Food for Thought

A hat-tip to the Wall Street journal which has published the following account, annually, since 1961. Nathaniel  Morton's account of the those we call the pilgrims who came, nearly 400 years ago, to found our town, our country, and our tradition of Thanksgiving.

 

 

 

Here beginneth the chronicle of those memorable circumstances of the year 1620, as recorded by Nathaniel Morton , keeper of the records of Plymouth Colony, based on the account of William Bradford , sometime governor thereof:

 

 

 

So they left that goodly and pleasant city of Leyden, which had been their resting-place for above eleven years, but they knew that they were pilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on these things, but lifted up their eyes to Heaven, their dearest country, where God hath prepared for them a city (Heb. XI, 16), and therein quieted their spirits.

         

                                                       

When they came to Delfs-Haven they found the ship and all things ready, and such of their friends as could not come with them followed after them, and sundry came from Amsterdam to see them shipt, and to take their leaves of them. One night was spent with little sleep with the most, but with friendly entertainment and Christian discourse, and other real expressions of true Christian love.

 

The next day they went on board, and their friends with them, where truly doleful was the sight of that sad and mournful parting, to hear what sighs and sobs and prayers did sound amongst them; what tears did gush from every eye, and pithy speeches pierced each other's heart, that sundry of the Dutch strangers that stood on the Key as spectators could not refrain from tears. But the tide (which stays for no man) calling them away, that were thus loath to depart, their Reverend Pastor, falling down on his knees, and they all with him, with watery cheeks commended them with the most fervent prayers unto the Lord and His blessing; and then with mutual embraces and many tears they took their leaves one of another, which proved to be the last leave to many of them.

 

Being now passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before them in expectations, they had now no friends to welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, no houses, or much less towns, to repair unto to seek for succour; and for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of the country know them to be sharp and violent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search unknown coasts.

 

Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wilde beasts and wilde men? and what multitudes of them there were, they then knew not: for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to Heaven) they could have but little solace or content in respect of any outward object; for summer being ended, all things stand in appearance with a weatherbeaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew.

 

If they looked behind them, there was a mighty ocean which they had passed, and was now as a main bar or gulph to separate them from all the civil parts of the world.

 

 

 

The Journal also publishes an annual companion piece, AND THE FAIR LAND, which provides a more contemporary meditation on the meaning of Thanksgiving.

 

Tyranny of the Majority

James Madison

The American Founders were very clever fellows. And while they may have lacked the foresight to  anticipate the ever increasing complexity of issues that would face their new nation as the events of future centuries unwound, they very clearly understood the nature of the human condition. It could be argued that some things simply don't change.

Writing in Federalist No .47, James Madison argued that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." While he was specifically referring to the need for the three branches of government to be "separate and distinct",  this sentiment could be applied to the whole system of checks and balances, which is manifested in the operating rules and regulations of the various branches of government.

Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Tom, Korologos opines on the Senate's invoking of the "nuclear option" thereby killing of the filibuster rule. Korologos explains:

"In leading the charge, Majority Leader Harry Reid erased 225 years of precedent and altered the soul of the U.S. Senate."

His article also includes a handy re-cap of the various requirements contained in the Constitution so as to protect against Tyranny. You might want to send  the article to your favorite Senator, or to the President for that matter.

Speaking from the Senate floor in 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama, former Constitutional Law professor, railed against the possibility of Republicans invoking the same nuclear option:

"Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications of what has been called the nuclear option and what effect that might have on this Chamber and on this country,” Obama said “I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate.”

You may also want to check out the entire Breitbart article, by Matthew Boyle, to see what other Democrat luminaries had to say at the time.


So what we have here is a president on the ropes due to the melt-down of what was to have been his signature legislative program, scrambling to change the collective subject. He invited his friends in the media to the White House to ask their help in burnishing his tarnished image, including that they  excise the word, "Obamacare" from their reporting. He also has actively lobbied Senate Democrats to encourage their invocation of the nuclear option. 225 years of precedent, thrown under the bus in an attempt to shift public attention away from the further critique of the Emperor's wardrobe. To paraphrase Dean Wormer, " Son, promoting unworkable, big-government schemes, while being over one's head and, increasingly out-of-control, is no way to go through life."

