We have a serious problem with integrity of American business and industry and it seems to be growing almost exponentially. This is a tough issue to discuss publicly, because any criticism is easily construed by those in the business world as using “too broad a brush” of criticism; and, in large measure they are probably right. I would like to think that most businesses and industries operating in this country are honest, honorable, and have the best interest of their customers at heart. But, there is a growing body of examples where this is not the case. And, some of these examples of failures like our financial industry (Wall Street), energy industry (including off shore drilling), military/industrial complex, auto manufacturers, food processors, etc., are huge and the lack of integrity has had serious negative ramifications on our country’s economy, ecology, reputation, and safety.
This is important because it strikes at the heart of our preferred economic system – the free-market/capitalistic system. Most people understand the underlying driving motive in this system – the need to make a profit. The system works best if it is unencumbered by government limitations and regulation. The ideal situation is where competition amongst those in a business serves as a self-regulating process resulting in good products, good service, growth for those doing it best, and good paying jobs for their workers. And yes, for those who are willing to work hard, have the courage to take the risk, have the ability to properly manage their business, have the intelligence and skills to innovate, the end result is accumulation of wealth. This is how it is supposed to work and we hear a constant litany from supporters of this system championing this theory.
The problem is that there is more and more evidence that the system too often works correctly only in these supporter’s imagination. It sounds so good; claims are made that it is what made this country great, and in their view any criticism of the system is un-American. Too often, any attempt to reign in the capitalistic system to make it safer, more honest, and just is branded as socialistic, communistic, fascist, or whatever terminology that has a strong negative connotation.
But, it seems we wake up everyday with another crisis resulting from abuse of the free-market/capitalistic system. And, when we delve into the reason for these crises, we find that they are the result of greed, illegal activities, unethical practices, shoddy management, abuse of financial and political clout, lack of competition, desire to maintain a small group’s status quo, etc.
We’ve faced very similar crises historically and we’ve worked our way through them. The early industrial revolution in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was one period when abuses were legendary. Situations where “Robber Barons” controlled whole industries vertically – steel, railroads, and oil are examples. It was rife with abuses like child labor, unsafe working conditions, de-facto slavery of workers, vulgar accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, control over the political processes (whole state legislatures and many U.S. Congressmen were “bought”), poor and unsafe products, and lack of competition. Two factors saved us. One was that the industrial revolution was in its infancy so that innovation overcame the status quo so quickly that we constantly stayed ahead of the game. The second factor was that the national government courageously stepped in and at least tempered the abuses.
We had a second period, the Great Depression of the 1930’s, where the capitalistic system failed us again. But once again, circumstances shined on us. We had government leaders with the courage to correct abuses, we had enough people with soundly based integrity and can do attitudes, innovation once again played a big role, and a tragic but justifiable war effort (WW II) gave us a unified sense of purpose to pull us together.
I don’t have the final answer of what it will take today to save some of the major tenets of a free-market/capitalistic system. One thing for certain is that it will require government involvement. This, regardless of what some claim to the contrary, is a must. The national government is the only one with the political and economic clout to take on the abuses that are inherit in the capitalistic system. In today’s society, government is not capitalism’s enemy, it is capitalism’s savior from itself. The government is after all our collective selves. The tricky thing is that it will be a narrow line to walk to use the government’s power to save the free-market/capitalistic system. Government can get too expensive and too powerful and stifle the free-market system – we need to guard against this. But, if government is too small, too weak, ineffective, or preempted by big business and industry, it can become a tool of the privileged promoting their interests at the expense of the people, resulting in a plutocracy – government by the wealthy.
History has proven that a democratic/republican system of government and a long term healthy economy can only survive if there is a strong middle class economically. Statistics clearly indicate that we are sliding away from this and part of the reason for this is that an inadequately controlled free-market/capitalistic system combined with a weak or special interest controlled national government are not serving our interests very well. They have the resources to sell their story and the American people had best be prepared to protect their own interests by insisting on a just and balanced system. And, who we vote into office will in large measure determine the result.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The Issue of Constitutionality
An issue that has recently been rolling off people’s tongues in connection with a whole host of government initiatives is the question of constitutionality. Some actions are clearly unconstitutional and are enacted because of ignorance or “in your face” attitudes. Other actions are too close to call and will eventually be decided by our court system. Whereas, others are clearly constitutional; but, in order to gain partisan talking points and/or to fan the flames of criticism, constitutionality is questioned. In my opinion, these claims often stem from lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
There are two distinct time periods leading to the creation of the U.S. Constitution. The first is the revolutionary period beginning in the middle of the 1770’s with the “real tea partiers”, complaints of “taxation without representation”, slogans like “don’t tread on me”, and the insistence on powers being given to the states - this led to the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence. With the successful establishment of our own nation, our Founding Fathers moved into the second period where they created their own governments. This group of men had extensive experience in writing documents creating governments. Some had been involved in writing colonial governments. After the Revolutionary War, they wrote new state constitutions (in some cases more than one); plus, our first national government – The Articles of Confederation. It failed because it was too weak and gave too much power to the States.
Finally, in 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held where our forefathers designed maybe the best system that could be achieved at that moment in time – the U.S. Constitution. They had matured over the proceeding 10 + years and this time crafted a document that created a strong national government which many of the revolutionaries of their day opposed. In these Founding Father’s discussions and correspondence, they made it clear that this document was intended for their time and place in history. They undoubtedly would be surprised and maybe aghast that we still have the same constitution in place 223 years later. Most would not be comfortable with a common claim today that it was divinely inspired – it wasn’t.
