Category Archives: Congress

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, Congress, Constitution, donald trump

NOBODY BELIEVES A LIAR

2 Comments

“Nobody believes a liar, even when he’s telling the truth.”  That is the moral of Aesop’s fable about the boy who cried wolf and it has become the story of Donald Trump’s Presidency.  In the fable, the villagers did believe the shepherd boy the first two times that he cried “WOLF!”  They came to rescue him and to save the sheep.  The third time, there really was a wolf but no one came to help.  The villagers had learned that the shepherd boy was a liar so they ignored his cries.

On March 4, 2017, President Trump said this, “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!…Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!…I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!..How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” President Trump has also said that millions of people voted illegally in our last election, citing that as the only reason that he did not win the popular vote.  And he claimed on numerous occasions that our elections are rigged.

Some of candidate Trump’s outrageous statements got people excited, and he won enough electoral votes to make him President of the United States.  Now it seems that a growing majority of Americans – even a large number of his supporters – don’t take his wild accusations seriously.  I recently heard one Trump supporter respond by saying, “That’s not serious.  It’s just Trump being Trump.”

The President’s statements are accusations of criminal activity that would undermine our nation and our freedom – IF they were true.  But he has not produced evidence to support any of them.  Current and former government officials have denied the wire-tapping claims.  Numerous studies of our elections have disproven the claims of massive voter fraud and election rigging.  If a President makes such damning statements about our nation, he should demonstrate to us that they are true.  Otherwise, it is the President himself who is undermining our nation, our faith in our democratic electoral process and our freedom.

What public reaction can we expect when the President needs to speak to us about a real crisis?  Suppose, for example, that President Kennedy had told such lies before he needed to address the nation and lead our military forces during the Cuban missile crisis.  We could easily have bungled our way into a nuclear war.  What if we could not have trusted President Eisenhower’s honesty about Soviet Troops entering Hungary?  After the intelligence assessments about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction turned out to be wrong, most Americans saw it as a mistake, not a lie.

In 1962, President Kennedy needed international support for the naval blockade that prevented the Soviet Union bringing more nuclear weapons to Cuba.  He called the French President, Charles de Gaulle, and explained the situation.  He told de Gaulle that Secretary of State Dean Acheson would fly to Paris with photographs proving the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. The French President responded that he did not need to see the pictures saying, “The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”  It’s hard to imagine that any of our allies would give such a response today.  They would want proof.  Why would they trust our President?

In a world where a new crisis can arrive at internet speed, citizens need to be able to trust the word of our President.  So do our military and intelligence leaders.  But he’s lied about them too.  How can they trust him?

What would we do if President Trump were to tell us of an urgent problem that requires an immediate and risky response?  I certainly don’t know, but my best guess is that the nation would be divided. Some would believe.  Many would not because trust has been broken.

Our congress and courts have never faced a situation like this.  There are procedures, if needed, for removing a President, either via impeachment or for mental health reasons.  The time for that could soon be on the horizon if our President continues to lie.

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, Congress, Russia and Trump

A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CAN NOT STAND

3 Comments

The title of this column came to mind as I observed events of the past few days.  Jesus taught that lesson.  President Lincoln used it to explain why America could not survive half slave and half free.  Our house is perilously divided by mistrust.

A private espionage company, owned and staffed by retired British MI6 agents, produced a report alleging collusion, payments and sex scandals between President-elect Trump, his team and Kremlin officials including Vladimir Putin.  The report suggests that the Russians have succeeded at three goals, helping Trump win the election, getting information that can be used to blackmail him, and undermining the confidence of citizens in American democracy.  The report has been in the possession of the FBI and some news organizations since October, 2016.  US intelligence agencies did not mention it in the public version of their report on Russian involvement in our election, but they did provide a summary to President-elect Trump and President Obama.

Then on January 10, 2017 BuzzFeed, an online news organization, published the document. Donald Trump angrily denied all of the accusations, blasted the report as “fake news” and suggested that it was leaked by American intelligence agencies to embarrass him.  The US Director of National intelligence denies that.

In another example of mistrust, the FBI’s on then off then on-again investigations of Mrs. Clinton aroused suspicion of her and suspicion that the FBI was intentionally influencing the election.  FBI reports affirm that Russian operatives stole confidential information from American (Democratic Party) computers and used it in an attempt to influence our election.  In-arguably, the FBI Director relied on information thought to be stolen from Americans by Russian spies as a basis for publicly reopening the Clinton e-mail investigation at a critical moment in the campaign.

