Divisions are an Opportunity

What is the State of the Union, anyway?

Certainly one way to look at it is by viewing this electoral map for the 2012 election. We are a divided country: Urban-Rural, North-South (or, East/West-South/Midwest), Red-Blue, Industrial-Not-so-industrial; Progressive-Conservative. There are other ways to parse the vote results: Men vs. Women; White ethnic vs. Minority groups; Youth vs. Aged; Immigrant states vs. Non-immigrant states; Urban vs. Suburban. But there are too many variables to draw definitive conclusions. Except perhaps to say, that the demographics of our country are changing which Republicans tried hard to ignore.

There are those who grew up in a simpler world and those who are growing up in a technological world; those who lived mostly in a one-nation world, and those growing up in a global economy; environmentalists vs. developer/profiteers; individualists vs. communitarians. There are many divisions. We have been, and still are, divided by the need for war; the standards of decency; the needs of people; the core values that must be maintained to sustain a viable society; the way we deal with law breakers; the death penalty; contraception; abortion; health care for all. And more.

It would appear that division is actually part of life! All the great and noble parts of life produce division: gender; ethnic background and culture; religion; education; how much money you make and accumulate; where you go to college; where you live; where you work; how you view the world. The question arises: is division inevitable? Is it simply something with which we must learn to live? The answer, in my opinion, is YES and NO.

Yes, we must live with the inevitability of differences of background, race, culture, religion, gender, etc. We cannot change reality. On the other hand, we do not have to abide the exploitation of differences which results in harm to people, the environment, to children especially, to those who live in poverty, to society itself, and to our Commonweal. We can, if we so choose, find common ground on which to bring peace and unity and well-being to ourselves and our neighbors.

Divisions must be seen, then, as the challenges, the catalysts, the components, the very building blocks upon which we must build actions, behaviors, groups and institutions that are meant to influence the harmony, unity and integrity of our lives together. Those who exploit differences for their own ends move society further away from wholeness, health and prosperity. Those who seek to make lemonade or delicious pie from lemons move society closer to the harmony and well-being that we all seek.

Sometimes it is necessary to challenge the exploiters of divisions, because they have become blind to their impact on the health and safety of society. I think that is what Barack Obama has been doing, and continued to do in his State of the Union speech on Feb. 12th. He reminded us that these times, and the problems we face, are actually opportunities for us to act progressively.

In my estimation, it is time for more citizens to join the fray, and to tell the exploiters of what divides us that the time has come to move forward with facing the challenges and obstacles that divisions bring upon us; that our government, our society, our nation cannot drag its feet on unity. We will never be known again as the “light upon a hill”, or a “beacon of hope” or the great forge of democracy unless we can overcome division with acts of unity.

The exploiters of difference would have us believe- against all evidence to the contrary -that there are certain “job creators” who must be given free rein to develop our economy and to produce jobs. They miss the point.

Job creators are everywhere. Thy are the poor who spend all the money they can muster on food, clothing, medicine and shelter - the very basics of life, thus boosting the profits of those who grow, process or develop products in these areas. The poor are “job creators” in that sense, and to belittle them because of the source of their income is to miss the importance of their role in our economy. Punishing the poor by relieving them of government assistance, or by putting obstacles in the path of the working poor by preventing a substantial raise of the minimum wage, is a recipe for disaster.

The broad middle class prospered enough (in the past) to purchase for itself a few extras: a house, two cars, vacations, and a college education for their children, but has been subject to lack of increase in wages for a long time. Yet the exploiters of class differences would have us believe that this group needs less and less assistance and more and more exploitation. To reduce government aid for the middle class is to automatically damage the economy, remove jobs, harm the service sector of society, and reduce the creation of jobs.

Giving money taken from the poor and the middle class to enhance the incomes of so-called “job creators” (the richest 1%) is to go against the history of their excessive spending on luxury and their dismal record of creating substantial jobs in the last decade, despite enormous profits (most still sits off-shore in foreign banks) being used, not for investments in jobs, but in personal aggrandizement.

The exploiters of differences have emphasized the individual entrepreneur versus the “takers” of help from the government: individual responsibility and endeavor vs. dependence of lazy individuals who depend on government. And what a crock that has turned out to be when we hear daily of the tax breaks and “welfare” that the richest receive through the tax structure that only they can work to their huge advantage.

The unity-seekers are much more oriented toward a fair system of taxation and distribution of government aid. They want to provide a fair deal for all; equal opportunity for all; a fair shot at success for all. The exploiters of divisions have always been the ones who seek unfair advantage at great cost to the society at large. By not providing fairness, equality and justice for all, the exploiters of differences lose people and their possibilities along the way: artists, inventors, dreamers, healers, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, war heroes, etc. because those people they target never got the chance to be what they could have been. The opportunity, the assistance, the education, the mentors, the challenge -- they were all absent.

