In Honor of Trayvon Martin

Today, I have suspended the usual writing of this Blog in honor of the life and memory of Trayvon Martin.

I write today as a father, who is feeling a loss unequal to the profound loss felt by Trayvon’s parents, but a feeling of a deep loss nonetheless.  Trayvon is, in some unfathomed sense, a son of every father and mother.

I write today as a grandfather, whose oldest grandson (almost 15) has within him the potential to change the world in a way that could benefit many, many people.  I feel that sense of potential in Trayvon who already had dreams that encompassed a sense of responsibility.  My grandson already has, and will undoubtedly continue to have, the opportunity to realize his potential; an outcome which Trayvon was denied, purportedly because he was attacked because of his race, which is a highly unlikely outcome for my grandson.  I am profoundly affected by the personal responsibility for all black boys and girls that such a statement carries within itself. 

I write today as a white man who carries within him all the stereotypes, misinformation, racial slurs, biases and irrational fears that many generations of white folks have visited upon each other and upon our society as a whole.  I have tried in my lifetime to reject, overcome and eschew these accretions.  At times I have been very successful; at other times, guilty of the same knee-jerk racism that affects us all.  Trayvon’s death is, in some sense, the fault of our very real failings to deal openly as a society with these internal, unspoken, hidden and involuntary racially-tinged motives and actions that prevent us from becoming the nation, and the individuals, we really want to be, and indeed, profess to be.

I write today as an outraged Progressive because of a law that can exist in our times, allowing people-with-guns to escape justice through provisions of that law that provide an automatic self-defense for those who stand their ground against aggressive acts.  There is a provision in that law that actually prevents law enforcement from apprehending a man like Zimmerman who shoots someone in supposed accordance with the provisions of the law.  The Koch brothers and the NRA apparently bear some responsibility for the existence of this law, and indeed for its outcomes, like the death of this young man.

I write today because there is no way to redeem the death of Trayvon.  But there is a way to redeem the moment, and to redeem his life, as a catalyst for all of us.  We can have a national discussion and forum about race.  We can focus on the well-being of our young black men and women.  We can raise the level of discourse between the races.  We can re-elect our first African-American President. We can decide to improve our justice system so that African-Americans are not targeted for prosecution and long jail terms.  We can improve our educational system, our health care, our housing opportunities.  And, we can find ways to target minorities for the jobs market to overcome their out-of-proportion unemployment.  All that, and more, is important, and must be done. 

But, we must target ourselves, above all:

To feel the loss of Trayvon as a loss for everyone of us;
To feel the loss of Trayvon as a potential loss for all of our society;
To feel a sense of personal responsibility for others in our society who are not “like us”;
To feel the interrelatedness that we have as human beings to every other human being on this planet.

And then, to act individually, and in concert with others, as though it is necessary to our survival -- as a nation of laws, and of equality, and of justice -- that we take upon ourselves and within ourselves, this life, this potential, this spirit in order to let this moment speak to the future.

I write today as one who must embrace Trayvon’s life as integral to my own,  and, as one who must abhor his death as though that death was to my own child.  May he rest in Peace, and may Light Perpetual shine upon him.

ACTION NEEDED ON WAR & GAS PRICES

It continues to amaze me that the White House can focus on the importance of illustrative actions on one topic, while at the same time not realize the importance to do the same in other areas.

To wit: on Tuesday, March 13^th, the President announced a legal action against China in an effort to show that the administration is active in that area of concern. Yet, at the same time, the administration announced “no change” in the scheduled draw-down of troops in Afghanistan, in spite of overwhelming support of the people for complete withdrawal.

The latest incident in Afghanistan of the killing of innocents by a single soldier, piled on top of the burning of Korans, and urination on deceased Taliban members, produced a storm of protests in Afghanistan against our presence there.

The New York Times reported just two days ago that President Karzai joined the protests in a sense by his remarks of late:

“They claim they burned Korans by mistake, but really those were “Satanic acts that will never be forgiven by apologies.”

The massacre of 16 Afghan children, women and men by an American soldier ‘was not the first incident, indeed it was the 100th, the 200th and 500th incident.’

Such harsh talk may sound as if it comes from the Taliban, but those are all remarks either made personally by the United States’ increasingly hostile ally here, President Hamid Karzai, or issued by his office in recent days and weeks.