We don’t know whether the FBI investigated allegations about Trump and the Russians.  By talking about the Clinton investigation but not the Trump allegations, our FBI Director may have (intentionally or not) aided the Russian effort to influence our election.

I don’t know the whole truth about any of these matters and neither do readers of this column.  But I do know that there are millions of Americans ready to believe the worst about other Americans. Neither presidential candidate was trusted by the majority of Americans.  Many of us, like our President-elect, trust our intelligence agencies only when their reports confirm what we already believe.  Our trust problems extend beyond the federal government to other fundamental institutions like courts, police and public schools.

The corrosion of trust in American institutions and leadership is a slow and insidious process nourished by public officials who mislead us or lie to us.  Lies or deception by Presidents and other officials were used to generate support for the Vietnam War, to secretly and illegally sell arms to Iran then divert the revenue to support right-wing militia groups that overthrew the government of Nicaragua, and to support the Iraq war that destabilized the entire Middle East.

Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”  Our house is divided against itself, and that makes us nearly defenseless against efforts like the Russian intervention in our election.  A free, democratic nation relies on the integrity and trust of its institutions, officeholders and citizens.  That is where our dangers and opportunities lie.

Here are a few ideas that might help us recover trust.

  • The congress should commission a full not-partisan investigation with subpoena powers and report  findings to the public.
  • Voters in both primary and general elections should consider the candidate’s integrity and character as absolutely vital credentials. Imagine where we might be today if our general election had featured Lindsay Graham or John Kasich against Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders.  Roughly half the nation would still be unhappy with the outcome of the election, but maybe fewer Americans would see our President-elect as the enemy.
  • A law should be passed making it illegal for any government official to intentionally lie to or mislead the public. The penalty for violations should be termination of employment or removal from elected office.
  • The Senate and Donald Trump should insist that all cabinet nominees complete their ethics reports and background checks before Senate committees vote.
  • Trump should release his tax returns immediately to shrink the cloud of suspicion hanging over him.

If you have more or better ideas, it’s time to share them.

Click green links above for background information and documents.

The new report alleging collusion, payments and sex scandals is also here 

If it’s accurate, this one is a bombshell:  BBC coverage of the report and its credibility.

The declassified version of the intelligence agencies report to Trump and Obama is here.

 

All Posts, budget, Congress, Constitution, taxes

It’s time to balance budgets

1 Comment

Although our election decided who will hold public offices, the issues that divide Americans remain unsettled.  Our political battlefield is strewn with social, economic, religious and geographic landmines ready to explode.  And it’s too early to know what a Trump-led Republican administration will be like.  Besides, election “winners” achieve mostly temporary victories because the “losing” side returns to fight another day.

In that unfortunate climate, vital responsibilities of government often go unattended.  Perhaps the best example is our decades-long and increasingly urgent need to balance federal budgets.  The last time we balanced our budget for more than two consecutive years was the eleven year period from 1920 through 1930.

If both conservative and liberal voters push for it, this might be a time when we could pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.  With that in mind, here’s my Balanced Budget Amendment idea.  It would force decisions on some issues that divide us, most notably taxes, health care and defense spending – maybe even uniting conservatives and liberals in support of practical ideas.  Here is the concept:

IDEAS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

The President must propose a balanced budget to the congress at least five months before the beginning of each fiscal year.

  1. Congress must pass a balanced budget and send it to the President for signature at least three months prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.
  2. If the President vetoes a budget approved by the congress, the president and the congress must confer, agree to and sign a budget at least 30 days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.
  3. Failure of a President to meet the responsibilities described above on a timely basis constitutes voluntary resignation from the office of the presidency.
  4. Failure of the Congress to meet its responsibilities described above on a timely basis constitutes ninety day notice of resignation from office by all members of the congress. Each state will elect new members of congress within 60 days to take office 30 days later.
  5. A balanced budget must include all projected expenses plus any unplanned deficit from the prior year and retirement of at least one percent of existing national debt.  It must also include projection of sufficient tax revenue to fund the budget.
  6. An unbalanced budget with expenses exceeding revenue is permissible during a  time of war or other national emergency declared by the congress and approved by the President.  An unbalanced budget requires approval by sixty percent of the members of each house of congress.
  7. Trust Fund programs operated by the Federal Government which have their own dedicated revenue streams may accumulate surpluses and loan them to the Federal Budget at the discretion of the Congress and the President.  Timely repayment of such debt is the highest priority claim on federal revenue.  (Social Security is the main program of this kind.)

