"Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
It might be a question out of today's headlines, but it isn't.
No doubt, it could rightly be asked in the health-care debate, but it goes well beyond that. In every disaster, in every disturbance, the federal government today is ready with a checkbook at hand to help those in need. Hurricane Katrina? California fires? Montana snowstorms? They've all been declared disasters in order to justify federal spending to help out the victims and to speed recovery. The average number of disaster declarations reached as high as 130 during the George W. Bush administration, an increase of almost 50 percent over the Clinton era.
Of course, no one could be against helping the innocent victims of natural or manmade disasters, could they? Well, no. Not anyone in their right mind, at least. Charity is one of the highest impulses of mankind, and our desire to help and protect each other is a noble heritage that we all cherish.
But that does not ans-wer the original question:
"Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
That question was asked not of President Obama nor of Sen. Max Baucus or Rep. Nancy Pelosi, but of the less well-known Tennessee congressman, David Crockett.
It was a question that Rep. Crockett was not well-prepared to answer, but his constituent wanted to know why he had voted to spend federal funds for the relief of families that had been left homeless as the result of a ravaging fire in Georgetown. Crockett had actually seen the fire and gone to help rescue women and children and to fight the flames, so he was more than happy a bill came before Congress to aid those victims further. As he himself said, "We put aside all other business, and rushed it through as soon as it could be done."
Again, sort of reminiscent of the "rush" to pass health-care 'reform" in the current Congress, but whereas we are talking about spending a trillion dollars or more for health-care reform, the fire relief was the relatively paltry sum of $20,000.
That's because this was back in the 1820s, and Rep. Crockett was none other than the American folk hero, Davy Crockett, "king of the wild frontier." Crockett served three terms in Congress altogether before being killed defending the Alamo in Texas.
But back to our story, which comes from an 1884 biography, "The Life of Colonel David Crockett" by Edward S. Ellis, it is instructive to note the puzzlement of Rep. Crockett when he was challenged by his constituent Horatio Bunce while out stumping for votes. Bunce told Crockett in no uncertain terms that he could not vote for him again.
"You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me," Bunce said in the story, as allegedly recounted by Crockett.
By today's mainstream-media standards, Bunce would clearly be known as a right-wing extremist, and if he expressed his concerns at a town-hall meeting this summer he would have been labeled "un-American."
Even Crockett, before finding out what was on Bunce's mind, said, "I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence."
But that was before the Tennessee farmer had asked his devastating question, which Crockett described colorfully as a 'sockdologer!" which roughly translated means a comment that could set a person to thinking.
And think, Crockett did, trying in vain to find some justification for his vote in favor of the $20,000 in charity.
"When I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: 'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'"
But Horatio Bunce, a one-man "Tea Party" of his day, was having none of it. Rather than be hornswoggled by Crockett's attempt to deflect the argument away from the Constitution, he circled right back to it:
"In the first place," he said, the Government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man… [W]hile you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive, what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose."
Now, how this applies to health care is quite simple. There's no difference between giving money to individual citizens because they have lost their house in a fire or giving money to citizens because they have fallen ill. It is, to use Horatio Bunce's word, "charity." It is, thus, not surprising that the recipients of this government-funded charity, who would number in the millions, have taken to acting as if they are entitled to health-care assistance, whatever you wish to call it.
Likewise, the victims of the fire who were the beneficiaries of Congress' generosity with other people's money were happy to have it, and so were the average and well-to-do citizens who might otherwise have been asked to contribute to a fire-relief fund. Bunce lectured Crockett accordingly:
"The people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
The well-spoken farmer concluded his presentation thusly: "It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people."
That, ladies and gentleman, is a powerful statement, which has been amply demonstrated to be true in the subsequent 180 years. Those folks who today meretriciously dismiss the constitutional argument as an irrelevancy in the health-care debate show just how far off course we have gotten.
