Lessons from the Roman Republic

Although Rome is famous for its vast empire, few realize that Rome was once a republic. In 509 B.C.E. the Roman nobility replaced the Etruscan monarchy with an aristocratic republic. Designed for a small city-state, the government consisted of two consuls with executive power, who were elected by an assembly who wielded legislative authority. This assembly was made up of wealthy aristocrats who spoke on behalf of all Roman people. Since the wealthy dominated the Senate and made all major decisions on behalf of all Romans, tensions rose between the common people and the aristocrats. With tensions rising between socioeconomic classes, the patricians (wealthy members of society) allowed the common people to elect officials called tribunes to represent them in the government. Because of this, Rome became a more participatory republic.
Meanwhile, Rome was expanding its territory with its highly disciplined military, and it was establishing its presence around the Mediterranean basin. New land and wealth brought power to Rome, which would eventually account for Rome's republican downfall. Wealth and power brought benefits for some, but problems for many. The Roman constitution no longer was effective now that Rome had expanded beyond a small city-state and was now a vast empire. Class tensions rose due to the unequal redistribution of wealth and land.
People who tried to fix Rome's problems were assassinated by the conservative and aristocratic leaders trying to maintain their political status and power. Political power remained in the hands of the wealthy and the privileged, instead of opportunity being distributed throughout all classes of Roman society. When it was clear that the constitution needed reworking, Roman civil and military leaders started personal armies of common people to gain power. In the first century B.C.E. Rome fell into civil war. Eventually, Julius Caesar rose to power and even though he established an imperial form of government, he favored liberal policies and social reform and because he alienated many of the Roman elite and favored the common people, the elite assassinated him on March 15, 44 B.C.E.
Today, in America, problems such as the rule of an elite class of citizens and unequal redistribution of wealth, are real. We are a country that brings in wealth and power. How can the government positively deal with these benefits of a powerful nation? Redistribution of obtained wealth will prevent the wealth and power being consolidated in an elite class. If it is aimed at the elite class, political power is sure to follow. Self-government cannot become a reality if wealth and power are aimed at the privileged since the wealthy will obtain political power that was once in the hands of the people. Equal social and economic opportunity are basic axioms of an enlightened and democratic society and by aiming them at a certain class, putting the interests of others to the side, our republican experiment has failed.

Join me in a study of past republics!

Recently, I have decided to do a study of past republics on this blog, and together we may be able to see what we can learn from them. These will be republics ranging from the beginning of time to the creation of our republic, the United States of America. We will look mainly at the reasons that the republics failed, but we will also look at some of their triumphs. It is important that we study history so that we may learn from its mistakes and its failures, so that we may improve on them.

Still on Top

On the computer one day, I happily typed in "United States Economy" into Wikipedia, hoping that a page would come up that I could skim, and find some useful information to store in the back of my head. I was surprised to find that even though most Americans feel like our economy is falling, we are still on top. Our nominal GDP is still three times the size of the world's second largest economy, Japan. Our GDP by Purchasing Power Parity is twice that of China, the competitor today. I find that we were number two on the Global Competitiveness Report. I thought that we would be second to China, which many Americans would agree with that guess. We were second, however, to Switzerland. So then I thought to myself, what makes the countries other than us economic powerhouses. Most of these countries are European, and many on the right would say "Oh they are socialist, we don't want to be like them at all." Let's look at Sweden and Denmark, who come in at four and five. Sweden has a mixed economy that depends on foreign trade and it has very skilled workers. This may get many right-wingers scratching their heads, but they have a government-funded health care system. Sweden has deregulated its economy since the 1990's but it is still more regulated than ours is today. Now let's move to Denmark. The country boasts the lowest level of income inequality and the highest minimum wage in the world. This country has granted its people a lot of economic freedom compared to other European countries, which can also account for its high ranking. Get this, Denmark also has an almost entirely funded health care system. Now that just doesn't make sense. Low income inequality, high minimum wage, and a government-run health-care system? I wrote this to show that some economies that may seem to be more socialized or "socialistic" than ours, sometimes work. I am not saying that America should be socialist, but I am saying that the countries that will be at the top of the Global Competitiveness Report most likely will not be advocates of laissez-faire capitalism. The other note is that socialized medicine does not ruin an economy the way many people on the right would suggest. If we do not fix our health care system or find a way to fix the financial sectors of our economy, we will be ruined and the answer is a middle-way between socialism and the free-market. I predict that America will be on top of the economy for many years, but if these issues are not addressed reasonably through a study of history and experience, we be knocked off. But for now, we are still #1 overall.

