Recent Posts

[Today’s call to action:]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – Amendment I, United States Constitution

Interpretation of the Constitution can be tricky, especially considering the language used over 200 years ago. Reading the writings of our founders is exciting and inspiring – that is, of course, once you can get past the sentence structures that are eerily reminiscent of the rambling messes in German literature. Anyway, let’s split the first part of the Amendment into digestible clauses:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
• Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

The wording is pretty clear. Amazingly, though, many people miss the first word, Congress. The First Amendment does not refer to the government as a whole, but merely the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. When combined with the rest of the Constitution, the Amendment states that Congress cannot mandate an official religion, nor can it prohibit anyone from practicing their religion, and in addition, the Supreme Court and lower courts must decide cases in which Congress established an official religion or prohibited the free exercise of religion. No more, no less.

Our courts, as a result of the First Amendment, have no power regarding religion beyond operating as checks and balances to Congress. Moreover, the law clearly allows government to practice religion as long as Congress does not mandate the practice thereof or prohibit others’ practice of religion. As the Amendment is written, the free exercise of religion may not be prohibited This can be proven widely – Congress opens its sessions with prayer. The United States Supreme Court opens with prayer and the crier says, “God save the United States and this honorable court.” But who better to trust than the men who wrote and inspired our founding documents themselves? Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” regularly attended voluntary church services in the House of Representatives [1].

Recently, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the display of a cross originally erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars on government land in the 1930s in southeastern California. A retired National Park Service employee had objected to its display, and in 2002 a federal judge in California ordered the government to stop displaying the cross, a decision upheld in 2004 by the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals [2]. However, the Supreme Court is specifically restricted from deciding cases outside of the Constitutional jurisdiction – in this case, it is prohibited from ruling on a case regarding religion for which Congress took no part.

I’m blown away that the federal courts are even looking at this case. We’ve already established that the courts can only decide cases in which the federal Congress has violated the First Amendment. The plaintiffs argue that the cross violates the establishment clause, but I’m still trying to find that law that Congress made which established or mandated an official religion. That would be a pretty grand leap of logic, akin to concluding that, if I were to agree with President Obama on an issue, that I fully and unquestioningly support him for President in 2012 and will force everyone else to support him. The connection doesn’t exist. The same goes with the display of the Ten Commandments outside a federal courthouse – in that case as well, Congress had made no establishing law, but the frivolous courts were certainly happy to stamp out the free exercise of religion.

The beauty of the original Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, is that it caters to persons of all beliefs. A nation which mandates no religion (or lack thereof) and openly permits exercise of all forms of religion is truly free. A nation which forces atheism upon the people, in whole or in part, is certainly not free. This is ultimately the direct result of corruption in the courts, a system caught in the stranglehold of my-way-or-the-highway egoists.

Our nation is so incredible due to the wide variety of people of whom it is comprised and two whom its laws grant freedom. I still struggle to comprehend the progressive agenda which at once praises inclusiveness and diversity while in the background silently snuffs out the voices of dissenters. Furthermore, I fail to understand the conservative idea that the Constitution is of utmost importance yet they ignore the right of people to live life as they would. Ultimately, neither group wants unity among diverse peoples, instead desiring your rank-and-file uniformity and subservience.

In the end, who do you trust more – the men who wrote the Constitution or a power-tripping federal judge in California some 215 years removed, wholly incapable of reading plain English?

Today’s call to action: We’ve been putting together some material on what we can do about this mess. Forward this website to a friend and stop back tomorrow as we talk about returning to our principles and making this nation a land of free men and women, acting without the burden of an overzealous, greedy, and unsustainable government.

1. “Religion and the Founding of the American Public,” loc.gov, November 24, 2009.
2. “Religion Largely Absent in Argument About Cross,” nytimes.com, October 7, 2009.

[Today’s call to action:]

“I think we Americans tend to put too high a price on unanimity, as if there were something dangerous and illegitimate about honest differences of opinion honestly expressed by honest men.” – J. William Fulbright

Quick, grab your pitchforks and broomsticks – the witch hunt is back in full swing. Sarah Palin’s widely-publicized new book, “Going Rogue,” was just released this week and will be #1 on the New York Times best-seller list when it’s next published. In the meantime, though, her critics are back at it, attacking anything and anyone they view as a threat to the “Washington Way.” Tragically, the attacks on Sarah Palin from both the left and right reinforce the idea that America still has a problem with xenophobia. That’s a tough pill to swallow considering how long we’ve been fighting and dying for equality. Americans should be ashamed by the treatment Ms. Palin has received.

