Government Maxes Out Its Credit Line
“The United States slammed up against its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit Monday, even as lawmakers continue to squabble over whether to lift the debt ceiling.” (New York Daily News)
Ceilings are made for lifting.
Timely Classic Article
“Our Presidents and the National Debt” by Burton W. Folsom Jr.
Wall Street Banks Under Investigation in Mortgage Debacle
“The New York attorney general has requested information and documents in recent weeks from three major Wall Street banks about their mortgage securities operations during the credit boom, indicating the existence of a new investigation into practices that contributed to billions in mortgage losses.” (New York Times)
Don’t forget their accomplice: the U.S. government.
Timely Classic Article
“The Subprime Crisis Shows that Government Intervenes Too Little in Financial Markets? It Just Ain’t So!” by Lawrence H. White
Bernanke Explores Government R&D Financing
“The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, said on Monday that the United States and other countries needed to better understand the most effective ways to use government money for research and development projects.” (New York Times)
Has it occurred to him that government should have no role?
Timely Classic Article
“Technology, Progress, and Freedom” by Edward W. Younkins
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
House Highlights 4/5/2011
House Highlights
By Tom Loertscher
Late one afternoon during the week several of us in the House were sitting around the desk of Representative Bateman from Idaho Falls. He was in the House long ago and has come back this year after a 20+ year absence. He was reminiscing over some of the crazy things they used to do in the House. Some things may not have been crazy but the parliamentary maneuvering in those days seemed to be quite different than it is now. He told us about some of the old-timers who really knew the process and how it worked best.
One of the things that has been used effectively over time is reading the bills at length on the House floor. Starting on Wednesday the minority party decided to have us read bills because of a couple of issues that they want to have discussed around this place. Neither of the measures that they seek have enough votes to come out of committee. We read a lot of bills the last three days of the week but one of them was of particular interest. The bill was one updating some provisions of the sex offender law. I was talking to one of the attorneys around here about the sad nature of having such graphic terms in state law. The bill is about 28 pages long and the reading of all those terms being broadcast over the Internet did not seem appropriate. One gentleman of the majority party finally stood and pleaded with the minority to stop sending all that kind of language out over the airwaves. They finally relented.
In spite of reading bills we made some fairly good progress in clearing off our third reading calendar in the House. It took some long days to accomplish. Another bill that was read at length on the floor was the third piece of the education "reform" effort. I studied the matter at length and there are several things in the bill that I don't like. The most glaring problem that I see in the legislation is that the money for "mobile computing devices" comes from the top of the appropriation for schools. Another part of that formula would be taking the merit pay for teachers off the top as well. What that means is that after those things are taken out of the budget to begin with, only what is left can be used by the school districts at their discretion.
Some districts, like Westside School District, who have already made great strides in using technology in the classroom could be penalized. If I read the legislation correctly, if they are unable to utilize the funding for things that they already have in place, they would lose those funds. The school districts like to call that the use it or lose it method. There are so many other things that come from the top of the appropriation that I think it punishes those districts who have already used their initiative in developing technological advances in their classrooms. I voted no. Representative Bateman gave the best debate of the day. He said that the use of technology in the classroom was already well underway in Idaho. "You can't stop the advance of technology in the classroom anymore than you can use a pitchfork to stop the tides of the ocean," is how he put it.
We still have a few budget bills left to pass and some other issues that remain bottled up in one place or another in the process. But if all goes well this could be our last week for this session. That of course is assuming that we don't get any of those 50 page bills to read at length in the House. At least we’re getting in some reading practice.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Is America a Democracy, Republic, or Empire?
Is America a Democracy, Republic, or Empire?
By Oliver DeMille
Some in Washington are fond of saying that certain nations don't know how to do democracy.
Anytime a nation breaks away from totalitarian or authoritarian controls, these "experts" point out that the people aren't "prepared" for democracy.
But this is hardly the point.
A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy--but where a strong leader is prepared for tyranny--is still better off as a democracy.
A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy but where an elite class is prepared for aristocracy is still better off as a democracy.
A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy but where a socialist or fundamentalist religious bureaucracy is prepared to rule is still better off as a democracy.
Whatever the people's inadequacies, they will do better than the other, class-dominant forms of government.
Winston Churchill was right:
"Democracy is the worst form of government--except all the other forms that have been tried."
False Democracy
When I say "democracy," I am of course not referring to a pure democracy where the masses make every decision; this has always turned to mob rule through history.
Of Artistotle's various types and styles of democracy, this was the worst. The American founders considered this one of the least effective of free forms of government.
Nor do I mean a "socialist democracy" as proposed by Karl Marx, where the people elect leaders who then exert power over the finances and personal lives of all citizens.
Whether this type of government is called democracy (e.g. Social Democrats in many former Eastern European nations) in the Marxian sense or a republic (e.g. The People's Republic of China, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--USSR, etc.), it amounts to the same oligarchic model of authoritarian rule.
Marx used the concept of democracy--he called it "the battle for democracy"--to argue for the working classes to rise up against the middle and upper classes and take back their power.
Ironically, he believed the masses incapable of such leadership, and felt that a small group of elites, the "vanguard", would have to do the work of the masses for them.
This argument assumes an oligarchic view of the world, and the result of attempted Marxism has nearly always been dictatorial or oligarchic authoritarianism.
In this attitude Marx follows his mentor Hegel, who discounted any belief in the power or wisdom of the people as wild imaginings (see Mortimer Adler's discussion on "Monarchy" in the Syntopicon).
The American founders disagreed entirely with this view.
A Democratic Republic
The type of democracy we need more of in the world is constitutional representative democracy, with:
A written constitution that separates the legislative, executive and judicial powers.
Limits all with checks and balances, and leaves most of the governing power in the hands of the people and local and regional, rather than national, government institutions.
In such a government, the people have the power to elect their own representatives who participate at all levels. Then the people closely oversee the acts of government.
One other power of the people in a constitutional representative democratic republic is to either ratify or reject the original constitution.
Only the support of the people allows any constitution to be adopted (or amended) by a democratic society.
The American framers adopted Locke's view that the legislative power was closest to the people and should have the sole power over the nation's finances.
Thus in the U.S. Constitution, direct representatives of the people oversaw the money and had to answer directly to the people every two years.
Two Meanings of "Democracy"
There are two ways of understanding the term democracy. One is as a governmental form--which is how this article has used the word so far. The other is as a societal format.
There are four major types of societies:
A chaotic society with no rules, laws or government.
A monarchial society where one man or woman has full power over all people and aspects of the society.
An aristocratic society where a few people--an upper class--control the whole nation.
A democratic society where the final say over the biggest issues in the nation comes from the regular people
As a societal form, democracy is by far the best system.Montesquieu, who was the source most quoted at the American Constitutional Convention, said:
"[Democracy exists] when the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power."
In a good constitutional democracy, the constitution limits the majority from impinging upon the inalienable rights of a minority--or of anyone at all.
Indeed, if a monarchial or aristocratic society better protects the rights of the people than a democratic nation, it may well be a more just and free society.
History has shown, however, that over time the people are more likely to protect their rights than any royal family or elite class.
When the many are asked to analyze and ratify a good constitution, and then to protect the rights of all, it turns out they nearly always protect freedom and just society better than the one or the few.
It is very important to clarify the difference between these two types of democracy--governmental and societal.
For example, many of the historic Greek "democracies" were governmental democracies only. They called themselves democracies because the citizens had the final say on the governmental structure and elections--but only the upper class could be citizens.
Thus these nations were actually societal aristocracies, despite being political democracies.
Plato called the societal form of democracy the best system and the governmental format of democracy the worst.
Clearly, knowing the difference is vital.
Aristotle felt that there are actually six major types of societal forms.
A king who obeys the laws leads a monarchial society, while a king who thinks he is above the law rules a tyrannical society.
Likewise, government by the few can either have different laws for the elite class or the same laws for all people, making oligarchy or aristocracy.
In a society where the people are in charge, they can either rule by majority power (he called this democracy) or by wise laws, protected inalienable rights and widespread freedom (he called this "mixed" or, as it is often translated, "constitutional" society).
Like Plato, Aristotle considered the governmental form of democracy bad, but better than oligarchy or tyranny; and he believed the societal form of democracy (where the people as a mass generally rule the society) to be good.
Democracy or Republic?
The authors of The Federalist Papers tried to avoid this confusion about the different meanings of "democracy" simply by shortening the idea of a limited, constitutional, representative democracy to the term "republic."
A breakdown of these pieces is enlightening:
Limited (unalienable rights for all are protected)
Constitutional (ratified by the people; the three major powers separated, checked and balanced)
Representative (the people elect their leaders, using different constituencies to elect different leaders for different governmental entities--like the Senate and the House)
Democracy (the people have the final say through elections and through the power to amend the constitution)
The framers required all state governments to be this type of republic, and additionally, for the national government to be federal (made up of sovereign states with their own power, delegating only a few specific powers to the national government).