Favorite Constitutional Clauses

1. The Preamble- Thanks to this section we have popular self-government. "We the people..."
2. The Commerce Clause- Allows the government to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations.
3. Necessary and Proper Clause- Allows the government to do what is necessary and proper to complete its assigned tasks. Much needed for a liberal construction of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton would agree.
4. Taxing and Spending Clause- Justifying spending towards the public good and interest. Good stuff.
5. National Supremacy Clause- The Supreme Law of the Land. End of story, the end, goodbye.

Another Call for Health Care Reform

Today, the special interests are pumping out the lies about health care reform, especially reform that offers a public option. 47 million are uninsured and many have poor-quality care that give them little coverage, but this coverage still costs a large amount of money. 8 out of 10 working poor families are uninsured and in a recession people are losing their jobs, and jobs are the source of 90% of working Americans' health care. These numbers will only go up if competition is not created that will help lower premiums. Our country spends more on health care than any other advanced country, and we still don't get any results. Why? Because there is a huge flaw in the system.
To tell you the truth, I really don't think reform will be as effective if it does not include a public option or some sort of move towards universal coverage. Attacks are coming left and right of the public option. Conservatives are angry because people won't have to work for a "privilege" like a good health care plan. Health care is not a privilege, but it will soon be one if action is not taken. If it were a privilege, people who don't have good health care would not go into poverty if they got sick. Having a television is a privelege and if I don't have one, it does not dramatically affect my life or put me in bankruptcy like health care can do. Right now health care to most people is a necessity and if the market cannot make it accessible to everyone, than the government may have to use its guiding hand to point us in the right direction. We must be reminded that a public option still requires citizens to pay for health care offered in its exchange, so the public option is not just an incentive to do nothing.
Many people ask how we will pay for a public option. Reducing the number of deductions the wealthy can take would help pay for a large portion of the public option. Some will say that the wealthy create jobs and deserve tax cuts to keep creating those jobs. If that were true, the Bush tax cuts would be reinstated and the number of jobs being lost in this recession would not be so high. If we had a country that achieved shared prosperity, worked towards providing everyone with equal economic opportunity, and didn't favor a minority over the majority, we wouldn't need health care reform so urgently. I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the middle-class, but the past eight years weren't in your favor and didn't want to provide you with financial security. Even though the deficit is high, due to low taxes during an expensive war and no fiscal responsibility shown by the Bush administration, universal coverage (or at least something close to it) is needed now. People are losing their jobs, a huge source of people's coverage. If we do nothing, people will lose jobs, lose their health care, the government will keep spending billions on health care and get no results (leading to a higher deficit than what a public option would eventually lead to), and then America is in worst shape than it was before.
There is also the complaint about expanding government. George Bush expands the executive department at the expense of the other two branches, discards the rule of law and open debate in the name of unity, makes foreign policy an "executive only thing", and wiretaps American citizens without a warrant and with little judicial oversight; no complaints. Obama wants a health care plan that will drive down premiums, provide quality care at a cheap price to compete and keep insurers honest, and he wants everyone to have health care that will keep them standing when an illness tries to kick them down; people start complaining. I must remind everyone that there are only a select few, who if they don't have quality care, will avoid financial ruin if they get seriously sick.
Many are also concerned that the health care industry will suffer from a government monopoly. A public option needs to create competition that is healthy, not the kind that hurts. Private insurers will still be encouraged to compete, and honest and reliable insurers will be able to lower prices and compete with the public option. Those who will be weeded out are those who have been cheating the American people for decades.
There are economic reasons to achieve major reform; security for the poor and competition in the health care industry. There are also moral reasons for major reform; help the poor and help the disadvantaged obtain security when they get seriously ill, and force greedy company's to be honest. Financial ruin should not be an end result of a serious illness. The American people have spoken. The special interests and small minorities who don't want everyone to have affordable and quality health care cannot stop us. If there is a time for this to be done, it is now. If there is a moment in which all the American people won't have to worry about getting sick and heading towards financial ruin, that moment is coming. The alternative is national ruin and insecurity.

