How General is Your Welfare?

If you are fortunate to be just like me, which I doubt, you find yourself partaking in a few adult beverages at your favorite public house or saloon every now and then; for me, usually more now than then. It was at one of these fine establishments the other day I started some witty banter about the government's role in health insurance is not valid when another patron uttered this: "Health care is a right. Besides, under the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution, it's legal." The phase "general welfare" does appear in Article One, Section One. Yet it does not mean what this gentleman wants it to mean. No, the word "welfare" in the Constitution doesn't mean free goodies; it means well-being. All we need to do is turn to an eighteenth century dictionary; the first Constitution of the USA, and the man who wrote the Constitution to see this is true.

First, the expression "welfare" as defined in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified, meant "Happiness; success; prosperity," all according to Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language" (published 1755). Now, I understand it's 2013, so let's see what an updated dictionary says. According to "The Free Dictionary," the first definition of "welfare" is "Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. Prosperity." The second meaning, added later to usage of the English language is "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government to people in need." The second meaning, what we would define as "welfare," didn't exist at the time of ratification. "Welfare" then means especially as ratified, "well-being."

Also, if you paid attention in history class, (and you had about 13 chances to do so), the first Constitution of the USA was the Articles of Confederation. "Welfare" was lifted from Article III and placed in the new Constitution. What did Article III say? This: The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever." If you notice, the article talks about protecting your well-being, just like Article One, Section One of the Constitution, ("The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...").

Now, let's see how the true definition fits in with Article III: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general well-being, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever, [emphasis added]." How about the twisted definition? "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general governmental aid, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever, [emphasis added]." It looks like the first one makes sense.

Finally, when opponents of the new Constitution were worried that the expression "general welfare" was going to get mangled and Congress would take it to mean what we now know welfare to be, (go figure, Patrick Henry was right), James Madison, the guy who wrote the fucking Constitution, put their worries aside in Federalist 41: "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars." What did he mean? He meant, "I wrote an introduction stating that we can collect and spend money, and then listed exactly what we can spend the money on." Alas, healthcare isn't in the list. Oh, he even alluded to the Articles of Confederation when addressing the "welfare" worriers: "The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are 'their common defense, security or their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.'" What's he saying to those who oppose the phrase "general welfare?" Hey, motherfuckers, it meant 'well-being' two days ago, and it still means 'well-being!'"

As you can see, the term "general welfare," legally speaking, means "prosperity," or "well-being." You know, like that recent NFL player, worried about concussions, quit football, saying, "I need to worry about my welfare." He didn't mean government assistance. Therefore, healthcare as government assistance is not constitutionally valid. Should we see people receive healthcare? Yes, but there are better ways, and you have no Constitutional authority to do so.

Voting Stright Ticket - Lazier Than Uncrustables

 

One of the recurring themes here at Beards of Fury, (BoF), is our belief that the two party system that we have does not work. Rob Faust popped the BoF cherry against the two party system with his column "Two Parties, Zero Sense," in which he pointed out votes cannot be stolen by third party candidates. I do find it funny though that the same people who are against third party candidates in the Republican party are also some of the biggest Tea Bag, er, Tea Party supporters out there. What is the Tea Party but a third party within one of the main parties? And how has that experiment gone so far? Isn't it hard to get someone elected when they have to start off their ads with "I am not a witch?" Sergio Leonard, in his piece, "My Problem with Democrats and Republicans," pointed out quite clearly that Republicans and Democrats are not really in favor or against policies per se, they are for themselves, and against their opponents, therefore, their agreeing or opposing a policy just depends on who holds the power in Washington, DC at the moment and not their conscious. Finally, our newest member of the BoF writing staff, Dave Deshawn Gosling, asked why people care about what Miley Cyrus is doing, and not so much about what our leaders are in "Apathy Kills, But I Don't Care," and are therefore content with whatever happens on Election Day. My beef with the two party system is will all of the aforementioned type of mindless zombies, and probably more so the biggest simpletons of them all in my humble opinion - the straight party ticket voter.

 At the top of our ballots, we have an option to vote for all the candidates of a particular party or "straight ticket." It's easy, you fill in that selection and voila! You're done, and, you're an idiot.

