Is America too big?
Is America too big?
That is a question that has lingered in my mind for about a year now. When I ask the question I am not asking if America is too big in terms of influence around the world and I am not asking if America is too powerful but rather I am asking if America is too big physically, have we outgrown our government? I am talking about whether the federal government can properly and effectively govern a population of this size. The country was much smaller when our form of government was instituted and surely while the founders probably believed that America would consist of most of North America before too long could they have possibly understood how big America would turn out? Surely Thomas Jefferson understood that America would someday extend from sea to sea as he broke with his anti-federalist beliefs as president in order to more than double the size of the country with the Louisiana purchase. An act that he believed exceeded his authority but an offer too good to pass up.
This is a topic that I find myself extremely conflicted on. While I consider myself a constitionalist and an originalist I also consider myself a states rights advocate, these two ideals at times are at odds with each other. I have thought about writing this post many times in the past and have actually started it twice only to abandon the post, but now I am going to attempt to write it once again.
There is one form of government that many of the founders feared almost as much as monarchy and that was democracy (I will explain below), that is why our original form of government after the revolution was a confederacy of states with really no federal government. When it became obvious to all that the confederacy was doomed to fail it was also realized that a more powerful form of a central government was needed. But the founders believed that a democracy was a good form of government for small nations (or states) but not so good when it came to a nation of bigger proportions. How could a large nation govern in the best interest of all its people across the nation? What might be considered a good idea for California residents may not be what is best for Texas residents, what is right for Wisconsin residents may not be what is best for New Hampshire residents and so on.
This is why the founders took great pains to set up a republic during the constitutional convention and not a democracy. The founders feared a nation where 51 Americans out of every 100 could force their beliefs on the other 49 Americans. They considered this a different form of tyranny. Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson included, feared a strong central government. They went to great extents to limit the federal government.
The founders took great pains to insure during the constitutional convention that the states would maintain influence. Until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913 United States senators were chosen by the different states not by the people. While the representatives were chosen directly by the people to represent them the senators were chosen by the states to represent the state’s best interests. Because the state oficials were elected by the voters and they subsequently chose the senators the people indirectly elected the senators. After the 17th amendment was ratified the people became more represented by the senators than did the individual states. The people now directly elected the senators thereby weakening the influence that the individual states had, leading to a more federalized form of government. Sometimes I wonder if we would have been better off if the 17th amendment had never been ratified. It sometimes seems to me that the 17th amendment may have done more to change the form of government from the republican model to the democratic model, a model that many founders feared, than anything else.
However having the states choose the senators probably meant that the states would have too much influence over the people of their states. Therefor giving this power to the people under this premise could not have been a bad idea. Again I am conflicted. There must be another reason why the people have lost control of the government.
This brings me back around to my belief that the federal government has grown bigger than many of the founders had hoped, and even bigger than many of them had feared could happen. From Washington, whose opponents claimed had too much power and was trampling the constitution; to John Adams, who signed the Alien and Seditionact and jailed people for simply speaking out against the federal government (a clear violation of the constitution); to Abraham Lincoln who expanded government control and jailed opponents; to Woodrow Wilson and FDR, both of whom grew the federal government and reached a level of government intervention never before seen or dreamed of by the founders; to Teddy Roosevelt who went after private businesses virtually every president has grown the influence of the federal government. Both sides of the isle, for different reasons, have seen fit to expand the government to fit their agenda. Some of these presidents may have been justified and morally correct to do what they did but in the end they expanded the influence of the federal government and diminished the rights of the individual states. When is the last time that the government has actually gotten smaller?
It seems that over the years as the federal government has expanded we have drifted from a representative republican form of government to more of a democracy. This doesn’t seem to have happened because of the constitution but in spite of it. That is how I am able to balance my two beliefs; the first being my belief as a constitutional originalist and the second; my belief in states rights. It isn’t that the constitution has failed us as a founding document, it is that the federal government has failed us in following the constitution.
So, to answer my original question, has America become too big? I don’t think that America as a country has become too big but rather America the government has become too big. As the country grew the answer was not to expand the role of the federal government but rather to make sure that people were better represented at the local (state) level. It is much easier to govern the people at a local level than a national level, the founders understood this, and we need to return to this. If more power was returned to the local level the people would have more power to control the government that is supposed to work for them. This is what the founders intended and this is what is vital to the American form of government, a republican form of government.