And so, the people they see as the “takers” are really the exploited, the invisible and the absent. It is from their ranks that, had the opportunities been provided, could have come many of those named above. Instead, they have been lost to our society because of the lack of universal health care, of universal pre-school, of schools that are in good repair and good repute (the students have instead been allowed to be in falling-down crowded buildings with lack of the best teachers and administrators). If someone forges ahead on their own against the odds, then they have to fight to get into top-notch schools because what they can afford without the help of grants and scholarships (that have been cut back) is still not what others of privilege get to afford.
 
In the last four years, we have seen the dividers simply obstruct any legislation that would improve the lives of many as opposed to the few. Let us briefly remind ourselves of some of the legislation meant to provide equal opportunity for the 99% who are not rich. There are so many examples that one has to limit the list. Some legislation was blocked early on and then passed in a new version later, but most just simply has not made it to the President’s desk.

[By Suzi LeVeaux - Posted on 23 September 2010]
* Benefits for Homeless Veterans- Would have expanded benefits to homeless veterans and homeless veterans with children. Republicans blocked this.
* Affordable Health Care- Republicans blocked this for months before it finally passed, then they tried several times to repeal it until the Supreme Court declared it constitutional * Health Care for the 9/11 First Responders who got sick from being at Ground Zero. Republicans blocked this.
* Fair Pay Act of 2009- Also called the Lily Ledbetter bill. Requires that women receive equal compensation to men for doing the same work. Republicans attempted to block this. Did finally pass and was signed into law.
* Paycheck Fairness Act – While the Lily Ledbetter Act was a good start, this bill would have mandated pay fairness and prohibited pay discrimination based on sex. In other words, would have created fair workplace system with regard to pay. Republicans voted in favor of paying women less money for the same job.
* Senator Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill - Makes it so that women raped overseas while working for foreign contractors have the right to have their case heard in an American court instead of having their case mediated by the company they work for. Republican men voted against this, but it passed.
* The Jobs Bill- Offsets the payroll tax for 1 year for companies that hire new employees, or people receiving unemployment insurance. Also gives other tax incentives to companies hiring new employees. Republicans attempted to block this. On another website (policymic.com) we learn that Republicans in the Senate have a record of blocking 19 jobs bill that have been presented.
* Small business lending bill- would give LOCAL, community banks access to billions of dollars to loan to small businesses. Republicans blocked this.
* Financial reform- Puts stricter regulations on the banks, preventing them from becoming "too big to fail". Curbs reckless spending practices that caused the banking crisis. Republicans attempted to block this.
* Stimulus Bill- Pumped billions of dollars into state and local Governments to prevent us from sinking into a second Great Depression. Republicans opposed this but now want to take credit for the parts of it that we know are successful.
* Oil Spill Liability- Raises the liability on what companies can be made to pay to clean up after an oil spill. Republicans blocked this.
* Immigration- Republicans suggested comprehensive immigration reform until Obama supported it. Now they're rabidly opposed to it and even voted against their own legislation.
* Unemployment Extension- Would provide additional aid to the millions of Americans still on unemployment who are just trying to support themselves and their families. Republicans blocked this bill for 8 weeks before it finally passed.
* Elder Abuse Victims Act – This bill would address legal issues regarding the elderly, and establish policies and procedures designed to minimize the negative effects of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation.
*Wounded Veteran Job Security Act – This bill would actually provide job security for veterans who are receiving medical treatment for injuries suffered while fighting in defense of their country. It would prohibit employers from terminating employees who miss work while receiving treatment for a service-related disability
* Vision Care for Kids Act – this would provide eyesight screening for children who do not have insurance that covers this, and help provide them with glasses.
*Water Quality Investment Act – This bill would not only invest needed funds into improving water quality in areas where it’s needed, but it would also create jobs for those who work in that industry, so this is a double whammy. Apparently, Republicans don’t care if some folks have to drink contaminated water, and they certainly don’t want your tax money going to make your life better, do they?
*Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009 – Here’s another bill in support of those who have fought for their country
* Stop AIDS in Prison Act – This bill would provide testing of all prisoners during intake, provide for annual testing of inmates, testing of pregnant inmates, and provide for AIDS education for inmates. It would also direct prisons to develop policies for dealing with HIV.
An updated list appeared on political wrinkles.com on 3/12/2012:
* Tax on Companies that ship jobs overseas- A bill that would have eliminated a tax break that companies get when they ship jobs overseas. Republicans blocked this, allowing companies to keep the tax break they receive when they ship jobs to other countries.
* Political Ad disclosure bill- Would have required all donors to political campaigns to reveal themselves. Republicans blocked this, not once but twice.
*The DREAM Act- Gives immigrant youth who were brought here as children a path to citizenship by earning a college degree or serving the military for 2 years. Republicans blocked this.