The former Alaska governor never ran a malicious campaign, remarkably remaining above the fray despite the unending avalanche of mudslinging aimed in her direction. And outside of the over-edited, over-analyzed interviews with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson, she’s shown that she’s a moderately intelligent person with more guts and gusto than most politicians could ever hope to squander. But because she holds fast to beliefs which don’t align with those of the pundits, including at times even Republicans, she’s somehow portrayed as stupid and unfit to lead. The proof is in the pudding – the Associated Press dedicated 11 people to fact-checking Palin’s book but didn’t bother to check any facts in recent books by Vice President Biden, President Obama, or Bill or Hillary Clinton [1].

Even more despicable, though, are those who wish to repeatedly attack her character out of a seeming lack of decency or absence of facts with which to develop a substantive argument. We should know by now that the character of a person doesn’t make his or her opinion or actions any more or less relevant. Former President Carter may be a terrorist and a Marxist but that doesn’t keep me from being active with Habitat for Humanity. Even more fundamentally, someone who has so graciously dealt with an overly-aggressive media, the birth and care of a special needs child, and other over-publicized family issues should be the last person to have his or her character questioned.

Unfortunately for the politicians and pundits and fortunately for Sarah Palin, her opponent’s plan has backfired. The more baseless attacks are thrown at her, the more upset and polarized her supporters and sympathizers become. One could apply the analogy that the hotter the fire, the more refined the product. Ms. Palin has remained in the limelight in great part due to continued criticism from the media.

In all honestly, I don't love Sarah Palin, but I do respect her attitude and opinions. What I do love is that the attempts of her critics to demean her and take her out of the spotlight have failed. I suggest that they take the hint and focus on the issues – lobbing baseless, off-topic attacks at people is immature and have been proven ineffective.

Today’s call to action: Let’s make it really simple today – don’t let someone else tell you what opinion to have. Watch an interview or two in which Sarah Palin has participated over the last two weeks and judge for yourself.

1. “AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check',” foxnews.com, November 18, 2009.

[Today’s call to action:]

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” – Thomas Jefferson

And so it begins. Yesterday, the government-funded, government-appointed U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [1] released new guidelines for breast cancer screening, suggesting widespread cuts in tests aimed at reducing the 40,000 American lives lost each year to the disease. To make its decision, according to Diana Petitti, vice-chairman of the task force, the group compared the benefits of screening to the “harms of false positive, such as anxiety and unnecessary additional tests and biopsies, which are expensive and time-consuming” [2].

There are several things wrong with this scenario.

First, the report assumes that the “harms” of a false positive could ever outweigh non-identification of the disease. Really? I don’t know about you, but I’d rather I find out I have treatable, early-stage cancer just to find out that it was a false positive a week later than wait another 3 years to suddenly find out that I have six weeks to live. It’s akin to avoiding going to the dentist for fear that you might have a killer cavity. It doesn’t make sense.

Secondly, this report suggests against routine screening for women aged 40 to 49, although it is commonly known that survival rates for younger women are lower than for older women as the cancer tends to be more aggressive at an earlier age [3]. The report even recommends against teaching self-examinations. Why would anyone in their right mind want people to be less aware of methods for preventing a disease killing tens of thousands of Americans every year?

The most obvious reason is worrisome. The government already controls screening for persons on Medicare, Medicaid, and VA programs. It is about to control screening for even more insureds, like those covered under the new public option and any plans in the government-created health care co-op, especially with assistance from the newly-created Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research [4]. These bodies rely on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to define their levels of coverage, instead of the doctors who actually treat the patients.

We don’t want to jump to conclusions. But we also don’t want to sit back, blindfolded, waiting until it’s too late. The government is now realizing a forthcoming dramatic rise in health care costs; it is oddly convenient that they just sponsored a new recommendation to stymie efforts to prevent breast cancer. And while self-serving elitists like Representative Alan Grayson (D, GA) complain that the Republicans’ plan is to hope people die quickly [5], the liberal plan suddenly scores wildly high marks in this category. Waiting until cancer is terminal before identification makes it a breeze for the government to deny spending money on cancer treatments at the cost of American lives. Friends, the stakes have just been raised.

