The Root of Political Corruption?

“Emolument”.  What a very strange word.  Not one you would use often, if ever.  It’s more for the 18th century than for our modern era.  Yet, it may contain within itself the root cause of our own difficulties with the political system that we call our own. 

It carries the literal meaning from the Latin of “a fee for grinding grain”.  But, it also contains the meaning of any fee, profit, remuneration, payment, compensation, or benefit, usually for the performance of some completed work or service.  Somewhere along the line, perhaps in the 18th century, the word seems to have acquired the meaning of a “tip” for work done and then morphed into a compensation as a result of holding an office; a profit by virtue of the position one held. 

More especially, an emolument became something akin to a gift given to an ambassador or foreign official whose service had been particularly notable.  For instance, the King of France around the time of our nation’s founding, made it a practice to give expensive gifts to departing ambassadors when they had successfully negotiated a treaty.  In 1780, he gave Arthur Lee of Virginia a portrait of himself set in diamonds and fixed above a gold snuff box.  In 1784, he gave Benjamin Franklin a similar portrait, also set in diamonds.  The practice was common throughout Europe.  In fact, the king of Spain gave John Jay a horse upon his departure.  These gifts raised a question for the founders of our nation: would agents of the new Republic keep clear about their loyalties if in the background they had in view such gifts from foreign kings? (Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts by Lawrence Lessig).

Thus, we find the framers of the constitution, no doubt worried about this practice, adding to our Constitution a strange, but profound clause, in Article I, Section 9, clause 8:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Is it just me, or does it seem prescient, that the framers saw the trouble the Republic could be in -- then, and in the future -- if office-holders were allowed to accept gifts or emoluments by virtue of the importance of their office?  This clause, with its strange word, has been treated quite cavalierly by so many that it has lost its potency.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United seems to overlook it entirely.  Weren’t the founders and framers trying to tell us something of grave importance: that corruption comes easily when office-holders accept any gifts whatsoever for simply being in office? Such emoluments were viewed as a form of corruption even if there was never a clear quid pro quo tied to the gifts.  Such emoluments create a dependency that is as much an addiction as any drug might engender, so that one becomes unable to live without the “tips” that can accrue to one from the mere fact of holding office and being in a position of power.  Perhaps, then it is this flagrant dependence upon easy money that now gnaws at the very roots of our system of government.  As Lessig indicates:

“The (framers’) fear…was that a dependency might develop that would draw the institution away from the purpose it was intended to serve: the people.”

I believe we are at a moment in our history when we must be as bold and forthright as were our founding fathers about this one thing: we must get all gifts, emoluments, presents, tips -- whatever you want to call them -- out of politics.  The framers put it succinctly when they said no present or emolument “of any kind whatever.”  That is where we must take our stand.  And, since the current Congress is so very dependent upon such emoluments, we cannot allow “consent of Congress” to any such gifts.  In other words, we have to amend our founding document in such a way that all gifts, and not just quid pro quo gifts, are removed from our system, and that most certainly includes campaign finance contributions.

There are already several proposed amendments out there that address this issue.  Perhaps the best known is the one that Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC is touting to “Get Money Out” of politics.

    “No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”

This amendment concentrates its subject matter most specifically to overturning Citizens United, which is a very important objective.  However, it does not fully address public financing of election contests,  the problem of gifts of lobbyists to office-holders, or the need to prevent former office-holders from entering lobbying firms as soon as they leave office.  It also does not specifically address the formation of PACs, although it implies that they will not be allowed.  It may even contain an inherent contradiction in that it prevents any contributions from individuals or corporations to candidates for federal office, but then indicates that ”campaign contributions” shall not “constitute speech of any kind.”

Looking further, the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826) was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and in the House of Representatives by Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R-N.C.). The bill would allow federal candidates to choose to run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists, and would be freed from  constant fundraising in order to focus on what people in their communities want.

MovetoAmend.org's Proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution also addresses Citizens United as well as elections:

“Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.
The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]
Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
Section 3
Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”

Rep. Marcy Kaptur of the 9th district of Ohio has proposed a constitutional amendment that speaks to both the overturning of Citizens United, and to election reform.  To wit:

1/5/2011--Introduced.
"Waives application of the First Amendment to the political speech of any corporation, partnership, business trust, association, or other business organization with respect to the making of contributions, expenditures, or other disbursements of funds in connection with public elections.
Grants Congress the power to set limits on the amounts of contributions and expenditures with respect to candidates in a federal election.
Grants a state the power to set limits on the amounts of contributions and expenditures with respect to candidates in a state or local election.”

