Wake to Reality Now or Regret It Later!

In my last BLOG, I discussed the way things will be if the Republican Right-wing radicals take over all branches of the federal government, particularly in relation to our veterans.  A certain hypocrisy and perverseness will become the order of the day, as Republican right-wingers, in contrast to their anti-government stance, make use of the power and machinery of that very government they so oppose, to force upon others their own agenda and philosophy.

For all that they will do to diminish the role of government in certain areas -- entitlements and social welfare programs, in particular -- the Right Wing will counter that very concept by using the machinery of government to interfere and intervene in ordinary people’s lives: to influence the thinking and direction of social policy; to take from the poor and middle class to give to the rich, and to enhance their ascendancy and dominance over the affairs of this nation. 

Look at another brief example of right-wing hypocrisy and perverseness: the use of the power and mechanisms of national government to impose the religious outlook of a minority upon the majority.  Yes, I am talking about the bent of right-wingers toward the theology/philosophy of Christian Evangelicals.  Republicans hate government intervention in social issues -- like civil rights, affirmative action, equal pay for women, a broad safety net for the poor --that have roots in other religious traditions and tenets.  But, what do the radical Republicans want to impose upon the average citizen through legislation and regulation?

--prayer in schools;
--no choice on abortion;
--avowing homosexuality as a choice that is sinful, according to scripture, and that must be renounced or punished;
--declaring God on the side of the USA no matter what;
--a suspicion bordering on rejection of science, especially in terms of evolution and climate control;
--Creationism must be taught in schools;
--entire curricula will be re-written to reflect evangelical points of view;
--a secular government is an abomination; (evangelical) Christianity should pervade all aspects of government;
--a push toward dominionism: “that Christians have a God-given right to rule all earthly institutions. Originating among some of America’s most radical theocrats, it’s long had an influence on religious-right education and political organizing… Think of it like political Islamism, which shapes the activism of a number of antagonistic fundamentalist movements, from Sunni Wahhabis in the Arab world to Shiite fundamentalists in Iran.”
(www.thedailybeast.org).  Bachmann and Perry both have ties to this fringe group.

If that doesn’t disturb you, then perhaps you need to understand that the radical Right will use government power and authority to diminish and minimize the role of government in your life.  In other words:

--no more Post Office; get your mail some other way;
--impotent labor unions; they will destroy them or reduce them to non-entities;
--no more protections for workers; no more bargaining rights
--minimal regulation of businesses, banks, corporations, mortgage lenders, wall street firms, etc..
--diminution or destruction of consumer protection programs and/or agencies like the E(nvironmental) P(rotection) A(gency), FEMA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency;
--the decrease of investment in science will result in less research for making life better for all.  The NASA budget has already been reduced, and reductions in the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, and the National Institutes of Health will all affect scientific inquiry, innovations, and new protections for the citizenry;
--reduction in first responder grants to FEMA raises the question as to whether that agency will be there in adequate force when natural disasters strike (which could be anywhere, just like Hurricane Irene!);
--job-training programs will be cut and consolidated across 12 agencies which means that they will inadequately train for special needs and requirements, so don’t count on job training programs being helpful in your search for a new job or career!
--Community Development Funds to rehab houses in low-income neighborhoods, the Public Housing Capital Fund depended on for repairs to public housing, and the HOPE IV program that aims to revamp severely distressed public housing, are all on the chopping block, so look out if you are one of millions who can’t afford other than public housing;
--add to this attack on low-income persons who live in public housing: cuts in the WIC program that provides food and formula for low-income families, cuts in the federal COPS program that helps local police develop crime-fighting strategies and technologies, or millions in cuts from programs that help juveniles avoid the criminal justice system, and you have a recipe for disaster, especially in low-income communities;
--and what do you think will happen to the high-speed rail under those cut-thirsty Republicans, or to the rest of our infrastructure?
--public education is going to be headed toward demolition with an emphasis on charter schools, billions of cuts to school districts with needy students, cuts in Title I grants, and inevitable cutting away of Head Start, as well as the destruction of the federal Department of Education;
--and then there’s health care:  destruction of Medicare and Medicaid, and repeal of the recent health care Act would be inevitable, but there’s more: diminishment of community health centers, cuts in grants to states to enroll more children in the CHIP program, and of course the phase-out of funding for Planned Parenthood.

