Independent Country

Pelosi's Healthcare bill: an unprecedented attack on personal freedom

2009-11-05T07:56:00.000-08:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/pelosi-s-healthcare-bill-an-unprecedented-attack-on-personal-freedom

Supporters of healthcare reform claim it's about accessible and low-cost health coverage for Americans. If that were true, they'd reject Nancy Pelosi's bill, HR 3962. Usually, critics write about the economic reasons. But there's another huge problem . . .

The bill is an unprecedented attack on personal liberty.

Please send a letter to Congress demanding they oppose Pelosi's bill.

Here's what I wrote:

HR 3962 will hamstring our finances. But it's also full of blatant attacks on individual liberty.

For instance, chain restaurants and vending machine owners will be forced to publish calorie information on their menus. That's not interstate commerce... unless the state line cuts through a McDonald's counter. Congress can't order private property owners around this way, and the Free Press clause of the First Amendment also clearly forbids this mandate. Calorie reports may be nice, but that's outside of the government's lawful scope.

HR 3962 also violates the broad 9th Amendment protection of individual liberty, and the 10th Amendment's requirement that federal power be limited to only those functions listed in the Constitution.

Even though the Supreme Court has blown a gaping hole through many Constitutional protections of economic freedom -- and blamed their lawlessness on the Commerce Clause power to regulate interstate commerce -- it's apparent that even this wide hole is too small for Congressional ambitions. Does anyone on Capitol Hill even know what interstate commerce is?

An example of this is the unprecedented, totalitarian attempt to force people to acquire government-approved insurance or face tax penalties. If Congress can force us to buy a particular grade of insurance, can it also force us to subscribe to "approved" newspapers?

The Supreme Court has ruled in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922) that Congress can't use the tax code to regulate behavior it doesn't otherwise have power to regulate.

In United States v. Lopez (1995), United States v. Morrison (2000) and even Gonzales v. Raich (2005) the Court decreed that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to regulate activity that is NOT economic -- such as NOT buying, NOT producing, or NOT making something. NOT buying insurance can't be buying or making something.

That means, if you want to pay for this fancy plan, you'll have to steal the money the old-fashioned way -- a tax increase. You might want to review the matter in this Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html

You swore an oath to obey and protect the Constitution. Please honor that oath. I insist that you stand up on behalf of liberty and oppose this bill.

END LETTER

You can send your message here.

And then share this message with friends:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/pelosi-s-healthcare-bill-an-unprecedented-attack-on-personal-freedom

You can also keep up with DownsizeDC.org on Twitter and Facebook, where we provide links to news and commentary relevant to our campaigns plus additional interesting odds and ends.

You can follow us on Twitter here: http://twitter.com/DDCDispatch

And on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/DownsizeDCorg/92777977517

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

The reason "the rest of us" aren't free

2009-11-04T23:13:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=3361

Excerpt:

I've seen it in Mexican restaurants in Chicago.

Boys and girls of preteen or early teen years taking orders and working the cash register in the evening.

I had no doubt they were the children of the owners. I don't know if there was an "offspring in a family-owned business exemption" to child labor laws. Even if there wasn't, no one seemed interested in cracking down on such places.

Maybe regulation enforcers just look the other way when it comes to family operations, and they should. But the double standard is maddening. The injustice is that the labor market has cut off other children who are willing to work. There should be freedom for immigrant family businesses, but why isn't there freedom for the rest of us?

In Praise of Alternative Media

2009-10-28T21:24:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer - In Praise of Alternative Media Excerpt:

"I can work out, clean the house, or perform menial tasks while listening to podcasts. With a sitcom, I'm compelled to sit and watch. I may laugh a lot - and laughter is good and healthy - but I won't be smarter or more satisfied with life when the show is over. My mind would not have been expanded by someone with information, ideas, or perspectives that challenge my own beliefs.

I listen to alternative media not because I believe people with alternative theories and worldviews are always correct. I listen to see whether what they have to say makes sense."

