Save me from myself, Mrs. Clinton

In the first days of December, Mrs. Clinton came out with an entirely new tack for her. She called for a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures as well as a five-year freeze on the rates of adjustable mortgages. (choose your source) This is such a blatant invasion by government into the free commerce of the private sector that it is almost a spectacular display of chutzpah that it is being suggested openly rather than under a cloak of darkness. And it is not just being proffered by a secure, sitting Congressman (Congresswoman not only sounds kinda silly but may be inaccurate anyway.), but by one actually betting their future sought-after political office on what they say on a day-to-day basis.

Note that these loans were all allegedly perfectly legal contracts when they were written and entered into. If the issue were that they were illegal, that would be what is being addressed here. And Government (be it State or Federal) would be well within their rights to investigate the situation, nullify the contract and prosecute accordingly... because a law would have been broken. However, since that doesn't seem to be the case, it is difficult to ascertain the premise on which Ms. Clinton's request/demand/expectation (it's never just a request with her) is based.

According to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, a document, which, by now, Ms. Clinton should have had an opportunity to familiarize herself with, Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". This is commonly referred to as "The Commerce Clause." There are three sections to The Commerce Clause, "Foreign...", "Interstate...", and "Indian..." respectively. Unless the banks involved in the mortgage loans were either outside the U.S. or on Indian reservations, the 2nd section ("interstate") of the clause is the only one that could possibly apply. However, even if the Interstate Commerce Clause applied for whatever reason, it remains that the Constitution only says that Congress has the power to regulate. Left alone, that power is not law. Congress' only ability to do anything with that power is to draft and submit a law.

It is no secret that Congress has done their utmost of the years to take the solid granite block concept of free market economics and whittle and carve and chisel it until what remains is barely able to sustain its own weight. They have passed untold laws that have gone over and above the power granted by the Commerce Clause. In fact, most people don't even realize that there is a limitation on this power. We have many government-spawned regulatory bodies that tell us what we can and cannot buy, sell, or trade; how, where and when we can advertise; and what terms we can and cannot set for those sales. It would be pointless (and off-topic) to go into the complexities of the commerce laws that the Federal Government has passed. The point does still exist, however, that - even in light of all those laws on the books - the contracts that were put into force between the mortgage lenders and the borrowers... were legal.

The Executive Branch of the Federal Government exists solely to enforce the laws that are enacted by the Legislative Branch. (Again, not time for a digression into the Judicial Branch's foray into writing law.) That means, in theory, if Congress didn't write a law that in some way covers a specific action, it isn't illegal. No one other than Congress can make it illegal. If the act isn't illegal, it is not within the Government's purview to take any sort of action on it. After all - The Legislative Branch makes laws, the Executive Branch enforces laws, and the Judicial Branch administers the courts when laws are broken. Notice that Government's only power to meddle in the private sector are through the common conduit of law. If there is no law, the Government has no role.

Which brings us back to the issue du jour for Ms. Clinton. If there was:

• a contract between two ostensibly competent parties,
• entirely involving commerce in the private sector,
• that were constructed so as to not violate any laws in force at the time,

... what business is it of Government's?

Ms. Clinton's purpose here is allegedly that she wants to help the poor, struggling families who are about to lose their homes. Let's forego the titular purpose of this blog for a moment and take her at her word. Let's also lay out some other premises that should cover the majority of the situations involved here. The people she is trying to save:

• were not forced to purchase a house at that time,
• were not forced to use credit to purchase the house,
• were not forced to select an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) over a conventional fixed rate one,
• were not forced to agree to terms that later became inconvenient (e.g. prepayment penalty riders),
• were not forced to stay with that mortgage (inconvenient penalties not withstanding) as the rates rose.

To sum up, the people involved exercised their freedom and entered into an agreement with another party that, at the time and to the best of their knowledge seemed agreeable to them. Apparently this is what Ms. Clinton finds so scandalous. Given her track record of indirectly implying that the people of this country, as individuals, are incapable of making proper decisions on their own (her health care plans being a prime example), it would logically follow that she believes that the average home loan borrower is incapable of entering into a financial contract with the legal burden of mental competency. Therefore, by applying this assessment with the broad brush of sweeping generalization, she would perform what amounts to a de facto class action judgement via edict and render the contracts that were entered into - in good faith - null and void. (Or at least suspended for a time.)

Even with only a short suit of creativity, this sort of mechanism can be applied in an impressive myriad of ways. In short, any action or decision that, in retrospect, became harmful to an individual should be forgiven. Actually, it only needs to be simply regretted rather than harmful. However, unlike bankruptcy which has its burdens of proof, penalties and long-term ramifications, the person escapes relatively unscathed from the "Hillary suspension." It amounts to the ultimate financial mulligan. It's as simple as saying "I didn't like what came out of my decision, so I'd like you to cut me a break." Not bad - unless you are the one on the other side of the transaction.