In fact, we sometimes lose sight that this highly regarded document was a long way from perfect:
It didn’t include a Bill of Rights – this was added as the first 10 amendments soon after
ratification. They had to rewrite the way the President and VP were elected in 1804. Slavery was allowed until 1865. It wasn’t until 1868 that states were denied the power to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” People were denied the right to vote because of race, color, and previous condition of servitude until 1870. Income taxes were not allowed until 1913. The people couldn’t vote directly for U.S. Senators until 1913. Then, we had the liquor debacle that was on in 1919 and off in 1933. Women were finally allowed to vote in 1920. People living in Washington DC weren’t allowed to vote for President and VP until 1961. The poll tax was used to restrict voting for President, VP, and Congressmen until 1964. We finally clarified the sticky issue of Presidential succession in event of disability, death, and/or resignation in 1967. Citizens 18 years of age were finally allowed to vote in 1971. And, in 1992,
increased compensation for services of Senators and Representatives could not take affect until after an election.
The above represent amendments added to correct problems with the U.S. Constitution. This is a very difficult process. If we were limited to this for every change in our government, the U.S. Constitution would be unwieldy. Therefore, right from the beginning with our first Congress, first President, and first Supreme Court, changes were accomplished through legislation, executive action, and court decisions. Quite frankly, this is what our Founding Fathers intended and why the Constitution is so short and concise. They expected the government to be modified to meet the special needs of changing times. The U.S. Constitution is a living, evolving, changing document and has always been that way.
Whenever I hear someone suggesting that this or that can’t be done because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t speak to that issue, it immediately raises a “red flag.” Within reason, our government is what we want it to be. That is what a democratic/republican system is all about. Basic principles like civil rights and check and balance system are important and must be maintained. But, we must remember that the U.S. Constitution on purpose does not promote any religious theology; does not promote any economic ideology; does not even mention political parties; and by design, national law preempts state and local law. It is purposely vague on the details on how our government runs its day-to-day operations. It is up to us and our elected officials to fill in all the details.
When constitutionality is questioned, I would suggest that we listen critically. There is an unhealthy tendency for some in our society to “brew” up a mix that includes opposition to taxation of any kind, endorsement of the unrestricted free-market/capitalistic system, the need for us to “reestablish our roots” in the Christian religion, a demand for smaller and weaker national government, and an insistence on the view that state and local government should take a leading role in governing our great nation. When it is suggested that the U.S. Constitution supports this conservative “brew”, it is simply inaccurate spin that was not the intention of our Founding Fathers nor should it be used this way today.
There are two distinct time periods leading to the creation of the U.S. Constitution. The first is the revolutionary period beginning in the middle of the 1770’s with the “real tea partiers”, complaints of “taxation without representation”, slogans like “don’t tread on me”, and the insistence on powers being given to the states - this led to the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence. With the successful establishment of our own nation, our Founding Fathers moved into the second period where they created their own governments. This group of men had extensive experience in writing documents creating governments. Some had been involved in writing colonial governments. After the Revolutionary War, they wrote new state constitutions (in some cases more than one); plus, our first national government – The Articles of Confederation. It failed because it was too weak and gave too much power to the States.
Finally, in 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held where our forefathers designed maybe the best system that could be achieved at that moment in time – the U.S. Constitution. They had matured over the proceeding 10 + years and this time crafted a document that created a strong national government which many of the revolutionaries of their day opposed. In these Founding Father’s discussions and correspondence, they made it clear that this document was intended for their time and place in history. They undoubtedly would be surprised and maybe aghast that we still have the same constitution in place 223 years later. Most would not be comfortable with a common claim today that it was divinely inspired – it wasn’t.
In fact, we sometimes lose sight that this highly regarded document was a long way from perfect:
It didn’t include a Bill of Rights – this was added as the first 10 amendments soon after
ratification. They had to rewrite the way the President and VP were elected in 1804. Slavery was allowed until 1865. It wasn’t until 1868 that states were denied the power to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” People were denied the right to vote because of race, color, and previous condition of servitude until 1870. Income taxes were not allowed until 1913. The people couldn’t vote directly for U.S. Senators until 1913. Then, we had the liquor debacle that was on in 1919 and off in 1933. Women were finally allowed to vote in 1920. People living in Washington DC weren’t allowed to vote for President and VP until 1961. The poll tax was used to restrict voting for President, VP, and Congressmen until 1964. We finally clarified the sticky issue of Presidential succession in event of disability, death, and/or resignation in 1967. Citizens 18 years of age were finally allowed to vote in 1971. And, in 1992,
increased compensation for services of Senators and Representatives could not take affect until after an election.
The above represent amendments added to correct problems with the U.S. Constitution. This is a very difficult process. If we were limited to this for every change in our government, the U.S. Constitution would be unwieldy. Therefore, right from the beginning with our first Congress, first President, and first Supreme Court, changes were accomplished through legislation, executive action, and court decisions. Quite frankly, this is what our Founding Fathers intended and why the Constitution is so short and concise. They expected the government to be modified to meet the special needs of changing times. The U.S. Constitution is a living, evolving, changing document and has always been that way.
Whenever I hear someone suggesting that this or that can’t be done because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t speak to that issue, it immediately raises a “red flag.” Within reason, our government is what we want it to be. That is what a democratic/republican system is all about. Basic principles like civil rights and check and balance system are important and must be maintained. But, we must remember that the U.S. Constitution on purpose does not promote any religious theology; does not promote any economic ideology; does not even mention political parties; and by design, national law preempts state and local law. It is purposely vague on the details on how our government runs its day-to-day operations. It is up to us and our elected officials to fill in all the details.