Why is the U.S. so bad at government?

2009-10-21T22:13:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The conclusion that must be reached is that in most if not all cases, private agreements are better than government policy because in the private sector the person who is being served, and the customer whose demands must be met, will more often than not be the one and same person. Even in other developed countries, where government seems to work better, they would still be better off with less of it.

But this doesn't answer our initial problem: why is American government worse?

Copenhagen Treaty: Will the U.S. cede sovereignty?

2009-10-21T08:05:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/copenhagen-treaty-will-the-u-s-cede-sovereignty

We've received numerous requests to stop President Obama from signing a climate change treaty in Copenhagen this December. Many of these requests were inspired by a presentation given by Christopher Monckton at the Minnesota Free Market Institute on October 14.

Monckton says he has read the treaty, believes Obama is sure to sign it, and that it would cede the sovereignty of the U.S. to a world government. (For a video of his remarks on the treaty, go here. To see his full 95-minute presentation that challenges the global warming theory, go here.)

We have yet to see any kind of crisis successfully mitigated through greater coercion, centralization, and bureaucracy. Whether or not one agrees that there is man-made climate change, Monckton's allegations are pretty scary. Anthony Watts provides more scary stuff by providing extensive passages from the treaty.

But there's no need to panic . . .

The treaty Monckton refers to is a "Framework Convention On Climate Change" or "revised negotiating text." That is, it's a proposal, not a finalized treaty. You can read it yourself here.
The Financial Times reports that the United Nation's top climate official doesn't believe a treaty will be signed in Copenhagen. What is hoped for is a "political framework for cutting greenhouse gas emissions" with details to be supplied later.
As Pat Buchanan notes, scientific studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that global warming isn't happening. This is building doubt among the people and causing the climate-change lobby to change tactics.

The most important reason not to panic is that there's something more urgent than Copenhagen. It's the Cap & Trade bill which has passed the House and is before the Senate. As the Financial Times states,

[T]he White House will find it difficult to commit to specific [emissions] cuts before the Senate has considered the cap-and-trade bill now before it.

Todd Stern, US special envoy for climate change, is adamant that Mr Obama will not repeat the mistakes made over the Kyoto protocol, when the Clinton administration signed a deal that didn't have Congressional approval.

Buchanan concludes,

If, however, cap-and-trade, which the Congressional Budget Office says will be another blow to economic growth, can be stopped before the Copenhagen summit in December, the republic may have dodged another bullet.

If Cap & Trade is defeated, the Obama Administration will have little stature when it attends Copenhagen. It knows that if it can't get 51 Senate votes for a domestic Cap & Trade bill, it will never summon the 67 votes needed to pass an even harsher treaty.

So if you're scared by the possibilities of Copenhagen, the best thing to do is tell the Senate to stop Cap & Trade. You can do so here.

The End of the World

2009-10-14T21:11:00.001-07:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: The End of the World

Shared via AddThis

Give them leverage

2009-10-12T07:51:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/give-them-leverage

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee set aside Russ Feingold's JUSTICE Act, which would have amended the PATRIOT Act to protect civil liberties. It then replaced Senator Pat Leahy's already weak bill with an even weaker one.

But hope is not lost . . .

The Senate Judiciary's bill (S. 1692) hasn't yet passed the full Senate
In 2006, almost two-thirds of House Democrats, including now-Speaker Pelosi, voted AGAINST the PATRIOT renewal
The voters did not punish these Democrats for their votes; in fact, later that year Democrats won control of Congress

The Obama Administration generally wants the continuation of the Bush status quo on civil liberties. We must encourage Congress to listen to the people instead of the President. If House Democrats show some backbone, they could exercise leverage by . . .

Introducing and passing the JUSTICE Act,
Adding greater civil liberties protections to any PATRIOT renewal bill, or . . .
Threatening to do NOTHING and allow three provisions of the PATRIOT Act to expire on December 31

Send your elected representatives a letter demanding that they roll back the Patriot Act.

