De-Weight the Votes
Recusal? Or, the weighted vote?
Neutralize the acid special interests, as far as feasible. Easy as 1-2.
Disclose the value of the financial interest publicly and objectively.
- A full vote. This is awarded to the legislator who holds 5% of the value in his portfolio for healthcare investments-related interests; or $10,000, whichever value is lower.
- Down to a two-thirds vote. This is awarded to the legislator who holds 10% of the value in his portfolio for healthcare; or $20,000, whichever value is lower. Such a deal.
- Down to a one third vote. This is awarded to the legislator who holds for more than 10% of the value in his portfolio for healthcare, or $30,000, whichever value lower.
- Recuse. This is required for the legislator 1) who holds more than 15% of the value in his portfolio, or $50,000, whichever value is lower; or 2) fails to disclose as required. Recuse: disqualify oneself or be disqualified based on grounds of prejudice, conflict of interest, or involvement. See ://www.thefreedictionary.com/recuse/ This is objective by objective standards, not countered by personal statements vowing the person will not be swayed by his or her own portfolio..
For example, voting is already considered fundamental. Speculate: is healthcare also so basic that it deserves special protection, as against its being treated as a mere commercial commodity. Then see the Declaration of Independence as a start for how to interpret the Constitution.Reread the Declaration of Independence, see ://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm/ Each of us has an inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That right is thwarted when reasonable healthcare is denied.
How do voters re-assume power, power to offset the power of the money that is guiding the people supposedly to act in their interest.
Do we have legislators divest, put funds in blind trusts, or have referendums (referenda) for these kinds of huge issues. This is an explore site, not an answer site. Where to go. Who has money for campaigns in referenda, or to push amendments. California has been in litigation about its issues for years now.
Requiring objectively self-interested persons step aside from such issues, is not new.
See this article, The Great Recusal, from The American Prospect, from the Enron era, 2002, at ://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_great_recusal/ It traces reform movements - in 1917 after robber baron abuses, then the laissez-faire abuses leading to the Great Depression abuses. Its necessity: Reforms only work
"so long as the power of voters offset the power of money."
Capitalism is not self-correcting. Medicine needs regulating against the same kind of opportunism that plagues other marketplaces. Even the accountants, supposed to be a watchdog of sorts, were in on the deals.
But then what happens. After a mass recusal, who's left? And how about the disenfranchised constituents?
EXPLORE THE PROPORTIONALLY REDUCED VOTE.
Do we say that a legislator has a full vote if his holdings are 5% or less as to his total portfolio; and decrease to a 2/3 vote if he has up to 10%, and decreases further to a 1/3 vote if he exceeds 10%. Is that a feasible outline? If 5% is too low for a full vote, pick another. More than 15%? Recuse.
Either way,proportional weighted voting puts it up to the tainted legislators to either divest themselves in order to get full vote for their constituents, or put investments in a blind trust for the rest of their employment as legislator, or keep their coins and get a fraction of a vote.
De-weight the vote. Keep the most self-interested legislators from having a full vote. First get disclosure with valuations reasonably objectively arrived at. See what proportion healthcare matters comprises in each portfolio. The untainted will divest themselves so they can give their constituents a full vote, or put their items in a blind trust. We'll know the others by their limping. * This starts to rid us of systemic bias. It also informs voters.
Sunlight, Hermann Dahl, DE Artist, deceased, whereabouts of heirs unknown
1. First, immediate disclosure of all financial benefit, campaign contributions, income and gifts received, promises made, financial holdings, related to the healthcare industry, healthcare insurers, and online now.
Then, Recusal. Voluntary or guided. Disclosure not provided? You leave. Forfeit.
- Disclosure is staggering along, with its equally staggering opportunities for obfuscation. See the way Nancy Pelosi's transparency steps in the House as to expenditures of members are capturing local interest - see http://kansasmeadowlark.com/2009/06/03/speaker-pelosi-orders-new-transparency/
- The legislator disclosure required now is paltry - no real valuations.
Ethical obligations of legislators are hard to pin down: few apply during the work itself. See Federal Conflicts of Interest at ://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/600.cfm/ The ethical issues most addressed to date circle around post-employment activities; or receiving money from special interests. Those are simple minded. Dismal.
How about the representative or senator (or judge) who holds more than 5% in investments that will increase with a vote this way, and decrease with a vote that way. What weight. Recuse, as to the judge; because there are other judges. As to legislators, think further.
