Category Archives: All Posts

All Posts, civil rights, justice, north carolina

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

3 Comments

Allegations of cheating and foreign influence in our recent elections abound. Many Americans suspect that elections and consent have been stolen.  What has happened to “consent of the governed” ?

Our Declaration of Independence explains the importance of consent: “… all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”  The first purpose of government is to secure the rights of citizens.  The authority of government is derived from “consent of the governed”.  Under our constitution, voters consent to be governed under laws passed by election winners.  Consent  means majority consent, not unanimous consent.  Non-voters gave tacit consent by not participating.

Why do citizens across our political spectrum believe that consent of the governed is being undermined by cheating, rigging and outside influences?  Here  are examples, some of which focus on North Carolina, but similar conditions exist in many states.

Our intelligence agencies say that Russia hacked into computer systems of multiple candidates and both major political parties.  The CIA concluded that they used stolen information in an attempt to manipulate our presidential election.

Disinformation has become a science used not only by Russia but also by non-governmental political interest groups.  Consider clandestine videos that were expertly edited to make it appear that Planned Parenthood offered to sell aborted fetuses.  The untrue charges were amplified on social media and cable news channels in ways that made them seem credible and then used in election campaigns.  Allegations that Hillary Clinton was running a child-sex ring out of a Washington DC pizza parlor seemed ridiculous; but they were spread by Republican sympathizers and did affect public behavior.

North Carolina provides examples of flagrant offenses against consent of the governed.  Republicans used unsubstantiated allegations of election fraud to justify new voter ID requirements.  It was subsequently proven in court that the legislature unconstitutionally gave intentional preference to forms of identification that minorities are less likely to possess as compared to white voters.

By gerrymandering North Carolina’s congressional districts for partisan advantage, Republicans won ten of 13 seats (77%) with only 53% of the votes.  They intended exactly that result, publicly predicted it and bragged about it.  CLICK HERE to see the Republican website that explains the gerrymandering strategy with which they maintain control of the House of Representatives and state legislatures.  Their manipulations result in the “consent” of Democrats and black voters having less influence on elections than the consent of Republican and white voters.

Here are results of gerrymandering in some southern states
Here are results of gerrymandering in some southern states

Do you wonder why some people burn American flags or refuse to stand for the nation’s anthem?  The root cause of their grievances might be that “consent of the governed” has been systematically and intentionally denied through actions like those I’ve described.  That same kind of grievance led to the Declaration of Independence.

There are things that we can do to correct our problems.  We can make voting easier through automatic registration of eligible voters, easy access to early voting and easy access to voting by mail.  We can increase confidence in our elections by maintaining a paper trail and record of every ballot so that recounts are meaningful, easy, and fast whenever they are needed.  We can ban redistricting for partisan, ethnic, economic, religious or cultural advantage.  We can reject negative campaigns and character assassination by supporting candidates based on their positive plans for action and their character.

First and foremost, we must elect candidates who value the consent of ALL of the governed.  Changing election laws for partisan or personal advantage is immoral, unethical and unpatriotic, even if it is legal.  Some who care more about winning than about the principles of self-governance believe that their causes are important enough to justify “whatever it takes to win”.  Such thinking should be unacceptable to free people.  Protecting “consent of the governed” is more important than any one cause.

Consent of the governed will be effective only if we voters pay careful attention and cast our votes judiciously.  If we don’t care enough to do that, we will enable manipulation of our consent and we will reward leaders who divide rather than unite us.  No matter how depressed or exuberant we feel about the outcome of this election, the future remains in the hands of voters if we will fully exercise the rights that we have inherited from prior generations.

CLICK HERE for expert opinion of North Carolina’s election integrity.

CLICK HERE for comparison of US election integrity to other nations.

CLICK HERE to see the nature of problems with US election integrity.

CLICK HERE to see how Republicans have used gerrymandering to dominate the southern United States

All Posts, ethics, justice, medicaid, north carolina, public education, race

WHY DON’T PEOPLE TRUST GOVERNMENT?

Did you ever play a game with a child who wanted to change the rules after something didn’t go his way?  As a child matures, parents and others teach him fair play and we expect him to accept fairness, honesty and basic decency as guiding principles by about the age of 10.