The only hope we have now is that our congressional representatives and senators have a smidgen of the integrity of Davy Crockett, who having been instructed in the truth was man enough to accept it.
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution," he told his accuser. "I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it, than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
Bunce wryly shot back at Crockett: "Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before," referring to his sacred vow to uphold the Constitution, a vow that not only he but all congressmen and elected representatives take, whether they have read the Constitution or not.
In this day and age, the only congressman I know of who follows Crockett's example as a born-again constitutionalist is Ron Paul, who never votes for a bill without first confirming in his own mind that Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass such a law. Most of the rest of them just ask themselves how popular the bill will be, and whether it will help or hurt their efforts to be re-elected.
Yes, the Constitution is a relatively old document, but it is not moldy, and if we think of it as quaint and irrelevant, we do so at the ultimate cost of our liberty. That would be unconscionable.
Let's hope that this story of Rep. David Crockett and a plain old U.S. citizen who held him accountable helps to remind each and every one of us that America's exceptional quality is partly based on the fact that we are ruled from the bottom up. It is "we the people," not "we the governed."
It is important also to remember that solutions to most American problems are to be found in American lore and history - if one could but be bothered to look. Although times change, human nature doesn't, nor does the nature of our republic, as long as it stands fast and hews to the line of the Constitution.
n Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com
Editor
Woody: Thanks for the softball. The reason why members of Congress cannot vote for bills that are not allowed by the Constitution is because they have sworn to do so in their oath of office. Article VI states that they "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." Is this yet another empty phrase to be discarded by later generations? Or are we to assume that the "Immortals" who founded our country intended "support" to mean "do whatever you want, but for godssake say you saw it in the Constitution.." I think it meqans they have a duty to read the Constitution and be guided by it. --Frank
Rob123
"In this day and age, the only congressman I know of who follows Crockett's example as a born-again constitutionalist is Ron Paul, who never votes for a bill without first confirming in his own mind that Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass such a law. Most of the rest of them just ask themselves how popular the bill will be, and whether it will help or hurt their efforts to be re-elected." No matter where one stands in the field of political thought, Frank's statement is pretty darn true. There are the 'essential' programs run by the Federal Gov't.; then their are the bloated, fluffy, expensive drival that everyone knows about but they just continue to continue. If 61% of all Americans decided to seriously study and then shut down programs/departments/agencies that did not conform to the 'original intent of our constitution', where would it start? Health Care? How about the fact that in 1998 the OMB got a promise from the Dept of Defense that it would balance it's 1998 budget and actually Account for ALL money spent to the dime, BUT, it would take 10 years. This is the 11th year, and it's not finished yet?
Rob123
(cont) My personal pet peeve. And as a 73C20 MOS in Vietnam who traveled around Dispersing Millions of Dollars armed with a typewriter and a 45 and the IQ to Balance the Books even when Central Finance in Saigon gave me a footlocker full of $20.00 bills EXTRA, and no one ever, ever questioned anyone, so we just stuck it in the corner of the Vault in Cam Ranh, put a green army towel over it and the coffee pot and cups, and continued to continue. It was still there when I was transferred to Nha Trang. One instance in thousands that happens every day. But that is my Pet Peeve. Anyone want to add on? And more importantly, how does one unravel 'it'?
Rob123
Hey Future Resident...."WASHINGTON - Sen. Max Baucus on Monday pushed a new health care plan including an industry fee to help pay for covering the uninsured as President Barack Obama said insurance companies must share accountability for the troubled system. The Finance Committee is the last best hope for a bipartisan bill since four of five congressional committees have produced partisan proposals. Baucus, D-Mont., has said he would move forward on his own if there's no agreement by Sept. 15." As an 'insider', what do you think? I know here in the Oil Patch, such 'taxes' are passed along with alarming ease, outside of the Intellectual Nausea. Et Tu?