In my humble opinion, the Constitution should only be amended when that Amendment addresses a basic problem that goes to the foundations of our democracy, or which threatens an individual right, or the freedom, welfare or pursuit of happiness by a majority of our citizenry.  Emoluments, or the conferring of gifts on people who hold elective office, or who are running for the same, is at the heart of much of what we believe to be fairness, equal opportunity, and justice.  It must be addressed, or political cronyism and the coerciveness of money will rule the land, and the votes of the electorate will become  meaningless.

Listen to Lessig once again:

“In a way that is so hard to see (because so pervasive), and certainly hard to model (because so complex), lobbyists have become the center of an economy of influence that has changed the way Washington works.  They feed a frantic dependency that has grown among members of Congress --  the dependency on campaign cash -- but they can feed that dependency only if they can provide something of value to their clients in return.  On the one side of this economy (of influence) are the members, frantically searching for cash.  On the other side are interests that increasingly find themselves needing or wanting special favors from the government.  As government grows…‘no serious industry or interest can function without monitoring, and at least trying to manipulate, Washington’s decision makers‘.”

About fifty years ago, Senator Paul Douglas (D-Ill; 1949-1967), described the “Washington culture” in this way:

“Today the corruption of public officials by private interests takes a…subtle form.  The enticer does not generally pay money directly to the public representative.  He tries instead by a series of favors to put the public official under such a feeling of personal obligation that the latter gradually loses his sense of mission to the public and comes to feel that his first loyalties are to his private benefactors and patrons.  His final decisions are, therefore, made in response to his private friendships and loyalties rather than to the public good.”

It is this atmosphere of dependency, obligation and misplaced loyalty that demands a constitutional remedy for this cancer of “emoluments” at the heart of our governmental system.

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.

Dead On Arrival

When Republican leadership announced that President Obama’s Budget was “Dead On Arrival”, they took upon themselves the full responsibility for whatever budget is put in place.  That’s been true now for some time.  Republicans in Congress have been rejecting outright all budget solutions presented by the President.  By so doing, they cannot rightfully claim that the President is at fault for there being no budget (instead, having to live with Continuing Resolutions).  We are in trouble because of Republican intransigence and their complete negativity.  The “Party of NO” has kept the current budget in limbo since the President first presented it, and now they plan to keep next year’s budget in the same suspended state.

But, the issue is even larger.  Republicans are not just the Party of NO, they are also the Party of “NO TRUTH”.  When it comes to the Constitution, and its provisions, they are likely to twist it to their own version of truth.  For instance, let’s take the issue of budget authority.  Republicans want you to believe that it is the President’s responsibility to present a budget and to shepherd it through the Congress.  While that may be the custom and tradition that has grown over the years, based on Budget law, it is not a constitutional concept.  Who has the prime responsibility for the budget according to the Constitution?  Congress, Congress, Congress.  I say it three times to emphasize the following:

1)  Nowhere in the Constitution is the President given responsibility for the origination of the national budget; let alone of being responsible for “leading” the way on its progress once his budget is delivered to the Congress

The closest the Constitution comes to this is in Section 3 of Article II where it says that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient…”  That’s it.  No mention of budget; no mention of spending plan; no mention of fiscal responsibility.  All the Republican rhetoric about “lack of leadership” and “responsibility for budget” and “no budget from the President” is hollow in terms of the Constitution.

2)  The Congress has the full responsibility for the generation of all legislation that has to do with the operation of the national government (spending plan).

Article I, Section 1 vests all legislative powers in the Congress.  Section 7 of the same Article says clearly that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”  Then, after enumeration of the many responsibilities and powers granted to Congress in Section 8 of this first Article (including borrowing money, regulating commerce, coining money, raising and supporting the armies and the navy as well as militias, declaring war) there is this sentence giving Congress the charge “to make all laws which shall be necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution…”

3)  The Congress is the progenitor of all appropriation of funds.

In Section 9 of Article I, this appropriation power is made clear: “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 from time to time.” 

Let us again be quite clear:  there is no mention of “a budget plan” in the Constitution.  The process for the making of a national budget has been arrived at through a combination of custom, rules, regulations, and legislation promulgated over the years. The framework used by Congress to formulate the budget was established by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and by other budget legislation.  Prior to 1974, Congress had no formal process for establishing a coherent budget.  The Congressional Budget Act created the Congressional Budget Office and directed more control of the budget to the CBO.  Such a process is necessary, but not sacrosanct or constitutionally mandated, and is therefore quite amendable and changeable. 

The process itself has contributed to the problem of gridlock in Washington.  And that is where a major emphasis should be placed: reforming the process rather than simply ridiculing the substance.  Instead of trying to make “political points” by incorrectly blaming the President for the lack of authenticity in this process, the Republicans (and Democrats) should be concentrating on how to amend the process to make it fluid, efficient and effective.  Even the Heritage Foundation has called attention to the flaws of the budget process, saying: “Created in 1974, the current budget process has been subjected to over 30 years of abuse from lawmakers trying to exploit its structural flaws. Instead of providing an orderly roadmap for determining the nation's annual spending and revenue priorities, the current budget process stifles debate, prevents cooperation, and frequently breaks down.”