The few who don’t learn those lessons generally become known as whiners, bullies or both.  They typically get their next lessons in places lacking adult supervision.  The bullies get put in their place by somebody who stands up to them and the whiners are ignored until they figure out how to socialize. Most eventually learn to succeed without getting their own way every time.

A few folks never learn the lesson, and as big people (I’m reluctant to characterize them as adults) they are still bullies or whiners.  Their behavior puts the leaders of North Carolina’s Legislature in these categories.  (Please excuse the all-male characterizations in this column.  I don’t know what else to do when all of the Republican leaders are boys.)

Phil Berger, Tim Moore and his predecessor Thom Tillis, as leaders of the House and Senate, changed the rules to enable Republican Governor Pat McCrory to politicize state employment.  Specifically, they passed a law allowing him to hire up to 1500 political appointees into various positions in state government.

When Roy Cooper defeated McCrory for Governor, the bullies decided to change the rules again.  The easiest way to do that was to revise state laws before the inauguration so that Cooper could not veto changes.  They arranged a sneak attack at the end of a special session for flood relief by announcing plans to adjourn and re-assemble on the same day for another special session.  It became obvious that they had been gathering signatures to authorize the session for some time.  They allowed about five hours for introduction of legislation.  In that brief time, carefully crafted legislation increasing the power of Republican leadership and drastically reducing the Governor’s authority was introduced.  The plan was conceived well in advance.

Republicans have the votes to pass these bills.  Given their history with HB-2, they may do it before this column is published.  They can do it without serious debate and without time for consideration by the public.  That’s how they passed HB-2, and North Carolina has paid a heavy price for it.

Here is some of what they want to do.

  • Reduce the number of political appointments by the new governor from 1500 to 300. This would also make about 1200 McCrory political appointees into permanent state employees.
  • Eliminate the Governor’s two appointment slots to the boards of state universities.
  • Remove the state’s Chief Information Officer (responsible for information technology across all state offices) from appointment by the governor and have that position appointed and supervised by the Lieutenant Governor (a Republican).
  • Re-organize and merge the State Boards of Elections and Ethics in ways that reduce the Governor’s appointments and guarantee Republican chairmanship during election years.
  • Make the Superintendent of Public Instruction (Republican) independent of supervision by the Board of Education
  • Require that all of the Governor’s cabinet appointments be confirmed by the Senate.

There is a lot more in these bills and there is no way that anyone can adequately understand their implications without time for consideration and debate.  Much like HB-2, there will be unforeseen consequences in addition to the apparent self-serving intent.

There are two ways to prevent this impending train wreck.  One is for enough Republican legislators to stand up to the bullies leading their party by refusing to pass the bills in a special session.  They can insist on adequate consideration by the public and the legislature.  If they fail, Governor McCrory could grow a spine and veto the bills.  Taking such firm action might even create the possibility of resurrecting a political future for him.

Are there enough Republican legislators who value fairness, honesty and decency and who have the courage to stand up to bullies?  Is Governor McCrory, who no longer needs the support of the bullies, willing to stand up and be counted?  If these bills pass, is there any form of cheating that should be off limits to whoever has power?

I’ll close with a quote from one legislator.  “This is why people hate us.”  He’s right.

For those who are interested, here are links to the as-filed versions of some of the bills submitted for the special session as posted on the website of the North Carolina General Assembly

SB 4 :   http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E4/Bills/Senate/PDF/S4v0.pdf  Ethics, elections and court reform bill creates Republican advantage and control of elections Board

HB 17:  http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E4/Bills/House/PDF/H17v0.pdf changes public instruction, UNC and department head appointments and authority of Superintendent of Public Instruction

HB 6:  http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2015E4&BillID=H6 creates independent CIO nominated by Lt Gov

Link to all 21 house bills submitted for the special session:  http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/lastaction/todaysaction.pl?Biennium=2015E4&ActionChamber=H&DateReport=12%2F14%2F2016

Link to all 7 senate bills for special session:  http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/lastaction/todaysaction.pl?Biennium=2015E4&ActionChamber=H&DateReport=12%2F14%2F2016

 

 

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, Christianity, environment, ethics, health, islam, lgbtq, religion

A CHRISTMAS NEWSLETTER

5 Comments

Instead of a Christmas column from me, I tried to imagine a message from someone far wiser.