Why not demand recusal. If 5% is too low, you experts pick something else. But the tainted people step aside. If need be, for healthcare go a more drastic route. People can always divest, or put matters in blind trusts before taking office. Even Andrew Carnegie advocated self-divestment before death as an ideal for the very rich - see Gospel of Andrew Carnegie - Self-Divestment. That step also reduces the need for taxes. Read the essay.
The concept of enlightened self-interest rises again in financial and cultural terms. Alexis DeToqueville wrote of it in 1835 - see it reappear, for example in this 1999 article, The Economics of Enlightened Self Interests, at ://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Rethinking.html/; see the balance needed between I me mine, and considering you and yours. See ://www.managingstress.com/articles/enlight.htm/ Self interest alone has long been touted as the natural order of things, all that is needed for a market to operate, and the best of all possible systems when everyone pursues it, ://www.acton.org/commentary/commentary_360.php/
This worship of self interest ignores, however, its malignancy. Look at the ability of one to cage the many, for the sake of that one's own self-interest. Would that diminish with full disclosure, that gives the voters more information and power at least for the next election. What shakes out when the dark corners get lit.
First comes disclosure; then maybe comes recusal. An ideal. Gibraltar here.
Head for the boat. Recuse before you disclose. Save all of us.
An inroad has been made already in the issue of personal financial interest recusals, in the area of judges. See fast overview of recusal area at the everyman's ://www.answers.com/topic/recuse/. Find a more legal analysis of the recent case, Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company , at ://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2009/06/due-process-can-require-recusal-of.html/; and the U.S. Supreme Court News account at ://onthedocket.org/articles/2009/06/08/divided-court-finds-judge-should-have-recused-himself-donor-case-june-8-2009/
Those are due process issues, in litigation. But there are parallels between a judge in an adjudication, and an elected official standing in judgment on a piece of legislation - thumbs up or thumbs down, in the best Colisseum tradition. The legislator votes himself healthcare. Most of them have plenty of money to pay for whatever. What do they care. Is that it?
You with time and expertise. Healthcare.
It is not just a commodity any more. What is more basic to the productivity of the country than healthy people. What is the role of stress in continuing low productivity, low motivation, hopelessness, the disease of disregard, rankism's worst effects. Yet, can we expect people to vote for needed change if it might -- read, will -- reduce their immediate income. AMA, insurers, whatever.
Where to start on building in recusals against voting in these matters where the voter is financially interested. Are there ways. Listening. Listening. Come in, moon. Follow the money, says the New York Times, at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/weekinreview/14abelson.html?ref=policy/ We are and it isn't pretty. Stridency, self-interest, coming our way.
Disclose. Weigh the vote. Recuse. Just do it. The Gordion Knot here just needs a bold stroke. See Health care, Human Infrastructure; The Gordion KnotValuation issues: pick a valuation date and just do it. Divorces are full of valuation approaches. Read up.
If there are more than 50% recusals in the legislature, we do a referendum -- absolutely reasonable when an issue is this fundamental, as is healthcare for everyone. This site prefers a government option, in addition to private, but all the proposals are not in.
We can do that. Experts, lay out a road map. FN 1 Do we need to amend the constitution? Why? Eye on the goal. America stands for life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Without healthcare, none of us has a chance of that. Does healthcare arise to the level of a Constitutional right? We could make that argument.
Does healthcare as we institutionalize it promote capitalism? Of course. Financially.
But what good is a capitalism that promotes unproductivitiy, keeps the majority of the workforce sick, encourages pollution, food taint, no buses, lousy houses, poor education. That is not capitalism at all because the workings of it calcify an artificial cap on competition. Hello, antitrust activities. Labor-fixing.
This site supports the public plan healthcare option, in addition to the private plans people might want to retain. Perhaps you could tell. Death rides a green horse. Not only money as the color green, but the actual Revelations color. Not the pale horse you were taught at all. FN 2
* How to know when someone is for you, or against you. Do we believe what they say.
Do the people say this as to disclosure of real interest in the common good: May those that love us, love us. And those that don't love us, May God turn their hearts; And if He doesn't turn their hearts, May he turn their ankles; So we'll know them by their limping.
Old Irish, found everywhere. Look up Irish limping. Then, look at your Congresspeople. Who staggers.
FN 1 On the way, declare that only human individual entities enjoy freedom of speech. Corporations, groups, no. All group or corporate speech, if it is to be protected, has to be in the name of an individual.
Financing. Only those eligible to vote by virtue of being a human being can contribute to any cause. Thus, all groups or corporations seeking to influence an outcome can only contribute in the name of an individual.