Is this the kind of nation you really want?  If not, stop being bamboozled by the radical Right-wing, and wake up to reality.  There is existing legislation proposed, or already passed, in the House of Representatives that will force their particular views on the majority, implement draconian cuts to national government structure and many more of its programs, within a very short period of time.    

The Republican Master Plan is to move this country “Back(ward) to the Future” by imposing immediate austerity measures.  If voters put Republicans in control of all branches of  the federal government in 2012, we will quickly become a nation similar to what we were in the early 20th century (or even the late 19th century) because of their backward-trending (“regressive”) actions, described above.

That was a time when efforts by religious communities and other non-profit organizations were all that were available to take care of the poor, the homeless, the sick, orphans, widows and the elderly because government-sponsored programs were inadequate or non-existent.  Those past efforts by humanitarian agencies were commendable, but too many social needs and problems were not addressed, large numbers of people fell through the cracks, and many lives were adversely affected. While non-profits still have a vital role to play, their efforts will be entirely insufficient given the expanding needs in this century.

The negative stance of Republicans toward government aid programs will essentially shred the social safety net, forcing millions of fellow citizens into uncertain and inadequate situations.  That policy was not sufficient in by-gone days, and it definitely won’t work now!  National problems involving our most vulnerable citizens require strong federal solutions, not negative and inadequate responses! 

Don’t allow a minority of radical conservatives to force their distorted views on the rest of us!  Challenge their policies now or regret it later!

Just Think of How It Could Be….

Just think: if a Republican from the current gaggle of GOP presidential candidates is actually elected President of the United States, and Republicans keep the House and re-take the Senate, we can look forward to seeing some things we haven’t seen in a long time, and which we will regret! 

--The Destruction of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as well as many other programs that assist the broad middle class, as well as the poor and those with special needs;
--Global warming exacerbated and air pollution near industrial areas unregulated enough to cause increased lung diseases, especially in children
--Health insurance returned to levels that exclude significant numbers; that restores high premiums, poor coverage, penalties for pre-existing conditions, and drug prices that spiral completely out-of-control
--A national government that is dependent on state development of safety-net programs that because of state economic troubles, will be entirely inadequate;
--A return to the time when individuals, churches and other religious communities and non-profit organizations had to take care of the poor, the homeless, the sick, the orphan, those with physical and mental handicaps, the widow and the elderly because government-sponsored programs were entirely inadequate or non-existent;
--A return to segregated “neighborhood” schools and the further diminishment of a national public school system;
--A federal government so denuded of funding and power that robber-barons in industry take over virtual control of all aspects of people’s lives;
--A time when women who chose to abort a pregnancy were either harmed in the attempt by amateur abortionists or faced arrest along with sympathetic doctors
--A return to the militancy of the last century that sees America’s military might as the key to its hegemony throughout the world.  As was true of the Cold War era, American militarists exhibit: a belief in a contest between good and evil; a tendency not to use reason, but to spread alarm; to freely concoct dangers when real ones are unavailable; to exaggerate others’ power, and an impulse to create monsters where none exist. They disparage not only the agencies of diplomacy but disparage diplomacy itself. 
--The Department of Defense budget will be swollen to obese proportions; the funding of overblown and unnecessary weapons systems will be perpetuated and enhanced in order to give lucrative contracts to certain corporations (and thus to individuals) who have been “supportive” of Republican (and Democratic) career politicians who generally represent conservative (militarist) viewpoints.  President Eisenhower’s warning about the “military-industrial complex” is all too relevant!

While over-spending on defense, Republicans will do as they have so often done: ignore or diminish the amount of help and aid given to veterans, and those returning immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan.  Why?  Because their ideology which is ever-so-strong on national defense is ever-so-weak on supporting government programs which assist those who need a helping hand.  Their mantra is simple: let those with problems find their own means of solving them; we can’t have the government giving hand-outs to everyone in need. 