I think one of the reasons people have such a hard time supporting third party candidates is because those that despise third parties don't like individual politicians, they only like their party. All that matters to a straight ticket voter is what comes at the end of a politicians name signifying their party affiliation, whether it's a (D) or an (R). When people have the attitude of "Anyone but..." the name following the "but" wins.

Voting the "straight ticket" option to me just proves someone has not taken the time to get to learn all they can about who is running. I have particular issues that are near and dear to me. Before going to vote I research the candidates and see who best fits what I believe in, and who I think will be the best person overall for the state I reside in and our country as a whole. Sometimes, the candidate I vote for may not be the individual who is all for what I am, but to me they are still the best candidate for the job. These candidates are normally people who vote with what they think is right, and not how their party leaders tell them to vote.

Maybe people vote straight ticket without thinking because they are afraid they might like what is on the other side if they were to do some actual research before casting their vote. Rhode Island's Democrat General Treasurer, Gina Raimondo, has done a lot for pension reform. For those unfamiliar with Rhode Island, the state is the largest employer, so unions basically run it. Raimondo has shown a lot of courage standing up for what she believes, going against the grain of her own party, but a Republican straight ticket voter in RI would not know of her without doing research.
A person lazy enough to only vote for one party, time and time again, no matter what their candidates pledge, really should move to a country run by a dictator. At least then, they will be able to vote one way 24/7, unless they want to lose one of several body parts.

Deck the Halls With BoF Balls!

Apathy Kills, But I Don't Care

Let's talk about apathy for a moment, shall we? I know, I know, you do not give a fuck. Feel free to continue not giving a fuck while you hear me out. It is your right as an American, and you are not alone! Many people I talk to also do not give a fuck. They all seem to say similar things, "What difference can I make?" or, "Screw it, I don't know enough about it to care." After talking to them further, I find that they are quite capable of caring about how Miley did at the VMAs, why their fantasy football team sucks, or perhaps even about what dumb shit just got posted to YouTube.

What makes these things so easy to care about when so many more important issues are ignored? Perhaps it is because they are easily accessed and are presented with the audience's understanding in mind. After all, nobody would read a thousand page Twitter post, no matter how many retarded hashtags it has in it. Important legislation however, is not only difficult to understand in the first place, often times most people's access to it is framed by some sort of biased media. The 900 some page Affordable Care Act was so difficult to understand that most representatives voted for it without even reading it.

Could it be that this is done on purpose? What if I didn't want you to understand the tax code so that no matter what you did, you probably do not entirely comply with it? What if I never clearly state my opinion so that I can always backtrack on any position? This all creates an environment where the population of a country feels they have no ability to impact the decisions of the government. Once the environment sets in, apathy sets in. It you can't control it, why care about it?

Perhaps the two party system in Rob Faust's "Two Parties, Zero Sense" can cause apathy. If there are only two options and they both suck, why give a shit? People need to wake up and discover themselves, decide what their values are, and align themselves behind candidates who really support their position. Until that happens, eh, fuck it - never mind.

My Problem with Democrats and Republicans

Did you get a chance to read Rob's post on the two party system? If you did not, you should. I found it amazing. This probably does not surprise people. However, I want to take advantage of Rob's post, it fresh in our minds, and state, I too, have a huge problem with Democrats and Republicans. I am not just talking about politicians. I am talking about everybody who claims they are one or the other; this includes everyday people. What is my problem? All of these people have zero principles. How so?

Politicians are for what their party does when their guy is president and against what the other party does if their guy is not president, even if they were for the policy when their guy was president. Confusing? Here are some examples: Right now, Republicans are against Janet Yellen and her policy of printing money if she is the next Fed Chairwoman; they did not have a problem when George W. Bush nominated Ben Bernanke and he went on a money printing spree during W.'s terms. Dick Cheney, during W.'s presidency, said deficits do not matter; now deficits matter to Republicans because a Democrat occupies the White House. When W. was president, then Senator Barack Obama said deficits showed a lack of leadership, and Democrats agreed; now that he is president, Barry and the Democrats have no problems with deficits. Democrats were anti-war when W. was president; now they cannot find enough places to bomb the shit out of.

And for everyday people? You keep voting these non-principled assholes into office. Then you complain about the way the government turns out. "But what am I supposed to do, Sergio?" Show your displeasure by voting for a different candidate or not voting at all. Send a message you have principles. But that is the problem; as long as you keep voting for your guy, you are just showing you have no principles either. As long as you guy beats their guy - that is all that matters.