When the constitutional convention was over a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what they had given us, he famously replied, ” a republic if you can keep it.”
I am afraid that we have lost it.
White House to drop its illegal healthcare reform “tip line”
According to this article the White House has disabled its domestic spying program otherwise known as the White House healthcare reform tip line. This tip line was set up so that citizens could report others who were either sending out emails that were critical of healthcare reform or for even speaking out against healthcare reform. It was set up in the guise of trying to weed out the lies that the Obama administration is claiming that have been levied against the reform bill.
We soon learned that this tip line was most likely illegal and now the White House has disabled it, a clear admission that at the very least the White House used very bad judgement in setting up this tip line in the first place. At worst, the White House has been criminal. Disabling this tip line still does not answer the biggest question, what was the White House doing with the names that they surely have compiled?
By ending this program the White House is trying to turn the corner and pretend that this never happened but the president should still not be left off of the hook. I want to know and I am entitled to know what the president has done with the names that were turned in. Just because the tip line is closed it doesn’t mean that this issue is closed. This administration may have committed a crime and I demand an investigation into any wrongdoing that this administration may have been involved in.
If this administration has committed a crime it needs to be held accountable!
Is the healthcare reform bill doomed without the public option?
Since the news broke that the president may be willing to drop the “public option” in the healthcare reform bill to try to win over the hearts and minds of its opponents I have wondered whether dropping the “public option” would cause the president to lose some of his liberal supporters of this legislation.
In my opinion dropping the “public option” is a good start but only a start in the effort to pass what I would consider an acceptable healthcare reform bill, this would definitely be a good stepping stone to bridge the gap between those who are for and those who are against the bill. We are now beginning to hear that if the president does drop the “public option” that he may in fact lose more liberal votes than what he would gain by dropping the option. One representative claimed that a bill without a “public option” would be unacceptable to many liberals.
“It would be very, very difficult,” to support a bill that lacked a public health insurance option, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, “because, without the public option, we’ll have the same number of people uninsured. If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they’d be insured.
Johnson added that “an option that would give the private insurance companies a little competition” is “the only way” to be sure that insurance is available to low income people and people without employer-provided coverage.
More and more Democrats are also echoing that sentiment, including Nancy Pelosi:
“There is strong support in the House for a public option,” Pelosi, of California, said in a statement. “A public option is the best option to lower costs, improve the quality of health care, ensure choice and expand coverage.”
She is not alone, Maxine Waters:
“very troubled to hear that after months of negotiations, supposedly moving toward meaningful health-care reform, the public option may in fact be off the table.”
Jay Rockefeller:
“is the only proven way to guarantee that all consumers have affordable, meaningful, and accountable options,”
Stuart Rothenberg:
“wants to back away and find a way to say that they will support a public option at some point and bring the Democratic base along with them,”
Raul Grijalva:
Health-care reform can’t happen “without a robust public option,” he said in a statement
And the list goes on and on and it seems to be growing every day. The president’s plan is in serious trouble here. By admitting that he may not be against eliminating the “public option” he has admitted that the town hall protesters are real, everyday, average Americans that need to be listened to and not just a bunch of GOP paid hacks bent on bringing down the president’s plan for political reasons. The opponents of this bill have legitimate concerns and the president now realizes it. He must make concessions if he wants to pass any reform and this is the logical starting point. But this starting point is totally unacceptable to the far left who wants government to control as much of the lives of the public as possible.
One Democrat representative even went so far as to say he didn’t care what his constituents thought about the “public option” he was going to vote for it anyway. I find his words to be the most deplorable of all, as a representative, even more so than a senator, he is supposed to vote the way his district wants him to. He is not supposed to vote based on the idea that he knows what is best for them because he is smarter than them. He is supposed to reflect the will of his constituents. He doesn’t seem to understand what the title “representative” means, he would probably rather be called an “overseer.”
But the larger point here is that healthcare reform, at least in this over-reaching form, is in serious trouble. In order to gain enough votes for passage the bill is going to have to be altered and the public option is the first aspect of this bill that must be eliminated. The president knows this and he has floated a trial balloon. But the far left is not going to be receptive to this compromise. It doesn’t appear as if the president is going to be able to find any middle ground on this bill.
