The Observation Deck

I am humbled by Sharon's kind words, but I think that I'm still a bit uncomfortable, even with the term "disabled".

It's got a little too much "dis"-ing in it for me, I do believe. (smile)

Seriously, I don't think that people would even HAVE to quibble over terms like handicapped, disabled, challenged or whatever else, if only they would practice the term "RESPECT" with a little common sense thrown in for good measure.

As one born having several handicaps, disabilities or whatever you want to call them (I have often thought of even LESS complementary terms for them, as I struggled through life's trials)
it was no picnic. At the same time, the survival skills you develop are often amazing.

There needs to be both reasonable allowance for exceptionalities in the workplace and at the same time, a compassionate understanding when things don't work out, and a job disability situation comes along. If that sounds inconsistent, so be it. That's life.

There's also a distinction to be made between the slacking faker and those having seriously real situations to contend with.

No one ever said that life was easy. Perhaps surprisingly, I FULLY agree with the conservatives on this thread that those who CAN contribute economically to our society, SHOULD do so...

(recognizing that many people also contribute greatly through means, other than economic)

-but on the other hand, thank goodness for the liberals, who understand that Society has a reasonable fiscial responsibility to help those having genuine needs!

Being a "Libra", I guess that I am supposed to see both sides after all...although, "conservatively speaking", I really don't think too much of Astrology. (smiles again)

Back to that banjo...

Jim DeVito wrote:

Roy Pitchford wrote:We can take care of our own people, government intervention is unnecessary. Look no further than such entities as St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or even the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Roy,

I applaud the invaluable work of the institutions you mention. The problem is that we have 30-40 million uninsured people who have no access to basic health care. No single charity or group of charities is going to be able to help that amount of people. When It comes to something so massive in scale only the government has the clout and resources to move on it.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is grate but at the end of the day they are only helping a minuscule percentage of underprivileged school children.

Do you think the interstate highway system would have been built if it was not for government intervention? Do you think polio would have been wiped out if left up to charity?

Roy, you say we can take care of everybody. How you purpose we do it with out massive government intervention? Or is your position that some people just do not get access to health care. If that is the case, fine that is your right to think that way. But come out and say so.

First off, a quick aside, the bill that created the interstate highway system was 23 pages long. Interesting contrast, don't you think? 2000+ page bills are good for little else but hiding stuff from the public and other congressmen. As Rep. Conyers (D-MI) said: "What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

Second aside, polio research was funded by the March of Dimes Foundation, which it appears was created by FDR. The effort began with a radio appeal, asking everyone in the nation to contribute a dime to fight polio. That's a public charity. People had a choice to give. The money raised then funded the research of Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburgh (among others probably lost to history), who developed the dead-virus version of the vaccine.
Government intervention in our health care system would NOT be a charity. It would be a tax. Last time I checked, taxes were not optional.

Now, you ask what can be done. Let me outline a few things I've heard mentioned:
1. The Congress believes that, by adding a public option, they would add to the competition. They could do the same if they do something to allow companies to work across state lines. What would work better for competition in any particular state? Adding 1 currently unfounded "company" to the mix or adding dozens of already established companies from other states?

2. Tort reform. However, I'm not holding my breath because probably half the Congress is lawyers and they're never going to do anything to hurt themselves or their kind.

3. Reign in costs. This is one part of the bill that exists that I'll agree with. The government has got to cut the waste (and I doubt anyone will tell me the government isn't wasteful). They claim they've got $500 billion in Medicare they plan to cut out. That's how they planned to make this thing "deficity neutral". My suggestion is that they enact this part first. If it actually works (not reducing the level of care for people on Medicare and Medicaid), then maybe we can talk about expanding the role of Medicare.
(It wouldn't hurt for the government to work on wasteful spending across the board, not just where it pertains to Medicare.)

Jim DeVito wrote:The government sucks. It is not perfect. But it is what we have.

Its not the government that sucks, its the people in power. With the poll numbers I'm constantly seeing about this current health bill, the Congress is not listening to the people they purport to represent.
But, its what we are stuck with for another 11 months or so. The beauty of our system is WE can throw them out every 2 years. The problem is that we haven't done so. Virtually everyone there, Ds and Rs, has become drunk with their power and believe that they can do anything and we'll just keep voting them into power. Its time that stops.

