Constitutional Charity

I received feedback on the column I wrote, “Death and Taxes,” in September. Overall the reader agreed with my position, but found herself bothered by my lack of compassion for needy people. In the column I argued we do everything we can to avoid death, but not to avoid taxes. I accept we need to pay taxes to the extent we need to support a civilized society, but I take issue with tax collection for other purposes that are non-essential.

She said we have a duty to “take care of those in need” and this position was prompted by her values. I certainly agree with the desire and need to take care of others, and personally I have given time and money to charitable causes. This issue has always seemed to be a bone of contention between people with one side appearing to lack any compassion and the other giving away everything with no concern for consequences. However, I know I am not without compassion and through my actions I know I help those in need. But, I believe this should be done through charity and is not a role of government.

Fortunately, I believe I found the clarity to express my thoughts better; several weeks ago I read a weekly column by writer Frank Miele of the “Daily Inter Lake” in Kalispell, Montana. In his column, he used the historical example of Davey Crockett, the three-term Congressman from Tennessee in the 1820s who found himself confronted by an angry constituent, Horatio Bunce, about Crockett’s recent vote for a bill to provide $20,000 of federal funds fire victims ravaged and left homeless in nearby Georgetown. Crockett was asked, “Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?” Like most of us, Crockett gave a list of reasons about helping others and doing the right thing, giving charity.

“You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me,” Bunce said. Upon review, it is obvious, the founding fathers made no accommodation for a constitutional authority of the government to transfer the wealth of one citizen to another through the process of taxation. Modern examples of this would be hurricanes and wildfires. Of course, other more questionable examples abound such as “Cash for Clunkers”, first-time home buyer subsidies, funding shortfalls to the New York unemployment fund, the health insurance reform proposals, and any other federal program providing direct payments and transfers of wealth from one group of citizens to another.

This past summer Tea Parties made headlines, unfortunately they were sensationalized for many wrong reasons. The idea for the Tea Parties was spurned by Rick Santelli on CNBC when he editorialized in outrage over the proposals for government stimulus programs. This outrage was not due to lack of compassion for those in need or lack of concern for America and the economy. It was outrage over the reach of government into individual wealth, no matter how big or small, and the desire to take it and transfer it to others.

Like Davey Crockett I struggle with my personal since of compassion versus constitutional intent. We have a strong document that was meant to create a sound democracy for centuries. Every time it is “interpreted”, ignored, and eroded for social purposes we take away our own liberties and freedoms.

Copyright (c)2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.

November 21, 2009 by Uncategorized

Dying in the Ukraine..

Yeah, I am way out there, but….. the first time I ever heard about the Ebola Virus was on that crazy late night AM radio show (“Coast to Coast with Art Bell”). Sounded like sci-fi, but was real. For nearly two weeks I have been reading and watching the early signs of outbreak in the Ukraine – it started at 100,000 and is over 2,000,000 cases now. Tonight was the first time I saw a MSM article about it. The first link will prompt your interest, it has a picture of a dying man. this is the same way flu victims were described in 1918 (read the book this summer). The second link is from the web site I check everyday. The third is from Drudgereport.com. About 4 days ago I told Lee I was struggling with fact or fiction, what is real. NBC, ABC, and CBS have not covered this issue. But, it continues to grow. It will be interesting to see if it continues and actually makes the news.

Dying Man


Report on Ukraine

From Drudge (UK paper)

November 17, 2009 by Uncategorized

Cable, Cellular, and Lawyers

It is amazing how certain industries seem to survive, regardless of the quality of service they deliver. As a consumer I am pretty easy going, but I do believe in accountability. Basically, I am just old-fashioned, deliver on your word and do what you promise. There are three industries though where this does not to be the case: cable television, cellular telephones, and law.

My experiences with cable and cellular companies began about 20 years ago. This is when I discovered the cable company could promise you an installation arrival time, but that was unrelated to the reality of when they might arrive. Throughout the last 25 years I have planned a day around “getting cable” and found myself at the mercy of the cable company regarding my time. If promised 9:00 am -noon, I have patiently waited and realized at 1:15p no one was coming. What do I do next? Leave? Call? And of course, once cable is installed if it fails or you need upgraded services one will be trapped in automated voice mail systems, in long lines at their offices, or without television.

