this type of thought process is the way of the moderates and the way of the Georgia Modern Whig Party.

Are Whigs Republican-Lite

There is a great discussion going on right now in a posting the Daily Kos about the article of the Georgia Modern Whig Party made it look like we were Republican-lite. There are some great comments and some offhanded insults, but really most were genuine in their analysis.

Unfortunately, because of space, my comments regarding my political ideologies was unfortunately cut-off. Mr. Howard provided a great, balanced article, but I think the fact that he only invited comment from the Republican county leader evidenced that I may have not made my point. I am a moderate. I believe that the solutions to a problem come from various sides of the political spectrum. We are reaching out to both Democrats and Republicans that are increasingly left behind by their parties. We believe in being socially progressive.

But, please let me be clear, I believe that ideological based solutions are incomplete and an incompetent manner in which to govern. How long do we as citizens have to suffer from dealing with politicians that pander to their extreme base by offering solutions based not on logic or data, but rather, on ideologies. The constant and incessant attempt to fit the proverbial square peg in a round hole is hurting us all.

To the leaders in Georgia, and from what I have gathered by talking to my fellow citizens in Georgia, being a moderate is not about being a middle of the road type of person. That tends to lead someone to believe that we believe in nothing, which is absolutely untrue. Rather, we believe that being a moderate is not succumbing to ideologies and putting forth rational, common sense solutions.

We believe in principles and goals, not ideologies. We believe in accountability and measurability, not ideologies. We believe in having an open mind, realizing that listening to opposing viewpoints is an opportunity to learn rather than a sign of weakness. No single one of us has all the answers, but together we do. It is this moderate thought process that gave us the Constitution.

How do politicians in DC "Cut taxes"

Every president for the past 20 years have professed to cut taxes, both individual and corporate. While corporate taxation is relatively straightforward, the way in which individual taxes are cut involves a slight of hand in a lot of instances. The Federal government can promote these things called "mandates", basically standards or laws that state and local governments must enforce or comply with. These mandates are often social or commercial programs that involve the actual spending of money. What the federal government does is push the cost down to the states, thus lowering the federal government expenditures, thus giving them the ability to "cut taxes". For example, to implement and comply with No Child Left Behind, states had to spend significant money. This is state money, thus requiring the states to either cut other programs or raise state taxes. So, the federal government gets to have its cake and eat it too. Not only do they get to tout the fact that they started a great program, but they also get to tout that they did not raise, and possibly did lower, taxes. In the meantime, states are left with the bill.

think about this when you read the healthcare bill and how it will be funded.

Re-adjusting the Size of the House of Representatives

A lawsuit was filed by a group called Apportionment.US. the suit alleges that the current allocation of seats in the HOR is unconstitutional. When the seats were allocated in 1911, the difference in population was minimal. In the last 90 some odd years, America has grown a little bit. It should be an interesting lawsuit to monitor. Unfortunately, these sorts of cases have typically been thrown out because the "harm" to the individual plaintiffs have usually been found to be too remote. Hopefully, they found a nice hook to keep it in court.

Fiscal Responsibility Does Not Equal Fiscal Conservatism

Much has been made about the need for fiscal conservatism to come back to Washington, but why then does the Modern Whig Party say "fiscal responsibility" rather than "fiscal conservatism"? One of the main concepts of the Modern Whig Party is common sense solutions. The solution should be derived from the problem itself, not based upon a preconceived notion of ideology. That is where fiscal conservatism becomes a real issue. Throughout the reign of the Republicans in the past decade, President Bush and the leaders in Washington touted, professed fiscal conservatism. It was their mainstay, their platform. But, we know it didn't work, and in fact, had the opposite effect. Deficits under the Republican were out of control and the government expanded in a manner unseen until President Obama took the reigns. Why?