The specific language and content of constitutional amendments requires extreme care and scrutiny.  I’ve only tried to describe principles for an amendment, not the exacting language that would be needed.

My prediction is that it will be difficult to get legislators from either political party to consider an amendment because few, if any, are willing to make the decisions required to balance budgets. Facing a deficit, legislators from both parties are generally more willing to raise the debt ceiling than to raise taxes or cut spending.

After all the partisan shouting is done, the necessary compromises usually involve increasing our debt.  The burden is borne by voters and taxpayers.  With this amendment, if officeholders fail, they lose their jobs to someone who is willing to actually do the work.  Holding new elections to replace a failing legislature is not a radical idea. Numerous parliamentary democracies do exactly that.

This column lays out an ambitious vision for solving an urgent national problem.  It’s a good first step toward more effective government because it will also force more responsible decisions on all other federal priorities.

Is it unrealistic to think that our congress, president and voters would actually do this?  Maybe…  But if congress is unable to balance a budget, how can they expect to find success on other contentious questions like immigration, health care, war and civil rights that sit atop their agenda?

If we can’t make such decisions, our future as a viable nation is in doubt.  Let’s get started.

All Posts, Christianity, Congress, Constitution, islam, randolph county north carolina, religion

In which God do we trust?

2 Comments

Before 1954, our pledge of allegiance described America as, “…one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all…”  Then Congress added “…under God…”    Two years later, they adopted “In God we trust” as our national motto. Now a movement is under way to place that motto on public buildings and patrol cars.  Why?  And why now?

Congress was clearly motivated by a desire to distinguish us from the officially atheist and communist USSR.  Their trust didn’t extend to national defense.  They were simultaneously building an arsenal of nuclear weapons to assure that we could destroy the Soviet Union if they attacked us.  Although congress didn’t specify which god they trusted, it was a conservative Christian initiative.  The reason seemed to be that many Americans took comfort in the idea that God would protect a Christian nation.

Previously, the unofficial motto of the United States was “E pluribus unum” which translates as “One from many”.   It referred to one nation emerging from thirteen colonies which had diverse values, religious traditions and laws.  It has also been used to describe American national unity among people of various races, cultures, beliefs and religions.

Today’s environment seems similar to that of the 1950s.  Fear that Muslim and Latino immigrants will bring terrorism and crime is front and center in our political discussions.  A second, and perhaps more powerful concern is that many Americans see the US as a “Christian nation” and they fear that we are becoming something else. The Christian Action League which lobbies to have the motto placed on patrol cars and public buildings obviously thinks the motto refers to the god of evangelical Christians.  So do many of the local groups who get financial support from the In God We Trust Action Committee.  It has national and state organizations that encourage and pay for the signs and decals.10997332_1007764762586557_3133498777921262665_n

It seems appropriate to ask, “How is trust in god visible?  What does it mean on a public building?”  If the nation trusts a god, what is it that we are trusting that deity to do?  Regardless of belief (or non-belief) I’d bet that most of us will call for help from a skilled law enforcement officer in a crisis rather than waiting for one deity or another to fix the problem.

I went looking for answers in holy books of the world’s two largest religions.  The Christian Bible has a great many admonitions to trust God and live by his rules. Beyond that it is unclear what trust means.  The texts that I found are about living life with trust in God – fearlessly.  None suggested advertising trust on money, buildings or law enforcement chariots.

In the Quran I found similar messages.  Since few Americans are familiar with that book, here are a couple of examples, [3:159-160] “… GOD loves those who trust in Him.  If GOD supports you, none can defeat you.  And if He abandons you, who else can support you?” “[11:123] To GOD belongs the future of the heavens and the earth, and all matters are controlled by Him. You shall worship Him and trust in Him.”  As with the Christian Bible, trust seemed to be about living life with trust in God – fearlessly, not about public displays.

What then, is the motivation for public displays?

Until I hear a more convincing rationale for the signs and decals there are three possibilities that come to mind.