When we read the writings of most of the American founders, it is helpful to keep this definition of "republic" in mind.
When they use the terms "republic" or "a republic" they usually mean a limited, constitutional, representative democracy like that of all the states.
When they say "the republic" they usually refer to the national-level government, which they established as a limited, constitutional, federal, representative democracy.
At times they shorten this to "federal democratic republic" or simply democratic republic.
Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson frequently used the term "representative democracy," but most of the other founders preferred the word "republic."
A Global Problem
In today's world the term "republic" has almost as many meanings as "democracy."
The term "democracy" sometimes has the societal connotation of the people overseeing the ratification of their constitution. It nearly always carries the societal democracy idea that the regular people matter, and the governmental democracy meaning that the regular people get to elect their leaders.
The good news is that freedom is spreading. Authoritarianism, by whatever name, depends on top-down control of information, and in the age of the Internet this is disappearing everywhere.
More nations will be seeking freedom, and dictators, totalitarians and authoritarians everywhere are ruling on borrowed time.
People want freedom, and they want democracy--the societal type, where the people matter. All of this is positive and, frankly, wonderful.
The problem is that as more nations seek freedom, they are tending to equate democracy with either the European or Asian versions (parliamentary democracy or an aristocracy of wealth).
The European parliamentary democracies are certainly an improvement over the authoritarian states many nations are seeking to put behind them, but they are inferior to the American model.
The same is true of the Asian aristocratic democracies.
Specifically, the parliamentary model of democracy gives far too much power to the legislative branch of government, with few separations, checks or balances.
The result is that there are hardly any limits to the powers of such governments. They simply do whatever the parliament wants, making it an Aristotelian oligarchy.
The people get to vote for their government officials, but the government can do whatever it chooses--and it is run by an upper class.
This is democratic government, but aristocratic society. The regular people in such a society become increasingly dependent on government and widespread prosperity and freedom decrease over time.
The Asian model is even worse. The governmental forms of democracy are in place, but in practice the very wealthy choose who wins elections, what policies the legislature adopts, and how the executive implements government programs.
The basic problem is that while the world equates freedom with democracy, it also equates democracy with only one piece of historical democracy--popular elections.
Nations that adopt the European model of parliamentary democracy or the Asian system of aristocratic democracy do not become societal democracies at all--but simply democratic aristocracies.
Democracy is spreading--if by democracy we mean popular elections; but aristocracy is winning the day.
Freedom--a truly widespread freedom where the regular people in a society have great opportunity and prosperity is common--remains rare around the world.
The Unpopular American Model
The obvious solution is to adopt the American model of democracy, as defined by leading minds in the American founding: limited, constitutional, representative, federal, and democratic in the societal sense where the regular people really do run the nation.
Unfortunately, this model is currently discredited in global circles and among the world's regular people for at least three reasons:
1. The American elite is pursuing other models.
The left-leaning elite (openly and vocally) idealize the European system, while the American elite on the right prefers the Asian structure of leadership by wealth and corporate status.
If most of the intelligentsia in the United States aren't seeking to bolster the American constitutional model, nor the elite U.S. schools that attract foreign students on the leadership track, it is no surprise that freedom-seekers in other nations aren't encouraged in this direction.
2. The American bureaucracy around the world isn't promoting societal democracy but rather simple political democracy--popular elections have become the entire de facto meaning of the term "democracy" in most official usage.
With nobody pushing for limited, constitutional, federal, representative democratic republics, we get what we promote: democratic elections in fundamentally class-oriented structures dominated by elite upper classes.
3. The American people aren't all that actively involved as democratic leaders.
When the U.S. Constitution was written, nearly every citizen in America was part of a Town Council, with a voice and a vote in local government. With much pain and sacrifice America evolved to a system where every adult can be such a citizen, regardless of class status, religious views, gender, race or disability.
Every adult now has the opportunity to have a real say in governance. Unfortunately, we have over time dispensed with the Town Councils of all Adults and turned to a representative model even at the most local community and neighborhood level.
As Americans have ceased to participate each week in council and decision-making with all adults, we have lost some of the training and passion for democratic involvement and become more reliant on experts, the press and political parties.
Voting has become the one great action of our democratic involvement, a significant decrease in responsibility since early America.
We still take part in juries--but now even that power has been significantly reduced--especially since 1896.
In recent times popular issues like environmentalism and the tea parties have brought a marked increase of active participation by regular citizens in the national dialogue.
Barack Obama's populist appeal brought a lot of youth into the discussion. The Internet and social media have also given more power to the voice of the masses.
When the people do more than just vote, when they are involved in the on-going dialogue on major issues and policy proposals, the society is more democratic--in the American founding model--and the outlook for freedom and prosperity brightens.
The Role of the People
Human nature being what it is, no people of any nation may be truly prepared for democracy.
But--human nature being what it is--they are more prepared to protect themselves from losses of freedom and opportunity than any other group.
Anti-democratic forces have usually argued that we need the best leaders in society, and that experts, elites and those with "breeding," experience and means are most suited to be the best leaders.
But free democratic societies (especially those with the benefits of limited, constitutional, representative, and locally participative systems) have proven that the right leaders are better than the best leaders.
We don't need leaders (as citizens or elected officials) who seem the most charismatically appealing nearly so much as we need those who will effectively stand for the right things.
And no group is more likely to elect such leaders than the regular people.
It is the role of the people, in any society that wants to be or remain free and prosperous, to be the overseers of their government.
If they fail in this duty, for whatever reason, freedom and widespread prosperity will decrease. If the people don't protect their freedoms and opportunities, despite what Marx thought, nobody will.
No vanguard, party or group of elites or experts will do as much for the people as they can do for themselves. History is clear on this reality.
We can trust the people, in America and in any other nation, to promote widespread freedom and prosperity better than anyone else.
Two Challenges
With that said, we face at least two major problems that threaten the strength of our democratic republic right now in the United States.
First, only a nation of citizen-readers can maintain real freedom. We must deeply understand details like these:
The two meanings of democracy
The realities and nuances of ideas such as: limited, constitutional, federal, representative, locally participative, etc.
The differences between the typical European, Asian, early American and other models competing for support in the world
...And so on
In short, we must study the great classics and histories to be the kind of citizen-leaders we should be.
The people are better than any other group to lead us, as discussed above, but as a people we can know more, understand more, and become better leaders.
Second, we face the huge problem all great democratic powers have eventually faced: how to reconcile our democratic society at home with our imperialism abroad.
As George Friedman has argued, we now control a world empire larger than any in history, whether we want to or not.
Yet a spirit of democratic opportunity, entrepreneurial freedom, inclusive love of liberty, freedom from oppressive class systems, and promotion of widespread prosperity is diametrically opposed to the arrogant, selfish, self-elevating, superiority-complex of imperialism.
This very dichotomy has brought down some of the greatest free nations of history.
On some occasions this challenge turned the home nation into an empire, thus killing the free democratic republic (e.g. Rome).
Other nations lost their power in the world because the regular people of the nation did not reconcile their democratic beliefs with the cruelty of imperial dominance and force (e.g. Athens, ancient Israel).
At times the colonies of an empire used the powerful democratic ideals of the great power against them and broke away.
At times the citizens of the great power refused to support the government in quelling rebellions with which they basically agreed (e.g. Great Britain and its relations with America, India, and many other former colonies).
Many of the great freedom thinkers of history have argued against empire and for the type of democratic republic the American framers established--see for example Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, the Bible, Plutarch, Tacitus, Augustine, Montaigne, Locke, Montesquieu, Gibbon, Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, and Madison, among others.
The Federalist mentions empire or imperialism 53 times, and not one of the references is positive.
In contrast, the main purpose of the Federalist Papers was to make a case for a federal, democratic republic.
Those who believe in American exceptionalism (that the United States is an exception to many of the class-oriented patterns in the history of nations) now face their greatest challenge.
Will America peacefully and effectively pull back from imperialism and leave dozens of nations successfully (or haltingly) running themselves without U.S. power?
Will it set its best and brightest to figuring out how this can be done? Or to increasing the power of empire?
Empire and Freedom
Some argue that the United States cannot divest itself of empire without leaving the world in chaos.
This is precisely the argument nearly all upper classes, and slave owners, make to justify their unprincipled dominance over others.
The argument on its face is disrespectful to the people of the world.
Of course few people are truly prepared to run a democracy--leadership at all levels is challenging and at the national level it is downright overwhelming.
But, again--the people are more suited to oversee than any other group.
And without the freedom to fail, as Adam Smith put it, they never have the dynamic that impels great leaders to forge ahead against impossible odds. They will never fly unless the safety net is gone.
The people can survive and sometimes even flourish without elite rule, and the world can survive and flourish without American empire.
