First, let me reiterate my detestation for all ideologies and labels. To the extent that I use them in this post, it seems necessary and is for the convenience of the reader.

The imminent retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens highlights the problems caused by both. Stevens is commonly referred to as the most liberal Justice on the Supreme Court. He hates being so described.

Stevens was, and remains, a lifelong Republican. He was nominated by a Republican president, Gerald Ford in 1975. But, he and his retirement are just the impetus. This post is about far more.

Why is a Republican called the most liberal member of the Court? Well, it seems that terms such as liberal, conservative, left, right, capitalism, socialism, even populism are thrown around willy-nilly by people who think they know what these words mean.

The right of privacy is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments. However, through the years the Supreme Courts have firmly stated and reconfirmed that it is such a basic right that many other protections that are included would be meaningless without it. They have ruled that it is an implicit right.

Justice Stevens followed that tenet in his opinion in re the Patriot Act. The ‘conservative’ members of the Court just ignored their own claims of conserving the Constitution.

In the recent decision to give corporations free speech, Justice Stevens did something almost unheard of. He not only dissented; he actually read his dissent aloud in the courtroom. He felt that the Declaration and Constitution were clear in their intent when stating “We the People” and “government of, by and for the people.”

As Justice Stevens himself noted, with the single exception of Ruth Ginsburg, every departing member of the Court, since Stevens himself came aboard, was replaced by someone to his or her right.

I have written before of the Founding Fathers’ fear that corporations would destroy their work. Here again, the ‘conservatives’ ignored the Constitution. It makes you wonder if you understand the meaning of the title they claim of being “Strict Constructionists.”

If ‘Constitutional scholars’ have wandered so far away from the Constitution, we common folk may be excused for being less than precise in our usage.

I find it odd that people are so drawn to the label of conservative, given the politicians who claim it today. The original conservatives were the supporters of the king’s prerogatives. The Founders were on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

The king claimed the right of his troops to be boarded in your home. Our Constitution proscribes that practice.

The king preferred that people not criticize him openly. The Constitution says we can criticize George III or George W.

The Founding Fathers not only were progressive, they stated that times would change. They devised a document that allowed for our social and political progress. They were certain that we would improve upon their situation, their conditions and their document. They themselves were no strict constructionists. Oddly, to be a strict constructionist one would have to be against strict construction. One would have to be a progressive. Oooh. There. I said it.

Back in the 1980s a nationwide survey of historians was taken as to the greatest Senator of all time. The winner was Robert “Fighting Bob” Lafollette. He received this signal honor about 60 years after his death in 1925. Lafollette became a Senator in 1906 and died in office. Prior to that he was the Governor of Wisconsin. Prior to that he was a member of the House of Representatives.

Lafollette was a Republican. So, why was he held in such high esteem? Most people credit another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, with first promoting universal health care in the 1912 platform of the Bull Moose Party. Lafollette did it earlier. He also suggested unemployment insurance, social security and a host of other measures, some which appeared in FDR’s administration, some which have yet to appear.

How could a Republican other than Teddy Roosevelt be so liberal? Well, he wasn’t. He felt that conservative values meant that the benefits of our system should be broadly enjoyed. He felt an (perhaps Christian) obligation toward the well-being of his fellow Amercians.

He felt that America, its democracy, its protections, its potential, should not be denied to his fellow citizens. He thought America was too good, too great to be seen as selfish and stingy. He felt that as more people benefited from America’s system, the easier it was to conserve that system.

Lafollette wanted to conserve the benefits and promise of America. For that, he was fondly remembered and honored by those of the fraternity that keeps the record of our achievements and our failures.

At some point, conservatism became almost solely about conserving the treasure and prerogatives of the wealthiest among us. An article of faith was that government should be small. Why? Because a small government cost less but, more importantly, a small government had insufficient power and resources to interfere with their ‘Robber Baron’ activities and their credit default swaps.