This mentality can actually be taken even further - and already has if you recognize the signs. For example, let's say that a retailer sets a price that he wants to sell his product for. For the most part, a seller is free to do that. In a free market, that price is an offer - not a demand. No on is forcing a buyer to agree to it. If the buyer does not agree, there is no transaction. If some buyers do and some do not, it is up to the seller as to whether or not he likes only selling to some people or whether he wants to entice more of them to purchase his product by lowering his price. He can even choose to sell his product to person A for one price and person B for another price. (For example, different negotiated rates for exactly the same product happen all the time between businesses.) There are a number of instances of the concept of "choice" in the above series. The choice to offer for sale, the choice of price, the choice to purchase, the choice to pay a price. All are free choices in a free market.

However, if the government comes along and says, "we understand that you normally sell your product for $X, but to this person we are going to insist that you sell your product for $Y instead," choice has been removed from one of the parties. This happens all the time in our over-regulated, quasi-free market.

One example... After hurricane Katrina, government tried to force insurance companies to pay of claims that were specifically not covered. Some companies chose to raise their rates for future hurricane coverage in order to cover what had become a massive liability for them. Government tried to force the companies to offer lower rates than what they needed to. Some insurance companies did not want to get involved in the issue in the future and chose not to sell insurance in Gulf states any more. Government then tried to prevent those companies from pulling out or force them to offer hurricane insurance in those states once again.

"Gray-out" Davis' price controls on electricity in California only led to the utilities not being able to purchase power from other states when it was needed. The result was rolling blackouts statewide. So, despite having their electric rates frozen at arbitrarily (and unsustainably) low levels, Californians went without reliable power for a good portion of the summer of 2001. (I could have littered this paragraph with all the requisite bolded "chose" words, but I figure at this point, it should be intuitively obvious to most people that they should be in there.)

There are other examples of where government has interfered with the market - allegedly to help the (euphemistically) "less fortunate" - and it has resulted in disaster. But even if the government managed to exorcise the spectral "law of unintended consequences" that is endemic to any large governing body, and instead wielded some Midas-like power, it still would not be their job (via the power granted to them by the consent of the governed) to step in and make changes to any private contract or transaction. It is simply not their business to meddle in our business, so to speak.

So we return to Hillary's proposal... which, at the moment, is theoretically not in the purview of the Federal Government. Why bring it up then? It sure does sound nice. After all, Auntie Hillary (it's OK to call her that since, as a member of "The Village", she has shared in the responsibility of raising us) would like to kiss it better and make the boo-boo go away. Who wouldn't want that?

The timing and nature of the idea couldn't be better - or more obvious. With the election season pre-game show coming to a close and the first round about to begin, Hillary knows that she is being scrutinized. She is also well aware that the turnip that is her health care proposal is not going to yield any more accolades or acolytes than she has already squeezed out of it after 15 years. She was in need of one last, preferably timely and topical, broad-appeal proposal to unfurl like the a banner streaming hope behind her as she appears, galloping at the cavalry van.

But that's not really all that different from most political proposals made during a campaign, is it? We can hardly fault her for trying to come up with something splashy in time for the mighty Dioscuri, Iowa and New Hampshire.

Really, Hillary's true purpose, with this and many of her other proposals, is actually "hidden" in plain sight. Take the generalized ideal that she proffers:

By enacting this plan, the Federal Government will be able to help you get what you want and need.

Through a linguistic slight of hand, she has directed the attention of most people (and most importantly, her potential voter base) to the one hand of her sentence... "get what you want and need". To witness the power of the enticement of this mental analgesic, look no further than a common theme in questions from the public to candidates in debates and the misnomered "town hall" meetings. Surprisingly often a person will ask, "how will you help [me]?" or "what can I expect that you will do for [me]?" or "will you promise to fix [me]?"

So, with the audience fully entranced by the visions of sugar plums, there is little risk that there will be left-over consciousness to ponder what the other half of the statement entails. What people fail to realize fully in their heroin-like euphoric trance is that, "by enacting this plan, the Federal Government" has surreptitiously taken up a little more residence in your life - the wave-by-wave erosion of the beachhead of your freedom. It's made even more clandestine by what you seem to be getting out of the deal in the short term. Even the frog is comforted at first by the slow, even soothing warming of the waters until he is no longer capable of hopping out.

And thus, the mortgage proposal falls into line with other offerings from Ms. Clinton. Under both the rousing fanfare to the Power of the Masses and the soothing lullaby of the nurturing nursemaid, is masked a steady tattoo of deprecation.

You can't do it. We can do it for you. Submit.

It's all there when you think between the lines.