A wise transition is, of course, the sensible approach, but the arrogance of thinking that without our empire the world will collapse is downright selfish--unless one values stability above freedom.
How can we, whose freedom was purchased at the price of the lives, fortunes and sacred honor of our forebears, and defended by the blood of soldiers and patriots in the generations that followed, argue that the sacrifices and struggles that people around the world in our day might endure to achieve their own freedom and self- determination constitute too great a cost?
The shift will certainly bring major difficulties and problems, but freedom and self-government are worth it.
The struggles of a free people trying to establish effective institutions through trial, error, mistakes and problems are better than forced stability from Rome, Madrid, Beijing, or even London or Washington.
America can set the example, support the process, and help in significant ways--if we'll simply get our own house in order.
Our military strength will not disappear if we remain involved in the world without imperial attitudes or behaviors. We can actively participate in world affairs without adopting either extreme of isolationism or imperialism.
Surely, if the world is as dependent on the U.S. as the imperial-minded claim, we should use our influence to pass on a legacy of ordered constitutional freedom and learning self-government over time rather than arrogant, elitist bureaucratic management backed by military might from afar.
If Washington becomes the imperial realm to the world, it will undoubtedly be the same to the American people. Freedom abroad and at home may literally be at stake.
The future will be significantly impacted by the answers to these two questions:
Will the American people resurrect a society of citizen readers actively involved in daily governance?
Will we choose our democratic values or our imperialistic attitudes as our primary guide for the 21st Century?
Who are we, really? Today we are part democracy, part republic, and part empire.
Can we find a way to mesh all three, even though the first two are fundamentally opposed to the third?
Will the dawn of the 22nd Century witness an America free, prosperous, strong and open, or some other alternative?
If the United States chooses empire, can it possibly retain the best things about itself?
Without the Manifest Destiny proposed by the Founders, what alternate destiny awaits?
Above all, will the regular citizens--in American and elsewhere--be up to such leadership?
No elites will save us. It is up to the people.
To get Oliver's books on similar topics, including The Coming Aristocracy and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America's Destiny, go to oliverdemille.com.
*******************
Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America's Destiny.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
By Oliver DeMille
Some in Washington are fond of saying that certain nations don't know how to do democracy.
Anytime a nation breaks away from totalitarian or authoritarian controls, these "experts" point out that the people aren't "prepared" for democracy.
But this is hardly the point.
A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy--but where a strong leader is prepared for tyranny--is still better off as a democracy.
A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy but where an elite class is prepared for aristocracy is still better off as a democracy.
A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy but where a socialist or fundamentalist religious bureaucracy is prepared to rule is still better off as a democracy.
Whatever the people's inadequacies, they will do better than the other, class-dominant forms of government.
Winston Churchill was right:
"Democracy is the worst form of government--except all the other forms that have been tried."
False Democracy
When I say "democracy," I am of course not referring to a pure democracy where the masses make every decision; this has always turned to mob rule through history.
Of Artistotle's various types and styles of democracy, this was the worst. The American founders considered this one of the least effective of free forms of government.
Nor do I mean a "socialist democracy" as proposed by Karl Marx, where the people elect leaders who then exert power over the finances and personal lives of all citizens.
Whether this type of government is called democracy (e.g. Social Democrats in many former Eastern European nations) in the Marxian sense or a republic (e.g. The People's Republic of China, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--USSR, etc.), it amounts to the same oligarchic model of authoritarian rule.
Marx used the concept of democracy--he called it "the battle for democracy"--to argue for the working classes to rise up against the middle and upper classes and take back their power.
Ironically, he believed the masses incapable of such leadership, and felt that a small group of elites, the "vanguard", would have to do the work of the masses for them.
This argument assumes an oligarchic view of the world, and the result of attempted Marxism has nearly always been dictatorial or oligarchic authoritarianism.
In this attitude Marx follows his mentor Hegel, who discounted any belief in the power or wisdom of the people as wild imaginings (see Mortimer Adler's discussion on "Monarchy" in the Syntopicon).
The American founders disagreed entirely with this view.
A Democratic Republic
The type of democracy we need more of in the world is constitutional representative democracy, with:
A written constitution that separates the legislative, executive and judicial powers.
Limits all with checks and balances, and leaves most of the governing power in the hands of the people and local and regional, rather than national, government institutions.
In such a government, the people have the power to elect their own representatives who participate at all levels. Then the people closely oversee the acts of government.
One other power of the people in a constitutional representative democratic republic is to either ratify or reject the original constitution.
Only the support of the people allows any constitution to be adopted (or amended) by a democratic society.
The American framers adopted Locke's view that the legislative power was closest to the people and should have the sole power over the nation's finances.
Thus in the U.S. Constitution, direct representatives of the people oversaw the money and had to answer directly to the people every two years.
Two Meanings of "Democracy"
There are two ways of understanding the term democracy. One is as a governmental form--which is how this article has used the word so far. The other is as a societal format.
There are four major types of societies:
A chaotic society with no rules, laws or government.
A monarchial society where one man or woman has full power over all people and aspects of the society.
An aristocratic society where a few people--an upper class--control the whole nation.
A democratic society where the final say over the biggest issues in the nation comes from the regular people
As a societal form, democracy is by far the best system.Montesquieu, who was the source most quoted at the American Constitutional Convention, said:
"[Democracy exists] when the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power."
In a good constitutional democracy, the constitution limits the majority from impinging upon the inalienable rights of a minority--or of anyone at all.
Indeed, if a monarchial or aristocratic society better protects the rights of the people than a democratic nation, it may well be a more just and free society.
History has shown, however, that over time the people are more likely to protect their rights than any royal family or elite class.
When the many are asked to analyze and ratify a good constitution, and then to protect the rights of all, it turns out they nearly always protect freedom and just society better than the one or the few.
It is very important to clarify the difference between these two types of democracy--governmental and societal.
For example, many of the historic Greek "democracies" were governmental democracies only. They called themselves democracies because the citizens had the final say on the governmental structure and elections--but only the upper class could be citizens.
Thus these nations were actually societal aristocracies, despite being political democracies.
Plato called the societal form of democracy the best system and the governmental format of democracy the worst.
Clearly, knowing the difference is vital.
Aristotle felt that there are actually six major types of societal forms.
A king who obeys the laws leads a monarchial society, while a king who thinks he is above the law rules a tyrannical society.
Likewise, government by the few can either have different laws for the elite class or the same laws for all people, making oligarchy or aristocracy.
In a society where the people are in charge, they can either rule by majority power (he called this democracy) or by wise laws, protected inalienable rights and widespread freedom (he called this "mixed" or, as it is often translated, "constitutional" society).
Like Plato, Aristotle considered the governmental form of democracy bad, but better than oligarchy or tyranny; and he believed the societal form of democracy (where the people as a mass generally rule the society) to be good.
Democracy or Republic?
The authors of The Federalist Papers tried to avoid this confusion about the different meanings of "democracy" simply by shortening the idea of a limited, constitutional, representative democracy to the term "republic."
A breakdown of these pieces is enlightening:
Limited (unalienable rights for all are protected)
Constitutional (ratified by the people; the three major powers separated, checked and balanced)
Representative (the people elect their leaders, using different constituencies to elect different leaders for different governmental entities--like the Senate and the House)
Democracy (the people have the final say through elections and through the power to amend the constitution)
The framers required all state governments to be this type of republic, and additionally, for the national government to be federal (made up of sovereign states with their own power, delegating only a few specific powers to the national government).
When we read the writings of most of the American founders, it is helpful to keep this definition of "republic" in mind.
When they use the terms "republic" or "a republic" they usually mean a limited, constitutional, representative democracy like that of all the states.
When they say "the republic" they usually refer to the national-level government, which they established as a limited, constitutional, federal, representative democracy.
At times they shorten this to "federal democratic republic" or simply democratic republic.
Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson frequently used the term "representative democracy," but most of the other founders preferred the word "republic."
A Global Problem
In today's world the term "republic" has almost as many meanings as "democracy."
The term "democracy" sometimes has the societal connotation of the people overseeing the ratification of their constitution. It nearly always carries the societal democracy idea that the regular people matter, and the governmental democracy meaning that the regular people get to elect their leaders.
The good news is that freedom is spreading. Authoritarianism, by whatever name, depends on top-down control of information, and in the age of the Internet this is disappearing everywhere.
More nations will be seeking freedom, and dictators, totalitarians and authoritarians everywhere are ruling on borrowed time.
People want freedom, and they want democracy--the societal type, where the people matter. All of this is positive and, frankly, wonderful.
The problem is that as more nations seek freedom, they are tending to equate democracy with either the European or Asian versions (parliamentary democracy or an aristocracy of wealth).
The European parliamentary democracies are certainly an improvement over the authoritarian states many nations are seeking to put behind them, but they are inferior to the American model.