Rob123
I have to admit to a certain propensity to love a good Romantic Western.....looking back to a time before Corporate Power, when Individuals, be they the small farmer or businessman or mountainman or prospector, worked hard and saved and when needed, helped out a neighbor; knowing the government would defend the borders from invasion and when petitioned, build a road or two inorder to facilitate commerce. Ah, the good old days. I think in many ways, Ronald Reagan tapped into this notion, this desire for a return to the 'limited-pre-Roosevelt/ww2 era', and for every step forward he was matched by a step back in the shadow government of IRS Special (corporate) Rulings/Cold War Defence spending and black-op CIA intrigue and Star Wars $billions that wouldn't work but what a big, scary dream. The best we can hope for is a return to high tax rates for individuals and corporations that spend money on anything EXCEPT actual reinvestment in the core business. Tax the hell out of pleasure, NOT work. Set a standard for a reasonable sized home, and anything bigger, tax the hell out of it. And pay down the National debt. And stop paying to deconstruct Russian Nukes now
Rob123
(cont) that Russia is swimming in Oil money? What's with that? Why can't programs have 'Sunset Provisions', so they and their bureaucracy go away after awhile? Like the USPS and it's money losing Union run bureaucracy- from top to bottom - that shows the lunacy of such thinking, yet continues to continue with it's little monopoly. And Sunset Laws for Politicians; or an Oath to serve the common good, with an eye towards their core constituents, but not an obsession with getting re-elected. Instead, an obsession with doing what is 'good' (footnote to Plato 1). But, I do love a good Romance Novel; thanks, Frank.
sensible
where does the constitution say that corporations are persons? that money is speech? INTERPRETATION. and it differs for everyone. to run to the constitution for EVERY little detail is an exercise in futility. it wasn't written to answer every little question. hell, it's only a few pages long. but apparently, john woo found evidence to torture people in that constitution. the supreme court found evidence to stop a state recount (2000 - florida). bush found evidence to suspend the 4th amendment protections (search and seizure)........amongst other bill of rights violations........not to mention terry schiavo, elian gonzalez, and the other "run your life" decisions republicans have weighed in on recently. get real, frank. sometimes "community" requires charity. but you guys don't believe in community.........republican "moneyworshipping" selfishness won't allow it. ROB: EXCELLENT.... tax pleasure, not work. ESDCELLENT.
sensible
Rob: still pondering your "tax pleasure, not work" statement. so well put. when payroll taxes are 15.3% (income tax is then added) and capital gains are are only 15% (no income tax after this), the war of labor vs. capital is on. this showdown took place under reagan. "the divine right of capital" is more than a phrase from a book.....it is THE republican driving force......has been since 1980. the argument is "we need capital to create jobs". which is true. but normally the capital is needed by those without, not those with. to assume that only the wealthy have innovative ideas to create jobs and therefore deserve more money is so "elitist". plus, lack of capital is not a problem. has not been. will not be. there is plenty of capital. was during the depression, during the 70's, and now. there is plenty of capital. it just isn't spread out to those who could utilize it due to tax policy. how can a hard working laborer with a great idea start a business if he is incapable of accruing capital from his efforts due to regressive tax policy? upward mobility is thwarted. a permanent "royalty" exists instead.......and is evidenced
sensible
.......and is evidenced by income distribution from the last 30 years, followinfgreagan's "war on labor".
sensible
FYI - The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly According to Kelly, this Economic Aristocracy has six principles: 1) worldview- it aims to pay shareholders as much as possible and employees as little as possible; 2)privilege- shareholders, just like nobles, claim wealth they do little to create; 3)property- a corporation, like a feudal estate, is a piece of property, not a community, and can be owned and sold by the propertied class; 4)governance- corporations have an aristocratic governance structure which implies that those who own the corporation are the only group entitled to vote on decisions determining the future of the corporation; 5)liberty- this is preserved for the property owners only; 6)sovereignty- corporations assert they are private and the free market will self-regulate them, just like barons asserted they were independent of the Crown.
sensible
Editor: didn't the republicans DENY RON PAUL the podium at the republican convention? wouldn't let him speak. wouldn't let him speak. denied by his own party!!! speaks volumes about republican "diversity" and their respect for the constitution and ron paul's view.