The fallacy of health insurance as a "right"

At some point in the past 30 years, there was a transition - or series of transitions - that brought the collective mindset of the American public to the conclusion that health insurance (or health care) is a "right." We hear it all the time from the halls of government, from political pulpits and political pundits, from news "anchors" who amaze us with their ability to read words from a teleprompter spun by some invisible, high-tech Cyrano de Bergerac. Eventually, we hear it around the proverbial water cooler from those that ejaculate moral certitudes with the righteous indignance endemic to those that lack the will to go beyond the prima facie. How did we come to that point? And is that belief flawed?

The first things that must be defined in order to be able to balance this equation of logic are:

1. What is "health insurance".
2. What is a "right" for anyone to have and expect?

The first item seems to be relatively simple at first glance, but, as is often the case, we need to think between the lines. The common mistake that is made by people - be they spigot or sponge - is to confuse the notion of "health" with that of "health insurance". Even the difference between "health" and "health care" causes similar stumbles amongst people, and yet that is a significant crux of the entire issue.

Health, lest we diverge in our understanding, is defined formally as:

1. the general condition of the body or mind with reference to soundness and vigor: good health; poor health.
2. soundness of body or mind; freedom from disease or ailment: to have one's health; to lose one's health.

(There are two other definitions that are not relevant here.)

In either case, it is obvious that "health" is specific to the organism - i.e. the person. So, without the clutter of the "care" or "insurance", let us deal with "health" by itself for the moment.

Do people have a "right to health"? The premise that would have to be in place for that statement to be true is that our health should not be taken from us. We should always be in a state of healthiness unless someone came to deprive us of it. While certainly a person could deprive us of health due to some action, that isn't the only way that our health could leave us. Mother Nature does an admirable job of depriving us of health. Allergies, gravity and even the occasional wild animal can do damage to us in spite of our alleged "right." I can't imagine trying to reason with the shark or tiger that may want to maul us by explaining that we have a "right" to not have our limbs removed from our person. In fact, our own bodies are often instrumental in the reduction of our own physical well-being. If my thyroid or pancreas or heart go on the blink, there is no authority to which I can appeal to say that I have been wronged. There is no entity that is responsible for the deprivation of my health. I simply do not have a "right" to continue to be healthy. I can't live as long as I claim the right to live.

We do have the right to care for our health. If we are injured, we can tend those wounds. If we are sick, we can try to fix what ails us. We even have the right to seek assistance from others, if we so desire. This is the point where the argument comes.

Out there in our society are people who have chosen medicine (or some sister-discipline of it) as a profession. They have chosen to expend and invest their energy, their time, usually their money (which is simply a representative symbol of their energy or time), and hopefully their talent in the education and training that is necessary to become a medical professional. Let me repeat something - they chose to do this. Free will is still in effect at this point.

So... here we are sick and miserable and, having realized that we have not spent the energy necessary to acquire the skills to heal ourselves, we are choosing to search for someone else to help us out. And over there is someone who has chosen the training and route and they are hoping to practice their craft on someone in need.

After meeting this doctor, we may very well decide that they are capable enough for our needs. After meeting us, this doctor may very well have decided that they are capable enough for our needs.

At this point, both parties have decided that something could take place. The doctor could treat us and make us better. We both know that. So what is the final step that must take place? The only thing that is lacking is the human volition to actually begin the process. We have to agree to be treated, certainly... but no less important is the fact that the doctor has to choose to agree to treat us. It doesn't matter how badly we want his services if he doesn't consent... which is no different than if we were refusing our end of the deal by saying that (for whatever reason) we don't choose to allow the doctor to treat us. There are only 4 outcomes here:

1. The choices are both in agreement for action - treatment happens.
2. The choices are both in agreement for no action - no treatment happens.
3. The choices are in disagreement on action - no treatment happens.
4. The choices are in disagreement on action - but one person or the other is forced to do something against their will.

Taken out of the medical field, this contrast is more obvious. If the medical service was replaced with physical labor, the scenario is still familiar. "Will you build that deck for me?" "Will I hire you to build my deck?" "OK?" "OK." Everything looks fine... except for number 4. "I don't care what you say, you are building my deck whether you agree to my proposal or not." That looks strikingly like forced labor - which is a euphemism for slavery.

If you apply the statement made in #4 above to most any situation, the result is negative. In labor, it is slavery. In payment, it is robbery. In sex, it is rape. The entire premise is based on the idea that no one has the right to demand something from someone else when they are not in agreement with the terms of that exchange. Put another way, no one has the right to something someone else has.

We don't have the right to receive medical services from that doctor unless he agrees to whatever terms I am offering. While we may have the right to seek someone to take care of our ailments and we may have the right to propose terms under which we would like to be treated, we don't have the right to those services whether or not the person agrees to our proposal. We do not have the right to health care.

The addition of insurance brings in a new factor. Insurance is a gamble. A wager. We choose to purchase insurance because we believe something negative will happen to us. If something did happen to us, we would like someone else to carry the burden of it.