The strongest such outburst came Friday. ‘Let’s pray for God to rescue us from these two demons,’ Mr. Karzai said, apparently holding back tears at a meeting with relatives of the massacre victims, and clearly referring to the United States and the Taliban in the same breath. ‘There are two demons in our country now’.”

To make thing worse, President Hamid Karzai on Thursday demanded a pullback of NATO troops from rural areas as part of a sped-up overall withdrawal.  Then on Friday Karzai lashed out and indicated that he was at the “end of the rope” because of the lack of U.S. cooperation into a probe of the killing spree allegedly carried out by an American soldier. Most recently, he made the remark that the withdrawal of American troops should be sped up so they are out by next year instead of 2014, and that his government is ready to take control.

In spite of this rather widespread negative reaction against us, the administration has failed to use it to increase our withdrawal of troops on a more rapid schedule. Instead, they opted to maintain the current withdrawal schedule and moved to get Karzai on the same page. 

Such failure to realize the importance of an illustrative political action in this arena is something that is just not understandable. Rather than announcing that the schedule would be maintained and that 43,000 troops will be coming home soon, the President should have announced an increase in that number (perhaps to 45,000), and a re-consideration of the timetable, simply to signal that the administration is listening to the people. A golden opportunity has been missed to show that the Obama Administration is as concerned about the people’s opposition to continuing this war, as about taking action against China.

Let’s take a moment to look again at Afghanistan through the prism of “the mission.” What was the original mission, anyway? Michael Rubin of Commentary magazine says that the mission was basically to “fill a vacuum.”

“If one strips away the mission creep and the sheer waste which USAID calls development… the reason we are in Afghanistan is because, prior to 9/11, a vacuum developed which terrorists filled and from which they reached out and struck us. Our goal in Afghanistan is to fill that vacuum. The way both the Bush and Obama administrations chose to do it is to rebuild the Afghan government so it fills that vacuum and to recreate the Afghan army and police so the Afghan security forces can monopolize the use of force inside Afghanistan.”

On such a basis, we are probably destined to be there almost forever since the Afghans have a tribal system that seems to feed that vacuum. It certainly seems to allow the Taliban to exist and to take over whatever government is outside a particular tribal chief’s family, clan, area. When the Taliban become a threat to a tribal chief, there is either a tribal war or a negotiated accommodation. Afghanistan is not known for even wanting a central government. So a NATO or US mission that has to do with building a strong central government is undoubtedly on the wrong track. Such a government is never going to rule the whole country or attain the allegiance of certain groups. Likewise, a mission built around creating an Afghan army, police force and security force is antithetical to the way that country is organized. Michael Rubin again:

“Along Afghanistan’s periphery, locals wanted governors who looked like them and spoke like them, not one of Karzai’s cronies. This clash between the local desire for bottom-up government and (a) system of top-down government haunts the mission.”

Some say that the original mission under Bush was simply to force Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and to root out the Taliban. When that was essentially completed, the mission changed. This is a big part of our problem: mission “creep.” What it is now, is not the same as it was to begin with. We have gone from defining and targeting the enemy that attacked us, to a nation-building scheme which we simply have no business doing when our own country is still on the ropes economically. As Wolf Blitzer reminds us: “The U.S. spends about $2 billion a week maintaining its presence in Afghanistan, or more than $100 billion a year. Spending another $300 billion in U.S. taxpayer money, so many experts now fear, probably won’t make much of a difference in the final outcome of this Afghan campaign.”

The mission has not only “crept” and changed, it has become impossible to achieve. Romney has said that we should not let an unfortunate incident change our mission or our resolve. This is not the only incident, and they are a compendium of reasons for getting out of that country: urinating on civilians; burning Korans; killing of innocents and, do not forget—the suicide rate amongst our own troops is rising! We knew going in that Afghanistan was a graveyard for occupying forces. The French found it out; the Russians were awed by the reaction to them; the British have felt the sting. Now NATO and the US get to take their turn, unless we simply get out and let the chips fall where they may.

We keep hearing from those who want to “win”; from those who fear what will happen when we leave; from those who believe in honor. Winning wars is not all it’s cracked up to be, and this country has always suffered some unseen consequence because of its many wars. The same vacuum that existed before we went in will recur as will the same chaos. It is not our destiny or purpose to save and revive every country. Afghanistan must enter the 21^st century; then it can begin life anew for itself. It is a long way from that end. There is no honor in going any further because the so-called mission is without merit.