Later, it subsumed the idea that to preserve all of that it was necessary to be isolationist. It also so feared the Bolshevik Revolution that it branded any deviation from laissez-faire capitalism as communist, socialist, anti-American, liberal, union, et al. It wasn’t necessary to understand any of those things. It was only necessary to have a knee-jerk reaction to any word the plutocrats told us was bad.

As this restrictive perversion of conservative began to wane, after the embarrassment of Joe McCarthy, the true believers realized they needed an infusion of bodies and money. They had finally realized that the military-industrial complex could be a goldmine. It could also co-opt the label of patriotism

Have you ever wondered why a Republican President, a 5-star general warned us against that group? Could it be that he still considered himself a real conservative? Did you ever wonder why the John Birch Society and its descendents called Ike a communist dupe; why they questioned his patriotism while advertising their own?

Where to get the people? Lyndon Johnson gave them a present. He was able to get civil rights acts passed. There go the racists.

Then there was Roe v. Wade. Then there was prayer in the schools. That caused the social conservatives to go looking for champions. They now had the numbers to go with their financial resources.

But who was running the show? Was it the social conservatives? No. They just provided the volume. The tune was still called by the ones that paid the piper. The plutocrats and their prosti . . . er, politicians worked in close harmony.

The new conservatives commandeered the Republican Party. They told the social conservatives they would overturn Roe v. Wade. They would put God back in the classroom. They would . . . Well, did they? Not just yet. After all it’s only been about 50 years.

With the Republican ‘conservatives’ enjoying electoral success, why were these promises not kept? If these new conservatives had actually accomplished these things, they would no longer have the means of motivating the troops. If the voters who had been convinced that their leaders were really conservatives felt that everything was right with the world, they wouldn’t need to come down to the polling booth. Those politicians would lose their faithful. They would lose their jobs. Better to keep them angry and going to the polls than actually come across on the promises.

Along came a spider. A part of those controlling the ‘conservative movement’ thought, “Why not control the world?” These were largely macho draft dodgers and other wannabes who thought war was as portrayed in John Wayne movies. We call them neoconservatives.

They believe that everything they dislike domestically can be overrun through bluff, bluster and making up the rules as they go along. They believe that everything they dislike internationally can be gotten rid of by a crude use of America’s supposedly unlimited military might. Unsurprisingly, they think of themselves as realists, as smarter than average.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of conservatism, beyond how it is being used and who is using it. In the form exercised by many in the past it has much to commend it. But, it has been commandeered by the political dregs of the country as a method of fooling large numbers in order to obtain and maintain control.

I can easily identify with many conservative precepts. Similarly, I can do the same with liberal and progressive. I cannot identify with capitalism, communism, socialism and such. They are tools to be used by people who understand them and their limitations. I feel most comfortable calling myself a populist but not in the sense that far too many use it. I see a bifurcation of those whose highest priority is people (Populists) and those whose highest priority is corporations (Fascists).

Take your pick. There are those two. There is room for conservative, liberal and progressive inside populism. There is only room for plutocrats, politicians and dupes among the fascists.

.

©2010 The Couth Hillbilly. All Rights Reserved.

Back in September of 2008 I posted an article that has special pertinence this week. Stay with me. We will get to that after a few facts concerning this present explosion.

I’m sure you have heard of the mining disaster in West Virginia. It is the worst we have experienced in over two decades.

It is a regrettable situation, particularly as experts say all such accidents are preventable. If that’s true, why did it happen? Would you believe pure, unadulterated greed? Would you believe that the state’s supreme court played a role?

The mine is owned by the Massey Energy Company. This company was cited for 495 violations last year. During that same period production more than tripled.

Back to these accidents being preventable. Almost all of the deaths in coal mining are at nonunion mines. Why? Because union mines, by contract, have safety officers.

The coal industry is fond of telling us how cheap it is compared to other fuels. I guess it depends on how one calculates the price. What is the cost of 1,000 miners’ lives lost to explosions?

What is the cost of 50 miners coming down with black lung every week? What about the eventual deaths of these people with black lung after years of suffering? What is the cost of treating them? How much does coal really cost?