When constitutionality is questioned, I would suggest that we listen critically. There is an unhealthy tendency for some in our society to “brew” up a mix that includes opposition to taxation of any kind, endorsement of the unrestricted free-market/capitalistic system, the need for us to “reestablish our roots” in the Christian religion, a demand for smaller and weaker national government, and an insistence on the view that state and local government should take a leading role in governing our great nation. When it is suggested that the U.S. Constitution supports this conservative “brew”, it is simply inaccurate spin that was not the intention of our Founding Fathers nor should it be used this way today.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Response to the Positive Power of saying "No"
I enjoy reading, “Just One Guy’s Opinion” column if for no other reason than it stirs my blood. Now and then though, a comment is required. In the column, “The Positive Power of saying ‘No’,” there are some assumptions I disagree with.
First, the claim that Democrats have an overwhelming majority in Congress is just not accurate. Why are we constantly counting to 60 votes? It is because, in what is supposed to be a democracy where majority rules (51 votes in U.S. Senate), Senate Rules have come to require 60 votes these days. Republican’s have used a Cloture Rule to block some 70% of all legislation proposed by the Obama Administration and the Democrat Congress when it was intended and in the past used only sparingly for only a few major issues. Democrats do not have a 60% majority – there are 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, and a new Republican Senator from Mass. who interestingly enough has now been branded a “RINO” because he had the audacity to vote for a modest unemployment bill offered by the Democrats. If the Democrat Party had an overwhelming majority in the Senate, health care reform, with a public option, would be done. It may still happen if the Democrats choose to use another Senate rule – Reconciliation.
Add to the above the “solid Republican” vote of “no” where they all vote like “puppets on a string” as they are instructed to by Republican leadership. The Democrat Party is made up of a wide variety of people some of whom are liberal, some moderate, and the conservative group referred to as the “Blue Dogs.” They have a habit of thinking for themselves and their constituents, and this is a good thing. Congressmen should be voting for first what is good for the whole country and secondly what is good for their immediate constituents. The idea behind a republican form of government is that we select outstanding individuals to go to Washington DC to use their own intellect, knowledge, and experience to make these determinations of what is best. Such an attitude should result in bipartisanship. We don’t have that, and we should be sending those unwilling to do so “packing.”
Then there is the claim that the majority of the people are opposed to the universal health care reform. I think a fairer statement is that they are opposed to the present health reform bills. While many, including myself, are not thrilled by the present bills, I think it is accurate to suggest that a majority of the people are supportive of a universal health care system that offers reasonable costs, good coverage, etc. to correct our present failed system.
Then, Mr. Mason’s assertion that we can compare saying “no” to prevent one from stepping in front of a bus, or a women saying “no” to unwanted sexual advances, or saying “no” to drugs, as being equivalent to saying “no” to programs like health care reform is ludicrous. Let’s get real! The government is involved in almost everything in this country, it is not our enemy! Our great country would not be the envy of the world today without government involvement.
That’s not to say the government is always right. Even the original U.S. Constitution our Founding Fathers crafted wasn’t perfect. It approved slavery, did not include a Bill of Rights, didn’t clearly state the need for due process of law to protect the people from being deprived of life, liberty, and property, didn’t provide for an income tax, didn’t allow women the right to vote, allowed for a poll tax, designed an incomplete process to elect a President and VP, and didn’t provide for succession of a President who is incapacitated or dies in office. These things were all corrected by amendments; plus, much more was changed, deleted, and added to through legislation, court decisions, and executive action down through our history and that is exactly what our liberal Founding Fathers intended. Each generation was expected to modify our government to meet the special needs of their times. It is interesting to note, the biggest argument against ratification of the U.S. Constitution was that it expanded the power of the national government way beyond our first constitution – The Articles of Confederation.
This argument about the role of government has gone on for a long time. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is clear:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense,
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.”
We need to do just as it says. I suggest that providing universal health care in our generation constitutes establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and promoting the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
We don’t need to start over with health care legislation. In my view, we need to clean up the present bill(s) in Congress by taking out the superfluous, “deal making” for votes provisions, insert at least a public option, and put it up for a vote – let the chips fall where they may. Despite criticism to the contrary, universal health care reform can be structured to be a “pay as we go” system with no deficit spending or increase to the national debt, just a fair system at reduced cost that gives excellent health care coverage.
First, the claim that Democrats have an overwhelming majority in Congress is just not accurate. Why are we constantly counting to 60 votes? It is because, in what is supposed to be a democracy where majority rules (51 votes in U.S. Senate), Senate Rules have come to require 60 votes these days. Republican’s have used a Cloture Rule to block some 70% of all legislation proposed by the Obama Administration and the Democrat Congress when it was intended and in the past used only sparingly for only a few major issues. Democrats do not have a 60% majority – there are 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, and a new Republican Senator from Mass. who interestingly enough has now been branded a “RINO” because he had the audacity to vote for a modest unemployment bill offered by the Democrats. If the Democrat Party had an overwhelming majority in the Senate, health care reform, with a public option, would be done. It may still happen if the Democrats choose to use another Senate rule – Reconciliation.
Add to the above the “solid Republican” vote of “no” where they all vote like “puppets on a string” as they are instructed to by Republican leadership. The Democrat Party is made up of a wide variety of people some of whom are liberal, some moderate, and the conservative group referred to as the “Blue Dogs.” They have a habit of thinking for themselves and their constituents, and this is a good thing. Congressmen should be voting for first what is good for the whole country and secondly what is good for their immediate constituents. The idea behind a republican form of government is that we select outstanding individuals to go to Washington DC to use their own intellect, knowledge, and experience to make these determinations of what is best. Such an attitude should result in bipartisanship. We don’t have that, and we should be sending those unwilling to do so “packing.”