Nor is there ‘honor’ in what is happening to our returning warriors who took part in these wars. For example, some service members return from the Middle East with Constrictive Bronchiolitis; other US veterans who served in Afghanistan and Iraq often experience effects of war long after their return and the mental effects war can have on a soldier have risen over the years, the most familiar now known as PTSD. The most recent study from the DOD Task Force on Mental Health indicated that 38% of active duty soldiers, 31% of active duty Marines, and 49% of returning National Guard troops reported psychological symptoms.

All veterans must readjust when they come home from war. It's harder for some than others, and it can be even harder for women; there are also effects of war on spouses and children of veterans. Spouses of veterans with PTSD are at increased risk for experiencing psychological and relationship distress. The divorce rate among military couples has increased 42 percent throughout the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a recent study shows. And last but surely not least, it appears as though more U.S. soldiers have taken their own lives than have died in combat in Afghanistan (from the invasion up until this past summer). Add to this the ravages of homelessness and joblessness, and we have an accretion of horrendous unintended consequences, and horrible effects, that are overwhelming.

A recent Washington Post article by Eugene Robinson concludes on an important note:

“Public opinion in this country is increasingly fed up with the war. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 60 percent of Americans believe the war has not been worth the blood and treasure we’ve expended. Fifty-five percent of those polled believe most Afghans are opposed to what we are trying to accomplish in their country, and 54 percent say we should withdraw our troops even before the Afghan army is trained to be ‘self-sufficient’. The poll was taken before Sunday’s massacre. Imagine what the response would be if those questions were asked today.

“This is supposed to be a period of transition from U.S. occupation to Afghan government control. But what do we expect to accomplish between now and 2014, when our troops are supposed to come home? We can be confident that the Afghan government will still be feckless and corrupt. We can anticipate that the Afghan military will still lack personnel, equipment and training. We can be absolutely certain that the Taliban insurgents will still constitute a threat, because — and this is what gung-ho advocates of the war fail to grasp — they live there. To them, Afghanistan is not a battlefield but a home. It’s their country, not ours. In increasingly clear language, Afghans are telling us to leave. We should listen and oblige.”

It is clear on many fronts that we need to get out sooner!  The current schedule of withdrawal is completely inadequate.  The administration needs to act NOW!

The White House is missing another golden opportunity in terms of the need for illustrative actions on gas prices. Of course, the President is not responsible for gas price fluctuations. On the other hand, he is perceived by many people as being responsible, and the polls show that the people think he is not doing enough about it. That perception must be addressed by steps that show he is concerned and taking action. While such actions may not totally resolve the problem of high gas prices, the people will perceive that he is trying, and that is very important. I offer a few suggestions to a White House that is going down the wrong path in trying to convince the people that the White House can’t do anything about gas prices. That may essentially be true, but the people want something to happen – almost anything – and the Administration must keep that in mind and make some moves that address the problem.

I offer the following as ingredients for such a possible plan:

-- limited use of national emergency reserves to increase the amount of gas and oil available

--curbing of Wall Street speculation on gas & oil to any extent possible

--agreements with Saudi Arabia and other countries for increased production and export to this country

--speeding up environmental study of the pipeline from Canada and accelerating its scheduled construction

--a possible freeze (June 1^st until Labor Day) on federal gasoline taxes at the pumps; also get agreement from oil companies not to raise prices a comparable amount

--announce opening of new domestic drilling contracts

--speed up increase of MPG standards for cars & trucks

--suggest possibility of putting caps on gas prices in time of war

--initiate rationing for the largest users of gasoline, like corporate fleets; alternately, companies can be encouraged to actually save a lot of money by making fairly minor improvements in the way that their fleet operations are handled.

--announcement of current R&D attempts to find safer ways to extract natural gas; announce other forward movement on alternate energy sources, such as a new approach to cooling that fits the transformed workings of a compressor onto a circuitry board the size of a credit card; algae that’s been cultivated creating hydrocarbons that can be used as fuel, or the completion of a lithium-ion battery with nearly three times the storage capacity of current state-of-the art batteries used in hybrid cars.

--re-institute a national speed limit of 55 miles per hour to save on gas consumption

--encourage everyone to conserve and to use less gas, where possible

There are all kinds of actions that can be taken to exemplify concern, but they must be taken soon to demonstrate this President’s ability to rally the nation once again. We cannot allow the economy to slip back into a deep recession. Take action NOW!