Check Out This Site

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

Everyone who checks out my blog needs to look at this site. Factcheck.org is a neutral site, in fact, Dick Cheney encouraged people to check it out when he debated Edwards in 2004. The special interests and the small minorities (that look huge but are actually a tiny fraction of the population) will not stop the American people from having good and quality healthcare. The myths and lies that are being spread just show us how deceiving small groups of people can really have.

To all my readers:

Do not read the last post in a mean, nasty voice. Thank you.

Expanding Government?

The healthcare debate is getting heated and I rejoice in the name of free speech. I was a little disturbed, however, when I saw a poster that had a quote from Thomas Jefferson about big government. Thomas Jefferson, as most of you know, was a proponent of a small and weak federal government and a hard advocate of states' rights. Reading the poster, I thought about Jefferson's administration and how he dealt with the federal government. Most Federalists were afraid that the government would become too small and weak. Surprisingly, Jefferson exercised federal power audaciously in office. He used it to justify the Louisiana Purchase and he tried to get a national education plan through Congress. I figured that there are different ways of expanding federal government.
I thought it was a little ironic when conservatives were complaining about the expanding federal government that would result from healthcare reform, and a public-option. I understand that they are conservatives, and they believe in a small and weak federal government, leaving most powers to the states (more power to them that they are allowed to believe what they do). However, when George W. Bush ran for president he, like Jefferson, promised to minimize the federal government, and instead he expanded it. The difference between Jefferson and Bush is how they expanded it.
Jefferson wanted to use the power of the government for the public good, and tried to get laws past that would benefit the public at large. Bush on the other hand, expanded the executive branch, created the Department of Homeland Security (not necessarily a bad thing), but invaded some of our basic rights and civil liberties in the name of unity. The USA PATRIOT Act allowed the government to censor phone calls, e-mails, etc., without a warrant and with little judicial oversight (check out the fourth amendment to the Constitution). He took on foreign affairs as a job only for his branch and made the "free press" (sarcasm) and the White House best buddies, when an independent and free press is guaranteed in the Constitution.
Both Jefferson and Bush tried to do what was best for the country, the latter by taking away some of our civil liberties and the former by trying to give the nation a good education plan. I think I will take Jefferson's way over Bush's. I think it is awkward that when Democrats want to do something positive such as ensuring that the poor and uninsured get insured, conservatives protest and worry about expanding government that might result from it, but when our basic liberties are invaded, and the government expands in the name of unity to take those liberties away, it is for the public good.