Rob123
naturalresources: Come on....Talk about Franks piece and how it affected you. Leave other commentators out of it. We are reacting to Frank in ways that show 'Free Speech' in a Democracy. Please join in. You can jump on my back and accuse me of the worlds demise in a day or two. Stick to Frank's premise for salvation/redemption for a day or so. He's a lot smarter than me, and reaches a lot more people. Give him his dues. The fact that I'm correct and he isn't is neither here nor there. (-: Please.
Flathead Frank
We are both "we the people" and "we the governed." It's not an either-or situation. Whether Frank the Country Editor likes it or not, each generation is responsible for interpretating the Constitution. That's what the framers intended. They knew that dead people wouldn't have much say in today's issues, so they developed a "living document."
bimmermt
Frank is trying to make a point here. He is, in my thinking, making a point that we are so out of control with "charity" that we are taking our Country down. He simply used the analogy of Davey Crockett to tell us that Government has simply continued to spend and spend. Some in the populace just expect to be "bailed out." The Constitution either needs to be rewritten to accommodate the needs of the 21st century, or we go back to our roots. In essence Frank, hopefully I am interpreting correctly, we have become too "big" for the Constitution and have "made too many promises" that can't be backed up financially. The fires in Montana? sensible, there is no answer.
bimmermt
I read the article concerning the husband and wife who bought electronic equipment, truck, etc to make a decent living and assist firefighters during tough times. But not enough fires this year. That is private enterprise at its finest. Hope they make it. If they go down because of a bank or SBA loan, they may have to depend on Church charities or donations by the citizenry. The Constitution does not give any government agency the right to spend public dollars to feed or clothe or help in such situations, family with children or not. As Colonel Crockett so bravely once stated "Sometimes ya get the barr, and sometimes the barr gets you!" I hope that I have presented the Ron Paul Flathead contingent population and given credence to Frank's editorial for the week. And you will note, please, that no shots were fired. The barr got me I suppose.
sensible
bimmermt: "sensible, there is no answer.".....to what?
Bronco
cont...Is there a law on the books that states you have to do that?â I point to my heart. âThereâs another law in here. I think that one is more important considering wWho wrote it.â
doood
Yes, let's look at the Constitution...PLEASE. Specifically one of the two most important sentences in this nations history. The one containing "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." Healthcare reform for those who haven't read the proposals has very little to do with charity and everything to do with the general Welfare of our country. It would be the single biggest advancement in our society since 1920, making us stronger as a nation. Only greed will stop it.
Woody
Excellent post, Dood. Since Welfare is in the Constitution does that make this entire train of thought moot? As Frank has said, this is what happens when pick and choose what to read. Did you miss that part of our Constitution, Frank?
bimmermt
Oh father, use her to turn this nation around,â Bishop Muthee shouted, his left palm on Sarah Palinâs head, âso that the curse can be broken.â To those who knew Palin, she was no ordinary hockey mom, but rather an evangelical foot soldier who spearheaded the [conservative Christian] movementâs takeover of local government. Her power base was the Wasilla Assembly of God, a Pentecostal mega-church where she was baptized and spent over 20 years as a member. Just some info I found while searching for conservative views.
doood
Can I add fear. I meant greed and fear.
bimmermt
Geez sensible, I forgot why I said there is no answer. I read your post then made that comment. Ron Paul was rejected by his own people to speak. Ron Paul is, in Frank's view, the real savior of the Constitution. And, ah, it just seems that there is no real answer to this divisiveness with all of us so far apart. One party wants to follow a very exclusionary view of what the government should be involved in. The other party wants to follow an inclusionary view of what the government should be involved in. sensible, there just does not appear to be an answer. Unless, we debate the issues intelligently then vote for the people who represent our views. Simple? Hardly! Why? Money! Someone's oxen get gouged!