The same is true of the Asian aristocratic democracies.
Specifically, the parliamentary model of democracy gives far too much power to the legislative branch of government, with few separations, checks or balances.
The result is that there are hardly any limits to the powers of such governments. They simply do whatever the parliament wants, making it an Aristotelian oligarchy.
The people get to vote for their government officials, but the government can do whatever it chooses--and it is run by an upper class.
This is democratic government, but aristocratic society. The regular people in such a society become increasingly dependent on government and widespread prosperity and freedom decrease over time.
The Asian model is even worse. The governmental forms of democracy are in place, but in practice the very wealthy choose who wins elections, what policies the legislature adopts, and how the executive implements government programs.
The basic problem is that while the world equates freedom with democracy, it also equates democracy with only one piece of historical democracy--popular elections.
Nations that adopt the European model of parliamentary democracy or the Asian system of aristocratic democracy do not become societal democracies at all--but simply democratic aristocracies.
Democracy is spreading--if by democracy we mean popular elections; but aristocracy is winning the day.
Freedom--a truly widespread freedom where the regular people in a society have great opportunity and prosperity is common--remains rare around the world.
The Unpopular American Model
The obvious solution is to adopt the American model of democracy, as defined by leading minds in the American founding: limited, constitutional, representative, federal, and democratic in the societal sense where the regular people really do run the nation.
Unfortunately, this model is currently discredited in global circles and among the world's regular people for at least three reasons:
1. The American elite is pursuing other models.
The left-leaning elite (openly and vocally) idealize the European system, while the American elite on the right prefers the Asian structure of leadership by wealth and corporate status.
If most of the intelligentsia in the United States aren't seeking to bolster the American constitutional model, nor the elite U.S. schools that attract foreign students on the leadership track, it is no surprise that freedom-seekers in other nations aren't encouraged in this direction.
2. The American bureaucracy around the world isn't promoting societal democracy but rather simple political democracy--popular elections have become the entire de facto meaning of the term "democracy" in most official usage.
With nobody pushing for limited, constitutional, federal, representative democratic republics, we get what we promote: democratic elections in fundamentally class-oriented structures dominated by elite upper classes.
3. The American people aren't all that actively involved as democratic leaders.
When the U.S. Constitution was written, nearly every citizen in America was part of a Town Council, with a voice and a vote in local government. With much pain and sacrifice America evolved to a system where every adult can be such a citizen, regardless of class status, religious views, gender, race or disability.
Every adult now has the opportunity to have a real say in governance. Unfortunately, we have over time dispensed with the Town Councils of all Adults and turned to a representative model even at the most local community and neighborhood level.
As Americans have ceased to participate each week in council and decision-making with all adults, we have lost some of the training and passion for democratic involvement and become more reliant on experts, the press and political parties.
Voting has become the one great action of our democratic involvement, a significant decrease in responsibility since early America.
We still take part in juries--but now even that power has been significantly reduced--especially since 1896.
In recent times popular issues like environmentalism and the tea parties have brought a marked increase of active participation by regular citizens in the national dialogue.
Barack Obama's populist appeal brought a lot of youth into the discussion. The Internet and social media have also given more power to the voice of the masses.
When the people do more than just vote, when they are involved in the on-going dialogue on major issues and policy proposals, the society is more democratic--in the American founding model--and the outlook for freedom and prosperity brightens.
The Role of the People
Human nature being what it is, no people of any nation may be truly prepared for democracy.
But--human nature being what it is--they are more prepared to protect themselves from losses of freedom and opportunity than any other group.
Anti-democratic forces have usually argued that we need the best leaders in society, and that experts, elites and those with "breeding," experience and means are most suited to be the best leaders.
But free democratic societies (especially those with the benefits of limited, constitutional, representative, and locally participative systems) have proven that the right leaders are better than the best leaders.
We don't need leaders (as citizens or elected officials) who seem the most charismatically appealing nearly so much as we need those who will effectively stand for the right things.
And no group is more likely to elect such leaders than the regular people.
It is the role of the people, in any society that wants to be or remain free and prosperous, to be the overseers of their government.
If they fail in this duty, for whatever reason, freedom and widespread prosperity will decrease. If the people don't protect their freedoms and opportunities, despite what Marx thought, nobody will.
No vanguard, party or group of elites or experts will do as much for the people as they can do for themselves. History is clear on this reality.
We can trust the people, in America and in any other nation, to promote widespread freedom and prosperity better than anyone else.
Two Challenges
With that said, we face at least two major problems that threaten the strength of our democratic republic right now in the United States.
First, only a nation of citizen-readers can maintain real freedom. We must deeply understand details like these:
The two meanings of democracy
The realities and nuances of ideas such as: limited, constitutional, federal, representative, locally participative, etc.
The differences between the typical European, Asian, early American and other models competing for support in the world
...And so on
In short, we must study the great classics and histories to be the kind of citizen-leaders we should be.
The people are better than any other group to lead us, as discussed above, but as a people we can know more, understand more, and become better leaders.
Second, we face the huge problem all great democratic powers have eventually faced: how to reconcile our democratic society at home with our imperialism abroad.
As George Friedman has argued, we now control a world empire larger than any in history, whether we want to or not.
Yet a spirit of democratic opportunity, entrepreneurial freedom, inclusive love of liberty, freedom from oppressive class systems, and promotion of widespread prosperity is diametrically opposed to the arrogant, selfish, self-elevating, superiority-complex of imperialism.
This very dichotomy has brought down some of the greatest free nations of history.
On some occasions this challenge turned the home nation into an empire, thus killing the free democratic republic (e.g. Rome).
Other nations lost their power in the world because the regular people of the nation did not reconcile their democratic beliefs with the cruelty of imperial dominance and force (e.g. Athens, ancient Israel).
At times the colonies of an empire used the powerful democratic ideals of the great power against them and broke away.
At times the citizens of the great power refused to support the government in quelling rebellions with which they basically agreed (e.g. Great Britain and its relations with America, India, and many other former colonies).
Many of the great freedom thinkers of history have argued against empire and for the type of democratic republic the American framers established--see for example Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, the Bible, Plutarch, Tacitus, Augustine, Montaigne, Locke, Montesquieu, Gibbon, Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, and Madison, among others.
The Federalist mentions empire or imperialism 53 times, and not one of the references is positive.
In contrast, the main purpose of the Federalist Papers was to make a case for a federal, democratic republic.
Those who believe in American exceptionalism (that the United States is an exception to many of the class-oriented patterns in the history of nations) now face their greatest challenge.
Will America peacefully and effectively pull back from imperialism and leave dozens of nations successfully (or haltingly) running themselves without U.S. power?
Will it set its best and brightest to figuring out how this can be done? Or to increasing the power of empire?
Empire and Freedom
Some argue that the United States cannot divest itself of empire without leaving the world in chaos.
This is precisely the argument nearly all upper classes, and slave owners, make to justify their unprincipled dominance over others.
The argument on its face is disrespectful to the people of the world.
Of course few people are truly prepared to run a democracy--leadership at all levels is challenging and at the national level it is downright overwhelming.
But, again--the people are more suited to oversee than any other group.
And without the freedom to fail, as Adam Smith put it, they never have the dynamic that impels great leaders to forge ahead against impossible odds. They will never fly unless the safety net is gone.
The people can survive and sometimes even flourish without elite rule, and the world can survive and flourish without American empire.
A wise transition is, of course, the sensible approach, but the arrogance of thinking that without our empire the world will collapse is downright selfish--unless one values stability above freedom.
How can we, whose freedom was purchased at the price of the lives, fortunes and sacred honor of our forebears, and defended by the blood of soldiers and patriots in the generations that followed, argue that the sacrifices and struggles that people around the world in our day might endure to achieve their own freedom and self- determination constitute too great a cost?
The shift will certainly bring major difficulties and problems, but freedom and self-government are worth it.
The struggles of a free people trying to establish effective institutions through trial, error, mistakes and problems are better than forced stability from Rome, Madrid, Beijing, or even London or Washington.
America can set the example, support the process, and help in significant ways--if we'll simply get our own house in order.
Our military strength will not disappear if we remain involved in the world without imperial attitudes or behaviors. We can actively participate in world affairs without adopting either extreme of isolationism or imperialism.
Surely, if the world is as dependent on the U.S. as the imperial-minded claim, we should use our influence to pass on a legacy of ordered constitutional freedom and learning self-government over time rather than arrogant, elitist bureaucratic management backed by military might from afar.
If Washington becomes the imperial realm to the world, it will undoubtedly be the same to the American people. Freedom abroad and at home may literally be at stake.
The future will be significantly impacted by the answers to these two questions:
Will the American people resurrect a society of citizen readers actively involved in daily governance?
Will we choose our democratic values or our imperialistic attitudes as our primary guide for the 21st Century?
Who are we, really? Today we are part democracy, part republic, and part empire.