Then there is the claim that the majority of the people are opposed to the universal health care reform. I think a fairer statement is that they are opposed to the present health reform bills. While many, including myself, are not thrilled by the present bills, I think it is accurate to suggest that a majority of the people are supportive of a universal health care system that offers reasonable costs, good coverage, etc. to correct our present failed system.
Then, Mr. Mason’s assertion that we can compare saying “no” to prevent one from stepping in front of a bus, or a women saying “no” to unwanted sexual advances, or saying “no” to drugs, as being equivalent to saying “no” to programs like health care reform is ludicrous. Let’s get real! The government is involved in almost everything in this country, it is not our enemy! Our great country would not be the envy of the world today without government involvement.
That’s not to say the government is always right. Even the original U.S. Constitution our Founding Fathers crafted wasn’t perfect. It approved slavery, did not include a Bill of Rights, didn’t clearly state the need for due process of law to protect the people from being deprived of life, liberty, and property, didn’t provide for an income tax, didn’t allow women the right to vote, allowed for a poll tax, designed an incomplete process to elect a President and VP, and didn’t provide for succession of a President who is incapacitated or dies in office. These things were all corrected by amendments; plus, much more was changed, deleted, and added to through legislation, court decisions, and executive action down through our history and that is exactly what our liberal Founding Fathers intended. Each generation was expected to modify our government to meet the special needs of their times. It is interesting to note, the biggest argument against ratification of the U.S. Constitution was that it expanded the power of the national government way beyond our first constitution – The Articles of Confederation.
This argument about the role of government has gone on for a long time. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is clear:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense,
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.”
We need to do just as it says. I suggest that providing universal health care in our generation constitutes establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and promoting the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
We don’t need to start over with health care legislation. In my view, we need to clean up the present bill(s) in Congress by taking out the superfluous, “deal making” for votes provisions, insert at least a public option, and put it up for a vote – let the chips fall where they may. Despite criticism to the contrary, universal health care reform can be structured to be a “pay as we go” system with no deficit spending or increase to the national debt, just a fair system at reduced cost that gives excellent health care coverage.
Who Can Provide us with Greater National Security
Before we get too far into this year’s election rhetoric and people begin taking positions on where they stand on candidates and issues, I would like to address an issue of primary importance. The Republican Party appears poised to push the theme that they are the party that can provide the American people with the best national security. For the life of me, I can’t understand why they think the American electorate will buy into this.
Recently, the GOP leaders and pundits have had a lot to say about a variety of issues and events that are questionable:
1. They have accused President Obama of not using the words, “War on Terror.” Recorded sound bite after sound bite has our President making it clear that we are at war with terrorists. Short of tattooing something on his forehead, he can’t make it much clearer. He understands fully that our enemies follow the “law of the jungle,” rather than the “rule of law.” For example, he has been aggressive and successful in using drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen to kill al Qaida leaders and operatives. He is in the process of conducting a “surge” in Afghanistan. He has made arrangements with Pakistan and Yemen where we are working with them in attacking al Qaida without invading their countries.
2. Claiming that closing Gitmo will put us at greater risk is bogus. The existence of Gitmo with its alleged torture tactics and other practices contrary to international law have made it a “tough sell” to our allies that we follow the “rule of law;” plus, it is a rallying point for our extremist enemies all over the world.
3. The trying of terrorists, in U.S. civilian courts, that committed crimes against us in this nation is necessary – just read the VI Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Not trying terrorists for crimes in this country would be a failure to follow our Constitutional “rule of law” and would be a self-inflicted wound on our principles. Recently created military tribunals may be a suitable solution for combatants we capture in theaters of war; but even then, we need to follow international law in their treatment.
Over the last 20 years we’ve had three significant wars – all under Republican Administrations. The first one, the Gulf War, was fully justified because of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait; although, we failed to finish the job. Regime change in Iraq should have occurred then and there. Imagine the different scenario if we had done so.
The second war, in Afghanistan, if it had been handled properly, should have been an “in and out” punishment and destruction of al Qaida in retaliation for “9-11”. If we had accomplished this goal we would be much safer from terrorist’s attacks in this country today. But because of poor management, it has become a full scale invasion and occupation with an ill advised attempt at “nation building.” Our fight was not with the Taliban and the Afghan people; but, unfortunately, it is now.
The third war, in Iraq, should not have happened at all and it too became an invasion and occupation with another ill advised attempt at “nation building.” We are trying to wind this one down, but we still have about as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan and the future of our involvement could very well be long term. I certainly hope not.
Under GOP leadership, we’ve ended up loosing 4000+ service men and women, have thousands of injured veterans, and a debt load we really can’t afford. We’ve destroyed two nations, killed 10’s of thousands of innocent civilians, and made what will be long- standing enemies of a fanatical element of the fastest growing religion and culture in the world. Our policies are viewed by the radical fundamental Islamic element as a crusade perpetuated by an egotistical, decadent Western Judaic/Christian religion and culture. They are convinced that their God, which should be our same God, will lead them to victory if they mount a jihad – a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. Because of this, regardless of who is President or who controls Congress, Homeland Security is going to be challenged to protect us in the years to come.
Although not a direct national security issue, the Great Recession coming as a result of GOP deregulation of our financial system, unwise tax breaks for the wealthy, deficit spending, policy of corporate welfare, etc. may end up being a bigger national security issue than the wars and terrorist activities. It has necessitated a rush of even greater deficit spending by Democrats to prevent a depression with efforts to stabilize our financial system, save a few large corporations, attempt to stimulate our economy, continued efforts to deal with large scale unemployment, etc. Our economy may be at risk for years to come and our middle class may be at risk to even survive.
