Leading

Since the healthcare reform bill was passed by the House again, a lot of people have said a lot of things. I'd like to address them.

First, look at what this bill does.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/interactive/static/stories/healthcare-comparison.html
In essence, it requires everyone to have health insurance, provides subsidies for those who can't afford it, and fines people who still don't get it. In exchange, it forces health insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions at an affordable rate. There are hundreds more details, but that's the bill in a nutshell.

Now let's address the statements I'm seeing.

1. The government has just taken over health care. How, exactly? They've added some new regulations to the insurance industry, and they've added some new taxes and subsidies. Calling that "taking over health care" is a complete misrepresentation. The government has no more power over your health care under this bill than it had before it, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

2. This is an unconstitutional assault on our rights. Maybe that's so. But look at what just happened. The government is regulating a major industry, subsidizing the poor to make their lives better, and taxing people who engage in certain behavior more than those who don't. How is that any different than a dozen other programs the government has been engaged in since before any of us were born?

I do look forward to the impending lawsuits, because if this health care bill is thrown out, a lot of things people support much more strongly, like Medicare and Social Ssecurity and higher education funding, will be thrown out too. This will force us to actually discuss the real question of what the constitution should say, instead of chasing our tails arguing about what it already says.

3. Because there was significant opposition to this bill, our representatives have violated our democratic process by enacting it. We are not a direct democracy, we never have been, and we were never intended to be. Our representatives aren't just allowed to enact unpopular bills; when their conscience requires it, they're expected to. A congressman is supposed to be a leader, and leaders have to be able to make unpopular decisions for a group. Expecting our leaders to do what we tell them all the time betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of leadership, and of America as a concept.

It is not a violation of the democratic process for Congress to enact an unpopular measure. Congress doing something unpoopular, and us replacing them and undoing it, IS the democratic process! If anyone voted for this bill knowing they'd lose the next election because of it, good on them! Some people have the idea that Congressmen should do whatever their district wants. Some candidates have actually said that they will vote however they perceive their district wants them to, on every single issue. I'd rather elect a leader, and I think this district agrees with me.

4. Barack Obama should be assassinated. Statements like this are what destroy the democratic process, not bills of any sort. Statements like this are anti-American. I reject them, and I reject anyone who doesn't reject them. You can dress it up all you want, lie about his place of birth or his religion in the face of all evidence, or claim he's destroying the constitution. But Americans don't kill their leaders when we don't like them. That's what makes us better than much of the rest of the world. If you're talking about killing a man because his politics are different from yours, you are the greater threat to America, by far. You would drag a great nation down into the muck.

Now, for the more important question: what will I do?

The same thing I always do: I'll keep trying to make things better. I maintain that this bill was the stupidest, most banal, most spineless outcome this debate could have had. The Democratic party gave up everything they believed in and implemented a wide number of Republican ideas, all to appease the Republican party, knowing full well that the Republicans would never support a reform bill of any kind. What utter failure to lead.

But as much as I dislike this bill, it's still better than doing nothing and leaving tens of millions of Americans without healthcare, and the rest of us not far behind. I will support the repeal of this bill, if and only if a better reform bill is proposed in its place.

Until someone makes that proposal, I will continue to push for my four-point cost reduction plan, which will require no new taxes, no expansion of government power, and save the average American hundreds of dollars per year.

I'm not going to let this health care bill take over every moment of my campaign. I'm going to focus on solutions, instead of anger.

I'm going to lead.

Healthcare bill: What just happened?

The House just passed on a modified version of the Senate's health care reform bill. It seems likely that the Senate will approve their modifications, meaning that we're probably less than a week away from this becoming law. There's a lot of misinformation floating around, so if you're interested, you can see the differences among the three bills here.

I'm not exactly a fan of this bill, nor are a lot of other people.* It's one of the most comprehensively massive changes to the lives of every American that the federal government has executed in recent memory. The last year has been a gigantic series of compromises to reach this point. I'd like to trace the reasoning process as I understand it.
*I also have a slight tendency to understate matters.

Keep in mind, I am not defending this reasoning. I don't believe in calling people my enemies, but Sun Tzu's advice still applies: if you want to win, you must know your enemy. I present what I perceive to be each stem in this enormous compromise in bold, with my commentary interspersed.

Problem: lots of Americans don't have access to health care.
So far so good. This is indeed a problem. Slogans you'll see from other candidates like "The US has the best health care system in the world!" do nothing but distract from solving this problem. I'm still waiting for many candidates in this election to admit that there's actually anything wrong with the American health care system, much less propose a solution that will have any significant effect.