Cellular telephones were supposed to make my life easier. I bought my first phone in 1988, a Panasonic Transportable, about the size of a dictionary and weighing a couple of pounds. The idea was I would not have to stop at a pay phone to call ahead, reschedule, or stay in touch with my family. As much as it was a novelty at that time, with my $1.50/minute charges, it was a business tool to serve the purpose of making phone calls. However, the phone dropped calls. Every two to three years for the last 20 years I have bought a new phone, always hoping that the latest model would not drop a call. But, the same problems continue today, dropped calls and lousy connections. I learned and never make critical calls on a cellular phone while moving. I have paid thousands of dollars to various companies, after considering all of the mergers, and yet the most basic service piece, making a call, has not been satisfactorily delivered.

Furthermore, the cellular companies have continued to miss the mark as buying a phone is not about telephone service, but cameras, MP3 players, and texting. I just want to make a call. At the same time each of us is personally robbed everyday we use our phone. We are forced to listen to voice mail system prompts that run up our charges. The next time you make a call to a cellular phone, pay attention to how long it takes to wait for the voice mail announcement to complete and leave a message. Or, call your voice mail to retrieve messages. Why can’t I skip the message? After years I know the routine and what to do. But, I am convinced this system is designed to collect a few minutes more from each of us, resulting in millions of profits for the cellular companies.

Attorneys are often the target of jokes and attacks. Most likely this stems from the perception of the lack of quality in the service they deliver. Unlike any other industry I know, this is a professional industry where a non-refundable payment is required before service is rendered. Regardless of the quality of service delivered, your non-refundable retainer has been captured. You have no mechanism to question the quality of service or the process that was used. I am convinced that attorney’s know they deliver the shoddiest services because of this payment process.

Are these rants? I don’t think so. Instead, I believe we are all entitled to a respectful relationship with the vendors and service providers whom we engage. However, when monopolies begin to exist, there is no competition, or there is no process for client satisfaction the quality of service degrades rapidly.

November 11, 2009 by Uncategorized

When Should Citizens Fear Their Government?

I recently bought a bumper sticker, “I love my country, but fear my government”. With shocking reality I realized I have more in common with the granola-eating, hemp-wearing, Volvo-driving hippies of the 1960’s counterculture than I do with the citizen conformists I thought I was like. The First Amendment guarantees our right to associate and assemble freely. However, I believe our government is now taking steps to significantly erode this freedom, among other civil liberties, at all levels, federal, state, and local.

Naomi Wolfe, author of “The End of America,” makes a compelling case for fascist America as she compares the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” actions and passing of various legislative pieces to the dictatorships in 1930’s Europe. Personally, I have always been bothered by “The Department of Homeland Security”, domestic wiretapping and surveillance laws, and the overreaching methods of TSA at airports. I had a letter published in another newspaper about the “SS” like methods in use following 9/11 and thereafter found myself on TSA’s watch list. This seemed like more than a coincidence to me. Vigilance is important, but giving up liberties for the perception of safety is the biggest mistake anyone society can make.

In October 2008, for the first time ever, the United States Army stationed troops domestically. The guise of this deployment is to provide a federal response to assist with disasters, terrorism, and crowd control. During Katrina, the private security force “Blackwater” was enlisted to police and enforce martial law. Blackwater has forces stationed at the headwaters to the Great Lakes and on the California border. Each state allows the Governor to call on the National Guard to assist with disasters, or more importantly enforce martial law. In all of these instances our citizenry is allowing civil rights to erode in the name of perceived safety. Do you trust Blackwater?

When the G20 met in Pittsburgh my concern was raised again. Local police in battle regalia carried military assault weapons to use against American citizens. Of more concern Pittsburgh police used an audio cannon manufactured by American Technology Corporation, a San Diego-based company, to disperse protesters outside the G-20 Summit , the first time its LRAD series device has been used on civilians in the U.S. This weapon is funded to local police departments nationwide by grants from the Department of Homeland Security; thus there is no record of which police departments are in possession of this weapon, what training they have undergone, or ability to monitor their plans to deploy these weapons.

With the H1N1 virus creating an atmosphere of unknown possible outbreaks states have seized the opportunity to modify legislation to create quarantines, martial law, take property, and criminalize failure to follow department of health orders; Massachusetts’ Senate approved bill S.2028 (Pandemic Response Bill) is the most appalling example. Nationally, police and military have trained for roadside checkpoints, and the city of Boston has tested an RDIF tracking system for vaccinations. In October police chiefs endorsed spying on neighbors and the Department of Homeland Security and FBI issued circulars to business owners alerting them to watch for possible purchases of certain chemicals and report these purchases as possible terrorism.