“Remember Michele Bachmann’s attempted $4 billion cut from disabled veterans compensation? Well, ‘they’re ba-ack…’ Except this time they are looking to cut away at our VA healthcare.
Republican Paul Ryan and the House of Representatives are looking to end VA healthcare for over 1.3 million veterans who are Priority 7 & 8. These veterans are the least disabled veterans using the system, usually with disability ratings of 0 percent or no service-connected disability. According to the Congressional Budget Office “Option 35,” the cuts would leave 130,000 veterans with no healthcare alternative. This means veterans with conditions not recognized by the VA, like certain diseases from Agent Orange exposure, would have to pay for healthcare out of pocket if they had no other service connected disability.
“Currently, the VA spends over $4 billion yearly to treat these vets, despite co-pays intended to offset the expense. Ryan’s cuts are intended to save $6 billion off the VA’s tab and $62 billion over the next 10 years. Instead of merely increasing the co-pay or taxing Wall Street, Congress wants to just cut your benefits out, all together.”
(From www.disabledveterans.org by Ben Krause)

And so, let us count the ways that the Republican contrarians will fail to support our long-time and short-term veterans of foreign wars:

--they will neglect the VA hospital and treatment system, as they have done many times before, most recently under George W. Bush, when Walter Reed Army Hospital came under much scrutiny for its terrible conditions and treatment of our injured men and women in uniform;
--they will minimize, and cut funding for, the treatment for mental disorders that plague so many of our returning warriors; they will scoff at diagnoses of TSD and TBI and “battle fatigue” because they believe in their heart-of-hearts that many of these cases are just “faking” it, or are just not strong enough to overcome their problems, or are trying to avoid being sent on another tour of duty;
--they will never produce a G.I. bill that helps young vets with college or technical training; that helps with finding a job; that supports their families in times of need; that supports low-income housing and housing maintenance;
--moreover, they will continue to cut or diminish programs like food stamps, unemployment compensation, college loans and grants, housing loans, home heating, affordable health insurance, that could be of help to some of these young families;
-- they will use the machinery of government to engage in wars that are futile and costly, not only in terms of human life but in terms of resources and treasure, while sacrificing bright young lives to their bellicose attempts to preserve the honor and position of our nation when neither are at stake;
--they will make use of government bureaucrats and appointees to discourage veterans from completing training or rehabilitation that is costly.  Here’s Ben Krause again:

“The following is a list of a few of most common fish stories given by Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors to deny veterans access to Chapter 31 benefits:
1. Veterans with high disability ratings usually fail to complete their training.
2. You cannot use Voc Rehab if you are Individually Unemployable (IU).
3. Veterans with families have a harder time completing their programs.
4. Voc Rehab will not pay for graduate school.
5. If you have a job, you do not qualify for Voc Rehab.
Lies – all lies. In a VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Training Module Study Plan…the majority of truths to the lies can be found. “
 
--they will in all likelihood, given their stand that states are closer to the people and that states can do a “better job“, consider the devolvement of responsibility (as they want to do with Medicaid) for the care of veterans to the states, in order to minimize the debt of the federal government; which will, of course, exacerbate the problem of providing adequate care for our veterans, which is a national problem and responsibility!

Is this what YOU want?  If it is, be sure to vote Republican because it’s becoming clearer from bills passed in the House, including Ryan’s Budget, that this is exactly what you will get!  On the other hand, if you believe that America stands for something better than this, you have no choice but to vote against right-wing Republicans!

Focus on Solving Present Problems

Republican conservatives have stolen the focus of national debate.  Rather than solving immediate problems like unemployment and loss of housing, Congress -- and the White House -- are being held hostage to a manufactured problem: that of deficit spending and debt ceiling.  This is not unusual;  conservatives have often shifted the focus of national debate to the subject of deficit spending to avoid dealing with the real issues that confront the citizenry of this country. 

They did it in the 1940s when FDR tried to cap wages for the rich, and to increase the amount of taxes the rich had to pay in order to help pay for the War effort.  They did it again in the 1960s when LBJ was attempting to balance “Guns and Butter” trying to fight a war and forge a Great Society to address the needs of the poor and dispossessed as well as the inequities that existed between the races.  The battle over the deficit, culminating in a surcharge and spending cuts in 1968, ended Johnson’s efforts to build new social programs.  Ronald Reagan used the issue of deficit spending to rise to power, as did the congressional Republicans in the 1994 midterm elections.  And, of course, most recently, Republicans (and the Tea Partiers) have used dire warnings about deficits to curtail President Obama’s progressive agenda.  The terrible irony is, of course, that Republicans -- like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush -- have a terrible record when it comes to balancing the budget!