Now, you tell me, is the present GOP “party of no” who we want to turn this country’s national security over to? They suffered a major defeat in the last election and rightly so. To put them back in the driver’s seat seems akin to doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.
Recently, the GOP leaders and pundits have had a lot to say about a variety of issues and events that are questionable:
1. They have accused President Obama of not using the words, “War on Terror.” Recorded sound bite after sound bite has our President making it clear that we are at war with terrorists. Short of tattooing something on his forehead, he can’t make it much clearer. He understands fully that our enemies follow the “law of the jungle,” rather than the “rule of law.” For example, he has been aggressive and successful in using drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen to kill al Qaida leaders and operatives. He is in the process of conducting a “surge” in Afghanistan. He has made arrangements with Pakistan and Yemen where we are working with them in attacking al Qaida without invading their countries.
2. Claiming that closing Gitmo will put us at greater risk is bogus. The existence of Gitmo with its alleged torture tactics and other practices contrary to international law have made it a “tough sell” to our allies that we follow the “rule of law;” plus, it is a rallying point for our extremist enemies all over the world.
3. The trying of terrorists, in U.S. civilian courts, that committed crimes against us in this nation is necessary – just read the VI Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Not trying terrorists for crimes in this country would be a failure to follow our Constitutional “rule of law” and would be a self-inflicted wound on our principles. Recently created military tribunals may be a suitable solution for combatants we capture in theaters of war; but even then, we need to follow international law in their treatment.
Over the last 20 years we’ve had three significant wars – all under Republican Administrations. The first one, the Gulf War, was fully justified because of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait; although, we failed to finish the job. Regime change in Iraq should have occurred then and there. Imagine the different scenario if we had done so.
The second war, in Afghanistan, if it had been handled properly, should have been an “in and out” punishment and destruction of al Qaida in retaliation for “9-11”. If we had accomplished this goal we would be much safer from terrorist’s attacks in this country today. But because of poor management, it has become a full scale invasion and occupation with an ill advised attempt at “nation building.” Our fight was not with the Taliban and the Afghan people; but, unfortunately, it is now.
The third war, in Iraq, should not have happened at all and it too became an invasion and occupation with another ill advised attempt at “nation building.” We are trying to wind this one down, but we still have about as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan and the future of our involvement could very well be long term. I certainly hope not.
Under GOP leadership, we’ve ended up loosing 4000+ service men and women, have thousands of injured veterans, and a debt load we really can’t afford. We’ve destroyed two nations, killed 10’s of thousands of innocent civilians, and made what will be long- standing enemies of a fanatical element of the fastest growing religion and culture in the world. Our policies are viewed by the radical fundamental Islamic element as a crusade perpetuated by an egotistical, decadent Western Judaic/Christian religion and culture. They are convinced that their God, which should be our same God, will lead them to victory if they mount a jihad – a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. Because of this, regardless of who is President or who controls Congress, Homeland Security is going to be challenged to protect us in the years to come.
Although not a direct national security issue, the Great Recession coming as a result of GOP deregulation of our financial system, unwise tax breaks for the wealthy, deficit spending, policy of corporate welfare, etc. may end up being a bigger national security issue than the wars and terrorist activities. It has necessitated a rush of even greater deficit spending by Democrats to prevent a depression with efforts to stabilize our financial system, save a few large corporations, attempt to stimulate our economy, continued efforts to deal with large scale unemployment, etc. Our economy may be at risk for years to come and our middle class may be at risk to even survive.
Now, you tell me, is the present GOP “party of no” who we want to turn this country’s national security over to? They suffered a major defeat in the last election and rightly so. To put them back in the driver’s seat seems akin to doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Where do we go from here with Health Care Reform?
I will have to admit that as certain as I think we need universal health care reform, it doesn’t look likely it will get done this time. The election of Republican U.S. Senator Brown from Massachusetts, who is opposed to universal health care reform, may be the “nail in the coffin.” This will make it even more difficult to overcome the cloture rule in the U.S. Senate which requires 60 votes rather than the simple majority which is what the U.S. Constitution intended for passage of bills.
The people I feel empathy for are those left uninsured because of pre-existing conditions, lose or change jobs, are dropped by their insurance companies, and/or denied medical procedures that their insurance company unilaterally decides to refuse. For those who are one serious illness away from being “buried” in medical bills they may never recover from financially and may even force them into medical-related bankruptcy. For small businesses and the self-employed who, having no bargaining power enjoyed by large government entities and large companies, cannot afford medical insurance costs with decent coverage. And for seniors, who might see life long savings and investments disappear in an attempt to pay medical bills. All of the above are likely to be forced to go without or run the risk of too limited coverage. Many will simply choose to forgo medical treatment well beyond the time when it is wise to seek it rather than go through the demeaning process of public assistance.
I would prefer to see the Democrats (since the Republicans have opted out of process) work their way through a compromise between the House and Senate bills doing away with all the “deal making” provisions that were offered as compromises to get the vote of a few Republicans and/or hesitant Democrats to get the bill passed. The Democrat leadership managed this bill poorly and this administration got caught up in the process resulting in bad bills. They need to take the good provisions of the bill (about 80 to90% of what’s there), and write a “clean and clear” one. It should contain at least a public option, universal coverage, and be deficit neutral or better. Then, take it to both the House and the Senate for a vote. If Republican and Independent Senators want to filibuster, call their bluff. Let them take responsibility for their actions with the American people. If in the end the bill fails, that’s fine.