Here are some thoughts:

1)  Put budget-making in the hands of a neutral authority , with the power to solicit suggestions from the public, the citizenry (by means of the internet perhaps), the written word, hearings, etc.-- all of which must be public.  There can be no closed-door meetings, except in the case of national security.  Lobbyists, special interests, and organizations should be excluded from any actual budget planning and making, except that all interests should be given the ability to make suggestions to this neutral budgeting authority before a budget is constructed. At the very least, the President and Congress need to be brought together to agree on a basic framework at the beginning rather than at the end of the budget-making process.  Perhaps this neutral authority might contain a combination of members from OMB, the GAO and the CBO.

2) Whatever non-political group might emerge, it must contain ordinary citizens in its membership.  That is what’s missing in most of our governmental operations.  The idea of representation has been taken to a point where the significance of government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is being lost (unless, of course, you consider the powerful 1% as the “people.”).  The Constitution tries to balance the concept of representative government with the power of the people.  As discussed elsewhere on this Blog, Amendments IX and X support the idea that the people have a unique position in the body politic. First of all, the enumeration of rights in the Constitution “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  Secondly, Amendment X grants: “The powers not delegated to the United States… nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” As much as conservatives would like to deny such power to the people, while strongly supporting power to the elite, the Constitution stands in their way.

We need ordinary citizens to be a part of the national budget process to keep that process oriented to the needs of the people, and not just to the needs of an elite or those of special interests. How they are to be chosen, and their length of tenure, needs to be decided based on qualifications, kinds of experience required, ties to the electorate needed, etc.  

3)  Chief complaints revolve around the complexity, duplication, and time-consuming nature of the budgetary process. For example, spending policy is now made in three distinct phases: budget, authorization, and appropriation. Each requires a separate set of hearings, reports, votes, and procedures, and the Congress must act several times on each spending proposal. The result is a system so confusing that it is difficult to identify responsible individuals, key votes, or actual policy direction, according to the Joint Economic Committee Report of 1997.

The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget has been issued in the first week of February.  The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications.  The President's budget proposal includes volumes of supporting information intended to persuade Congress of the necessity and value of the budget provisions. In addition, each federal executive department and independent agency provides additional detail and supporting documentation to Congress on its own funding requests.

This Executive budget, with some changes in current law, could be part of the process of submitting budgetary information to a neutral authority (along with all other budgetary information from other sources), which entity would then have the responsibility of crafting a budget for the Congress.  Currently, each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals.  CBO computes a current law baseline budget projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years.  This CBO responsibility could easily be continued as it is, or could become part of the responsibility of a unified neutral budget-making entity.

4) The authorization process used by the Congress seems to me to be duplicative and unnecessary.  Wikipedia explains it this way:  “In general, funds for Federal Government programs must be authorized by an ‘authorizing committee’ through enactment of legislation. Then, through subsequent acts by Congress, budget authority is then appropriated by the Appropriations Committee of the House. In principle, committees with jurisdiction to authorize programs make policy decisions, while the Appropriations Committees decide on funding levels, limited to a program's authorized funding level, though the amount may be any amount less than the limit.  In practice, the separation between policy making and funding, and the division between appropriations and authorization activities are imperfect. Authorizations for many programs have long lapsed, yet still receive appropriated amounts. Other programs that are authorized receive no funds at all.  In addition, policy language—that is, legislative text changing permanent law—is included in appropriation measures.”

The authorization process is an opportunity for Congressional oversight, if done properly. All departments/divisions of the federal government could be brought before appropriate congressional committees and subcommittees to present (or, to submit in writing) their mission plans for the next year (or more) including goals, objectives and action steps required to meet their overall mission.  Attached to each goal could be the estimated amount of money needed to accomplish that goal, broken down beside each objective and action step for each goal.  The committees would have the opportunity to question all aspects of the plans, and to question past spending. Then they could decide to authorize the plan, not authorize the plan, or authorize with conditions.  In the latter case, there could be room for negotiations, compromises, changes, and a return hearing.   The Congress would be responsible for submitting their written findings and authorizations of such plans to the budgeting authority before it crafts a final budget.

The Heritage Foundation has suggested: “The most promising budget reform would be to cap federal spending increases at the inflation rate plus population growth (economic growth rates could be another, albeit more loose, target). Lawmakers could allocate federal spending however they wish as long as total government growth does not exceed this predetermined rate.”

