Category Archives: All Posts

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, Constitution, justice

POPULISM VS THE CONSTITUTION

Image 1 Comment

“The Constitution says what it says, and it doesn’t say anything more.”   “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” –  Recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

“(The President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court…(and)  shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” –  US Constitution, Article II, Section 2

“Except when it would make us unpopular with our constituents or donors” – This is not a quotation.  It is a conclusion based on the behavior of elected officials.

President Obama says that he will follow the constitution and do his job by nominating someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Judge Scalia’s death.  Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell says that he will not allow a vote on any candidate nominated by President Obama.  McConnell is backed by other Republican leaders who have pledged not to meet with nominees or hold hearings to consider them.  They argue that the nomination should be delayed until after the next Presidential election so that voters can influence the matter.  But voters have already spoken.  We elected a Republican majority to the Senate and a Democrat as President (twice).

In this matter the President is following the Constitution and Senate Republicans are not.  Republicans accurately respond that Democrats have done similar things, including seeking to delay nominations to the Court until they had a chance to win a Presidential election.  We could reasonably ask leaders of both parties, “Didn’t your parents teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?”

Which ones have been doing their jobs and serving the nation?
Which ones have been doing their jobs and serving the nation?

The behavior of both parties is particularly onerous when they attempt to manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court in order to influence its decisions on specific issues.  Most Republican officeholders interpret the Constitution as allowing state or federal laws that ban all abortions while Democrats think it protects the rights of women to make decisions about their own bodies.  The battle lines over marriage equality, regulation of gun ownership, immigration and other social issues are drawn in approximately the same place.

On each side of our hot social issues there are powerful advocacy groups with vocal supporters demanding that elected officials do whatever it takes to win the day.  They often insist that office holders ignore constitutional obligations if that will help their cause.  Anyone who doesn’t comply is likely to face well-funded opposition in the next primary election.  That is how populism works.

Populist behavior is as old as our nation and its constitution.  President Andrew Jackson and the Congress provided an early and extreme example.  The United States agreed by treaty that The Cherokee Nation was independent, with its own legal boundaries but white settlers (illegal immigrants) persisted in occupying Cherokee land.  When Cherokees removed some white settlers forcibly, they demanded military protection. Then gold was discovered on Cherokee land and the problem quickly escalated.  States passed laws banning meetings of the Cherokee legislature and argued that the federal government had no right to intervene in state affairs. The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees but American voters and powerful interest groups wanted the gold and the land.  President Jackson, with support of the Congress, defied the Supreme Court and allegedly said of the Chief Justice, “John Marshall has made his decision.  Now let him enforce it.”  Jackson dispatched the Army to remove the Cherokees from their land, sending them on a journey to Oklahoma that we now call the “Trail of Tears”.  If ever there was a time when a Congress should properly have impeached a President and removed him from office, this was it.

When you hear the word “populist” used to describe a politician, it may refer to someone who will do whatever it takes to implement the will of his hard-core constituents, even defying the Constitution, courts, and laws to the extent that he can.  Andrew Jackson, George Wallace, Joe McCarthy, and Donald Trump are a few examples.  They are very dangerous because they are willing to sacrifice the principles of a free nation on the altar of one special cause if that will get them elected.  If you notice one of them running for office, I hope you’ll vote for someone else.  I plan to.

CLICK BELOW

to hear Harold Thom and the Cumberlands sing the story of Cherokee Chief Junaluska,  who saved Andrew Jackson’s life then lived to regret it after walking The Trail of tears.

All Posts, campaign finance, north carolina, race

MAKING DEMOCRACY POINTLESS

1 Comment

“Making Democracy Pointless” should be the new tagline of North Carolina government.  The Republican Party has seized  nearly election-proof and court-proof control of choosing the state’s representatives in Congress.  Their methods were mostly legal, but that doesn’t make them ethical.  The harm they have done extends beyond the actions of the officials they elected.  They have confirmed cynical suspicion that our votes don’t matter – that democracy is indeed pointless.  That is a terrible fate for government of, by and for the people.

