Legislating Values
Jan 31, 2006To legislate is to choose, and choices are made for the sake of values. But what values should, and which values do, guide our legislators?
Legislating Values: A Reprise
30 January 2006
Today's show is about Legislating Values. Our guest is Congresswoman Anna Eshoo. The episode was taped in front of a live audience, at an event we called Backstage Live with Philosophy Talk. It was a lot of fun. I love doing the show in front of an audience. The post below the fold is a repeat of the post I wrote back in April in advance of a Capitol Hill symposium on the topic of Legislating Values in which I was a participant. Since we've got many new listeners and readers and since it's pertinent to today's show and since I'm lazy, I thought I'd bring it back up to the top of the blog. I think I still believe everything I wrote back then. But hey, this is a blog, anyway, so it's alright to trot out less than fully developed ideas anyway. Right?
By the way, speaking of Capitol Hill, the whole crew will be back in DC, probably in April, to do an actual episode of Philosophy Talk from Capitol Hill, again in front of a live audience. We're going to DC at the invitation of the Congresswoman, who liked the show so much that she insisted that we come and put a show on up on the Hill. We're really honored to accept the invitation.
Speaking of taking the show on the road, before we go to DC , we head up to Portland, where we'll do two shows. The first one will be at the American Philosophical Association meeting, in front of an audience of our fellow professional philosophers. Our guests will be Brian Weatherson, Liz Harman, and, probably, some yet to be named third person. The topic will be "The Future of Philosophy." Come check us out if you're in Portland for the Pacific APA. There will be food, drink, philosophy and radio. We're hoping we can turn a room full of professional philosophers into accessible and engaging radio. Wish us luck!
The second Portland episode will be produced at the studios of Oregon Public Broadcasting, in front of an audience of their members. It's highly probable that that episode will be produced for television, as well -- in the mode of Imus in the Morning on MSNBC or, heaven forbid, Howard Stern. It should be fun.
Anyway, on to Legislating Values.
I've been invited to participate in a symposium on Capitol Hill on "Legislating Values: Setting Priorities for the 109 Congress." The event is co-sponsored by Stanford University and the Economist Magazine. The small audience of no more than 75 will consists primarily of Capitol Hill staffers, think tank types, some journalists, and some Stanford Alums. It's a really short deal -- one hour. So far, my fellow panelists are Senator Joe Lieberman and Adrian Wooldrige of the Economist Magazine, author of Right Nation. The organizers still hope to enlist the participation of a Republican member of either the House or the Senate. So far, they've had no luck. [Update: Senator Jeff Sessions has agreed to participate.] It should be fun. In a call with the organizers the other day, I was asked the following question. "Suppose you had the ear of a US Senator for an hour, what would you want to tell him or her about legislating values?" I thought I'd reflect just a little on that in this post.
My role in this symposium is not to be a policy advocate. I certainly have my views and won't shy away from expressing them. But I was asked to provide a more philosophical perspective by the organizers. Since I'm neither a political philosopher nor an ethicist by trade, I'm not sure exactly what they have in mind in inviting me. I do sometimes play a political philosopher and/or ethicist on the radio. Plus if you scratch any philosopher just a little, you'll find the blood of a would-be Philosopher King coursing profusely through his/her veins. I'm no exception. So whatever they had in mind, I'm glad to oblige.
In the conference call mentioned above, I was told that the issues that might be addressed included stem cell research, the recent "values oriented" presidential campaign, Social Security, health care legislation, and national security issues. Quite a list for a one hour symposium! I was also warned that given the way that discussions on Capitol Hill sometimes go, some breaking news event could dominate the symposium and any well thought-out prepared remarks I wanted to make might simply have to be thrown out the window.