What a record!  And it doesn’t begin to tell the full story about blocking of important legislation regarding infrastructure, education and the environment. Our great nation’s history is over-loaded with lost opportunity and lost people because certain leaders or groups or institutions could not see the advantage in promoting unity instead of division.
We shall never be able to calculate with any accuracy the losses to society we as a nation have sustained because of the stains of Indian Wars, slavery and segregation of the races, or because of enmity toward allowing illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. We lose as a nation every time we exploit differences instead of promoting unity.

Lincoln knew that truth after the Civil War; Mandela knew that truth after his party gained control in South Africa. Gandhi knew that truth when he sought independence for his country; Martin Luther King Jr. knew that all races must reach the “promised land” together. The great uniters have always been those who have understood and seen for themselves what exploitation of difference can do to people, and then acted upon the premise that bringing people together in peace is far better for society than exploiting the hurt and harm caused by division and segregation.

What we have before us is a great opportunity: to put enmity and division behind us and to go through a recovery, not only of the economy but of the national soul, by working toward opportunity, reform, equality, and fairness. The politicians in Washington continue to exploit differences.

We, the People, want unity, not enmity. The people want politicians to bring about changes that will move us forward toward a better nation, not toward more divisiveness. The people want greater opportunity, they want less violence, they want decent jobs, and they want better schools and the opportunity for higher education. They want to work and prosper and succeed. At the end of the day, they are not interested in party ideology. They are interested in results. They are not interested in the fine points of debate; they are interested in the finer points of living their lives with a sense of purpose, of dignity, of accomplishment, of tranquility. But they are not willing to be exploited for someone else’s gain.

They are not generally a people drawn to controversy. They are not a people tolerant of intolerance when they see what that does to people, even to those vastly different than who they are. Americans are not generally a people who want to put prejudice or injustice into practice. They basically believe in individual responsibility, but do not like it when long-term successful government programs of help are attacked.

Americans are generally a people who favor unity. They like to work together for a cause or a common goal. They are a people who rally to help others in emergencies. They are a people who will stand up to authority when it is exploitive. They are a people who basically don’t like their own prejudices, and will often change their own opinions about certain groups or individuals based on better knowledge or contact or facts. They are friendly, they are fair-minded (not always fair), they are people who care about family, friends and neighbors, and they care about children (even though they sometimes fail to see what is harming them).

They like to have a sense that they are individualists, but they are also joiners: they form committees and associations, unions and teams, card groups and game groups at the drop of a hat. Why? Because they do not feel whole unless they can join together with other citizens in causes; helping, abating, or sharing their willingness to promote the shared responsibility we all have for a democratic and interactive society. So, let us come down to basics.

We can no longer tolerate the intolerable. We cannot stomach lost opportunity. We don’t like division, and we sure don’t like exploitation or being taken advantage of in a way that harms our well-being or that of others.

So let the message be clear to our elected legislators and public officials: no more exploitation of differences; no more pitting of class against class; no more attacks upon women and labor and children; no more blockage of legislation that promotes the Commonweal; no more picking on the poor or the disadvantaged; no more political gamesmanship; no more dirty tricks to diminish the electorate; no more prejudice against people of color; no more ’NO’ because the President must not ’win’ on anything.

We the people are the big losers when politicians act as exploiters of differences. The time has come to end the charade. We want action and we want it NOW!

The Bamboozle by Remington Arms

Remington Arms of Ilion, NY wants you to believe that gun control legislation will hurt its business.  But facts don’t lie.  I don’t usually blog about local issues or companies, but this situation reflects national concerns and is certainly a clear example of “bamboozling“!  Read the article excerpts first and then we’ll talk.