Can we find a way to mesh all three, even though the first two are fundamentally opposed to the third?
Will the dawn of the 22nd Century witness an America free, prosperous, strong and open, or some other alternative?
If the United States chooses empire, can it possibly retain the best things about itself?
Without the Manifest Destiny proposed by the Founders, what alternate destiny awaits?
Above all, will the regular citizens--in American and elsewhere--be up to such leadership?
No elites will save us. It is up to the people.
To get Oliver's books on similar topics, including The Coming Aristocracy and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America's Destiny, go to oliverdemille.com.
*******************
Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America's Destiny.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Resolutions Passed, March 17th, BCRCC Meeting
The following resolutions passed at the March 17th, BCRCC meeting.
Lisa Keller, BCRCC 2nd Vice Chair and Chairman, Nominating and Rules Committee.
Resolution Amending Bylaws
NOW THEREFORE be it RESOLVED, that the bylaws of the Bonneville County Republican Central Committee be, and the same are hereby amended as follows:
1. ARTICLE III, SECTION 6:, Subsection 3. "Republican Office Holders and Elected Officials", number 1. shall be deleted and replaced with the following language:
1. In the event they are not already PCOs, and so long as they are residents of Bonneville County, Republican office holders (including all elected county officials, state legislators, state constitutional officers and federal legislators) shall be honorary members of the Bonneville County Republican Central committee, with the right to attend meetings of said committee and to express opinions and comments and offer advice on all matters considered at such meetings, but shall not be entitled to offer motions or to vote.
2. ARTICLE IV, SECTION 2: "Extended voting rights", shall be amended by deleting all of the language under number 7. regarding "Elected Republican Office Holders", and renumbering the following subsection, now number 8., by replacing such number 8 with the number 7.
Tim Urling, BCRCC 3rd Vice Chair and Chairman, Issues and Legislative Advisory Committee
Resolution Opposing Tax Money to Subsidized the Idaho Falls Events Center
WHEREAS, it is anathema to the Proper Role of Government to use public money to subsidize a business entity and compete in the free market system, and
WHEREAS, increasing taxes to provide entertainment makes government bigger and diminishes freedom, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Idaho Falls events center will use tax dollars for its construction, and maintenance,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BONNEVILLE COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO hereby opposes a tax-supported Idaho Falls events center.
Bonneville County Resolution Vote of Disappointment in Senators Davis and Hill, and Attorney General Wasden
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the entire scope of federal power as that specifically authorized by the Constitution of the United States, which does not include health care; and
WHEREAS, Nullification is historical, moral and Constitutional; and
WHEREAS, Many Constitutional Scholars have indicated the Constitutionality of Nullification, including Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison; and
WHEREAS, the Idaho State Republican Convention passed, with a super majority, a resolution, supporting State Rights and Nullification ; and
WHEREAS, the Bonneville County Republican Party passed, with a super majority, a resolution supporting State Rights and Nullification; and
WHEREAS, the Idaho State House of Representatives passed, with a super majority HB 117; and
WHEREAS, Governor Butch Otter strongly supports State Rights and Nullification and indicated he would sign HB 117; and
WHEREAS, HB 117 regarding State Rights and Nullification was killed in committee thus preventing debate and a vote of the full senate;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BONNEVILLE COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO ISSUES A LETTER OF DISAPPOINTMENT IN THE KILLING OF HB 117 REGARDING STATE RIGHTS AND NULLIFICATION AND RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS SENATORS BART DAVIS AND BRENT HILL AS WELL AS ATTORNEY GENERAL LAWRENCE WASDEN RECONSIDER THEIR POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION REGARDING STATE RIGHTS AND NULLIFICATION.
Lisa Keller, BCRCC 2nd Vice Chair and Chairman, Nominating and Rules Committee.
Resolution Amending Bylaws
NOW THEREFORE be it RESOLVED, that the bylaws of the Bonneville County Republican Central Committee be, and the same are hereby amended as follows:
1. ARTICLE III, SECTION 6:, Subsection 3. "Republican Office Holders and Elected Officials", number 1. shall be deleted and replaced with the following language:
1. In the event they are not already PCOs, and so long as they are residents of Bonneville County, Republican office holders (including all elected county officials, state legislators, state constitutional officers and federal legislators) shall be honorary members of the Bonneville County Republican Central committee, with the right to attend meetings of said committee and to express opinions and comments and offer advice on all matters considered at such meetings, but shall not be entitled to offer motions or to vote.
2. ARTICLE IV, SECTION 2: "Extended voting rights", shall be amended by deleting all of the language under number 7. regarding "Elected Republican Office Holders", and renumbering the following subsection, now number 8., by replacing such number 8 with the number 7.
Tim Urling, BCRCC 3rd Vice Chair and Chairman, Issues and Legislative Advisory Committee
Resolution Opposing Tax Money to Subsidized the Idaho Falls Events Center
WHEREAS, it is anathema to the Proper Role of Government to use public money to subsidize a business entity and compete in the free market system, and
WHEREAS, increasing taxes to provide entertainment makes government bigger and diminishes freedom, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Idaho Falls events center will use tax dollars for its construction, and maintenance,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BONNEVILLE COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO hereby opposes a tax-supported Idaho Falls events center.
Bonneville County Resolution Vote of Disappointment in Senators Davis and Hill, and Attorney General Wasden
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the entire scope of federal power as that specifically authorized by the Constitution of the United States, which does not include health care; and
WHEREAS, Nullification is historical, moral and Constitutional; and
WHEREAS, Many Constitutional Scholars have indicated the Constitutionality of Nullification, including Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison; and
WHEREAS, the Idaho State Republican Convention passed, with a super majority, a resolution, supporting State Rights and Nullification ; and
WHEREAS, the Bonneville County Republican Party passed, with a super majority, a resolution supporting State Rights and Nullification; and
WHEREAS, the Idaho State House of Representatives passed, with a super majority HB 117; and
WHEREAS, Governor Butch Otter strongly supports State Rights and Nullification and indicated he would sign HB 117; and
WHEREAS, HB 117 regarding State Rights and Nullification was killed in committee thus preventing debate and a vote of the full senate;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BONNEVILLE COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO ISSUES A LETTER OF DISAPPOINTMENT IN THE KILLING OF HB 117 REGARDING STATE RIGHTS AND NULLIFICATION AND RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS SENATORS BART DAVIS AND BRENT HILL AS WELL AS ATTORNEY GENERAL LAWRENCE WASDEN RECONSIDER THEIR POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION REGARDING STATE RIGHTS AND NULLIFICATION.
Monday, March 21, 2011
House Highlights 3/16/2011
House Highlights
By Tom Loertscher
By Tom Loertscher
Sometimes in life things seem to come full circle. I've seen the Legislature respond to problems and put solutions in place only to find out later that the changes made either haven't worked or have created new problems. So in an effort to fix those things we tend to go right back to where we started.
A case in point is the reworking of the Medicaid law. Over the years the Legislature has put things in place to make it plain how programs would be reimbursed, how certain populations would be eligible for the programs, and other provisions that have sprung out of years of confusing rule-making by the Department of Health and Welfare. There were, of course, good reasons for having done that but one of those reasons was not necessarily to save money.
On Tuesday afternoon we had a very large group of people assemble outside the auditorium where there was a joint House and Senate Health and Welfare Committee having a hearing about proposed cuts to Medicaid. It was one of those marathon meetings of which I have attended many. Out of that meeting and in conjunction with negotiations that were taking place behind the scenes, many changes were put into the legislation. On Thursday, one of those things that most folks say is difficult to observe (and some folks say is dangerous) was the writing of legislation by committee. The outcome takes us full circle putting us in exactly the same place we were several years ago. Most of the changes allow the department to make changes by rule rather than having it done by statute.
What was even more interesting about this process was that most people who are concerned with the cuts seem to be pleased with what was done. One of the areas most carefully considered was how the trimming of Medicaid will affect the developmentally disabled. Most around the table thought that we had at least addressed the majority of the concerns. Time will tell.
By now I'm sure that you've heard about House Bill 222 which would allow for concealed carry permitted individuals to carry weapons on college campuses. The discussion on that bill spilled over into two days, which is something I had not anticipated. The bill was sent to the floor of the house for further discussion and that too will be a lively one on the house floor. One of the issues that came up in the committee, was just how many law-abiding permit holders already take weapons onto campuses not knowing there are policies in place from the Universities that would prevent them from doing so. Even more alarming is that those folks who do not have concealed weapons permits are also carrying weapons on the campuses. It will be interesting to see how the vote comes out in the house.