What Will We Make of It?

On April 26, 1777, while serving in the Continental Congress and fretting over the war-at-hand, John Adams took some time to write “ his dearest friend” and wife, Abigail.  After pouring out concerns over his health and lack of news from Europe, and lack of replenishment of General Washington’s troops by Massachusetts soldiers, he expressed some deep frustration:

   “Posterity!  You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom!  I hope you will make a good Use of it.  If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

We are the Posterity to whom Adams spoke so long ago.  And now, we have to ask ourselves: What use will we make of the Constitution?  As if to answer that question, R.B. Bernstein, in The Founding Fathers Reconsidered, had this to say:

   “The Preamble’s statement that the primary purpose of the Constitution was to ‘form a more perfect Union’… suggests the framers’ recognition that the Constitution not only was improving on the Union as defined by the Articles of Confederation, but that both it and the Union were capable of further improvement.  Indeed, during the ratification controversy many supporters of the Constitution invoked the amending process codified in that document’s Article V as a mechanism for repairing defects in the original Constitution.  With this remedy available…the Constitution’s backers described the choice before the American people as between the hope of future good and no hope at all.”

In a 1987 address on the bicentennial celebration of the Constitution, Associate Justice, Thurgood Marshall, declined to share the ‘complacent belief’ that the vision of a ‘more perfect Union’ had already come to pass. 

    “I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention.  To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government…we hold as fundamental today.”

He then concluded:

   “We will see that the true miracle was not the birth of the Constitution, but its life, a life nurtured through two turbulent centuries of our own making….I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.”

Finally, newly elected President, Barack Obama, in his 2008 election victory speech, put it this way:

   “That’s the true genius of America, that America can change.  Our Union can be perfected.  And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”

It is in that spirit that I once again present possible amendments to our Constitution in a different format and amended wording than seen in my Blog of June 20, 2010.  Knowing that my language does not always meet a legal level of acceptance, I nonetheless am hopeful that I am capturing the hopes of many Americans that we can change for the better and add to the perfection of the Union.

Thus, I am presenting here amendments that have to do with reform of the electoral process, reform of Congress, enhancement of citizen participation in government and a basic reform of the amendment process itself that allows for the citizenry to initiate constitutional amendments.  In light of the contention over the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, and the subsequent proposals existing for an amendment that would overturn the designation of corporations as individuals with all the rights of individuals, I would say that my approach has been less to do with the personhood of corporations and more to do with the coercive power of corporate and other entities who seek to fashion government and governmental laws and processes to their advantage and control.  This is not to say that the various suggestions for repealing Citizens United in amendments should not be incorporated into my own approach.  They probably should; but I stand firm in my belief that any such amendment should incorporate a restriction of their power to influence elections and governmental operations.

With that said, let me also interject that the latest attempts by radical Republicans to abrogate various rights of women, is reason enough to revive talk of an amendment specifically devoted to women’s rights and issues, in my opinion.  The Equal Rights Amendment with amplifications would seem about right in this poisonous atmosphere, Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding.

AMENDMENT XXVIII
Amendments to this Constitution

Section 1.     The Congress, upon direct citizen petition by at least one-fourth of the population of one-third of the several states, or, on passage of ballot propositions in one-half of the several States, shall, in a timely manner, propose such amendments to this Constitution as are contained in said petitions or propositions; or, shall call a convention for proposing such amendments; which amendments shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution when ratified in a manner prescribed by this Constitution.

Section 2.     Members of a Constitutional Convention shall be chosen by special election  in the several states, with the proviso that no more than one-fourth of the delegate nominees may currently hold an elective or appointive government office.  No Delegate nominee shall be associated in any way with paid or compensated lobbying organized for the purpose of influencing governmental legislation or operation at any level.

Section 3.    Congress shall determine the number of Convention delegates allowed from each state, based on each state’s current congressional representation or an equitable proportion thereof.

AMENDMENT XXIX
Election Reform

Section 1.    All campaigns for federal elective Office shall be financed by funds drawn from the Treasury in consequence of appropriations made by law, and by individual citizen contributions, but may not be funded by any corporate or organized entity.

Section 2.    Congress shall set strict limitations for individual contributions, and shall prescribe maximum limits for governmental expenditures allowed for each contested primary or general election for Office.