This is what I said in my personal comments:

I was disappointed with the results of the Senate Judiciary hearings last week. We must have strong civil liberties protections in any PATRIOT Act renewal bill. I hope a better bill is produced on the Senate floor, and encourage the House to pass the JUSTICE Act. If Congress can't provide better safeguards for my civil liberties, please oppose any PATRIOT Act renewal bill and work to repeal the PATRIOT Act outright.

You can send your letter here.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

War on the Cheap

2009-10-08T07:29:00.000-07:00

My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[I]t's easier for the young progressive to rail against "tea-baggers." It's a lot more fun to scream at Republicans in Congress who are obstructing health-care legislation, than it is to get shot at.

They may like Obama compared to the previous guy. That doesn't mean they have confidence in what he's doing in Afghanistan. At least, not enough to risk their own lives.

Don't read this if you don't care about the Constitution

2009-10-05T08:47:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/don-t-read-this-if-you-care-about-the-constitution

Quote of the Day: "I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution." -- DownsizeDC.org co-founder Harry Browne (1933-2006)

Subject: Drugs and the Constitution

Our last Drug War Dispatch generated some concerned emails.

You can read our response here.

What we didn't mention in the previous Dispatch was the Constitutional problem of the War on Drugs. That's because . . .

Many people seem not to care what the Constitution requires. Today's message is for those who do care.

Drug control is NOT a Constitutional power of the federal government. At the very most the federal government could, perhaps, ban the importation of drugs, and prohibit their sale across state lines under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.

But nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to prohibit the sale or possession of any item within state boundaries. The Tenth Amendment dictates that whatever Congress is not empowered to do must be left to the States, or to the people. This means Congress cannot . . .

* forbid the personal possession or use of drugs
* prohibit drug sales within the same state
* intervene in other countries with money or troops to fight undeclared drug wars

This means that drug prohibition laws can only exist at the state level. Imagine what could happen if some states had no prohibition laws, while other states had prohibition laws of differing severity. Competing claims about drug prohibition could be tested, in the real world. As it is . . .

Federal prohibition laws not only prohibit the sale and use of drugs, they also prohibit us from learning what would work best.

The 10th Amendment's Constitutional restrictions on federal power used to be well-known and understood. For instance, those who wanted to prohibit alcohol in the 1910's knew that the Constitution didn't give Congress the power to do this. So they had to pass the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919.

Alcohol prohibition was a failure, so in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

If prohibiting alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment?

It's an important question. To ignore the Constitutional process is to ignore the rule of law. No matter how one feels about drug use, the rule of law, especially as applied to government power, is essential to protecting our lives, freedoms, and property. With this in mind . . .

We want to ask you to do something different today. We've changed the message to Congress for our "Help End the Mexican Civil War" campaign. For today's action item it reads . . .

"You've sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, so could you please answer three questions. 1. Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to wage a War on Drugs? 2. If alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment? 3. Shouldn't we be allowed to learn what works best by having states with different drug laws, or NO drug laws, in keeping with the 10th Amendment? I would appreciate an honest, thoughtful response."

If members of Congress receive enough of these messages, some will feel compelled to reply. We want to see what form these responses take, and we'd like to compare the names of those who respond with the list of those who have co-sponsored the "Enumerated Powers Act."

Remember, the "Enumerated Powers Act" would require Congress to cite its Constitutional authority for every law it passes. This would be impossible for them to do in the case of most drug prohibition laws, except those provisions that might squeeze through under the Commerce Clause.

If you receive a response could you please forward it to us, so we can publish it on our blog? Please let us know if you want us to omit your name to protect your privacy. Or, you can post the response in the Comments section of this blog post.

You can send your Constitutional questions to Congress here.

Please share this Dispatch with any friends who care about Constitutional requirements.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Whose Body Is It?

2009-10-04T12:46:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/whose-body-is-it

We received some negative feedback to our most recent Drug War Dispatch.