We need to look deeper at all the things we've been discussing the last few weeks. Health care and cap-and-trade, they are the means to the government grabbing more control and power for itself. You must see that. That's not how the United States was founded...its the polar opposite of why the country was founded.

Gary Rice wrote:There's also a distinction to be made between the slacking faker and those having seriously real situations to contend with.

No one ever said that life was easy. Perhaps surprisingly, I FULLY agree with the conservatives on this thread that those who CAN contribute economically to our society, SHOULD do so...

(recognizing that many people also contribute greatly through means, other than economic)

Gary, I agree, they should. However, let me ask, where has the incentive to contribute disappeared to? (I'm not speaking specifically of health care at this point.)

Roy,

Incentive?

That's an interesting word, and you make an interesting point that deserves examination.

Firstly, where does the "incentive" lie within each of us to do anything at all?

Let's look at these 'Deck postings, for example.

Although there are those on this 'Deck who disagree with each other, it takes incentive and conviction to be willing to put opinions out there, these days. Whether your opinions may lean conservative, liberal or something in-between, if you're posting publically under your real name, you care about Lakewood and our world, and that has to be a good thing.

At the same time, it can exact a toll on our anxiety. People seem to be much more passionate and much less civil these days. More and more, people seem to be willing to attack and villainize opposition with zero-sum game strategies, in the hope of quelching all opposition to their polemic points of view. More and more, it seems like the debaters of this world are either simply picking up their marbles and going home, or resorting to name-calling and frustration.

Many might think it far better for us to keep those opinions to ourselves. Better not to stir the waters...

Incentive?

Roy, I think the incentive to contribute, whether to society or to this 'Deck, is cultivated in an atmosphere of acceptance of a constructive public exchange of ideas, and that seems to me, more and more to be an element of idealism these days, rather than of reality.

I just think back to a quote, I believe, from former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, about the palace not being safe when the cottage is not happy.

There needs to be some sort of balance somewhere in all of this, I do believe.

Back to the banjo...

there were no good ol' days of the hypothetical free market and friendly millionaires taking care of all the wretched and infirm. there were occasional charities that allowed them to live their remaining days in dry rooms, not hooked up to machines. Mostly, the system worked because it looked the other way when folks died of neglect o abuse or mercy killings. society "worked" because it had much lower standards.

nobody has a right to be a billionaire, though there is nothing legally wrong with that occasionally happening. The speed of obsolescence has been increasing. Millionaire's Row used to contain the mansions of hundreds of industrialists. They lived on Euclid Avenue. soon as the automobile became common, those mansions went down. the freedom of living much further from the factories and mills that made them rich mayhap have stunted their ability to interact with workers and middle management and operate their factories.

The Legalese will keep getting thicker for the reasons it has always gotten thicker. as data printing and communications technology increase, the laws get thicker. Printing Presses, telegraphs, typewriters, railroads, infrastructure, fax, word processors, the internet. the lawyers and managers have to compete. The Federal Aid Highway Act was mostly drafted by guys who grew up before world war II: they could get more done with fewer words. The G.I. bill sent a lot of veterans to school to become lawyers and MBAs. The Greatest Generation made enough money to send a lot more babyboomers to school to become lawyers and MBAs. In the post industrial economy there will be ever more lawyers. they'll argue about what rights and privileges are. they'll simplify the tax code by increasing the number of words in the manual by 20,000.

Gary Rice wrote:Roy,

Incentive?

That's an interesting word, and you make an interesting point that deserves examination.

Firstly, where does the "incentive" lie within each of us to do anything at all?

Let's look at these 'Deck postings, for example.

Although there are those on this 'Deck who disagree with each other, it takes incentive and conviction to be willing to put opinions out there, these days. Whether your opinions may lean conservative, liberal or something in-between, if you're posting publically under your real name, you care about Lakewood and our world, and that has to be a good thing.

At the same time, it can exact a toll on our anxiety. People seem to be much more passionate and much less civil these days. More and more, people seem to be willing to attack and villainize opposition with zero-sum game strategies, in the hope of quelching all opposition to their polemic points of view. More and more, it seems like the debaters of this world are either simply picking up their marbles and going home, or resorting to name-calling and frustration.

