SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM
Background: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/pennsylvania-public-defenders_n_1556192.html
I have got the solution. We all know that money talks when it comes to the law. Buy yourself a good attorney who is better than the other guy, and you win. Just like the the medical system. If you have good enough insurance, you win.
SO, I think the solution should be the same. Those who think that a single-payer system (i.e. Government provided) for health care is the right way to go, should have no problem in eliminating all private attorneys. Lawyers should all work for the government and be paid by all of us, and we all get to use the same pool of lawyers. Nobody, no matter how much they make or have, can hire a private lawyer … nope, they can only use lawyers approved and paid for by the government.
Great solution to providing defense attorneys, as well as attorneys for all the other things … and just think, we can cap their salaries as well.
IMMIGRATION
I am not sure I understand this, but it bothers me a lot. The news this week is that President Obama issued an executive order directing U.S. immigration agencies to stop deporting people here illegally who are 16 to 30 and who came to this country while they were underage. They will now be issued work permits and be allowed to stay.
I am not sure, but does that not bother others? Not so much that the policy recognizes a million or so people who are of the age to contribute to the lower income sectors of the economy, but the fact that:
A. it was done by executive order, which, if we were going to follow what the founding fathers envisioned, is not the way to create the law of the land (but we abandoned that long ago with the creation of the plethora of federal agencies to regulate innumerable aspects of the American economy with barely a nod toward congressional concurrence)
B. That this creates a special class of residents (I hesitate to call them citizens yet) in the US for special treatment under the law. Again, I would differ with this policy because I think that immigration law should, in general apply equally to all. I know it doesn’t but that should be the goal.
Our goal should be “equality before the law” and not divided by what age we are. Those who came here illegally should follow the rules, as we all are asked to follow the rules. Those who violate the rules, should be asked to pay a cost and not be rewarded.
But, no, we have to have exceptions to the rule, so we can reward various and sundry special interests. Well, remember my view on special interests.
Anyway, just thinking.
2 comments:
"That this creates a special class of residents (I hesitate to call them citizens)..."
I would add the word 'yet' after citizens...
but yes, the fact that this presidential decree, as you said, not the way we pass laws in this country, effectively creates another protected class is troubling for several reasons. The manner in which it was implemented, the blatant disregard for existing law and the principle of equality before the law, a granting of special privilege and benefits, a potentially shortened road to citizenship (which might be a good thing if available to all attempting to become so legally) through bypassing controls and regulations... there is dangerous precedent here and no valid means I can see to prevent it in the future save for the personal integrity of the person holding the office of President of the United States.
Regardless of who that person is, personal integrity seems a thin strand from which to hang the rule of law and American liberties.
But in the end, Mister Michael, it really is the only thread on which our liberties and the rule of law does hang ... and that is the point.
Without personal integrity and individual responsibility, then our liberties means absolutely zippo.
Post a Comment