By Stephanie Sorrell-White
The Telegram Posted Sep 20, 2010 @ 11:08 PM 
Ilion, N.Y. —
U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-Utica, and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, announced Monday the U.S. Army has awarded Remington Arms a Firm Fixed Price Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract to upgrade up to 3,600 M24 sniper rifles.
The contract is for a five-year period with a potential value of up to $28.2 million. (emphasis added)
“This contract will not only pump millions into the region’s economy, but will reinforce our efforts to allow Remington to compete for all defense contracts — which they have shown they can win,” said Schumer in a news release.
Nearly 500 employees — or approximately half of its workforce — would work on the M24 upgrade.
Remington has manufactured the M24 sniper rifle for 22 years, producing nearly 15,000 rifles. The company has mainly been a sporting gun and equipment manufacturer… and expanding into federal defense contracting can help the company grow  (emphasis added). Remington desired to expand into long-term military capabilities and Arcuri and Schumer have worked to open up contract competitions that Remington had previously been shut out of. 
“Anything that Remington is securing is obviously going to make them that much more stable in the community. It’s going to be good for them and it’s going to be good for us,” said Ilion Mayor John Stephens in a telephone interview Monday night.
Stephens said the new legislation that has allowed Remington to be more competitive for military contracts helps keep jobs in the Ilion and the Mohawk Valley.
Jim Rabbia, Remington Arms Ilion plant manager, said securing the Army contract ensures that Remington’s operations will continue to grow.

January 10, 2011
WASHINGTON -- 
Today, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced the Remington Arms Company is set to receive $8.9 million from the U.S. Army to manufacture 1,212 M24 sniper rifles used by servicemen and women serving in Afghanistan. The funding is part of a federal contract through the Army Foreign Military Sales program. All of the production of the M24 sniper rifles will take place at Remington Arms' Ilion facility by local employees, strengthening Remington's position …
 
By ANDREW DONOVAN
Story Updated: Apr 21, 2012 at 9:41 PM EST
ILION, N.Y. (WKTV) - Remington Arms has been awarded a multi-million dollar contract that could create up to 50 jobs in the Mohawk Valley, federal government sources confirmed to NEWSChannel 2.
The nearly $84 million contract is for manufacturing equipment for the U.S. Army through April 2017. The project consists of making nearly 100,000 M-4 rifles. 

By Staff 
GateHouse News Service Posted Oct 29, 2012 @ 06:12 PM
Ilion, N.Y. —

Remington Arms has received a $4.2 million contract to manufacture 5,000 Bushmaster M4A3 Carbines for the country of Oman’s Royal Police, according to U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna. 
Hanna, R - Barneveld, said in a statement: “The expertise and quality of Remington and their centuries of experience are clearly recognized not only by our own men and women in uniform who depend on their products to keep them safe on the front lines, but also nations around the world.”
This follows other recent contracts for Remington.
In September, the U.S. Army awarded a $12 million contract to produce spare parts for its XM2010 Sniper Rifle. The XM2010 was designed and developed specifically for the sustained harsh environment of the modern battlefield using state-of-the-art technology, manufacturing processes and corrosion resistant materials.
In May, Remington was awarded an $83.9 million contract… for manufacturing more than 100,000 M-4 rifles for the U.S. Army and would allow the plant to buy new equipment and expand its facility.  (emphasis added)

________________________*__________________________

Adam Sichko, a Reporter with the The Business Review recently reported that “the village of Ilion, NY, spent Monday rallying to protect Remington Arms Co., an upstate gun company that makes some of the types of assault weapons used in recent U.S. shooting sprees.”

Obviously, workers at Remington Arms must feel trapped and anxious, perhaps a bit scared, as their company threatens to leave this area because of new gun laws that are said to threaten their business. As the descendant of gun makers who immigrated to America from Birmingham, England, I am acutely aware of the pressures of such threats on the physical and mental well-being of the men and women who labor in this field. However, in the name of common sense, we need to look more closely at this situation.

First of all, the new NYS gun laws have little or nothing to do with how Remington Arms makes its money, just as much-discussed national gun laws will not.  The new laws fortify New York's existing assault weapons ban, limit the number of bullets allowed in magazines and strengthen rules that govern the mentally ill, which includes a requirement to report potentially harmful behavior.  Other provisions include background checks for people who purchase guns privately and more restrictions on high-capacity magazines.  But, Remington at Ilion doesn’t make a lot of guns that get sold to dealers and the general public.

Remington Arms at Ilion does not exist around the manufacture of assault rifles.  It’s business is mainly devoted to the manufacture of long rifles and military arms under several lucrative government contracts, some of which have been mentioned above in news articles.  In fact, one of those government contracts apparently employs half the Ilion factory workforce.

New York Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel, a Democrat and the chief sponsor of the unsuccessful micro-stamping legislation on semiautomatic pistols that was last considered by the state’s full Senate in 2010, said in a recent article that she believes Remington’s vow to move out of NYS is merely a threat.