Many might think it far better for us to keep those opinions to ourselves. Better not to stir the waters...

Incentive?

Roy, I think the incentive to contribute, whether to society or to this 'Deck, is cultivated in an atmosphere of acceptance of a constructive public exchange of ideas, and that seems to me, more and more to be an element of idealism these days, rather than of reality.

I just think back to a quote, I believe, from former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, about the palace not being safe when the cottage is not happy.

There needs to be some sort of balance somewhere in all of this, I do believe.

Back to the banjo...

You definitely make an excellent point (though not quite what I had in mind as I asked the question...more in a moment). You mentioned "stirring the waters" and I believe for a long time that people were unwilling to do it. They were content to go about their lives.
However, I think the creation of the 24-hour news cycle, the high-speed information dissemination of the internet and the economic downturn have turned many people's eyes to all levels of our government and they are beginning to stir things up. A degree of stirring is necessary, otherwise the waters grow to stagnant, but too much and water will spill from the pot.

Now, when I asked where incentive had gone, I was thinking of something that ties in to what you had said before, "I FULLY agree with the conservatives on this thread that those who CAN contribute economically to our society, SHOULD do so".

Hypothetic and very generalized situation: Someone loses their job. They go on unemployment. When COBRA and unemployment benefits can last for many months, where is the incentive to get a new job?

Given the option between working for money vs. sitting on your butt and still getting money, I'm sure many people would grab the remote and say 'pass the chips'.
Its bad for them, its bad for society.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
-- Benjamin Franklin

I heard a woman call in to the radio before Christmas. Her company was hiring (for full-time positions?), but they were turning people away. These potential employees would ask for a part-time job so they could continue to collect their unemployment.

Thomas Edison failed thousands of times at making a commercially viable light bulb. I don't believe I've ever heard that he went to the government for help because he couldn't make it. Why reward failure? He continued to work hard and in the end he succeeded.

Roy,

As an answer to your well-considered question, within your equally well-considered post, I would have to say "It all depends upon the particular circumstances" of the ones who are afflicted.

That's the whole problem in a nutshell, I do believe.

Your own question might, using a reverse analogy, provide a very good argument for universal health care.

Many people, I would guess, would want to continue to provide medical care for themselves and their families for as long as possible during a time between employment. Absent a guarantee for that care, I could easily see why they might be reluctant to pick up part-time work, if that might jeopardize a medical situation.

That's incentive, but of a different sort.

Circumstances dictate lots of things. Take your example of Edison and the light bulb, for example. Others were, and had been, working on the electric lighting problem at the same time, or even before Edison came out with his lamp. One such person was Sir Joseph Wilson Swan, who, we might guess, may have been less than amused with Edison's "invention" of an electric lamp...a year after Swan had previously patented one in England! The two later combined forces in a British business venture.

Ben Franklin is honored for many wise sayings, among his many other great achievements, but there are those in the Native American community who are also well aware that at one time, he reportedly urged that Mastiff dogs be used on Native Americans (that suggestion was supposed to have been rejected at the time, but unfortunately, was put into play by others at a later date)

So again, I would respectfully suggest that it all depends on who's being afflicted by the problem at hand, as to whether something is really "bad for them", or "bad for society".

Back to the banjo...

Roy

As usual, you make a lot of generalizations and use anecdotal information to back up your claims.

For example, you state that a talk show caller claimed her company couldn't get full time workers because they wanted only part time so they could continue to collect unemployment benefits.

First, the truth of the woman's claim is suspect as all kinds of people call into radio shows with ridiculous statements and there is no way to prove it ever really happened.

Second, f you are offered full-time employment, and you refuse it, the ODJFS has strict rules regarding allowable reasons for refusal. You literally cannot continue to refuse work and maintain your eligibility for benefits.

Lastly, if you are collecting unemployment, you are only receiving a small fraction of your former wage. I stress that that unemployment payments are meager. In addition, there is no health insurance coverage. I personally do not know anyone who would prefer to remain on UC when full-time work is available. Part-time work is not more advantageous then FT as benefits are reduced correspondingly if you have ANY income. You don't collect your full benefit if working PT so why would you prefer PT over FT?

Therefore, the woman's claims are erroneous and do not jibe with current rules. There is no benefit to working PT as opposed to FT to supposedly keep UC benefits. Just doesn't work that way.