All coal mines produce methane. It has to be vented. Massey told its supervisors to not bother checking methane levels. Methane is the primary explosive material.

In 2000-1 this mine had 501 violations. Their three largest competitors combined had 175, while producing twice as much coal. Record numbers of violations don’t automatically translate into more money. It did last year because of the types of violations. They became more serious.

Massey’s CEO is Don Blankenship. He makes certain to keep his salary under a million. That is for show. It’s difficult to get a fix on his actual compensation. Forbes put his 2008 number at a little more than $11.2 million. The Associated Press put it at $19.7 million for the same year. Whatever, he is the highest paid executive in the industry. It is somewhat more than he pays his nonunion employees.

Mr. Blankenship has been described as a right-wing nut. He thinks Both Democratic and Republican politicians are out to destroy his America. You know, the America that stays out of his way with all of those ridiculous ideas about safety and taking the well-being of people into consideration.

Back to the Past, Present and Future

As I began this post, I recalled one from September 2008 that involved this same company and its CEO. Remember that West Virginia may be the only state that elects its supreme court. The episode memorialized in my post long predated this year’s U.S. Supreme Court’s travesty of monetizing free speech. Why did our Civics teachers lie to us? Anyway, here is the link to that other post, Free Speech – In Remembrance. Maybe I’ll look more prescient now.

What is the present-day significance of the event described in that former post? Just that if you get away with bad behavior once, you have less reason to behave after that. Calling the deaths of 25 human beings the result of bad behavior seems far too restrained. It should be treated as criminal homicide but that will eventually involve the court that Mr. Blankenship has already purchased.

.

©2010 The Couth Hillbilly. All Rights Reserved.

Thirteen states have filed a lawsuit claiming that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional.

Will they win or are they just wasting taxpayers money in an attempt to look good to their political bases? If you guessed the later, you didn’t require anyone to read this to you.

Given that we have five Supremes who can’t differentiate between human beings and things that human beings create, anything is possible. By the way, since voting is the most important form of free speech, why have corporations never voted? Sorry, I didn’t mean to give them any ideas.

Even if the courts were to rule in the favor of these thirteen grandstanding attorneys general, they can’t win.

They claim that it is unconstitutional to require people to purchase private health insurance. If someone doesn’t have health insurance, others must pay for it out of their taxes. The requirement is a protection measure for the rest of us.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to see people forced to give these private monsters more money. This law, as presently configured, gives these corporations an additional 31 or so million customers. That is estimated to increase their bank accounts by some $70 billion annually. No. I definitely am not pleased with that.

Having the public option is less rational than Medicare-For-All but it would at least provide an alternative for many of this 31 million and others. Most of that $70 billion would not go to the leeches. We have been promised that the Congress will amend the law to include the public option.

So, there is a possibility that the courts could rule in their favor. What happens? This law, as with most others of any complexity, includes a separability clause. That means, if the courts rule against any part of it, the entire law is not scrapped. The remainder remains.

Interestingly, the suit cites no case law or precedent. Why? Because there is none. Federal law overrules state law.

Under the commerce clause of the Constitution the government has broad, unchallenged power to regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce has historically been interpreted very broadly. Also, the right of the government to tax has been firmly established.

Even given the present makeup of the Court, there is almost no likelihood that the attorneys general can prevail with this suit. A few may prevail in their races for the governor’s seat in their state based on the publicity they will garner.

The solution, should the courts rule in their favor, is to offer the public option, or make a public program mandatory. All the former would do is offer a better deal at less cost by eliminating about 30% of the costs that unnecessary overhead represents. Making it mandatory simply means reducing the amount one pays for coverage and calling it a tax rather than a premium. The courts have already ruled that Social Security, Medicare, et al., are constitutional.

So, if they win, and their win brings a public option or Medicare-For-All, what have they won?

America’s Favorite Loon, Michelle Bachmann, or as she calls herself on her web site, Amaricas Congress Woman, has introduced a bill which calls the healthcare bill unconstitutional. If she can’t spell America’s correctly or punctuate it correctly or doesn’t know that Congresswoman is one word, her bill may need the services of an editor.