Here’s how they did it:

  1. Prior to 2010 elections, the Washington DC based Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) contributed $1.25 million to “Real Jobs NC” an organization launched by wealthy Republican donors including Art Pope.  By targeting about two dozen state legislative races for huge spending and attack ads against Democrats, they won both the house and the senate. That put Republicans firmly in charge of drawing congressional districts after the 2010 census.
  2.  The RSLCs map making team, armed with exceptionally sophisticated computer technology and data, were hired by the Republican legislature to draft congressional district maps.  Some work was supervised on-site by Art Pope, who was retained as co-counsel to the legislature.  The map-making strategy was simple – pack large concentrations of Democratic voters and African Americans into just 3 of North Carolina’s congressional districts. The remaining 10 districts would favor Republicans. The maps were tested prior to adoption by checking how voters in each new district voted in the last election.  The tests demonstrated that John McCain carried all ten of the “Republican” districts in the 2008 Presidential election despite losing the state to President Obama.

2012 election results proved the effectiveness of the Republican maneuvers.  With only 49 percent of the votes, Republicans won 69 percent of congressional races and changed the North Carolina congressional delegation from a 7-6 Democrat majority to a 9-4 Republican advantage.  In 2014 they achieved their desired 10-3 split.  Democrats won the  3  districts into which they had been packed with over 70 percent of the vote.

North Carolina is one example of the national Republican gerrymandering strategy.  Their website brags that,  “Democratic candidates for the U.S. House won 1.1 million more votes than their Republican opponents.  But the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is a Republican and presides over a 33-seat House Republican majority during the 113th Congress.”  How much difference did gerrymandering make? Imagine the last four years with a narrow Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and a Democrat as Speaker of the House.  It probably made that much difference.

Republicans defend their actions by pointing out that Democrats did the same thing when they were in power.  It’s true.  Modern computer technology and data may have made Republicans more effective, but there’s no doubt that Democrats gerrymandered. Recently a few states including California and Iowa have implemented non-partisan or bi-partisan redistricting plans as attempts to assure fair elections.

Meanwhile, North Carolina’s maps have been thrown out by a panel of  federal judges who ruled that the influence of African American voters was unfairly reduced by packing the great majority of them into only three districts.  The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a Republican appeal.    North Carolina Republicans objected loudly to the court’s decision but they were well prepared for it.  They have proudly presented new maps which they say are designed keep their current 10-3 advantage in the congressional delegation.

The court forbade gerrymandering to disenfranchise a race of people.  But gerrymandering for partisan advantage is merely unethical, not illegal.  Republicans intend to select their voters again, rather than allowing voters to select their representatives.  And it seems unlikely that courts will stop them.

We need new redistricting laws at the state or federal level to preserve our democracy.  There are Republicans as well as Democrats who feel the shame of cheating to win  elections and who want fair redistricting.  Now is a fine time time for all who value representative democracy to do what we know is right by creating  districts without unfair advantages for any group or party.

All Posts, Christianity, justice, race

WHY HAVE A BLACK HISTORY MONTH?

2 Comments

We’ve all heard the reasonable sounding questions, “Why black history?” Why not a white history month?”  The public school history that I learned went something like this: Slavery was a very bad thing that we ended.  Lots of slaves and their descendants went north where they were free and equal.  The South resisted but the Jim Crow era ended with the Civil Rights Laws so now it’s all good and black folks can succeed if they will do the work.  Unfortunately, that version of history denies the life experiences of most black Americans.  The reality of history exists in those experiences, not in laws and textbooks.

To see the difference, come with me on a short trip to my home state and town, New Albany, Indiana.   Founded in 1813, it was once the largest city in the state and being directly across the Ohio River (which belongs to Kentucky) from Louisville, it was the first “free” stop for many fugitive slaves.  The Second Baptist Church, built in 1849-1852, sits on Originally built by a Presbyterian congregation and later sold to Baptists, this church has a long history as a first stop in a non-slave state on the underground railroadMain Street, not more than 300 yards from the slave-state waters of Kentucky.  The beautifully restored church features a marker describing its history as a stop on the underground railroad, a respite where refugees could hide in dirt floored rooms  or escape to the street through a tunnel before making their way to other states or to Canada.  Helping fugitive slaves was illegal but New Albany’s free blacks and anti-slavery whites risked violence and arrest to do that as early as 1821.