“Their main product isn’t even semiautomatic guns; the main thrust of what they do are long guns and military contracts,” Schimel told FoxNews.com. “… it would be foolish for them to leave the New York market. They are getting a lot of money from the state.”
“That’s the new threat: to move where that [gun] friendly state is,” she said. “It’s unfair of them to resist sensible regulation to save lives. It does not impact lawful gun ownership at all.”

This isn’t the first time that  Remington management threatened to move its operations.  In August of last year, Remington made this same threat because of the possibility of “micro-stamping“ information on the tip of firing pins.  Remington executive Stephen Jackson wrote to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo warning forced micro-stamping could prompt the company to “reconsider its commitment to the New York market altogether….”  Sound familiar?

Looking back to August of 2012, when Assemblywoman Schimel’s micro-stamping legislation was being debated, we hear familiar echoes of the rhetoric being used today:

Gun ID legislation may trigger exodus of gun makers Remington, Colt
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published August 28, 2012
FoxNews.com

“Two venerable American gun manufacturers — Remington and Colt — could head for the West their weapons helped win if New York and Connecticut force them to implement micro-stamping technology.
Micro-stamping, or ballistic imprinting, is a patented process that uses laser technology to engrave a tiny marking of the make, model and serial number on the tip of a gun’s firing pin to allow an imprint of that information on spent cartridge cases. Supporters of the technology say it will be a “game changer,” allowing authorities to quickly identify the registered guns used in crimes. Opponents claim the process is costly, unreliable and may ultimately impact the local economies that heavily depend on the gun industry, including Ilion, N.Y., where Remington Arms maintains a factory, and Hartford, Conn., where Colt's manufacturing is headquartered.
“Mandatory micro-stamping would have an immediate impact of a loss of 50 jobs,” New York State Sen. James Seward, a Republican whose district includes Ilion, said, adding that Remington employs 1,100 workers in the town. “You’re talking about a company that has options in other states. Why should they be in a state that’s hostile to legal gun manufacturing? There could be serious negative economic impact with the passage of micro-stamping and other gun-control laws.”
Ilion Mayor John Stephens told FoxNews.com he believes the company, which has had suitors in several Midwest states with less restrictive gun laws, was not bluffing.
The closure of Remington’s plant in the 8,000-resident village would be a “huge hit” to the local economy, Stephens said…”

State Senator Seward’s question: “Why should they be in a state that’s hostile to legal gun manufacturing?” is one fraught with misnomer and innuendo.  The State of New York is not hostile to LEGAL gun manufacturing or sales.  In fact the State is not at all hostile to the manufacture of sporting rifles and military hardware.  What it does oppose is the ability of just anyone to purchase a military-style assault rifle used primarily to kill other people.  The State does not ban the manufacture of such weapons for the military and for law enforcement.

This is substantiated in an article written on January 21, 2013 by Michael Hill of the Associated Press.  Hill begins by acknowledging that “residents in this blue-collar stretch of the Mohawk Valley are defending Remington after state lawmakers banned the sale of semi-automatic rifles like the Bushmaster weapon made there. The move came after the weapon was linked to gunmen in the deadly Connecticut school shooting and in the Christmas Eve slayings of two firefighters in western New York.”  Then, after citing complaints by Ilion residents and arms workers that the new gun laws will affect their semi-automatic gun business, Hill writes: “people in town wonder where things stand in the wake of the new state law, which does not affect Remington’s ability to manufacture military-style weapons.” (emphasis added)

After all, Remington has been able to carry on its production of the Bushmaster semi-automatic weapon while under the stricture of the old NY State gun law which also banned the private sale of such weapons!   

It is obvious in some of the articles initially quoted above that local, state and federal officials have been loyal supporters and promoters of Remington Arms in Ilion.  Two federal legislators even made sure that Remington could broaden its manufacturing base by being able to compete for more government contracts.  It was also reported in April of 2010 that the county in the previous year gave $2 million to assist with Remington’s over $13 million capital project. The plant’s project also relied on almost $3 million in state grant funding, and created almost 200 jobs.  In addition, since 2009, New York has given Remington Arms nearly $5.4 million to expand and consolidate operations from other states in Ilion through the Empire State Development Corporation. 

A report from the Defense Department indicates that in the year 2000, this company had only 2 government contracts totaling $117,796, but by 2011, Remington in Ilion was awash in 12 contracts totaling over $12 million, and had acquired 56 contracts between 2006 and 2011 that totaled over $64.3 million.  The gun control legislation passed at the state level and proposed at the federal level does not affect their ability to continue to obtain such military contracts.  To wit: NYS gun laws were already some of the strictest in the nation while Remington was pulling down these substantial defense contracts!