Anyway, here are some initial thoughts about the issues they put in front of me. I'll take them in no particular order. First, about the general topic of legislating values, it seems to me that because we live in a polity with plural and conflicting values the national legislature ought to have a great deal of forbearance when it comes to legislating values. The legislature ought to be very very slow to ever impose one among the set of plural and conflicting values on the polity at large. It ought especially refrain from imposing values on the polity at large when that imposition cannot be justified by appeal to so-called public reasons. What exactly should count as a "public reason" is a matter of some contention. To a first approximation, by a public reason, I mean a reason acceptable as a reason to any reasonable participant in public debate, independently of their differences in comprehensive moral outlooks. A public reason should be recognizable as a reason to both a reasonable fundamentalist and a reasonable secularist, for example. There are some complications about this, but I won’t bother with them just now.
I don’t think the legislature is morally or rationally obligated to advance legislation only on the basis of public reasons. One can, though, read the non-establishment clause of the constitution as requiring legislation to have a basis in public reason. But whatever the precise legalities, I think there are very strong practical reasons for the legislature to refrain from adopting any narrowly sectarian rationale for its laws. These have to do with stability and legitimacy. In a democratic polity, the instruments of state power – especially the legislature and the executive – are simply there for the seizing by this party or that. If the party that seizes the instruments of power today, feels entitled by its victory to impose a narrowly sectarian set of values on the polity at large, then the competing party that seizes the instruments of power tomorrow will feel entitled to undo that imposition and impose values of its own. This seems to me a recipe for great social instability and for de-legitimization of the instruments of state power.
To get to a concrete issue, this means that the legislature ought not adopt a narrowly sectarian rationale for prohibiting, say, stem cell research. You can imagine someone deeply believing, on religious grounds, that even the mere blastocyst is an ensouled human life, with full human dignity, fully deserving the protection of the law. But that would stand as a reason to prohibit stem cell research only for someone who already adopted a certain narrowly sectarian moral outlook. And so by my lights that would be an illegitimate basis for public policy. To those of us who don’t share the narrowly sectarian outlook, a law based on that rationale alone would look more like a tyrannical imposition of a mere dogma.
I think it’s also worth thinking about the flip side of the question. Suppose that a substantial number of our fellow citizens do believe, as a matter of fundamental conviction, that the blastocyst is an already ensouled human life, with full human dignity. And suppose they believe this on dogmatic religious grounds. What are they to say to a state that will take no official notice of that conviction as a basis for public policy? “Ah well, we lose! Those are the breaks.” Fat chance! Especially if that conviction is shared by millions of fellow citizens. Those who hold such convictions would seem as entitled as anybody else to mobilize to change public policy. Moreover, some such convictions are are tied to projects that are deeply identity-constituting for those who hold them. If I am a committed fundamentalist, I do not regard my views about the sanctity of life as optional things that I may fairly be asked to abandon as the price of entry into the public square. To abandon those convictions is to abandon my very identity.
When the legislature legislates in ways that offends the most deeply held convictions of millions of citizens, especially when those convictions are tied to citizen’s identity constituting projects, there loom very real threats of instability and de-legitimization. And this is so even if the identity constituting convictions cannot withstand the public reasons test. That my reasons are not public, does not make them any less my reasons. I would expect a state in which I am to have a stake to be responsive to my reasons, whether or not they are public reasons. Of course, my reasons are not the only reasons. But a state in which I must abandon reasons that are distinctively my own, that are partly constitutive of my most identity constituting projects is not a state to which I can swear my deepest most enduring allegiance.
Let me hasten to add about the stability argument that I do not think that all instability is created equal. The emancipation of the slaves, the end of Jim Crow Segregation, forced busing to achieve school integration, the enfranchisement of women, African Americans, and other minorities, all involved great social, cultural and political upheaval. Many citizens objected strenuously to these changes. Nonetheless, to the extent that state power was instrumental in bringing about these changes, despite such determined resistance, such exercises of state power were, in my view, very good things. Where would be now, if arguments from stability had won the day against the forces of social progress?