In the end his own party’s unwillingness to compromise on this issue may be what finally unravels this bill. It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out. If the “public option” is eliminated from the bill he may not get the votes to pass what he considers a vital part of his domestic agenda. However if he leaves the “public option” in the bill and the bill is passed in spite of what a majority is in favor of, his party faces serious repercussions in November of 2010. The president is walking a tightrope here between what the people want and what the far left in his party wants.
In a perfect world these two divides will be too far to bridge and the whole healthcare reform bill will have to be scrapped and sent back to the drawing board. I do not think, even with the trouble this bill now appears to be in, that scrapping this bill will be an option. I think that he will succumb to party insiders and that could be his final undoing.
This bill is still a long way from passage, the fight has just begun, Who knows what twists and turns still lie ahead. It will be interesting to see if the man who claimed that he would bring America back together will be able to do just that on this issue. It seems to me that his party will not let him compromise and bring the American people together to support this bill.
Publicly Democrats have a united message on the protesters that are appearing at the town hall meetings across the country; they claim that the insurance companies are funding the protesters, they claim that the GOP is organizing the protesters, (as if the GOP has been successful at organizing anything in recent years), they claim that the protesters are being bused in and paid for their outbursts, they claim that the protesters are lying evil-mongers, but privately they know the truth.
And the truth is that the American people just do not support the idea of the government running the healthcare industry, it is as simple as that. They can try to spin the protests any way that they see fit but the American people see the way that Medicare and Medicaid are run and they do not want the government extending their role in healthcare.
In public they can lie about the protesters and they can try to minimize them in an effort to win their propaganda war but the truth is that they are losing that war. In private they realize this even as they demonize the protesters. In the end they may not like it but they understand that if they want to stay in power they will have to listen to the protesters, especially when the polls back up the protesters.
A vast majority of Americans (85%) are happy with their healthcare coverage and are leery of any changes to it. A majority of Americans oppose Obama’s healthcare reform bill. The politicians realize this and today for the first time the White House has acknowledged that the president may be willing to drop the “public option” from the healthcare reform bill.
This is an admission by the White House that the protesters are legitimate, this is an admission by the White House that our calls and our emails may be taking their toll on our representatives. This is an admission that the people just do not support the “public option” portion of the healthcare reform bill. The administration hasn’t come out and said it yet, and they probably will never admit it but, the fact of the matter is that these protesters are average Americans and they do represent the views of average Americans and that is why the “public option” is suddenly negotiable in the president’s eyes.
We are beginning to turn the tide on this bill. Politicians all the way up to the president, whether or not they are willing to admit it or not, are going to be forced to listen to us. We have spoken and we are not happy!
New Hampshire wants to know: Where are Jeanne Shaheen, Carol Shea-Porter, and Paul Hodes?
With senators and representatives holding town hall meetings with their constituents New Hampshire voters would like to know where Senator Shaheen, and Representatives Shea-Porter and Hodes are. I don’t mean where do they stand on the healthcare reform bill, we all know their position. I mean where are they?
With the exception of Senator Shaneen’s contrived and controlled “telephone town hall” we have heard nothing from our representation in Washington. This is disgraceful, they do not want to face the angry voters so they remain hidden away in the shadows somewhere.
We have heard nary a word from either Representative Shea-Porter of Representative Hodes. Their silence is deafening. While I watch the news reports of the town hall meetings all across the country and I watch people like Arlen Specter face the music for taking a position that is unpopular with his constituents and with the vast majority of the people, I have to give the man credit, at least he is out there taking the heat in person, but I also have to wonder why my representation doesn’t feel the need to go out and listen to the voters in person.
New Hampshire voters are not being listened to by the people that are supposed to represent them, this is so damned frustrating! Representative Shea-Porter and Hodes, as well as Senator Shaheen, did not have a problem attending Obama’s Portsmouth town hall meeting when it was assured through pre-screening that the audience would be friendly. They care more about the photo op of being seen with the president in New Hampshire than they care about New Hampshire or New Hampshire voters. That much is becoming abundantly clear.
As for Senator Shaheen and her feeble attempt at holding a “telephone town hall,” what a joke that turned out to be. Her “telephone town hall” was ill conceived and poorly run. The representatives across the country that are holding this type of town hall meeting are also trying to escape from the wrath of angry constituents.
