Giving Up What You Never Had

I am sorry, but I refuse to listen to a 17-year old tell me how the country must be run.  A 17-year old has, as a best-case scenario, maybe 10-years of relatively cognitive thought and zero-years of actual responsibility towards society.  They have nothing but the ability to parrot what their parents, teachers, or the collective pool of friends have told them they should think or say.  Their need to be part of a group makes them more likely to buy into the justification of the mob mentality we see around us today.

How many of us spend time considering what our founding fathers fought for, rather than just buying into the history lessons of what they fought against?

How easy is it to talk about the Boston Tea Party, where the “Sons of Liberty” dressed up and threw the tea shipped from England into the harbor to protest the English tax?  When we talk of Lexington and Concord we think of the “Minute Men” fighting against the British attempt to capture the militia’s leaders and destroy its supplies.  The problem is a nation cannot be built and survive on negatives.  It cannot exist to be against something, it must be for something.

It has been apparent for some time the young people of this great land seem to have been taught only that they must be against things and have not sorted out for themselves that it is more important to be for an ideal.  We see in the latest anti-gun movement all the things they are against, but the only thing I hear in the positive is “We need to be safe.”  An admirable idea, but there is a complete unwillingness to discuss any option that flies in the face of the negatives they espouse.

They are taught to be against “intolerance” yet their action demonstrates the fact they themselves are intolerant of views that run counter to the party.  They have not made the connection that they should be for a positive, not the negative.

They say they are against violence, but still, they support the violent rhetoric of the loudest voices within their political sphere.  They seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between being for peaceful resolution of conflict and giving lip service to the meme of anti-violence.

So, what did our founders fight for?

If we look at the two documents that created our nation, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, we will see one common theme.  They wanted sovereignty as independent states and freedom from an oppressive foreign government.  Article 2 of the first document says “Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right with is not by this confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”  Learning from the failure of the Confederation the Congress was more direct with the Constitution, for they understood the dangers of a stronger central government, but the protection of the nation took precedence for them.  James Madison, writing in Federalist paper 41 said,

“THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches. Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States? Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the FIRST question. It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment. That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.”[1]

It is my fear the voices of outrage all seem to seek greater, not lesser, centralized control of those things I have long viewed as fundamental rights and what I chose to defend with my service.  The liberal voices have a short-term view that what they believe is the right way to do things is the only way to do things, and that if they get their way everything will work itself out.  The fallacy of this view is so apparent they refuse to even consider it, but we need only look at them to see the danger.

I choose to look at the last ten years to set the framework for this shift towards the extreme, although it actually traces its origin back further. Beginning with the election of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt we have seen an increasing growth of the central government and its powers to control and regulate our lives.  Much of this increased power and authority has been used wisely and has helped the nation flourish, but it seems with the increased polarization – the good of the nation as a whole is increasingly sacrificed to satisfy the demands of the few. 

Following the financial crash of 2008, our nation chose to place its faith in the Democratic party to pull us from the disaster, much like it did in 1932.  The problem was the Democratic party was no longer the great representative of all the nation but had over the past 40 years grown to represent the urban and liberal elite.  There were no longer the voices of the southern and mid-western Democrats to offer a moderation for the costs to be borne by the great social programs the party wished to pursue.  As a result of their choices, the party lost Congressional strength in each of the subsequent six years.

Then we have the issue of a young, articulate individual who seemingly rose from the back row of the Senate to become President.  It was reminiscent of the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy, who brought to the job an aura of glamor and grace to replace the staleness of the Eisenhower years.  In this case, President Obama and his ability to articulate the thoughts of the left so well on television seemed to be what the nation wanted.  He, of course, had overwhelming support from the black minority who turned out in record numbers to bring him to the office.  Unfortunately for the nation, he chose to see his election as a mandate that his party was the only game in town and set in motion choices that would divide our nation further along racial and political lines rather than find unity and commonality.  He was aided in this by what can best be described as an adoring press and entertainment industry who covered up his failures and condemned those who questioned his decisions to use the various departments within the Executive Branch to secure the political advantage.

