Powered By Blogger

Publius Speaks

Publius Speaks
Become A Follower

4/29/2013

SELF-SERVING?

Congress seems to enjoy its blatant displays of dysfunction and self-interest.  First, they display their contempt for 90% of the public by voting down legislation on universal background checks for gun-buyers that the public overwhelmingly supported.  They blatantly put their desires in the foreground and voted down the Manchin-Toomey bi-partisan amendment that would have put common sense background check wording into the original bill.  Not only did that vote show their outrageous arrogance about most people’s opinions and concerns, it demonstrated that their own self-interest takes first place in terms of their jobs.

Their self-interest was clearly in high gear when threatened with the disappearance of campaign funds, and with the possibility of primary battles against well-financed candidates that the NRA and gun manufacturers would likely fund and support in every way possible.  Even then, there were also added attacks on the rules of order that allow the leaders to agree to a 60-vote majority for each of the proffered amendments, despite the fact that such a standard is nowhere to be found in our Constitution.  So, although a clear majority of senators voted in favor of the amendment on background checks, the amendment failed because of a rule that essentially defines the dysfunction of the Senate. You would think that this would be enough to illustrate for the public a dysfunctional, arrogant, non-legislating, corrupted legislature.   But it wasn’t.

The Senate needed to get home for another recess, and thereby hangs a second tale of self-interest taking over the legislative process.  If you missed it, here’s the story.  Sequestration has begun to take hold in many ways.  One very annoying example of the consequences of this foolish policy decision is that government-employed traffic-controllers have begun to be furloughed to meet budget cuts.  Interesting that the Congress seems oblivious to the consequences of its actions.  Imagine their surprise when airlines began to experience flight delays because air traffic got backed-up.  Many passengers began to complain, especially frequent-flyers, many of whom were connected to businesses that just happen to be contributors to certain congressmen.  However, what put the icing on the cake was when legislators realized that they themselves were going to experience delays as they looked toward their spring break.  So what did they do within a matter of hours?  They passed legislation by huge margins to exempt the air traffic controllers from sequestration so that furloughs would be ended at least through September.  Interesting precedent.  Does that mean that old folks and some younger folk with disabilities will be exempt from the burden and harm that will be caused by drastic cutting back of Meals on Wheels?  Not likely.

So these vignettes clearly illustrate what it takes to get our representatives to act decisively:  whenever they are personally affected by legislation that they foisted on the rest of us.  And don’t forget: the Congress has passed vast amounts of legislation from which they exempted themselves.  One example: the Affordable Care Act, and from Social Security itself.  That aside, this latest occurrence is shameful.  It illustrates the horrendous tendency of this Congress to ignore the needs of 98% of the population while it tends to the needs of the richest among us and to everything that is self-promoting!  Is the only way they can become bi-partisan is to be forced to do something for themselves?  So it appears!

And why would we be surprised by that?  After all, at the very base of the Congress is the overwhelming need to be re-elected which is the epitome of self-interest.  Thus, every decision a congressman or senator makes must be evaluated in terms of that opportunity and challenge.  Connected to that basic tenet is another equally gripping criterion: the overwhelming need to raise money and to cow-tow to those sponsors who are already donating on a regular basis.  With the combination of the self-promoting need to be re-elected and the coercive power of money, it’s a wonder that anything beneficial gets legislated.  Lately, it appears that nothing actually is being legislated with any substance.   As responsible citizens, we must take action in regard to both of these obstacles to meaningful law-making.

The first step we must take is to examine the need, once again, for term limits.  The Congress will never basically change if there exists the possibility of making a career of being a Representative or Senator.  These positions were never meant to be concretized by such on-going entitlement.  It is necessary to the nature of the Congress to prevent this from happening.  We need to have a citizen legislature, not a Congress made up of professional politicians.  We need people who are elected for a brief time and then who go back to their communities to inform, reform and strengthen those communities.  It is not in the best interest of our country to have professional politicians calling the shots rather than citizen representatives.  They come from entirely different points of view and perspectives.

The professional politician is terribly concerned with his/her image, position, status, welfare.  The true citizen politician is less concerned with those issues than with how to be a good representative, how to serve his constituency, how to relate to his home community, how to train worthy successors, how to influence the future of this nation.  When there is an end time to your office, you tend to want to get things done before your time is up.  One of the major things to be considered is how professional politicians cling to the atmosphere, the contacts and the privileges of office.  Many of them are looking forward, not to how they can influence the future of their country, but rather their ability to influence the “movers and shakers” who are in positions of being able, when elected tenures are done, to offer lucrative positions in their businesses or in lobbying firms . 

However, we must also dig below the surface and recognize that term limits are not adequate without a method of preparatory and on-the-job training in best practices.  We seem to think that it is just fine for these senators and congress persons to learn “on-the-job.”  With term limits, we would no longer have that luxury.  As concerned citizens, we would have to find ways – in schools and colleges, but also in academies, think tanks, forums and convocations – to train our future representatives.  We can no longer afford the lack of training and nurturing that too many of our political representatives currently have.  We (meaning the concerned political parties) need to consider establishing regional training centers where nascent representatives of the people can be trained in problem-solving, effective law-making, group dynamics, public speaking, political science, effective constituent services, and leadership, to name a few subjects.  Such training would go a long way toward creating effective leaders and competent problem-solving advocates for the people instead of self-advocates.  It wouldn’t hurt at all to have these Centers develop programs designed to train mentors who would assist new office seekers and office holders with the day-to-day questions that may arise.  Mentoring, nurturing, training - sounds like something that might produce a whole new breed of leaders.