  • Perhaps proponents hope that signs or decals will convince their God to intervene in the world to protect them.
  • Perhaps they want to offend non-believers and those who worship a different version of God.  Maybe they think they can discourage other beliefs by posting their own on law enforcement vehicles and public buildings.  (That kind of thinking is exactly why we have a constitutional amendment prohibiting government preference for any religion.)
  • Another possibility is that the proponents lack sufficient trust in their own God so they seek validation and support in the form of government-approved signs.

Maybe there are other reasons that are best stated by those who have made decisions to put the motto on display.   I prefer “E pluribus unum”.  It describes the confidence of a nation that will be great in the future as it has been in the past rather than the fears of a nation whose faith is weak.

 

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, campaign finance, Congress, Constitution, justice, north carolina, war

PRESIDENT WASHINGTON’S ADVICE TO AMERICAN VOTERS

4 Comments

CLICK HERE to read George Washington’s full farewell address

I’ve invited an old friend of our nation to compose most of this column.  George Washington served with great distinction as leader of our military forces in the war for independence then gave another eight years of service as our first President.   Approaching the end of his second term in 1796, he published a farewell address that included his assessment of our history and his advice about the future.  Here are some of his words and some questions to ponder.

“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize”… “For the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable.” That hasn’t changed but our perception of who is entitled to the benefits of liberty has expanded to include people regardless of race, sex, or other personal characteristics. Why do so many among us now see government as our biggest problem?

President Washington said that by maintaining our national unity, we could “…derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighbouring countries not tied together by the same governments…” thereby avoiding … “the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.”  Why do we have armed forces stationed all over the world and why have we been at war so long?

Regarding relationships with other nations, he said, “nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated…The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible…”  Why are we continuously involved in trying to change the internal affairs of other nations?

Washington wrote, “In contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views.”  In North Carolina, Republicans designed legislative districts to guarantee their continuous hold on power.  To benefit themselves, they divide citizens rural and religious against urban and secular.  The situation in Washington is similar.

Speaking of associations and political parties, President Washington said, “…they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”  Could anyone better describe how political parties and PACs serve the interests of the very wealthy, huge corporations and other special interests?

Still speaking of factions and political parties, President Washington told us that “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection”

Please think about it.  Need I say more?

CLICK HERE to read George Washington’s full farewell address

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, Congress, environment, justice, war

KILLING BERTA CACERES

5 Comments

A friend recently described the life and death of Berta Caceres to me. Today, I’m sharing her story with you along with concerns about America’s role in the affairs of other nations.

Berta Cacares and Pope Francis with other human rights activists
Berta Caceras and other human rights advocates with Pope Francis during his visit to Honduras.

Caceres was co-founder of COPINH, an organization created to protect the interests of the indigenous Lenca people of Honduras and to save their natural environment from rapacious development.  She and her organization received threats and were victims of violence over the years.  The controversy escalated when COPINH was able to stop construction of a huge hydroelectric dam that would have taken water and land historically belonging to the Lenca people.  It was jointly sponsored by Honduras-based DESA and Sinohydro, a Chinese company that is the world’s largest dam builder.  Defeating that project earned Caceres the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize (perhaps the world’s most prestigious environmental recognition).  It also earned her the enmity of some very powerful people.

On March 2, 2016 Berta Caceres was shot and killed in her bed.  The assassins were reportedly  graduates of the “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation” (AKA “School of the Americas”) that is jointly operated by the US Army and the CIA.  That school also educated at least 10 military dictators including Manuel Noriega (Panama) and Juan Velasco Alvarado (overthrew the government of Peru).  Their training by American professionals included assassination and torture.

In January, 2006, Manuel Zelaya was elected President of Honduras.  He ran on socialist principles and soon created closer ties to Venezuela and Cuba.  That engendered concern from Honduran and American business interests and from the Bush Administration in the US.  In June 2009, Zelaya was kidnapped and taken to Costa Rica by the Honduran military.   Pre-arranged support from the Honduran Supreme Court included immediate installation of Pofiro Lobo as President.

Honduran social cleansing victims discovered
“Social cleansing” to reduce the population of ethnic minorities that oppose the government have been reported. This man was thought to be a victim. Read more HERE.

Central American Nations and the European Union called for Zelaya’s return to power but dropped their insistence when the Obama Administration, in the person of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, encouraged recognition of the new regime.  The never-stated quid pro quo may have been American acceptance of the regime’s legitimacy and its domestic policies in exchange for their collaboration in a war against drug lords.  The Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America reports specifics of 229 politically related Murders under President Lobo.  Many who died or disappeared at the hands of government death squads were environmentalists or social reformers.