Dear American Friends:

I’ve noticed that many of you send newsy letters about your families as part of your celebration of my birthday.  This year I decided to try it myself by writing to all of you.  Christians often call me Father, Son, or Holy Ghost – three different ways to see me.  Today I’m writing as Son.

It’s been a disappointing year for Dad and me.  H.G., my spirit partner, is sad because so few of you welcome her into your thinking and conversations.  Many of you don’t seem to hear her.

Your wars in the Middle East have killed about four million people in the last 25 years.  Most of them are Dad’s Muslim children.  He loves them as much as he loves you and he wants you to quit killing each other.

You’ve been writing “In God we trust” on your buildings.  Dad’s not impressed.  If you trusted him, you’d be taking his advice about which things are most important.  I explained that to you once when I said that all of Dad’s laws are based on just two things.  Love him; and love your neighbor as yourself.  Everything that his prophets said, the laws they gave, and all that I taught comes from those two instructions.  Love God.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  I know that’s sometimes difficult for you to do but it isn’t complicated.

Did you notice that when I lived on your planet, I tried to be a respectful friend of people regardless of their station in life or whether they agreed with me?  I enjoyed time with Roman soldiers that invaded my country, tax collectors, prostitutes, and lepers.  I ignored nationality and welcomed whoever came to me.  When I saw injustice, I spoke up about it.  Think about that when you’re deciding whether to deport people who came into your nation hungry, needy, and looking for work.  You must love and respect people of all races and cultures, whether straight or LGBTQ.  There are no exceptions to “love your neighbor”.

Back at the beginning of time, Dad put you in charge.  In one of the books that your ancestors wrote about him, they called it “having dominion” over the whole earth.  You sometimes call it “free will”.  Dad lets you make your own decisions and then he lets you live with the consequences – good ones and bad ones.

You’ve learned a lot from your science.  You can produce food, shelter, clothing and other things that you need.  You know how to cure some of the illnesses that killed your ancestors.   Those are great things and you should be proud of what you’ve achieved.  You should apply my “love your neighbor” teaching to those things too.  You have brothers and sisters who are starving.  Here in your wealthy nation you often reserve your nearly miraculous health care for those who have money or insurance.

You’ve written your laws so that individuals and businesses get to own knowledge.  Anyone who wants to use the knowledge to save a life has to pay whoever owns the knowledge.  Such greed makes some of you angry at others.  You need to do something about that.

You’re making a mess of the planet that Dad gave you.  It’s getting warmer and you’re about to flood a lot of it.  You already know that from your science but you’re not doing much about it.  Is that because it would cost money?  But won’t it cost more when the floods come?  And wouldn’t the work to clean up the planet create jobs for people who don’t have a way to support themselves today?

Even though Dad and I are sad and disappointed we still want to help.  When I tried really hard about 2000 years ago, people like you crucified me for my trouble.  We’re not going to do that again, but Dad did send H.G. to help you find your way.  Listen to her.  Look inside yourself.  She’s there and if you pay close attention to her you’ll discover how to love your neighbor; and then you will know what to do.

Thanks for reading this.  Dad, H.G. and I will be thinking of you and wishing you a Happy 2017.

Your friend,

Jesus

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, Constitution, guns, health, lgbtq, north carolina, poverty, public education, taxes, war

What to do on the morning after?

3 Comments

The day after the election will be the first day of the rest of our lives. What should we expect of our elected officials? Will we help or undermine each other and elected leaders?  If individuals, families and communities listen to each other’s ideas and agree on how to move forward together, we can invigorate the idea of “commonwealth”, a society that is organized to benefit all.  Everybody wins.  If, on the other hand, winners kick losers while they’re down in order to maintain dominance and if losers do all they can to stop winners from implementing their ideas then the republic will decline.  Everybody loses.

It’s happened in great societies throughout history and it’s especially clear in the Bible’s Old Testament. When those in power dominate and abuse the powerless, everybody loses and the society fails.  When the principle of commonwealth guides decisions, the society blossoms.

