Should Public Office Holders Be Allowed to Change Political Parties and Affect The Governing Institutions In Which They Serve? 

This topic is not in the news today, and is not going to gather a lot of current interest.   But it is a critically important one – and if not dealt with proactively will affect us to our detriment, the way the failure to plan in general has many unintended – and negative – consequences.  It has, in fact, already done so.  By addressing it proactively, in advance of future negative situations, we shall at least be assured that we will have a stronger democracy - by ensuring that the people have more faith in their governing institutions, and that those institutions will not be hijacked by self-serving politicians.

Horse-trading, ear-marking and vote-buying among legislators is, unfortunately, part of the law-making process.  While troubling enough, when carried to the extreme - as in the recent drive among Democrats to pass the ObamaCare health legislation – these actions devolve into bribery and corruption, results that are quite troublesome and incompatible with a healthy democracy.

But the procedure of the changing of political parties by office holders can be as destructive as any legislative deal-making.  It can be as incompatible with a healthy democracy as was the corruption engaged in by the Democrats when passing ObamaCare. 

Today it seems that all too often in our society people in positions of trust make decisions based on what’s best for themselves as individuals rather than on the principle of what is good.  When elected office holders change their political party affiliations from those under which they were elected to that of another party, they are unilaterally frustrating the will of the voters, who elected them on the basis of the party affiliation under which they ran. These office holders put their self-interest first - but people have a right to have their elected representatives keep commitments to the political parties under whose auspices they ran. 

As the ObamaCare process showed, in the end party affiliation prevailed over the particular views of office holders.  Party affiliation was very important for those congressmen - the decisive factor for most - who voted for ObamaCare.  This is not an argument for or against ObamaCare, or the votes of legislators on it.  It is a statement to indicate that voting for someone on the basis of party affiliation, then having the individual switch that affiliation after being elected, violates the public trust; on the most important of matters legislators vote with their party.  If legislators can switch parties at their discretion their constituents are denied the ability to make a decision to vote for someone on the basis of party identification without the knowledge that their votes are subject to the changing whims of their office holders.

There have been times when such whims have affected the institutions in which they served, ultimately tipping the balance of power and changing the direction of the entity - be it city, state or country - governed by their institution.  A relatively recent example of this was the action of U.S. Senator James Jeffords’ of Vermont, whose 2001switch to the Democratic Party from the Republican Party gave the Democrats control of the U.S. Senate.  Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter’s similar move in 2009 helped provide the 60^th vote in the U.S. Senate for ObamaCare.  Would Specter have voted for it had he remained a Republican, the party under whose banner he was elected and whose principles the voters expected him to represent?

Arguments in favor of allowing individuals to change party affiliations during their terms in office are strong: in a free society with guarantees of free speech and freedom of association, a prohibition of such actions would be a violation of those cherished rights.  But like everything else in life, there is a tension between those rights and the rights of society.  When the entire direction of society can be changed when an office holder changes party allegiance, some restrictions are justified.  Here’s what I propose:

Let the office holder be able to change his party affiliation, but let it not be effective for the purpose of affecting the party organization of the institution in which that holder serves until the next election.  The holder can subsequently vote any way he chooses, but should be required to vote within the caucus of the party under whose banner he was elected.  That holder ran on and represented himself as someone who would represent his party’s values in some manner.  That is a covenant that should not be able to be breached for personal purposes. 

Similarly, appointments to and service on committees would continue to be assigned based on the under whose banner the office holder ran.  If the holder wants to change parties the switch may be effective immediately as far as he/she is an individual, but for the entity and its institutions the transfer would become effective only after the next election, i.e., after the holder presents himself to the public.  

People who promise to run on certain values and affiliations, and whose promises are taken by the public at face value to the extent that our most cherished right, the right to vote, is based on those promises, have an obligation to maintain those promises.  When they change their promises for reasons personal to them, their actions should not affect their covenant with the people, at least not until the people have had the chance to ratify and vote on the action in the next election.

Note:   My intention is to write articles for society at large – not specific groups.  However, on occasion I may address individual communities.  In this case this article is addressed to the Jewish community, but it does have relevance to everyone: loud music at levels apparently acceptable to (too) many segments of the population is destructive, both physically and morally.

Have you been to a Bar or Bat Mitzvah party lately?  How is your hearing?

Music at today’s Bar or Bat Mitzvah (plural: B’nai Mitzvah) parties is loud – very loud.  The music’s decibel levels drown out any opportunity for conversation.  Many teens and pre-teens attend parties regularly, and are continually exposed to situations which could damage their hearing.  Worse, rather than being condemned for the trash that it is, modern rap music is frequently played and promoted.  As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan commented, deviancy has been defined upward.