Still, it has to be conceded that even now, sometimes many decades after the most heated debates have died down, we still feel the reverberations in our unsettled and divided politics of bygone days of turmoil and upheaval. Nonetheless, it seems right to me that stability in the service of reaction and repression is no virtue, instability in the service of progress no vice.
Unfortunately, though, it’s hard to come up with any principled basis for deciding just when the long term social benefits will outweigh the short or even long term social costs. This makes legislating values in a plural and conflicted social order an especially tricky thing. The one thing that I think is necessary, though certainly not sufficient, is a more enlightened and deliberative politics, a politics more firmly controlled by the real stake holders – we the people – rather than by a manipulative political class.
The political class in our country is really pretty astoundingly adept at manipulating and mobilizing certain voting blocks. What the political class largely doesn’t do very well, it seems to me, is to treat the people as the primary and essential stake holders in the deliberative processes of democracy. They come at us with phony issues that bear almost no connection to the hard choices that face us. Hardly any campaign I have witness has ever even attempted to lay out in an honest, systematic and fair-minded way, the real issues that face us, the real cost and benefits of the alternatives available to us, the real winners and losers. One might hope to find the media stepping in to play this role, but our corporate news media has gone vapid in the extreme and mostly focuses on pointless play by play. Think of the most recent presidential campaign and consider the debate now raging about the future of Social Security. What in that campaign laid the groundwork for the current debate? As far as I can tell nothing at all. Bush’s strategy was to energize and mobilize certain constituencies on the basis of what seems to me an utterly phony set of values issues. Kerry's strategy was, well, hard to fathom. Once Bush had successfully used this cynical but effective technique to regain the stage, we are confronted, almost out of nowhere, with an attempt to radically alter Social Security. In the process, we are subjected to a stream of utterly misleading rhetoric about an impending crisis, rhetoric that construes Social Security as an investment vehicle rather than as a kind of social insurance. Whatever your view about Social Security, it’s hard to imagine any thinking reflective person having the feeling of being engaged as an equal stake holder rather than having the feeling of being manipulated and misled.
What seems to be saving the day and causing the outbreak of something like an honest debate is the surprising refusal of the Democrats to cave any further. Partly that is because there is really so little caving room left and so little politcal upside in further caving. So suddenly they have re-discovered a backbone of sorts and have rediscovered the virtues of principle over mere tactical positioning. Add to that the fact that the populace at large may have learned a lesson from the run up to the Iraq War. Whether you believe the administration deliberately lied to us or was deluded by blind imperial ambition or merely made a series of honest mistakes, it’s clear that the justification originally offered for that war has turned completely sour. Too much of that sort of thing and even the grand masters of manipulation start to lose credibility.
My point is that we urgently need a more honest, more deliberative politics, a politics that treats us all as real stakeholders, fully entitled to democratic participation, fully entitled to know the real costs and benefits of the alternatives available to us. Partly because of the foibles of human reason and the perversions introduced into our system by concentrated power, I am not entirely optimistic. Americans like to believe that we have the best of everything: the most vibrant economy in the world, the fairest system of justice, the best health care system, and on and on. The plain facts, hardly ever spoken of in our vapid corporatized media, often say otherwise. Our vibrant economy produces staggering inequalities between rich and poor. Our system of health insurance leaves tens of millions with few options but to turn to emergency rooms, at great costs to all. We have incarcerated more people for more crimes for longer periods than any industrialized democracy in the world. If we merely look around the world, we see that it need not be so. Democratic societies have handled some of the same problems that we face with far less division, inequality and injustice. Faced with these realities, however, many of us who are not imprisoned, who still have decent health care, or find ourselves on the upside of income inequality tend to construct comforting narratives that justify to us our own privileged position in the order of things. That does not make us evil or pernicious. It merely makes us human. But it also makes us ripe for the exploiting and manipulating by a set of concentrated interests, fully invested in maintaining certain elements of the status quo. Unfortunately, these concentrated interests own a large chunk of our politics. They are masters of manipulation and masters at mobilization on phony issues that don’t really get to the heart of the real issues we face together. Until their death grip on our politics is broken, many fundamental problems will, I fear, go entirely unaddressed.