The discussion to set term limits ought to also focus on the length of terms, especially in the House of Representatives.  Two year terms are almost a joke.  By the time a congress person gets oriented and begins catching on to what is happening, it’s time to face an election.  The second year of a two-year term is spent raising funds and schmoozing donors, not legislating as one should.  What we need are three-year terms for Congressmen, with a limit of four terms in overall tenure.  That would equal a 12-year limit or two terms for Senators.  What a blessing it would be for citizens to know if they make a mistake and elect a real dud, he or she will not be able to continue on forever even in a solidly red or blue district.  That brings up one more piece to this puzzle: re-districting of congressional districts must be put into the hands of ordinary citizens who do not hold any public office.  This is imperative if we are to ever have a system built on real representation and not on a carved-up district designed to benefit one party or the other.  It can be done, and needs to be done.

Finally, there is the question of money in politics.  It is ruining the concept of our representative democracy, and destroying the very fabric of our system.  We cannot continue to allow money to rule rather than the people.  First, the  Citizens United decision has to be overturned by a constitutional amendment.  Such foolishness as declaring a corporation equivalent to a person is a travesty.  And while we are at it, let’s also get rid of lifetime tenure for judges and justices.  A limit of 20 years on the bench should be sufficient. 

But, more especially, we must have public-financed elections with strict limits on the amounts that candidates can receive from any one individual, and with corporations, and other incorporated  or combined entities such as PACs, forbidden from making any contributions to any election in any way, either by first party donations or by 3rd party advertisements and flyers or brochures.  Let’s make candidates responsible for their campaigns, and let them spend public monies according to guidelines established by a permanent election council. Second, let’s have a “truth-in-advertising” panel that will determine if anyone is in violation of fair practices, if anyone is guilty of using non-factual material, with the power to impose heavy fines and to bring other charges before a court.  Third, there must be a limit on the amount of money that can be allocated or spent on each race, and it must be set at reasonable levels of expenditure.  Finally, we have to shorten the election season, and restrict campaigning to about 6 months for any office.  Then to top that off, we must open up voter registration and voter participation.

We have been too long involved in making up rules that restrict these two very important activities.  Registration ought to be allowed when one registers a car; when one enters a public building; or even when one sits at his home computer and fills out a voter registration form online.  Elections need to be held on days when people can get to the polls.  A Tuesday work-day is not the most convenient time for people to vote.  We have to change this to be at the advantage of the voter, not the advantage of a politician, a corporate CEO or a member of the 1% of the population.  This is our right and our duty.  Let’s make it easier to register and to vote.  The only way to do that, once again, is to enshrine it in the Constitution, and to make sure ordinary citizens are involved in the Commissions and Committees that are formed to keep things honest and forthright. 

We cannot abide, nor can we afford, to proceed as we are now doing.  The dysfunction is clear; the corruption is rampant; destruction is near.  Our form of government is being taken from us and we are almost powerless to stop the process of disintegration unless we have a ground-swell of support for reform that changes everything from the ground up.  We have precious little time to waste before the oligarchs, the right-wing nuts, the liars and the cheaters, the lobbyists and the lawyers take from us what we dare not lose: our representative democracy.  The Congress -- both Senate and House -- have already demonstrated that neither represents the citizens of this country.  They are too busy tending to their own selfish needs.  Don’t ever let yourself forget the rapidity with which the Congress got rid of sequestration cuts that affected them so they could get home on another intolerable recess.  We must throw the bums out, but first we have to fix the system, and we can’t do that without fundamental changes in our Constitution.  We can make piece-meal changes with legislation, but fundamental change requires that we amend the document that defines our system of governance.  Let us start by over-turning Citizens United.

4/21/2013

Immigrants: Punish or Promote?

We are, in some sense, a “punitive” society.  We often like to see certain people “get what’s coming to them.”  We talk about, and have indeed obsessed upon, “law and order,” which was the rallying cry for a whole movement in the 60’s used to vilify a concurrent movement toward civil rights for black people.  It was not only a movement endorsed by mostly conservative politicians, it involved moderates and liberals alike, including some members of the black caucus in Congress.  And, of course, we have invented “Guantanamo”, and used drone attacks, as reminders of “what we do to terrorists.”  

Built into so many of our laws, passed by a Congress that sometimes cannot see the forest for the trees, are punitive measures that do not fit well with the norms and standards that bespeak positive attitudes: forgiveness, second chances, incentives, affirmative action.  Take the very glaring example of  the “War on Drugs.”  What was that all about?  It turns out, based on the incarceration rates, that it was a thinly-veiled attempt at putting the “negro” in his place, for it has been used to put more black young men in jail, removed from society and its opportunities, than one would ever expect.  Read “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander: a brilliant exposition of how incarceration is the new Jim Crow movement against Black men especially.