Bonfire of the Inanities

Charles Krauthammer

To coin a phrase, this is Big! The Obamacare meltdown is sure to go down in history as a major watershed for modern Progressives, the adherents to a movement that has spawned the conceit that big government can solve any problem (except, maybe, runaway deficits) . But amid the swirl of concerns for immediate issues like wide-spread policy cancellations and eye-popping premium increases, this fiasco begs for longer term considerations. Writing in Thursday's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer does his usually superb job of getting at the essence of the issue, and it's not just the floundering web site that he likens to "the literal portal to this brave new world". He cuts to the chase and challenges the government's abilities to manage this effort which encompasses one-sixth of our GDP.

It is arguable that the administrative state, run by bureaucrats operating under poor management and oversight would have a challenge administering a carefully drafted, well-thought out program. When it applies its limited skills to the ACA, which still remains essentially unread by most of us, it is hard to understand how any other result, but that we are now experiencing, is possible. Add to this the lies and misinformation about the program that are just now coming to light, the demand for immediate repeal of this mess is becoming the more and more likely solution. And we haven't yet begun to understand the real costs of the plan. Hint: it will add much more than one dime to the deficit.

Former House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a key player in the original passage of the ACA, has continued to play bit parts in the act's roll-out and subsequent flame- out  It was she who famously told us that we have to pass the bill in order to find out what is in it. While it is fashionable in some quarters to dismiss the U.S. Constitution as an old out-of- date relic, there is the fact that it continues to be the basis for our federal government. Concerned citizens who see the danger in straying from our founding principles are ridiculed and/or ignored. When asked in 2009, where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance, Madam Speaker replied, "Are you serious?, are you serious? ". Maybe she should at least get points for honesty.

"Fixing" Poverty

In Barbara Mulvey-Welsh's opinion piece, The Politics of Poverty, published recently in Plymouth's Old Colony Memorial newspaper, she does a credible job of reminding us how easy it is to slide into poverty and shows striking empathy for those who end up on the short end through no fault of their own.

We would take her to task, however, for her passivity towards those that cheat the system, willing to accept a measure of waste, or even fraud, to ensure benefits for the truly needy.  This is not an either/or choice. The cheats are not only stealing from the taxpayers, but are also jeopardizing the benefits of those in need. It’s not enough to throw large chunks of taxpayer money at a problem. Administrators must follow through with effective management and oversight to ensure that the funds are being spent for the stated purpose. If this isn't possible, then the program itself becomes subject to a loss of public support, and possibly funding. Supporters of these programs, like Barbrara should be demanding oversight and management to protect those truly needy recipients.

Government programs are seen by many as being the answer to all of society's problems. In addition to lax oversight, however, the frequency of unintended consequences often dogs even the most well-intentioned public initiative.

To wit, the call for a national minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage is regularly proposed as the solution to all manner of perceived poverty.  But as the cost of minimum-wage labor increases, demand for that labor declines as employers adjust their budgets to the new cost structure.  This has the net effect of increasing the unemployment rate among the most vulnerable.

For a more in-depth treatment of the subject, read Heritage Foundations' James Sherk's recent post, especially the experience of American Samoa.  In the minds of many, big corporations are thought able to easily absorb the cost of an increase in the minimum wage, but this assertion ignores the reality of basic economic supply and demand. Or, as Sherk puts it , "Good Intentions do not repeal the laws of economics."
  

In spite of its flaws, our Free Market System consistently provides superior opportunity and higher incomes to the lower income brackets, than other world social systems.  

