Maybe we shouldn't be so fast to poo-poo history

Today by chance I ran across something I read years ago that has stuck in my mind ever since.   It's a quote attributed to 18th Century Scottish historian Alexander Tyler.   His position was that a democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

He went on to say democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits.  After that, democracy will eventually collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

That was in 1787!

Check this....he suggested there were eight steps to democracy:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith

2. From spiritual faith to great courage

3. From courage to liberty (revolution)

4. From liberty to abundance

5. From abundance to complacency

6. From complacency to apathy

7. From apathy to dependence

8. From dependence to bondage

YIKES!

It seems to me one of our mistakes, assuming you believe Mr. Tyler's hypothesis, was to vote "generous gifts" to only a portion of our population vs to everyone.  If we all benefit from something, such as a publicly funded education or an interstate highway system (do I dare even mention some sort of universally-available health care?), democracy can perhaps cope.  But when we give "gifts" to only a few, such as welfare to the poor at one extreme or tax breaks to the wealthy at the other, those in the middle, who don't qualify for either, become resentful.  That's when class warfare arises.  That's when the wheels come off.

 Just something to think about.

S

Lucy, 'splain it to me....lesson 47

I need a lesson in business / labor relations....somebody help me out here, please.  Congress couldn't put together a budget or agree to raise the deficit ceiling, so they sent 40% of all federal government workers (those considered non-essential) home for 16 days.  Some said the idea was to save taxpayers money ($2 Billion) and curtail government.  Then they worked out a deal, brought everybody back to work....AND ARE GIVING THEM FULL BACK PAY?

So government workers were given an additional 16 days vacation....time off WITH pay?  Am I understanding this correctly?  Is this how things normally work after an employer lock-out, which is essentially what this was, right?

The American Federation of Government Employees thinks it's fair since they've already been hit with a three-year pay freeze and given no more "increases" to their retirement contributions.  "Employees are frustrated at being made the sacrificial lamb of deficit reduction....the federal government is becoming a less attractive employer."

Like they don't already have a cushy deal now?



* NOTE:  The private sector pay chart above is already skewed by outsized pay for corporate executives / CEO's, sports stars, rock stars, etc.

Numerous studies have shown that federal workers already get 25-33% MORE in pay / benefits than workers in the private sector doing comparable work. I don't see bringing their pay package more in line over time WITH THE WORKERS WHO PAY THEM is being unreasonable.   I'm not suggesting they deserve anything less, but just comparable. 

OK, there's my conservative thought for the day.  Now to appease my more liberal friends:

While we need to be very careful to not step over the social safety net fiscal make / break line*, I do think taxpayers are looking to save money in the wrong places.  They're all upset about the costs involved with ObamaCare, and considering how the government mucks up most everything else it touches, I'm not so sure it's the way to go, either.  But still, I do firmly believe in some sort of "universal health care".

Let's be pragmatic here.  Yes, it will be a huge weight off all our shoulders to know that if we are sick or injured we can all receive quality health care without going bankrupt.  And obviously they can't just give it away....we must somehow pay for it.  

But think about how much more competitive this will make us in the new world economy.  A healthier, stronger work force....mentally, emotionally, and physically....is bound to contribute significantly to our national bottom line.  I just don't see how it couldn't.  Instead of trying to tear apart the idea, why not work together to find a way that can make it work?

IMO, not all conservative ideas are bad, nor are all liberal ideas bad.  We should calmly, logically consider them all.

* There is an interesting article in the NYT today highlighting the crushing burden on the French of their cradle-to-grave social programs and how it is busting their national budget.  

OK, rip me.

S

Healthcare talk

Any day now the U S Supreme Court will hand down their decision declaring all or parts of "Obamacare" to be unconstitutional or allowing it to stand as-is.  Regardless of the ruling, about 1/2 of the people are going to be unhappy.  Me?....I'm somewhere right in the middle.  I don't think the system we have now is working well enough to remain unchallenged, but I don't have an alternative to offer, either.  If you don't have insurance or can't get it, you know how dire the situation is.  If you're one of the lucky few who have insurance AND deep enough pockets that would enable you to absorb any after-insurance expenses, you obviously don't see the problem, but you should never forget.....things can change in a hurry.  


I have a friend who at age 61 had double-bypass surgery.  He had insurance and could easily handle the co-pay, but the next year he was laid off his upper management job of 25+ years, with his termination package giving him just one more year of company insurance after that.  (His deep suspicion was his company wanted him gone due to his health liability.)  With his medical and family history he couldn't buy health insurance on the open market.  He bought into a state "last-resort" policy, but that soon proved unaffordable so he went "naked" until Medicare kicked in at age 65.  Every ache and pain sent him into panic mode.  He never thought he'd find himself in that position.


On the other hand I don't have confidence in our government to manage much of anything efficiently.  The Obamacare bill is...what...2,700 pages long?  Can anyone really, REALLY understand it?  I know the UK, Canada, Australia, and some others have universal government-run programs that seem to have a lot of good points, but they also have some well-documented problems, too, such as the fact they're breaking the bank. 


Then there's the matter of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.  This law requires almost all hospitals to treat anyone walking in seeking medical attention.  It was meant to cover true emergencies, but now is being used to treat colds, the flu, etc.  Hospitals and doctors have billions of dollars in un-collectable write-offs.  Did you know that >60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills people can't pay?  And that 78% of those are by people who had insurance but couldn't pay for all those things not covered by their insurance?  And besides the obvious hit to doctors and hospitals, bankruptcy is a drain on our economy in a bigger sense, too.  Those who have gone through it find it difficult or impossible to buy a house, a car....pretty much anything that requires credit.  These are potential big-ticket consumers who will NOT be helping grow our economy.


Just some thoughts for you to consider.  IMO, regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, SOMETHING needs to be done about healthcare in America.  I wish there was a simple answer.


S