Yet, no one would admit that the Drug War is successful. No one claimed the Drug War has lowered drug availablility, drug use, or drug addiction.

Instead, what the critics fear is that ending drug prohibition would lead to more use and addiction.

That might happen. It's also possible that drug use would . . .

Spike briefly but then fall back to historical levels
Decrease

After all, drugs will be in the pharmacy and off the streets and school grounds. Pushers won't be giving out free samples to hook people.

Overall, we believe any possible increase in self-harm (addiction) will be more than offset by the reduction of harm to the innocent. And there will be more resources to treat addicts who seek help.

In any case, this concern boils down to fearing the consequences of individual freedom.

If we feared individual freedom, DownsizeDC.org might as well close shop.

Individuals should be responsible for their actions. If their actions cause harm, or violate the rights of others, they should be held to account in civil or criminal courts. If their self-harm, such as addiction, leads them to commit crimes, acts of negligence, or to break contracts, they should likewise be held accountable.

If there are public-nuisance problems associated with drug use or other activities, they could be addressed at the state or local levels.

But when government tries to prevent negative outcomes by restricting freedom, what we get is more negative outcomes, not fewer. The Drug War epitomizes this reality.

The purpose of our campaigns is to leave each individual with more resources, more discretion, and more control over his or her life. We believe greater individual freedom will lead not only to greater human progress, but is inherently more just.

For instance, we believe it is unjust for the government to deny a person the right to make decisions regarding his or her own health. This includes the choice of the medical professionals he or she chooses, the types of treatments and medications he or she chooses, and the prices he or she is willing to pay.

It would be unjust for the government to prohibit a certain treatment you want, or to force you to pay for an insurance plan you don't want. This is why we demand consumer-controlled health care.

Your body belongs to you. It doesn't belong to your doctor, or an insurance company, or the government.

Even if you make bad decisions with it, your body still belongs to you.

Even if lots of people make bad decisions, such as taking up smoking, their bodies belong to themselves. They don't "owe" the government longer life or greater productivity from not smoking.

Likewise, it is not the government's business to prohibit the food you want to eat, the beverages you choose to drink, or what drugs you might want to take. This is important . . .

Some now-illegal drugs, and not just marijuana, may provide relief for pain or psychiatric disorders.
Since the drugs are illegal NO ONE can benefit from these potential uses
And there is no legal recourse for the victims of tainted, impure, black-market doses

If the drugs were legal, doctors, pharmacists and consenting patients would be free to experiment with them in a controlled way. Respected businesses would develop consistent batches, and fewer people (the very people drug prohibition claims to help!) would be harmed by impure, black-market substances.

There simply is NO line that can be drawn between health freedom and drug freedom. The federal government has no authority over our bodies. We should be more concerned about those who are victimized by the loss of freedom than with those who choose to abuse themselves.

A Proposal

2009-10-03T20:08:00.000-07:00

If your religion (that is, your belief system, whatever it is, that you would want everyone else to have) can't flourish in an anarchic society (that is, a society without other humans forcing you into doing things), then 1) Your religion is fake; 2) Your religion, even if it's the true one, is malevolent; or 3) YOU are malevolent. There may be other options. I'm just throwing this out there. Comments?

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent?"

2009-10-01T07:07:00.000-07:00

at DownsizeDC.org: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/whatever-happened-to-quot-presumed-innocent-quot

Complete Freedom

2009-09-30T22:34:00.001-07:00

Check out my latest: The Partial Observer - Complete Freedom

Shared via AddThis

Is Drug Prohibition Worth It?

2009-09-24T07:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/is-drug-prohibition-worth-it

Quote of the Day: "Those who suffer from the abuse of drugs have themselves to blame for it. This does not mean that society is absolved from active concern for their plight. It does mean that their plight is subordinate to the plight of those citizens who do not experiment with drugs, but whose life, liberty, and property are substantially affected by the illegalization of the drugs." -- William F. Buckley

Subject: Is Drug Prohibition Worth It?

There have been positive signs that America is reconsidering some aspects of drug prohibition.