Reforming The Mass. EBT Program, a first step

Rep. Shaunna O'Connell

A hat tip to Mass. Rep Shaunna O'Connell (R, Taunton), et.al. for refusing to accept the passive attitude of the Beacon Hill bureaucrats, as they file legislation designed to, at least, begin the clean up of this financial embarrassment. Known for her tireless work at digging out the truth about the out-of-control costs and abuses of this program, these proposed amendments lay out a plan for bringing the program under control. Thanks are due, not only from taxpayers, but from the truly needy that depend on this program. Find out more at her WebSite

 

 

  

Nicole Thibault

Legislative Aide

Office of Representative Shaunna O'Connell

Third Bristol District

State House, Room 237

Boston, MA  02133-1054

(617) 722-2305

Nicole.Thibault@mahouse.gov

  

Contact: Nicole Thibault

617-722-2305

November 5, 2013

Immediate Release

 

 

O’Connell Files Amendment to Strengthen Welfare Reform

End the Loopholes

Taunton, MA.  . . Today at the State House Representative Shaunna O’Connell  along with Representatives Geoff Diehl, Jim Lyons, Ryan Fattman, and Leah Cole announced that they are filing multiple amendments to strengthen the welfare reform package and end the loopholes.

“The problems plaguing the Department of Transitional Assistance have been occurring for far too long.  It is time to end the loopholes,” said O’Connell. “We need to plug the holes so we can ensure the integrity of the program. Allowing people to defraud the system doesn’t help anyone on assistance,” said O’Connell.

“Strengthening the integrity of public assistance programs insures that critical resources go to those in need of assistance and not to those who would game the system and abuse the trust of Massachusetts citizens who understand and want to lend a helping hand to their neighbors. I’m proud of the amendments that my colleagues and I have filed to insure that the safety net we’re able to provide is not compromised and I urge all members of the House and Senate to adopt these common-sense measures,” said Diehl.

“I grew up on public housing assistance.  I understand how people can fall down in their luck and need some help from time to time.  However, we need to strengthen the work requirements so we can end the cycle of dependency and teach personal responsibility,” added O’Connell.

The O’Connell amendment package includes:

·         Requiring the sponsor of a lawful permanent resident be financially responsible if a new immigrant collects benefits within the first 5 years of living in the United States.

·         Requiring the Department of Transitional Assistance to contact recipients if accounts lay dormant for 3 months rather than the one year period in the bill.

·         Requiring asset verification.  O’Connell has repeatedly filed legislation requiring a 14 point check system to ensure people are truly needy.

·         Adding to the reporting requirement how many sponsored green card residents are using benefits

·         Requiring a recipient to report in person to DTA if their mail is undeliverable

·         Ending self-declarations

·         Requiring case workers to verify information contained in work verification forms and landlord verification forms.

·         Require applicants to immediately supply a Social Security number to get benefits unless a person has certain protected status, such as a victim of domestic violence.

·         Prohibiting the use of cash assistance in other states that don’t border Massachusetts

For the past two and a half years, O’Connell has led the charge for reforming welfare and the Department of Transitional Assistance.  Due to her efforts a considerable amount of fraud has been exposed.  Most recently DTA had to disclose how EBT card balances were run up without any oversight.  One balance had grown to $12,000.  There are over 1800 cards with a balance of $1500 or more.  O’Connell paid an $800 fee for the data to obtain the information.

O’Connell passed the legislation to stop the purchasing with EBT cards of alcohol, tobacco and lottery tickets. 

To prevent further fraud, O’Connell and her colleagues strongly believe that there must be greater oversight of the application process to ensure only the truly needy are obtaining assistance.

Don't Blame Obamacare?

An editorial in today's Boston Globe makes a number of assertions regarding health care insurance as part of its efforts in support of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. At the risk of employing Claude Raines - style indignation (I'm shocked. shocked to find  the Globe is going in the tank for this Progressive attempt to control one-sixth of the nation's economy),These points beg for challenge.

For example, Senator Ted Cruz is taken to task for his concerns about families having their insurance coverage cancelled. "Oh no", says the Globe, which claims that these folks had plans providing only "threadbare coverage", such plans do not provide adequate catastrophic coverage. which could lead to huge medical bills for the family, which would ultimately dribble down to the taxpayers for payment.  We are not sure what basis the Globe has for this opinion, and while its possible that such a series of events could take place, they are clearly using a broad brush to bash the health care plans of 93 million Americans. let's look at the actual choices someone might make in choosing a health plan.