When his term was up, the media and the Democrats were so sure they had control of the government that they moved to the next great social hurdle.  The fulfillment of the dream of every woman activist since the passage of the 19^th Amendment.  We had to elect a woman.  Unfortunately, they were so sure this was a slam dunk they chose the worst possible woman to push forward.  A woman who carried so much baggage she could have been mistaken for a hotel porter.  Just to get her past their own party’s primaries they had to rig the system, yet still, they persisted.  In the general campaign she leveraged every insider advantage available yet somehow, she lost because she had told the rust belt state Democrats they didn’t matter in the grand scheme and the urban elites were all she needed or wanted.

Now we have a political outsider as President and the daily rage has reached the insane stage.  As he undoes all the executive orders and hidden government agendas so carefully crafted during President Obama’s administration you would think the opposition would be concerned with the effects of too much-centralized power, but other than name calling it doesn’t seem to be that big a deal for them.  The issue isn’t how much power the government should have, just who should have it.  It isn’t they are for more freedom, they are just against who should limit it.

The issue for me comes down to a group of young people who’ve led sheltered and privileged lives now coming on the political stage willing to give up the rights and freedoms that this nation was founded on without understanding the cost of those rights and impacts of their loss.  How can they possibly understand what they are choosing to condemn when they’ve never had to worry about ever?

---

[1] www.congress.gov, The Federalist Papers, No. 41

Who Cares About the National Debt?

I view myself as a fiscal conservative and believe when our debt level exceeds our ability to pay for it, or other nations lose confidence in our ability to repay -- the government will fail.  But that is not a view held by either party in our Federal Government, so why bother talking about the national debt at all?

For eight years the Republican’s complained about the Obama administrations debt spending, yet once they controlled both the legislature and executive they have done precisely as the past administration.  Over the past six months, I think they increased the national debt by $1,000,000,000,000.92, all while blaming the villainous Democrats.  Of course, the Democrats helped all this with their Trumpmania conspiracy theories that fill the news cycles.

Let’s get real.  You don’t get to govern and then complain about how those other guys are making you spend all this money.  The only question between the Democrats and the Republicans is who gets to benefit from the spending? 

In the past administration, despite all its allusions, deflections and pointless rhetoric about protecting the poorest, it was Wall Street, insurance companies, internet giants, and the bankers who made out like bandits.  Savings accounts earned next to nothing, welfare was pretty much on autopilot, and the unemployment rates slowly came down as people abandoned the workplace.

In this administration, it seems to be the military-industrial complex, the insurance companies, bankers and investment firms that will make all the money despite the allusions, deflections and pointless rhetoric about returning money to the middle class.

I will never again believe a Republican when he or she says they are concerned with the national debt.  The number is, as the Democrats have pointed out, a self-imposed value serving solely as a club to beat over the head and shoulders of your political rival.

In the immortal words of that great economist, social commentator, and philosopher Stan Lee - ‘nough said!

How Much is That Airplane in The Window Mister?

In yesterday’s news, the media was all aflutter about Mr. Trump’s tweet calling for the cancellation of a new Air Force One, (actually a small fleet of Boeing 747-8) one of which will have the call sign Air Force One when the President is on board.  The cost estimate he used was, I think, $4 billion dollars for the project.  Of course, Boeing shot back and said THEY were only on contract for $170 million, the implication being Mr. Trump was full of stuffing.

I’ve spent the last 20 years of my life dealing with the problems of translating operational requirements into capability, and I can assure you Mr. Trump is far closer to the actual cost than Boeing, and if I had to guess the $4 billion estimate is at least $1 billion too low when all the acquisition professionals get done with the project.

Let’s start with some historical context.  The current fleet of two VC-25 Boeing 747s were ordered during the Reagan era, and the first one flew as Air Force One in 1990.[i]  Interestingly, the fact sheet doesn’t give a cost for the aircraft as do most of the other fact sheets, but the E-4B lists the cost of a similar command and control (less plush, less VIPish) aircraft at $223 million in FY98 dollars (about $331 million today).