Although risky, I don’t think doing this would be devastating to the Democratic Party. The American public knows why we need this legislation. If the bill fails, we should carefully track the medical costs, coverage, along with profits of insurance companies and others in the medical field who have spent millions to defeat this bill. If they continue to be unreasonable in their costs and coverage or get worse, make it clear to the American people that an honest effort to provide good, universal coverage at reasonable costs has been offered to correct this situation. Then, remind the electorate that if they will send to Washington both Democratic and Republican Congressmen who favor meaningful health care reform, the Administration and Congress will make another run at it.
I know that unemployment, stimulus bills, national security, the wars, financial regulation, rebuilding of infrastructure, restructuring of education, etc., are out there and need to be addressed. And, in dealing with these, we should adopt the attitude that the “big boys” have gotten their “gift horse”, and they can expect no more. In fact, they should pay back their loans and we should stop the prevalent practice of corporate welfare. Instead, the emphasis now should be dealing with the myriad of problems in a fiscally conservative fashion recognizing that it will still be expensive and will require increased tax revenues. But, we should never lose sight of the importance of medical care which represents 1/6th of our GNP. This is not a small issue we can ignore and it is one that potentially affects almost everyone. If the insurance companies and others in the medical field can’t get their house in order to give universal coverage at reasonable costs, it won’t take many election cycles before universal health care reform will be mandated. Maybe this time, we will be ready to insist on a true universal health care system somewhat similar to what every other advanced nation in the world provides their people.
It will take some political courage to approach it this way; but, in my opinion, the time has come for the electorate to step up to meet the challenge by holding their Congressmen’s “feet to the fire.” We can’t afford to continue business as usual allowing us to drift into a declining second class nation where we don’t even have the decency to provide our own people with adequate medical care when it could be structured to be a deficit neutral program or better.
The people I feel empathy for are those left uninsured because of pre-existing conditions, lose or change jobs, are dropped by their insurance companies, and/or denied medical procedures that their insurance company unilaterally decides to refuse. For those who are one serious illness away from being “buried” in medical bills they may never recover from financially and may even force them into medical-related bankruptcy. For small businesses and the self-employed who, having no bargaining power enjoyed by large government entities and large companies, cannot afford medical insurance costs with decent coverage. And for seniors, who might see life long savings and investments disappear in an attempt to pay medical bills. All of the above are likely to be forced to go without or run the risk of too limited coverage. Many will simply choose to forgo medical treatment well beyond the time when it is wise to seek it rather than go through the demeaning process of public assistance.
I would prefer to see the Democrats (since the Republicans have opted out of process) work their way through a compromise between the House and Senate bills doing away with all the “deal making” provisions that were offered as compromises to get the vote of a few Republicans and/or hesitant Democrats to get the bill passed. The Democrat leadership managed this bill poorly and this administration got caught up in the process resulting in bad bills. They need to take the good provisions of the bill (about 80 to90% of what’s there), and write a “clean and clear” one. It should contain at least a public option, universal coverage, and be deficit neutral or better. Then, take it to both the House and the Senate for a vote. If Republican and Independent Senators want to filibuster, call their bluff. Let them take responsibility for their actions with the American people. If in the end the bill fails, that’s fine.
Although risky, I don’t think doing this would be devastating to the Democratic Party. The American public knows why we need this legislation. If the bill fails, we should carefully track the medical costs, coverage, along with profits of insurance companies and others in the medical field who have spent millions to defeat this bill. If they continue to be unreasonable in their costs and coverage or get worse, make it clear to the American people that an honest effort to provide good, universal coverage at reasonable costs has been offered to correct this situation. Then, remind the electorate that if they will send to Washington both Democratic and Republican Congressmen who favor meaningful health care reform, the Administration and Congress will make another run at it.
I know that unemployment, stimulus bills, national security, the wars, financial regulation, rebuilding of infrastructure, restructuring of education, etc., are out there and need to be addressed. And, in dealing with these, we should adopt the attitude that the “big boys” have gotten their “gift horse”, and they can expect no more. In fact, they should pay back their loans and we should stop the prevalent practice of corporate welfare. Instead, the emphasis now should be dealing with the myriad of problems in a fiscally conservative fashion recognizing that it will still be expensive and will require increased tax revenues. But, we should never lose sight of the importance of medical care which represents 1/6th of our GNP. This is not a small issue we can ignore and it is one that potentially affects almost everyone. If the insurance companies and others in the medical field can’t get their house in order to give universal coverage at reasonable costs, it won’t take many election cycles before universal health care reform will be mandated. Maybe this time, we will be ready to insist on a true universal health care system somewhat similar to what every other advanced nation in the world provides their people.
It will take some political courage to approach it this way; but, in my opinion, the time has come for the electorate to step up to meet the challenge by holding their Congressmen’s “feet to the fire.” We can’t afford to continue business as usual allowing us to drift into a declining second class nation where we don’t even have the decency to provide our own people with adequate medical care when it could be structured to be a deficit neutral program or better.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Closed door proceedings in Congress
There is a big falderal over the closed door sessions to work out a compromise over the health care reform bill. Republicans and other pundits, including U.S. Representative Jerry Moran, are all over this with criticism of the process. Unfortunately, with some of deal-making done in drafting of the U.S. Senate version of the health reform bill, Democrats have given opponents ample reason for criticism. The Democratic Leadership has handled this legislation poorly. They have gotten too wrapped up in trying to write legislation that will satisfy everyone and get votes instead of just writing a good piece of needed legislation.