Some would say corruption, greed, power. Yes, those cannot be ruled out. But, the larger issue is that the "theory of fiscal conservation" is just that, a theory. Reduce government spending, reduce the size of government. Great notions, but without more, it often leads to either expansion of government or inadequately funded mandates. How many times in the past 20 years or so did the federal government send mandates to the states, yet under the guise of fiscal conservation, did not fund the mandates? The congress people in Washington can tout their conservative principles for re-relection, yet, have failed to provide a real, common sense solution. They have merely succeeded in hiding the ball, shifting the spending from the federal government to the states. Now that states are broke, federal mandates are requiring the federal government to step in and fund the states, thus, leading to a massive expansion of government.

The best solution is Fiscal Responsibility. It is not about bigger government, smaller government. But rather, Fiscal Responsibility is about the Right Size of Government. It begins with the manner in which the problem is solved (discussed in another post below) and ends with finding the right, non-ideological biased solution to achieve the results. Fiscal Responsibility is about looking at the solution without preconceived biases, finding the common sense solution, and setting forth the right size of government intervention (if any) to meet the needs.

Fiscal Conservatism is an idea. Fiscal Responsibility is a solution.

Modern Whig Way of Problem Solving

When presented with an issue, here is the way that a problem should be solved, from start to finish:

1) Is this issue a local, state or federal issue?

2) If the issue is a federal issue, does the Federal government has a constitutional right to solve the problem?

3) Generate the "system". List the inputs into the issue, list the outputs from the issue. For example, the issue may be health care costs. Inputs include fraud, legal actions, chronic illnesses, immigration, and technology. Outputs are care and quality.

4) Determine how each input affects each output at a local level.

5) Determine scalability. Even if a problem may be handled on a federal level, if a "one size fits all" approach does not scale, then the issue should be solved at the highest level. For example, healthcare is very much a local issue. Immigration is not so much of an issue in Montana as it is in California.

6) Optimize the solution. Right level of solution (local, state or national). right size of government (if even necessary). Right change in inputs or additional inputs for the desired output.

7) Write legislation that provides a means of measuring the affect.

8) In the legislation, provide a means for changing or abolishing the legislation based upon the measured affect.

What is a Moderate?

Here in Georgia, we are redefining what it means to be a moderate. Right now, the two major parties want to force people into two camps, liberal or conservative. They are moving these camps further and further to the left or right. They want the people to believe that political beliefs are a range. It makes things easier. its easier to incite your base if you can use throwaway terms instead of addressing the issues. It is easier to get your constituents to buy into your bills if you can generalize the bill according to an ideology rather than the actual issue itself. We believe that ideological thought processes are radical, and creating solutions based on the issues themselves, without any preconceived ideological biases, is true moderate thinking.

For example, it is easy for Dems to sell the healthcare package because they label and design the package as bigger government. Republicans are finding ways to incite their constituents against the bill because they allege bigger government.

Unfortunately, what Washington does now is not pass into law solutions, but ideas. There are so many costs that go into healthcare, and no one in Congress has bothered to figure out how the new healthcare bill is going to affect those costs. For all we know, the costs could skyrocket, thus putting a taxable load on the american people.

Here is how a moderate would handle the problem (according to how we think what a moderate is): use basic engineering principles. Determine your inputs, change an input, measure the change in output(s). perform the change for each. Optimize the solution based upon the changes. Have a means for measuring results and a way to change the input if the results are not satisfactory.

Applied to the healthcare debate, there are about 9 major factors that lead to "costs" in healthcare (chronic illnesses, fraud, lawsuits, inefficiencies, etc.). What we should do is go to the local level and change one of the inputs. For example, a city can be funded by the federal government to crack down hard on insurance fraud. measure the output. use the cities and local governments as test tubes. figure out a process in which the major inputs can be changed at a local level and measure the output. figure out what works best (reduces costs, increases quality, increases accessibility).

No where in this discussion did I invoke the need for smaller government, more taxes, etc. The solution will come from the problem itself.

Just a thought.

