Health Care Reform Flow Chart

The article “Abortion Returns to the Health Care Debate” appears in the current issue of our Diocesan newspaper, Today’s Catholic.  Its in the archives, in a 20 page PDF of the August 1, 2010 issue, so I have provided a separate direct link to it.

I have never believed that the executive order issued by President Obama at the end of the debate on health care reform was sufficient to ensure that my tax dollars are not going to be spent to provide elective abortions.

This article provides confirmation that my fears are well founded.

If you would like a little more info on the author, Richard Doerflinger, click through to Powerful Catholic Quietly Shaping Abortion, Health Bill Debate from Kaiser Health News.

By the way, if you click on the Flow Chart, you will be taken to the official House of Representatives website.  When I first saw this picture, I thought it was a joke.  But it is an actual chart prepared by Republican House staffers to help explain the bill.  This article from Bloomberg gives the background plus some insight into some of the less than democratic provisions of the bill, such as this quote:

“Getting that massive enterprise up and running will be next to impossible. So Democrats streamlined the process by granting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the authority to make judgments that can’t be challenged either administratively or through the courts.”

Wasn’t the bill supposed to streamline the system, and save money in the process?

The truth is, its all smoke and mirrors, and it was that way long before this piece of legislation ever came along.  Taxpayers have been funding the abortion movement for a long time, and the existence of the Hyde Amendment never was an effective deterrent.  It was nothing more than a way for politicians on the right to gain cover on the issue.

In the past eight years, as the deficit increased exponentially, and as a Republican occupied the White House, the GAO says over $1 billion in taxpayers funds was used to support groups specifically interested in pushing a pro-abortion agenda.

I don’t understand why the government is funding any private advocacy group, no matter what their agenda is.  I’m against them funding the groups in the link, and I would be against them funding pro-life groups as well.

Its just one more instance that makes it impossible for me to embrace either major political party.

Both are utter failures where the principles of limited government and basic morality are concerned.

Hardball Halloween Mask

In the last couple days, I have heard several advertisements for a special to be aired tomorrow night on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews.  Its entitled Rise of the New Right.

These words from the ad caught my attention:

“The Tea Party is determined to take power.  What does that mean for America?”

I will take notice of anyone who uses phrases like “We’ve come to take our government back,” so I readily admit to being drawn to the Tea Party movement.  But I am not formally involved in the Tea Party in any way.  I have been to one rally as nothing more than a curious spectator.

I am jaded enough at this stage that my initial reaction is to not trust anyone making political statements, even statements that on the surface I am inclined to agree with.  I think this is primarily driven by the fact that no one seems to be able to articulate a vision or dream that is based on a positive view of the future.  Everyone wants to tell me why the other guys are bad.  No one is able to express why they are worthy of my support.

The Tea Party rally I experienced was no exception.  It was entirely about tearing down, and had no component associated with building up.

Perhaps I am naive.  Perhaps I am hoping against hope.  But I want to believe that the last thing the Tea Party is interested in is “taking power,” especially in the way that Chris Matthews understands those words.

In fact, I hope that the Tea Party is interested in the exact opposite of that.  I hope they are interested in diminishing the overall amount of power possessed by our government, and that they only wish to hold enough power to accomplish that goal.  The desire, in my long term perspective, is to eliminate anyone’s ability to hold enough centralized power to endanger the people’s freedom.

This ad depresses me beyond expression because it points once again to our inability to hold a meaningful discussion in this country.  The purpose of this program, even though it will be aired on what is nominally a news network, is to manipulate opinion.  Even more sinister than that is a deliberate intent to dissuade viewers from engaging with the other side.  The desire is to induce a visceral reaction that renders the listener unwilling to consider an opposing point of view.

And just to be clear, Fox does the exact same thing on the other side, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and I find that equally abhorrent.

The phrasing on both networks is almost always deliberately assembled to instill fear of the opposition.  That fear must, by its nature, create implacable division with little room for discussion on shared ideals let alone actual compromise.