Finally, we should briefly make the point that the village of Ilion, NY isn’t the only area to feel the impact of threats like this.  Madison in Rockingham County, NC  had to endure threats of Remington headquarters being moved to Charlotte or Greensboro.  Within the last five years, the company looked around the region for land before calling off their search.  And, as we saw in an article above, Remington wasn’t the only arms company to make such threats over micro-stamping: Colt did the same to the city of Hartford CT. 

By the way, moving factories to other locations, acquiring new properties and other companies, and consolidating operations is a way of life for gun manufacturers, not only in our times, but in past eras as well.  My own ancestors experienced the “lock, stock and barrel” movement of gun companies, for which they worked, several times in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  I will mention just two:  the sale and movement in the spring of 1890 of the L.C. Smith Gun Co. from Syracuse to Fulton, NY where it formed the basis of the Hunter Arms Co., and the movement of the Tobin Arms Co. from Norwich, CT to Woodstock, Ont., Canada in 1909-1910.  This pattern of gun company consolidation and movement to new locales is as old as the hills, long before the passage of strict gun control measures!  It’s the nature of the beast.

Moreover, from 1970 to 2004, Remington Arms Co. has, according to the account of its own history on www.remington.com, been involved in at least 15 instances of company acquisitions, building of new plants, consolidations,  and re-locations.

A recent article by Ryan Delaney on WRVO.org indicates that there are five states courting Remington Arms.  They include Texas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Arizona and South Carolina. They have all sent recent letters to Remington’s owner, Freedom Groups, citing each state's business-friendly environment and support of the Second Amendment.  Reportedly, the company is “carefully evaluating its options.”  The local union sent its own letter to Governor Cuomo's office expressing their concern about the courtships, Delaney reported.

If Remington wants to move South or West, they will find an excuse to do so, not because their business is threatened by new gun control laws, but because they have been exploring this possibility for awhile. Don’t forget, too, that they already have plants established in Hickory, KY and Lonoke, AR.  Just like many gun companies before them, they could seek to consolidate operations in these existing locations, not because of new gun control laws, but because it will save money for the company!

The United Mine Workers of America Local 717, the union representing workers at  Remington Arms in Ilion, signed a new five year contract with the company in December of 2012.  That contract calls for  a $500 signing bonus, and features 3 percent wage increases in each of the first four years, and 3.5 percent in the final year. It also maintains the current level of medical benefits, improves the language governing overtime and creates a new position, Utility Specialist, aimed at reducing the reassignment of regular workers, according to WKTV.  The new pact also includes a provision extending Local 717 jurisdiction to any new plant that Remington builds, within a 100-mile radius of the main plant in the Village of Ilion.

In this context, it is important to understand that all of the states known to be interested in luring Remington are “Right To Work” states, meaning above all, that Remington, should they choose to move there, will be able to reduce personnel costs, because ineffective or non-existent unions in such states won’t be pushing to negotiate for substantial wage and benefit increases.  We can only imagine what other tempting incentives are being offered by these states and localities.  After all is said and done: business is still business.  However, the good news is that Remington Arms headquarters has not announced whether it plans to move its manufacturing out of New York.

Don’t be “bamboozled” by all the rhetoric.  Learn the facts: gun control laws will not affect Remington’s mainstay government contracts and profits, but they will provide an excuse to move to another state where there is little or no union influence, and where (save Michigan) it’s a heck-of-a-lot warmer!

Congress Has a Problem With Problem-solving

In a recent Blog, I made a passing reference to needing “problem-solving processes and structures built into the operations of the Congress.”  The problem-solving techniques of the 112th Congress (and of so many in the past) have been practically non-existent.  One reason for this is that their very nature of defining problems is terribly flawed. 

In too many instances, problems are manufactured as though they actually exist, but they have been carefully crafted simply to appeal to voters.  For instance, let’s take the “problem” (fast becoming a ‘crisis’) of the federal debt.  How do we know it is a problem of the magnitude touted by Republicans and some Democrats?  Whose opinions have been solicited to determine the extent of this ‘crisis’?  And by the way, what is the problem, anyway?  Who has defined it, and why? 

That’s where we need to start: with the proper definition of a problem (something every Congressperson should know and practice).  Technical and scientific writers like to remind us that we should avoid trying to investigate or write about multiple problems or about broad or overly ambitious problems.  Because scientists deal with problem definition and problem-solving as a way of life, they are apt to be quite precise in their attempts to define a problem and its solution(s).  We can certainly learn a lot from their discipline.  Vague problem definition leads to unsuccessful proposals and vague, unmanageable documents. Naming a topic, or producing a “talking point” is not the same as defining a problem.  However, we are dealing more with social and economic problems when we talk “politics”, so problem statements might seem slightly less precise, but should not be vague, manufactured or misleading.