The President's Speech

As we looked at President Obama's speech last night, two things are clear: the man can give a good speech and that Washington is broken. Plainly evident was the fact that any hope of any compromise is gone, as each side has taken cover and is ready for a fight. It is disappointing that at each turn, each side is ready, willing and able to personally and professionally insult those on the other side of the aisle. It is a shame that one of the most precious gifts our forefathers gave to us, our government, has turned into a fourth grade shouting match. Just because someone does something wrong or does something that you do not agree with should not be looked at as an opportunity for insult and belittlement.

One Size Fits All Federal Government Does Not Work...

and never has.

As we look at what the federal government has become in the last 40 or so years, one thing is plainly evident, the issues Georgia faces are the same exact issues that California faces. This is not the case, and we that have lived in several states know that each state is different. For example, education is a major issue in the south and a major accomplishment of the north. California is bankrupt while some states, even in this recession, still have surpluses in the bank. Most southern and southwestern states, as well as California, have severe illegal immigration issues, with the accompanying safety and public welfare burdens placed upon their systems.

Yet, despite these differences, the federal government still attempts to assert a one size fits all solution in every case. The simple fact of the matter is that while some issues handled by the federal government may be national in scope, the specific facts of each state vary from state to state. A national solution will inherently be inefficient and ineffective unless it is tailored specifically to the situation at hand. As we have seen, the federal government is neither willing nor able to relinquish any control or authority to the states.

Why the current healthcare reform package is doomed to fail...

As discussed earlier, one of the largest costs of healthcare that we Americans share is the cost attributable to chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. A large percentage of those cases are situations in which the disease was almost certainly the result of a lifestyle choice, whether it be smoking, obesity, malaise, etc. That means lifestyle choice is a major cost, if not the major cost, of healthcare today. In private insurance, there is a disincentive for people, and that is the increased cost of health care premiums based upon poor lifestyle choices. even in large corporations where seemingly everyone has the same costs, an employer can realize significant savings by supporting efforts to increase the health of its workers. Many companies now offer significant incentives for a healthier lifestyle to its employees.

Now comes KennedyCare. In the bill, the cost borne by each of us will depend entirely from our economic situation. Those in higher tax brackets will pay more taxes to support this program. Okay, thats just like any other tax, so what is the problem? The problem is that this is a bandaid over a gaping chest wound. Instead of disincentivizing poor lifestyle habits, through the means of taxation, poor habits will actually be subsidized. Thats right. No more economic disincentives.

Now, let's look at the affect this healthcare bill will have. Because poor lifestyle choices will now be subsidized, the standard of health in our country will continue to fall, which will mean increased costs, increased taxes. Those taxes cannot all be borne by the rich and will cause increased taxes on middle and low income earners. What does this mean? Unhealthy food is usually cheaper than healthy food. With less money to spend, low wage earners will increasingly turn to unhealthy foods to eat, as their budgets are increasingly being eroded by increasing taxes supporting unhealthy lifestyles.

That means that an increasing number of people will suffer from chronic illnesses, thus increasing the costs more, causing a vicious cycle. How did this happen?

It happened purely because our representatives failed to identify and correct the real problems, and instead, looked blindly at idealogy to solve the problem. Without solving the problem of chronic illness first, any healthcare reform may end up causing more harm than good.

The Importance of the 10th Amendment

As we look at what America has become over the last 20 years or so, I often wonder if what we have now is what the founders intended. Both Republicans and Democrats have done a really nice job of consolidating power in Washington. They have successfully funneled pretty much all money, and the resulting power, from lobbyists, big money donors, special interest groups, etc. to Washington. There is some state activity, but it pales in comparison.