One can address this tendency of Republican conservatives to derail progressive agendas by their dire predictions and warnings about deficit spending, in several ways.  One would be to point out that FDR learned from his 1937-38 acceptance of reducing the deficit as important to righting the Depression economy that not only didn’t it work, it created chaos.  FDR’s reversal to large deficit spending in order to stimulate jobs and housing and individual welfare, along with his early pre-war and war years spending (and his insistence on higher taxes, particularly on the rich) helped to create a robust economic recovery as well as a successful war effort, besides creating a broadly prosperous middle class.     

But I want to go in an entirely different direction and pick up a thread of thought that I have mentioned before.  Both Republicans and Democrats tend to want to focus their attention on ideology rather than on problems to be solved.  And, unfortunately, they often do this by focusing attention on predictions of future consequences rather than on the necessity of present-day problem-solving.  They also have a recurring tendency to “kick the can down the road” so they can avoid making decisions that are needed in the present.

It is my contention that the Congress and the White House need to devote themselves to living “in the present” rather than trying to live in the future.  One caveat to this opinion: laying the groundwork for future problem-solving while solving present-day problems is not the same as trying to predict the future and then trying to resolve those predicated problems.

What do I advocate?  I suggest that we concentrate our efforts on solving problems confronting us right now, with a problem-solving method.  Although I am no expert in this realm, I have had training and experience in the matter, which is probably more than can be said for the majority of members of Congress and the Executive branch.

So, putting aside the issue of deficit spending for the moment, what is the major problem that the American people have identified in most polls?  This is really the first step in problem-solving: to identify the problem(s) to be solved.  Sometimes this requires research into what people are saying, or probative questioning that helps identify and  narrow the problem.  In some cases, a problem needing to be addressed is quite clear.  I would venture to say, in the present case, that it is JOBs.  Many would say that the problem is that “there are no jobs,” or that they “can’t find a job,” or that “jobs are scarce,” or that “no one is hiring.”   Certainly we can take from this that the jobs problem is multi-faceted, so that in order to deal with the issue of jobs, we must define the problems more carefully.

That is the second major step of problem-solving: defining the problem(s) in a precise manner in order to propose precise solutions that speak to the exact problem rather than to something else (Congress has a penchant for dealing with diversionary or secondary problems, although some special Commissions have approached a more exact standard).

Let’s take a stab at defining one of the problems (all stats are made-up): 
“People can’t find jobs in the electronics field because they need training.” Too general.

“It is estimated that 2.3 million people cannot find jobs in electronics because they are lacking in the requisite skills.”  Not precise enough.

“One million people in the New England states cannot find jobs in the electronics industry because they lack skills in computer programming, electronics manufacture, or use of software programs.” Probably much better: it quantifies the problem, specifies a location, and identifies the skills needed.  Someone more versed in this problem might be able to be more specific, but hopefully you get the idea.

At this point, or even before this point while trying to clarify the problem, the problem-solvers may need to research the problem further by doing some fact-finding.  Congress and Executive advisers could be very helpful in this step, but so can many other experts and ordinary citizens.  During this step, breaking a larger problem into smaller, more precise, problems may become necessary.

Once a problem to be addressed is clearly defined, the next step is to: generate as many potential solutions as possible.   (By the way, here is where the myriad of committees in Congress could be most useful - gathering the potential solutions to a specific problem from experts and ordinary citizens).  The key to this step is to avoid premature judgments of the efficacy of any proposed solution, but to allow as much freedom of expression as possible.  The winnowing occurs later.  Ways of generating solution ideas ranges from brain-storming to surveying people’s opinions.  Another possibility is to try to view the problem from other perspectives than one’s own.