Read the ad again:

“The Tea Party is determined to take power.  What does that mean for America?”

Is it clear that this language is meant to divide through fear?

In Two Dilemmas, I wrote “will our economy survive this legislation?” in reference to the health care bill.

But the problem is actually deeper than that.

What I am really wondering is, “Can our society survive the loss of the fundamental ability to communicate despite our differences?”

Bursting Bubble

It’s been nearly two months since I wrote a post.

Initially, I was frustrated by the happenings in the country.  I wasn’t thinking clearly enough to write something sound.  I was angry enough that I was afraid I might lose coherence.  So much negative commentary abounds, and I don’t wish to contribute to that simply for the sake of writing.

Then it became easy to put it off as I chased my kids to baseball games and work demands spiked.  Its tempting, at times, to withdraw completely from the fight for the future of the country.  Its hard to maintain intensity in the face of a big loss, and to some extent I just needed to be patient.

But, in the end, there’s too much at stake.

Looking back now on the passage of the health care bill, I find I’m facing two dilemmas.

The first is whether or not I can morally continue to pay taxes to my government.

The Catholic Bishops, in this fact sheet and this memo, clarify the language in the health care bill that enables public funding of abortions.  If the federal government is intent on using my tax dollars for this purpose, then I do not see how I can continue to financially support it.  I don’t yet know what to do.  But, in the long run, I will have to find a solution.

The second dilemma is, will our economy survive this legislation?

We were already running unsustainable deficits.  While Washington politicians would like me to believe that the legislation will result in a decrease in debt, I wasn’t born yesterday.  No government program has ever lived up to its billing where savings are concerned, nor has any government program even managed to stay within its original cost projections.  History says the cost of this legislation will balloon out of control, so I find it ridiculous to take the politicians at their word and assume we will actually save money as a result.

I find myself thinking, “What can I change now that would help my family persevere if the economy is headed toward a prolonged downturn?”

I am seriously considering how to downsize my lifestyle in preparation for hard times to come.  What can we do to get by with less and remain content?

I am nowhere close to resolving this either, but the way I am thinking right now, it might take a whole new blog to document that process.  I live on 24 acres in prime Indiana farming country (not far from the Amish), and I may soon be inviting you to follow the progress of our attempt to create a self sustaining farmstead.

The bottom line is I face these two major dilemmas as a result of actions taken by my government.

They would like me to me more confident about the future.  They want me to go back to the ways of old so the economy will grow and the charade of fiscal wellness can resume.

In reality, they have elicited the exact opposite reaction from me.

My doubts have intensified, and as a result I am contemplating ways to pullback my economic activity to prepare for the hardships that seem inevitable at this stage.

Seems likely to me that there are more bubbles yet to burst.

The discussion started with a post of this quotation:

‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

I would ask, when the young man walked away, did Jesus (remember that He is King above all other Kings, Ruler above all other Rulers) forcefully take away his possessions in order to force him to obey?

Or did He respect the young man’s freedom to decide for himself, even though that decision might cost him his immortal soul?

Freedom is at the heart of the example of Jesus. Not once in the Gospels is anyone compelled to action by the God incarnate. Not a single Pharisee or Scribe is turned from the path of sinfulness by coercion. Not one apostle is called against their will. Not even Judas, despite the foreknowledge of the Lord, is denied the ability to exercise his freedom.

Jesus teaches.  He attempts to persuade.  He prays.  And He hopes.

Then, in the end, He demonstrates the perfect use of freedom. He endures the Cross, giving everything He possesses, including His very life, in service of His fellow man, despite the fact that His fellow man is responsible for His doom.

It is the greatest act of freedom in the history of the world.

It is His definition of love, which we must find a way to cope with.

It is how He defines a man’s responsibility to his fellows.

And it is only possible in the context of free will.

After Jesus completes His task, our free will remains as the only viable tool we have for communicating our devotion to Him.  Only when we freely decide to follow the example of the Cross can we truly be seen to have implemented His will.