We are moving full steam ahead at this point with several budget bills on the agenda for the coming week. The challenge now is to consider all of the house legislation and get it sent to the Senate and then getting all those Senate bills passed (or not) so that we can go home. In the western part of the state the ground is bare which is nowhere near what it looks like in our part of the world. I was commenting to Linda over the weekend that it seems like the weather has tipped over just a bit and that spring just might get here soon. Hold that thought, it's still freezing every night and the ground is covered with snow.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
House Highlights 3/2/11
House Highlights
By Tom Loertscher
By Tom Loertscher
I'll bet you've seen the posters around some businesses that come from a website called despair.com. I've rather enjoyed some of the sayings over the years and one that I ran across this last week has to do with what is happening right now in the legislature. The one I am talking about is a picture of a tornado and the title of it is Change. It goes like this. "When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can turn into deadly projectiles." What we are experiencing here with the debate on education is certainly not trivial, but as we know the little details of things seem to become projectiles at some time or other.
We as human beings tend to resist change with everything we have. It may be just because we have some fear of the unknown or that we just have a hard time getting our arms around a new concept. There is a lot of resistance around this place mostly from outside, from various groups that hate to see change occur in the way we educate students. I suppose I'm one of those who likes to be an innovator and I can't blame Superintendent Luna for trying to bring about change. New methods are worth exploring and if all of the dire reports about how we are doing in education in Idaho have any validity, we definitely do need to do something. I'm just not sure that this plan is the something we need to do. Everywhere I went over the weekend I was asked about the "Luna" plan.
At the first of the week we had the young 4-H kids from our area come for the annual Know Your Government conference. It was a pleasure to sit with kids from our area and one of the first things they asked about was the new plan for education. I turned the tables on them and asked what they thought of Superintendent Luna's program. To a person they said that they didn't like the idea and had some concrete reasons why they didn't think it was good. I told him that I thought they were very fortunate to live in the times they do, when they have access to so much information and the ability to learn so much from the resources they have. I asked them if they would be willing to help in the design of the next generation of learning in the classroom. They indicated a willingness to do so. I am impressed with the quality of kids that we have and that they are able to figure out ways of doing things that we in the older generation haven’t dreamed of.
There is one thing that I know for sure and that is that I do not have all the answers. What I would like to see us do at this point is to take a deep breath, step back and try to get buy-in over this next year into programs that teachers, administrators, students, and parents can help implement. I really think that's the only way that education reform can happen with any degree of success.
Several years ago while meeting with teachers, I told them that I would be willing to meet with them anytime to discuss education and some of the problems that they face. That invitation is still extended. All good ideas take time to develop and to implement correctly. We mandate too much from the legislature, demanding things that do not improve education that just cost money. We need to stop mandating and this is the right year to start.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
House Highlights 2/23/11
House Highlights
By Tom Loertscher
By Tom Loertscher
While I was growing up, it used to drive me crazy to hear some of the older generation talk about how good things used to be in days gone by. It must be my age, but I catch myself looking back to times that seemed to be less complicated. It reminds me a bit of when the phone line was put into Bone. I could tell that the contractor who was laying the cable came from a small town where there was little traffic. Whenever he would stop to check on his employees, he would stop right in the middle of the road with no thought of the heavy traffic that was going by. Since then I have often envied someone who could deal with things in a simple manner.
That doesn't seem to be the way things are going around the Statehouse these days. The issues seem to be getting tougher and the hearings in the committees are longer and more complicated. Again this week it was necessary in the House State Affairs Committee to continue a hearing for a second day. The issues were concerning union activities and after a long discussion the two bills were sent to the House floor. My hat is off to the good people of Idaho who have been coming to these committee meetings these last weeks in a calm yet passionate manner.
Being busy around this place is a very large understatement. The other day I was trying to catch up on answering some of my e-mail. It seemed like for each one I opened and read and answered two more would pop up on my screen. Floor debate on two bills, one that has been called nullification, and the other having to do with peace officers and Indian tribes each took a full day. The first bill passed the House (I voted yes) and the second failed to pass (I voted no).
There is an old saying, "May you live in interesting times," that was once thought to be a blessing but actually was given as a curse attributable to the Chinese. I can't help but think that it does apply to us one way or the other depending on your point of view. We definitely do live in interesting times, and I can't help but think after seeing some of the things that have happened over the weekend in other parts of the country, that we are fortunate once again to live in Idaho. While we are definitely having our own budget crisis this year, it is not nearly the magnitude it is in other states. I think a lot of legislators are looking for a magic bullet, but there is nothing on the horizon that looks magical at all. As my mother used to say, "The only way out of this, is through it."
The budget committee hearings are pretty much at an end and that means that once a budget number is reached that the budgets will soon be set by the committee. If all goes well, and no one knows if it will, it gives the signal that there is about a month left for the work of the legislature this year. So keep your fingers crossed. I know I will.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
House Highlights 2/15/11
House Highlights
By Tom Loertscher
By Tom Loertscher
It's what I call the extension cord dilemma. I think you know what I mean when you throw an extension cord in the back of your pickup, the next time you take it out it is in such a tangle that it takes you half an hour to get it straightened out. There is no way on earth that you could ever tangle a cord up that badly if you did it on purpose. That is sort of what happened around the halls the legislature this last week.
How could it be possible for three committees of the legislature to schedule what will probably go down in at least recent history, as the three largest hearings ever to take place at the capital. I can assure you that it was not orchestrated by any of the committee chairs. The House State Affairs Committee hearing on what has been called the nullification bill lasted for two days, Wednesday and Thursday. The House Judiciary and Rules Committee had a very long hearing Wednesday afternoon that dealt with law enforcement on tribal lands. Also, as you may have heard, on three consecutive days the Senate Education Committee had very long days of hearings on Superintendent Luna's education reform bills. All in all it proved to be quite a week.
You may be curious as to what my thinking is on House Bill 117 which is the bill that directs our state agencies not to further implement the Affordable Health Care Act. During the last session of the legislature we authorized and directed our Attorney General to file suit in an effort to have the national health care bill declared unconstitutional. Our suit was consolidated with that of twenty-five other states and the case was tried in the state of Florida. With the ruling on our case that declared the law to be unconstitutional, it only makes sense that we should not move forward in implementing it. I think if we moved ahead with implementing the law that we could very well be in contempt of court. At least it seems like it is not reasonable to continue with implementation when the very judge we asked to make the decision told us that we were right, that it is unconstitutional to require every citizen to buy a certain product. House Bill 117 merely says that we are going to follow the judge's order. We expect floor debate in the House early in the week.
The volume of e-mail coming on education reform has been astonishing. There has been so much going on this past week that it has been impossible to keep up. On top of the two mornings of very long hearings, the afternoon committees have kept me busy as well. I can't remember a session where there has been so much to do all at once. In talking with some of my colleagues they are finding that the same is true for them.
This education legislation is turning out to be one of the more interesting issues I've ever seen around this place. The three days of hearings have convinced the sponsors that there are some changes that need to be made. I am thinking that we should be careful and as always the devil is in the details. I don't think there is a way that I can support mandatory online classes for kids. I think there's a better way to accomplish what we're trying to do in modernizing education in Idaho. Further I think that there has to be buy-in from all concerned, kids, parents, and teachers. No matter what we do in the legislature, if there is no buy-in, the program will face tough sledding. I am also concerned that the more regulating we do in the capital, the less innovation there is in the classroom. Stay tuned for the changes. There are likely to be a bunch.
House Highlights 2/7/11
House Highlights
by Tom Loertscher
The other night I decided it was time get a haircut. As it usually happens a conversation breaks out between the haircutter and the client. Noticing that I was from out of town, she asked where I was from. I told her that I was from Eastern Idaho and she told me that she had never been east of Pocatello. She then asked me what brought me to Boise. I said, "Oh, I am one of those people that you may love to hate." She then asked, "Are you a senator?"
The preliminary revenue numbers for January are in and they indicate that we are up slightly from our projection at the end of last session. Even though that is the case there are still some fairly large holes in our budget. The budget still seems to dominate our conversation. The Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee is seeking input from the various committees about the department budgets. It's interesting that even during these tight economic times some of the departments continue to ask for increases and new line
items in their budgets. To the governor's credit he has eliminated most of those line items in his budget request to the legislature.
There have been a couple of controversial bills introduced in the State Affairs Committee. One is known as the Nullification Bill and the other is the Telecommunications Bill. We are anticipating a very large crowd to come on Wednesday for the Nullification Bill and are making preparations for the hearing to be held in the auditorium on the Senate side of the capital. Some are concerned that our taking action of this kind, especially after our court case about national health care legislation was declared to be completely unconstitutional, could be detrimental to our case. And as usual we are hearing from attorneys on both sides of this issue, one of them being the state Attorney General. It will be extremely interesting to see what the hearing provides in the way of good solid information for the committee.