Were it anyone else, save Sarah, we would consider her to be doing this only for its symbolic effect. She, however, seems convinced that the bill will succeed. How she will attain majorities in either house no one can explain. Then, either the President must sign it or his veto must be overridden by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress. I would be hesitant to put too much money on any of those possibilities.

Then we have the Republican leadership saying that the passage of this bill is the death knell of the Democratic Party. Before passage they were exhibiting great concern for the welfare of the Democrats (pun intended). Their solicitude was impressive and heartwarming. Despite their concern for the wellbeing of their compatriots they intend to take advantage of this misstep by the Democrats by running on the position of repealing the healthcare bill.

I can see their logic. The people will swarm to their standard in order to reinstate the bar by the insurance companies of preexisting conditions. Their support will be overwhelming for reimposition of annual and total limitations of coverage.

Kids up to the age of 26 want to be independent. They will flock to the sides of the Republicans freeing them from sharing their parents coverage. Geezers like me will truly appreciate their efforts if we don’t have to worry about what to do with all of our money. We can just luxuriate in the do-nut hole and let the drug companies do all of that worrying.

I think those cagey Republicans have discovered the magic talisman of electoral politics.

Silly suit? Of course. But look to the source. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Silly is as silly does.”

.

©2010 The Couth Hillbilly. All Rights Reserved.

It happens to everyone. My personal life and other commitments have intruded upon the time I have had to devote to this blog for the past few weeks. There has been an almost constant string of matters hitting me at an accelerated pace.

There have been funerals and visiting friends in the hospital. That is likely a factor of my age and that of my friends.

There is my attempt to help with a lawsuit that deals with Constitutional issues relating to mental illness. There is research on other matters. And the list goes on.

I am taking a shortcut by posting an Op-Ed piece from the New York Times by Phil Keisling. It offers a potential solution to an endemic problem of our body politic.

As one of my degrees is in Political Science and I have had the practical experience of holding public elective office, I find Mr. Keisling’s post of particular interest. This idea is not original to him. He points out that the State of Washington has already implemented it and it is on the ballot in California.

It is far from a cure-all but it should provide some relief to the present toxic level of political discourse.

I feel certain that there are at least one or two Republicans in Congress who might find themselves in agreement with the Democrats on some obscure issue. At present though, every Republican is in lockstep, opposing every Democratic proposal.

I’m not suggesting total comity but you are likely as disgusted as I with the total comedy that is our political system. Party loyalty has replaced our political representatives’ obligation to us and engendered a disturbing lack of decorum. The parties are jerking the strings of our politicians. They are, to varying degrees, willing puppets. This suggestion will not cut all of the strings but it can begin the task.

Want to get serious about reducing the toxic levels of hyper-partisanship and legislative dysfunction now gripping American politics? Here’s a direct, simple fix: abolish party primary elections.

From now to September, virtually every state will hold primaries to select Democratic and Republican candidates for the November general election. At stake are 36 Senate and 435 Congressional seats, along with 37 governorships and more than 6,000 state legislative seats.

What can we likely expect? Abysmal voter turnout; incessant waves of shrill, partisan invective; and legions of pandering politicians making blatant appeals to party extremists. Once you understand the role that party primary elections really play, and who votes and doesn’t, the real question isn’t why our politics are so dysfunctional — it’s how could they not be?

The current party primary system was actually reformist, an early 20th-century innovation to replace the smoke-filled backrooms of party bosses. Though party leaders fought this effort, within a generation it and the direct election of senators eventually swept the country — and improved our politics considerably.

But a century later, this reform has outgrown its usefulness. We are left with a system in which almost every state still outsources its elections to what are actually private organizations. With the approval of the Supreme Court, the parties have the authority to exclude independent voters or other non-members who might seriously challenge their partisan shibboleths or taboos.