It was, she says, Barry Goldwater who laid the foundation for the “get tough on crime” movement that would emerge full-blown years later.”  Turns out, Richard Nixon and George Wallace both made “law and order” a central theme of their campaigns, and together they garnered 57% of the popular vote.  But, it was not until the 1980s that this conservative revolution was in full development.  Crime and welfare were the major themes of Ronald Reagan’s campaign rhetoric, and it was October 1982 when he announced his “War on Drugs.”  By waging a ‘war on drugs‘, Reagan managed to provide a vehicle for a fierce punitive backlash against the Civil Rights Movement, and against African-American males in particular. 

In spite of the tremendous community spirit and unselfish and heroic acts shown in the city and environs of Boston in recent days, we now have to consider what will happen with immigration reform.  There will be some, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, who will want to “punish” or “exclude” Chechen’s (and others of Islamic background ) from any list allowed to work toward citizenship; or even allowed to come here at all.  There are already other voices urging delay in consideration of this legislation.  Delay is their way of killing the measure entirely. We must not allow such negative rhetoric to drown rationality not while we still have a chance to promote alternatives to punishment with positive amendments.

I have just a few things to say about two items in the immigration legislation unveiled to the Senate recently.  One: 13 years is way too long a time for people to have to pursue a path to citizenship, unless a way is devised for undocumented immigrants to exchange up to four community service years for the extra four years of provisional status.  Two: a point system for allowing certain people to advance toward  a visa is a good thought but not if it is based on negative measures some politician thought up! 

Is it really necessary to be so punitive toward people who came here illegally?  I find it offensive that we cannot find other ways to forge a path to citizenship besides fines, having no more than 3 misdemeanors on your record, learning the English language, and having an understanding of civics.  Whatever is behind such provisions other than stereotypes, punishment, and lack of understanding of who these folks are and what they want to be.  Is every undocumented alien a felon?  Are they all non-English-speakers; are they all intent on bilking the government for welfare benefits?  Do legislators have a handle on who they are?  Do they even have statistics on, or testimony from, these folks?    

Why do we want to deny them a path to citizenship based on real merit and their real contributions?  Why must we punish them?  Because they broke the law, is the answer most heard.  And which of us would not break a few laws to protect our families; to seek a new life; to experience the dignity of a paycheck and to feed our kids?  The illegality we are speaking of could be a forgivable offense, especially if someone who made that illegal entry has contributed something of value to his or her community and new nation. 

That’s what I think is missing from this legislation: a path to citizenship based on an affirmation that all immigrants - undocumented or documented - have something to give to this nation and to their communities.  Indeed, if we want good citizens, we want people dedicated to the welfare of their families, their schools, their communities, their states and their nation.  You don’t build good citizenship by punishing people; you build it by giving them opportunities to do good things, to create and construct, to bring talents to bear, to raise good families, to be part of communities that build-up people, not tear them down.  I cringe from the lack of creativity and boldness and community-mindedness that results from thinking fines, no public benefits, and “security triggers”.

Here’s what I’m thinking. First, why not find out what positive things have been done by those being considered for citizenship.  Who are they?  What contributions have they already made and what will they make as citizens?  What have they done to impact their families and communities in a positive way?  Second, let’s find out what they’d like to do or be. What do they seek to do with their lives?  Are there nascent medical practitioners among them?  Or Entrepreneurs?  Are there some willing to take vocational training to advance their skill-development.  Third, let’s set them on a path to service, not just to citizenship.  Let’s reduce the number of years they have to spend at this arduous task by crediting them a year for every year of community or national service they perform as a volunteer, as a member of the armed forces, as a trusted and loyal worker in a factory or farm or wherever.  Fourth, let’s not treat every person as part of a group.  Let’s build a path to citizenship for each individual so every individual has a plan: a point by point map toward the goal of citizenship.  You say that takes money.  Not necessarily.  It takes people, and there are people everywhere who are willing to volunteer their time and effort to help others become citizens.  So maybe every immigrant who needs  a mentor and guide to traverse this citizenship landscape should have one.  Let’s involve AmeriCorps and Vista; let’s involve Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions and RSVP, let’s use the Teacher Corps and youth organizations and every volunteer agency we can enlist to assist individuals toward their goal.  Let the candidates for citizenship learn from the experts: the men and women volunteers who know how to make citizenship meaningful.

We want and need good citizens.  We do not need people languishing in a system built to punish them for coming here in the first place.    They came here for a myriad of reasons. They came here to find hope, occupations, a better life, to be with relatives.  Let’s not assume because they did it outside the regular channels that makes them criminals.  We have to eschew the images we have of “illegals”  and “wetbacks” and  “lawbreakers”.  We have got to get down to basics.  We are dealing with human beings with the same aspirations, dreams and needs that all of us have.  And, what is more, with the same ambitions, talents and potential that is part of our make-up.  Let us find ways to citizenship that recognize the positive aspects of those among us who long for that day when they can take the oath and declare that they are loyal citizens of this great country.