I cannot imagine that the founders wanted this. There must have been a reason for the 10th Amendment, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That one sentence, in its simplicity, is a profound statement of rebuke to a centralized power structure. The founders knew that in order for the young US to succeed, both in its infancy and its prime, there must be a balance of power. They put these balances throughout the Constitution. To balance the federal government, the founders separated the federal government into three equal branches: Legislative Branch; Executive Branch; and Judicial Branch. To balance the people, the founders set forth a document that provides the foundation of a quid pro quo rights structure; that is, all else being equal, for me to have a right, I must accept that you have the same right.

That leaves the balance between the federal government and state governments. This is just as important as the rest of the balances in the Constitution. The founders were part of a group of settlers that fought against tyrannical rule. Their foresight on realizing the dangers of having a single government structure with unchecked power was amazing. Our recent history is replete with examples of what happens when a central government goes unchecked. Between the world worlds and other wars, Americans have died fighting the result of a centralized power structure.

Yet, we quietly or ignorantly have allowed the very same thing to happen in our own country. We have a federal government that is almost complete in its consolidation of power. we have a white house that sends letters to governors of states having congress people that oppose "reform". We have a legislature that, instead of acknowledging opposing views, calls protestors racist nazi warmongers (not caring that several have been veterans). We have congress people saying flat out that they would vote against the interests of their own constituents. We have states being forced to give up control of their own government, lest they be chastized for not taking "free money" in a bailout.

This is just the surface, and it is not the end. Until we have a party that believes in the value and need of the 10th Amendment, this consolidation of power will not end.

Health Care Common Sense Solution

Much has been made about the need to reform healthcare, and this author will not dispute that the costs are increasingly becoming burdensome for Americans. But, there needs to be a common sense approach to the situation, not the drinking from the firehose methodology currently employed.

This is what I mean. The cost of healthcare is an extremely complex set of inputs that not only affect the total cost of healthcare, but affect each other. Throwing money at the problem, either through co-ops or government-run plan may not alleviate this burden (what you dont pay in premiums, you pay in taxes), and may even make things worse by hiding the true issues in healthcare. As this author stated before, its like putting a bandaid on a bleeding puncture chest wound without taking the time for exploratory surgery to find and fix possibly larger issues.

Unfortunately, our representatives in Washington dont see it that way. Apparently, they feel that if they throw enough money at the system, it will end up working.

It wont.

Here is the common sense solution: identify key, major inputs to the system, work on a smaller scale to fix those inputs, and determine how those changes affect the entire system. In other words, work on a manageable, measurable micro level rather than the macro level being tried now. We know why Washington will not do that. Its because it would not appease their respective special interest groups.

Here is a possible solution. Chronic disease are one of the largest costs in the total healthcare cost. The "sickness" of each affects all of us. As we are a healthier nation, the costs of chronic diseases will go down. Chronic disease, such as cardiovascular disease (heart and stroke) and diabetes are largely treatable and in most cases, preventable. Chronic diseases increase the costs of healthcare because they create a significant and prolonged burden on our healthcare system. Seven out of 10 Americans that die each year die of chronic illnesses.

The costs of chronic illness upon our healthcare system is measureable. The common sense solution would be to attempt to affect this micro input, measure the change, then adjust as necessary. Instead of spending trillions of our childrens' and grandchildrens' money, lets get to the street level of the issue.

Some facts provided courtesy of the CDC (www.cdc.gov)


Cost-Effectiveness of Prevention
For every $1 spent on water fluoridation, $38 is saved in dental restorative treatment costs.

Implementing proven clinical smoking cessation interventions would cost an estimated $2,587 for each year of life saved, the most cost-effective of all clinical preventative services.

For each $1 spent on the Safer Choice Program (a school-based HIV, other STD, and pregnancy prevention program), about $2.65 is saved on medical and social costs.

Every $1 spent on preconception care programs for women with diabetes, can reduce health costs by up to $5.19 by preventing costly complications in both mothers and babies.

Implementing the Arthritis Self-Help Course among 10,000 individuals with arthritis will yield a net savings of more than $2.5 million while simultaneously reducing pain by 18 percent among participants.