Senator Shaheen knew that most people were not going to pick up the phone at dinner time in the middle of the week to listen to her speak for an hour, especially those who are opposed to healthcare reform, they would rather enjoy their dinner with their family than listen to her extol the virtues of government run healthcare. They could not do both for fear of throwing up all over the dinner table.
Her attempt to connect with the voters saw problems as well. Many people had trouble navigating the menu that was supposed to take you to her town hall meeting, and many did not receive the call that would connect you to the meeting until it was half over. People who did manage to connect were screened as to what their question would be if they were called upon. Which questions do you think got through? This was deliberately set up so that Senator Shaheen would not have to face any tough questions. In this regard she is no better that Shea-Porter or Hodes who just plain refuse to face any questions what-so-ever.
So as Senator Shaheen and Representatives Shea-Porter and Hodes hide from their constitutuents it is clear that New Hampshire is not being represented in Washington.
New Hampshire residents want to know: Where are Senator Shaheen, Representative Shea-Porter, and Representative Hodes? Other than in the president’s back pocket.
As United States representatives and senators face angry protesters all across the country at their town hall meeting New Hampshire took center stage last week when the president held a Town Hall meeting in Portsmouth. The question on everyones mind was “will the president face the same type of protesters when he speaks?”
I think that we all knew the answer to that question was going to be no. But that didn’t stop some of the news outlets from asking the question, why? The answer that most people in the news gave was that New Hampshirites were showing the president the respect that he should receive. That may be part of the reason but the biggest reason is that, not surprisingly, the audience was screened beforehand.
I know that the president specifically asked for a skeptic to step up and ask a question and nobody did. That is not what I mean by pre-screening; the questions might not have been pre-screened but the audience was. In order to attend this event you had to apply for a ticket, who do you think ended up getting these tickets?
There were plenty of protesters at the event, but they were outside, not inside. That was by design.
It seems funny that all of these people were outside and yet there was nobody inside who would stand up and ask the president a question that was critical of his plan. This was done intentionally to make it seem as if the president has wide support for his plan and to try to marginalize the protesters who have shown up at many of the town hall meetings across the country.
But then today, in a confirmation that perhaps the questions were also pre-screened the New Hampshire Union Leader had the news that the very first question asked of the president came from a New Hampshire state representative. How convenient was that?
Peter Schmidt, the Democrat state senator from Dover, insists that it was just luck that he happened to be called upon. It also must have been dumb luck that he just happened to be seated next to the biggest names in New Hampshire politics also.
He was in the bleachers beside Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley, just two rows behind U.S. Reps. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter, and slightly to the left of U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Gov. John Lynch and Lynch’s wife, Susan, filmmaker Ken Burns, and lobbyist Jim Demers, Obama’s former state campaign co-chair.
I wonder why when it came time for Obama to ask questions he looked in the direction of the governor, Senator, and both US Representatives, (along with a lobbyist who happened to be Obama’s New Hampshire co-chair during the campaign), to ask his question.
This was a set up but then again every event that Obama holds is well constructed and planned out. He does nothing off the cuff, the one time he did was in the Gates/Crowley fiasco and we saw how ignorant the president really is, he won’t be doing that again any time soon. From his press conferences to his town hall meetings there is nothing that this president does that is spontaneous, everything is planned out in advance.
And the New Hampshire town hall meeting was no different, that is why the president didn’t face the type of protesters inside his New Hampshire town hall meeting. It was well guarded against. At least inside.
Some Democrats May be Wavering on Healthcare Reform
Amidst loud protesters and angry emails and phone calls at least two freshmen Democrat congressmen may be wavering in their support of the president’s healthcare reform bill.
The majority of Americans oppose this legislation that is being rammed down our throats and we are not being silent about it. We are being heard. Support for this bill in congress seems to be wavering, we must keep the pressure on our senators and congressmen. Now is not the time to sit back and relax. Two Democrats may be wavering but that is not enough, we must make them all think twice about supporting this bill.
We can stop this bill if we just keep pressuring our representatives. Our representatives will feel obligated to vote with the party under threats made by party leadership. Party leaders will threaten the people that are supposed to represent us with a lack of funding. But we must let them know that voting against our will will be more devastating to their careers than the threat that party leaders will not support them.