In February, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Administration would stop medical marijuana raids in states where it's legal

In May, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case arguing that California's medical marijuana law was in conflict with federal law

The Obama Administration did not object when Mexico liberalized its drug possession law last month

But as America takes baby steps toward Drug War reform, statesmen south of the border are suggesting something bolder.

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox is proposing an end to prohibition

Three other Latin American ex-Presidents have called on the nations of the hemisphere to rethink prohibition

This week, the Global Public Policy Forum on the U.S. War on Drugs was held on the front lines of the Drug War, in the border cities of El Paso and Juarez. The Forum was organized by the University of Texas-El Paso, but the idea originated with the El Paso City Council. The Council also unanimously called for "an honest open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics" (although that resolution was vetoed by the mayor under the threat of losing federal funds).

Regrettably, Obama's "Border Czar" and "Drug Czar" chose not to attend.

But we agree with the El Paso City Council.

Drug prohibition breeds corruption. 80 law enforcement officials have been convicted of drug-related corruption on the U.S.-Mexico border since 2006.

Drug probition breeds violence, endangering the innocent. Violence related to drug trafficking is spreading to new areas such as British Columbia

Drug prohibition is killing U.S. soliders in Afghanistan. The Taliban is being funded by drug profits, and the war is now less about ideology and more about drug profits

Indeed, prohibition can cause the retail price of drugs to be as much as 25 times higher than the production costs. Even if 75% of drug shipments were intercepted, the trade would still be profitable for drug lords.

Today, only a fraction of drug shipments are intercepted. This means the only way to "win" the War on Drugs is to lose the Bill of Rights and our way of life by substantially increasing arbitrary searches and seizures at home, and employing a much larger military as a narcotics police force across the globe.

In order to accomplish . . . what, exactly?

Three-fourths of all illicit drug use is marijuana use, and marijuana accounts for 0% of the deaths

Most of the other illicit drug use is the recreational use of legal prescription drugs

Just 0.7% of the population over 12 used cocaine in the past month, and 0.4% used hallucinogens. One in a thousand used heroin.

According LEAP, in 2006 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs, the same as in 1970 when the War on Drugs began, and the same as in 1914 when the first federal drug laws were passed.

Drug prohibition costs hundreds of billions in both direct costs and opportunity costs such as the lost wages of the imprisoned. It endangers the lives of innocents caught in turf wars. It promotes chaos and instability in much of the world -- and all of this in a futile attempt to save a tiny fraction of the population from themselves.

But if we lifted the prohibition on drugs . . .

Drug prices would fall to a fraction of what they are now, meaning hopeless addicts would be less likely to rob you to pay for their fix

The Taliban would lose their revenue stream

We would have safer streets in America and much of the world

Please tell Congress to end the chaos in Mexico, in Afghanistan, and on our streets. Tell them to end drug prohibition. In your personal comments, explain how prohibition has created such huge profit margins that the government can't stop the flow no matter how hard it tries. You can send your comments here.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

Creditism and Savingism

2009-09-24T04:31:00.001-07:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: Creditism and Savingism

Shared via AddThis

Gambling and the culture of credit

2009-09-18T11:11:00.001-07:00

Yesterday on ESPN's The Herd, Colin Cowherd mentioned a news item where a woman who was involved in catering a Notre Dame function was mailed a $29,000 check from the university that should have been a $29 gratuity. She called the university, left a message, and when she didn't hear back in a couple of days she went and spent all the money.

Cowherd condemned the woman's ethics. The he got emails saying, "Colin, you gamble, so how can you judge other people on their ethics?"

What's scary is that people who think like that then go out and vote.

Gambling can mean two things: betting, or reckless behavior. If you bet with money you can afford to lose, I can't imagine how anyone on God's green earth can call that unethical, immoral, or sinful.

The problems associated with gambling involve people who can no longer afford to gamble, but continue to do so with the money for next month's bills, or with borrowed money, or with stolen money.