Concerning North Korea

North Korea has been a problem for the United States for over 50 years. Every so often, we make progress, until that progress somehow sparks North Korea to work harder, tougher, and become more tyrannical than ever before. In a recession while the national debt is piling up, we must avoid military action. Our other option is economic sanction. The idea of economic sanctions makes sense, but will these sanctions lead the world to the end it desires? Although we have had economic sanctions on North Korea since almost the beginning of our toils, what have been the fruits of the sanctions? The communist dictatorship has spit out nuclear missiles, maintained an army of 1.4 million men, the fourth largest in the world, and the nation has continued to defy international law (not that the U.S. has always followed it...i.e. past 8 years). Economic sanctions have not broken their government's drive. So what is the remedy if sanctions do not work? Public opinion.
The master of diplomacy, Henry Kissinger, writes in his greatest work, Diplomacy, that public opinion is the greatest sanction against mounting threats. The opinion of NATO and the U.N. are significant players in forming international opposition. Russia and China are also powerful nations that may sway North Korea's attitude toward the rest of the world. Right now, as for the Obama administration, the U.S. must have an aggressive diplomatic policy that stresses the consequences of North Korea's actions, and the ends that their actions will take them. Any signs that show we are being broken only drives them. If North Korea plans to use what is in their arsenal, they are only planning their own destruction. Chances that they will use nuclear missiles are small, and economic and military powerhouses like Russia, China, and Japan will surely stop North Korea in its tracks. If not, North Korea will most likely cease to exist.

Health Care Reform 2

47 million American citizens. That is the magic number of people who do not have health insurance. Health care might seem like a luxury or a benefit to some of the middle-class but really it is hope for people who are poor, teetering on the edge of poverty, and to these people a government-run plan is like a savior coming from Washington. Because of rising prices, people who do not have large incomes cannot get quality care, and those who are poorer and have some type of care, are afraid to go to the hospital. If they do, they will have a large bill that only gets little coverage which shows us that these people have it just as bad as those who don't have any care.
Most people go with the theory of survival of the fittest when really its survival of the richest. Friends have told me that these people are lazy and if they would stop spending money on DVD's then they would have money for good health-insurance. First of all that is a narrow minded view that sounds like it is coming from Nazi Germany or a 17th century monarch (although they didn't have DVD's back then but you get the point). I have a moral obligation to help the poor and those in need. I understand the idea that now may not be the time for a government-run plan but those who complain about a program running up the national debt fail to see that most of that debt came from the past 8 years. And with more people being insured, then we can make cuts in other federal programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Surely, the government has the means to do it, but how to do it is the biggest challenge ahead. We want the healthcare industry to survive and keep creating jobs and making profits, but how can we do that by creating a government plan that could possibly destroy the industry if it is not done correctly. Great care must be taken when creating a plan in such a delicate economy.
Another thing I would like to address is the complaints about creeping socialism with the creation of a government-run healthcare plan. I don't get how helping the poor and ensuring that the poor don't get poorer is socialism. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production and while it may seem that the government is taking over the healthcare industry, it is not. It is playing a role in it to create competition, which otherwise would be dead without the guiding hand of an activist federal government. The people have spoken and those who complain about Obama not following his campaign promises have somehow stepped in the way of him completing his promises.

Health Care Reform

Health care reform has been an issue since Franklin Roosevelt's administration and has been an enormous issue in the public debate. Many liberal democrats have played with the idea of a government-run health care option. I support this option for many reasons. Many of you may be thinking why should our government be giving out handouts. There is no doubt that government is for the people and that the State exists for us; we do not exist for the state. This reasoning allows us to believe that the government may complete tasks that improve the human condition, help the poor, and help those whose voices aren't heard too often.
One of the federal government's roles in the economy is creating competition. This role creates a plethora of other roles and powers. The Health Care system needs competition to lower premiums and if creating a government-run system to compete in the health-care industry then that is what needs to be done. The good quality of healthcare provided and the price given by the government will force healthcare industries to pull their prices down, or in fact do the opposite, which is what I am fearful of. The American people will be provided with quality healthcare and while the deficit goes up, a healthcare package will certainly serve as a stimulus for the American people.
Even if this is not achieved, healthcare reform will surely come. Those who do not want reform simply ignore the voice of the American people. The election has shown what the people want; a government that is positive, progressive, and participatory and that is what the Democrats are offering. The Republicans surely need to make some party changes, but what kind of changes relies on their rival, Barack Obama.