If there is one thing that our representatives want it is to remain in power and if they feel that we are serious and will vote them out in 2010 if they vote yes on this legislation they will vote against it. But we must not let this opportunity pass, if they feel comfortable they will vote the party line.
Please continue to call, write, and email your representatives every day and voice your extreme displeasure with this legislation, it is the only chance that we have to stop it.
Support for healthcare reform is crumbling, we need to keep pushing the offensive on our representatives. Remind them that they work for us, not the president.
If we continue to be loud enough we can defeat this legislation.
Harry Reid Calls Healthcare Reform Opponents Evil-Mongers
They say that you can judge a man bu the company that he keeps. Well I would also say that you can judge a man by his words also. Harry Reid is a perfect example of this.
It is interesting to see the people that Harry Reid is willing to call evil; is it the Taliban? No, but he doesn’t have a problem calling people who oppose the president evil. Or even more specifically, the president’s healthcare reform bill.
According to Harry Reid the protesters who oppose the president’s healthcare reform bill and those who are vocalizing their difference of opinions are nothing but “evil-mongers.”
Somewhere along the line opposing the president went from what Hillary Clinton admitted was a right to being downright evil. I can’t even begin to describe how despicable I find this comment.
I think that Harry Reid also realized how stupid this comment was as he quickly admitted that he would never utter that phrase again. But it is too late, he let the cat out of the bag. People like Harry Reid don’t believe that it is possible for any normal person to oppose ANYTHING that this president says or does, therefore if you oppose the president he characterizes you as an evil person.
People like Harry Reid believe that they know better than anyone else what is best for individual people and they become so offended when someone dares to question them that they instantly try to discredit the person rather than to debate the issue. That is exactly what happened in this case, it is much easier for Harry Reid to say that a person is evil and therefore should be ignored rather than to try to explain his own position. Especially a position that is unpopular with the American people as his position is.
There is real opposition to the president’s healthcare reform bill, or more accurately congress’ healthcare reform bill because the president doesn’t even know what is in the bill, and average Americans are rising up to voice their opposition to this bill. Harry Reid thinks this is evil. I think that says more about Harry Reid than it does about the American people.
Harry Reid needs to stand in front of the cameras and apologize for calling his political opponents evil. Policy disagreements are not a reason to demonize your opponents. He should be trying to bring more people on board with his policies instead of pushing them away. Comments like this will drive a bigger people further away from healthcare reform.
This is a mobile post, please ignore any lack of formatting that may exist.
This article clearly shows us that Barack Obama is lying when he claims that he has never said that he supports single payer healthcare.
Let us play dueling Obamas; here is what Obama said as a state senator in 2003:
In 2003, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama received a big round of applause for telling a gathering of the AFL-CIO, “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care plan.”
(Please excuse the lack of block quotes, I can’t block quote on my mobile.)
Now let us look at what President Obama said to a Town Hall gathering in New Hampshire last Tuesday:
“I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive”
Which is it Mr. President? Which position are we supposed to believe? The president is not being honest with the American people, that much is clear.[END]
Hillary Snaps at Congolese Student
This is a mobile post, please ignore any lack of formatting that may exist.
It looks as if former President Clinton’s rescue of the two American journalists in North Korea may have left Hillary feeling just a little bit slighted.
When asked by a Congolese student how her husband felt about international finances she lost her cool.
(Please excuse the lack of block quotes, I can’t block quote on my mobile)
“You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not secretary of state, I am, If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.”
Clearly in my opinion the fact that the president sent Bill Clinton to do what should have been the secretary of state’s job is not sitting well with her. And I do not blame her one bit. The president slighted her and I am sure she is angry about it. She should be, President Obama skipped her over and embarrassed her and there has to be a reason why. But without ever explaining that odd move the public has been left to wonder if Bill really is acting as secretary of state. Hillary must be fuming.
This does not excuse her from the fact that she snapped at a student in a foreign country while visiting as secretary of state, nor does it justify her outburst. That is inexcusable and an apology should be forthcoming. She embarrassed the United States over an obvious translation error, as angry as she is she still should have held her tongue. Between these two incidences and the president running around apologizing to the world for our greatness coupled with Hillary apologizing for global warming we are becoming a laughing stalk around the world.[End]