But, under normal circumstances, closed door sessions to work out the details in the legislative process is steeped in tradition and long standing rules. The Constitutional Convention which drafted the U.S. Constitution was conducted behind closed doors. Most if not all caucuses of both parties are conducted behind closed doors. Most committee meetings are behind closed doors. Plus, like everywhere else in life, a lot of decisions are made over a cup of coffee, a few drinks, or a meal someplace in private. Almost all strategy discussions in the executive branch are behind closed doors. Although most court proceedings are open to the public, detailed discussion of cases goes on behind closed doors and seldom is the electronic media allowed into the court room.
Yes we have televised legislative committee hearings and even televised coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives (since 1979) and U.S. Senate (since 1986). And this media coverage may very well have been a mistake that now no one has the courage to retract. The reason for closed door proceedings should be obvious. Put yourself in a Congressman’s position. Cameras and audio recordings change the dynamics of the process and usually not for the good. Suddenly, almost everyone begins posturing for the media – they are elected officials after all. With cameras rolling, little serious give and take discussion goes on. Anyone who has watched C-span coverage should know this.
In these media circus environments, Congressmen are not going to say what’s on their mind and certainly not “off the cuff.” They are not going to offer opinions and then change their minds or adjust their positions based on better arguments presented by others. They are not going to appear uninformed by asking questions for clarification and understanding. The truth of the matter is that in many cases they are uninformed and rely heavily on their staffs for position papers. If they are going into a public hearing or making a speech on the House or Senate floor, their comments and questions are carefully scripted with “talking points” that are consistent with their ideology and party positions. It isn’t that they are lazy, it’s just that there is too much information for them to be an expert on every detail of what is often complicated legislation. They simply can’t read, listen to, and/or comprehend all that comes across their desks. And, they know that if they make a misstatement of any kind or say something that can be perceived as stupid, inaccurate, or inconsistent with previous statements, it will be put in a media archive someplace to be brought out by their political enemies to hammer them in the news media and certainly at the next election.
I would suggest that that is the very reason that watching hours and hours of C-span coverage is a waste of time unless, you are well paid to do it, politics is an avocation, or you don’t have a life. This is what the media, as the “fourth branch of the government,” should be doing and then reporting in a fair, unbiased way. Whether they do this well is a matter that needs further discussion.
We have a republican system of government. We elect people to go to Washington to represent us to the best of their ability. We do encourage people to contact their elected leaders and freely express their opinion. Elections and offering our views is the democratic part of the process; but, the actual legislation process is done by Congressmen. If they do it poorly, we need to replace them – Democrats and/or Republicans – in the next election. The sad fact is, that we too often don’t and no amount of open door, C-span coverage is going to correct this.
Yes, much of what a Congressman, President, or Court Justice does should be behind closed doors. Human nature and our political process dictates this. This is how compromise, which is the heart of our governmental process, occurs. Criticism about closed doors to craft legislation only gains traction when the American electorate fails to understand how their own government works and public officials and pundits take advantage of this ignorance.
But, under normal circumstances, closed door sessions to work out the details in the legislative process is steeped in tradition and long standing rules. The Constitutional Convention which drafted the U.S. Constitution was conducted behind closed doors. Most if not all caucuses of both parties are conducted behind closed doors. Most committee meetings are behind closed doors. Plus, like everywhere else in life, a lot of decisions are made over a cup of coffee, a few drinks, or a meal someplace in private. Almost all strategy discussions in the executive branch are behind closed doors. Although most court proceedings are open to the public, detailed discussion of cases goes on behind closed doors and seldom is the electronic media allowed into the court room.
Yes we have televised legislative committee hearings and even televised coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives (since 1979) and U.S. Senate (since 1986). And this media coverage may very well have been a mistake that now no one has the courage to retract. The reason for closed door proceedings should be obvious. Put yourself in a Congressman’s position. Cameras and audio recordings change the dynamics of the process and usually not for the good. Suddenly, almost everyone begins posturing for the media – they are elected officials after all. With cameras rolling, little serious give and take discussion goes on. Anyone who has watched C-span coverage should know this.
In these media circus environments, Congressmen are not going to say what’s on their mind and certainly not “off the cuff.” They are not going to offer opinions and then change their minds or adjust their positions based on better arguments presented by others. They are not going to appear uninformed by asking questions for clarification and understanding. The truth of the matter is that in many cases they are uninformed and rely heavily on their staffs for position papers. If they are going into a public hearing or making a speech on the House or Senate floor, their comments and questions are carefully scripted with “talking points” that are consistent with their ideology and party positions. It isn’t that they are lazy, it’s just that there is too much information for them to be an expert on every detail of what is often complicated legislation. They simply can’t read, listen to, and/or comprehend all that comes across their desks. And, they know that if they make a misstatement of any kind or say something that can be perceived as stupid, inaccurate, or inconsistent with previous statements, it will be put in a media archive someplace to be brought out by their political enemies to hammer them in the news media and certainly at the next election.
I would suggest that that is the very reason that watching hours and hours of C-span coverage is a waste of time unless, you are well paid to do it, politics is an avocation, or you don’t have a life. This is what the media, as the “fourth branch of the government,” should be doing and then reporting in a fair, unbiased way. Whether they do this well is a matter that needs further discussion.
We have a republican system of government. We elect people to go to Washington to represent us to the best of their ability. We do encourage people to contact their elected leaders and freely express their opinion. Elections and offering our views is the democratic part of the process; but, the actual legislation process is done by Congressmen. If they do it poorly, we need to replace them – Democrats and/or Republicans – in the next election. The sad fact is, that we too often don’t and no amount of open door, C-span coverage is going to correct this.