Let me be more specific now about the legislation.  I think a six-year provisional status to begin with is not an entirely bad idea.  Even the combined fine of $1,500 has some merit.  But we need to have ways to pay that fine in other than cash.   What can a person do that will be equal in value to that $1,500?  How can they use their time and talents to contribute something of value to their communities?  A fine is punishment.  A thing of value bestowed is a gift.  Let them give gifts to their communities in lieu of a fine.  Let them give back, and if they can show that they have already produced a thing of value in their communities, let that count.  The same concept applies to the responsibility for paying back taxes.  But in the latter case, the in-kind service ought to be expanded to include some very specific community projects that actually save the taxpayer money, or that can generate money to be placed in the U.S. Treasury.  For instance, why can’t some undocumented immigrants become VISTA or AmeriCorps volunteers themselves? 

The add-on of renewed provisional status for another 4 years smells of over-kill and punishment.  What is the purpose of this extra four years: to prove one’s merit?   If that hasn’t been done in the first 6 years, it probably isn’t going to happen!  I find no rationale for this second step of 4 more years of provisional status except to pay another fine, and to introduce the absurdity of external “triggers.”  That is why I have proposed the concept of accepting community service years (involving varying forms of service) up to four years in lieu of this second level of provisional status.

And just what are these “triggers?”  Well, they essentially have nothing to do directly with the immigrants, except the impact they can have on their progress toward citizenship.  First, the government has to put into place a broader security and fencing plan within 6 months before undocumented aliens will be eligible to apply for RPI status.  And, for them to be able to apply for visas, the plan must reach a goal of 100% surveillance of the borders and a 90% apprehension rate in the border’s most high-risk areas. Moreover, new entry-exit systems must also be in place for employers; a process that could take up to 5 years.  So, legislators have chosen to mollify the “law and order” crowd who simply want the borders protected.  These “triggers” are something over which the immigrants have no control; they are at the mercy of the government’s ability, and willingness, to get the job done.

There are some who say that the 10-year provisional span is necessary so that it’s not faster for undocumented individuals to get a green card than it is for people trying to enter this country legally.  An even more bureaucratic reason is so that a backlog of legal immigrants can be cleared before letting anyone else in line. And then, there’s the economic factor. Such a lengthy term makes the overall process cheaper because the longer people remain on provisional status, the less government needs to spend on benefits (but the immigrants will be obligated to pay current and back taxes!).  Once again, not a very creative solution to some fabricated ideological problems. 

A  potentially unpopular thought just occurred to me: why don’t we ask undocumented aliens how long they feel it should take to get a green card; what they think is fair in light of the wait line for documented persons, and what benefits they would be willing to forego for a period of time?  I can hear the cries of conservatives now -- you can’t ask immigrants, they’ll just take unfair advantage; you can’t ask “illegal” immigrants their opinions - they either haven’t got any or they’ll take you to the cleaners.  I happen to believe that most people, when given the chance to set personal goals, and to decide on actions and opportunities that affect them, turn out to be quite conservative and fair in their responses.  But whatever the outcomes, the input of undocumented (and documented) aliens to the process is vital for determining their commitments, their hopes, and their goals. 

Finally, there is something called the “merit-based visa” in this legislation.  A first example of this includes people who have been in this country for 10 years or longer, and who are waiting in the employment or family backlog.  This legislation makes them eligible for a green card.  No points involved. What an interesting way to deal with bureaucratic backlog!  Instead of funding adequate numbers of agents (or enlisting the help of volunteers) to deal with day-to-day processing of people and documents,  Congress wants to unclog the system by a blanket assignment of green cards, and then return to the same understaffing problem that resulted in a backlog in the first place.  Legislators who want results or solutions, but are not willing to pay for the positions needed to bring about those outcomes, are simply incompetent planners and irresponsible budget-cutters.  Across-the-board spending cuts, rather than targeted reductions or spending limits, result in backlogs.  It’s that simple.

The second example is a merit-point system based on what you are before getting to come to this country.  High-skilled workers with college or advanced degrees plus low-skilled workers in agriculture and certain other programs, would go through the merit-based system, which is designed to reward the most deserving candidates.  Or, just possibly (and cynically), it’s designed to reward those who possess what is most needed at the moment by employers, perhaps to increase the profits of large corporations and farm conglomerates.  Well, so be it, but can’t we find other reasons to assign merit points?  maybe like some of the service ideas I proposed above?

This legislation is like much of what we see today from Congress: it‘s compromised so much by competing ideologies that it is watered down and sanitized, making it bland and rather meaningless; plus, it embodies some attitudes that ought not to see the light of day.  It is not creative, bold or innovative, and, in the end, it does not champion the cause or the goals of immigrants.  Nor does it adequately address the needs of a nation that is built on  broadly-based immigration policy.  It displays far too much interest in resolving problems of ideology rather than problems associated with immigration and immigrants. Laws written by legislators who listen only to special interests on every issue, are not laws that are passed for the welfare of the people, but for the advancement of a minority of Plutocrats.  It’s time to change that unhealthy scenario.

There is a song sung at a particular football venue called “We are the Champions”.  Too bad Congress can’t adopt that appellation and apply it to themselves.  Unfortunately, they are not championing anyone except those who can pay their way: lobbyists, lawyers, CEOs, the 1% and other special interests like big banks, and big oil.  Immigration reform is almost too important to be left in such hands, but there is no choice.  So, let us be clear: with the lack of Champions in the House and Senate, it is up to the ordinary citizens of this country to wrest the levers of government from the Plutocrats, and to champion immigration reform that meets immigrant needs and desires; assists them through the process with an individual plan of achievement, and rewards them for community and national service that contributes to the larger society.   Let us propel them toward their worthy goal, not punish them for wanting to be United States citizens.