Comments (10)
Guest
Monday, April 11, 2005 -- 5:00 PM
Dear Ken Taylor: First I would say to please spDear Ken Taylor:
First I would say to please speak in a common language. Do not go into abstract notions where only philosophers understand what you are saying. Speak plainly in the spirit of Thomas Reid, G.E. Moore, J.L. Austin, and Ronald Reagan. People will be shaking their heads and agreeing with you because of your Ph.D., but that does not mean that they understand you. It has been my experience that in order to convince political science majors through argument, an empirical/utilitarian approach works best. You can?t really plan what you are going to talk about, just use emotion when you speak-it is a great tool to convince people. I am sure you will do great.
Guest
Tuesday, April 12, 2005 -- 5:00 PM
I would expect a state in which I am to have aI would expect a state in which I am to have a stake to be responsive to my reasons, whether or not they are public reasons. Of course, my reasons are not the only reasons. But a state in which I must abandon reasons that are distinctively my own, that are partly constitutive of my most identity constituting projects is not a state to which I can swear my deepest most enduring allegiance.
Ken, I think this really captures why so many people feel alienated from their government (at all levels) these days. The public "discourse" is dominated by strategists rather than folks who are actually interested in engaging in a dialogue about reasons. Certainly, if the "deliberative body" in our legislative branch opts for the nuclear option, we'll have pretty much abandoned hope of having the government work to build a public sphere where we take each other's reasons seriously (and critically re-examine our own reasons). It then becomes a matter of winner-take-all, majority's reasons trample minority's.
(There's the other cynical worry I have that the reasons articulated by the political strategists are not always the reasons that are actually driving them. I'm sure when you get to Washington you'll be able to tell me I'm wrong about this!)
Anyhow, I think the big message from the Kingdom of Philosophers ought to be that we need a return to honest dialogue and a commitment to take each other seriously even when we disagree. Knock 'em dead!
Guest
Wednesday, April 13, 2005 -- 5:00 PM
if you scratch any philosopher just a little,if you scratch any philosopher just a little, you'll find the blood of a would-be Philosopher King coursing profusely through his/her veins
[LOL] Truer words were never spoken!
Guest
Friday, April 15, 2005 -- 5:00 PM
The only king I would like to be is to be able toThe only king I would like to be is to be able to rule my own spirit.
Guest
Tuesday, February 7, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
The recent cartoon controversy recasts this issue.The recent cartoon controversy recasts this issue. When choosing between public values, identifying the *superordinate* public value in an increasingly globalized world, is the issue. Is that value the freedom to publish works even if they publicly, deeply and intentionally offend some people, or is it the right of people not to be publicly, deeply and intentionally offended? (I take the latter to be a general public value of at least some merit, even if some individuals may count as offenses, offenses against their sectarian values). If the former value is to have priority over the latter, should this extend to publications that are designed to *show* that the former value has priority over the latter, by giving deep, intentional offense? Where is the legal limit drawn, if drawn at all? If the latter value is to have priority over the former, where is the limit to be drawn on a person's right to declare a publication deeply and intentionally offensive? Where is the legal limit to be drawn, if drawn at all? These two values have the potential to be completely incompatible, particularly when cultures overlap.
Guest
Sunday, February 26, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
One little-known sidebar in this discussion is thaOne little-known sidebar in this discussion is that, historically, Christian fundamentalism has been quite disengaged from legislating values. Depending on when you believe fundamentalism began (most historians see 19th-century conservative Christians as being something different than 20th-century fundamentalists), the basic political impulse of fundamentalism until the Moral Majority was retreat. Politics were "of the world," and many if not most fundamentalists had a theology of disengagement called "premillenialism," which taught that the world HAD to get worse and worse (for so had God decreed) until Christ returned. They saw the world as a "sea of sin" and the gospel message as a lifeboat from which sinners should be plucked to escape ruin. The emphasis was on saving sinners, not saving the social order.