The government should make sure all Americans have health care!
Here's the first mistake. There's not enough digging into the problem. Why don't so many Americans have access to health care? Because it costs so much! Why does it cost so much? A combination of administrative costs, prescription costs, malpractice premiums, and pay-per-patient driving up practitioner costs. None of these are addressed in the final bill. The process went off the rails from day one, focusing on the symptoms instead of the actual problem.

How about single-payer? No, can't do that, it has a bad reputation in the US.
Years of propaganda about how horrible single-payer countries are has apparently paid off. Ask most people living in those countries and they're perfectly satisfied with the general quality of care. I oppose single-payer because I believe a market system can do better. I don't need to make it look worse than it actually is, because I fully believe people are capable of deciding based on facts. If you have to lie and manipulate the people to achieve your ends, it almost always makes you worse than the people you're trying to beat.

Okay, so we leave the market in place. How about as part of that market we create a publicly-operated health insurance company for those who can't get private insurance? No, we can't do that, the insurance companies don't like it.
I'm not entirely clear on how this died, but I believe it was primarily due to the interference of insurance companies in the political process. Some criticisms make sense: if the government directly competes with private insurance, private insurance can't keep up. But we're not talking about direct competition, we're talking about covering people that private companies don't want to cover anyway, the poor and those with pre-existing conditions. I suspect most of the opposition was because insurance companies thought they could get a better deal by the one remaining option:

Well, all that's left is to mandate that private companies cover people regardless of pre-existing conditions. But if we do that, people will just wait to buy insurance until they get sick, and that doesn't work. So we'll also have to mandate that everyone buy insurance from a private carrier. And if they don't? All we can do is fine them.

So we got here through a combination three of factors:

• Treatment of the symptom, lack of coverage, instead of the problem, high costs. This is due to a combination of ideological demands for universal government-provided coverage, and major corporate influences fearing lower costs will eat into their profits.
  
• Decades of propaganda about how bad single-payer is.
• Corporate influences spreading lies about how bad a public option would be.

And the worst part? Washington has wasted over a year debating a bill that, while it may have some merit, will almost certainly be shot down in court before it goes into effect in four years. Ideology and corporate influence killed any chance for the real, meaningful health care reform that we so desperately need.

Personal phone numbers

Today one of my opponents posted Rep. Cooper's personal cell phone number in public, encouraging people to call him about the health care bill. This is disgusting, disrespectful, and unprofessional. Elected representatives have separate office numbers and a private numbers for a reason. Call his office number if you want, it's 202-225-4311. That's what it's there for. But the man deserves a trusted method of communication, some way to communicate with staffers or for his family to get hold of him in an emergency.

Communication is good and necessary. Harassment is antithetical to democracy. Any of my supporters, please don't engage in harassment.

Fat Cats

Eric Schechter, one of the candidates for the TN-5 seat this fall, has started an organization called Vote No Fat Cats. Their intent is to end the dominance of money in our elections, a goal I fully support. So long as corporations have more political influence than individuals, so long as the financial barrier to participation into the political process is so high most people can't hope to reach it, our democratic process is broken. I intend to fix it.

As such, I have joined this organization, and I pledge that I will not accept any corporate donations. I encourage all candidates to do the same, and I ask all voters to take this organization into account when choosing your candidate in the fall.

My first quote

If you've been following may campaign, you may note I'm not much for quoting people. Quotes are mainly used to back up ideologies. Only rarely do they play a valid part in a reasoned argument, and reasoned argument is what I'm all about. It's what every campaign should be about, and the fact that it's not is why the political process fails so often.

But I just came across a quote I couldn't resist. You see, some look at my proposed solutions and shirk at the idea of amending the Constitution to solve problems. Some believe that the Constitution was perfect the way it was written, and that it is not our place to change the words of men so great. Thomas Jefferson would respond:

"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country."

We, as a nation, face problems that didn't exist 230 years ago. We should look to great men of the past for inspiration. But we should look to ourselves for solutions. This country is our responsibility, and shoving the job of solving our problems off onto men long dead is simply lazy.

2010 Census

I want to take a moment to address the 2010 Census, which has become an issue of some controversy in some groups.