Today’s call to action: Forward this article to a friend who may be on the fence about government-controlled health care.

1. “About USPSTF,” ahrq.gov, November 17, 2009.
2. “Breast-Screening Advice is Upended,” The Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2009.
3. “Breast Cancer Survival Rates,” cancersurvivalrates.net, November 18, 2009.
4. “Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research Membership,” hhs.gov, November 17, 2009.
5. “Alan Grayson ‘Die Quickly’ Comment Prompts Uproar,” cbsnews.com, September 30, 2009.

“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power… Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Sir John Dalberg-Acton

How would you like to have a job where you could break the law without fear of punishment? It’s simple – become a congressman.

We’ve all worked with good and bad leaders in the past. For a leader to effectively perform his or her job, he or she must be capable of rallying and motivating the team members, championing the cause. Whether it be in the military or in a civilian job, a leader is often the first to act, showing others it’s okay to join.

George Washington was a master at this, explained in detail in the book, “The Real George Washington.” Frequently, Washington’s officers wrote in frustration that the commander-in-chief often acted in a manner likely to get him killed, which could have easily spelled the end of the American Revolution.

As one battle opened, Washington stoically rode out ahead of the entire Continental Army, within thirty yards of the redcoats. He was immediately engulfed in gun smoke from both sides, causing his officers to fear that when the smoke cleared, their commanding general would be dismounted, lying motionless on the ground. Later, at the siege of Yorktown, the general was often active in the trenches with his soldiers, being frequently sprayed with dirt from the thunderous cannonball blasts around him. This tenacity was also shared by other leaders like Alexander Hamilton who, just a few hundred yards from Washington, risked his life as he rode ahead, storming heavily-defended redoubts along the York River, climbing over giant felled trees and dirt embankments as bullets whizzed by him.

Unfortunately, among our nation’s political leaders, those days are long gone. Many bills, including the recent health care bill, do not apply to our congresspersons. While we are staring a massive health care entitlement in the face which threatens to increase taxes, cut benefits, discourage physicians from practice, and limit freedom of choice, our congresspersons are disappointingly (though not surprisingly) exempt.

In contrast to real leaders, our politicians are often the first to cast blame and point fingers yet last to admit wrongdoing. Charles Rangel (D, NY) has finally admitted to lying on his taxes from 2002 to 2006, but there’s still no resolution after a year of investigation [1]. David Vitter (R, LA) was caught soliciting prostitutes, but was not disciplined in part because his actions “did not involve his professional conduct” [2]. And, often times, the disciplinary action taken involves a mere admonishment and nothing more.

Honestly, it’s not that much to ask. It would be nice to feel that our government representatives actually believe the words coming out of their mouths. It would be nice to be able to listen to them and be able to focus on their words without being overcome with the sneaking feeling that we’re being lied to.

1. “Ethics Committee Expands Rangel Investigation,” huffingtonpost.com, October 8, 2009.
2. “Scandals, but No Censure; Congress Struggles to Police Members,” nytimes.com, October 17, 2009.

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” – C.S. Lewis
 
When was the last time you won a political argument with someone who held a different belief than you? No one really wins such a conversation; some merely end up looking more stupid than others. So why do we continue?
 
There can be no doubt that the opinion on the role of government among Americans is exceptionally diverse. Excluding malicious extremists, our desires for government involvement go from near-anarchy to full-on socialism. Honestly, that’s fine with us. Your opinion is yours to have. People’s opinions only become problematic when they’re shoved down someone else’s throat.
 
Our legislators are trying as hard as they can to fit an amorphous-blob-shaped peg into a square hole.  They will never accomplish this, but with each attempt they further smash the blob-shaped peg with a hammer, disfiguring it and breaking it until it "fits." Our founders, however, wrote a simple Constitution, and for good reason: it appropriately fit the great majority of people.
 
Before our federal government grew into an out-of-control spending machine, people were free to live in cities and states that accurately matched their ideal government. Under such a system, one state could have socialized medicine and the other could have completely private medicine. In the former, you’d be guaranteed health insurance, but it would provide somewhat lower-quality care and ultimately cost you more. In the latter, you would have less-expensive and higher-quality health insurance but you take a risk of losing it if you suddenly lose your income. But it was your own choice.
 