Also on Main Street, about four blocks away, is another historic marker. image It describes mob violence against blacks in the summer of 1862, about 15 months into the Civil War.    White mobs responded to a fight between white and black men with two days of attacks on black people and their property.  The historic marker is placed at the site of the Israel Boarding House, whose owner saved one black man by barring her door against the mob.  Similar mob attacks were reported that same summer in Cincinnati, Chicago and Toledo.

In 1851,  Indiana voters approved a new state constitution that banned black migration into the state and denied blacks the rights to vote, serve in the militia, bear witness in trials involving whites, and attend public schools.  Despite those provisions, more than 11,000 blacks lived in the state.  Thus began the tradition of “Sundown Towns”.  Northern states had very small black populations; and a majority of whites wanted to keep it that way.  Historian James Loewen lists nearly 300 suspected Sundown Towns in the Hoosier State.  Black folks steered clear of them and many remain mostly white to this day.  Some passed ordinances and posted signs such as “Whites only within city limits after dark”.  Other warnings were far more graphic.  Through the mid-1920s about 30 percent of white Hoosier men were Ku Klux Klan members.  So were the governor and the majority of the legislature who had learned that it was hard to get elected without a Klan endorsement.

Alabama Governor George Wallace (“Segregation now, Segregation forever”) received 30 percent of the vote in Indiana’s 1964 Democratic Presidential primary.  By 1972, the solid Democrat/Dixiecrat segregationist south abandoned the newly pro-civil rights Democratic Party.  Southern states have favored the Republican Party since it abandoned Lincoln’s legacy  in a quest for populist votes.  In that political turmoil the legal protections that black Americans had gained were inconsistently enforced. For example, despite laws requiring equal employment opportunity,  I recall a manufacturing plant tour in the late 1960s.  It was a thriving unionized company with excellent wages and benefits, but the union didn’t accept blacks so they could only have non-union manual labor jobs.  The black men who packed and loaded finished products were known as “bagger boys”.

The details that I’ve described won’t make it into history texts but they are the experiences that black grandparents can describe for today’s youth.  It appears that two generations from now, black children will be hearing about jobs with few benefits and wages too low to support a family, police shootings of unarmed black boys and men, fathers in jail for non-violent crimes, lead tainted water, and racially gerrymandered  voting districts designed to keep the creators of the status quo in office.

The flow of black history continues today.   It is closely related to the rest of the American story, but always distinct because of barriers that separate the two.  It is said that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it; and few of us want that.  If Americans of all races learn the realities of black history, we may finally be able to join it fully to American history.  And that is why black history matters to us all.

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, guns, health

GUNS IN AMERICA – WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

My thinking would be described by many people as “liberal”; yet  I’m happy to have many friends who are very conservative. We’re friends, but when we talk about public policy we often preach our ideas without really listening to each other.

As I watched the CNN town hall meeting “Guns in America” I saw a remarkable opportunity squandered.  Anderson Cooper of CNN did a good job asking hard questions.  So did some of the invited guests.  President Obama responded clearly but he didn’t take time (or have time during the program) to really draw out opponents of his policies and understand their concerns.  He preached.  So did many of the questioners who were more concerned with getting their points across than with understanding the President’s thinking.  It did not appear that anyone learned something new or changed their minds in any way.

Watching that meeting prompted me to write this experimental column.  I hope to use it to listen rather than to be heard.  I’m inviting all who are interested in the debate about gun ownership to think it through and then clearly state what you want from our gun related laws.  I’ve designed a short survey that also allows comments in your own words.  You can access it HERE or  at the end of this column.  I will compile  responses and report them in a future post – one that I hope will enlighten us all about how others see this issue.