Insurers, on the other hand, choose to insure someone because they are wagering that something won't happen to us. Of course, eventually it is likely that eventually something will happen - but they are gambling that it won't be as often or as soon as you think it will be.

Regardless, the exchange is similar to what we have already covered. Both parties have to come to an agreement on the terms or else there is no insurance contract. In the end, they both have to choose to go through with it. So, again, we do not have the right to insist that the gambler insurer choose to take that wager about our health on our terms - or at all. We do not have the right to health insurance.

Going back up to my 2 points at the top, I have defined both health care and insurance. The casual reader will have noticed by this point that the word "choose" and its variants are sprinkled liberally throughout. But what is choice?

Choice is about volition. Freedom. Options amongst which we can discern our preference. We have a right to make choices... until and unless those choices involve someone else's rights as well. I can choose to like food. I can choose to eat food. However, I can not choose to eat someone else's food. At that point, it is countered by a reciprocal choice that the owner of the food faces - do they choose to share their food with me?

Rights are the same way. I have the right to want food. I have the right to eat food. However, I do not have the right to eat someone else's food - unless they have made the corresponding choice to exercise their right to give me their food if they so desire.

"Rights" can be a complex issue at times - but there is always one underlying tenet that has a way of simplifying the process. An individual right should never (or at least rarely) trump another individual's right. If there seems to be a contradiction between two rights, there is likely an error in the underlying premise of one or the other.

For example, if I claim I have the right to yell loudly when you are sleeping, you may claim that I am violating your right to sleep (therefore claiming that I do NOT have the right to yell loudly). Of course, I can tell you that your choice to sleep is violating my right to yell loudly. There is a seeming contradiction. So what is the issue? Well, while you certainly have the right to sleep where and when you want, you do not have the right to do so without interruption. Your alleged "right to sleep" without my yelling is not really a right after all. You can choose to go elsewhere if my yelling bothers you. (Not that the above doesn't make me look like a real ass.)

So, while I may have the right to seek my own health, I cannot do it at the expense of someone else's right - for example the doctor's right to choose who to treat and who not to. While I may have the right to seek to insure myself against the possibility of tragedy, I cannot do it at the expense of someone else's right - for example the insurer's right to choose to cover me or not.

One question that I cannot answer here is...

Where did this very basic concept go astray?
And why does so few people even realize the fallacy?

(I will leave for another day the argument about how federalized health insurance/care is actually violating the rights of those that pay for the well-being of those that are treated. That is a far larger subject covering more than just socialized medical care.)

Obama wants more for SS.

Barack Obama stated on Nov. 11th that he would raise the amount of income that would be subjected to the Social Security tax, if he were elected president. On the surface, this doesn't seem to be a bad idea. After all, you eventually get it back, right?

The problem with this idea is twofold. One, the whole point of this is to make sure that there isn't a cut in benefits to existing seniors. Well, if you always get back what you pay in, why isn't there enough money to pay the existing seniors now? That's largely because the money isn't separated out - not only from person A to person B, but Social Security from the rest of government revenues. So if there is a shortfall now because of mismanagement, why won't there be a shortfall in the future despite any increases that happen now? And if the Feds have been raiding the money that is supposedly targeted for Social Security benefits on and off for 30 years in order to pay for some of their "important programs", why can't they simply just lay off the "important programs" so as to begin paying off what they took from the program. Why now take from us to make up for their short-sightedness?

Two, what makes Social Security such a fantastic idea anyway? According to research by the Heritage Foundation, the rate of return on monies paid into the system from a two-income household with children is 1.23%. Compare that to the fact that the historical rate of return on the general stock market over the past 50 years range anywhere from 5-8% depending on who you ask. Even on the low end, it is more than a 3:1 difference in the public markets to what the Federal Government is offering. Worse still, the Heritage Foundation report states that African-American males may actually pay more into the system than when they will get back. Does Mr. Obama know that statistic?

Obama said "some tough decisions will be in order because Social Security is the most important social program in the country." I wonder how often it has occurred to him that maybe the fact that a social program is that important to the country is, in and of itself, an alarming problem?

One last note on what Obama said on the subject. He was paraphrasing his "friend" (I don't know whose term that is), Warren Buffet by saying "and he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they've got the coverage that they need." [emphasis mine] So the "fortunate" should help those that "need"? That sounds strangely familiar. May I quote the noted wellspring of modern communism, Karl Marx?

"From each according to his ability,
to each according to his need."

Since success is not the lottery that liberals such as Obama purport it to be, "fortunate" doesn't seem to work there. Swap "fortunate" out for "working their asses off" and you have a completely different character to the sentence. But not everybody who listens to Obama et al are deft enough in dealing with political lingo to catch that. It really only happens for those of us who are...

... thinking between the lines.