When the journal “Intercept” interviewed Berta Caraces about security concerns and threats from government, businesses and paramilitary interests she said “The army has an assassination list of 18 wanted human rights fighters with my name at the top, I take lots of care but in the end, in this country where there is total impunity I am vulnerable.  When they want to kill me, they will do it.” The Catholic Herald reports that many church-affiliated groups are urging the US to conduct transparent investigations of multiple political murders including that of Berta Caraces, but the US has not responded.

There are rumors that the dam project will be resurrected with support from banking, land development and construction interests.  Assassinations and arrests of opponents continue, as does the drug trade; and Honduras continues to have the world’s highest murder rate.

Mass market journalists have paid little attention to these events, but recently the well respected National Catholic Reporter (US based) has confirmed the story and added that, “The leader of the coup, Honduran General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, was a graduate of the notorious School of the Americas, a U.S. Army training program nicknamed “School of Assassins” for the sizable number of graduates who have engaged in coups, as well as the torture and murder of political opponents.”  Nevertheless, US policy created by Secretary Clinton and still supported by her today is to refuse refugees from Honduras while continuing to accept them from Cuba.

After all the bloodshed, it seems that the US would have learned that training and equipping citizens of other nations to kill each other and overthrow their governments doesn’t help anyone.   It certainly did not help Honduras control the drug trade or help Iraq eliminate terrorists and it made lots of new enemies for Americans.  We’ve tried it without success in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Peru, Chile, Cuba, Syria, Guatemala, Nicaragua and probably in some places that I don’t know about.  It’s evil.  Let’s resolve to never do it again!

All Posts, Congress, guns, north carolina, randolph county north carolina

GUNS IN AMERICA – WHAT READERS THINK

3 Comments

In my last column I asked readers what they want from American gun laws.  This column reports back what they said. It isn’t a statistically reliable survey with a controlled sample but 90 readers responded and there is enough self-reported diversity among them to serve as a basis for more conversation on the subject.  For detailed responses including all of the reader comments CLICK HERE.

I asked readers to classify themselves into one of five groups:

Very Conservative = leaning toward tea party or conservative evangelical viewpoints.

Conservative = social conservative and generally Republican.

Unaffiliated = not conservative or liberal or partisan.

Liberal = social liberal and generally Democratic.

Very Liberal = social liberal leaning toward European Socialist viewpoint.

Those are the categories that you will see in charts below.  Green numbers indicate areas of agreement. Orange indicates disagreement with the other groups. It should be noted that the low response rate in the “very conservative” group means that their data are the least reliable.

Table 1 shows high levels of agreement among the groups about who should NOT have guns.

What criteria should a person meet before they are allowed to purchase a gun? Check all that apply. TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
No criteria. It should be legal for anyone to purchase a gun. 0 0 0 0 0 0
Only adults age 18 or older should be allowed to purchase guns. 83 75 83 79 95 93
People with felony criminal records should not be allowed to purchase or own guns. 87 100 92 90 91 93
People who have been involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment should not be allowed to purchase or own guns. 89 100 83 90 91 93
Only People who have completed safety training should be allowed to purchase and own guns. 69 25 58 62 86 93

 

Table 2 shows strong support for background checks before purchases in the form of either universal checks or renewable licenses.

How should gun purchasers demonstrate compliance with your criteria? Choose one best answer. TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
Just sign a form. We’ll take your word for it. 1 0 8 0 0 0
Background checks should be done for purchases from licensed dealers but sales at gun shows should be exempt (current system) 11 50 17 11 0 0
Purchasers must submit a valid ID and there must be an instant background check conducted for every gun purchase. 67 50 58 59 91 77
Gun owners should have one background check then receive a multi-year renewable license so they don’t need a new background check for every purchase. 21 0 17 30 9 23

 

Table 3 shows a substantial amount of agreement on banning certain types of guns and ammunition but that does not include hand guns with large magazines. Many unaffiliated respondents agree with liberals about banning rifles with large magazines.