Here is some background information on the subject:  Our Constitution provides a right to keep and bear “arms”.  It doesn’t mention guns.  Our three major national laws governing arms were passed in 1934, 1968, and 1993.  The first law severely restricted private ownership of machine guns, sawed off shotguns and various kinds of guns that were designed to be disguised as canes or other devices.  It was passed in response to violent organized crime during the prohibition era.    The 1968 law prohibited gun possession by various kinds of criminals and other individuals thought to be dangerous.  It also regulated gun commerce and importing “Saturday night specials”.  The “background check” system that is operated by the FBI originated with the 1993 “Brady Bill”.  The combined laws also ban ownership of “destructive devices” like chemical weapons, grenades, and bombs.  The FBI has a good summary of current rules  on its website.

Current enforcement practices allow many  purchases at gun shows and from private individuals without background checks.  One of the President’s proposals is to require background checks on all purchases.  Under some circumstances, the law allows corporations and organizations to own otherwise banned weapons like machine guns.  That exception was intended  for purposes like corporate security at nuclear power plants but its use has expanded significantly.   President Obama has proposed re-examining that program.

The context of the current American debate about guns is important.  Gun related deaths have declined but our conversation about them is increasingly heated and emotional.  In 2013 there were 33,169 gun deaths in the US.  Suicides accounted for 21,175; homicides 11,208; accidents 505 and 281 unknown intent.  Gun homicides accounted for 67% of all American murders.  They peaked at over 18,000 in 1993, dropped rapidly until 1999 and have begun to gradually increase in the 21st century.  Most of the shooters are young – under age 25.

saved-Homoffendersbyage

In the US, we have about 3.5 gun homicides per 100,000 population each year.  The other nations closest to that rate are Nicaragua and Barbados.  There are a lot of nations that American tourists might consider dangerous who are doing much better than us:  Chile – 1.02, Greece and Kyrgyzstan – 0 .53, Azerbaijan – 0.27.  Our closest neighbors show an extreme contrast:  Mexico – 14.2 and Canada – 0.51.

These deaths are not confined to someone else’s neighborhood.  There have been shootings and deaths across our nation, ranging from terrorist attacks to invasions of public schools to drive by shootings.  We can accept it and take our chances or we can try to improve.

What do you think we should do?  Please take five minutes to complete the survey.  Perhaps we can have more intelligent conversations if we know each other’s opinions.

CLICK HERE TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY (PLEASE)

 

 

 

All Posts, justice, race, Terrorism

WILL ARMED OREGON PROTESTERS GET EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW?

6 Comments

Every statement but one the following story is true.

In order to cover up other illegal activities, two African-American men set fire to federal property.  The fire spread, eventually consuming over 100 acres of land and property.  They were tried in federal court (because the arson was on federal property) and sentenced to five years in prison.  The length of the sentence was  upheld on appeal.  In response a group of heavily armed black men have occupied a nearby federal government facility.  They have defied orders to leave and are demanding control of a zone where existing governments would have no authority so that they can be free.  One spokesman has said, “It doesn’t have to stop here. This could be a hope that spreads through the whole country, the whole United States. Everybody’s looking for this hope because the government has beat us, and oppressed us, and took everything from us; they will not stop until we tell them no.”

The one untrue statement is that the men are black.  In fact, they are all white; and the story is evolving as this is written.  The original crime was simply hunting deer in a wildlife refuge.  Then the hunters set fire to the land to cover up their crime and burned 139 acres.  Arson on federal land carries a mandatory minimum five year prison sentence.  That may sound extreme, but arson is a very dangerous crime, especially in the Northwest where so many  wildfires have spread out of control.  Certainly arson is more dangerous than some of the drug possession charges that have sent other young men to prison.

Protesters have occupied the Headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife refuge.  Click here to see the protesters describing their  plan to occupy the facilities and land for the long term and their appeal for others to arm themselves, come to the refuge and take the wildlife refuge for their private use.  That constitutes advocating the violent overthrow of our government and treason.

Up to this point in time, law enforcement officials are standing back and hoping for a peaceful resolution – perhaps a wise move, but not one that would have happened in Ferguson or Baltimore.  Imagine the law enforcement response if black men protesting in those cities had armed themselves with assault rifles and occupied a federal building then called for supporters across the country to arm themselves and join the protest.