Our Constitution is truly a great document. But when power-grabbing politicians ignore its tenets in an effort to force everyone to conform to an ideal with which few agree, we end up where we are today: severe distrust in government, politicians willing to slander anyone who doesn’t hold the same beliefs, and out-of-control spending threatening to collapse the entire economy of not only this nation but all other nations reliant on the security of our currency. So here's a [not so] novel idea: stop trying to marginalize the people and instead spend your time opening the doors for us to live life the way we choose. I can't even think of the last bill congress passed which actually universally expanded liberties.
 
Abraham Lincoln once said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Supposing that one person’s opinion is more valuable than that of another is, without contestation, a one-way ticket toward self-destruction.

[Today’s call to action:]

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” – George Washington

Wiry and of medium height with a long, grey pony tail, my middle-school art teacher was still one of the more intimidating teachers we ever had in school. He was also one of the most influential. If you did something wrong, Mr. Streed was on you like a rabid wolf on a rabbit. One of the things I remember most was his most famous saying. If a student did something to make his or her life more difficult and was asked why, the student often replied with a blank stare. Immediately, Mr. Streed would sarcastically respond, “of course, that’d be too easy!”

That statement is still relevant every day, and something I get to laugh about whenever I end up doing something the hard way or the long way. Less funny, though, is how applicable that quote is to our government.

According to an October Thompson Reuters report, our national health care system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year. Of that, 22 percent, or approximately $200 billion, is comprised of fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks and other scams [1]. That means your average family of four is paying $2,400/year just to fund this fraud. And since we pay for it with borrowed money, the cost is even higher. With the numerous alarms going off about this problem, why is it part of a massive health care bill which may not even pass? Why not solve the problem independently? Why are we so silent on this issue that the government could not seem to care less? <Because that’d be too easy.

Congress is again discussing yet another stimulus bill. Let’s get this straight: a stimulus should promote hiring and investment in the economy. Naturally, that can only happen if people have the money to do that. It’s been noted repeatedly that 64% of all new jobs in the last 15 years were created by small businesses [2]. In response, the government has: a) bailed out big businesses, not little ones, b) threatened to increase capital gains taxes, c) threatened to impose new health care costs, d) spent money on projects which won’t encourage growth, like $150 million on unused airports [3], and e) refused to reduce the federal corporate tax rate, one of the highest rates in the world [4]. Instead of scaring small businesses into inaction, why doesn’t the government just cut taxes on small businesses? Because that’d be too easy.

Our Constitution severely limits the powers of our federal government, in part to keep giant messes like the above from happening. Unfortunately, these days, our Constitution seems to mean little to those in Washington.

Today’s call to action: Read Article I of the Constitution to review the powers expressly given to Congress. You can find the document right here on the right sidebar under Resources.

1. “Heathcare System Wastes up to $800 Billion a Year,” reuters.com, October 26, 2009.
2. “Frequently Asked Questions,” sba.gov Office of Advocacy, November 12, 2009.
3. “Murtha’s Earmarks Keep Airport Aloft,” washingtonpost.com, April 19, 2009.
4. “Tax Rates Around the World,” worldwide-tax.com, November 12, 2009.

[Today’s call to action:]

“An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
To all members of our armed services, past or present:
 
Thank you for your sacrifice.
 
On this Veterans’ Day, the day after the 234th birthday of the United States Marine Corps, we honor those who have willingly given their time, personal lives, and even their last breaths in service to our country. Americans have a long and proud history of standing up and fighting for what’s right regardless the cost, a tradition older than our nation itself.
 
Our soldiers in the Revolutionary War pressed on with no incentive other than freedom. Soldiers in the Continental army were paid with worthless Continental dollars, often received just flour and water for meals, frequently slept on a blanket under the open sky in the rain, and many not only had no shoes but often had no socks, leaving a bloody trail behind as the icy winter ground cut open their feet.
 
When I visited the American cemetery at Coleville, France, my heart was stopped. On a bright, sunny day, the cemetery overlooked a jeweled grey-blue sea. A gentle breeze lifted the American flags, and there was peace. There was silence. The guns which roared over the beaches were long gone, the miles of terrible barbed wire and engineering impediments since removed. As I knelt by the white crosses, the knowledge that these men and women did not return to their mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, and children rushed over me. Tears filled my eyes as images of conflicts past mixed with those of my family and my friends currently in the service.
 