Are there any kinds of guns or ammunition that individuals should not be allowed to possess?   Check all that apply. TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
Machine Guns 92 50 83 92 95 100
Rapid fire rifles (like assault rifles) capable of large numbers of shots before reloading 77 50 33 64 100 100
Rapid fire hand guns capable of large numbers of shots before reloading 63 0 33 40 95 86
Guns disguised to look like something else such as a cane or umbrella. 85 50 75 76 95 93
Guns designed to be invisible to metal detectors and other security systems (such as plastic guns) 94 100 92 84 100 100
Ammunition designed to pierce body armor (cop killer bullets) 86 50 83 80 95 93

 

Table 4 shows strong agreement to ban guns from commercial flights. Unaffiliated and Liberals would also ban them at schools and airports but conservatives are divided about that.

Are there places where civilians should not be allowed to carry guns? Check all that apply TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
Airports 77 50 55 76 90 92
Commercial airline flights 96 100 91 95 100 100
Public Schools and their extracurricular events 82 50 55 76 95 100
Bars 76 100 55 67 86 92
Public College Campuses 68 0 27 57 86 92

 

Table 5 shows strong agreement to ban shooting near schools and where bullets cross the property of owners who have not given permission. Unaffiliateds and liberals tend to oppose shooting near homes, public buildings and businesses of people who have not given permission. Conservatives said it should be permitted near homes.

What restrictions should there be on where people can shoot guns? Check all that apply. TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
Not within a specified distance from a school 95 100 92 93 100 93
Not allowed if bullets cross property where shooter does not have the owner’s permission. 87 0 67 89 100 100
Not allowed within a specified distance from any residence where the owner has not given permission 73 0 28 63 91 100
Not allowed within a specified distance from public buildings, parks or businesses 80 50 67 67 100 100
Limited to designated areas of national and state forests. 51 0 17 48 73 71
Not allowed within a specified distance from highways. 65 25 25 52 95 86

 

There are many areas of agreement across the political spectrum about the content of gun laws but no apparent agreement about which legislative body should make the laws.

Who should make the laws that govern guns and gun ownership? TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
Congress should make national laws and states can add to them. 66 50 9 59 86 100
There should be no national laws. States should do this. 26 25 64 37 9 0
There should not be any laws limiting gun ownership in any way. 5 25 18 4 0 0
Cities and counties should be permitted to create additional restrictions as needed. 59 0 45 44 77 85

 

Those who believe cable news channels won’t hear it reported, but this survey demonstrates many areas of agreement on actions that might reduce gun deaths. If we listen and respect each other’s opinions, we might be able to move forward with ideas that have broad support rather than allowing areas of disagreement to paralyze us. Perhaps the most disturbing disagreement is not about what our laws should be; instead it is about which legislative body should make the laws.

My hope is that this column will encourage conversations among friends and families about gun laws; and that those conversations will lead to mutual understanding. My belief is that most of our legislators do not want to lead on this subject. They are waiting for us voters to make up our minds. The survey says that we have already done that on some subjects. If that is true, we should let lawmakers in on the secret.

 

All Posts, budget, Congress, deficit, taxes

NEW IDEAS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

3 Comments

Our elected officials in Washington congratulate themselves for avoiding a government shutdown and argue about which non-budgetary legislation to tack onto “must-pass” short term spending bills while we limp from month to month with no long range financial plan .  This column is my attempt to persuade readers of all political stripes that we should pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget – not because I like the idea but because nothing else seems to work.

First, a dose of reality – Social Security is not the problem.  In 66 of its 77 years Social Security has brought in more money than it spent. That includes the most recent 34 consecutive years.  Because we are living longer and have the large baby-boom generation retiring, Social Security will need some combination of delayed retirement, increased taxes, and reduced benefits; but if congress will act soon, the changes will not be massive.

The real problems are in other areas of the budget.  Our deficit for 2015 was $439 billion despite a $19 billion surplus by Social Security.  Historical data from the US Office of Management and Budget show only two recent balanced budgets: 1999 and 2000 (President Bill Clinton’s last two years).  Prior to that it was 1960, the last year of President Eisenhower’s term.  We have had budget deficits for 53 of the last 55 years and our Congress seems more interested in cutting taxes and increasing spending than in balancing budgets.

Federal spending prior to WWII was typically 10% or less of the value of all the goods and services produced in the nation (GDP).  Since then the US has emerged as a world military power and has developed our social safety net.  As a result, Federal spending has been about 17-20% of GDP since 1975.    Data from the Federal Reserve Bank demonstrate that our serious debt problems emerged in the early 1980s when the Reagan Administration began cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy without cutting spending.  Historical data from the Office of Management and Budget show that deficits became consistently large around the same time.  Total tax collections have actually remained fairly stable at 17-19% of GDP but the corporate share has been cut in half and capital gains taxes have been reduced while payroll taxes increased.

