Understanding Power in DC
Understanding Power in DC
Most voters don’t really understand how vulnerable our system is to a single political party committed to big government that can take over and seemingly disenfranchise the very people that put them in office. Chalk it up to poor education, laziness, social pressures etc., etc., this is the beginning for any communist/socialist system.
It has happened, and it will again.
First, it is important to understand two DC institutions… the Senate Filibuster and the Executive Order
SENATE FILIBUSTER
The filibuster is a powerful procedural tool in the U.S. Senate that allows a minority of senators to block or delay legislative action. Here are the key aspects of the filibuster's power:
Blocking Legislation
The filibuster gives the minority party significant power to obstruct the majority's agenda. It requires 60 votes to end debate on most legislation, rather than a simple majority of 51. This means that even if a bill has majority support, it can be blocked if it lacks the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
Encouraging Compromise
The 60-vote threshold is intended to encourage bipartisan compromise and consensus-building. It gives the minority leverage to negotiate and shape legislation, rather than being completely shut out of the process.
Slowing Down the Legislative Process
The filibuster allows senators to extend debate indefinitely, which can significantly slow down or derail the passage of bills. This deliberative function was part of the Senate's original design as a more measured counterbalance to the House of Representatives.
Protecting Minority Rights
Supporters argue the filibuster protects minority party rights and prevents rapid, dramatic policy swings when control of government changes hands. It requires broader support beyond a narrow majority to pass major legislation.
Historical Use and Evolution
The filibuster has a long and contentious history, notably being used to block civil rights legislation in the mid-20th century. The rules around it have changed over time, with the vote threshold to end debate being lowered from 67 to 60 in 1975.
Current Debate
There is ongoing debate about reforming or eliminating the filibuster. Critics argue it leads to gridlock and allows a minority to thwart the will of the majority. Supporters contend it's an important safeguard that encourages compromise. Any changes to the filibuster would likely require a controversial use of Senate procedures to establish new precedents with a simple majority vote.
Schumer is on record supporting the abolition of the filibuster
Based on the search results, here are the key points about Senator Chuck Schumer's recent stance on the Senate filibuster:
In August 2024, Schumer proposed changing the Senate's filibuster rules, specifically to pass voting rights legislation. He argued that protecting voting rights was more important than preserving the filibuster
Despite Schumer's efforts, the Senate failed to change the filibuster rules in a 52-48 vote, leaving the 60-vote threshold intact
Schumer defended his decision to hold votes on changing the filibuster in January 2022, even though they failed. He argued it was necessary to put senators on record and hold them accountable for their positions
Looking ahead to 2025, Schumer is considering modifications to the 60-vote filibuster rule, if Democrats gain a majority. He specifically mentioned using this to pass two major voting rights bills.
Schumer expressed optimism about reaching a consensus within his caucus to attempt filibuster changes for voting rights legislation in the future
He also indicated that Democrats might explore rule amendments to enshrine abortion rights into federal law, which currently lacks the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster
Schumer's strategy relies on the Democrats retaining at least 50 Senate seats in the 2024 elections, allowing for potential filibuster changes with Vice President Harris as the tie-breaking vote.
EXECUTIVE ORDER : A directive by the president of the United States managing federal government operations
Definition; A directive by the president of the United States to manage federal government operations
Basis: Multiple sources including Article Two of the United States Constitution and Acts of Congress
Authority: Broad executive and enforcement authority to enforce laws and manage resources
Executive orders are powerful tools that allow the President of the United States to manage operations of the federal government and implement policies without going through Congress.
Here are key aspects of their power:
Constitutional Basis
While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, executive orders derive their authority from Article II, which vests executive power in the President and requires that laws be faithfully executed
This gives presidents broad discretion to issue directives to federal agencies and officials.
Force of Law
Executive orders have the same force and effect as laws passed by Congress, as long as they are based on constitutional or statutory authority. They can significantly impact federal operations, policy implementation, and even individual rights.
Scope and Limitations
Presidents can use executive orders to:
Direct actions of government officials and agencies
Manage federal operations
Set policies for the executive branch
Respond to emergencies and wage wars (with congressional authorization)
However, executive orders cannot:
Create new laws
Exceed the president's constitutional authority
Violate existing statutes
Durability and Reversibility
Executive orders remain in effect until they are canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their own terms. A new president can easily revoke or modify executive orders issued by predecessors, making them a flexible but potentially impermanent policy tool.
Historical Usage
Every president since George Washington has used executive orders, with some issuing hundreds or even thousands during their terms. Franklin D. Roosevelt holds the record with 3,522 executive orders.
Checks and Balances
Congress can pass legislation to override an executive order, subject to presidential veto. Federal courts can also strike down executive orders that exceed presidential authority or violate constitutional rights.
Controversial Nature
The use of executive orders, especially on major policy issues, can be controversial. Critics argue they allow presidents to bypass the legislative process, while supporters see them as necessary tools for effective governance in the face of congressional gridlock.