But what about Boeing’s claim they are only on contract for $170 million dollars? I can’t imagine they are correct or even truthful.  A run of the mill C-130 Hercules costs about $100 million when you factor in things like spare parts, support equipment and training.  The Boeing price sheet[ii] shows the list price of a stripped down 747-8 is $378.5 million, so either the US is getting one heck of a deal on this aircraft or the real costs are buried somewhere else.  Also, this is just the base cost – it does not include all the cool modifications a President, his staff, and the press people who fly along with him (or her) would need or want.

I can only imagine the field day the White House staff of the current administration had defining the best possible aircraft for the successor of President Obama.  I’m just guessing here, but I bet they thought it would be Ms. Clinton, so in their eyes, nothing was too good for the Commander in Chief, and cost was only a cursory concern.  You want rich leather unmarred by barb wire scars?  Absolutely, let me add that to the tab.  How about a Spa for those long flights home after a weekend in Europe?  No problem. 

Now I am not saying there will be a gyro stabilized dance floor like I saw being put in a Boeing 777 for some middle eastern customer, but there will certainly be sound deadening additions, communication additions, a medical suite, rich carpeting with fiber optic egress lighting, maybe an escape capsule like in the movie, and a hundred things I can’t even think of.

Then you add in the cost for all the new engineering data our government engineers will want, and Boeing's position that all that data is proprietary so we will have to pay them for the studies, the analysis, and the drawings so that Boeing contractors can maintain the aircraft with the assistance of Air Force personnel.

Next, there will be the cost for flight testing this new aircraft to make absolutely, positively sure it flies just like a commercial Boeing 747 and water doesn’t splash out of the spa.  I’m guessing here, but that would be at least a couple of hundred million dollars to upgrade the test facilities and complete the flight testing at Edwards AFB.

Finally, we have the upgrades to the maintenance complex at Andrews.  These are brand new aircraft; they deserve and demand the finest of maintenance facilities, so the hangers and offices of the current Air Force One fleet will need pretty extensive overhaul.

As I believe Everett Dirksen once said, “A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon you are talking about some real money.”

---

[i] http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104588/vc-25-air-force-one.aspx

[ii] http://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/index.page%23/prices

The Affordable Care Act, 2016

Here we are a little over six years, and two Supreme Court challenges, after enactment of President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as ACA and Obamacare), and today’s question is how well is it doing?

To answer that question, I think it important first to remind ourselves what the Administration and the Congress said when it was enacted.  What did they promise?

Much has been made of the promises of the President, i.e. “if you like your Doctor you can keep him, if you like your insurance you can keep it, etc.” but as in most things said by the government the devil is in the details and the marketing BS is usually just that.  At the end of the day what were the real expectations by those who wrote the legislation?

When it was enacted by the Congress it promised: Lower costs, coverage for those previously uninsured, removal of co-payments and coverage caps for essential services, an on-line exchange to promote competition, subsidy payments for those who could not afford the costs of mandated insurance, penalties for those who chose not to participate, and changes to Medicare and Medicaid to improve affordability, and penalties for small business and corporations that did not provide government approved coverage for their employees.

I don’t intend to get into the philosophical debate on whether universal health care is a human right, and an obligation of the government, or rather an undue imposition on a free market system.  Those who have opinions on this have already made up their minds on the answer and nothing I will write will make any difference to them.  I intend only to examine, with the help of the internet, how well the administration has kept its promise, and where it has fallen short perhaps look at why.  The one caveat I will make - is to point out we, the United States of America, already spend more on individual health care per capita than most of the rest of the developed world, and we as a nation also spend way more on everything than we take in through taxation and tariff.  Just to be clear when we create a new program it comes with a cost.  That cost is either paid through our revenue or our borrowing.  Right now these programs are part of our deficit spending. 

So let’s get to the discussion.