Coming on the heels of the B’nai Mitzvah ceremonies at which platitudes are quite sincerely mouthed by children, the real lesson of the loud and awful music played at the B’nai Mitzvah parties is the exact opposite of what the children claim to have learned.  Since parents permit the music, they obviously have not learned their lessons either.

Jewish law is explicit.  God informs us of the need to teach our children how to behave responsibly in the world.  Rabbinic and Torah laws forbid steps that may harm or de-sanctify the body.  From laws against placing tattoos on ourselves to those outlawing suicide, the people of Israel are instructed to care for their bodies.  Humans have custody of their bodies but in many cases not outright ownership.  Unlike animals, humans are to be holy since they – distinct from all other living creatures - have been made in the image of God.

At the B’nai Mitzvah ceremonies children – who at age thirteen are considered to be old enough to know right from wrong – agree to accept adult responsibilities.  But parental instruction and guidance should not stop then.  It is needed as the teens grow, to provide wisdom and experience to the children in such a way as to enable them to become complete, mature adults.

Part of this instruction is to tell our children “No!”  Jews have their own values that may differ from those of the outside world.  What the world does may not be for the Jews.  From what we eat to how we mourn, Jewish law prescribes rituals and conduct that distinguish us from others.  While it is our hope that others may join us or adopt our beliefs and practices in whole or in part, when appropriate we must say “No!”

The problem with the loudness and content of the music played at B’nai Mitzvah parties (Jewish weddings may have similar music) is that it is the “music” (is there anything really harmonious or musical in today’s music?) our children are growing up with – and have been conditioned to like.  It is the music of the general culture, influenced by the gangsters of our inner city whose lifestyles and practices mirror more the law of the streets than the holiness Judaism calls for.  Rather than promoting such music we should be the ones speaking loudly – in voices condemning it.  In the short time-span that gangs have developed we can see the significant consequences – from cruelty to drive-by shootings to absolute disregard for law and order and human decency.   The gangster lifestyle is opposed to everything that Judaism stands for.  Since much of today’s popular music is a reflection of that lifestyle, playing such music – at B’nai Mitzvah parties no less - where children should be dancing to celebrate their rejection of such a culture and instead accept an alternative way of life that is counter to that culture is contrary to the ideals supposedly adopted by the child.  Yet immediately after declaring allegiance at the Bar/Bat Mitzvah to the Jewish way of life the Jewish child goes out and promotes actions opposing his/her words.

The music is so loud that our children could develop serious hearing loss relatively early in their lives.  God has provided us with five senses, and has instructed us to respect and honor those senses.  Hearing is the most important sense: the fundamental Hebrew prayer Sh’ma Israel, or Hear O’ Israel, commands us to hear that the Lord is our God.  We are specifically told in the following V’ahavta prayer not to be influenced by our eyes, because they may lead us astray.  Not to respect the sense of hearing that God provided to us is contrary to God’s directives.  Construed and followed to its logical end, a diminished ability to hear could lead to a diminished ability to think critically due to the need to substitute for hearing loss by relying on other senses – which could lead us astray.  This is not to say that deaf or hearing-impaired people cannot compensate for their loss by not being able to think critically.  It is, though, a recognition that for those blessed with all five senses, hearing is the most important.  As a result, we should value and protect it instead of following actions that do harm to our ability to hear. 

But we’re not doing so.  Moreover, in addition to loud music harming hearing, it’s also harming relationships, too.  As an example, one of my friends, a cantor at a prominent synagogue who tutors children in preparation for their Bar Mitzvah services and who would like to attend parties for some of those students of whom he is fond, absolutely declines all invitations to B’nai Mitzvah parties.  He says that the loud music affects his hearing, sometimes leaving him with ringing in his ears the next morning.  He cannot tolerate that and the impact it would have on his career. 

And adults in general should not tolerate the circumstances either.  They can hardly hear the person sitting next to them let alone across the table.  But B’nai Mitzvah receptions are as much for adults to celebrate the rite of passage as they are parties for children.  While the children may be having fun, certainly they cannot and do not really speak to each other in the same way they would be forced to should there be less loud music.  Neither can adults, who have relatively little opportunity to talk and relate.  There’s just the playing of the music, as loud as it can be. 

That loud music also has a further characteristic: the omnipresent beating of the bass drum.  There seems to be a constant thud in the music, an incessant pounding that never stops.  But doesn’t this type of pounding also affect the ability to think?  A sustained and continual intrusion into our ears can lull us into a subdued hypnotic trance.  Our minds, which should be sharp at all times, are distracted from our surroundings as we’re subjected to an ongoing stress of the beating of the drum, which seems to be present in every song throughout the entire party.

Perhaps adult acquiescence in this hearing destruction is the most troubling.  Parents often do feel that the party is for the children alone, that the music, even if they themselves don’t care for it, is a part of today’s society.  Adult guests may not like the decibel level and be unable to converse, but ultimately they shrug off loud noise.  They may not like it or the tunes of the music, but most just feel “What can we do?”  The answer is plenty.