I suggest you look here for the current handbook of UC rules by the ODJFS, available in PDF format:

http://www.odjfs.state.oh.us/forms/interfind.asp?formnum=5521

Gary Rice wrote:Roy,

As an answer to your well-considered question, within your equally well-considered post, I would have to say "It all depends upon the particular circumstances" of the ones who are afflicted.

That's the whole problem in a nutshell, I do believe.

I will agree with your overall point that the circumstances of the situation are important.

Gary Rice wrote:Your own question might, using a reverse analogy, provide a very good argument for universal health care.

Many people, I would guess, would want to continue to provide medical care for themselves and their families for as long as possible during a time between employment. Absent a guarantee for that care, I could easily see why they might be reluctant to pick up part-time work, if that might jeopardize a medical situation.

That's incentive, but of a different sort.

I disagree.
1. A medical insurance requirement should push a person to look and fight that much harder for the right job. If one of my larger expenditures is already provided to me, I have less reason to achieve.

2. That's not an argument for government-provided, universal health insurance. A policy from an already established company could work in conjunction with a part-time job. As I've stated a couple times previously, during the time after I graduated college and before I was given full-time hours by my employer, I paid for my insurance.

3. Look at how you wrote that..."would want to continue to provide medical care for themselves and their families". Going on public assistance isn't providing, its being provided for.

Gary Rice wrote:Ben Franklin is honored for many wise sayings, among his many other great achievements, but there are those in the Native American community who are also well aware that at one time, he reportedly urged that Mastiff dogs be used on Native Americans (that suggestion was supposed to have been rejected at the time, but unfortunately, was put into play by others at a later date)

I'd never heard that. Reportedly...so not necessarily false, not necessarily true.
I find one reference to a letter to a friend from 1775. Assuming its true, it looks as though it is in reference to use of dogs in combat, something that could be applied to any enemy, whether they be American Indian, British, French or Spanish. As the American Indian would have been the prevalent adversary at the time, the statement makes sense. Had he written in 1777, perhaps it would have referenced the British Army. Its impossible to tell.
Still, that almost sounds like spin and distraction. You didn't really address what Franklin said.

Gary Rice wrote:So again, I would respectfully suggest that it all depends on who's being afflicted by the problem at hand, as to whether something is really "bad for them", or "bad for society".

Back to the banjo...

I agree with you that circumstances are important.

I look, again, to your quote: "I FULLY agree with the conservatives on this thread that those who CAN contribute economically to our society, SHOULD do so".
If I can contribute but choose not to (allowing society to provide for me), is that good or bad for society?
Is it good or bad for me personally?

Frames of reference, that's all this is about.

That's what seems to make all of the difference in the world to people. That, and having honest human needs that WILL be met, one way or the other.

I've been involved with Native American activities in the Greater Cleveland area for many years, and there's a whole different frame of reference involved regarding American history, when you've been around that group for awhile. It really can open your eyes.

The victors try hard to write the history books, but the truth will come out eventually.

Franklin's remarks were reportedly (again, "reportedly", because I was not there personally) made regarding Shawnee and Delaware Native Americans in 1757, with respect to the French and Indian War conflict. One source for this information would be the book "A Dog's History Of America", by Mark Derr.

If you find that information to be surprising, you might also be interested in looking into Andrew Jackson and the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, Alabama, during the Creek wars. Jackson's Cherokee allies were mighty surprised to learn that they were forced into a removal to the Oklahoma territories just a few years afterwards. It would probably be quite safe to surmise that the Creeks' (and their own Cherokee allies') experiences were even less happy. Were you to examine the aftermath of that battle, you might begin to understand my point better regarding frames of reference.

Would all of this be a sidebar from the first point being made? I think not. Frames of reference color our perspectives and our lives. One of the most amazing things to me, in my study of Political Science, was that two sides can both feel that they have honor, decency, and validity, while at the same time, prepare to annihilate each other.

The better way, for our human family, has to involve dialogue and yes, compromise eventually.

But we poor mortals are so good at casting that first stone, are we not?

Roy, self-interest seems to be the main incentive for conservative thought, as their liberal opposition so often seem to point out, but... if we are honest, that "self-interest concept" probably lies in all of us. I think that we all need to learn that, while compassion for people doesn't necessarily mean that we have to perpetually feed an entitlement mentality, so also must we not throw truly needful people to the wolves.