At its enactment, the proponents for the ACA said it would lower an average family’s health care costs by about $2,500 per year.  According to Forbes what we have actually seen is a continuation of straight line growth in costs that far exceed a simple inflation index.  For example, at the time of the ACA enactment the average family of four’s annual cost of health care was $18,074 (this included employer contributions, employee contributions, and out of pocket expenses).  In 2013 that cost had risen to $22,030, averaging over $6.5% per annum (a bit lower than the historical average), in 2015 (one year after full enactment) that annual cost had climbed to $24,671, or a 4.5% per annum increase[i].  So, from what I find on Forbes, and the Milliman actuarial firm’s analysis, this promise of lowered costs goes unmet.  One could and I suppose the government would say it has seemed to have a relatively minor impact (lower slightly) on the cost growth medical care has seen since the mid-90s.

The ACA changed the way the health insurance industry managed its risk (to maintain or increase their profitability).  Under the ACA the insurance companies must: allow young people to remain on their parents plans until 25, not drop customers who get sick while insured (i.e. reach their insurance caps), remove limitations for pre-existing conditions, and finally establish requirements for essential services and limit co-payments.  Essential services are defined by the government as covering about 8 to 10 specific areas ranging from ambulatory care to pediatric care.[ii]  Of course this government requirement directly affects the profitability of the health insurance industry so there is a quid pro quo requirement the government placed on the citizens and the taxpayer.  Specifically, all eligible people are mandated to have insurance and therefore increase the number of healthy people who will pay the costs of the sick.  The legality of this requirement was the basis for the first challenge to reach the SCOTUS.  In National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius[iii] the court ruled the mandate equated to a tax and Congress had the right to impose such a tax.

Obviously it has been easy for the government to mandate the changes to industry standards, but in those mandates it has also attempted to continue its push to fully mandate the inclusion of abortive services on those organizations who sought to claim a religious exemption provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (an act proposed by Democrats, passed almost unanimously by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a Democratic President[iv]).  In Burwell v Hobby Lobby[v] the court found for the defendants, forcing the government (i.e. Department of Health and Human Services) to develop a compromise position that ultimately overcame the defendants objection of having to pay for services they found morally objectionable.

Now we come to the question of the individual mandate.  This individual mandate is central to the success or failure of the ACA.  For those who don’t understand how insurance works it is really simple.  You might not like it, but it is really simple. Think of it as a Las Vegas table game.  A group of investors, really smart people, get together to bet that something will not happen.  They have looked at all the odds, they have weighted all the possibilities and they think the odds are a ship won’t sink, a plane won’t crash or you won’t get sick.  They then offer this bet to the person who wants to be protected if something bad happens.  They know the odds, and are willing to take some risk, but they also want to win the bet so they don’t enter into the agreement haphazardly.  They make similar bets with all kinds of people.  What they want to do is bring down their risk to as low as possible.  If they only insured people who know they were going to get sick they would not make a return on their bet, so they would have to charge the person who was sick a lot more.  What they want is a pool of really healthy people who are paying to cover the cost of the people who do get sick.  To help them out with this the Government promised them it would make all the healthy young people buy insurance to cover the cost of paying for the older sick people.  This is the individual mandate.  If you do not buy the insurance the government promised to insurance companies you would buy then they will lose money, stop insuring people, or raise the rates as we have seen for the past 40 years.  To incentivize you to buy the insurance they threaten you with a penalty in the form of an increase to your taxes.  If too many people choose to pay the penalty the cost of insurance goes up.

It is in the Government’s interest to paint a rosy picture about how many people are enrolling for insurance under the individual mandate.  In the first enrollment period in late 2013 to mid-2014 the government claims that over 8 million Americans signed up.  They are proud of the fact that of these 8 million about 2.2 million are in the young (18 to 34) age group.  What goes unsaid is that about 5.8 million would be in the older age groups more likely to need the insurance they are buying.  As Kavata Patel of the Brooking Institute[vi] points out this skewing of sign ups was not totally unexpected and the ACA has provisions for allowing the health insurance companies to increase rates to address the increased risk.