Undoubtedly, Jerry Falwell deserves the most credit for changing the fundamentalist political ethos into to what it is today. He shunned the Christian political engagement of Martin Luther King because it just wasn't the job of Christians to make the world better (the racial implications are also clear in this context). However, when he saw a growing acceptance in our society for not only "Adam and Even" but "Adam and Steve," that was too much. Christians had to speak out!
Falwell remains to this day a firm premillenialist, which is a screwy basis for political engagement, but other fundamentalists have adopted a different theological framework called "postmillenialism," which holds that Christ will only return WHEN Christians have so advanced a Christian society somewhere on the earth (American might be a good place for this, so they reason) that the world is "prepared" for his return. Postmillenialism is the theological substratum for a "theonomic" approach to government, which is really scary. Radical theonomists advocate a complete return to the Law of Moses as a framework for civil government, including capital punishment for adultary, blasphemy, and disobedient children (some secularists might endorse this idea!).
At any rate, many fundamentalist parishioners (and even some of their ministers) have no idea that their tradition is rooted in political disengagement, and many continue to attend churches with premillenialist doctrinal statements without having a clue as to what premillenialism actually is and how it de-legitimizes their political activities.
Guest
Sunday, March 26, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
Let me begin by saying how much I enjoyed this posLet me begin by saying how much I enjoyed this post. So thoughtful and reasonable. However, I do have a response to this part of your post:
"Suppose that a substantial number of our fellow citizens do believe, as a matter of fundamental conviction, that the blastocyst is an already ensouled human life, with full human dignity. And suppose they believe this on dogmatic religious grounds. What are they to say to a state that will take no official notice of that conviction as a basis for public policy? ?Ah well, we lose! Those are the breaks.? Fat chance! Especially if that conviction is shared by millions of fellow citizens. Those who hold such convictions would seem as entitled as anybody else to mobilize to change public policy. Moreover, some such convictions are are tied to projects that are deeply identity-constituting for those who hold them. If I am a committed fundamentalist, I do not regard my views about the sanctity of life as optional things that I may fairly be asked to abandon as the price of entry into the public square. To abandon those convictions is to abandon my very identity."
As you noted earlier, those who hold convictions based on evidence that they could not reasonably expect their fellow citizens to accept are not entitled (if they form a majority) to mobilize to change public policy on the basis of those convictions. If they want to change public policy, let them find reasons that their fellows could reasonably be expected to accept (at least in principle). To say this is not to say that fundamentalists, say, must *abandon* their religious convictions in order to mobilize for policy change. It is to say that fundamentalists must *bracket* their religious convictions when arguing for one public policy over another. If we are all, fundamentalists and atheists alike, to live together in a single society that treats everyone with equal respect, then we must recognize that only public reasons are acceptable in the public square.
Guest
Saturday, April 1, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
Here is an article I wrote these last 4 days on aHere is an article I wrote these last 4 days on a current imporatant legislation issue. Since it involves current legislation in the Senate I put it here under "Legislating Values." I could not think of any other place to put it. I think it is philosophical because it involves America's morality regarding immigration in not in general how one man treats another fellow human being. Anyway it is an important topic, so I would like your philosophical viewpoint.
Slavery was outlawed with the emancipation proclamation, but there are still human beings treated like slaves in America. After slavery big business interests still needed people to pick the cotton and vegetables for if not free, very low wages, their solution, migrant labor. Since they are not Americans their human rights are not being looked after. Everyday labor from the backs of Mexican migrant workers feed the hungry mouths of Americans.
What do these Mexicans migrant workers get for their cheap labor? They receive ridicule and scorn from the media and politicians who look after business interests. The difference between the amount of money their labor should get and the amount of money their labor gets is their unrecognized contribution to America. So far this unjust solution has worked but Americans are starting to awaken to this injustice and see that immigration reform is needed.