Poverty, income inequality and homelessness are at crisis levels in many places.  Rural America has depended on agriculture and manufacturing to provide family incomes and property tax revenue for local governments.  Both of those economic sectors now produce more goods with fewer people than ever before.  At the same time that rural employment opportunities paying middle class wages have become scarce, the tax revenues of rural communities have stagnated.  Budgets for public education, safety, and human services are under severe stress at a time when they are critical to redevelopment of communities.  The plight of rural America has much in common with high poverty neighborhoods of urban America.  Low incomes and insufficient resources have similar effects in both places.

Will legislatures reconsider how public services are funded and which tax revenues are available at local, state and federal levels?  Will high poverty areas have funding for education, high-speed internet, water, sewer, quality of life, health and other priorities at a level that is proportionate to wealthy areas?  If not, will their future be inter-generational poverty and emigration of successful residents to more desirable areas?  Will legislators work at solving the underlying problems or will they pit urban vs rural and white vs black vs Hispanic for partisan gain?

What about the sanctity of human life?  Will we expect our congress, legislatures and executives to behave as if “all lives matter”?  Does someone who wants a gun have the right to own an assault rifle designed for mass killing?  Does a woman have the right to remove a fetus from her body?  In which decisions should government have a role?

Conflicts between personal and constitutional values will not be fully resolved but can we make progress for the common good?   Could we agree to reduce the demand for abortion by providing free birth control, better access to pre-natal care, simple and inexpensive adoption procedures, and by solving our income inequality problems?   Will we expect legislators to find ways to preserve gun ownership for self-defense and recreation while getting weapons designed for mass killing out of circulation and screening gun purchasers to rule out suspected terrorists and known criminals?  Or will we reward leaders for continuing to insult each other?

The Republican controlled Senate has refused to consider President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court.  They hope to win the Presidential election and get a conservative-leaning nominee. Senators Richard Burr and Ted Cruz have made the radical statement that if Hillary Clinton is elected, they will refuse to confirm nominees and let the court shrink.  That abrogation of a senator’s constitutional responsibility would invite similar behavior from Democrats toward a Republican president. Will we insist that senators fulfill their constitutional duties?

Differences of race, wealth, religion and philosophy divide us on a long list of issues: immigration, transpacific partnership, climate change, war, taxes, LBGTQ rights, health care, and more.

We’re not all going to miraculously agree after the election. Continued success for our republic will require two things of us.  First, we must look honestly at facts.  Second, we must engage each other in ongoing conversation (listening more than arguing) about the principle of commonwealth – making decisions and laws that create opportunity and peace for all of us.

Our legislators are capable of that, but they will do it only if they know that we voters expect it, demand it, and that we’re doing it ourselves.

We can start on November 9.

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

THIS IS A TEST

Please disregard this post.  I’m testing to see if email distribution is working again.  I apologize for the inconvenience.

All Posts, budget, economy, health, justice, lgbtq, medicaid, north carolina, taxes

We can do well while doing good

The ongoing debate about the economic impact of HB2, North Carolina’s “bathroom law” seems both sad and laughable because its effect is so small when compared to another foolish decision made by the state’s Republican legislature. The economic and human damage done by the decision to reject expansion of the Medicaid program is greater by far.

Republican friends, before you disagree, do your homework and discover the facts for yourselves. Bring truth to the debate and then see how your legislature’s decisions look under that bright light. Before considering human impact, let’s examine some raw financial facts.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute have collaborated on research to understand the economic impact on states that rejected Medicaid Expansion. They found that health care funding in North Carolina would be increased by $41 billion in the decade from 2017-2026 if the state accepts Medicaid expansion. That would require $4.9 billion of state funding and would bring $36.1 billion in federal funding. Do the math. $36.1 minus $4.9 equals $31.2 in net gain. Another way to look at it, suppose someone offered you $36.10 in exchange for $4.90. Would you accept it? That is one billionth of the deal that Republicans rejected.  The legislature knew this information when it rejected the Medicaid expansion.

Some will argue that our state budget is too large and we shouldn’t increase it further by expanding Medicaid. That is a reasonable concern, so let’s look at Medicaid expansion in the context of other government spending.