bimmermt
Bronco, I liked your post. BMW. Ah, love those German symbols of excellence. Owned 5 BMW autos. Worked on them myself most of the time. Built like a Panzer Tank and ran forever. Also owned several Kaw. Had their first real superbike, a Z1 900cc crotch rocket, 1973. 83 hp with a Japanese revenge seat and rear shocks. Sorry, got off track. Anyway, the conversation with the cop was very much linked to the topic of today. Literal translation of law vs. pragmatism. Keep on keeping on bro. (-:
bimmermt
doood: last post I swear. Your vision of the inclusiveness of the Constitution is clear. Promote the general Welfare, to you, falls within the health care debate. The Constitution, even though not stated in specifics, supports the establishment of government or some workable form of general Welfare including promoting the general health of its citizenry. We have both, yet recipients are age dependent, disability dependent , war wounds dependent, money dependent, and I am sure I have left some out. Obviously, individuals who have none of these dependencies, have no right to your view of Constitutionally guaranteed general Welfare. And for me, having an inquiring mind, WHY would some chose to be exclusionary in this very Christian Nation of ours?
bimmermt
no no no no. Wait a minute. I did not mean to say "Obviously, individuals who have none of these dependencies, have no right to your view of Constitutionally guaranteed general Welfare." Hummmm, complicated syntax we have. If individuals do not qualify for either forms of health care, they have none. And in your view, that runs counter to the Constitutional provision of promoting the general welfare of it citizenry. Better I think.
Woody
Bimmer is the health of the individual not an integral part of the "general Welfare"?
Rob123
Woody....I certainly think so. Health Insurance and Healthy Ingredients in our food supply. Did you know that Mayonaise sold in the U.S. is illigal in Europe? The "Freedom and Liberty" to have 60% of the population over weight. And everything is doused in sugar. Taste! Screw science, just cram it in.. cheaply filled with empty calories that TASTE GRRRREAT. ....We really have dumbed down the past few decades. It's one thing to eat 3,000 calories a day and pull whidgits off an assembly line for 8 hours. But sitting behind the Joy Stick on a computerized whidgit retractor all day and still eat 3,000 calories is nuts. Eat right and get rid of the lawyers, and our health costs would be cut in 1/2.
sensible
bimmermt: pragmatism is sometimes an "affliction".
Bronco
Junk Sci Skeptic, you bring up some thinking points. Welfare as we know it today is actually charity. Government funded (its working citizenry) charity. National health care would fall under the true definition of general welfare.
bimmermt
Woody, as you are well aware, there are perhaps two basic interpretations of general welfare. One is inclusive the other, well you know. Since health care is not mentioned specifically, who will make the determination? Frank says we must not stray. We MUST be exclusive. Personally I do not understand that thinking. However, that has little meaning as it is a question of interpretation unless someone comes up with the ANSWER.
bimmermt
sensible. I am thinking that your comment concerning pragmatism as an affliction is related to the obvious absence of values or principles. If it works, use it. I understand. Lack of public option health care could be interpreted as pragmatism, whereas one has no set principles? Close?
Editor
To doood et al: I addressed the general welfare argument in my column on Aug. 23, but hey, that is like ancient history now. Actually, you are quoting the Preamble, while I was dealing with Article 1, Section 8, which is much more pertinent to the powers of Congress. The preamble only states in this regard that one of the reasons "We the people" do "ordain and establish this Constitution" is because we think it will "promote the general Welfare." I think we could all agree on that, especially those of us who are trying to respect the actual document and not ignore it. Long live the Constitution, but if it is ignored by the parties it is supposed to control (the president, Congress and courts) then what exactly is the point of having it? Just asking... --Frank Miele, managing editor
doood
Exactly. One of the longest debates in the history of our country is over the status of the preamble. I am a believer in the preamble. That it indicates the intent and everything that follows was hoped to uphold that intent. We do ordain and establish this document in hopes of upholding those goals. Call me a preambler...ought to be our third political party. The PREAMBLERs. I'm not gonna go down the whole list, but there are a lot of things we do that aren't specified. I would probably exchange one year schooling (k-12) for health insurance reform. Are schools in there? I'll have to check again. Sorry, I missed the Aug 23rd column as I was out of town, but I'll go back and look it over.