(Written in fond memory of Cesar Chavez who I met on a plane going to Syracuse NY in the 1970’s and with whom I was privileged to be engaged in conversation for a considerable time. His dignity and commitment, his words and his message, must not be forgotten!).

4/14/2013

COMMON SENSE

We’re hearing an awful lot about “common sense” these days - especially related to the reduction of gun violence - by the introduction of  “common sense” restrictions on gun ownership and possession.  “Common sense” itself is a bit elusive in terms of definition.  It starts with the dictionary definitions which are none too sterling:  “sound, practical sense; normal intelligence.”  In order to be “sound,” common sense has to be reliable, secure, without defect as to truth, vigorous, hearty or thorough.  In order to be “practical”, common sense would need to be connected with ordinary activities; or pertain to practice or action; inclined toward or fitted for actual work or useful activity; in other words, applicable or useful.  ‘”Normal intelligence” is hardly a helpful term, since normal is very hard to determine.  Perhaps what we need to say is that common sense should relate to a common ground or norm that is somewhat pervasive within the culture or mind-set or standards of a community.  For the word “common” itself implies something shared; something belonging to or shared by a whole community; something widespread and general or universal or prevalent and popular.

It is clear right now that a lot of minds are concentrated on common sense gun violence reduction laws.  In fact, if commonality is a measure of common sense, we have within our grasp the makings of some provisions of law that would satisfy this need for some sound, practical, sensible legislation as regards gun violence control.  And, let it be clear that what we are talking about is not “gun control“; the common sense is that we are attempting to reduce gun violence, not the right to own a gun. 

That is so very important to understand.  It is fundamental to the debate we are having.  Our practical common sense tells us that we can allow eligible persons to own guns for all kinds of legitimate reasons, such as target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting, shooting competitions, even self-protection.  What we cannot allow is the unfettered access to certain guns and ammunition clips that are designed for combat forces and community protection forces.  Such semi-automatic weapons in the hands of known criminals or of persons with uncontrolled mental dysfunctions, or even in the hands of juveniles, are a threat to ordinary citizens, and we can no longer allow that to be a norm in our society.

Right there is a point that needs great emphasis.  What we are looking for here is not the ability to stop every act of violence with guns that can and will occur.  The people who argue that we should not have any restrictions on gun ownership because we cannot control what criminals will do, and only criminals will have guns, are missing the important point being made here.  We are not looking to change criminal behavior, although it makes sense to try to reduce it whenever we can.  No, what we are looking for is to establish a norm or standard in our society that certain dysfunctional people should not have access to weapons that can be used to harm other people.  We are trying to put into law, the common sense of the American people, so that this society will have on its books standards that make sense in the context of happiness, peace and tranquility.

Common sense includes the banning of assault weapons, and over-sized ammunition clips, whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself.  54-60% of people surveyed agree.  That is a norm we need to establish right now so that law reflects the standards of  the people, and not just so we can get rid of certain guns for sale, or that we can save citizens from being killed, although a new norm or standard can often lead to the changing of behaviors.  Let us establish the standard, and then see what outcomes we produce.

Common sense, and common experience, also indicates that certain things in our society need to be registered, so that they can be regulated in the interests of public safety and well-being.  Opposition to universal registration of gun ownership is a denial of all the practical reasons we have for registering certain items in our society;  cars and trucks, and other vehicles, for instance.  Why do we register them, and require them to be insured and inspected as a part of that process?  We do it because it makes sense to know if the vehicle is in the kind of poor shape that constitutes a hazard to others.  It makes sense to know who is driving such a lethal instrument weighing in at over 2,000 pounds in most cases.  It makes sense to know who has a condition that may limit their driving skill (eyesight).  It makes sense to know who may be approaching an age when a new driving test should be ordered.  It makes sense to know the license plate of all cars so that law enforcement officials can track, conduct surveillance, and apprehend people who have used a car to violate other people’s rights and the public’s safety and security. 

All that does not even begin to deal with the safety and public health issues that are addressed by the common sense requirements of inspection and insurance in order to register, and drive, a car.  A question one might ask here: does such registration stop all criminals from using cars to commit or abet their crimes?  Of course not.  But, such registration does enable law enforcement to stop lawbreakers before they commit crimes, and also enables law enforcement to find and arrest those who have committed crimes.  These requirements for cars set a certain norm or standard for society that leads to better protection, health and safety for the broader community.  

Then, we have to ask, what is the difference between universal car registration, and the registration of all gun owners?  The 2nd Amendment you say?  The Amendment that gives gun owners the right to own guns, is somehow different from the privilege of owning a car?  Yes, that’s so.  But, common sense says that we have the same reasons for registration in both cases: to prevent aberrant use of cars and guns; to deter ownership for those who violate laws, and who use guns or cars in the commission of crimes, or in other ways that endanger public safety.