Everything depends on freedom.

There is no love without freedom.

Charity can not be extracted via the tax code or any amount of legislation.

For those who care, suffering is hard to witness. We long to intervene. We know in our core that we have the means to provide every American with access to health care.  We are so desperate to do what we think is right that our emotions run away with us. We give in to caring at any cost, heedless of the damage a reckless course of action can cause.

We become willing to substitute one set of suffering for another.

And make no mistake. Millions and millions of Americans are suffering today.

Not at the hands of illness.

But at the hands of a government that does not understand that Jesus is the embodiment of a natural law that requires, no matter what, that our Creator endowed right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be protected as a precondition to any action we take.

We are suffering because our government, regardless of its intentions, has ripped a piece of our liberty from us as if it were an arm or a leg.

And we know we will never be whole again.

Worse yet, we know that it is preparing to do so again, and again, and again, because it has lost sight of its most fundamental responsibilities.

In 1776 and the era that followed, American leaders understood the example of Jesus. They attempted to encode that example in a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that was meant to preserve individual liberty as the core prerequisite of a just society.

They understood that the best hope for mankind was the hope that men would use their freedom for the betterment of the whole.

They understood that this hope, because of the fallibility of men, would not result in a perfect union, just a more perfect one.

They knew that the imperfection they were erecting was just because it would lead to a better way of life than the imperfections embodied in all the methods of governance that went before.

The first rule of a just society is that its government must respect and protect Creator endowed liberty.

If the government chooses not to do this, Revolution and Independence are not only justified but required in order that the natural law be established (or re-established in this case) for the benefit of all men.

Revolution is coming.

I can’t say when.

Hopefully it will be peacefully, at the ballot box this fall.

If not, then it will come in another form, at another time.

But revolution is inevitable.

For man has not the ability to deny this Natural Law forever.

Especially now that he has experienced a long and significant exposure to it.

The quote from Benjamin Franklin seems quite apropos today.

(The underline is mine.  Its amazing how prescient his thoughts are today.)

“Some security is essential if freedom is to be preserved, because most men are willing to bear the risk which freedom inevitably involves only so long as that risk is not too great.  But while this is a truth of which we must never lose sight, nothing is more fatal than the present fashion among intellectual leaders of extolling security at the expense of freedom.  It is essential that we should re-learn frankly to face the fact that freedom can be had only at a price and that as individuals we must be prepared to make severe material sacrifices to preserve our liberty.  If we want to retain this, we must regain the conviction on which the rule of liberty in the Anglo-Saxon countries has been based and which Benjamin Franklin expressed in a phrase applicable to us in our lives as individuals no less than as nations.  “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.

If you’re not exactly clear what Serfdom is, click on it.

But here’s one definition from the article.

“Serfs were also defined as people in whose labour landowners held property rights. Before the 1861 abolition of serfdom in Russia, a landowner’s estate was often measured by the number of “souls” he owned.”

I think that pretty well describes how my government sees me.

I have been struggling all day to decide what single word might best describe how I am feeling today.

I think I’ve settled on “Doomed.”

What word would you use?

I decided to look for information that could inform me whether or not this figure had any basis in reality.

It didn’t take long to come across the website www.opensecrets.org, which is sponsored by a group called the Center for Responsive Politics.

This site publishes all sorts of financial data related to congressional elections (and many other things, as well).

Here is the data for the 2008 Congressional elections in Indiana.

Money raised by the winners (all incumbents) went from $800,000 to over $2.1M.  Money raised by the losers started at the very low figure of $11,000, and went up to just over $800,000 as well.

Winners out-raised losers by very, very significant margins in most races.

The only races where the figures are close are those expected to be competitive going in.

The data for Michigan, and the data for Ohio, are similar.

The truth is, in the current arrangement, there are very few races that are actually competitive.  That may be a matter of demographics, or a matter of money, or a combination of both.  Whatever the reason, it isn’t good for the country.