Impacts of the filibuster and Executive Order
It is not difficult to understand that the disproportionate bulk of healthcare expenses goes to those over 64-years old. In a single payer system, where cost cutting becomes paramount, seniors will suffer first. Failure of the government to pay for testing or procedures can become a death sentence. What NIH, CDC, and the FDA says it authorized becomes a fully mandated health system.
You will have a “black market” medical care system in which the poor and medical class won’t be able to economically participate… they are screwed.
Healthcare
Based on the search results, here are the key percentages of health costs by age group in government health care:
Distribution of Personal Health Care (PHC) Spending
In 2020:
Children (0-18 years): 10% of PHC spending, while comprising 23% of the population
Working-age adults (19-64 years): 53% of PHC spending, while comprising 60% of the population
Older adults (65+ years): 37% of PHC spending, while comprising 17% of the population
This distribution shows that older adults account for a disproportionately large share of health care spending relative to their population size.
Per Capita Spending
Adults over 85 had per capita spending of $35,995 in 2020
Children had per capita spending of $4,217 in 2020
Per capita spending for adults over 85 was over 8.5 times higher than for children
Medicare and Medicaid Spending
For the elderly (65+ years):
Medicare covered 44% of personal health care expenses
Medicaid reimbursed an additional 13% of expenses
Historical Trends
In 1978:
The young (under 19) accounted for 12% of total personal health care spending
The intermediate group (19-64) accounted for 59% of spending
The aged (65+) accounted for 29% of spending
These figures demonstrate how health care costs are heavily skewed towards older age groups, particularly in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid that focus on elderly and low-income populations. The concentration of spending among older adults has significant implications for public health care financing as the population continues to age.
Rationing Health care to Cut Costs in a Single Payer System Sources: The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine - PMC - NCBI / ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Rationing healthcare to cut costs is a complex and controversial issue in single-payer systems.
Here are some key points to consider:
Inevitability of Rationing
Some degree of healthcare rationing is unavoidable in any system, including single-payer, because healthcare resources and budgets are inherently limited while potential demand is unlimited
. The question is how to ration care ethically and effectively.
Methods of Rationing
Single-payer systems may employ various rationing mechanisms:
Limiting coverage for certain procedures or medications
Implementing wait times for non-urgent care
Using cost-effectiveness thresholds (e.g. quality-adjusted life years)
Prioritizing care based on clinical need and benefit
Restricting access to expensive new treatments
Potential Benefits
Proponents argue that rationing in a single-payer system can:
Allocate limited resources more equitably across the population
Reduce wasteful or low-value care
Incentivize high-value preventive and primary care
Allow for coherent priority-setting at a national level
Ethical Concerns
Critics raise concerns about:
Denying potentially beneficial care to individuals
Government overreach in medical decision-making
Disproportionate impacts on vulnerable groups
Stifling medical innovation and progress
Political Challenges
Explicit rationing is often politically unpopular. There are concerns it could undermine public support for a single-payer system.
Alternative Approaches
Some argue for focusing on reducing inefficiency, administrative costs, and prices rather than rationing care. Improving value through payment reform is another proposed strategy.
Ultimately, any single-payer system must balance expanding access, controlling costs, and maintaining quality. How to ethically allocate limited healthcare resources remains an ongoing debate.
What has Kamala Harris promised by Executive Order ?
Kamala has clearly indicated by her past public statements that she is to the LEFT of Biden and more aligned with AOC and Bernie. That philosophy could be disastrous without the check-and-balance of the filibuster, and with a corrupt media that leads us on a road to socialism
Based on the search results provided, there is no specific mention of executive orders that Kamala Harris has explicitly promised to issue if elected president.
However, we can infer some potential executive actions based on her stated policy priorities:
Reproductive Rights: Harris has pledged to sign legislation restoring federal protections for reproductive freedoms, including abortion access. While this would require congressional action, she could potentially use executive orders to strengthen reproductive rights within existing legal frameworks.
Gun Control: As Vice President, Harris oversaw the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. She may use executive orders to further strengthen gun control measures, such as expanding background checks or regulating certain types of firearms.
LGBTQ Rights: The search results suggest that Harris would likely continue and expand upon the Biden administration's efforts to protect LGBTQ rights. This could include executive orders directing federal agencies to enhance protections and access to services for LGBTQ individuals.
Economic Policies: Harris has emphasized "building up the middle class" as a key goal. While major economic changes would require legislation, she could potentially use executive orders to implement certain worker protections or modify federal contracting practices.
Climate Change: Harris has expressed support for clean energy initiatives. Executive orders could be used to set new environmental standards or direct federal agencies to prioritize climate-related actions.
It's important to note that these are potential areas for executive action based on Harris's stated priorities, rather than specific promises of executive orders.
As the campaign progresses, she may provide more detailed plans for executive actions.