The place to save money in most health insurance plans is at the front end of the treatment process. By accepting higher deductibles and co-pays, significant reductions in premiums can often be achieved. Many, if not most, consumers are much more worried about a catastrophic illness, and its associated costs, than they are about having to write a check for a co-pay, especially if the family is relatively young and healthy.  Wise consumers will generally shop around for the best balance between coverage for incidentals and catastrophic illness. It seems incredulous that someone would go to the trouble of getting health insurance and not having catastrophic coverage that protect against a disastrous and high cost illness.

Government mandates also tend to increase costs. Much is made, for example about plans that do not cover pre-existing conditions. While this may seem unfair to some, the insurance company is basing its premium on the probability of an illness occurring. Under a mandate to cover pre-existing conditions, the probability is 100%. If the insurance company is required by law to cover an existing illness, the premiums must be increased to compensate. Think about a homeowner who could buy fire insurance only after his house catches fire.

So now, instead of the individual trying to purchase only the coverage they want, here comes the government telling you what coverage you must have, and, of course, pay for.

"Cruz and some other conservatives", are criticized for bemoaning the loss of choice that individuals will experience as the government steps in to decide what plan provisions they must have, justifying the loss of freedom as needed to protect against the supposed costs of treating serious illness that would flow to the taxpayer when the consumer's "cheapo" plans fail to pay. BTW, guess who pays for the subsidies to low income (400% of the poverty level !) policyholders.

Perhaps the computer "glitches" can be fixed, but the ACA itself is an unsuccessful attempt to put the bureaucrats in charge of a profoundly personal set of decisions. This poorly-conceived, badly -drafted, and still poorly-understood  behemoth of a Bill, that was rammed through Congress and continues to be promoted with a drumbeat of lies and misinformation, some of which comes from erstwhile respected journals, now needs to be repealed before any more damage is done to one of the world's premiere health care systems. Moreover, conspiracy theorists, who see the ACA as a stalking horse for a massive single-payer plan (long the ultimate of Progressive aspirations) are beginning to accumulate credibility beyond the fringes.

No Wasted Crisis

To paraphrase Rahm Emanuel, a good crisis should not go to waste. The roll out of Obamacare certainly qualifies as a major crisis, on multiple fronts, and it's not just the website. Nancy Pelosi famously said that we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it. Not exactly, Nancy.  The real learning experience, at least for the American people, is when those cancellation notices start arriving and we find out that the President apparently had his fingers crossed when he told us we could keep our exisiting insurance plans. The back peddling has been world class as the Administration scrambles to stay out in front of what is starting to become a disaster of epic proportions.

It seems as though he meant to say that you could keep your old plan if that plan meets all the mandates under the new law. A huge "If". And even though millions of Americans had been doing just fine with plans that fit their needs for coverage and deductibles, we now find out that these plans are actually sub-standard products being pedaled by unscrupulous insurance companies. Who knew?

Good Question. It turns out that those crafty little devils that designed Obamacare knew all along that the new law would trigger mass cancellations which would force people to go to the Exchanges for a "legal" replacement policy. Yesterday,a Forbes article spills the beans that the according to a report in the June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials were predicting "massive disruption in the private insurance market", and even more shocking, this chaos would include the "market for employer-sponsored plans". It looks like an estimated that 93 million Americans are suddenly finding themselves in the ACA's path of destruction. At this point, the hard core Koolaid-sippers are getting ready to say how Obama didn't know about this, which only adds to the increasingly voluminous subjects that our putative brainiac president didn't know about.

When we started writing this post, the theme was going to be that the crisis of the ACA might have a silver lining in that it might help more of the average Americans to finally wake up to the long-term dangers of the Progressive agenda. After more than a hundred years of mission creep, this movement has been chipping away at our freedom under the promise that the technical experts of the administrative state can run our lives better than we can. Under ACA, you are going to be forced to buy insurance that you may not want, with mandated coverages that you may not desire and at an increased cost that will throw a big wrench into many family's monthly budgets. But now, as we discover more and more about this orchestrated lie fest, the concerns may well be turning from one of concern over the government's inept administration to a concern about an organized program of mis-information. All things being equal, I think we would rather deal with incompetence.

In the interest of full disclosure, we were concerned that congressional Republicans made a mistake when they chose to make the de-funding of the ACA as their main negotiating point during the recent government shutdown. We are now coming to realize that they were spot on. This legislation monster needs a stake through its heart.