Section 3.    All campaign materials, including public advertisements, shall be authorized and financed by each candidate, utilizing contributions allowed under Section 1.  No campaign materials or advertisements may be sponsored or financed by a third party, or by any corporate or other organized entity.

Section 4.    Each State shall regulate the campaigns and elections to state and local offices in accordance with the provisions of this amendment.

Section 5.    Congress shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXX
Abolition of Gifts to Members of Government

Section 1.    No member of the Congress, of the Executive branch, or of the Judiciary shall solicit, accept or receive any compensation, special privilege, emolument, gift, in-kind contribution, or any other form of contribution from any individual, corporation or organized entity, for personal, official or elective purposes, or as an incentive to influence the outcome of particular legislation, oversight function, committee process, regulation, contract or judiciary decision.

Section 2.    Any member of government found to be in violation of this provision shall be removed from currently held office, and shall be ineligible to seek any elective or appointive governmental office in the future.

Section 3.    The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXXI
Term Limits

Section 1.    Term of office for members of the House of Representatives shall be limited to four full terms of  three years each, or a cumulative total of twelve years; excepting, that if a member is appointed to fill a term to which some other person was elected, the first year of that partial term shall not be counted toward this total tenure.

Section 2.    No person shall  be elected to the Office of Senator for more than two full terms of six years each, or a cumulative total of twelve years; excepting that, if a person is appointed to fill a term to which some other person was elected, up to two years of that partial term shall not be counted toward this total tenure.

Section 3.    Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, but shall not serve for more than a cumulative total of 20 years.

AMENDMENT XXXII
Limitations on the Congress

Section 1.    Neither House of Congress shall make any rule or provision that allows for other than a majority vote on legislation, resolutions, rules of order, Executive appointments, proceedings, or parliamentary procedures, except as ordered by this Constitution.

Section 2.    Members of Congress shall make no provision in, or attached to, any act or bill that appropriates funds to any individual or organization within their own Congressional District or State. 

Section 3.    The House and Senate shall make no Laws that exempt its individual members or employees from application of the provisions of any and all such laws.

Section 4.    For the duration of twelve years after leaving elective Office, no Senator or Representative, nor any of their staff members, shall be allowed to accept any compensation from, or advocate with office holders on behalf of, any organization, association, corporation, union or other entity that seeks to influence any legislation or the legislative process.

    Any former member of Congress found to be in violation of this provision shall be ineligible to seek any elective or appointive governmental office in the future.

Section 5.    The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXXIII
Citizen Participation

Section 1.    No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published quarterly and made available in formats readily accessible by the citizenry. 

Section 2.    All Federal funds appropriated, contracted, granted, or loaned to any agency, organization, corporate entity, contractor, State or Country shall be audited annually by commissions of private citizens who are not political office-holders. The resultant accounting report to the Congress shall include recommendations for or against continued funding.

Section 3.    Appropriate numbers of non-governmental office-holding Citizens shall be appointed jointly by Congress and the President to every office of Inspector General for the purpose of advising and assisting that Officer in the conduct of inspections, evaluations, and audits of the operations of designated governmental departments, agencies and offices.

Section 4.    Similar groups of citizens shall be jointly appointed by Congress and the President as permanent Advisory Councils to each department, agency, and office of government, for the purpose of advising on all aspects of the operation of those entities.  Such advice shall be regularly solicited and given due consideration by all heads of said government agencies.  In addition, each Council shall make an annual report of their activities and concerns to the Congress and the President.  Advisory Council Members may serve for no longer than six years.

Section 5.     Enumeration and drawing of Congressional districts shall be undertaken by Commissions composed of citizens currently holding neither elective nor appointive office; to be elected as State law shall direct, except that no Commissioner may serve more than two terms.  

Section 6.    The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

CHOICES

In this election year of 2012, the national electorate will have choices before it that will probably determine this country’s future direction for years to come.  So what are some of the choices that we will be making when we vote either for the President or for the Republican nominee?  Perhaps the number one choice for many Americans needs little explanation or comment.