You see? Democrats and Republicans: no principles. "Just win baby!" That is the motto of both parties. Can you see my displeasure?

The ACA - Obama's Abomination

 

When the 111th Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka the "Affordable Care Act," (ACA), then Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), said "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." Democrats said the ACA was not a tax, and then the US Supreme Court affirmed the law partly on the basis that it is indeed a tax, and President Obama claimed about 30 times if you like your plan, you can keep it. President Obama used jokes to make fun of the ACA's opposition and during the 2008 Presidential Election, Republican VP nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan, was portrayed as a man who wanted to throw grandmas off a cliff - and the media drank their Kool-Aid and went along for the ride. Unfortunately, millions of Americans are getting run over by the Obama Care bus.

Now look at what is happening - there has been issue after issue with the HealthCare.gov website, people cannot signup because of server and other problems, the number of those who have signed up is dismal, (the latest numbers are 3% of the official projected numbers, but this is no surprise to Obama and his cronies),  there is no federal mandate for background checks on the people who work the ACA phone lines, so, in theory, you could be giving your SSN and other personal information to convicted felons, and, (pause for a breath), people are indeed losing their health insurance plans!

Love or hate the idea of Obozo Care, this plan was sold to the American people on lie after lie after lie: premiums are going up, deductibles are rising, plans are being lost, and the ACA will add to our already huge deficit. White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney twitches during his Q&A sessions with the press, (when they ask him tough questions that is), United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius squirmed her way through a Senate hearing on the HealthCare.gov website, and what has the President done? About the same thing he did right after finding out about the attack on our embassy in Libya - nothing, (unless of course, you consider backtracking, and coming up with creative ways to change the meaning of his previous statements concerning us being able to keep our plans and our doctors something).

Edie Littlefield Sunby, a stage-four cancer survivor recently wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, in which she blamed the ACA for her loss of health care coverage. She wanted to know what happened to the promises our President made concerning us being able to keep our plans and our doctors. Without the health plan and doctors Sunby had, she knows she would probably be dead right now. How did the Obama administration react? Dan Pfeiffer, a top advisor for the President sent out a Tweet blaming Sunby's insurance provider for her loss in coverage. Insurance companies are dropping people for great health care plans like it's hot not because they are greedy, but because they have to do something to deal with the influx of people they have to insure. And those deductibles and premiums? They're rising like a guy watching porn.

My heart goes out to those who did not drink the President's Kool-Aid or believe his tall tales concerning the ACA, and who and have lost their coverage or have seen their premiums and deductibles rise through the roof. They are the victims of all the lies that helped an egotistical man get his way to build a legacy. Those who drank from his cup, and in turn poured glasses for their friends and family, and are now feeling the pain, are reaping what they have sown, and I could care less about them. It's too bad millions of informed voters are now paying the price of millions of idiots.

In the end, apparently when President Obama said we would be able to keep our plans, and we would be able to keep our doctors, "Period," he really should have used a semicolon. Words mean things Mr. President, and I wonder how many people will die because you lied.

Two Parties, Zero Sense

The other day a friend of mine made the statement that he dislikes Libertarians because we have a two party system and they steal votes from Republicans. I disagree with this thinking for a number of reasons. I think the two party system has done great damage to our nation and that you shouldn't have to vote for a "lesser of two evils" to make an impact.

If you agree with everything or even a majority of what a Democrat or Republican stands for, then you should vote for them. What if you don't though? Is everyone that's for lower taxes also against gay marriage? If you support certain social programs do you also have to support abortion? I'd like to think that people aren't as cookie cutter as that. Voting straight party is about as cookie cutter as it gets. It requires little thinking and no looking at things on an issue by issue basis. That's almost robotic.

Now let's take into account that both parties have led us to the place we are today. Both have led to increased government and excessive debt. Would a true fiscal conservative vote for that? Both parties have led to terrible foreign policy and bombing nations that never attacked us. Why vote for them if you disagree with these policies? The lesser of two evils? Sometimes it's hard to tell which is the lesser when they're both so bad. Voting for the lesser of two evils is basically deciding on which party you want to rape you.  You just have to decide which one will be less unpleasant, but really is any rape pleasant?