Some state parties deign to allow non-members to participate in their primaries. But very few independents bother. Most party members don’t, either. In 2006, during the last non-presidential primary cycle, most states had turnouts of only 15 percent to 30 percent of registered voters (New York had less than 5 percent). So far, the 2010 primary cycle has shown a new low of 23 percent in Illinois, and 16.5 percent in Texas, a record high for that state.

So what can be done? States should scrap this anachronistic system and replace it with a “fully open/top two” primary. All candidates would run in a first round, “qualifying” election, with the top two finalists earning the chance to compete head-to-head in November. Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, even “None of the Above’s” could all run in the first round. Voters would certainly know candidates’ party affiliations, but no political party would automatically be entitled to a spot on the November ballot.

This would create far more races that were truly competitive, especially across the vast majority of lopsided districts where winning the party primary essentially guarantees election. In those districts, both finalists might be from the same party, but there could be genuine differences between the two that would give voters a meaningful choice.

Of course, it’s likely that the finalists of most qualifying elections would still be a Democrat and a Republican. But these candidates often would be (or, at least, act) different than those produced by partisan primaries. Gone would be the ideological purity tests of primaries, which more and more punish the Republican concerned with global warming or the Democrat wrestling with eye-popping budget deficits. Candidates wouldn’t have to practice the dark arts of the “message zigzag,” securing the base then feinting to the center. A system without partisan primaries would reward candidates who work, from Day 1, to appeal openly and forthrightly to the broadest group of voters.

To replace party primaries with this fairer election system requires no federal legislation, or even any changes to most state Constitutions. State legislators or voters could do it with simple, majority votes, as Washington State voters did in 2006. This June, California voters will have a chance to become the second state free of party primaries — a move favored by 68 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats there, according to a recent poll. I myself was the chief petitioner of an unsuccessful ballot measure to change Oregon’s system in 2008. I hope we’ll have another chance here.

The primary system gives disproportionate power to the shrillest and most mean-spirited of our partisans, while preventing civil dialogue and progress on a host of important issues. But a “fully open/top two” system would empower every American to be able to vote for the best candidate in every election. That is as good and achievable an antidote to what now ails the body politic as our democracy can hope for.

Phil Keisling, a Democrat, was the Oregon secretary of state from 1991 to 1999.

Whether this is one of the needed solutions or not, it is worthy of consideration.  Term limits would be of great benefit but are at least a long way off, if even possible. Are you aware of other answers?

.

©2010 The Couth Hillbilly. All Rights Reserved.

You knew it was coming. Perhaps you didn’t expect it this soon but it’s here.

A corporation is running for Congress.

It’s happening in the 1^st Congressional District of Maryland. That’s Silver Spring, MD.

I have included the first campaign ad. Also, you will find the web site. You won’t even have to make a donation.

Here you can see the new uniform requirements for Congressmen who are not themselves corporations.

If you look closely, you may see that the Nascar driver on the left may be practicing to actually run for Congress. Just check out his middle finger.

Here is the campaign ad for your viewing pleasure.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA

Don’t forget to visit their Web Site .

And, don’t forget to thank the Supreme Court.

.

©2010 The Couth Hillbilly. All Rights Reserved.

Despite what some may think, I was not around for the Dred Scott decision. That aside, I had comforted myself that the Supremes could not make a worse ruling than the one that gave us Bush the lesser.

I was wrong, horribly so.

We are now the only developed country in the world that allows corporations to legally spend unlimited amounts to control the government. Aren’t we special?

Stay with me a couple of minutes. You will see how stupid and/or corrupt at least five of the Justices really are.

How did we get here and what needs to be done? It is simple but the ramifications cannot be overstated.

First we are dealing with a bunch of hypocrites. The radicals of the Court loudly proclaim that they believe in following the intent of the Founding Fathers. They also maintain that the courts should not legislate, nor usurp the legislative role. Yeah, sure.

No Supreme Court has come close to the activism of the present Court. They have overturned more legislation, by far, than any Court of which I am aware. That tendency alone was sufficient to make all predictions on the latest travesty easy. Commentators from the entire spectrum got it right. This ruling was no surprise.