Most federal highway grants require a 20 percent state match. State funding of $4.9 billion would produce a federal highway match of $19.6 billion. That is $16.5 billion less than we would get if we spent the money on Medicaid expansion. Therefore, if one accepts purely financial justification for not expanding Medicaid, the state would be better off by $16.5 billion to reject the highway match and use the money to fund Medicaid.

In addition to providing health care to uninsured North Carolinians, the Medicaid expansion would create thousands of new jobs in health care to replace those lost in other industries.

The argument that “we can’t afford it” doesn’t hold water when made by legislators who spend money on items that yield a far smaller return on investment. It’s a matter of priorities, and this legislature obviously sees other spending as more important than keeping poor people alive and creating jobs.

What about the human effect of the decision? The Medicaid expansion was designed to provide coverage for the working poor, many of whom have jobs (sometimes more than one job) but who are paid so little that they can’t afford insurance even with the help of the Affordable Care Act.  Whatever became of that right wing mantra “take a bath and get a job”? As cynical as it sounds, the Medicaid expansion is designed to support exactly that behavior. It provides health care for people at the bottom of the economic ladder so that they can stay healthy enough to work and support themselves.

Instead of supporting a program that fits with their own traditional philosophies, Republicans rejected the expansion. That leaves us with a law that requires hospitals participating in Medicare and doctors with privileges to practice there to provide emergency and obstetrical care without regard to a patient’s ability or willingness to pay. The cost of that is invisibly built into the prices paid by everyone else. As a result, North Carolinians will pay for surgery to add a few months of life for an emergency patient diagnosed with advanced colon cancer. But we won’t expand Medicaid to pay for the colonoscopy that could have prevented the cancer from forming in the first place. The result of Republican policy is higher cost and a dead patient.

Yes, HB2 is a foolish law that should be repealed. Yes, the cancellation of concerts and sports events has an economic impact on hotels, restaurants and tourism. Yes, the law unfairly discriminates against a largely defenseless class of citizens. Yes, it should be repealed. But so far no one has died as a result of HB2 and the economic impact is microscopic compared to the rejection of Medicaid expansion.

It’s a fabulous opportunity when the right thing to do is also the profitable thing to do.  We have two such opportunities at the moment.  Accept the Medicaid expansion.  Repeal HB2.  Everybody will win.

Republican friends, the facts don’t support your policies.  It’s time to change your minds.

All Posts, economy, poverty, public education

What is the future of our jobs?

1 Comment

Today I’d like to introduce you to SAM. His full name is Semi Automated Mason.  SAM can lay as many bricks as three human masons.   He has only one year of experience and will become more skilled and productive as he continues to learn. On the other hand, SAM could become unemployed when on-site 3-D printing of walls becomes feasible.  It’s being tested now.

SAM’s story is important because it exemplifies a worldwide trend.  We are still in the early days of an economic and social upheaval that will be bigger than the industrial revolution; and we’re not prepared for what’s coming.  An Oxford University study identified jobs most and least likely to be replaced by automation.  Looking at the list, it becomes apparent that some among us will benefit from less expensive products and services produced through automation while others lose their jobs.

It’s going to happen regardless of what presidential candidates promise about creating jobs or trade treaties.  Even in China and undeveloped nations, automation is faster and cheaper than human labor.  That is true in the production of both “things” and services.  Human operators for elevators and long distance phone calls were displaced a long time ago.  Soon automation  will replace us in jobs as diverse as loan officer, manicurist, and drivers – not just drivers of taxis but also of trucks and buses.

In economic terms, this revolution means that fewer people can produce more goods and services.  The total amount of wealth available will increase.  Some of us will benefit from that but those who are replaced probably won’t.  If you’re old enough to remember it, think of what happened when mechanized agriculture drove down the cost of eggs, milk, corn, cotton and other products.   They became cheaper while previously successful farm families were devastated by agribusiness competition.  Today we can see  entire communities and families that are no longer self-sufficient because their jobs are gone.

The much-talked-about decline of the middle class is not primarily caused (and won’t be fixed) by tax or trade policies.  Instead, it is caused in large part by technologies that are cheaper and more productive than human labor.  This inevitable change brings opportunities along with threats.