Here are a few possible (partial) solutions just to illustrate this step:

-Send a block grant to the identified states to assist in job training in electronics
-Get electronics manufacturers to offer training sessions to interested citizens
-Have specific electronics companies offer internships
-Arrange government contracts with private trainers to offer computer training and use of software
-Expand use of community colleges to teach computer skills
-Identify government and social service agencies where citizen volunteers can be trained in computer skills
-Use AmeriCorps and Teacher Corps members to train cadres of people in local communities in computer skills

This list, of course, could go on and on as possible solutions are solicited.  Notice that no one suggestion is the “ideal” solution.  As one brainstorms with a group, one discovers many facets that were previously unknown or hidden; in fact, some seemingly impractical or naïve solutions may trigger good ones!  The power of this step is incalculable, and leads one to the conclusion that it is often not a good idea to seek one solution to a problem, but to concentrate one’s efforts in several directions. 

If Congress were to take such an approach as its modus operandi, there might need to be a limited time frame proposed for such “solution-gathering”.  Another caveat:  Congress already does some of this solution-gathering through committee hearings on proposed bills and on budget authorizations and appropriations.  But too often, the solutions have already been proposed and they are seeking agreement, but are so committed to an ideology that any conflicting advice is quickly dismissed as irrelevant.  That is why, too often, only witnesses sympathetic to the majority view are called to appear; others are simply ignored.  

The final step in this definition of the problem and possible solutions is: to choose (and evaluate) the most viable alternatives/solutions.  Not an easy task because all kinds of obstacles can present themselves in the form of prejudices, ignorance, lack of experience, and ideologies.  So this is the most likely place for some ground rules and for civil debate, and for a willingness to see the good in proposals that may not conform entirely to one’s pre-conceived notions! 

Some groups, at this point, study the meaning of the word “consensus” (a process by which a group consents to a proposal even though there may still be some individual dissent or concern. “Compromise” may be a factor in this but there is more likely the sense that acceptance is based on a greater good that may be achieved).  Diversion from the topic, name-calling, ideological rants, irrationalities, narcissism, blocking, unsubstantiated facts or opinions, and other negative behaviors are ruled out-of-bounds so that the group can proceed with its task of choosing viable alternatives.

Such choice can be done in more than one way and often the group chooses its own process.  Three possible procedures: eliminate those solutions that are glaringly unworkable and then assign a ranking to the rest; or, rank all solutions by voting; or, rank only those items the group feels are most workable.  Groups or committees often employ a combination of procedures to get the best results.

Some other criteria:
-it is important that solutions chosen speak directly to the defined problem
-it is necessary that each chosen solution be viable and doable
-it may be helpful to seek outside expert advice when a particular proposal needs greater definition or there is a need to resolve deep conflicts
-it is requisite that every chosen solution be backed-up with sound research and argument and with group consensus; every member of the group should be able to defend the choices, even though some reservations may still be held.  Minority opinion and concerns should always be reported in order to protect the integrity of the process and the outcomes of the debates/choices.

Therefore, some evaluation of the top ideas is necessary at this point to test whether each is good enough to consider using.  Will it offer a big-enough benefit?  Where could things go wrong - are there too many high risks?  What will be the consequences of implementing a particular chosen solution?  What pressures will be brought against it; can they be addressed?  Is it worth implementing from a financial perspective?  Some groups use a testing or demonstration procedure here so that one or more solutions can be “tried out” in a limited way before full implementation.

Now that the group or committee has gone through this problem-solving process, their work is not done.  The most difficult process is yet to come, and that is: planning for implementation.  More on that in a future Blog, but right now a few points need to be made in conclusion:

-this is a technique that can be taught and learned; even for members of Congress!
-Unfortunately, I cannot find much of this kind of training being done (there is one small contract let by the Labor Department for such training)
-this is a technique that is a continuous circle not a straight-line process; once a solution is implemented, a cycle of evaluation and improvement must kick-in; something much needed in government
-this problem-solving method has the potential to change the way Congress and the Executive branch operate.
- why do we tolerate anything less from those who govern?

Is President Obama a “Lightweight”?