Regardless of political view, the erosion of our civil liberties from both sides of the aisle and all levels of government is obvious. Slowly, we are becoming like the countries of Eastern Europe. Am I the only one that sees this resemblance? Sadly, we appear to be willingly giving up our civil liberties in the name of safety.

November 5, 2009 by Uncategorized

Taking a Break

One thing about living in Florida is how easy it is to fall victim to the sensationalism of hurricane reporting by local television stations. We crave wanting to know where Anna, Bill, Claudette and any of our other alphabetical list of storms is headed. It is nearly impossible to escape this invasion of news as the ticker or radar picture instantly showing location, intensity, and projected path of destruction is always on once the storm has been announced. This information invades our lives through print, computers, radio, television, and even local conversation.

I would argue that our lives in general have become much the same way regarding all news. In ancient times (before the 1980s), there were three networks, a public TV station, and changing channels necessitated getting off the couch so our exposure to the news was much more limited. Sure, an AM radio station typically played hourly updates, but our news was only available in the morning, at noon, or on the major networks in the evening. Paul Harvey was the extent of opinion and we recognized him as an entertainer. At night, Johnny Carson poked fun at events of the day, but the monologue was respectful and limited. Now, even local television stations now run two hours of “news” in the evening. Ironically, most of the news is not news though, but polling data reports, conjecture, and opinions.

You’re reading this paper, this page of the paper, and this article. Most likely, like me you enjoy the news and keeping up with information. Recently I realized though, like hurricane news, the political and economic information I enjoy is changing at a slower pace than I desire. I found myself wanting more, craving more and starving for the latest news tidbit to radically change the political landscape. Each day I regularly visit web sites to read newspapers and review news sources. Fortunately, I cancelled cable television over a year ago and am no longer bombarded by the pontificates on different networks sharing their opinions, not reporting news.

Recently, I realized I was feeling a level of anxiety. Nothing bad, nothing in particular caused me anxiety. But instead, like the ongoing threat of a hurricane offshore that will more than likely miss central Florida, I felt the same anxiety watching the news and waiting, anticipating, and starving for the next story detailing some miniscule change in the health care debate or the current economic environment. Thus, I decided to take a break.

This past Sunday I told my wife that my goal for the week was to avoid the “news”. No web sites, no talk radio, no seeking of information that I had no control over and could not impact. However, out of fairness, if I encountered news I would absorb it. So far my experience has been refreshing, like a vacation. I realized I could break my addiction and habit to seeking and looking for news. The next time a hurricane is coming I suggest you try it. A once a day check of conditions is more than adequate. The same holds true for most your exposure to talk radio, cable news, or evening network news. Once a day, read the paper or watch the news. Minute by minute; remember you are subjecting yourself to opinion and conjecture. It’s not worth your time.

Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.

November 1, 2009 by Mainstream Media

Cruise Ships

One of the highlights of a cruise ship trip to the Bahamas is a visit to the local market. Some bargaining will take place; you will feel good about your purchase, getting a great price, and the vendor will have sold one of his wares. This system works and has stood the test of time because there are no price floors or ceilings.

For example if I want to buy a handmade blanket for $20 in the above example with a little negotiating I can buy the blanket for $16. Still not comfortable with the price, I can walk away and the vendor will make a finally offer of $14. Because I know there are three other vendors selling similar, not necessarily the same, blankets nearby I can refuse the offer. Both of us are free to negotiate, up or down, in this scenario. I can pay $14, the vendor can lower his price to $13, or the deal can come to an end.

What would happen if the cruise ship company decided to check each vendor to ensure they were worthy, provide them perks, and guarantee a certain number of customers each day or pay him for any lost business? Furthermore, the cruise ship company agrees they will take Continue reading…

October 22, 2009 by Big Government Health care Obama

Crisis Preparation

Crisis Preparation

I have read a lot about preparation for TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) lately. However, I think there are other issues of greater concern than that which one must consider. I am repeating, changing, and re-writing some of what I have read. But, I go back to the root of what I have always known; preparation is about facing a threat. A threat can be measured three: probability of occurrence, intensity of destruction, and duration. A matrix should be made to consider the likelihood of a threat, where you might be during the occurrence, and what preparations should be made.

Supplies need consideration next. Preparation for supplies can be broken into several categories. Once the categories are identified a second stage of analysis must be completed – do you require mobility or will this preparation be to hunker down and stay in one location?

I feel most people fail to make any preparations in their lives because it is overwhelming to analyze “what-if” scenarios and planning around them. At the same time, ridicule of preparations is easy due to the old stereotypes of bomb-shelter fanatics, in the woods survivalists, and hippies living in communes off the grid. Ironically, these are the people that the unprepared will flee to.