Indeed , I believe our culture of credit, or creditism, fuels many social ills such as gambling addiction. As I've written:

"Under this system, the economy is supposed to grow by people borrowing and enjoying the fruits now, and working later to pay off the debts.

At the same time, banks lend far more money than they have on deposit (fractional reserve banking), and charge interest. In a true capitalist/savingist economy this would be considered fraud. But it drives the economy of creditism."

College loans, easy mortgages, and high-limit credit cards all subtly encourage us to consume now, as opposed to working and saving now and purchasing later. It also gave us the illusion of having more discretionary money than we actually had. And this, in turn would inspire many younger people to gamble more or party harder than they could really afford.

In a society of sound money and of production through investment rather than lending, there would be less money available for lending. This in turn would force more people to live within their means. College kids couldn't to do all the stuff they do now because banks would have the sense not to issue them credit cards.

Instant cash is to humans what the steak on the table is to Fido. You don't tell Fido, "I'm leaving for 5 minutes, and you better not touch the steak!" Instead, you put the steak out of reach. The same is true of us. The ATM cash and credit card in the wallet are more pleasing to think about than the future interest rates. In a savings-based economy, this easy borrowed cash would be out of reach. The money people own now would be the only money they can spend now; they can't spend the money now that they hope to earn in the future, because it wouldn't be lent to them. Therefore, they'd have to spend a larger proportion of their available cash on necessities, and would be forced to save if they want to party, buy cool new stuff, or go to Vegas.

Creditism creates the temptation for us to gamble now, try drugs now, purchase the cool new thing now, etc., because it provides the opportunity by lending us the money.

Those who want to rail against all the consumerism and immorality in society should stop blaming the casinos and advertisers, and start looking at the way entire culture is financed.

Withdrawing Consent

2009-09-17T06:02:00.001-07:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: The Partial Observer - Withdrawing Consent

Shared via AddThis

Clearing up a misconception

2009-09-14T07:31:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/clearing-up-a-misconeption

Quote of the Day: "There are some bills we don't need to read, we already know how we're going to vote." - Rep. Henry Brown

Does DownsizeDC.org agree or disagree with this statement? The answer may surprise you . . .

Subject: Clearing up a misconception about the Read the Bills Act

The partisans on both sides are using "reading the bill" as a sign of moral superiority. They're jabbing each other over who's read the healthcare bill more carefully, as the Joe Wilson controversy indicates.

As originators of the Read the Bills meme, we consider this a sign of progress. It means that public pressure in support of our idea is both working and growing. Now, if only the Democrats and Republicans in Congress would stop using our idea to grandstand, and would instead pass DownsizeDC.org's Read the Bills Act (RTBA)!

But the debate over which side has read the healthcare bill more carefully raises a question: should members of Congress who intend to vote AGAINST a bill still be required to read every word of it?

We think it would be helpful for them to do so, especially when it comes to debating why the bill should be defeated, but we don't think those who intend to vote NO on a bill should be required to read it.

No one needs to justify opposing a bill that will invade your life, your liberty, or your property. Opponents don't have to prove they know every clause and subsection.

One bad clause may be sufficient to put down the bill and go vote against it.

The onus is always on those who support a bill to justify it.

This gives us an opportunity to clear up a common misconception among members of Congress . . .

Several of them think that DownsizeDC.org's RTBA would require all members to read every word of every bill that comes to a vote. It doesn't. It only requires those who vote in favor of a bill to have signed an affadavit affirming they have read the bill, or heard it read.

Those who oppose a bill because they think its key points are bad, aren't asked to sweat the details.

The RTBA's purpose is to force a bill's supporters to have a basic knowledge of what it is they're passing. This basic knowledge can only come from reading the bill. This simple requirement would . . .