According to the IRS (always a trustworthy source), almost an equal number of people (7.5 million) chose to pay a penalty rather than sign up for insurance.  Additionally, another 12.5 million claimed exemptions that allowed them to not sign up. This is significantly higher than what the administration had projected and does not bode well for the ACA if the trend continues.  At the end of the day there are still 48 million Americans who do not have health care coverage.  I don’t believe this accounts for all the illegal refugees the administration has allowed entry so the number may be significantly higher.

To improve competition, the ACA called for states and the Federal Government to establish on-line insurance registration where an individual should, in theory, be able to shop around and get the best insurance for their personal needs at the most affordable rates.  This on-line exchange was supposedly modeled on what Massachusetts had established for its statewide programs.  We should all recall the fiasco that Secretary Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services went through as they tried to launch the federal site. 

Research shows the federal government has spent over $5 billion dollars trying to get the state exchanges up and running with a variety of successes and failures.  A significant number of states have opted not to even establish a state exchange.  From what I see only 17 of the 50 states have established an exchange,[vii] so competition certainly cannot be at the levels expected by the proponents of this legislation.  This fact is probably a significant contributor to the lack of participation and the increased costs of insurance the ACA has seen.

The next thing ACA did was to authorize subsidies for those who can’t afford the insurance.  We can debate the pros and cons of this, but so far no one seems willing to discuss the only germane question.  What do we not do to pay for this?  So far no one is willing to say how the government will balance the books.

Next we come to changes in Medicaid (state and federally funded programs for the poor and those with approved disabilities) and Medicare (federal program for the elderly).  The ACA changed the eligibility requirements for Medicaid, upping the income eligibility to 133% of the poverty level.  For Medicare there is a fundamental shift in how the government intends to reimburse the doctors and hospitals that provide care.  More on that in a couple of paragraphs.

Since Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the federal government it is hard to say definitively that everything is good or bad.  The ACA has in a number of cased significantly expanded the eligibility of the disabled to gain access to Medicaid, and the ACA promises to fully fund the expansion of coverage for the first three years and then fund only 90% of the cost after that.  Prior to the ACA Medicaid covered roughly 60 million citizens, after ACA it is estimated fully half of the newly insured people will come from the Medicaid expansion.  This is obviously a bill directly to the taxpayer or an increase to the annual deficit.

Medicare and Tricare remain as previously defined in law, but ACA funds the expected Medicare bills through 2029 (assuming Congress actually does what it promises).  The most significant change is how Medicare will reimburse the Doctors and Hospitals for care.

When the ACA was enacted people like Sarah Palin talked about “Death Panels” who would make a determination on the amount of heath care an individual would receive.  President Obama assured the nation that was not true, and the press ridiculed her for not knowing what she was talking about.  The Democrats remained united that this would not happen.  Well it turns out she was kind of right. It all hinges on the way the medical profession is compensated for their efforts.

Prior to enactment of the ACA Medicaid reimbursed Doctors and Hospitals for services rendered.  It is alleged that is why your doctor orders 18 different tests to determine your headache is not a brain tumor, or why the hospital bills you for using the toilet, or why each tissue you use is inventoried and billed to the government.  Under the ACA there is an expectation that payments will be made on an outcome basis.  Specifically, different illnesses have different expected outcomes and costs.  Rather than reimburse the Doctor or Hospital for what they have done, the government will provide a sum of funds available for treatment with the expectation the doctors/hospitals will spend that money wisely to insure the best possible outcome for the patient.  The problem comes up when the funds run out and the government says they won’t pay anymore and the patient is still sick.  If medicine were an exact science and patient care was fully understood and standard this might work, but I think we can agree it isn’t.  So somewhere along the line the Medical Professional will have to make a call, do I continue treatment or do I cast the patient off for someone else?