Every ten years the government is required to conduct a census to determine how many people live in which states, and thus how many representatives each state has in the House. Exactly how this is done changes somewhat from decade to decade. In 2000, every household received a ten-question form. Every sixth household randomly received a longer survey including a number of other questions. Similar strategies have been used since at least 1960.

Starting in 2010, the census will be conducted differently. Everyone will still receive a ten-question form, which will be nearly identical to the 2000 form. However, there will no longer be a long form. Instead, the new American Community Survey, or ACS, will be sent to approximately 1/30 of the households in the country, every year. This survey is almost identical to the 2000 census long form. I may conceivably have missed some, but by my count the new questions are:

• IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, did anyone in this household receive Food Stamps or a Food Stamp benefit card?
• Please print below the specific major(s) of any BACHELOR’S DEGREES this person has received.
• Is this person CURRENTLY covered by any of the following types of health insurance or health coverage plans?
• Does this person have a VA service-connected disability rating? What is this person’s service-connected disability rating?
• In the PAST 12 MONTHS did this person get married? Divorced? Widowed?
• How many times has this person been married? In what year did this person last get married?
• Has this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months?

Now, let me address the specific criticisms I've heard of this new approach.

1. It's too intrusive. Most of these new questions are a matter of government record, and none are particularly more intrusive than previous censuses. Whether the long form has always been too intrusive is a question for legitimate debate. But this is nothing new for 2010.
2. The American Community Survey is part of some vague but malicious plot by the Obama administration. The US Census Bureau has been planning this change since 1995, so anyone you hear blaming this particularly on the Obama administration is, quite simply, lying in order to make you afraid.
3. The constitution only requires that you fill out the number of people in your household. Anyone telling you this is is just plain wrong. No census in the history of this country has ever only asked that! You can be fined for filling out false information, and failing to do so can reduce your state's representation in Congress. So fill out your census form!

Now, this new ACS form is different. It's not a census, so the government's authority to enforce your response is dubious. The law does say you can be fined for not filling out the ACS accurately and completely, but this law may not be constitutional. Since nobody has been fined as yet, there's been no opportunity to test it in court.

I intend to fill out the ACS should one come to my home. The question it asks address nothing I consider private, and the answers I give may provide our representatives with better information on which to base their decisions. If you instead choose to not respond, and choose instead to test the ACS in court, then I wish you well. Just be aware of exactly what it is you are fighting, and why.

Campaign Finance Reform

On January 21, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the matter of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Their ruling eliminated any limits on political spending by corporations.

I don't propose to get into the legal background of this case. I'm not a lawyer, and odds are neither are you. Instead I'm going to talk about democracy, and about what happens next.

Campaign finance reform is the one big issue that I've never published a position on. I had hoped to avoid the issue because, frankly, both sides made me uncomfortable, and I saw no obvious solution. One side of the debate advocated limiting free political speech, which, even if applied under the very limited circumstances of corporate ads, is still a very dangerous power for Congress to have. But the other side advocated unlimited, unregulated spending on campaigns, which is also anathema to me for a number of reasons. No solution I've ever heard proposed made me happy, because they all had one of these flaws. So I stayed out of it.

This was foolish. I apologize. It won't happen again. The SCOTUS ruling showed me that I had to take the matter back to first principles and find my own solution, as I have with so many other issues. And the first step, as always, is to identify the problem.

As I've posted before, a functioning democracy requires an informed populace. If the people don't know the facts, it's simply impossible for them to make good decisions; the voice of the people is not the voice of God. So for democracy to work, any democracy, the people need accurate information, even if that information is detrimental to those in power. This is why we have freedom of speech.

I'm not saying that's the only reason, of course. Freedom of speech is a natural human right, but when one's goal is to build a functioning democracy, it takes on additional significance. Without freedom of speech and the press, freedom to criticize the government without interference from it, democracy simply can not work.

But then, what do we do about the liars? The spread of disinformation, propaganda, and outright lies breaks the system. We know this goes on every day, from every side. People and groups who do so prefer the advancement of their own agenda to the very survival of democracy. It's sad, but such people seem to make up the majority of the political scene these days. I've made it my task to fight such people. Democracy is the best governmental system there is, and I won't stand by while it's destroyed in the name of beating the other guy.

So here we have our fundamental conflict. On one hand, we can not restrict criticism of the government, which means that the government can have no control over the content of political advertising. On the other hand, we need to make sure that lies do not drown out truth by sheer volume. Both of these are necessary, or democracy fails. And the only way to accomplish both is to, in some way, restrict the purchase of ads.