When I was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, I said to my spouse:  “this guy Obama seems like a lightweight.  I’m not sure he has what it takes to be a strong President.”  I stuck with Hillary until almost the end when I switched my support to Obama because her campaign was making too many wrong moves.  I thought he might be “ the one” after all.  After the latest debacle surrounding the debt ceiling, and his “compromises” with Republicans over debt reduction and spending cuts, I have to ask again, is he a lightweight?  (Even if he is,  I’m glad he made history -- we needed that!).

On the one hand, the evidence points to a verdict that the President is indeed a lightweight.  Let me count the ways:

1)    He had little experience with governing.  Yes, he was an Illinois State Senator for three terms.  Yes, he served in the US Senate from 2004 to 2009.  Yes, he worked as a lawyer and a professor and a community organizer.  But, he had little experience as an Executive who had to confront challenges, mobilize people to address those challenges, and then carry through on implementing concepts, programs, policies, etc., to meet those challenges.  Maybe that’s why Senators have such a hard time becoming President.  Governing is a whole lot different than campaigning!

2)    He veered from the obvious path of needing to deal with jobs and housing to dealing with health care.  A huge mistake that still has not been rectified.

3)    Then he failed to lead the way on health care.  His extreme caution in not producing a carefully thought-out plan for health care plus his insistence that Congress construct the plan(s), led to a debacle over that summer.  The lack of a clear plan to be discussed and debated helped lead to the distortions that Republicans and Tea Partiers put forth into the minds of the electorate by cherry-picking from various bills that were then on the table. 

    What’s worse is that he didn’t learn from this mistake.  Instead, he did the same thing with the 2012 budget plan and with the latest debt-reduction plan.  He let Paul Ryan lead the way, instead of pushing his own agenda.  He let the Republicans define the debate by insisting on spending cuts before the debt ceiling could be raised.  He let the Congress do the heavy-lifting, and that meant that the Tea Partiers took over the debate and the initiative.  Strong Presidents propose plans and legislation, and then they work with Congress to influence the outcome.

4)    He failed to stand-up for the most progressive part of the health care plan which was the public option, which he touted and then abandoned when the pressure from the Right, and from Democrat defectors got too hot.  This was the first indication for many progressives that he was not the strong advocate we thought he was.  This decision diluted the bill so much that both the positive and negative parts that remained could not get a fair hearing.  The public favored a public option throughout the debate simply because so many needed it, and the President abandoned them in the name of compromise.  “Capitulation” would be a more accurate term, and this was the beginning demonstration of this very trait.

5)    The “Stimulus Package” was ill-advised in that it did not address strongly enough the needs for help with housing and jobs.  It was characterized as helping Wall Street and not Main Street.  Obama did not take the opportunity to explain thoroughly what the plan was meant to accomplish, nor what it was achieving.  For many, it did not appear that the stimulus package was strong enough; it needed even greater funding to address the prevalent problems that people were facing.  It was also not transparent: the administration failed to get the provisions out to the people; it was even difficult to find it online.  Not only was the initial phase ill-explained, but the accomplishments were almost ignored.  There should have been a cadre within the White House with no other mission than to explain what was happening with that legislation, and to keep the public up-to-date on it.

6)    From 2009 through 2010, the President failed to use the majority in the House and Senate to his advantage. The Democratic Caucus was contentious and scrambled, as usual, and the need for strong leadership in this regard was practically ignored.  Would Lyndon Johnson have allowed maverick Democrats to get away with defying him on major issues, like health care or the Stimulus?  You better believe he would not.  He would have brow-beat them over the phone or in his office until they whimpered. Would Harry Truman have given in to the idea that the Generals should tell him what to do in either Iraq or Afghanistan?  Remember General MacArthur?  He tried to tell old Harry what to do about China and he got fired!  Obama failed to use the Democratic majority to pass strong legislation on housing, health care, and jobs, and waited until the lame duck session in late 2010 to push Congress a bit! Guess what? It was definitely too late!