Accepting music that is so loud as to be destructive to our children is an abdication of responsibility.  Whatever the tune, even if the music being played is rap music, the DJ can be instructed in advance by the parents not to play the music loudly, with this directive reinforced during the party if necessary.  Contracts can be written in ways that would require the DJ to forfeit some or all of his money if loud or undesirable music is played contrary to the parents’ wishes.  Jewish schools can teach our children the importance of preserving our hearing and why we should reject today’s gangster-style music.  Temples, the venue for many B’nai Mitzvah parties, can likewise educate parents and children and insist through contracts that DJ’s will not be permitted to play loud music – and then have the party guards enforce the rule, with a contractual provision requiring parents to forfeit deposits should the guards admonitions not be obeyed. 

Would synagogues which take a stand against loud music lose revenue as party-goers flock to other locales such as hotel party rooms?  Perhaps – but not if the community is educated.   If the issue isn’t deemed important enough by parents then revenue will be lost.  If it is deemed significant our community can contribute to a re-shaping of the industry of party-playing DJ’s and musicians.   But even if revenue loss occurs, if we know anything of Jewish law and tradition we know that values are supreme.  Jewish law doesn’t frown on the idea of making a profit, but it does hold that principles come first.  After all, why have a Sabbath if we could all make more money by working on the week’s seventh day?  We’re taught that we can use six days to work and make money, but not seven – even at the cost of losing money.  And this instruction is part of the Ten Commandments, the highest level of laws.

If we as a community fail to acknowledge the importance of and stand our ground on this critical issue we are truly harming our children, both physically and by failing to impart values.

Hear O’ Israel, on this important issue of protecting and teaching our children.

Medicare has resulted in over 130,000 pages of rules and regulations.  How many pages does the average medical insurance policy have – 50?  While insurers may have more pages of internal procedures, the insured customer uses – and can litigate on - the private policy.  130,000 or 50 - by which approach would you rather your health care decisions be governed?

While consensus is hard to obtain, Medicare has engendered an enormous number of pages of rules and regulations.  In 2001 The Mayo Foundation reported to the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee that Medicare has generated 132,390 pages of government paperwork.  On the other hand, in 2000 the Deputy Secretary of the Health Care Financing Administration, a division of the Department of Health & Human Services, reported to Congress that 1,700 pages of regulations have been issued, downplaying assessments of tens of thousands of more pages.  Since regulations spawn reports, manuals and further interpretations, the Mayo Foundation’s estimate is probably much closer to the truth, for this reason alone: had there not been a Medicare program none of the resulting pages over and beyond the 1,700 pages of regulations would ever have been issued. 

But even if the 1,700 figure is considered by government bureaucrats to be low, the 1,650 page difference between 1,700 and 50 represents a huge number of extra pages.  In fact, it’s an astronomical figure.

Lost in the entire discussion of ObamaCare is the fact that regulation has become a fact of life in contemporary America.  But rather than accept this state of affairs and ignore it as a factor when our governments act, why don’t we at least consider the impact of governmental regulation it before we build another program that will mimic – if not dwarf - Medicare?

First and foremost, when governments regulate political decisions replace business decisions.  Now, certainly not all business decisions result from clear thinking, but with the bottom line at stake accountability can come quickly and harshly for poor decision-making.  Not so with governments.  How many programs have been instituted solely to placate political constituencies, so as to cement politicians’ statures with such constituencies?  Many of them could not pass the cost/benefit analysis at the outset – yet are instituted and grow as more constituencies feed at the political trough.  Rather than being terminated the programs expand, remaining on the books indefinitely, regardless of whether they are obsolete or anachronistic.  It’s certainly not in the interest of politicians to discard them.  Accountability for a program is lost.  When Medicare was first passed how many people would have thought that it would ultimately be responsible for more than 130,000 pages of paperwork, with no prospect for reduction?

Extensive regulation also undermines a fundamental aspect of our government.  The United States is unique in that it instituted an independent judiciary to serve as a third branch of government.   This judiciary was created with the knowledge that we had a strong private sector which could, as in European societies, be overwhelmed by the king.  Our judiciary could referee disputes to protect innocents against impulsive domination by an overly strong and dominant executive.  Implicit in this creation was the recognition of the role of the private sector and its need for protection.  Through its protection people in a free society had liberty to pursue and engage in commerce.  Excessive private behavior would be punished by the judiciary in the form of its right to award civil judgments and rule in criminal cases – but this punishment would be from an independent judiciary due to the concern that the executive’s power could be unjust and, like that of kings in other countries, arbitrary and unfair.  The intention was for private enterprise to flourish while being held accountable. 