Business interests that hire illegal workers for low wages have to keep the ridicule on Mexicans and make it look like Mexican migrants are the bad guys so that the spotlight will not be shined on them showing how they are taking advantage of Mexicans. If the spotlight was shined on them they would have to pay Mexican migrant workers at least minimum wage. In a country where the minimum wage is not a living wage, how much more so are business interests going to strive to keep Mexican illegal workers from being paid what their labor is truly worth. The criminals are not Mexican migrants but business interests that are taking advantage of their cheap labor.
Americans must tell their congressmen to pass a guest worker program that allows Mexicans to do the jobs that Americans won?t do such as farm labor and at least get paid minimum wage for it. America is a land of immigrants and Mexicans who cross the border to do jobs that Americans won?t do have contributed as much as other Americans to keep this country going.
Don?t get me wrong it is important for America to protect her borders. Passing a guest worker program will allow our border patrol to use the time they would normally use on catching migrant workers who are just trying to do an honest days work with their hands and concentrate on real criminals like drug dealers, human traffickers, gang members, and terrorists. America does not have control of her borders and the reason for this is because current immigration policy is outdated and flawed.
I am for a guest worker program that allows Mexican migrant workers to work in the United States to do work that American?s won?t do while at the same time providing America with verification of their identity. I am for strengthening borders security by taking such measures as building a fence. I am also for ending the ?catch and release? program that seems totally absurd. I am also for a law that requires all Border Patrol uniforms to be made in the United States.
Now that I have told you what I am for I will tell you what I am against. I am not for ending the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, because America is a melting pot with many different cultures and we should encourage our diversity. I am not for criminalizing migrant workers. I am also not for criminalizing religious clergy and good Samaritans who try to help migrant workers from dying of thirst in the deserts of the southwest.
The main point is that there are good and bad parts to the hr 4437 bill. Parts of the bill I feel are fueled by bigotry and racism or the need to appease those viewpoints, while other parts are badly needed to reform immigration. But I must state again that the immigration bill should not pass without a guest worker program that helps peaceful human beings feed their families through their labor without being criminals. There needs to be a guest worker program included in the bill. When you are eating a fruit, or making a dish for your children that requires a migrant worker?s labor remember the person who probably picked it and had to suffer injustice after injustice just so that you could put the food in your family?s mouth.
Guest
Thursday, February 25, 2010 -- 4:00 PM
2/26/2010 Please tell the People why a force pay2/26/2010
Please tell the People why a force pay into a failed system of Health Care Insurance Companies, and also to futher burden that cost of a system by a tax forum ?
Thank You
I wish to give a great big thank you to all my new friends on the Internet for posting FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward.
This building block for a honest Health Care Reform has been a great experience and for any one who did not take part, you have truly missed out on what makes Americans Great. This diversity created by Government Officials has failed and now the eyes of 173 million American People watch as now, for the first time Government Officials sit down together as it should be. The out come is yet to be seen. But they know that a anomaly has been created and it is because of the restructuring of The Constitution, The Bill Of Rights, and The Declaration Of Independence, ?has been used in it original created forum? as a factor of a peoples right to undo the amendments of Laws that protected Health Care Companies against the People, over a dollar.
And I wish to say i write what is needed in order that some how I can undo all the wrong I have done in hopes that the slate will be wiped clean....
Just because our children do not understand I wish to share this again,
?For days I worked the word diversity in my mind and it came to me that because of this it is not Americas weakness it is our greatest strength. And this is how I will show you.
Constitution-
Bill Of Rights -
The Declaration of Independence-
United under one forum, builds what is called the Trinity of the Protection Of Laws. This is because these Laws were built by people of faith who gave thanks to God for this wisdom. One would have to see and admire the simplicity of the three as one and at the same time they maintain their independence.?
On page 100 at our site is the early stages of what is called A Prime Directive for Health Care, so please drop on by and see 173 million peoples views in and for Health Care. And it should be known that this information on page 100 is true and documented in Law and History.