Believe it or not, Congress actually had the right idea in that regard. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS was also right; Congress just can't do that. Which means that to fix this once and for all, we need to pass an amendment to the Constitution, giving Congress very limited power to regulate the purchasing of political advertising. We need to modify the first amendment.

As I write this, I realize that this is why I was afraid to take up this issue. There was never any chance that I could end up anywhere else. For most of my life, the very concept of modifying the first amendment would have been unthinkable. But I've realized a very important truth: the US Constitution is not holy writ, and those who wrote it weren't gods.

The founders were politicians who hammered out a compromise that fit their circumstances. They didn't see the politics of today. They didn't see a country where the information reaching the voter is dominated by advertising, instead of by journalism. They didn't see a world with a 95% incumbency reelection rate despite 20% approval ratings, or where the winner is the candidate who can raise the most money. They didn't see a world where money could be used to break democracy.

This is our country, now, today. It's time we took responsibility for our fate.

As such, I am proposing an amendment which will define freedom of speech to specifically not include paid political advertising. Vocal, journalistic and editorial freedom will remain untouched. Parties, unions, and corporations will still be able to express their desires and opinions. But they will no longer be able to use their financial resources to give their opinions greater influence than the opinions held by others. In the true spirit of our republic, everyone's voice will be equal.

As always, the details are subject to discussion. There are distinct differences between issue ads and candidate ads, and when it comes to a corporation or other group, the line between an issue ad and general advertising is at times not terribly clear. As such, my immediate inclination is to eliminate candidate ads only, except when paid for by the candidate themselves. The vast majority individuals almost never buy candidate ads, so the practical change to the rights of the individual in this country is almost zero. And to maintain equality of voice, it should be required that when a candidate purchases an ad, they must also purchase an equivalent ad for all other candidates for the same position.

Everyone can still say what they want, they just can't buy a megaphone to shout down everyone else. There will no longer be limits on donations, the donations will simply be rendered far less relevant to the outcome. Money will have much less influence in determining the winner. Propaganda ads will be immediately countered, forcing the voter to find out for themselves what is true. Our officials will spend more time governing and less time fundraising.

Of course, this will obviously result in considerably less political advertising all around. I'm sure you all find that just as sad as I do.

Now, there are certain other details. The government would have to maintain a list of candidates, which is impossible with the electoral college. That would have to be eliminated, making the Presidency a true national election. That needed doing anyway.

We would also need to define a single set of ballot access criteria for that office, which should be low enough that one need not be rich simply to get on the ballot in the first place. We needed to do that too.

And if ballot access was easy enough, we could easily see dozens of candidates for the Presidency. Plurality voting just doesn't work for that many; it really doesn't work for any more than two candidates. We have yet another reason to switch to a system where one would rank the candidates in order of preference.

And so, in consideration of all these issues, I propose the following:

--------------------------

The Comprehensive Electoral Reform Amendment

1. The President shall be elected by popular vote; the electoral college is nullified.
2. All elections for the Presidency or US Congress shall be held via a ranked preference method, such as the Schulze method or Instant Runoff.
3. For all elections for federal office, there will be a master list of all candidates, maintained by the federal government for the Presidency, or by the state governments for the US Congress.
4. The requirements for being added to any list of candidates shall in no case exceed 1000 signatures of registered voters and $5000.
5. All candidates must be registered no fewer than 270 days before the general election.
6. There shall be no limit to the number of candidates.
7. At the discretion of Congress in the case of the Presidency, or of the state in Congressional offices, a series of primary elections may be held among registered candidates, to reduce their number. There must be at least thirty days between each primary election, and the final primary must be held no less than sixty days before the general election. Congress or the states, as appropriate, shall determine a maximum number of candidates to take part in the general election; in no case shall this limit be fewer than six.
8. No one but a registered candidate or group thereof may purchase an ad referencing a registered candidate; any media outlet selling or donating such an ad shall be penalized. This shall by no means be construed as a limit on the editorial or journalistic freedom of the media outlet.
9. Whenever a candidate purchases an ad, they must also purchase an equivalent ad for all other candidates.

--------------------------

The simple redefinition of "free speech" to not include paid ads leads naturally to many other needed reforms in our election system, while doing no damage to anything but our unjustified deification of the founders' wisdom. With one amendment, we can fix many issues that have plagued this country for decades. We can return to a true democracy, where all our voices are both free and equal.

I look forward to the discussion.