So let us take some time to examine a six-step process that is fairly common in the discipline of problem-solving.  This particular outline comes from a group known as Richard Chang Associates who apparently conduct training seminars for private businesses and non-profits.  I am suggesting that Congress needs to adopt a similar approach to problem-solving and should use this process in developing most legislation.

Step #1:  Define the Problem

This may seem like a simple step, but it is one of the most important, and can be quite complicated.  If this step of analysis and data gathering is ignored, or done in a shoddy manner, the process will be short-circuited right at the start.  In  my opinion, it is right here that Congress often fails in defining problems for one major reason: instead of collecting broad-based data and information (i.e. a myriad of opinions and facts that should be explored), Committee chairpersons and individual members too often seek out what they want to hear, or what some special interest wants them to hear - and they rarely listen to those most affected by the problem - thus narrowing the definition of a problem to something that fails to adequately address an in-depth definition.  Too often, staff research is kept within boundaries of ideology, hearings are limited to special interest witnesses, and definition of problems to be solved is pitiful.

Perhaps hearings ought to serve a much different role by moving them from imposing hearing rooms to a comfortable location where people can discuss the issues with Congresspersons, and those affected by a problem or knowledgeable of such can debate as well as discuss.  Such changes could enable Congressmen and women to deal with real people and real situations instead of putting on a show, aiming for re-election, or grandstanding before an audience.  Congressional hearings have deteriorated to a degree that is harmful to the purpose for which Congress exists: to promote legislation for the safety and general welfare of the people.

The gathering of information and data by the Congress, in order to define a problem, is a process that is seriously flawed.  In fact, it would seem that much of that step is simply missing.  Surveys of constituents (not pre-determined surveys that usually appear), focus group and interview results, charts and Histograms, in addition to reports and figures from the CBO and GAO are all possibilities for gathering important data, but alas, the Congress does not seem to have time for such in-depth data gathering.  Unfortunately, we have more than once seen Republicans reject fact-based information that does not correspond to their ‘principles” or ideology.

Such data-gathering and opinion-collecting should lead to a sub-step that formulates a Problem Statement.  According to a professor at East Carolina University, “A ‘Problem Statement’ is a brief… overview of a difficulty or lack and the way you propose to address that difficulty or lack. The ultimate goal of a problem statement is to transform a generalized problem (something that bothers you; a perceived lack) into a targeted, well-defined problem—one that can be resolved through focused research and careful decision-making.  Writing a Problem Statement can help you clearly identify the purpose of the project you will propose.” 

A Purpose Statement is meant to clarify the real problem, and could involve several of the following questions:
--is the problem stated objectively?
--is the problem sufficiently limited in scope?
--is there common understanding of the Statement?
--does the Statement contain measures?
--is the statement short and sweet (no more than 10-15 words)?
--is the problem worth solving?

I would venture to comment on just one of those questions: “does the Statement contain measures?”  It is here, I think, that Congress fails again by not providing us with criteria for successful outcomes that can be measured and therefore evaluated.  Often, we get legislation or appropriations that have no measures attached and result in not only a lack of evaluation, but a lack of enforcement as well.  I don’t think it is too much to ask that every piece of legislation intended to resolve problems be required to have attached a Problem Statement that includes measures or benchmarks that enable the solutions to be evaluated, along with the monies spent to address those same solution(s). 

Step #2:  Analyze Potential Causes

“Isn’t the real problem that Congress [both Democratic and Republican controlled] failed to match spending and available revenue? Who grew the deficit…? What is the point in answering that question except for political gain? In any case the answer is easy; Congress did.”  (Quinnscommentary.com)

The point is that Congress passes all appropriation bills, and no money can be drawn from the Treasury unless Congress appropriates it.  So apparently one very big source of the debt problem is the Congress.  Is Congress the only source of the problem?  No, of course not.  The Executive branch has its own contributions to make to the problem of deficit and debt.  Its departments and offices produce bloated budgets based on erroneous principles and egregious practices, such as spending large leftover balances in the 4th quarter instead of turning money back to the Treasury.  Zero-based budgeting is a simple method of avoiding a bloated budget based on the previous year’s spending, but where is that required?  The citizenry itself may also be a source of the debt problem.  After all, they keep returning politicians to the Congress who continue to burden the voters with greater debt.