What then, shall we do to prepare ourselves?

  1. Know the facts.  It’s particularly important for elected officials, educators, economic developers, city planners and business leaders to correctly anticipate the future and plan for it.  News media can improve public knowledge by researching  and reporting on these subjects.
  2. Understand the education and skills that will be necessary for success in the future economy.  I cringe when I hear someone say that, “not everyone needs to go to college.”  The statement is true of course, but it masks a more important truth.  Successful people will need to be able to learn at the college level.  Change will come at a pace that requires continuous learning of new information and skills.  The ability to read and learn at the level expected of a college freshman will be necessary for success in skilled trades, health occupations, and just about any field we can imagine.  It is a great disservice to children and parents to lead them to believe that they can succeed with less.
  3. Prepare community and regional infrastructure for success. For example, gigabit internet service will be more important than highways and railroads.  An increasing number of businesses require high-speed and high volume internet service at all of their locations. That’s often true of small startup businesses and may be true for in-home education opportunities.   Communities that lack gigabit service may be left behind as badly as those that lacked electricity, roads or railroads a century ago.
  4. Re-design public education and libraries to support lifelong learning so that all of us can continuously acquire new knowledge and skills as we need them, regardless of our economic status or geographic location.  We can discover ways to use the internet to deliver our finest instruction and most complete information to every American.

Issues of this kind should be on the agendas of national, state and local governments.  Instead we are arguing about voter IDs and bathroom privileges.  I don’t know all the answers, but I’m sure of one thing.  The people who find the right answers will be the ones who are asking the right questions.

 

All Posts, civil rights, Constitution, ethics, north carolina, race

Should we stand for our national anthem?

After months of complaints from the political right about PC limitations on speech and discussion, it is ironic that those same right wingers see a national scandal  in Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for our national anthem.  Like Muhammad Ali and Olympic Athletes of 1968, he is using his celebrity status to bring attention to what many see as American racism.

Kaepernick’s voice is but one in a crescendo criticizing the “land of the free”.  Leaders from African American and Latino communities have politely spoken their minds on voting rights, law enforcement, criminal justice, public education and income inequality.  Not much happened.  If quiet and polite voices are ineffective, louder ones are to be expected. Whether it is an NAACP Chapter, a Latino Coalition, Black Lives Matter, the American Civil Liberties Union or  some other organization, their list of unaddressed concerns is long.

Since passage of civil rights laws in the 1960s, many Americans, believe that we live in a post-racial society.   We don’t.  Our problems extend to the heart of democracy, consent of the governed.

It is with those thoughts in mind that I looked into the controversies surrounding North Carolina’s new voting law as one example among many concerns.  For a more complete account, read Appeal-16-1468 published by the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals.  It overturned portions of the law because of its discriminatory intent.

The court found that the law was specifically designed to target African Americans and said, “…by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The court also found that, “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation  … the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it. … Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.”

Here are a few examples of discrimination that the court found in the law.  In deciding which forms of identification would be acceptable for voting, the legislature used racial data to select IDs that whites are more likely to have than minorities.  They used racial data to eliminate voting opportunities that were used more heavily by African Americans than whites.  Similar processes were used to determine early voting days,  eliminate same day registration, and eliminate out-of precinct voting.

North Carolina’s law was crafted by Republican leadership in secret sessions with advice from consultants employed by attorneys so that documentation of their work would not be available to the public.  The court found that “… after the General Assembly finally revealed the expanded (law) to the public, the legislature rushed it through the legislative process…in three days: one day for a public hearing, two days in the Senate, and two hours in the House.”

The law passed by party line vote.  Every Republican legislator supported it.  I don’t think they are all racists.  Instead, I think they are much like the Democrats who passed racist laws in the Jim Crow era.  They bowed to pressure to win elections and one way to win elections is to keep the opposition from voting.  That’s what they did, and it is an example of 21st century racism in operation.

Because of laws like this one and other grievances, some people don’t honor our national flag and anthem.  Would you honor the flag of a nation that did such things to you? I’ll continue to pledge allegiance because our courts generally overturn unjust laws and because we’re free to replace those who passed a racist law at our next election.  It’s time to have a record voter turnout.