And that, I believe, is good for you and I personally.

Back to the banjo...

First of all you are lacking a lot of information Roy.

Did that woman's "full-time job" pay as much as most people could collect in unemployment and still look for full-time work - underemployment is no answer to anything.

No one wants to collect unemployment and pay the huge cost for COBRA benefits.

Public assistance isn't given out like candy on Halloween. Medicaid is given to those on SSI AFTER they get it not while they're waiting. They don't collect a check and pass go either. The laughable amount of money that a person with one child receives is about $325.00 a month and Foodstamps - I'm not sure but I think they would get about 350.00 foodstamps.

Not quite the easy life is it? You try living on that.

You need to truly have your info before you make your arguments.

By the way, people who get SSI or Social Security Disability have to truly be unable to work. Many people who have cancer, are terminally ill or mentally ill don't get full disability and may wind up with as little $400.00 a month. That's after 2 - 4 years of sending in info, getting doctor reports, a million phone calls. It's not something someone can just decide would be easy to do.

When you're used to paying your own way, or supporting a family on your own and have to do these things it is heartbreaking and humiliating, especially when people, like some of the one's on this forum, say such horrible things and try to marginilize us.

It doesn't bother me so much because I don't care what others think and I know many are fools. But a couple people were severely hurt by the cruel statements made on here. And that is unacceptable.

sharon kinsella wrote:First of all you are lacking a lot of information Roy.

Public assistance isn't given out like candy on Halloween. Medicaid is given to those on SSI AFTER they get it not while they're waiting. They don't collect a check and pass go either. The laughable amount of money that a person with one child receives is about $325.00 a month and Foodstamps - I'm not sure but I think they would get about 350.00 foodstamps.

Not quite the easy life is it? You try living on that.

You need to truly have your info before you make your arguments.

By the way, people who get SSI or Social Security Disability have to truly be unable to work. Many people who have cancer, are terminally ill or mentally ill don't get full disability and may wind up with as little $400.00 a month. That's after 2 - 4 years of sending in info, getting doctor reports, a million phone calls. It's not something someone can just decide would be easy to do.

Having never been on any kind of government assistance, you're probably right. I don't know the details of how it works. I can only go on what I've heard, which obviously isn't enough for some of you.

So, let me back track in the discussion, hopefully find something I can properly discuss. In fact, let me go back to the fundamentals...rights and goods.

Show me how medical insurance/medical care is a constitutional right as described in the first post.

I'm not convinced that all the cards are on the table, here, or at least that they have been read.

If you are a low wage earner (say $800 or $900 a month) you may very well opt to take unemployment, food stamps, and whatever other assistance you can get. First, you don't have to get up early in the morning and go out into the cold, or hot weather. Your earnings were subject to taxation, while benefit are generally not. And low wage earners in all liklihood did not have employer subsidized health care, so that aren't paying for Cobra.

I'm not saying they are living a life of luxury, but they are very likely doing better than they were when they were employed. And they do get medical care, usually without paying for it, as they did when they were working.

Not all Workers Comp claims, nor SSI claims drag on and on and on. The claim of a person who is undisputedly medically or mentally unemployabled is an easy case, and can be processed very quickly (by government standards). The cases that drag on and on are those where is is not clear that the person is actually unemployable, and in those cases you often have to get a lawyer with a string of compliant physicians, who submits evidence that is not consistent with the original evidence, and those are hard cases, where the examiner often has to get additional clarifying evidence, and then write an opinion telling why he believed one piece of evidence instead of another. Obviously such a case will take time, and the claimant will not always succeed, and even when they do, the lawyer will get his pounds of flesh. I know of one lady who had medical conditions, but who could work. Her claim was denied, and she got the idea that if she worked fewer hours, it would be granted, so she asked here employer to cut her hours. That didn't work (I don't think it should have), but eventually her fewer hours suffered as she was constantly taking sick leave; the employer canned her (and she is irate because they recovered some of her excess sick leave from her final check). She kept going into the hospital (despite having no insurance and being unable to pay) and allowed her diabetes to go out of control, and eventually a new claim was approved. There is a lot of sadness in that situation, but I think a big part of the sadness is that she chose to become unemployable, rather than to be productive.