Do I want a government that will actually establish needed jobs, or, do I want a government that believes only in supporting and funding rich “job creators” through tax loopholes and favoritism?
President Obama has tried in many ways to provide opportunities for the underemployed and the jobless (Jobs bill, infrastructure reform, auto industry bail-out, Stimulus bill), but he has been thwarted by Republicans at every turn. 
Republicans basically do not believe in government-created jobs (or even the saving of jobs); they would rather use government to tilt the playing field in the direction of multinational corporations hoping such measures will trickle down to help the larger economy.   Their ideology and tax loopholes for the rich have created the largest gap in prosperity between the 1-2% richest of us and the other 98-99% who have seen little if any increased prosperity.  The choice is a stark one. 

Do I want government taking a measured approach to the deficit (cutting overspending and increasing tax revenues) or do I want a one-sided approach that further tilts the playing field in the direction of the richest 1%?
President Obama and the Democrats have consistently proposed targeted cuts in government spending, and even in the bloated bureaucracy, while also calling for fair and reasonable tax rates for all Americans, including the rich. 
Republicans have consistently balked when any tax rate increase is proposed for the richest 1% on the grounds that they are the job-creators (a fantasy proven false more than once by independent groups).  Their proposals of draconian cuts to “discretionary” programs (social programs intended to help the middle class and the poor), and their ill-advised suggestions for excising whole departments in the federal government, are constant reminders of their inability to plan carefully to meet the very complicated problems left behind by the Bush administration.  Republicans have yet to accept any of the President’s proposals for cutting the deficit, increasing revenues, and reforming government.  They not only reject his budgets, but have also rejected his call for a re-instatement of an Executive power that would allow him to merge certain departments and duplicative functions.  A do-nothing House under Republican control, and a Democratic Senate blocked by a super-majority vote rule, have been able to block a balanced approach to the economy and the question of raising revenues.  More importantly, a Republican-controlled House and Senate, with a Republican President, would bring an avalanche of measures designed to favor the richest 1-2%.

A reminder: Mitt Romney wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for the richest among us.  He also wants to cut the tax rate for corporations from 35% to 25%.  He says he wants a 20% reduction in all marginal tax rates (tax brackets) across the board (which again favors those in higher brackets).  He will also seek lower tax rates for investment income, will seek to eliminate taxation on capital gains, dividends and interest (who will that benefit the most?), and will eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.  Then, on top of all that, he will work to eliminate the estate tax.   Do we need to ask what this means for revenue generation?  David Frum of CNN answers for us:  “won’t such a big tax cut, piled atop the previous commitment to renew the Bush tax cuts when they expire in 2013, greatly add to the deficit?  How will the federal budget be balanced?  (Romney’s Detroit speech) suggests that the gap will be closed with big cuts to programs for the poor, such as food stamps, housing subsidies, and job training.”

The cat is out of the bag.  Romney has aligned himself with the GOP base, particularly as represented by the Tea Party members in the Congress.  Eric Cantor’s endorsement of Mitt Romney has sealed the connection.  Romney has fully eliminated any policy difference he may have had with the radical right congressional wing.  He will now be their lackey in piling the burden of deficit reduction on the poor, the disabled and the young, as well as on the broad middle class.   Romney is now the official candidate of the rich and the Right.  If you vote for Romney for whom and for what are you really voting?

Do I want government assuming some control over health care and insurance provisions (as it does with Medicare and the VA) or do I want private insurance companies dictating insurance provisions and medical policies?
President Obama and the Democrats passed the first comprehensive health reform Act since LBJ’s administration.  It left in place our private health insurance system, but  proposed reforms that will change health care delivery and health care coverage for most Americans.  In spite of Republican threats and attempts to repeal that Act, the positive results are beginning to reveal themselves, e.g. more children being protected, at least 2.3 million young people under age 26 able to stay on their parents’ insurance, raising of Medicare reimbursement rates paid to doctors, no more private insurance companies limiting coverage because of pre-existing or long-term conditions.  These are just a few of its many positive aspects that have received favorable comments from the CBO. (See my Blog for December 3, 2011).  One of the provisions rarely discussed is the establishment of state-based Affordable Insurance Exchanges which will “help ensure that every American can access high-quality, affordable health insurance coverage beginning in 2014.  These competitive marketplaces will provide millions of Americans and small businesses with ‘one-stop shopping‘ for affordable coverage in every State.” (FY 2013 Fiscal Year Budget).  HHS has been providing grants to nearly all States to plan for the establishment of these Exchanges.

Republicans have no health plans to offer other than those that would diminish or destroy Medicare and the VA system of care, and repeal the Affordable Care Act.  For instance, Romney has laid out a plan for dismantling “Obamacare,” and claims that, on his first day in office, he will issue an Executive Order paving the way for all 50 states to claim waivers from “Obamacare.” 