This link provides data on 2008 for the country as a whole.  A couple things worth noting.

• House winners outspent losers by an average of $1.37M to $493K.
• 94% of House incumbents were re-elected.
• Only 46 of 435 House races were within a 10% margin when the votes were tallied.
• The Senate winners on average spent $8.5M (which is one reason I suggest a Third Party should target the House only).

The numbers cry out for reform.

But, of course, we can’t expect those who benefit the most from the current system, the incumbents, to lead that reform.

We are stuck, and the broader problems of the country are a direct reflection of that.

Based on this quick review, it seems that $100 Million is enough to get a movement started.  It would fund a legitimate run at somewhere between 50 and 100 seats.

Perhaps, however, the strategy, instead of being regional, ought to target the 50 or so seats that are competitive to start with?

Race	All Candidates	Amount Raised
District 01	Pete Visclosky (D)*	$1,763,060
	Mark J Leyva (R)	$11,732
	Jeff Duensing (L)	$0
District 02	Joe Donnelly (D)*	$1,846,892
	Luke Wayne Puckett (R)	$206,368
	Mark Vogel (L)	$0
District 03	Mark E Souder (R)*	$1,077,170
	Michael Anthony Montagano (D)	$845,928
	William Larsen (L)	$0
District 04	Steve Buyer (R)*	$870,667
	Nels Ackerson (D)	$831,450
District 05	Dan Burton (R)*	$1,417,754
	Mary Etta Ruley (D)	$16,195
District 06	Mike Pence (R)*	$1,612,797
	Barry Welsh (D)	$23,625
	George Thomas Holland (L)	$0
District 07	Andre Carson (D)*	$1,652,313
	Gabrielle Campo (R)	$37,623
	Delbert Suits (I)	$0
District 08	Brad Ellsworth (D)*	$1,571,814
	Gregory Justin Goode (R)	$223,728
District 09	Baron Hill (D)*	$2,151,725
	Michael E Sodrel (R)	$991,609
	Eric Schansberg (L)	$31,022

Assume for a moment that the last post is correct, and that the current uncertainty in the country makes the emergence of a third party a real possibility.

If we accept the possibility, what then is the first step in pursuit of the reality?

That first step, I think, has to acknowledge the fact that money matters in politics.

Certain things can be done to compensate for a lack of money, and that becomes easier and easier as time passes in a world where communication technology changes so quickly.

But nonetheless, money still has to be acknowledged as a major factor in any effort to confront the two power holding parties.  They have access to lots of money, and they will not give up their stranglehold on power willingly.

The need for money also increases depending on how serious you think the problems in the country are.  If you fear that catastrophe is imminent, then money is crucial in creating change sooner rather than later.

Working in the favor of a third party is the reality that a small victory will be magnified on the national level.  We all understand just how big the victory of Scott Brown was in the Senate race in Massachusetts.  That notoriety can serve as inspiration for thinking through how to best deploy what must be, at the beginning, limited resources.

So, the question becomes, how does one get the best “bang for the buck?”

The answer lies in picking a strategy that combines the best opportunity for wins on a small budget with the best chance to make a real impact.

And that answer points to an effort focused solely on the House of Representatives.

There are currently 254 Democrats in the House, 178 Republicans, and 3 vacancies.  At this time, it appears the November elections will almost certainly result in significant Republican gains.  If there is a swing of approximately 25 seats this year, the totals for the next 2 year session of Congress could look something like this: (Note that with 435 members, it takes 218 to muster a majority.)

• 226 Democrats
• 209 Republicans

Based on those totals, a third party need only take nine seats from the Democrats to cause a situation where neither party had an overall majority in the House.

What if, in the election cycle ending in November of 2012, a regional third party was able to make a legitimate run at 40 or 50 seats in the House, and win a handful of them?  (For instance, I live in Indiana which as 9 seats.  Add Michigan and Ohio, and you would have three states with a total of 42 seats.  Here’s a link if you want to consider your own region.)