It is merely common sense that we should register all guns, not as a deterrent to ownership, but as a precaution against dangerous and aberrant use.  After all, the second Amendment does not say that gun ownership shall be unregulated.  In fact, it says up-front that a “well-regulated” militia is necessary to a free state.  In my humble opinion, that means that the Founding Fathers were concerned with how the scattered soldiers, mostly returned to the individual states from which they came, were going to behave.  They put this provision in the Amendment to indicate that regulation of these former Revolutionary soldiers, and their guns, was a necessary function of government.  So regulation of some colonial gun-owners was written into our Constitution. 

It is the next phrase that the NRA grabs hold of for its unwavering opposition to any restrictions placed on gun ownership: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  But here’s the major point: infringement is not regulation and regulation is not restriction.  If you regulate something, you put it in good order; adjust it, arrange it.  It’s a process of managing something.  If you infringe upon something, you encroach upon it or trespass upon it; that means you violate that right.  My opinion of what the common sense of the people is, at this moment, is that management is not infringement.  No legitimate gun owner would lose his/her guns as a result of the laws being proposed.  But certain people would not be allowed to buy certain guns and ammunition because of their particular limitations and/or dysfunctions.  Registration of guns is not an infringement on ownership of guns; it is merely a means to better management,  sorting out those who may use guns to kill innocent people.  So, in essence, this is not about restrictions on gun ownership or infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.  It is a common sense way to account for,  to “manage” who should own a gun and who shouldn’t own a gun, thus setting a norm or standard for society that speaks to regulation, not to infringement.

Which brings us to a final piece of common sense.  Over 90% of people polled have indicated that they favor universal background checks preceding the purchase of a gun.  The current legislation before the Senate has dropped such as applied to private sales, but kept it as applied to sales at gun shops and at gun shows.  It’s not perfect, but it’s something.

Once again, the NRA has taken a negative view, intending to track the votes of all congress persons, not only on the legislation itself, but on the procedural matters that lead up to a vote on the bill.  They have threatened to attempt to defeat those Congress persons who fail to vote against the procedures as well as the provisions of the law.  They are doing this basically because they believe that universal background checks will lead to universal gun registration which will then inevitably lead to the government being able to confiscate guns.  Amazing logic, but without real evidence to support it.  Perhaps they have forgotten that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is already in place as mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.  That system is applicable to sales from federally licensed gun dealers.  Private sales of guns are not covered by the Act, nor are gun show sellers.  But the point here is that a system is in place for background checks, and it is not leading to anything like government confiscation of legally obtained guns. 

NRA devotees have largely argued that background checks will not prevent people like Adam Lanza from purchasing or obtaining a gun (as he did from his mother’s collection), nor will it deter criminals who will obtain a gun somehow if they so desire.  Oh, they are so right.  But unfortunately, they miss a major point.  Laws do not prevent the criminal mind or the deranged mind from finding a way to obtain a gun, or to commit robbery or larceny, or embezzlement, or murder, among other crimes. 

What the proposed legislation does is to make it more likely that people who should not have guns, will have a much harder time obtaining them.  If all elements for reduction of gun violence were in place -- assault weapons ban, no more high-capacity clips, universal registration, along with universal background checks -- our ability to reduce the numbers of wrong-headed persons getting guns would be increased.  As long as the NRA and cowardly Senators and Congressmen keep watering down the provisions that might work together to reduce violent people from getting guns easily, the more likely it is that incidents like we see every hour will begin to increase.  We can’t have a perfect system of preventing gun acquisition by the wrong people.  We can only expect, as with many laws, that we can begin to reduce the violence that is pervading every corner of our country, and killing our children.

And that again is what we want and need: Laws that set standards and norms for our society.  That is mainly what laws do, for laws themselves do not prevent or prosecute criminal behavior.  They set societal norms and standards against which criminal behavior is recognized and judged.  They give law enforcement certain standards and restrictions to enforce; and provide measurements by which criminal behavior is prosecuted and judged.  To say that these new laws will not prevent more Newton's or Auroras or other killings from occurring is to miss the point of these laws, or of laws in general.  Such arguments burden the law with requirements it cannot meet, and with provisions it cannot enforce. 

Common sense demands that we place into law the gun violence reform provisions about which so very many Americans agree because they see that we need different standards than we presently have regarding the killing of innocents with weapons of war.  Let us first set the standards that make sense, and then let us have responsible agencies and public servants address prevention, enforcement, prosecution and punishment.  Such is the responsibility of the Executive and Judicial branches of our government, not the Legislature.   The NRA leadership is leading us all astray in its ravenous quest to support the profit-making of gun manufacturers rather than the norms of a healthy and peaceful society.  They are the flies in the ointment; the obstacles to a more non-violent society, and the purveyors of profit rather than the guardians of all our rights, including the fundamental unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

4/07/2013

The RULES Have Changed

In my earlier days, I learned that representatives in Congress not only had to represent their constituents, they also had to, at times, step up and lead their constituents to a higher plane; to a new understanding of issues or difficulties facing the nation.  They might, in such circumstances, even be required to vote contrary to their constituents= wishes and understanding.  Such a stance required wisdom, integrity, courage, fortitude, and some degree of bravado, we were told.