What if heavily armed Cherokees took over the headquarters of the Smoky Mountains National Park and demanded that the federal government turn it over to them?  (The Cherokees actually had a Supreme Court Decision saying that the land IS theirs.)  Would law enforcement just back away?

This treason is led by the Oathkeepers, a well organized and well armed  national movement with an anti-government history.  They were the heavily armed, military-clad vigilantes who showed up to patrol the streets of Ferguson, Missouri when they felt the police were too easy on black protesters who violated laws.  Clearly the Oathkeepers think that the standard of justice for them is different from the standard of justice for others.

Militia movements of this kind have been involved in far more American  law enforcement deaths than Muslim terrorists and they are near the top of the FBI’s list of domestic terrorist organizations.  Will our laws be enforced, or has right wing anti-government treason become acceptable in America?  We will soon know the answer.

 

All Posts, campaign finance, poverty, taxes

Radically Practical Ideas for 2016

5 Comments

As I listen to friends of varied political persuasions, it seems that we all want 2016 to be a better year than the one we just completed; but many of us are predicting a miserable future.   Being dissatisfied and angry won’t fix problems.  Neither will arguing about who to blame.  Instead, it is time to stop “predicting” the future and begin “creating” the one that we want.  We can do that by shifting our attention from all that is wrong to improving our nation with practical ideas that a majority of us can agree on.  Here are a few possibilities.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM:  We need to reduce the influence of big money without limiting free speech.  One solution is to create a national or state election website with a page for every elected office.  Only registered candidates for office would be allowed to post on the website.   Anything they post would remain until after the election, so any changes of position would be apparent.   Voters could see and judge whatever the candidates themselves say about issues and about each other.  Candidates could post written messages, photos, audio or video clips.  Their words would be unfiltered by Super-PACS, advertising or news media.  This is an inexpensive and easy way for candidates to campaign.  It would reduce the need for big advertising budgets.  And since everyone who is interested would have instant access to the candidates’ messages, there might even be fewer robo-calls.

INCOME DISPARITIES AND LACK OF OPPORTUNITY:  An economic map of America will show that extreme poverty persists across multiple generations within well defined geographic areas – some of them urban and others rural.  One solution is to make whatever government funded financial assistance we provide for housing portable so that people can use it anywhere.  Rather than building public housing, we could let those receiving assistance use housing subsidies to choose whatever private sector housing best meets their needs.  This change will allow them to migrate to places with jobs, grocery stores, good schools, public transportation and good public safety.  Families are much more likely to break out of the generational cycle of poverty if they are not  confined to communities devoid of opportunity and surrounded by underemployment, crime and other social ills.  This idea could be tested by gradual implementation to assure that it works as intended.  If it does, then we could expand it and eventually sell existing public housing for private use or re-development.

TAX REFORM:  Corporations are, at best, tax collectors, not tax payers.  All of the taxes that they pay are passed on to customers.  We might be better off treating their profits and losses as a per share pass-through of ordinary income to shareholders whether the actual cash is distributed or not.  This will have the effect of reducing the cost of American-made products and services in international markets, increasing exports and creating jobs.  By taxing corporate profits as income to the owners of the corporation,  we could maintain or increase the tax revenue that the government receives from corporate taxes.  Since our income tax is already graduated, the revised tax burden will be greater for the wealthy than for middle and low income families.  The only part of this idea that might become complicated is creating a mechanism to document profits to Americans from foreign corporations.

We could also create a small national sales tax (one half of one percent or less) on all financial instruments including stocks, bonds ETFs, credit default swaps, etc.  This tax would be only a modest burden to long term investors, including those saving for retirement but it would deter the high-frequency trading that creates wild swings in the value of our investments.  It would also bring in revenue to help us toward a balanced budget.

There is good news about America that we too easily forget:  We don’t have to agree on everything in order to improve.  We only have to begin seeing our problems as opportunities for improvement.  If we will do that, we will find radically practical ideas – if not mine then perhaps yours or someone else’s – to improve our lives.  In 2016 let’s resolve to build on our areas of agreement while we continue to debate our differences.

 

 

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.