Living in New Smyrna Beach, Florida I constantly faced a hurricane threat, but yet, like many friends and neighbors, brushed off this threat. I felt I could go to Wal-Mart, Lowes, or Home Depot and retrieve what I needed on demand. Although not as destructive as a ground-zero events like Katrina I faced three hurricanes in six weeks time. We faced a long duration of inconvenience – no credit card machines, gasoline shortages, lack of groceries, building materials shortages, and no ice. I had friends without electricity for 10 days. I could not locate a chainsaw chain to remove and cut trees. There was no ice available to keep food safe because there was no electricity. Gas stations were closed due to lack of electricity, the pumps would not work and they had no credit card machines. All of the foods spoiled in the grocery store meat and frozen sections. Thus, they were forced to close to clean up their stores and no groceries were available. This was a modern crisis of long duration.

Events like Katrina, 9/11, the Northridge earthquake, and spring floods make headlines. However, watching a crisis on the evening news is entirely different than living through it. One side of 9/11 often forgotten was the travelers stranded away from home – if you had boarded a plane on 9/10/2001 and traveled across the country for business you suddenly found yourself stranded without a way to return home. There was a sense of suspicion in the country and finding yourself stuck as an outsider with only business clothes to wear could create problems. Fortunately, the banking system stayed intact and credit card machines were not shut off. Had the financial industry been questioned, cash would have been required just to eat, pay hotel bills, and get new clothing. In this case it was not a significant event for those away from New York but an event of extreme inconvenience. Again, even telecommunications worked, but it is not hard to imagine the government shutting telecom to prevent communications among terrorists. In this case contacting family would not have been feasible, lending to panic among those stranded away from home.

Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.

October 21, 2009 by Depression Great Recession preparedness Stupid People

Democracy or Republic?

One of my pet peeves is lexicon misuse. This was recently reinforced by an email link I received from a friend that offered to explain our form of government and make comparisons to other common forms such as oligarchy, monarchy and anarchy. Most of us believe the United States is a democracy. However, the video I received focused on the view that our founding fathers intended the United States to be a republic. My question, of course, was what’s the difference? More important, if there is a difference does it really matter?

A quick trip to the dictionary, or in this case the online version of Merriam-Webster, would most surely shed some light on the distinctions between the two words. I found a “democracy” is “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b) : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”

Fair enough I thought, and it sounds like the United States. So how is a republic defined? A republic is a “government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (b) a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” Again similar to the United States in definition and at least not significantly different to help me distinguish the subtleties of the two words. Now, I felt thoroughly confused and I wondered if it mattered to the founding fathers whether our nation was to be a democracy or a republic. As a democracy our society would be subject to majority rule and the will of the people on all decisions. As a republic, it appeared that elected representation by the people would take precedence.

In today’s time with Congress typically having the lowest approval ratings of all of the branches of government, couldn’t we, as a democracy eliminate the House of Representatives and the Senate? With technology today this seems feasible. Anytime an issue arises we could put it to a vote of the people using the internet, our cable television remotes, or a telephone dial-in system. Arguably, the establishment of the Electoral College, our Congress, and even the inauguration dates of the President appear based on the lack of communication technology existing in 1776 as much as they do with the intent of the founding fathers. Maybe our government is more an outdated concept tied obstacles of the time.

However, a careful review of the Constitution confirms our founding fathers intended a republic. The Pledge of Allegiance, “and to the Republic for which it stands”, instantly reminds us if we have any doubt. Article IV section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government”.

You may wonder why I am focused on the importance of what appears to be an argument in semantics. I believe our founding fathers carefully worded the Constitution to ensure its legacy would stand the test of time. Furthermore, they had personally shed blood to flee tyranny and knew that mobs and simple majority rule were not effective means of government. In a democracy, any group of individuals comprising the minority has no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. Thus, as we watch our elected representatives’ debate critical issues affecting future generations, trust in our founding fathers that our republic will facilitate the best possible outcome regardless of the intensity of the debate.

Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.

October 16, 2009 by Big Government

No Insurance Mandate

As the debate regarding health care insurance rages around me I have found myself frustrated by comments and concerns made by friends and family and the threat of insurance mandates. Currently, I have no health insurance. Arguably, this may not be the best decision in my case, but it is my current situation. I understand I am now “self-insured” and if something happens I have to pay for it.