Recently Ken Cuccinelli lost the Virginia governor election to Terry McAuliffe. Republicans were quick to blame it on votes "stolen" by Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. There's no such thing as stolen votes. No candidate owns these votes. Sarvis didn't sneak into Cuccinelli's place one night and find them in his sock drawer along with his secret porn stash, (don't worry we won't tell Santorum). These were votes that Cuccinelli didn't earn. Maybe Republicans should look at the extremely small voter turnout or the GOP's currently low approval rating. A third party didn't lose the election for Cuccinelli, that blame lies elsewhere.

Why would someone want a two party system? Since when do people want less options? It's like when you have only one or two cable providers in an area. The service is usually shit. Democrats and Republicans are basically like those shitty cable providers. When you think they're the only options you settle for them. You end up voting for people that you never would if you really stuck to your ideals. When Bush was in office many Republicans disliked McCain because of his criticisms of Bush. They also thought he was too moderate but in 2008 he was their man and every Republican had a copy of "Faith of My Fathers" sitting in their bathroom. Republicans once called Romney a RINO and the engineer of Romneycare. In 2012 they touted him as a smart conservative and great businessman. Then there's Obama, who bombed Libya and extended the Patriot Act. War and the Patriot Act were two huge issues for Democrats during Bush's term but they mean much less to them now that Obama has done the same. People gave up on their "convictions" instead of looking for a third party that suits them better. They voted on (R) or (D) instead of on the issues. That's what a two party system gives you.

Maybe people like less options when it comes to voting.  Maybe they like it simple and don't necessarily care about the results as much as they like to complain about them. Though maybe someday people will want more options.  Maybe they'll grow a little backbone and vote on issues as opposed to canned cookie cutter parties or the "lesser of two evils".

Minimum Wage, Maximum Racist?

Guess what? I am confused again. This time it is because of minimum wages, living wages, or whatever they are called now.

You see, those who care so much about the poor, these compassionate people, demand that wages be at least set to a minimum, (I think the demand is now $15 per hour), people just cannot live on the current $7.25 per hour. Does that not sound reasonable? As Lee Corso would say: not so fast! I am about to show you all something that brings about my confusion.

Economist Walter Williams, (and fellow economist Thomas Sowell), know some history most people do not know, ignore, or overlook. What history am I talking about? Tell them Professor Williams: "During South Africa's apartheid era, the secretary of its avowedly racist Building Workers' Union, Gert Beetge, said, 'There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job, (minimum wage), as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans.' The South African Nursing Council condemned low wages received by black nurses as unfair. Some nurses said they wouldn't accept wage increases until the wages of black nurses were raised. The South African Economic and Wage Commission of 1925 reported that 'while definite exclusion of the Natives from the more remunerative fields of employment by law has not been urged upon us, the same result would follow a certain use of the powers of the Wage Board under the Wage Act of 1925, or of other wage-fixing legislation. The method would be to fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would be likely to be employed.'"

He has more, and it deals with the USA: "Our nation's first minimum wage came in the form of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. During the legislative debate over the Davis-Bacon Act, which sets minimum wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, racist intents were obvious. Rep. John Cochran, D-Mo., supported the bill, saying he had 'received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South.' Rep. Miles Allgood, D-Ala., complained: 'That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort is in competition with white labor throughout the country.' Rep William Upshaw, D-Ga., spoke of the 'superabundance or large aggregation of Negro labor.' American Federation of Labor President William Green said, 'Colored labor is being sought to demonize wage rates.' The Davis-Bacon Act, still on the books today, virtually eliminated blacks from federally financed construction projects when it was passed."

So, somebody, anybody, and let us put economic principles aside like the law of supply and demand and how that economic law even applies to human labor even though some people think it does not, please explain to me how the minimum wage laws that were put into place by racists to keep blacks from, (paraphrasing here), taking jobs from the white man is supposed to, this time, help poor peoples' standard of living?

Oh, if you think Professor Williams, (who teaches at George Mason University in my home state of Virginia), and his buddy Professor Sowell are hack white dudes who just do not get it, search their names and you'll find out they're black.

A New Kind of Lazy

Americans like to keep things simple, and while I won't deny many of the things that make life easier are great, (I would rather not go back to the days of wiping our asses with leaves), isn't there a line between making our lives easier and just being plain lazy? Yes, there is - and yesterday I witnessed it with my own four eyes.