7)    The President has been characterized as “Bush Lite”.  
--carried out the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan (with a surge for the latter as Bush did for the former)
--threw the military at the problem of violence against protestors in Libya just as Bush did with Iraq (to get Hussein).  
--failed to address the “Arab Spring” just as Bush ignored the Palestinian problem
--carried through the stimulus for Wall Street and corporations from the Bush administration instead of moving ahead on his own to ensure that main street got substantial help
--just as Bush appointed Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, to be his Treasury Secretary, so Obama appointed Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to be his Treasury Secretary.  Both were strongly connected to Wall Street and both continued an emphasis on big business as the recipients of government largesse, known as “corporate welfare”.
--Obama continued the Bush approach to terrorism by extending the some adverse parts of the Patriot Act
--has done nothing about abandoning Leave No Child Behind Act
--actually approved more domestic oil drilling, but no definitive legislation to get us off foreign oil
--responded slowly to the oil leak in the Gulf just as Bush did to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina
--worst of all, Obama has become Bush Lite, or at least Republican-like, in his attitude toward cutting discretionary spending and debt reduction, instead of investment and use of government to establish jobs

Does all this mean that Progressives should abandon President Obama in 2012?  It does not.  First of all, he has done many good things, among them: 

-He got Osama bin laden!
-Saved the collapse of the American automotive industry by making GM restructure before bailing them out, and putting incentive money to help the industry
-$789 billion economic stimulus plan and a housing rescue plan
-Appointed the nation's first Chief Technology Officer
-Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of Federal employees
-Expanded hate crime law to include sexual orientation through the Hate Crimes Prevention Act
-Added 4.6 Billion USD to the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals
-Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
-Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
-Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
-Tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage
-Health Care Reform Bill, preventing insurance companies from denying insurance because of pre-existing condition
(Ninety more Obama administration accomplishments, in brief, can be found at www.3chicspolitico.com) 

Secondly, the immediate alternative is deadly.  The Republicans and Tea Partiers are on a path of destruction with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in their sights.  But make no mistake, they are after much more than that.  They want to dismantle unions as well as the federal government; they want to cut out all vestiges of the New Deal, the Great Society, and all special programs that aid the poor and disabled beyond the three mentioned above: the WIC program, heat subsidies, food stamps, SSI and, of course, Obama’s health care plan.  And these are just a few examples; there are many more.  They won’t tell you what they are, but their strategy with cuts and caps is to starve them to death where they can’t just eliminate them!

They are  hell-bent on reducing the size of government.  But that is a shibboleth for returning as much power as possible to the states, and making national government impotent.  Take Ryan’s plan for Medicaid.  Devolving it to the States is nothing more than a way to gut it, because states can’t afford the costs to keep it solvent and effective for the many children and persons with disabling conditions that it is meant to serve. 

Is there another alternative?  Not really, unless the Democratic Party wants to risk defeat by having a primary that will exhaust needed funds for a national election, and a divided party that won’t be able to win. 

Barack Obama remains as our only hope, but he needs to demonstrate a change from lightweight to stout.  He needs to present a vision for the next four years, for this decade, and for the foreseeable future.  He needs to become what the Constitution intended: not a compromiser or capitulator, but a co-equal partner in the governing of this country.  If Congress (or the Judiciary, for that matter) has gotten it wrong, he must stand up and confront them as a co-equal.  In fact, his penchant for not confronting his power-rivals is his worst trait, for he betrays the uniqueness of our Constitution: its checks and balances.  Compromise is not necessarily what the Constitution always calls for, and I disagree that that is the only outcome that the framers aimed for.  It is not.  The Constitution granted certain powers to each branch of our government, and power is not a dirty word.  Power must be exercised by each branch in an appropriate and effective manner, and the bland use of the same, or the reluctant use of the same, is as dangerous as its overuse or its abuse.

Above all, Barack Obama, the constitutional law professor, must indicate how he will use his power and authority in his second term to the people’s advantage, or he will surely be the one-term President that the right-wing “destroyers” wish him to be.  Need some guidance, Mr. President?  You could do worse than taking the Progressive Caucus’s 2012 budget proposal (The People‘s Budget), as a model for action.

[for more on outlines for action, see the blog for July 31st at www.citizenvox.org/2011/07/31/by-popular-demand-robert-weissman-debt-ceiling-irrationality/> 
and my Blog for April 10, 2010]

SICK and TIRED

Sorry, but I’m sick and tired of the lies and false alternatives and misleading agendas of the politicians in Washington (and elsewhere for that matter).  For instance, I hear cut, cut, cut spending; that government is too big; that it needs to be made smaller.