That is the background information.  Here are some ideas for a constitutional amendment:

  1. Congress is required to pass a budget and establish taxes to fund the budget for periods of time that are not less than one year.  The budget and taxes must be passed and sent to the President at least three months prior to the effective date.
  2. If the congress fails to pass a budget on time there will be a new election 90 days later to replace the entire congress.  The prior year’s budget and taxes will be automatically extended for one year or until they are changed by the new congress.
  3. The debt of the nation is limited to the sum of values of trust funds established by the congress (Social Security for example).
  4. The requirement to balance each budget may be waived during a state of emergency declared by a 60 percent majority of both houses of Congress.  The declaration is valid for not more than one year but can be renewed as many times as the Congress thinks necessary.
  5. At any time when there is no declared state of emergency, 2% of non-trust fund tax revenues will be set aside for reduction of excess debt.

The amendment will:

  1. Force the Congress to do its job.
  2. Protect Social Security and other trust funds that provide pre-paid benefits.
  3. Allow enough flexibility to deal with genuine emergencies and wars.
  4. Gradually pay down existing debt.

The amendment would force serious debate about priorities.  We will be less likely to go to war if we have to raise taxes for it.  There will be more pressure to eliminate wasteful spending and tax loopholes.  There will be pressure to raise taxes for infrastructure, research, and human services.

I was taught in high school that “Economics is the science of meeting unlimited human wants with the limited resources available.”  A balanced budget amendment will require our government to help us do exactly that.

 

All Posts, Christianity, Congress, islam, justice, religion, Terrorism, war

WILL PEOPLE CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED?

3 Comments

Some Americans have begun to speak of the USA as a failing nation.  I don’t agree. Our internal divisions are nothing new; they have persisted throughout our history. We succeed because most of us remain committed to working out our differences for the common good. We are justifiably worried about anarchy and terrorism, but they too have always been present. From the British point of view, our Revolutionary War heroes were domestic terrorists.  From the point of view of many colonists, the war was a justified and necessary step toward freedom.  The principal difference between terrorism and a “just war” is which side you are on.

Anarchy and terrorism lost when colonists created a new government based on “the consent of the governed”.  Within it they argued, debated and compromised to create something that the great majority of them would support.  That kind of political struggle is at the core of “consent of the governed”.  Our constitution protects the rights of individuals over the wishes and whims of majorities but our government is strong enough to make laws for the public good. That balance makes consent of the governed possible.

Terrorism emerges when extremely angry people who don’t get what they want through politics decide to use violence instead. An early example was the whiskey rebellion of 1791. Congress levied a tax on distilled spirits to pay off war debts. Farmers who made whiskey from their surplus corn were so opposed to the tax that they banded together and killed tax collectors. President George Washington personally led an army of 13,000 to put down the rebellion and enforce the law.  Our civil war, the biggest threat the nation has faced, was organized by slaveholders because they knew they were losing their political struggle to preserve slavery.

Americans’ ever-changing attitudes bring debate, conflict and changed laws. There was violence (terrorism) in opposition to the constitutional amendment that allowed women to vote. Our electorate was once dominated by religious extremists who passed laws to ban birth control and racially segregate society. As attitudes and beliefs changed, those laws have been repealed or found unconstitutional. The same can be said of the Prohibition Amendment that banned alcoholic beverages. Examples of terrorists in those causes include organized criminal gangs (alcohol) and KKK (segregation). 20th century arguments over civil rights, union rights, abortion rights, and the Viet Nam War brought violence and uncountable deaths.  As the issues were addressed some very angry people resorted to violence.

We shouldn’t expect today’s challenges to be easier than those faced by prior generations. Terrorists continue to attack both freedom and the government that protects it.  A majority of us now see marriage equality as a right, and our Supreme Court has determined that it is protected by our Constitution. That change was preceded by decades of homophobic violence. In 1973, women gained the legal right to control their own bodies, including the right to make their own decisions about ending a pregnancy. “Lone wolf” terrorist Eric Rudolph bombed the Atlanta Olympics to protest abortion rights and government protection of homosexuals. Timothy McVeigh, a “Christian” white supremacist, bombed the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City as revenge for government support of civil rights.