The VA has pension programs, a form of welfare, for veterans of wartime service and their widows. Note that this doesn't mean they were injured in a war, or even that they served in a war, only that they served at least one day during a period designated as a wartime period. Widows have never had to be disabled to be eligible for this. Congress sets an annual income level, and the VA pays the claimant the difference between their income and the income level. As the benefit is tax exempt, it makes economic sense for the claimant to quit her employment and give her savings to her kids.

For the veteran, eligibility required that he be permanently and totally disabled (they were considered P&T at age sixty five regardless of their health). Now, with a veteran under sixty five, VA has to get medical evidence showing he is P&T, but in the last 20 or so years, VA leaders have strongly discouraged any claims examiner from finding any of these veterans is not P&T, which made for some very creative decisions when all the guy had was an ingrown toenail and a hangnail.

The effect of such a government program is clearly to discourage people from working, because often they can enjoy a life of leisure with some income.

I think the constitution does not provide that health insurance is a right, but the Supreme court has fallen into the habit of finding constitutional rights in the margins.

I think that the debate now is over whether we want the government taking control of our health care (except for the rich and the politicians who have exempted themselves) and I think the government is already heavily involved because medicare and medicaid are such huge programs, and can dictate what procedures will be performed and how much will be paid for them; and how much this grandiose scheme will cost.

There has been a lot of deception of how much it will cost. Pork that has been ladled to other states, but not to Ohio, will lead to our demanding our share of pork, driving up the cost. Supposedly there will be savings because of efficiencies they will find in the government programs, but they have been promising such savings for decades and have never delivered, so you have to be pretty naive to believe them now. They claim the tax on expensive hospitalization plans will save $170 billion over ten years, but in the fine print, their prediction is that the tax will only bring in $10 billion, and the balance will be from increased income taxes when employers reduce the hospitalization plans to the approved level (which will increase costs for the employees, but they ignore that) and the employers will give the savings to their employees, who will then pay higher income taxes. I don't know anyone who really believes that an employer will give the money he saves to his employees! That sounds more like a joke than a plan. And I find it hard to believe that employers will continue the cadillac plans when they will be subjected to an avoidable tax, so I think the $10 billion savings is also illusory.

I think we would see a very different plan if Con-gress was spending their own money, or even if they had to put up their fortunes as a performance bond.

Will - Go to the state and federal websites and look at qualifications.

You are so wrong in so many ways. Go back and read my post again.

Unemployment is generally 60 -65% of your previous earnings, so if someone earned $800.00 a month and was eligible for unemployment, that would be the marvelous sum of $480.00 a month. Foodstamps would depend on their living circumstances. The parameters and formulas are listed on the US gov. website under foodstamps. If they were a single person, with no kids, they can't get Medicaid. There goes your little argument there.

It doesn't take a long time for most Will - you are wrong, dead wrong.

It would take a lifetime to teach you about reality. Since I'm terminally ill, I'm not going to spend my precious time arguing with willfully judgemental and cruel people.

Roy - pursuit of happiness in the preamble. In the preamble the intentions of the authors of the constitution were put forth. Go where you will with that. I know, to me, it means being able to live a healthy life in the richest country in the world, where I worked for over 35 years.

sharon kinsella wrote:Roy - pursuit of happiness in the preamble. In the preamble the intentions of the authors of the constitution were put forth. Go where you will with that. I know, to me, it means being able to live a healthy life in the richest country in the world, where I worked for over 35 years.

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It was not written as guidelines for governance. It was the way the colonies declared their grievances with the British Empire and declared their independence.

The preamble of the Constitution says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

However, in the interests of the discussion, let's look at the pursuit of happiness.

1. Pursuit of Happiness is not a guarantee of happiness. It means that we have the freedom to try to achieve whatever we consider happiness. It means the government should get out of the way and let each of us achieve.
But as I look around, success is not viewed favorably, particularly by the government (except those in the government...they can be as successful as they want).

2. Pursuit of happiness was originally not in the Declaration of Independence. An earlier draft read 'Life, Liberty and Property'. Our founding fathers changed it because the southern slave owners would have argued that slaves were property.

Sharon, with all due respect, please try again.