Would that third party hold swing votes related to picking the House leadership?

Maybe, but not likely.

But when people started doing the math, would they understand how quickly that third party might make an impact in the next two year cycle if it posted further gains?

I think the answer to that is absolutely!

Money dictates that a third party be very specific in its strategy, and that it start with something realistic.  Most thoughts about third parties assume you must field candidates at every level.  I would simply ask why?  Why not start at a regional level and target the one place where money least influences the campaigns, but where a small amount of progress could also translate into a significant impact on the actual working of our government?

What if a couple people of means decided that $100 million was a worthwhile investment to see if a third party could field 40 House candidates, and get just two or three elected?

Is it possible that those couple people could start a ball rolling that could wind up with an established third party that could hold sway simply by running for House seats?

I think it’s very possible.

But I have not the means.

Do you?

Thomas Nast on Tammany Hall

Up until very recently, I never would have given a third party a serious chance at becoming a force in American politics.

The history of the Democrats goes all the way back to Jefferson.  The history of the Republicans, to just before Lincoln.

These two parties have been entrenched for so long that their dominance appears to be an incontrovertible fact.

Perhaps, however, current times are conspiring to create a window where a third party might have a realistic chance of succeeding.

In the wake of the near collapse of Wall Street and the associated governmental bailouts, the questions that face us have created an Uncertainty that is unprecedented in my life time (I’m 46, born in 1963), and perhaps in the lifetimes of anyone born since the start of World War II (now the vast majority of us).

Uncertainty is the location of transformation and change.  When everything seems fine, we are content to be content, and we resist anything new.  But when uncertainty arises, we begin to question, and in those questions we find impetus for change.

We need look no further than our last great economic crisis to understand this truth.  The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression made uncertainty the focus of every American life.  FDR used that uncertainty to implement the New Deal, a set of sweeping changes that dominate our lives to this day.

We could argue about how much the New Deal contributes to our current troubles, but that is beyond the focus of this post.

The point here is to acknowledge that economic uncertainty provides a climate where political change is possible.

So, what will we do about these pressing issues (and many others not here named)?

• The National Debt and the related monetary instability caused by the amount of debt held by foreigners
• The unsustainable entitlement state underscored by the unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security
• Health care access and runaway costs
• Unemployment when manufacturing is routinely outsourced in favor of profit
• The divide between the rich and everyone else (including the middle class) as exposed by the bailouts
• Terrorism and the interminable wars associated with it
• The intractable impasse on issues concerning the sanctity of life

Or, perhaps, at this stage, a better question would be,

Do we, as a country, have confidence that the two entrenched political parties will be able to guide us to workable solutions?

I believe, right now, there is little confidence that either party can navigate these issues.  That suggests not only room, but need, for another entity that will bring fresh ideas to the concerns of the country.

On the side of optimism is this.  We are Americans.  Our ancestors were people of courage with the fortitude and will to tread uncharted territory.  This was literally true on the ground.  The Revolution and the Constitution establish that it was true politically as well.

The status quo seems impossible to overcome.

However, as Americans, we understand intuitively that nothing is impossible.  We then necessarily conclude that the path to a viable third party exists, we just haven’t discovered it yet.

Discovery is just a matter of work.  If we are dedicated to the work, paths and answers that are currently hidden will emerge.

I don’t suggest for a moment that I have all the answers.  I might not have any.

But at the time of the founding, it took many minds to find the hidden path to Independence and the success of the last 240 years.

I am willing to participate in the work, even if it ultimately proves that I’m crazy.

I therefore feel obligated to make some posts about what I think might give a third party a chance.  I think its safe to say that my ideas will not be found on the lips of anyone currently residing in Washington, in either party.

Those posts may lead no where.  Or not.

Either way, I need to do it just to satisfy myself.

Its an itch that can’t be ignored any longer.

Jubal Lee Young

Sometimes I think I am nuts for viewing the world like I do.

If so, this song is the perfect theme song for my life, and for this blog by extension.