Bamboozled!!  Government can be dysfunctional and non-effective whether it is big or small!  The politicians, as so often, are on the wrong track!  And, they continue to bamboozle all of us with their fabricated rhetoric. 

The debacle just concluded - passing a bill that raises the debt limit of the United States government - is a prime example of what’s wrong with government: the process of making decisions is unwieldy, problem-solving is non-existent, and compromise is a joke!

Republicans believe that changing the discussion from stimulus spending to cutting spending is a great victory.  It isn’t.  There is no victory here, because the public policy favored by radical right-wingers is detrimental to real lives of real people.  Cutting spending without considering its effects upon people’s lives is draconian.  Cutting spending without a rational basis is akin to anarchy.  Cutting spending without knowing what or why is illogical.  Cutting spending without defining problems to be solved is idiotic.

On the other hand, Democrats are equally to blame for not defining problems, solutions, alternatives, goals and objectives, and limits for any and all increases in spending.  Too many “projects” are just simply that: self-aggrandizing programs and projects meant to feather someone’s nest or to enhance someone’s chances to get re-elected. 

Politicians are politicians - no matter to which party they adhere - and public service is fast becoming an anachronism.

The point is: reform of government is the answer, not irrational spending cuts with no basis behind them except political gain and political ideology.  Reform and re-structuring are not options; they are necessities to keep institutions responsive, innovative and democratic.  Here, in no particular order, are some ideas related to reforming the political system:

1)    We must amend the Constitution in order to change the system fundamentally; there is no other choice.
   
    In an earlier blog, dated June 20, 2010, I proposed amendments establishing term limits, public funding of elections, broadening citizen participation in auditing and evaluating government programs, contracts, etc.  Also proposed: a new method for constitutional amendment; an end to the Senate’s cloture super-majority requirement; closing of the revolving door from public service to private sector; prevention of gifts and contributions to members of Congress; limits on budget earmarks; no exemptions for congress from any legislation they pass; non-partisan commissions to draw congressional district lines.
   
    With all the Republican emphasis lately on a balanced budget amendment, it must be said that such an amendment imposes a restriction on Executive branch governance that is not balanced or checked.  Therefore, it is my contention that a balanced budget amendment must be coupled with an amendment allowing a line item veto for the President.  One without the other is contrary to the checks and balances principle of the constitution.

2)    There must be a re-examination of the purpose of all three branches of  government, and a definition of mission for all departments, units, committees, etc.

    What is the purpose of all those Congressional committees, commissions, sub-committees, joint committees, special committees.  Do they each have a clear mission? what outcomes do they expect?  Are their operations in line with their purposes?  Why do we have so many?  Are they no more than posturing opportunities, and occasions for being addressed as “Mister or Madam Chairman?” 

3)    Problem-solving techniques must be taught in depth to all members of Congress and to Executive branch members, along with group process training, so that meetings, hearings, and sessions can be places to define and resolve problems, not places to posture and bluster and politicize.  

4)    We must return to Zero-based budgeting, and define what exact problem or problems are being addressed by each appropriation.  Never mind the inane exercise pushed by Republicans that every piece of legislation must identify a constitutional basis.

5)    We must demand Sunset provisions on all tax increases and tax loopholes, old & new programs, contracts, commissions, special committees, etc.  There are very few programs or taxes or committees or contracts that have the same value or relevance after 3-5 years down the road.   

6)    We must have a process by which all contracts are executed based on problem-solving criteria.  No contract should be let without a yearly evaluation built in by which a determination is made as to whether that contractor is meeting goals/objectives and outcomes that were defined to solve problems.

7)    We must challenge the existence of political leadership positions in the Congress.  Instead, all leadership should be focused in the Speaker’s office and the office of the Senate’s President pro temp or another non-political office.  The Constitution does not allow for any other leadership positions based on party, although it does allow for other Officers.

Yes, this only scratches the surface.  Yes, reforming government is a huge undertaking. Yes, it seems almost impossible.  However, our immediate problem is not the future end-game, but the beginning steps in the present.  Where do we start?  For me the obvious place to start is amendment of the Constitution.  What do you think?