Yes, much of what a Congressman, President, or Court Justice does should be behind closed doors. Human nature and our political process dictates this. This is how compromise, which is the heart of our governmental process, occurs. Criticism about closed doors to craft legislation only gains traction when the American electorate fails to understand how their own government works and public officials and pundits take advantage of this ignorance.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Responding to Terrorism
The most recent attempt by a terrorist to blow up a plane on its approach to Detroit airport is a good example of how our previous administration did its job in carrying out the law of the land. And, this is an area they claim great expertise in.
“9-11” caught us by surprise approximately 8 years ago, plus we had the failed “shoe bomb” attempt. As a result of these events and threats from our enemies, our Department of Homeland Security was created. It has spent billions of dollars ostensibly to protect us from such efforts. They claim some successes; but, one of the main points of emphasis coming from “9-11” was the lack of communication among agencies protecting our security. A process was supposedly put in place to insure this communication of data and to insure proper profiling of those boarding planes on international and domestic flights.
I would think it is fair to assume that the new administration coming to Washington less than a year ago would operate under the assurance that this process was in place. Well, we found out that it isn’t and we dodged a major catastrophe only because of the failure of the terrorist to activate the bomb correctly along with the courageous, quick action by private citizens and crew on the airline stopping it.
President Obama has admirably been honest about the government’s failure to prevent this and is ordering a review of the process to get it right. So, suddenly we have yet another major issue laid on this President’s plate where he has to correct and/or reconfigure a process that should have been developed and in place over the last several years. Too much of his “full plate” is correcting “screw-ups” from the previous administration.
Apparently, when Republicans say that government is ineffective and unmanageable, it is a self-fulfilling prophesy when it comes to their ability to administer the law. On the other hand, this Democratic Administration has come to work with a positive, “Yes we can,” attitude of how government can work within our culture on behalf of the people and have a positive impact on improving this great nation. Hopefully, people will be reasonably patient, although not always in full agreement, with encouraging this administration to accomplish its growing “to do list.”
Terrorist acts against the U.S. are going to be a fact of life for many years to come. Actually, I’m surprised that our enemies have been so focused on the airline industry. I would think that they would have broadened their horizons by this time and I fully expect them to in the future. Our failed “cowboy/tough guy” foreign policy has encouraged and actually fostered a growing, more mobile, and dedicated jihad force in the world which from their point of view has a lot of “pay back” to heap on us.
In the short run, we will have to be creative, dedicated, wary, and yes militarily decisive, in a limited way I hope, to protect ourselves here and abroad. But, in the long run, we need a gradual change in our policies where we will be perceived as strong in a defensive way unless we are threatened or attacked; respectful of other nations sovereignty letting they and their people work through their own problems; and strive to set an example to the rest of the world of how a great democratic/republican nation can put their own house in order as well as provide limited assistance where needed in the world. Leading by example is always preferable to “do as I say, not as I do.”
I hope that this present failed attack will not result in an over reaction leading to unreasonable, outlandishly expensive, and/or restrictive practices in our airport security process. We already have to take our shoes off, I hope we don’t have to take off our underwear and/or be subjected to indecorous full body screens every time we get on an airplane.
“9-11” caught us by surprise approximately 8 years ago, plus we had the failed “shoe bomb” attempt. As a result of these events and threats from our enemies, our Department of Homeland Security was created. It has spent billions of dollars ostensibly to protect us from such efforts. They claim some successes; but, one of the main points of emphasis coming from “9-11” was the lack of communication among agencies protecting our security. A process was supposedly put in place to insure this communication of data and to insure proper profiling of those boarding planes on international and domestic flights.
I would think it is fair to assume that the new administration coming to Washington less than a year ago would operate under the assurance that this process was in place. Well, we found out that it isn’t and we dodged a major catastrophe only because of the failure of the terrorist to activate the bomb correctly along with the courageous, quick action by private citizens and crew on the airline stopping it.
President Obama has admirably been honest about the government’s failure to prevent this and is ordering a review of the process to get it right. So, suddenly we have yet another major issue laid on this President’s plate where he has to correct and/or reconfigure a process that should have been developed and in place over the last several years. Too much of his “full plate” is correcting “screw-ups” from the previous administration.
Apparently, when Republicans say that government is ineffective and unmanageable, it is a self-fulfilling prophesy when it comes to their ability to administer the law. On the other hand, this Democratic Administration has come to work with a positive, “Yes we can,” attitude of how government can work within our culture on behalf of the people and have a positive impact on improving this great nation. Hopefully, people will be reasonably patient, although not always in full agreement, with encouraging this administration to accomplish its growing “to do list.”
Terrorist acts against the U.S. are going to be a fact of life for many years to come. Actually, I’m surprised that our enemies have been so focused on the airline industry. I would think that they would have broadened their horizons by this time and I fully expect them to in the future. Our failed “cowboy/tough guy” foreign policy has encouraged and actually fostered a growing, more mobile, and dedicated jihad force in the world which from their point of view has a lot of “pay back” to heap on us.
In the short run, we will have to be creative, dedicated, wary, and yes militarily decisive, in a limited way I hope, to protect ourselves here and abroad. But, in the long run, we need a gradual change in our policies where we will be perceived as strong in a defensive way unless we are threatened or attacked; respectful of other nations sovereignty letting they and their people work through their own problems; and strive to set an example to the rest of the world of how a great democratic/republican nation can put their own house in order as well as provide limited assistance where needed in the world. Leading by example is always preferable to “do as I say, not as I do.”
I hope that this present failed attack will not result in an over reaction leading to unreasonable, outlandishly expensive, and/or restrictive practices in our airport security process. We already have to take our shoes off, I hope we don’t have to take off our underwear and/or be subjected to indecorous full body screens every time we get on an airplane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