* Prevent politicians from blithely supporting bills just because they sound like they have good intentions
* Require politicians to take responsibility for their vote -- they could no longer hide behind the excuse that they "didn't know that was in the bill"
* Make politicians more concerned to make sure that a nice-sounding bill won't have unintended consequences

We therefore agree with the Quote of the Day above -- at least in one sense. If Representative Brown already knows he's going to oppose a bill, the RTBA won't require him to read it. But he, and all members of Congress, must read every bill they intend to support.

Use our Educate the Powerful System to tell your Congressional employees to pass DownsizeDC.org's Read the Bills Act.

Use your personal comments to tell them that, contrary to their possible misconception, the RTBA only requires them to read bills they support, not bills they oppose. Also remind them that if they pass the healthcare bill without reading it first, they will pay a steep political price.

You can send your letter to Congress here.

Thank-you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

Brother, Can You Spare A FRAUD?

2009-09-10T08:01:00.000-07:00

Lakers, Clippers, and All Teams In Between

2009-09-10T07:57:00.001-07:00

My latest on the PO, sports-related on account of the NFL kickoff: The Partial Observer - Lakers, Clippers, and All Teams In Between

Shared via AddThis

Understanding the bills

2009-09-08T08:09:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/understanding-the-bills

Quote of the Day: "If Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, needs a lawyer's help to understand the health care legislation, what chance does the average citizen have of deciphering the bill?"- Press-Enterprise editorial (Riverside, CA)

Subject: Understanding the Bills

Many Americans are doing what Congress won't do -- they're actually reading the healthcare bill!

* On September 2, a team of 38 people took part in a public reading of the bill in Scranton, PA.
* And Hearthebill.org allows people to hear the bill read online

These efforts are well-intended, but how many people can actually understand what they read? One individual read the bill but couldn't understand it, and went to a Town Hall meeting to get answers. He came away from the meeting saying the bill was "still foggy" in his mind.

How about you -- would you understand the bill if you read it? See for yourself.

Here's just one section:

SEC. 162. ENDING HEALTH INSURANCE RESCISSION ABUSE.

(a) Clarification Regarding Application of Guaranteed Renewability of Individual Health Insurance Coverage- Section 2742 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-42) is amended--

(1) in its heading, by inserting `and continuation in force, including prohibition of rescission,' after `guaranteed renewability'; and

(2) in subsection (a), by inserting `, including without rescission,' after `continue in force'.

To understand this provision you'd also need to know what 42 U.S.C. 300gg-42 says. And this isn't an isolated case; the United States Code is referred to or revised a whopping 439 times in a 1,017-page bill!

Fortunately, DownsizeDC.org's One Subject At A Time Act (OSTA) has anticipated this problem. OSTA's main purpose is to prevent unrelated, unpopular bills from being bundled together with popular or must-pass bills. But it also contains a provision requiring all bills to include the full text of any part of existing law that will be amended by the bill.That way both Congress and the public will know exactly what's being changed.

Please send Congress a letter asking them to pass DownsizeDC.org's "One Subject at a Time Act."

Use your personal comments to mention that citizens all over America are reading the healthcare bill and finding it impossible to understand. If you want, you can cut and paste the SEC. 162 example into your message. Tell them this kind of thing makes you doubt that they really understand what the healthcare bill would actually do. Point out that OSTA would solve this problem by requiring all bills to include the full text of any part of existing law that the healthcare bill amends.

You can send your message here.

We also recommend that you send a second message to Congress. Demand that they introduce the Read the Bills Act. Remind them that this issue isn't going away, and that they'll really feel the heat if they pass a healthcare reform bill without reading it. You can send that message here.

Read the Bills Act Coalition. This week we welcome seven new members to the RTBA Coalition:

Click here to join.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

The Coming Anarchy

2009-09-03T05:57:00.001-07:00

Check out my latest: The Partial Observer - The Coming Anarchy

Shared via AddThis

Against the word "Capitalism"

2009-09-02T11:02:00.000-07:00

What if we called capitalism "savingism" instead? Mark Davis asked the question last year, and I strongly recommend his piece.