But now?  Apparently the stance is quite different.  The prevailing attitude seems to be that one must vote first according to the wishes of one’s political base (and that doesn’t necessarily encompass the majority of one’s constituents).  At the same time, the Senator or Representative must be making his stance very clear to those who constitute his economic base.  This can consist of individual donors, corporate donors,  association (group) donors, and, of course, the ever-present PACs and Super-PACs.  In the main, they are all “special interests” aiming at something that they want for their own constituency -- clients, customers, boards of directors, or stock holders.  Their interests are not necessarily those of the office holder’s constituents, although at certain points they may intersect. In meeting all of these interests, the office-holders are most likely focused on re-election, and further, on lucrative future positions with a corporation, association or lobbying firm that presently takes more than passing interest (more like an investment or proprietary interest) in the office-holder. 

Out of this set of circumstances and attitudes, one is unlikely to be able to find very many politicians willing to sacrifice their office or their economic security for a principle or a cause or a tenet that they can put on a plane above the realities of their circumstances.  It is probable that there are very few, if any, politicians left who even believe that there are times when one should vote contrary to the “interests” just described in order to lead constituents to a new understanding of an issue.

Another thing I thought I learned back then was that a simple majority was the way to decide issues by a vote.  It was almost a certainty.  You could even count on it coming up amongst young people on a team, or on a playground, when a team decision was needed.  “Majority wins” was a norm that few ever challenged.  As we got older, we heard more about Roberts Rules of Order which verified the importance of a majority vote on most issues (although there was equal clarity on the issues that required a two-thirds vote). 

But then, along came the “cloture” vote, and everything changed.  While the filibuster has been a staple of the Senate since the mid-19th century (allowing senators an opportunity to extend debate and block a vote on a particular piece of legislation), the rule on cloture did not arrive until 1917 when  senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture.”

According to a history on Senate.gov, the new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation...until cloture was invoked after a 60 day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.

The filibuster has become an increasingly common tool: the 19th century saw fewer than two dozen filibusters enacted. By the Carter Administration, that figure was up to 20 per year.  From 1975 to the present, the cloture rule has been employed sparingly but since 2007, Democrats have been forced to try to break Republican filibusters 360 times -- by far the highest rate in Congressional history.

So now, the common practice of the radical Republican minority is the use of the filibuster and cloture vote (60 votes required) to block legislation which might have passed by a simple majority vote.  It is a device that goes to the heart of our democracy.  Majority no longer rules the day.  But worse, the very function of the Senate as a body meant to deliberate carefully and then to vote on legislation, has taken a back seat to using a rule to keep legislation from being passed, or even to be voted upon.  We have here a rule of the Senate that destroys a norm or standard of action for the rest of our society.  It destroys consensus; it destroys true deliberation and debate (because the outcome of requiring 60 votes is more important than the actual filibustering).  This is a Congress that has rendered its main objective -- deliberating and legislating -- to a mere exercise in futility.

Gregory Koger, associate professor of political science at Miami University, has placed the rules in their present context and approbation:
 
“While members of the U.S. Senate have always had the ability to filibuster legislation—that is, to delay it through open-ended “discussion”—they rarely did so before 1960. Filibustering has skyrocketed since then, from an annual average of 3.2 filibusters during 1951– 1960 to 16.5 between 1981 and 2004. But this statistic only tells half the story: obstruction is so institutionalized in the modern Senate that labeling some action a “filibuster” is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. As a Senate leadership aide explained: “Obstructionism is woven into the fabric of things. The [party] leadership deals with it on a day-to-day, even a minute-to-minute basis. . . . You can’t underestimate the importance of it. There are offshoots of obstructionism every day.”
Filibustering—and the sixty votes required to limit debate using the Senate cloture rule—is so institutionalized into the way the Senate sets the agenda, writes legislation, and considers nominations that scholars label it the “sixty-vote Senate” and treat the filibuster as a veto point on par with the presidential veto.  This change has had far-reaching effects: filibustering empowers individual senators to pursue their personal agendas, and it gives the minority party the ability to block the majority party’s proposals.” 

What a shame!  Let us take just a moment to indicate some of the legislation that might have passed if a simple majority vote had ruled the day:

“Republicans derailed energy and climate legislation, halted the DREAM Act, which passed the House while receiving 55 votes in the Senate, and blocked any debate on the Employee Free Choice Act, which passed the House with an overwhelming majority and garnered 59 supporters in the Senate. Most recently, in July, the DISCLOSE Act – which would have increased transparency over independent groups’ campaign spending – failed to overcome a Republican filibuster and died, despite receiving support from 51 Senators and past support from many current Republican opponents. Also in July, Senate Republicans blocked the Bring Jobs Home Act , which would have encouraged in-sourcing by providing tax incentives to companies that bring jobs back to the United States from overseas. Separately from blocking substantive legislation, Republicans have used Senate rules to gum up even the most basic levers of governance,” such as approval of appointments in both the Executive and the Judiciary.

The use of this tactic did not start in President Obama’s second term, but was utilized extensively in his first term.  In 2008, much of the legislation proposed by the new administration was gunned down by Senate Republicans using the filibuster and cloture rules.  Ranging from environmental reforms and investment in economy to savings in Medicare and increased rights for consumers, especially jobs and stimulus bills, much of the first term legislation failed because of these rules being invoked.  In perspective, this means that the volume of legislation passed in the first term was all the more remarkable.