Today, we continue to battle against those who seek not only to disrupt our American way of life but radically change it altogether. We carry on as we have for hundreds of years that we may leave this world a little better for our children.
 
These men and women didn’t sign up with dreams of winning medals or awards. They did so in pursuit of the betterment of themselves and their country. And in this duty, 1.3 million Americans have given their lives for what they believe. We cannot thank these great men and women enough.
 
Today’s call to action: Write to or call a friend who has served or is currently serving, saying thanks for his or her commitment.

[RSS Feed:]

Instead of an article today, we’d like to explain a little about the features of the site and how you can get the most out of your experience here.

RSS Feed: An RSS feed is a great way to track the new posts on our site without having to check the site every day. Many programs support RSS feeds, including Microsoft Outlook and the Opera web browser. Using your application of choice, point it to http://www.thepatientsufferance.com/feed, also located on the right sidebar under Spread the Word! and titled Subscribe to our feed. Once you do, your program will automatically display each new article as it is published!

Sharing: A great way to help other people find this site is the Share icon right below the RSS link. Clicking on this opens up a menu where you can share this page on over 170 networking sites including Facebook, Digg, delicious, MySpace, and Twitter. The more you promote this site through those resources, the more people will stop by here and have a conversation.

Comments: Comments are disabled on blog posts, but for good reason. Each article is also duplicated in our Forums, accessible by clicking Forums at the bottom-right corner of the header menu. Once you register, you can either comment on the article or start your own discussions. The forums are yours to use. We do, however, ask that everyone follow the Code of Conduct – we’d like the discussion to be enlightened and productive.

Resources: On the right sidebar you can also find original texts on which we base our comments. We feel that the founders of our great nation had a very good idea what they were doing and wrote some really timeless stuff. You can also check out our Suggested Reading for some great book recommendations, Words of Wisdom for some inspirational quotes, and Definitions as We Use Them for an in-depth look at how we interpret various terms.

Advertisements: Ads on websites can be ugly. We don’t necessarily like having them there, but they help fund the resources to keep the site going. And, from time to time, there’s some neat things that show up so don’t be afraid to check them out – many of the ads don’t even ask you to buy anything and instead just have neat information.

Tell us what you think: Finally, we really want to hear from you! You can either contact us through our Forums or through the Contact link on the header menu at the top of the page. We’d like to hear your suggestions, or any errors with the site you may find. Also, if you’d like to exchange some links to swap some traffic or advertise on the site, we’d be happy to talk.

We want to thank you all so much for the support of this website. We don’t have all the answers, but we do have a desire to solve some of our problems and promote bilateral conversation. Your political affiliation and alignment are of no consequence here – we should all live in an America where each person has the resources he or she wants and needs, regardless of political leaning. Thanks again for visiting!

[Today's call to action]

"Having always observed that public works are much less advantageously managed than the same are by private hands, I have thought it better for the public to go to market for whatever it wants which is to be found there; for there competition brings it down to the minimum of value." - Thomas Jefferson

"You Lie!" reads one sign, hoisted in the air. "Sweeping Away Socialism One Democrat at at Time" exclaims another. These signs are bound by a common thread of anger over deceit by the politicians teamed with the anti-socialist feelings gaining traction throughout America. John and Jane Public, who wake up and go to work everyday only to see their paychecks taxed more and more, are starting to feel the pinch. No longer is the frustration silent or even a low murmur. What began as a dull roar has built momentum and is now a country-wide movement with a very loud and prominent voice. The "Tea-Party" go-ers and 9/12-ers have spread their message to enough people and pointed out the hypocrisy in Candyland (this author's not-so affectionate term for DC and the Fairy Tale currently happening) and stirred others to join the cause. The target currently in their sites? The Pelosi Health Care Bill.

Yesterday was an historic day in Washington DC. Several congressmen and women invited the public to the western steps of the Capitol to express their displeasure and outright opposition to the health care bill currently being debated on Capitol Hill. People of all ages from all around the country took the time to gather for a news conference and rally led by Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota [1].