Today we still have angry people who think their needs are not being addressed.   That includes Americans who lack adequate education and skills. They face a bleak economic outlook; suffer from depression and die younger than previous generations. Many African-Americans think that new voting laws are designed to reduce their influence. Some religious conservatives say their nation has been stolen by a majority that won’t accept literal interpretation of scripture as a basis for laws. Readers can probably add to the list of reasons why people are angry. In Biloxi, Mississippi a restaurant customer was enraged when a waitress told him that smoking was not allowed.  He shot her dead on the spot.  She might be angry too if she could talk to us.

So much anger makes it difficult to listen, to understand, and to accept our differences.  It also feeds the desire to control others through laws or violence rather than nurturing the individual freedoms that we cherish. Our “culture war” will continue in legislatures, courtrooms, and in our streets. Yes, there is terrorism, but there is also hope.  I remain optimistic that we will listen, learn, acknowledge our differences; and then find sufficient agreement for future “consent of the governed”.  Then we can move on to argue about another set of issues.  It’s what Americans do.

 

All Posts, Congress, health

Drug Prices and Corporate Influence

Prescription drug prices are again in the news.  Prices are rising quickly, even for drugs that have been on the market for years.  This column quantifies the problem and presents ideas to improve the situation.

A good benchmark for “fairness” is to compare US prices to other nations.  The best objective research that I can find was done by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2011.  They looked at prices for the thirty most commonly prescribed drugs and found that for every dollar spent by Americans, residents of other nations paid $0.51.  In other words, we were paying twice as much, on average, as residents of other western democracies (Europe, Canada, and Australia).  Americans spent 13% more in 2014 than in 2013, so the situation appears to be getting worse.

There are many reasons why drug prices are higher in the US but underlying most of them is the influence of big campaign contributions and related corporate influence in our nation’s capital.  For example, when the George W Bush administration wanted to create the Medicare Drug benefit (Medicare Part D) there was concern in Congress about whether to expand the Medicare entitlement program.  Drug companies could have killed the idea if they had lobbied against it.  The price for their support was a provision in the law which prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug prices, setting prices or establishing a uniform list of covered drugs, known as a formulary.  That provision made Medicare Part D a goldmine for them.   Efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate prices have failed under both Republican and Democratic leadership due to inability to muster 60 votes to break Senate filibusters.

The negotiating power which Medicare was denied is the tool used by other nations to drive prices down.  When several effective drugs are available for a particular problem,  those nations pay only for the ones that are priced at an acceptable level.  Companies reduce prices in order to have their products covered.  Drug companies say that they need high American prices to pay for research and development.  The undeniable need for R&D does not justify charging Americans more than Europeans for the same drugs.   Medicare should be allowed to negotiate prices and to exclude over-priced drugs from the Medicare benefit.

A second action to drive down drug prices would be to increase government spending on research and development.  It would be good government policy to fund research in targeted areas (prevention of strokes and heart attacks and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease for example) under a policy where all resulting intellectual property such as patents belongs to the taxpayers who funded the research.  We could then allow production of resulting drugs by any drug company which would do the manufacturing here in the US but charge a royalty to companies doing the manufacturing outside the US. The net effect would be more R&D funding at American universities and corporations, lower drug costs and new US manufacturing jobs.  Strong opposition to such ideas can be expected from the US and foreign drug companies who are currently profiting from an American market where taxpayers and patients subsidize the world’s highest prices and have no ability to negotiate them down.

Another idea is to tighten intellectual property laws so that patents don’t seem to run forever and more companies can manufacture drugs at lower costs.  There are loopholes in current laws that allow companies to extend patents by making very minor changes in a drug and preventing expiration of the patent on the original.

A fourth strategy for driving down costs might be to reduce utilization of pharmaceuticals by banning or restricting direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.  Should corporations have free speech rights to promote prescription drugs directly to patients?  Do the ads encourage patients to imagine symptoms and ask doctors for unnecessary prescriptions?  Current research isn’t adequate to answer that question but most other nations don’t allow such advertising and many have lower utilization of heavily advertised drugs including antidepressants and sleep aids.  This is obviously another public policy question in the hands of legislative bodies that have a hard time saying “no” to corporate influence.

In each case, the barrier to action appears to be the influence of big corporations on American government.  Perhaps we need a prescription for raising the interests of consumers and taxpayers to be as important as the interests of drug companies.