Crazily, I have friends and family who cannot imagine a life without health insurance. The government is also contemplating an insurance mandate; if you fail to buy insurance you will be fined. Since the IRS is the enforcer of this, I see it as a tax increase, especially considering the amount is approximately $3,800/year. What really bothers me is the idea of an insurance mandate when insurance, by definition, is coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract. Mandating a contract erodes the market forces that should lower prices.

This summer I was vacationing with my family and found myself in need of emergency care. I mentally debated for several hours my options: do not seek care, self-medicate, visit an urgent care, or head to the ER. Ultimately I spent seven hours in the emergency room, received outstanding service and a plethora of intravenous medicines. The doctors clearly discussed with me options of spending the night, further analysis, and how to proceed. Market forces were at work – no unnecessary tests were made, and I full participated in the decision making process. Upon returning from vacation the bill was waiting in the mailbox. At first glance the amount concerned me, but I quickly analyzed the numbers and realized the amount due was equal to two months of former family health care premiums. Since I had not made premium payments in prior five months I knew I was better off., and more than likely, I will not have any significant events before the end of the year.

I was disgusted when one family member recommended we not pay the bill. She said that she just ignores them and the hospital will ultimately write it off as indigent or uncollectable. Of course, they will just have to pass these costs onto others. Another friend was appalled that we do not have insurance and wondered what we would do if we had to go to the doctor. I made the economic argument above, it is cheaper to have high deductible insurance and pay as you go, but it fell on deaf ears. Of course, she depends on doctors for everything, has significant monthly prescription requirements, and does not have savings of her own to pay.

People make life choices and I believe too many consumers choose to live for the moment: buying a boat, car, cable television, or even a cellular phone. Losing material possessions due to an illness is sad, but not catastrophic, it’s just stuff. Failing to take personal responsibility should not result in mandated insurance programs and erosion of personal freedoms. My reforms and solutions are much simpler: require people to pay for the services they use and hold them accountable, and yes they may go broke in the process, reign in the cost of malpractice through tort reform, and modify regulations to allow interstate purchase of insurance thus equalizing premiums across the states. No one will be denied quality health care and the market will adjust prices appropriately.

Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.

October 7, 2009 by Uncategorized

What is Government’s Role?

Recently I engaged in an email discussion with a close friend regarding the health care debate. The more interesting aspect was the redirect from her attacking a position I had taken regarding privacy rights, unrelated to health care, to an attack stating that I did not think seniors deserved end of life counseling.

I have to be honest with you, before August I had never considered phrases like “death panels” or “end of life counseling”. But, as we all know, these terms hit the airwaves and became dinner talk for many of us. I personally felt Sarah Palin did a great service to everyone by bringing attention to just one of the many possible issues open for debate within healthcare reform legislation. At the same time though, Ms. Palin’s methodology of exaggeration damages her credibility and makes it tougher to engage in genuine conversation regarding a sensitive issue.

After several readings of my email reply to my friend I could not find anywhere I said seniors did not deserve end of life counseling. Carefully I crafted a reply to my friend, one that I want to share with you:

“First, I never said seniors should not have end of life counseling, how could you infer that from my note? But, let’s presume they should. The first question to answer would be who should provide it? I certainly would not want a government staff employee to provide this service. What would we base their performance appraisal on, the number of seniors that refuse future health care benefits or the number of seniors they counsel that argue they want to live longer? Furthermore, if the government is going to provide end of life counseling, shouldn’t there be benefits for marriage counseling, divorce counseling, parenting counseling and middle-age counseling to ensure you are on the right track? It is obvious any hazardous activity would have to be counseled.”

I do not think the founding fathers intended for the State to provide this level of counseling or care to its citizens. In 1776 I believe the focus of the founding fathers was on the concepts of liberty and freedom due to the recent tyranny and oppression which they had just escaped and shed blood to have independence. The founding fathers stood firm and fought for our freedoms. Unfortunately, I believe time has caused descendants of these men to forget why we are the best country on earth and why other countries want to be like us.

We must look at history to get perspective and context. The founding fathers wanted a limited government because they knew what happened when a dependency (junkie/dealer) relationship is created. Over time other statesmen have endeavored to remind us how to avoid becoming a victim of our own success and desires. Gerald Ford said it succinctly, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

I do not believe government health care reform should involve end of life counseling. My belief is not due to lack of sympathy or compassion, but because I believe it is not the role of the State to provide, fund, or facilitate that counseling. The role of government my friend is what we should debate.

Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.

September 29, 2009 by Uncategorized