Several thousand concerned citizens of widely varying age, race, and economic background gathered to protest what they deemed a government takeover of the health care system. Following the rally, the group descended onto the different offices of varying officials in Washington. One example that deems being highlighted is the encounter several native Minnesotans had with their representative Keith Ellison (D, MN). Having made the ~1,100 mile to speak with Mr. Ellison, they told the Congressman their story, noting their viewpoint on the upcoming bill and their adamant position against it. Renee Doyle, a member of the group making the trip, said, "[t]here's a lot of emotion. But it's very civil. It seems that he feels like he has a personal responsibility to - for us poor people - take over our will because he knows best" [2].

All parties involved in the discussion said it was civil with Mr. Ellison, who noted, "[n]ot that we ever agreed, but they really were fairly polite, you know, and I was not really prepared for that" [2]. So what exactly what was Mr. Ellison expecting? A rowdy, uncouth crowd whose knuckles drag on the ground when walking? It would seem as though the level of arrogance has reached an all time high in DC. It seems as though WE the people, whom politicians are supposed to serve, have turned into the public who don’t know what's good for them, thankfully having the great fortune of a much wiser political elite class prepared to save them.

Personally, we believe that we should have the ultimate say in our lives. If you've taken the time to read this article, we bet you feel the same way.

Today's call to action requires a bit more from you, the reader. Listed below are links to the contact information for all of the representatives in Congress. Make a phone call. Make your voice heard. Be respectful but firm. Voice your opinion. Do you want a public option? Or would you rather make health care more competitive and ultimately cheaper, opening the doors to those 12-14 million Americans who aren't insured but want to be? If you want to see the future, you need only to look at the past. Government-run programs have a history of failure. Don't let this become another statistic.

US Senator Contact Information
US Representative Contact Information

1. "On the Hill, Protesters Chant 'Kill the Bill,'" nytimes.com, November 5, 2009.
2. "Bachmann Leads Rally Opposing Health Plan," startribune.com, November 6, 2009.

[Today’s call to action:]

“The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

If you’re Senator Christopher Dodd (D, CT), your version of the Heimlich maneuver is to choke the poor bloke until dead and replace him with a scarier guy with even greater esophageal problems. The Senator has been hard at work drafting new legislation to strip the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve of their bank-supervision powers, handing over control to a new council of regulators, overseen by an “independent White House appointee” [1]. No, really, you’re not imagining things. There are a multitude of things wrong with this scenario, but let’s focus on two of them:

Firstly, introducing more regulatory groups creates issues when the remnant groups still exist, even if in a lesser capacity. Sociologists refer to this as “diffusion of responsibility.” Let’s not forget the post-9/11 firestorm about the relationship between the CIA and FBI and how the existence of the two departments, no matter how codified their distinct responsibilities were, created holes in the system [2]. If you’re in a restaurant with only one other person and that person starts choking, what is the chance you will assist with the Heimlich maneuver (the real maneuver, not the Chris Dodd version)? How likely are you to help in the same situation but with one hundred diners in the restaurant?

Furthermore, one would assume we had learned from the housing bubble that politicizing anything, let alone banking policy was a bad idea. Allowing the White House to appoint a single person to be in charge of the monetary oversight is like letting a child decide what’s for dinner. It’s probably not going to be good for you. In the late 1990s and 2000s the federal government pressured banks to lend to people who were less likely to repay their loans – look what has happened and what is about to happen with the Option-ARM mortgages. We see foreign policy change with each new administration. We see energy and social policy change with each administration. Banks shouldn’t have to retool their sails to handle the political winds of each new administration. It’s not healthy for banks nor its customers, not to mentionl the financial stability of the country at home and worldwide.

We do agree with Dodd’s intentions of consolidating some responsibility, but this isn’t the right way. Why retain the empty shells of the Fed and the FDIC, causing more opportunity for gaps in coverage? Why take the responsibility away from semi-independent groups and place it upon the shoulders of the presidential administrations? Why ask the FDIC to insure banks subject to someone else’s rules instead of its own?

Today’s call to action: Let us know in the forums how you feel about this new legislation.

1. “Clash Looms on Banks,” The Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2009.
2. Davisson, Shawn P., “Spooks Vs. Suits – the Ultimate Sibling Rivalry: CIA/FBI Interagency Competition, Communicative Failures, and Effects on U.S. National Security,” 2004.