Step #3:  Identify Possible Solutions

According to the GAO, the federal debt primarily affects the federal budget through the level of interest spending. If interest on the federal debt is relatively large, this reduces budgetary flexibility because unlike other federal spending, interest cannot be changed directly. Rather, interest spending is a function of interest rates and the amount of debt on which interest must be paid.  So, is the real problem not over-spending, but the interest rate, and is a possible solution to seek a better interest rate? 

This is quite different from what is often said by politicians that the debt is so high that we are going to be leaving a financial burden for our children and grandchildren that equals some made-up average amount per person that has to be paid to liquidate the debt.  Is a possible solution more revenue?

We have a responsibility as citizens to question anything a politician says that lacks the more precise definition of a problem needing to be solved.  Perhaps one solution might be term limits, or voting against congressmen who lie, mislead, and scam the public.

From a New York Times Article: Debt Splits the Left - Feb. 5, 2012
“… James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas, contends that the issue of deficit spending has been blown out of proportion by those whose focus on austerity blinds them to the damage inflicted by cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Instead of conducting major surgery on federal spending programs, Galbraith argues that “it is possible to run a low and even modestly negative real interest rate on the public debt at a low rate of inflation, and therefore to  sustain quite a large primary deficit, essentially indefinitely and trouble free. His solution is to “let the economy recover through  time, and do not worry if the debt-to-GDP ratio rises for a while.”

Congress does not always appropriate money based on need, but on greed.  It does not guard against lobbyists or their clients.  It does not often hold adequate hearings, nor interview those who would be most affected by their legislation.  They do not mind spending taxpayers’ money for earmarks that are nothing but pork, although some community groups do benefit from the largesse.  Earmarks come down to being campaign expenditures disguised as legislation.  Congress often passes deficit spending items because it has not even looked for offsets in other areas of the budget.  All of these negatives can be turned into possible solutions.  The everlasting claim from radical Republicans is that we must cut spending, especially in social programs and government-backed insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (which they mistakenly call “entitlements“).  So far, other than a nod toward cutting tax loopholes, their mantra is that this is the one and only solution to out debt problem.

There may be several possible solutions to any one problem.  The concern here is not to lose sight of the Problem Statement and propose solutions that are not apropos to that Statement.  The next step is where such focus comes into play.

Step #4:  Select the Best Solution

This step has three sub-parts: 1) assign weighted criteria to the solutions, for example: ‘the solution must be broad enough to reduce the deficit by 1% in each of four years’- 35% weight; (2) apply the criteria to each solution; (3) chose the best solution(s) based on highest score and group consensus.

Step #5:  Develop an Action Plan

Instead of developing “talking points” to sell a particular viewpoint or ideology, this step requires the development of action steps that will result in implementation of the solution(s) to the stated problem.  First, the solution(s) must be divided into logical steps and each step must designate who is to do what, how, and by when.  Second,  a contingency plan must be developed for each step to get around potential obstacles or hurdles which might arise (John Boehner will love this because it’s like a “Plan B”, but with serious intent!).

It occurs to me that the writing of legislation presently is an exercise in legal gibberish and vagueness.  Wouldn’t it make some sense to write legislation for solving problems with an Action Plan in mind so that Titles and sections could be devoted to action steps and their concomitant requirements: displaying a brief description of each action step, a designation of persons or departments responsible for implementation, a beginning date and firm end date for each step, and the amount of money needed to implement each step (perhaps this could help to replace the inane independent process of “authorization” of funds for departments).

Step #6:  Implement Solution(s) and Evaluate Progress

This is essentially what the oversight function of Congress should entail, but once again Congress has failed to carry out a reasonable and effective process of evaluation.  Evaluation is something of a joke; what is done is not evaluative; it is punitive or at least demoralizing.  Congress spends little time on this very important action, first, because they are not engaged in a definitive process that defines Problems, proposes the best solutions, makes Action plans and assigns specific steps and amounts of money to those action steps.  So what is there to evaluate?  Instead, Congress spends its time in oversight hearings raising questions that promote its particular Party brand, attack the opposite party brand, seize electoral advantage where possible, and criticize government personnel based on made-up criteria.  This is not what evaluation (oversight) is meant to be. 

On all these matters, Congress would do itself and the citizenry a favor by getting on-going training in problem-solving and evaluation techniques.  We need to change the out-dated process, the rules, the procedures, and the techniques by which Congress operates.  Right now, they are doing not-very-credible work because they are operating as if better techniques, strategies, and processes do not exist.  Is it tradition, obstinacy, laziness, arrogance, or plain ignorance that holds them back from exploring a better way?  All of the above, you say.  I agree.