7 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
That is actually what I like about the protests in Washington - it shows a progression of how serious we are. We started with calling last year, small protests early this year, a big protest on 9/12; visiting offices this past week; and now we will be involving state legislatures.
Our effort will succeed because Americans will not live under tyranny. The only question is how far do these protests have to go before the tyrants realize that they can not win. On Saturday, they clearly indicated that they still do not understand.
Due to the design of the RealID law, it could be easily silently nullified by state legislatures. In other words, the law required the states to take action and the states did not take action - in most (all?) cases they did not pass legislation to nullify federal law, they just ignored it. The Health Care bill is a different beast. The law requires direct action from individuals and companies; the states are to some degree a third party to many of the key requirements. Thus, while nullification laws would be welcome, they would have minimal practical effect.
This law will require direct nullification actions from corporations and individuals - what is more commonly referred to as civil disobedience. It is difficult for corporations to disobey because they require licenses from the government and are easily sued by their employees. And most employees faced with conforming plans from their employer at discounted rates vs buying a (more personalized but vastly more expensive) plan on their own will opt for the employer plan, even if that means they buy into the government system. This is a problem because civil disobedience only works when the masses participate.
Thus, I think we are looking for something more than simple disobedience or nullification of this one law. Something that is peaceful but that the tyrants in Washington are unable to ignore. Craig T Nelson suggested not paying income taxes. That still seems a bit extreme, but I think it is in the right direction.
I am surprised that the concept of prohibiting the government from bailing out firms has not gotten more discussion. To me, this is one of the biggest violations of the Constitution going on right now and is one of the items that seems to have the public at large OUTRAGED. I recognize that this is not the only problem; but it seems as if it should be in the top ten and it does not seem to be getting as much coverage as some less important topics (like making Congressmen work for free.)
BTW: Everyone should join the 21st Century Tea Party tomorrow. See http://digitalmarch.blogspot.com/2009/03/congress...
It seems to me that most earmarks are inserted as small items on much larger bills. In essence, the congressmen know that their proposals will not be able to withstand the light of day. My recommendation is that we target this practice by prohibiting any designation of funds in any bill that is less than some percentage (e.g., 5%) of the total cost of the bill. So, even if Congress decides to do something stupid like pass a $800 billion stimulus bill, they would not be allowed to have any line item that was worth less than $40 billion. I think that would make it much harder for Congress to pass any large bill (because they will still want control over spending). And with more small bills, the President will have something close to the line-item veto (since the actual line-item veto was thrown out).
Politicians do take notice of public direction and respond. Why do you think we had a balanced budget in the late 90's? It was because the politicians had seen the support for Ross Perot - the guy was hardly charismatic, but he had a message that resonated and the politicians took note. Unfortunately, too many voters were persuaded to keep their candidates and a few years later they were back to their old ways; nonetheless, the lesson remains. There is no reason that this effort can not be more successful. In fact, since it is not being run by a single egomaniac, I believe it will be much more successful. And in practice, had Perot been much more successful, he could have kicked out the Republicans (because we fundamentally have a 2-party system). If we can capitalize our momentum, there is nothing preventing us from 1) gaining control, and then 2) changing the system to eliminate the 2-party stranglehold on Washington.
Yes, the movement starts with each of us; but it should end in Washington by putting Washington in its place and restoring the Constitution, with minor updates to prevent the problems from recurring.
The issue provides an excellent example of the dangers of the national government controlling the schools. The schools should be controlled (and thus funded) by local government: the more local the better!
1. Allow companies to fail
2. Balance the budget responsibly
3. Implement the FairTax or similar plan (must be simple)
4. Increase domestic energy production responsibly
5. Restore a free market in health care
6. Fix Social Security
7. Restore local government
8. Allow our military to do its job
9. Impose term limits on Congress
10. Eliminate the two-party stranglehold on our country
If you want to read my detailed thoughts on these, they are posted on my blog at http://www.political-gumbo.com/2009/03/top-10-fix...