How about their claimed devotion to what they term ‘strict construction?’ That is also a gross mischaracterization. What was the Founding Fathers’ opinion of corporations? It may not be common knowledge but is far from a secret to any scholar or amateur enthusiast of our founders.

With the exception of Alexander Hamilton, all of the founders hated and/or mistrusted and/or feared corporations and the threat they represented to the nation to which they had given birth. This at a time when corporations were relatively rare and weak compared to the present. Back then one must prove a societal need, a benefit to the public, in order to obtain a charter.

Corporations are not mentioned in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The last time I checked, the wording was still “We the people . . .” Corporations had only the latitude to function as was delineated in its charter. Where did this idiotic concept of corporations having a legal personality originate? Not from the Supreme Court. It came from an essentially parenthetical couple of sentences by one Justice.

The year was 1886. The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. The doctrine of corporate personhood was included by Justice Morrison Remick Waite before the beginning of arguments. He stated, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”

So, two sentences by a single, junior Justice changed the Constitution, laws and the dictionary definition without argument, without discussion, without any attempt at rationality. It subsequently became the very foundation of corporate law.

Let’s look at this. It doesn’t require looking too deeply. It doesn’t require a degree in Constitutional Law. It does require more intelligence than five of the present Justices. It requires common sense. It requires an absence of devotion to the plutocracy, a jettisoning of ridiculous ideologies. Here we go.

Everyone acknowledges that a corporation is property. It, and/or its shares, not only can be owned, by its very nature it must be owned. If it is a person, it enjoys the constitutional prohibition of slavery. You are not permitted, under any circumstances to hold a person as property. Ask your wife.

A corporation speaks with one voice. Although the textbooks tell you that the shareholders control it, or that the directors control it on behalf of the shareholders, the reality is that management rules. Management’s priorities are rarely the same as the stockholders. Stockholders also are further removed from participation by mutual funds, hedge funds and similar devices. Does anyone believe that corporate lobbying efforts are always (sometimes) consonant with the interests or opinions of shareholders?

While many other legal and logical arguments reach the same, or supportive, conclusions, no serious arguments have been proposed that contradict those arguments. We have no need to pursue any further the irrationality of claims for corporate personhood. Let’s proceed to the ramifications.

The last presidential campaign was easily the most expensive in history. The estimates I saw last year were well over $1 billion but less than two. I haven’t seen your checkbook but to me that is significant change. Actually, I consider that amount obscene. It distorts and corrupts. There is no upside for anyone who values their right to vote.

Now let’s look at real money. The major Wall Street casinos have announced record, or near record, profits. These profits are after record amounts being set aside for bonuses. Have you paid attention? These bonuses total about $150 billion.

If Wall Street decided to redirect only half of that amount to campaign finance, we would never have to watch another non-political commercial in an election year (every other year) again. Although that might seem initially to be an attractive side-benefit, all you have to remember is how quickly campaign advertising begins to pall.

While we know better, politicians owned by special interests insist that they are not swayed by lobbyists’ bribes. Given the amounts now available to them, they likely will not even bother to address such questions. The $150 billion cited above represents only that available from the major institutional players of one corrupt industry. Factor in the insurance industry, PhRMA, agribusiness, energy and a host of others wanting laws that benefit them, to our detriment.

There would not even have been the sham of the healthcare debate with its foreordained outcome. The drug pushers could sell morphine as a toothing medication for infants again, as Bayer did before it became famous for its aspirin. The Department of Agriculture could eliminate all of those pesky areas and become a foundation to channel taxpayers dollars directly to ConAgra, ADM, et al. Exxon and its peers would not have to waste another nickel cleaning up after themselves. There no longer would be a need to debate global warming, or spending any funds on research. Government could really be streamlined.

How much have you ever donated to a political campaign? Look on the bright side. Now there is no need to.

I believe that there has never been a law or ruling which so drastically changes and damages our system.