Do I want a government that is run for and by millionaires or do I want a government run for and by the other 99% of us? 
Although this may not come first in our list of choices, it is perhaps the question that gets at the heart of our current problems.  As long as millionaires and billionaires (including mega-rich corporations) have the power to access the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government in such a measure as to be able to tilt the activities of governing in whatever way will be to their benefit, we will not have a representative democracy, but a plutocracy (rule by the rich) or even an oligarchy (governance by a small elite). 
The current Republican primary battles presage the terrible results of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.  We now have a few billionaires giving to Super PACs which are able to control and win elections for their candidates by the sheer volume of ads and propaganda they can produce. One billionaire can even keep one candidate in the running long after his (or her) star has dimmed on the national stage.  This is an abomination in a representative democracy.  Yet, the Republican Party has said or done nothing to overturn this ascent into the depths of a non-representative oligarchy.  So, you have a choice: vote with Democrats to overturn Citizens United and to reform our election process, or, vote with Republicans who have no intention of overturning that same decision because for them it is capital cronyism at its very best.
(Yes, I realize that President Obama has now encouraged moneyed sources to support a Super-Pac, but he is the only candidate for President who advocates a repeal of Citizens United and more basic reforms of our electoral system.  Republicans will have no inclination for such reform).

Do I want a government that is opposed to organized labor, and collective bargaining, or a government that supports labor and business as partners?
Need we do more than look at Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, etc.?  Republican governors have provided a spectacle of destruction of labor rights akin to the attitudes of countries like China, Russia, Iran and Syria.  Not only have they promoted legislation destructive of bargaining rights, of protection of children, and protection of workers in dangerous occupations, they have passed legislation that affects rights to unionize.  Anti-union demagoguery is not just bad for fair play, it is destructive of the middle class that was partly built in this country because unions built a system of  benefits that enabled people to become part of the American Dream of home ownership, car ownership, and higher education for their children, and expanded opportunities for recreation and leisure, and even of investment that had not been an integral part of  worker’s lives in the past.  A new partnership between business and labor is a key to being competitive, and the Republican Party is devoid of such vision.

Do I want a government that favors the development of new sources of energy or a government that favors large subsidies for Big Oil companies, offshore drilling, hydro-fracking, and drilling for oil and natural gas on government lands?
President Obama’s Budget for FY2013 continues his administration’s commitment to the development of diverse and clean sources of energy.  It eliminates unwarranted tax breaks for big oil companies, extends incentives to spur investment in clean energy manufacturing, and for renewable energy production.  His Budget also invests in R&D to boost clean energy technologies.  In addition, such investments will: help reach goals for increasing electricity from clean energy sources; encourage use of natural gas in the transportation sector; reduce oil imports by one-third by 2025; and, position the U.S. to have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

In contrast, Mitt Romney’s Plan puts almost all it’s emphasis on domestic oil and coal production increase which solves nothing.  He states up-front:  “We must vigorously embrace and develop all of our domestic energy sources.”  He even says that the environmental concerns -- concern over global warming -- of the Obama administration in regard to the Keystone pipeline is undercut by whether the US or China will receive that oil from Canada.  His first step would be to facilitate “rapid progress” in development of domestic reserves of oil and natural gas, and further investment in nuclear power.  He would “fast-track” all permits and approvals for such exploration and development.  He wants to “overhaul” the Clean Air, Clean Water and other environmental laws to the advantage of the energy industry.  He wants to allow several types of nuclear reactors to be built in spite of the fact that many of these designs are inadequate and could lead us to disasters as occurred in Japan.  And finally, he wants to encourage “hydraulic fracturing” to extract natural gas from shale deposits.  And he says clearly:  “In a Romney administration, the EPA would not pursue overly aggressive interventions designed to discourage fracking…the environmental impact of fracking should be…evaluated in comparison to the impact of utilizing the fuels that natural gas displaces, including coal.”  In other words, the impact of fracking on people’s lives and their environment is not an important part of the equation. 

In the end, I believe Barack Obama has already increased the breadth of our choices in many ways, as described above, and at other points on this Blog.  We need to give this President a second term so that he can continue his mission of balance, reform, restructuring, investment, and greater opportunity for all, not for just an elite few.