As for telecommunications, that is a very long ongoing discussion that has been going on for several years between the various telecom companies and the cities. Some of the companies want us to change the law so that there is a statewide franchising system which would only require them to have to negotiate one contract for the whole state. As you can imagine our e-mail boxes have been filling up with comments from several of the cities. I think the members of the committee are taking a wait and see approach to see if some of the differences can be ironed out between the various parties concerned.
It seems that around here, as it is down on the farm, that sometimes the simple stuff is overlooked on the way to the solution to problems. The heater in the Suburban went on the blink and that was my weekend project. We tried everything, replacing the controls, tearing out the dash and checking the fan motor, checking all electrical connections and checking all the relays. It turned out to be a simple ground wire fault. Something so simple but so time consuming to solve. This may not be exactly how it works around here, but I have to think that there might be simpler solutions to solve our budget woes this year. Maybe this is just another one of those things that we love to hate.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Students Come First: Call for Civil Discourse
Call for Civil Discourse
Governor Otter and Superintendent Luna spoke out today about recent incidents of hostility and vandalism over the Students Come First plan. Governor Otter told media, “The Idaho way is to have good robust debate. The Idaho way is for us to exchange in our ideas and do that in a civil way. And I would hope that as we continue addressing not only this issue but some other tough issues that are coming at us because of our budgetary restraints, that we would offer then the Idaho way in addressing all of those budgetary issues.”
“The Governor and I have put forth a plan that is based on the fact that we are in an economic crisis, now going into its third year. We recognize that if we want to preserve the kind of education system that our state constitution requires us to have, there must be changes. We must change the way we spend what we currently have. That’s uncomfortable for some people, and I understand that. I understand that if can drive passion, but there are limits. We have a certain way of doing things in Idaho, and you do not cross that line,” Luna said. “I join the Governor in saying, not just for myself or the Governor and his family, but for all senators and representatives, that you can come to us and have civil discourse with us about issues, but family and personal property are off limits.“
Over the weekend, a teacher went to Superintendent Luna’s mother’s home with the intent to harass. Superintendent Luna happened to be there and spoke with the man. This morning, the Superintendent’s truck was spray painted and his tires were slashed. Hours later, he was confronted by a man at a local coffee house after doing an interview for a morning television show.
Additionally, social media postings have listed legislator’s home addresses and phone numbers urging people to leave notes for these legislator’s neighbors asking them to voice their opposition to the Students Come First plan.
Governor Otter and Superintendent Luna spoke out today about recent incidents of hostility and vandalism over the Students Come First plan. Governor Otter told media, “The Idaho way is to have good robust debate. The Idaho way is for us to exchange in our ideas and do that in a civil way. And I would hope that as we continue addressing not only this issue but some other tough issues that are coming at us because of our budgetary restraints, that we would offer then the Idaho way in addressing all of those budgetary issues.”
“The Governor and I have put forth a plan that is based on the fact that we are in an economic crisis, now going into its third year. We recognize that if we want to preserve the kind of education system that our state constitution requires us to have, there must be changes. We must change the way we spend what we currently have. That’s uncomfortable for some people, and I understand that. I understand that if can drive passion, but there are limits. We have a certain way of doing things in Idaho, and you do not cross that line,” Luna said. “I join the Governor in saying, not just for myself or the Governor and his family, but for all senators and representatives, that you can come to us and have civil discourse with us about issues, but family and personal property are off limits.“
Over the weekend, a teacher went to Superintendent Luna’s mother’s home with the intent to harass. Superintendent Luna happened to be there and spoke with the man. This morning, the Superintendent’s truck was spray painted and his tires were slashed. Hours later, he was confronted by a man at a local coffee house after doing an interview for a morning television show.
Additionally, social media postings have listed legislator’s home addresses and phone numbers urging people to leave notes for these legislator’s neighbors asking them to voice their opposition to the Students Come First plan.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
House Highlights 2/1/2011
House Highlights
By Tom Loertscher
By Tom Loertscher
During the Revolutionary war, Thomas Paine wrote a series of articles entitled The Crisis. He wrote, "THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." While the crisis that we are facing at this present time may not be anything like the Revolutionary war, the times definitely are a challenge.
We keep looking for some good news as it pertains to our budget and revenue and at the close of this last week we just don't seem to be able to find the good news we’re looking for. The revenue numbers for January will soon be in and we will know better how the economy in Idaho is performing. Everyone around here is crossing their fingers for a positive result.
I don't recall a time when we have had more hearings into budget matters then we have had this year. It seems that the various committees of the legislature are more engaged in looking at how the budget might be put together. The House Health and Welfare Committee invited several provider groups to speak to the committee about how to save money in the Medicaid program. Due to a previous commitment, I was unable to attend the meeting but it was recorded and I listened to it while driving home. It was interesting to hear the comments from many providers and how they see Medicaid from their point of view. It ended on the note that they committed to working with us and all concerned to find savings. The most frequent comment in the meeting was to hear each one explain how important their particular program is. That's not new, but what is new is that they have committed to help.
The pace of the session has picked up with several new pieces of legislation being introduced. I don't know how we compare to other sessions at this point, but it seems like the load is quite heavy already. I know what you're thinking, just what we need, more laws. I had one legislator approach me the other day and tell me that he had a good one-liner, "Section such and such is hereby repealed." My reply? "Go for it!" That's a little bit of music for my ears.
With the pressure that has been building around the capital, it was good to get home over the weekend, get a little sunshine, and get a change of pace. I don't know what other legislators do on weekends, but I do know that being home down on the farm is quite therapeutic for me. I got a chance to look through the cattle, check out the snowpack, do a little repair work on the house and sleep in until 6 AM. Then I turned on the news to see all the unrest in the world. That put an abrupt end to a restful weekend.
Whether or not you call what we are experiencing a crisis or not, the matter is serious. The latest projections are that we may be $185 million short to cover 2011 and 2012. We definitely have our work cut out for us. Last summer I attended a meeting where the speaker told us that the most unfortunate thing about these times is that the words million, billion and trillion all sound the same. How on earth did we get here? That’s a subject for another discussion.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Issues and Legislative Advisory Committee Resolutions
On January 27th, 2011 at the Bonneville County Republican Central Committee meeting the following resolutions passed:
http://www.channelingreality.com/Vicky_Rants/2010_09_08_sell_out_to_the_communist_chines.htm
1. Be it resolved by the Bonneville County Republican Central Committee that we support the education reform plan by Idaho's State Superintendent Tom Luna.
2. Be it resolved by the Bonneville County Republican Central Commitee that we oppose designating a FTZ (Foreign Trade Zone) of 30,000 acres south of the Boise Airport or any land in Idaho that would allocate this acreage to be owned and inhabited by the Chinese Communists to be foreign soil, not subject to local laws and give permanent resident status to Chinese foreigners under the EB-5 program selling out Idaho.
These Resolutions will be sent to the State Republican Party and Governor C. L. "Butch" Otter.
Click the links below to read more about FTZ's
http://www.channelingreality.com/NAU/FTZ/inland_ports.htm
http://www.channelingreality.com/Vicky_Rants/2010_09_08_sell_out_to_the_communist_chines.htm
Region VII Republicans Lincoln Day Banquet
Location: Idaho Falls Shilo Inn
Date: Saturday, March 5th, 2011
Time: 6:00 p.m. Social / 7:00 p.m. Dinner
Adults $25 in advance---$30 at the door
Students $15 in advance---$20 at the door
If you would like to purchase tickets just use our contact page and let us know. Be sure to submit an address and phone number where you can be reached.
Date: Saturday, March 5th, 2011
Time: 6:00 p.m. Social / 7:00 p.m. Dinner
Adults $25 in advance---$30 at the door
Students $15 in advance---$20 at the door
If you would like to purchase tickets just use our contact page and let us know. Be sure to submit an address and phone number where you can be reached.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
House Highlights
A couple of years ago, we were cleaning the shop at the ranch. While doing so I could hardly believe some of the things that I had kept around the place. There were worn-out bearing races, short pieces of useless metal, and other old parts that we had accumulated from previous repair efforts. I thought that it probably was just me, but I soon found out that the whole family had been doing the same thing I had. Apparently, there is a little bit of pack rat in all of us.
Each year as I leave a legislative session, I gather up some of my stuff from the capital and take it home. Linda is not terribly fond of this activity because it all resides very comfortably in the off-season in my office. Now I'm not going to say that I never use these things, but I do tend to go through them from time to time looking for information on things that were done during the previous session. As you can imagine, the next thing that happens is to repack everything and haul it back to the capital. I was doing that last week on Sunday evening after arriving in Boise. The only other person I happened to see at that time in the entire building was a security guard and I don't think he saw me. It was an eerie feeling to have everything so quiet knowing full well that the legislature would start in earnest the next morning.