Many people get upset about the power of the government. Permit me to reminisce. Back in the late 1960s or early 1970s there was a little flap at Delta Air Lines, where I was working. You need to understand that at that time aircraft mechanics were treated like royalty. They were the princes of the industry and highly prized by the airlines.

One of these princes let his sideburns grow to the level of the bottom of his ears. No, they were not mutton-chop sideburns. Though wild hairstyles could be seen everywhere across the country, his could not be considered wild by any definition. He was fired.

Except when I was in military service, I would never expect the government to be so intrusive, so controlling of the minutiae of people’s lives. Corporations are not bound to respect any of your rights, beyond the prohibition of discrimination. The government is constrained by the Constitution. With the Founding Fathers, I have always feared corporations far more than I feared the government – until now.

All is not lost. The Court struck down campaign finance laws, not corporate laws or regulations. The Congress unquestionably has the authority to control corporate behavior through changes in corporate law. It could be done by regulation. You and I are, as people, are not controlled by laws in this area so it cannot be claimed that corporations are being discriminated against or denied that to which people are entitled.

I would ask that you notify me the next time you see a bunch of corporations exercising their right of freedom of assembly or, perhaps, their freedom of religion. I would love to attend a baptismal ceremony for one of these ‘guys.’

.

©2010 The Couth Hillbilly. All Rights Reserved.

President Obama is a politician. He is a Constitutional expert but, by and large, he is a generalist.

Being a Constitutional scholar comes in handy in the Congress and on the Supreme Court. It’s not necessarily a bad thing in the Oval Office but being a generalist can be a positive. It can also bring disaster.

A generalist needs to know his limitations. He needs to know when to call on the experts. But, he also needs to recognize the limitations of the experts.

I recently wrote a post about the “financial experts.” The gist was that establishment truth gets a place at the table. The iconoclast is blackballed. The President is getting only the opinions of those who have forsaken thinking in order to claim the rewards of fame, fortune and influence.

In the realm of healthcare reform, the in-house experts Obama wants and listens to are such as Nancy DeParle and Tom Daschle, each of whom has made millions from the industry. Also at the table are the leaders of that industry. The same forces that form the advice that the financiers give work to the same effect among the “healthcare experts.”

I attended a military prep school. I was enrolled in ROTC. I served in the army. Those probably don’t substantiate a claim to expertise on military matters. They did, however, provide some understanding of the military mission and the mindset of careerists, particularly the most successful of those careerists.

Military leadership wants victory. They are not satisfied with any outcome that is less than conclusive. Their expertise is necessary and has its place. There is a limitation though. Military force is but one aspect of the larger field of diplomacy. It is the final resort, when all other means have failed. It also must serve the political needs of the country.

The President is getting advice from the military that claims we need more troops in Afghanistan. That is true if the country needs a military victory. The problem is that what we need is far different.

Even if we were to attain a military victory, would that mean we are safer? Would it mean that country’s major export would be something other than opium? Would that mean our money to modernize that relic of the 14^th Century would be well-spent? Would girls be allowed to dream? Would Jeffersonian democracy flourish? Would it mean that our forces would occupy the country for several more generations?

The President needs different advice. He needs to clean house in at least those three areas. He recognizes his need for advice on these issues. He just has put his dependence in those whom the establishment tell him are the experts.

Elizabeth Warren, appointed to oversee the TARP mess, seems to be the only one in an area of responsibility for finance that makes any sense. She chairs the Congressional Oversight Committee. She is the one that proposed the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. While the President has signed on to the idea of a CFPA, his economic team does everything it can to bar her from influence on all other financial issues.

Ms. Warren is a professor of law at Harvard. She doesn’t have the appropriate credentials to satisfy the denizens of Wall Street. All she has is intelligence, understanding and a devotion to the needs of the country and its people. They are pushing for her to run for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. Why? To lose her in a crowd of 99 others, to dilute her influence and drown out her voice.

Why are she and Robert Reich not being considered for chairmanship of the Federal Reserve. Why are they not being considered to replace Tim Geithner at Treasury? There are plenty of intelligent and talented people out there who will not be considered because they don’t fit the mold.