Henry Massingale
FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward
www.fascmovement.mysite.com on google look for page 1 American dream official site.
2/26/2010
Wow, It was stated that Health care is not a moral issue,hmmmm
Please allow me to share a little story with you. As I watched my mom die from cancer, and Health care Insurance Companies dumped on her as if she was no more than a dog dieing on the side of the road, i dropped from and out of this system for over 30 years, and now because of system failure, the IT, has come into my life. As I watch Government Officials fight over this Health care Dollar, it reminds me of a bright sunny day in Tennessee while on a friends farm and a little bug flew in to the ground, and the chickens went plum off, boy oh boy the scawking and the feathers went shy high, so I reached down and I took this scared little Health Care Bug from Government Officials, and I have it safely in my hands. As I searched for a way to help, I asked God to help me build a Reform that is of a moral building block for the better good of man kind and to rebuild the National Security of the United states Of America. And you would never guess what God has allowed me to see. This little blog statement you will find true,
first;
I wish to give a great big thank you to all my new friends on the Internet for posting FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward.
This building block for a honest Health Care Reform has been a great experience and for any one who did not take part, you have truly missed out on what makes Americans Great. This diversity created by Government Officials has failed and now the eyes of 173 million American People watch as now, for the first time Government Officials sit down together as it should be. The out come is yet to be seen. But they know that a anomaly has been created and it is because of the restructuring of The Constitution, The Bill Of Rights, and The Declaration Of Independence, ?has been used in it original created forum? as a factor of a peoples right to undo the amendments of Laws that protected Health Care Companies against the People, over a dollar.
And I wish to say i write what is needed in order that some how I can undo all the wrong I have done in hopes that the slate will be wiped clean....
Just because our children do not understand I wish to share this again,
?For days I worked the word diversity in my mind and it came to me that because of this it is not Americas weakness it is our greatest strength. And this is how I will show you.
Constitution-
Bill Of Rights -
The Declaration of Independence-
United under one forum, builds what is called the Trinity of the Protection Of Laws. This is because these Laws were built by people of faith who gave thanks to God for this wisdom. One would have to see and admire the simplicity of the three as one and at the same time they maintain their independence.?
On page 100 at our site is the early stages of what is called A Prime Directive for Health Care, so please drop on by and see 173 million peoples views in and for Health Care. And it should be known that this information on page 100 is true and documented in Law and History.
Henry Massingale
FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward
www.fascmovement.mysite.com on google look for page 1 American dream official site.
Guest
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 -- 5:00 PM
Hi everybody, I stopped by to blog again with youHi everybody, I stopped by to blog again with you all and to show you how the cause and effect of a work of uniting the views of 173 million inter faced sites has forced Government to sign this Bill to Law and now it is where It needs to be, in Court. Officials seek to balance, I seek to un-balance because I want the same as 89% of the People want, a honest Reform.
I am sorry but this Bill to Law needs to go back to formula. It is not built on equal standing between Social Grace of People and The People.
First off, somehow there is just to many people that do not understand the function of the Governing Bodies within Government. First, there are around 60 Personal that hold seats that write these Laws, both Democrat and Republican. Then this Bill for Law goes up for a vote and there is around 500 or so Republican and Democrats that vote. The sling talk of this of being the Obama Bill is not Political Correct within the use of words.
Now lets get to the issues of this Bill of Law being Unconstitutional.
I agree this new Health Care Law borders on a Constitutional Infringement and within the rush of putting it into action, a balance of dollar issues is lost. The placement of threats against the People is in fact Unconstitutional, as will as force pay.
Unfortunately the Law Suites against the Bill needs to be restructure within the Concepts Of Constitutional Infringements through the voice of the People it is this Voice that guides the destiny of the Country and the decisions within that Court. .For Example, the weight of 100 million people, and their words in Court bring weight of value to not destroy this Bill of Law but to take it back to formula.