In the ObamaCare equation, the private sector’s role would be destroyed by eliminating the private sector’s role.  Recently, President Obama has used the deceptive phrase “health insurance reform” to replace his prior talk of “health care reform” as a means of selling a government takeover of the private medical marketplace.   (Just the change in the wording should alert us to red flags waving: the congressional legislation has not changed, but the need for the executive to cast the debate differently should illustrate and highlight the concern of how the executive can abuse power – and this is in the public debate before the bill is voted on.)  Even that substitute phrase implies a system at odds with the purposes of our Founders.  If there is a problem with insurance reimbursement for medical procedures, our system envisions the private sector being held accountable by the judiciary in such a case – but services, medical and otherwise, are intended to be delivered by the private sector.  While an independent judiciary also serves to hold government accountable, a system which removes the private sector from the equation is contrary to our forefathers’ understanding: extensive power in the hands of the executive which replaces what can be offered by non-governmental entities must be guarded against because it can destroy liberty.  When a private contract such as a medical insurance policy of, say, 50 pages, can accomplish the task of providing rules to govern payment for medical care, and when such a contract, if flawed or violated, can be interpreted by and provide accountability to policyholders through an independent judiciary, replacing the system which provides such benefits by concentrating power in the hands of the executive clearly destroys freedom in a manner contrary to our Founders’ intent.

Lastly, in addition to the bureaucracy ObamaCare is sure to create and the inordinate, crushing costs it will impose, there will be further, non-productive costs to our economy.  How many lawyers and bureaucrats will be required to implement, interpret and enforce what is now a one thousand page bill that many congressman will not take the time read because it is so tedious?  Many of these people will have careers engaging in the regulatory process, but at what cost to them?  Their efforts, like those of people engaged in the same process for so many other big government projects, will be wasted.  For example, do we really need tax and pension lawyers whose entire careers are devoted to working in a system the sole objective of which is to raise revenue for the government?  In the Obamacare equation, careers will be devoted to – and wasted by – workers dedicated to interpreting and consolidating the power of politicians, at enormous extra cost and to the detriment of us all.

Why destroy the foundational aspects of our society and waste people’s productivity when today’s 50 page medical insurance policy delivers a far superior product instead?

New York Congressman Anthony Weiner unveiled the purpose behind Obamacare: the destruction of the role of private insurance in the medical marketplace.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did similarly when she labeled insurers as “villains.”

Congressman Weiner derided profits for insurance companies and argued that insurers take money out of the medical care system, thereby causing everyone to pay higher prices for care.  Speaker Pelosi’s “villainous” comment claimed that insurance companies’ profits are theft.  What both of these positions reveal is a lack of an understanding of insurance – and therefore a lack of understanding of how a free society operates – for insurance is freedom.

Concerning the needs of human beings, all require medical care, from the moment of birth until death.  Either someone takes the responsibility for providing it for us or we take on that responsibility ourselves.

In a command and control economy care is provided to us by others who are told to provide it - and how to do so.  The analogy to the former Soviet Union is apt, but it is also applicable to the socialized methods adopted by Europe and Canada.  This is the proscribed method of Obamacare: freedom of choice and personal responsibility are eliminated: we should take what we can get. This is the view supported by Weiner, Pelosi and a good many Democrats.

But in free societies we, the citizenry, take on responsibility for ourselves.  In a highly advanced capitalist economy we still place that responsibility on ourselves, but then shift the financial risk for doing so onto a financial institution whose business it is to accept and manage the risk.  The financial institution, a business enterprise, accepts and manages that risk in exchange for the non-guaranteed opportunity to make a profit.  That financial institution is an insurance company.

Far from being villainous, insurers, enabled by their profits, permit us to maintain individual responsibility for our actions.  The premiums paid allow us to pay small amounts for our medical care in relation to the significant capital that we would have to tie up were we to be required to maintain our own capital to fund possible, unknown contingencies that could stem from accident or illness.  Because we do not have to retain our own large amounts of capital for such contingencies we can invest it elsewhere, to the positive benefit of ourselves and our society.  We can have a more affluent lifestyle than we would otherwise have – while remaining free.  All of this is made possible by insurance which, being an industry like all other industries requires profits to survive.

Nancy Pelosi is the leader of the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives. Pelosi and her leadership were voted into power by her members, the Democrats in Congress, who can vote to remove her and her leadership any time they like.  By not doing so, or by not even speaking out against her and Congressman Weiner’s views, the congressional members of today’s Democratic Party demonstrate that they identify with those views.  Maybe they do not realize that insurance is freedom and thus do not equate the two, but neither ignorance of law or history is a defense, especially for lawmakers. 

When insurance companies, the purveyors of a system that ensures freedom, are attacked for engaging in their business, freedom – in the land of the free - is at stake.