Davis's point is that capital is really just savings, or surplus. Civilization grows when people work to the point that they have more than they need. They then save the surplus, trade with it, or invest it in order to create even more surpluses with which to trade and consume. Work now, enjoy the fruits later. Davis also argues that what most people call capitalism today is its exact opposite: creditism. Under this system, the economy is supposed to grow by people borrowing and enjoying the fruits now, and working later to pay off the debts.

At the same time, banks lend far more money than they have on deposit (fractional reserve banking), and charge interest. In a true capitalist/savingist economy this would be considered fraud. But it drives the economy of creditism.

I'm tempted to go one step further than Davis. Let's junk the word "capitalism" altogether. "Liberal" once meant an individualist who favored small government; now it means one who favors large government. "Conservative" once meant preservation of traditional social norms; now it means militarism. And "capitalism" once meant producing greater wealth through savings, yet now it means producing and consuming by borrowing.

The words "liberal" and "conservative" are now virtually useless beyond a religious context. "Capitalism," however, is worse than useless. People who debate it often have exactly opposite definitions.

We should have greater clarity if we instead changed the terms of the debate to "savingism vs. creditism."

Creditists believe that forcing the people to pay for government debt, and to incur debts themselves for everything from homes to college to cars, is a dandy way of keeping an economy and a nation humming. Whether it's called progressivism or Wall Street Republicanism, we have seen the results of this ideology.

Savingists, however, prefer freedom from debt over excessive levels of consumption. A result of this, of course, would be less environmental destruction, as savingists are reluctant to consume more than what they need. They won't buy houses or cars they can't pay for. They would rather live in crowded houses and cooperate with neighbors until they have saved enough to better their condition.

If this model, this lifestyle, appeals to those on the left, then they really should learn more about fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve. The same institutions that drive consumer debt are the same that drive government debt. And the beneficiaries of government over-spending - Big Government - are definitely not "the people."

Criminals vs. mere hypocrites

2009-09-01T15:43:00.000-07:00

Q: What do you call a politician who supports laws against murder, but then goes out and commits a murder?

A: A murderer

Q: What do you call a politician who supports laws against thievery, and then goes out and shoplifts?

A: A thief

Q: What do you call a politician who would prohibit sexual jokes and suggestive behavior in the private workplace, but then makes sexual advances on his own underlings?

A: A hypocrite

Q: What do you call a politician who supports drug prohibition, even as he admits to drug use in his youth himself - for which he could have been arrested?

A: A hypocrite

Q: What do you call a politician who supports strict labor standards on businesses, and then pays undocumented workers as nannies and housekeepers?

A: A hypocrite

Q: What do you call a politician who supports immigration restrictions, and then pays undocumented workers as nannies and housekeepers?

A: A hypocrite

Q: Why did I not call the murdering politician and the thieving politician hypocrites?

A: Because the most condemnable aspect of their behavior is that their crimes had victims.*

Q: If hypocrisy is the worst thing about the crime, why is it even a crime?

A: Don't ask me. To pass a law against victimless, consensual behavior is itself a crime.

* Sexual harassment can involve a victim, depending on the terms of the employment contract, which can bring on a civil suit. The hypocrisy comes in because the politician would regulate private property and personal associations to outlaw behavior he himself engages in.

Independent Country

Pelosi's Healthcare bill: an unprecedented attack on personal freedom

The reason "the rest of us" aren't free

In Praise of Alternative Media

Why is the U.S. so bad at government?

Copenhagen Treaty: Will the U.S. cede sovereignty?

More questions for Congress

The End of the World

Give them leverage

War on the Cheap

Don't read this if you don't care about the Constitution

Whose Body Is It?

A Proposal

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent?"

Complete Freedom

Is Drug Prohibition Worth It?

Creditism and Savingism

Gambling and the culture of credit

Withdrawing Consent

Clearing up a misconception

Brother, Can You Spare A FRAUD?

Lakers, Clippers, and All Teams In Between

Understanding the bills

The Coming Anarchy

Against the word "Capitalism"

Criminals vs. mere hypocrites