doood
Alright....I reviewed your Federalist paper argument, an amendment would be the preferred route. Let's get it done.
CarrollC
Dear Editor, Funny when I searched the 1820, 1830 and 1840 censuses for one Horatio Bunce of Tennessee, I couldnât find him. And when I read Crockettâs autobiography, A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett of Tennessee, I couldnât find any mention of Bunce or Crockettâs constitutional revelation. But then if you look to ob-gyns like Ron Paul for constitutional interpretation, any fairy tale will do. So does Antonin Scalia get to do c-sections?
Editor
The reading abilities of bloggers never cease to amaze, especially their ability to read things in this column that I never wrote. An example is the apparent belief that I am an admirer of Ron Paul. I am not. I simply used him factually as someone who votes on bills based on whether or not the Congress has constitutional authority to do so. Another example is this latest one, that the story I quoted from Ellis's biography of Crockett is not found in Crockett's autobiography. Imagine that! I guess Crockett had a particularly long autobiography if he managed to squeeze in every conversation he ever had. As for the Census, gee, it is just possible that Ellis made up the name... It is even possible he made up the story... It doesn't affect one iota the moral of the story, which is that congressmen ought to read the Constitution and honor it. I suspect Davy Crockett said as much in his book. CCB, you just read it tonight... what say you? Did Crockett like the constitutional limits on government? --Frank
bimmermt
Frank, you bring up a political figure who thinks and acts Constitutionally in much the same manner as you. We then make a connection, intended or not. Just as you brought up Hitler and Obama in the same text. Ought not do that. Bringing Paul into your discussion was irrelevant unless you meant to bring him in to support your views, which then could be interpreted as mutual support. But, I do think your readers are very adept at reading between the lines.
Bronco
"Long live the Constitution, but if it is ignored by the parties it is supposed to control...then what exactly is the point of having it? " --Frank Miele Allow me to paraphrase: Long live the Bible, but if it is ignored by the parties it is supposed to control...then what exactly is the point of having it? My true story about the conversation with the motorcycle cop addresses both of these questions. There seems to be very little wiggle room in neither the Constitution nor the Bible for compassion. I have stated a similar opinion many times. But yet, there have been no comments about this from the non-liberals here. Does it make you that uncomfortable? Self-realization of hypocrisy makes me feel shame. But I try to grow from such knowledge. If I am not wrong on my position regarding compassion, then I must be right. If you believe I am wrong, please educate me.
Woody
Frank Where in the Constitution does it limit Senators and Representatives to voting on "Constitutional" bills only. Who decides which bills are "Constitutional"? It is my understanding that the Judiciary makes those decisions and that the Constitution limits them to making those decisions after the fact.
Rob123
Frank: "... but if it (Constitution) is ignored by the parties it is supposed to control (the president, Congress and courts) then what exactly is the point of having it?" How many parents with teenagers have said the same thing about their parenting role in their 16 or 17 year olds decision making, with an appropriate amount of frustration, yet everything turns out ok, over time? One can listen to the 'guide' while pushing the boundaries of 'the Pursuit of happiness and liberty'. Some missteps, but in the end, missteps trumps sitting in a corner, afraid to error. The tension between anarchy and dictatorship.....It's real. And the Health Care debate has so much to do with compassion, and accessing the American Dream, and getting our priorities correct without going broke. It's very doable.