Tag Archives: republican

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, 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, 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.

 

All Posts, environment, north carolina

Cleaning Up North Carolina Energy Laws

North Carolina’s Republican legislators have passed energy and environmental laws that impede innovation and economic competition by clean energy entrepreneurs.  They show little regard for the interests of individual citizens and ignore twenty-first century science.  Consider these examples.

In order to build a solar or wind energy installation, the company must own or lease the property where it will be built, comply with local zoning and land use rules, and acquire right of way for transmission of the energy that they produce to customers without use of eminent domain powers or other government authority.  A bill (S-843) recently passed by the State Senate’s “small government” Republicans would add a maze of new regulations and barriers including a 1.5 mile setback from the property line and a 35 decibel (human whisper) noise limit at the property line for wind farms.  Solar farms would have to be invisible from adjoining property.  The bill removes corporate protections for stockholders in wind and solar farms, making them individually liable for damages caused by the corporation.  And it requires the corporation to set aside sufficient money to return the land to its original state after the renewable energy site is closed.

State Law is starkly different for production of natural gas or oil via fracking.  Corporations do not have to own or lease the property under which they drill.  They are allowed to drill horizontally under private property without agreement by the landowner and to put wells on someone else’s land without permission.  Payments to the landowner will be set by a government agency and the landowner can’t refuse the arrangement.  Local governments are not allowed to regulate fracking via zoning, or in any other way.  A government agency can force land owners to accept a pipeline for delivery of oil or gas to market.  Executives who violate laws or rules governing fracking can not be prosecuted for anything more than a misdemeanor.  Owners of corporations are not personally liable for damages that their companies cause.  There is no requirement to return the land and water to it’s original condition after the fracking is completed or set aside money for potential damages.

There is no evidence of substantial or long-term environmental damage by wind or solar farms. Fracking, on the other hand,  is a proven cause of well contamination, air pollution, and earthquakes.  The energy produced by solar and wind farms is as clean as any that is available.  Gas and oil consumption contribute heavily to climate change by putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

North Carolina has few earthquakes but we do have inactive geologic faults. Two decades ago those statements were true of Oklahoma but that state experienced 581 earthquakes in 2014.  In that year frackers injected over 64 billion gallons of wastewater under Oklahoma and that is clearly the cause of the earthquakes. (Scientific American, July 2016)   It appears that frackers will not be required to pay for Oklahoma’s earthquake damage. It is clear, however that Oklahoma property owners will need earthquake insurance. The price of that coverage is bound to rise along with the number of quakes.

Why would a state legislature allow local zoning and regulation of wind and solar while denying it for gas and oil?  Why make individual stockholders of clean energy companies responsible for damages caused by the corporation while immunizing frackers from similar claims?  Why is government’s power used to enable environment-damaging industries while discouraging clean energy development?

The success of clean energy producers is visible in the form of solar and wind farms that produce electricity without pollution.  Not everyone likes the changed landscape.  Huge petroleum, gas, coal, and utility companies have a lot of influence with legislators and they don’t like competition from clean energy.

We need to let the market work by applying the same standards across all energy sectors.  If they pollute, they should pay to clean it up.  If they need  a right of way to get energy to the market, the same laws and regulations should apply to all forms of energy.  If they violate safety and environmental standards, criminal and civil penalties should be the same for all businesses.

Legislators who espouse free market principles should be able to collaborate with environmentally conscious colleagues to create fair competition and a cleaner state for all of us.  They will if voters demand it.

 

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, 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, justice, north carolina, race

Silent Sam needs company

1 Comment
The lady justice is depicted urging Sam to drop his books and his studies and go to war for the Confederacy. He looks victorious despite losing the war.
The lady justice is depicted urging Sam to drop his books and his studies and go to war for the Confederacy. Sam looks victorious despite losing the war.

While walking across the University of North Carolina campus, I paused to see the controversial statue of “Silent Sam“, a memorial to students who joined the Confederate army.  Some North Carolinians want it removed because it seems to celebrate the causes of racism, slavery, and rebellion against the United States.  Others want to preserve it and similar monuments across the Tarheel state that recognize those who served the Confederate cause.  They say that removing the monuments is tantamount to rewriting history.  The argument raises two questions.  What is the purpose of the statues?  Why did we fight a civil war?

Julian Carr, a wealthy Civil War veteran who delivered the keynote speech at Silent Sam’s 1913 dedication, made it clear that the monument was erected to honor and perpetuate the cause of white supremacy.  Here are a few of his words.  “The present generation…scarcely takes note of what the Confederate soldier meant to the Anglo-Saxon race…the purest strain of the Anglo-Saxon is to be found in the thirteen Southern States —  Praise God…One hundred yards from where we stand, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted…a southern lady…”  Today, a century after the statue was erected, that speech is proudly displayed on the website of the Durham Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The reasons for the war are evident in the reasons for secession declared by the legislatures of Confederate states:

Texas:  “…the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations…”

Mississippi: “There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union…”

Southern state governments claimed slavery as a legitimate social structure that was vital to their economies and they saw the election of President Lincoln as proof that slavery would be ended in the United States.  Underlying slavery and the war was greed that justified ownership of humans, theft of their labor, sale of their children and accumulation of wealth through brutality.