So who decides what the appropriate outcome based cost reimbursement schedule should be.  Why a group of bureaucrats and medical experts sitting on a panel in Washington of course.  What could possibly go wrong with this?

Finally, the ACA said that employers must provide group health insurance and pay their employees enough so they can afford any co-payment.  This has an obvious impact on the number of employees a company may hire, but so far that is okay for the proponents.  The limited job growth does not seem a reasonable excuse for those who want universal insurance.

Summary:

We see that the ACA has failed on reducing the cost of health care for the average family.  It is more expensive today than it was when enacted and it does not appear that it will reduce costs anytime soon.  Why?  I think the answer to this is the fact the government proponents entered into this contract with the people and the insurance industry by placing the insurance industry’s needs and wants first.  They laid out a series of talking points and lies to convince the people it was a good deal, but at this time it is only making the insurance companies richer.

It has been successful in expanding coverage of the poor, the sick and the disabled, but it has failed to draw in the requisite number of healthy people to offset the costs.  This will mean future year costs for those who pay for coverage will be more expensive then the estimates show today.

The outcome based reimbursement schedules have not yet been fully implemented so it will be interesting to see how that affects the medical professions willingness to work with the Medicare dependent elderly.

 In conclusion:  I found this video to be a good (i.e. neutral) summary of what ACA is supposed to do. 

---

[i] http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2015/05/19/annual-healthcare-cost-for-family-of-four-now-at-24671/#74aecd334dfb

[ii] https://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/data-resources/ehb.html

[iii] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

[iv] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

[v] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

[vi] https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/obamacare-exchange-enrollment-what-recent-numbers-dont-tell-you/

[vii] http://obamacarefacts.com/state-health-insurance-exchange/  

Your Friendly Government Monopoly.

I grew up in New York, in a Democratic stronghold.  As someone who attended a high school named after our towns most famous resident, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I was taught that monopolies were evil, they eliminated competition, would ultimately harm the consumer, whose rights must be protected by a benevolent government. 

For this reason the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and Federal Trade Commission Act were passed to prevent the formation of cartels and assure the consumer of a free market where competition works to keep prices low.

It amazes me to see the new society push for government monopolies to solve our health care issues and at the same time see the same people wail so loudly when the FCC (another government monopoly) proposes to change the internet policies so service providers can restrict what information they provide.

As I grew and moved away from Hyde Park, I learned the world is a dynamic place and there are several truths.

Ø  If you count of the government to fix your problem you will be disappointed in the result.

Ø  If the government seems benevolent it is only because those in power think it serves their interest.

Ø  Everyone has an opinion on what should be done, but those who grease the wheels of government get the largest vote.  This includes corporations, unions, and private citizens who have the cash.

Ø  Teaching people to expect something for nothing does not improve individual self-worth.

Ø  For selfish reasons, those who control a government monopoly will move in the direction of money.

The Evolution of Political Thought

Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat and 28^th President of the US once said, “Liberty has never come from Government.  Liberty has always come for the subjects of it.  This history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.”

He also said, “The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests.  An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.”

As a good Democrat he also is quoted as saying, “I have long enjoyed the friendship and companionship of Republicans because I am by instinct a teacher, and would like to teach them something.”

So here we are almost 100 years later, you could say the Republicans have finally come to see the wisdom of Wilson’s words, and what are the Democrat’s saying now?

Hmmmmm,

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help... Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.”  President Barrack Obama

And “There is probably a perverse pride in my administration... that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. And I think anybody who's occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can't be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public opinion.”

Government should be transparent.  Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.  Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.  White House Policy Memorandum signed by President Barrack Obama.  

Note: I would just like to note that transparency apparently does not include answering Congressional Inquiries on things like Fast and Furious and the 9/11 attacks in Libya.

And finally, on government, “Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted.” 

Again I would just like to point out as the President he promised greater transparency and I don’t see the administration fulfilling that promise, or the promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, or to reduce the federal deficit, or take care of veterans returning from war, so you must forgive me for being just a bit skeptical on the whole trust thing...