In December of 2012, the organization Common Cause brought suit against the Senate for its misuse of the filibuster and cloture rule.  Unfortunately, the District Court of Washington DC found that the Plaintiff did not have the required standing to bring such a suit, but there are some remarkable facts contained in the Decision.
 
“The number of actual or threatened filibusters has increased dramatically since 1970, and now dominates the business of the Senate.  In 2009, there were a record sixty-seven filibusters in the first half of the 111th Congress -- double the number of filibusters that occurred in the entire twenty-year period between 1950 and 1969. By the time the 111th Congress adjourned in December 2010, the number of filibusters had swelled to 137 for the entire two-year term of the 111th Congress.  During the 111th Congress, over four hundred bills that had been passed by the House of Representatives -- many with broad bipartisan support -- died in the Senate without ever having been debated or voted on because of the inability to obtain the sixty votes required by Rule XXII.” 

The wording of part of the complaint is also remarkable:

“Plaintiffs allege that the Cloture Rule “replaces majority rule with rule by the minority by requiring the affirmative votes of 60 senators on a motion for cloture before the Senate is allowed to even debate or vote on” measures before it.  According to Plaintiffs, “[b]oth political parties have used Rule XXII when they were in the minority in the Senate to prevent legislation and appointments proposed by the opposing party from being debated or voted on by the Senate.” Plaintiffs further assert that Rule XXII has primarily been used “not to protect the right of the minority to debate the merits of a bill or the fitness of a presidential nominee on the floor of the Senate . . . , but to suppress and prevent the majority from debating the merits of bills or presidential appointments opposed by the minority.” (emphasis in original).  “Actual or threatened filibusters (or objections to the commencement of debate which are the functional equivalent of a filibuster) have become so common that it is now virtually impossible as a practical matter for the majority in the Senate to pass a significant piece of legislation or to confirm many presidential nominees without the 60 votes required to invoke cloture under Rule XXII.” Plaintiffs allege that because invoking cloture is “time consuming and cumbersome,” the mere threat of a filibuster is sufficient to forestall consideration of a measure.  Furthermore, because Senate Rule V provides that Senate rules continue from one Congress to the next, and because invoking cloture to close debate on any resolution to amend Senate rules requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of Senators present and voting, Plaintiffs assert that “the combination of Rule V and Rule XXII has made it virtually impossible for the majority in the Senate to amend the rules of the Senate to prevent the minority in the Senate from obstructing the business of the Senate by filibustering.” 
  
Another thing we learned when I was young was that everyone should play fair.  It included every day life, business, and mostly sports.  And, if you didn’t play fair, there were usually some consequences you had to bear, like ridicule from others on your team, or from the other team; like a punishment that usually involved grounding or some such penalty; like a fine or imprisonment if this got played-out on a broader stage.  One could almost count on people and businesses playing fair.  It was the mark of a good person and a trustworthy business.

I have long remembered one time when my father was upset by a business practice that his long-time car dealer undertook during a fund-raiser in the downtown area of my hometown.  It was an auction of used cars, and my Dad bid on one for me based on the dealer’s reputation and his long-standing relationship with that dealer.  The car turned out to be a dud, and my father was so hopping mad that he went to the dealer and demanded his money back.  He got it, too, because reputation and fairness meant a lot in those days!  So did recrimination in the form of some legal proceeding.  I remember instances of business people caught cheating and being fined or punished for their transgressions.  “Serves them right”, many would say.

Now, we find another world almost.  And right there, lies the deeper problem:  our cultural norms have changed.  It appears that Fairness is no longer an honored standard for behavior in many quarters.  The norm is more along the lines of “what can we get away with?”  When a voracious greed drives our enterprises, we cannot expect that fairness will often dictate behavior.  It is a sad commentary on how much our culture has changed, but there are pockets of hope.

According to Robert Kinkead on articlesbase.com, a 2008 workplace study found that fairness in the workplace offered 2 concrete benefits to the employer:

1. Employees who felt they worked in a fair workplace were more likely to engage in behavior that benefited others at work, such as helping a co-worker finish a project on time.
2. Employees who felt they worked in a fair workplace were more likely to engage in behavior that benefited the organization as a whole, such as staying late to finish a report on time.

Marshall Goldsmith, MBA, PhD, a world authority on helping successful leaders achieve positive, lasting behavioral change, reports on WABCcoaches.com, a truly beguiling thought:

“At a time when shredding documents, creative accounting and ruthless tactics come to light in the media on a fairly regular basis, it's no surprise that the young leaders of today have spotted the need for leaders to demonstrate integrity and ethical behavior. As a matter of fact, young leaders of today believe that demonstrating integrity will become the most important characteristic of future leaders.”  It has been said that many women executives in corporations, for example, are better leaders because they are more readily attune to these characteristics.  Perhaps another reason to put many more women into leadership roles on the political front!

We can only hope that some concepts as “old-fashioned” and normative as individual integrity, fairness and just plain caring are again becoming important characteristics for our future leaders.