Sons of Confederate Veterans hold ceremonies at the Smiling Sam statue.
Sons of Confederate Veterans hold ceremonies at the Silent Sam statue.

There are “heritage groups”  (a polite description) who regularly honor their ancestors’ loyalty to the Confederacy at its monuments, making speeches and waving battle flags while dressed in Confederate uniforms.  Siding with them this year, Republicans in North Carolina’s legislature made it illegal for local governments and state institutions to remove state-owned memorials; and they rejected repeated requests to stop issuing license plates featuring Confederate battle flags.

It is necessary to acknowledge history before we can rise above it.  Rather than rewriting their Nazi past, Germans acknowledged the holocaust and other horrors of the Third Reich with new monuments alongside Nazi concentration camps and symbols.  An alternative to moving Confederate memorials or preserving them would be to update them by adding a 21st century perspective.  Americans should support victims of Jim Crow laws and descendants of slaves in creating monuments documenting the evils that the Confederacy fought to perpetuate and erecting them beside those of the Confederacy.

Some will deny the comparison of the Confederacy to Nazi Germany, but they have much in common.  Eleven million people, six million of them Jewish,  died in the holocaust.  I can’t find an estimate of how many humans died as American slaves, but approximately four million were  emancipated in the aftermath of the Civil War.  Any estimate of the number who died during more than two centuries of pre-emancipation slavery would produce a count larger than the number of holocaust victims.  Is slavery a fate better or worse than a holocaust death?  I like to think that most humans would fight to avoid either one.

Now is the time to cease government sponsored glorification of the Confederacy, either by removing its monuments or by supplementing them with the values that we have learned in the century and a half since emancipation.  Republican legislators have not yet taken away the authority of local governments and universities to create new monuments alongside old ones.  We are the generation and now is the time for Americans to unite across lines of race and geography into one nation.  If not now, when?  If not us, who?

A victorious Union Soldier looks down in sorrow at fallen comrades

Urbana, Ohio's monument to returning and fallen Union soldiers comrades.
A Midwestern monument to returning and fallen Union soldiers

 

 

 

All Posts, environment, north carolina

DID THE NC LEGISLATURE VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTION?

Buried deep on page 24 of the undebated “technical corrections” bill authored by North Carolina’s Republican leadership is a provision that takes away all authority for local governments to regulate fracking and oil and gas exploration.  My admittedly amateur opinion is that the legislature may have violated the State Constitution which says it part:

Sec. 5. Conservation of natural resources.

It shall be the policy of this State to conserve and protect its lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizenry, and to this end it shall be a proper function of the State of North Carolina and its political subdivisions to acquire and preserve park, recreational, and scenic areas, to control and limit the pollution of our air and water, to control excessive noise, and in every other appropriate way to preserve as a part of the common heritage of this State its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches, historical sites, openlands, and places of beauty.

I hope that one of the municipalities that has restricted fracking will pursue the question in court.  It’s difficult for me, as a non-attorney, to see how the legislature can take away the powers granted to municipalities by the constitution.

 

All Posts, Congress, health, justice

GOP vs Planned Parenthood – New revelations

2 Comments

My previous post argued that charges against Planned Parenthood are false.  Click any of the green links for added evidence.  Investigation of allegations that Planned Parenthood sold fetal tissue for profit has shown that

  1. The charges are baseless.
  2. The videos used to support the accusation were carefully edited to mislead viewers.
  3. Fetal tissue is vital to medical research and it is governed by appropriate rules.
  4. Carly Fiorina’s horrific claims about Planned Parenthood in the second GOP Presidential debate were false.  Yet she recently complained about other candidates creating their own facts.

The situation reminds us of an important life lesson: What we don’t know is often less dangerous than what we think we know that turns out to be untrue.  Congressional Republicans and GOP Presidential candidates are now so heavily committed to actions based on lies about Planned Parenthood that they can’t (or won’t) admit their error.  Where is Republican outrage at being deceived by anti-choice radicals?  Are they so committed to their current course of action that they’re unable to see that it is based on lies, or are they just unwilling?  Either a terribly dangerous state of affairs.

 

All Posts, budget, Christianity, Congress, deficit, economy, justice, medicaid, poverty, public education, taxes

STICKS STONES AND STEREOTYPES

4 Comments

Election campaigns are under way and the name-calling season is open.  Names, labels and stereotypes can influence our opinions and our elections so it’s important to be aware them. Continue reading STICKS STONES AND STEREOTYPES →