Obama needs to toss his entire coterie of “healthcare experts.” There must be someone among the 59% of physicians who support a single-payer plan worth his attention. It may sound outrageous or even astounding but there are experts out there not owned by the drug pushers and insurance leeches.

In matters of how to employ our military, or not, there are people of wider experience, such as Colin Powell, or retired flag officers whose career prospects don’t color their advice.

These three areas are critical. There is little margin for error. Those the President is presently giving his ear all have an ax to grind, pockets to line, images and careers to protect. None can or will give priority to what is best for our people and our country.

The economic bind that the states find themselves in has led some to reduce their prison populations. Perhaps a few million from the federal government could be dedicated to subsidizing some of those empty beds. Most of those at the tables deciding our financial and health futures would be filling those beds in a just society.

©2010 The Couth Hillbilly. All Rights Reserved.

Change. Change? What change? How about some meaningful change?

Three issues are at the top of the agenda. They share a commonality. They are healthcare, the economic crisis and the impending decision by the Supreme Court on Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission.

The commonality they share is the usurpation of power by corporations and the destruction of a government of, by and for the people.

The Economic Crisis

One year after the economic meltdown came to the attention of the public with the disappearance of Lehman Brothers, what has changed? Several trillion of our dollars have disappeared. The survivors have a little less competition and a lot more profit.

They are not laughing at us and their toadies in Washington all the way to the bank. They are the bank.

New products have been developed on which to make high-risk bets with our money. If they win, they get obscene bonuses. If they lose, they get obscene bonuses. That may qualify as change for some but not for me. They are even returning to the same old derivatives.

Healthcare

As for healthcare, the Gang of Six has delivered a package that even the lobbyists would have been too ashamed to create. It costs the government more than at present. It costs policy holders more. It creates more bankruptcies. Now children, can you guess who gets all of that extra money?

They brag about two features: elimination of the bar for preexisting conditions and the elimination of annual and total dollar limits on coverage. Does anyone really think that the greedy whores cannot find other ways to eliminate you from their customer list?

If the increased costs of coverage drive people to bankruptcy court quicker than when there are coverage limits, what good does it do to have those limits removed? Again, you are likely to be removed from their customer list before you become too expensive for their profit margins.

The coup de grâce

Now we come to the Supreme Court. This case is unusual. It has already been before the Court. This is a case of corporations getting another bite from the apple. It is, at base, a claim that corporations are entitled to “free speech.” The betting is that the Court will reverse itself in favor of the corporations.

The case revolves around their self-serving interpretation of the 1^st Amendment. I am curious as to whether that amendment also gives corporations freedom of religion.

Before going forward with a bit of history, fact and commonsense, I am providing a little respite, a humorous take from Stephen Colbert.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=h35C9wzD_Tk

Our Founding Fathers were not exactly fans of corporations. They feared them and what they would do to the nation they had created. Their fears have been largely realized. The final elimination of whatever vestiges of the Founders’ efforts remain seems at hand.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

James Madison said, “There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by . . . corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”

James Madison, again, said, “The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

From Abraham Lincoln we have, “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

William Roscoe Thayer, in his biography of Teddy Roosevelt wrote, “I think that he took the deepest personal satisfaction in fighting the criminal rich and the soulless corporations, because he regarded them not only as lawbreakers, malefactors of great wealth, but as despicably mean, in that they used their power to oppress the poor and helpless classes.”

A Chinese proverb advises us, “Corporations have neither bodies to be punished nor souls to be damned.”

The list is endless.

When first created, corporations were given charters that terminated after 21 years. If I wish to invest a few tens of thousands in a sole proprietorship, I stand to lose that investment but am held responsible for all indebtedness and damage that may result. A group of people may form a corporation and have their responsibility limited to whatever they invested, except financial institutions which are bailed out by our tax monies.

That cannot be justified. Just ask those who lost their retirement or their kids tuition.

©2010 The Couth Hillbilly. All Rights Reserved.