I am sure everyone here has heard of Smucker's line of Goober products. For the semi-lazy, maybe space saving individual, one can purchase peanut butter and jelly poured into one jar. No need to find extra room for two jars, Smucker's is hooking you up with one! You don't have to worry about getting jelly in the peanut butter jar, or vice versa because they come together! Every time I see those jars of disgustingness in the jelly aisle, I can only think of the Spice Girls' song "2 Become 1," and if Baby Spice couldn't turn me on singing about shagging someone, making peanut butter and jelly stew together in the same jar definitely won't.

However, that really isn't what I consider to be the laziest thing out there, albeit it is sort of related, and comes from the same company. At least when a parent buys that shit, they still have to spread it on a couple pieces of bread, and maybe throw some Ruffles potato chips under the bread. What has to be the laziest meal in the world, and I would not have believed it if I had not seen it myself, is Smucker's frozen peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, called "Uncrustables," because why go really lazy with a frozen sandwich when you could go really fucking lazy, and cut the crust off the frozen sandwich too?

Bill Clinton may not know what the definition of the word "is" is, but I am pretty sure if he ever came across Uncrustables in the frozen section of his local food market, he would easily be able to define "lazy." How long does it really take to make a PB&J sandwich people? A minute?

Honestly, as I type this I get even more pissed because schools providing healthy lunches is something I am very passionate about and all I hear are parents bitch and moan about it and that their kids don't like humus. If parents don't want school districts to crack down on what is provided to their students, parents should make a bigger effort to provide decent lunches from home.

And what goes with a frozen PB&J sandwich? Condensed milk? Kraft Easy Cheese? Lunchables? I can just see a mom sending her child off to school with a pat to the head and a "Have great day Johnny, I packed your favorite - frozen PB&J, a mason jar of milk powder, all you need to do is go to the bubbler and fill it with water, and some processed cheese to spray over your crackers. Oh, and I almost forgot, here is a cleaned off popsicle stick just in case the sandwich isn't fully thawed by lunch - just stick it in and voila! You have a dessertwich!" "Thanks mom!" goes Johnny as he runs off to school with the hope and dream he may be able to eat that sandwich today.

So next time you are walking down the frozen food section and you are tempted on buying a frozen sandwich, remember it isn't saving you a whole lot of time, sandwiches are easy to make, and in the end whomever you make it for will be much more grateful. Don't be a lazy ass.

Fascist and Furious

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

Benito Mussolini said that. Now, as a libertarian, (I prefer to call myself an "anarcho-capitalist," a "non-interventionist," or a "Rothbardian," but it doesn't require a day's worth of explanation to people if I just call myself a "libertarian"), I am not a fan of  Democrats or the Republicans, but I am confused when the Democrats/liberals call the Republicans/conservatives "fascists."

You see, they intend that to slur Republicans/conservatives and make them seem just downright evil; pure, unadulterated evil. Evil in the likes of Hitler, (no first name needed). However, it does not make sense to me. Let me continue.

Fascism, in an economic sense, according to Sheldon Richman, "controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of the firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and 'excess' incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or 'loans.' The consequent burdening of manufactures gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor..." And: "To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic - roads, buildings, stadiums - the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production." And this is why I am confused.

Currently, as far as I am aware of, all those who are on the left of the political spectrum would love it if the government controlled all aspects of commerce; I do not see these leftists calling to end wage controls, (minimum wage), working conditions, (OSHA), the need of licenses to enter a business, lowering, (or no taxes), those with excess incomes, (the 1%), tariffs, (barring or controlling imports), wars, public works projects, (they actually want more of it), borrowing, (did they not get pissed because a Republican tried to stop the borrowing?), fiat money creation, (the so called independent Federal Reserve), and vastly cutting and stopping military spending.

This is why I am confused when they intend to defame those on the right by calling them fascists. I am not saying those on the right want to abolish what I stated above, but if you believe in what Mussolini and Hitler sought as the best style of government...

I almost forgot. In any dictionary you thumb through, even online because I am aware it is 2013, a tenant of fascism is nationalism, or exceptionalism. Did not Barack Obama state we are an exceptional country in a speech a few weeks ago? Fascist.