A mammogram every 2 years for women aged 50–69 costs only about $9,000 per year of life saved. This cost compares favorably with other widely used clinical preventive services.

How to Change Washington

The bipartisan public fury over the healthcare debate is merely the latest indication that we are being governed not by our elected representatives, but rather, by the two parties. Both the republican and democratic parties have entrenched themselves so deeply with companies and special interest groups with money that the average citizen is not even a cog in the machine, but merely a bystander. The other day, a Democratic representatives stated flat out that he would vote against the interests of his constituency. At one point in time, the term representative meant just that, represent. It does not anymore.

This is not to say that there are not good democrats and republicans out there. Despite what each side wishes you to believe, there are good people on each side of the aisle. These people, though few in number, come to Washington and their own state capitals hoping to do something, to make what they feel is a positive change. Unfortunately, they are a very small minority.

How do we change it? There have been a lot of debates about how term limits is going to solve the problem, but there is exactly a zero percent chance of either party making an effort to pass any law that limits the flow of money and power into the system. The grooves are too deep and the skids are too greased for any person in the two current major parties to attempt to make a change.

How do we do it? We have to start anew. A new party, though minor, needs to make the bold statement that they will not operate in a manner to the detriment of their constituents. It is the only way to bring the power back to the states, to the communities, and most importantly, to the people.

Every person, EVERY person is important. Our voices should ring louder than the flood of money going into the parties. Our representatives should look to us first for direction. They should feel that they are accountable to us. When our representatives discount and deride our dissenting voices, they trample upon the Constitution.

National Healthcare

We need to step back and analyze what is going on. The common sense solution would be to get the facts before acting. The current reform effort is being done with idealogical glasses on and without the data necessary to form a good solution.

First, we should have some basis for what the price of healthcare should be. Should it be less than what we are paying? Should it be more? We do not know because both parties are driving the healthcare debate based upon their idealogy instead of focusing on find a common sense solution to the problem. Insurance companies do not operate in a free market. They are some of the most regulated companies in the world.

Second, we need to understand the effects of immigration, poverty, obesity, smoking, etc, on the issue of healthcare. Healthcare does not exist in a vacuum but is influenced by a multitude of factors. If we can work to solve the other problems, will it alleviate or remove concerns about healthcare? We do not know.

What is happening now is like putting a bandaid over a gaping chest wound. Without spending the time and effort to truly survey the issue, the effects could be worse than if we did nothing at all. We will think that we would have solved the problem and move on, when in fact, the problem will grow.

Wouldn't it make sense to understand the problem before we spend $1 Trillion, or more, to fix it?

Common Sense

This is the first post for the Georgia Modern Whig Party. The Georgia Modern Whig Party was formed in response to the continued actions, and inaction, of the two majority parties. As the two parties have moved to their ideoligical extremes, the majority of Americans have been left without a viable party to support. For the past two decades, a large majority of us have been left voting not for who we want, but against who we don't want. Further, Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with each party's inability to look beyond their idealogical tenants and find the best solution out there. The parties refuse to spend the time to understand the fundamental issues to be addressed and instead default to standard ways of attempting to solve a problem. They refuse to do so because they feel that their position would be undermined if the solution was found partly or wholly outside of their ideological. Finally, the parties refuse to enact changes in a way in which the effects of the law are measurable. In other words, not only do they fail to take the time to understand the fundamental issues (removing all biases and idealogies), they enact incomplete laws that do not provide for a means to measure the effect of the law. The parties again do this because 1) they do not understand the nature of the problem and 2) by making the results immeasurable, they will never have to concede error.

I hope that you take the time to learn more about the Georgia Modern Whig Party. In future postings, I will discuss the origins of the Modern Whig Party, how the Georgia Modern Whig party develops Servant-Leaders, and how our party structure in Georgia specifically provides for the ability of each member of the GMWP to become actively involved in the affairs of the GMWP.