On Monday, After Convening in the House, and gathering the Senators, the Elected Officials, and the Judiciary, the Governor Gave His Annual State of the State Message and Budget Message. It was one of the more interesting that I have seen during my time in the legislature. I think it is the first time that I have heard a governor not present a large wish list for the legislature to consider. He has projected a small increase in revenues but seemed to recognize that there is no room this year for new items in the budget. One thing that stood out, was his request to bond for the money that we owe the federal government for unemployment benefits. It certainly deserves consideration but at the same time we need to make sure that we don't over-extend the resources of the state.
The other item during the week that seemed to occupy a lot of discussion time was the new education reforms that Superintendent Luna proposed. I think it is a good thing for students to begin to learn how to take courses online. There are so many resources available for education in this day and age and I hope that educators will have an open mind when it comes to considering these new ways of educating kids. I have been told that there is a vast new resource online called Google Apps Education that is being successfully used in other parts of the country. I hope we will look seriously at what is available from that source. The other part of the proposal in providing a laptop computer for every student is one that will need careful consideration. Just giving a computer to each student could be problematic and a better way might be to require some ownership of the students for the equipment. It seems like when we as humans have some ownership we take better care of things.
Several members of the House health and welfare committee had a chance to participate in a conference call with the former director of health and welfare for the state of Rhode Island. That state has worked with the federal government in getting flexibility to operate the Medicaid program. They claim to be realizing great savings while at the same time not reducing the programs or eligibility. This looks to be a major new effort that we will be looking at during this session.
And so it begins. One of the suggestions I heard around these halls was that we probably should just adopt the Governor’s budget and go home. That may be too much to hope for because I am sure a lot of legislators want to have a careful look at what he has proposed. Seeing how it is our constitutional responsibility to develop a budget, that is what we will do.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Urgent Need for More George Washingtons
By Earl Taylor, Jr. ~ National Center for Constitutional Studies
The Urgent Need for More George Washingtons
As we move into a New Year there seems to be some similarities between our situation today and that of the transition from 1776 into 1777.
Near the end of the year 1776, the thirteen colonies had begun to form a very loose confederation. The war against the tyrannical King George III was not going very well. The disastrous defeat at New York had forced Washington and his army to retreat into a position that the British generals had all but declared victory. It looked rather hopeless to many people that real freedom would ever be possible.
“I Will Not…Despair”
In addition to the tragic loss of New York which forced the American army to retreat down the full length of New Jersey, there was the fall of Fort Washington and Fort Lee, the fearsome advances of the British, the plotting of Washington's Generals Lee and Reed against him and the overwhelming reality that the enlistments were up for more than two thousand of his fifty-four hundred troops. Still Washington wrote, “I will not…despair.”
Amidst all this discouragement, one of the men present during the New Jersey retreat, a fiery young patriot named Thomas Paine, sat by the campfire for light and using a drumhead for support, penned the familiar passage that Washington later used to try to energize his troops:
“These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph....Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”
Washington knew that freedom-loving Americans needed a victory, even a small victory, to prove that, in spite of all the defeats, it is still possible to win against overwhelming odds.
A Much-Needed Victory at Trenton
As small as it was, Washington 's victory over the British-hired Hessian troops at Trenton had a much greater meaning. It showed that, indeed, the forces of freedom can win, and little by little, begin to chip away at the powerful forces of soul-destroying tyranny. Of the Trenton battle Parry and Allison wrote:
“It was a glorious and almost unbelievable victory for the beleaguered American commander and his troops. Nearly 1,000 Hessians were taken captive; another 115 were killed or wounded. Four Americans had been wounded, but not a single one was lost in battle—although in the fierce night before, two had tragically frozen to death.
“‘The enemy have fled before us in the greatest panic that ever was known,' one of the patriot soldiers wrote after the victory. ‘Never were men in higher spirits than our whole army is.'”
Could it be compared to the small but significant victories in our day seen at the November 2, 2010 elections?
Washington Not Lulled into False Sense of Security
In the wake of the Trenton and Princeton victories, many Americans began to proclaim high praise for General Washington. His brother-in-law, Bartholomew Dandridge, seemed to echo the feelings of many when he wrote to Washington saying: "It is plain [that] Providence designed you as the favorite instrument in working out the salvation of America . It is you alone that can defend us....I am sure you have no idea of your real value to us."
An article in the Pennsylvania Journal, published about six weeks after the victory at Princeton, described Washington in glowing terms:
“In his public character he commands universal respect and admiration. Conscious that the principles on which he acts are indeed founded on virtue, he steadily and coolly pursues those principles, with a mind neither depressed by disappointments nor elated by success, giving full exercise to that discretion and wisdom which he so eminently possesses. He retreats like a general and acts like a hero. If there are spots in his character, they are like the spots in the sun, only discernible by the magnifying powers of a telescope.”
Washington was indeed beginning to be viewed as a hero in the eyes of many. His countrymen had been given a closer look at the capabilities of their commanding general, and they liked what they saw.
Surprisingly, Washington did not react favorably to this rising tide of popularity and praise. "Everybody seems to be lulled into ease and security," he wrote. They needed to be shocked into the possibility of a potential disaster: "I think we are now in one of the most critical periods which America ever saw."
Washington Foresees Need for
Spiritual Preparation for Coming Battles
As the American army was emerging from the difficult winter encampment at Morristown , and in preparation for the coming battles of the New Year 1777, General Washington issued strict orders to ensure that his troops were preparing themselves spiritually for the coming difficulties. "All chaplains are to perform divine service...every...Sunday," he declared, and he ordered "officers of all ranks" to set an example by attending. "The commander in chief expects an exact compliance with this order, and that it be observed in the future as an invariable rule of practice. And every neglect will be considered not only as a breach of orders, but a disregard to decency, virtue, and religion."
He had already issued a general order stating. “The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor so to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.”
Washington Not Deterred by “Ignominious Epithets”
Washington 's stirring challenge in his day is ever so applicable in our own day as we face criticism and derision from similar foes. Said he:
“Let it never be said that in a day of action you turned your backs on the foe. Let the enemy no longer triumph. They brand you with ignominious epithets. Will you patiently endure that reproach? Will you suffer the wounds given to your country to go unrevenged? Will you resign your parents, wives, children, and friends to be the wretched vassals of a proud, insulting foe? And your own necks to the halter?...Nothing, then, remains but nobly to contend for all that is dear to us. Every motive that can touch the human breast calls us to the most vigorous exertions. Our dearest rights, our dearest friends, and our own lives, honor, glory, and even shame urge us to fight. And my fellow soldiers, when an opportunity presents, be firm, be brave. Show yourselves men, and the victory is yours.”
Washington had a strong conviction of the
influence of God in guiding America 's destiny
It is, no doubt, the desire of freedom-loving Americans today to have national leaders that could bear the same testimony about America that Washington did:
“We may, with a kind of pious and grateful exultation, trace the fingers of Providence through those dark and mysterious events which first induced the states to appoint a general convention, and then led them one after another...into an adoption of the system recommended by that general convention, thereby, in all human probability, laying a lasting foundation for tranquility and happiness, when we had but too much reason to fear that confusion and misery were coming rapidly upon us. That the same good Providence may still continue to protect us, and prevent us from dashing the cup of national felicity just as it has been lifted to our lips, is [my] earnest prayer.”
Washington had an intense desire to teach the science of government to our youth and to not dilute America 's greatness in their minds with teachings from foreign lands
Multiculturalism in education and the thought that America is just one of many good systems from which one may choose to live under, had no place in Washington's philosophy:
“A primary object...should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? and what duty more pressing on its legislature than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”
“It has always been a source of serious regret with me to see the youth of these United States sent to foreign countries for the purpose of education, often before their minds were formed or they had imbibed any adequate ideas of the happiness of their own, contracting, too frequently, not only habits of dissipation and extravagance, but principles unfriendly to republican government and to the true and genuine liberties of mankind, which thereafter are rarely overcome.”
Washington felt America must remain
the great neutral nation of the earth
“I hope the United States of America will be able to keep disengaged from the labyrinth of European politics and wars....It should be the policy of united America to administer to [other nations'] wants without being engaged in their quarrels.
“My ardent desire is, and my aim has been (as far as depended upon the executive department), to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic, but to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country; to see that they may be independent of all and under the influence of none
“I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another;… and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy.
Washington felt that morality and religion were
inseparable and indispensable supports to our Republic.
Our first president dispels the modern myth that one can be a moral person without religion. Religion is necessary to give morality a standard. And be careful, he said, when someone with advanced educational degrees claims that religion is not necessary for morality or freedom. He would label such modern philosophies as deceptive and false:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.... Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education ... reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Upon hearing of the death of Washington , Thomas Jefferson quoted the scripture, “verily, a great man hath fallen this day in Israel .” But Jefferson was not without hope that the Creator would provide others to come to maintain what his friend George Washington was so instrumental in starting. Said he: “And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society.”
Should we not this New Year resolve to make an intensive effort to teach, identify and support those who have the same values and character as our great Founding Father, George Washington?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)