I must agree with people that this Bill to Law is built within the concept of Social Grace and I do not blame people one bit for the out cry of the burden place against Companies and people that make a great deal of money.
The use of FASC Concepts 10% per cent on a yearly income that may have been used by Officials is in error because this forum of mine looks into the economic conditions within each home before a placement of payment can go forward, and we believe in the freedom of choice. {As of yet there has been no reply by Officials of Government if they used our Concepts.}
To show people that I do not belong to any Governing Parties or Insurance Companies, please enjoy the Roll back Concepts of FASC under economy buster at our site.
This issue we find unfair, According to information, that Tax Payers pay for over 75% of all Medical Cost for Government Officials. As it would seem this Social Grace, is not of a equal standing, as stated in Bill 101 of the New Health Care Laws. Government Officials are Civil Servants According to Law and should not be above the Law of this 10% Force Pay on a Yearly Income. Health care for U.S. Politicians receive the Countrys ,New health care plan to cover all government people (When the President, Senators, ... leaves office do they lose their federal employee health care or go on cobra like concept... Make them pay for their own Health care just as we do if they refuse to pay tax, what then ? { you can find this story also at the page for economy buster and the link } ...
My big complaint is that the 10% based, Health Care Forum Bill 101 is lacking inter structure and will not help the economic effected people, and will burden people who all ready have insurance.
This 1900 pages of Law is untested and only in theory. The fact still remains that because this Health Care System is a $100 Trillion Dollar per year system ,we feel that the Court should place this new Tax Theory { Bill to Law} under Court Supervision for 3 years, because of the failure of Officials to fix the existing Tax System. Without further in site of a balance, only a way to balance the existing in a concept that still eludes practical guidelines. As in I see no back up ideas like {plan B} and it, this Tax Plan is still based on a dollars being a constant flow of cash.
According to information that there is a plan to lay off City and County workers, that it is considered cheaper to put them on unemployment and Social Services then payroll. What would be more practical is to have every other weekend off or for those who wish, each weekend off. This includes Postal Workers. Also as in Deer field Beach Florida a out side contractor has offered a Bid Per Purposed Contract and lay offs will be against employees under so much time in and on that County job.
We do understand that Governing Officials are desperate for this Health Care Money, so as a concept of a way to balance trust again between Officials and the People, any Government official that has a Job Concept, they must put up a Bond as a Contractor would to build a project. Once the Job Conclusion has reached a successful point in it creation, Officials receive a refund.
As stated before, this Health Care Dollar belongs to the People, and I do have this Little Health Care Bug in my Hands. The balance of the views of 250 million people and all this diversity created by Officials is slowly coming to a silence, because I speak for the People and I offer respect to the views in a building block to a Health Care Reform, because of my concept to reform Government within this Health Care Issue, and I would ask the United States Supreme Court to place this Health Care Dollar under Court Supervision until it is deemed worthy of a People right to be a part of or not.
In 3 years our budget / deficit, can be a positive balance of $1.2 Trillion Dollars. But first we must put forward a Job, work force to strategically rebuild the United States in a anti / war crime forum. To place Factories where they serve that area of city or town.
I watched for 7 years this failure reach where it is today, ? I saw this?, but there was no intervention by Officials. Officials had their hats handed to them by Scam Artist, and The Arabic Drug Empire, cave dwellers. This issue has not one thing of how I believe, I can only share with you what I have watched for over 30 years take place and there must be a unity by the people to bring a reform to this new Law and to our Government.
No I am sorry President Obama, Officials need to earn trust again, and to become as one with the People. This is a way to say, look into the economic conditions at persons home before you over burden their lives, with this Bill to Law. This is why you was voted into Office.....
FASC Concepts in and for Pay it Forward covers the web see why we have become the largest web site in the United States, and we give our thank to the thousands of people who post by us, as one voice.
on google , yahoo, and aol www.fascmovement.mysite.com