While I disagree with the Congress placing spending caps on all programs individually, because a conservative Congress can thereby reduce spending on discretionary and entitlement programs and eventually starve them out of existence, I do believe an  independent budget entity could propose a universal inflation-rate increase cap to Congress for each upcoming fiscal year, based on inflation, population growth, economic growth, GDP, and whatever else is pertinent.  However, such a growth rate cap should be presented to Congress for passage before a budget is crafted, and department/division budget plans should be based on that rate.  Exceptions to that rate could be allowed for certain exigencies that exist within departments, but the universal growth rate for the overall budget should be maintained except in national emergencies.

However, in my estimation, it is more important to craft a budget based on another starting point.  Since every department or division of government already has a budget in existence, should every department/division begin crafting its next year’s budget based on what was authorized last year, what was appropriated last year, or on what was spent last year?  OR, should every department/division start all over at zero and craft an annual  budget based only on what is absolutely necessary for the coming year?   The latter would involve several conditions: oversight of spending plans and actual spending by Congress, justification of every line item, a spending plan from every department/division with clearly defined mission, goals, objectives and action steps with corresponding budget amounts assigned to each goal, objective and action, as stated above, and perhaps a pay-as-you-go strategy.  I believe this concept of zero-based budgeting is worthy of re-consideration, but with the added feature of a mission plan as described.

With these few thoughts upon which to ruminate, let us return to this topic at another opportune time.

Women’s Health or Religious Freedom: Hiding the Real Issue

The latest “flap” over heath care law is an example of a controversy being defined that doesn’t quite get at all the underlying issues.

Apparently, most of the protagonists, and certainly the media analysts, were satisfied with the issues as presented in the title of this piece.  So let’s take a look at them.

The Obama administration announced on Jan. 20 that Catholic hospitals and other religious institutions would have an extra year to comply with a new requirement that  health plans must provide contraceptive benefits at no cost to their members. The extra year to comply was no consolation to Catholic bishops, who were infuriated that the law required most health plans to eventually offer free contraception.  They argued that it amounted to forcing members of the church, which has long opposed birth control, to offer it or pay for it in health plans. The coverage of contraceptive services could include abortion-inducing drugs, the church said.

Before going any further, it is important to know what the new rule actually said.  Otherwise, the issues get clouded by rhetoric that has little or nothing to do with the real issues (for instance, it clearly forbids coverage of “abortifacient“ drugs).  The Rule is summarized as follows:

“Contraception and contraceptive counseling: Women will have access to all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling. These recommendations do not include abortifacient drugs. Most workers in employer-sponsored plans are currently covered for contraceptives. Family planning services are an essential preventive service for women and critical to appropriately spacing and ensuring intended pregnancies, which results in improved maternal health and better birth outcomes.”

So, let us be clear: we are concerned here with women having access to important preventive services, including contraceptives and contraceptive counseling.  It is not about attacks on religion, or condoning abortions, or  forcing individual Catholics, or the Roman Catholic Church, to change their beliefs.  The rule does not apply to houses of worship, but does apply to church-affiliated hospitals, colleges, and social service agencies, most of which receive federal funding to aid their operations.

Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama's secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS),  said the rule, while allowing some exceptions and giving church-linked institutions a year from Aug. 1 to comply, is designed to ensure that women have access to birth control without co-pays or a deductible.  "Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families," she also said. "It is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women."

On the other hand, Alexander Sample, Bishop of Marquette, Mich., in one of the letters read to local Catholics, said: “Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those 'services' in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies."  Critics of the move said it puts many employees at Catholic hospitals in the position of performing services that would violate their conscience.  The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops fiercely opposed the new rule, which it said "forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs" and "forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs."

“Some have noted that HHS included a religious exemption in the new mandate. But to be eligible for this exemption, an organization must meet four strict criteria, including the requirement that it both hire and serve primarily people of its own faith. Catholic hospitals, for example, would have to eject their non-Catholic employees and limit their patients to Catholics in order to qualify for the exemption.”  (from Statement by The Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades, bishop of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese)

The HHS rule was also challenged in Congress, where Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., sponsored legislation that would restore the option for religious organizations to opt out of coverage.  "This is about whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn't be doing. It’s that simple," Rubio said.

Advocates for the rule say the measure is an advance for women's reproductive rights, pointing to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that studies sexual and reproductive issues, which reported last year that nearly all sexually active U.S. women had used birth control. That includes 98 percent of Catholic women, the study reported.

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said the administration was willing to work with Catholic universities and hospitals to find a way for them to cover contraception without abridging "anyone's religious freedom."  So, on Friday, February 10, 2012, President Obama announced a compromise that would ensure that women’s access to free contraception would be maintained and that “religious liberty” would also be protected by ensuring that workers for religious-affiliated institutions would be able to get free contraception covered directly by insurance companies.  Although the Administration had originally given itself a year to work out the details of birth control coverage, the President acknowledged that the situation could not wait that long and had to be addressed swiftly. 

In spite of all the debate, it is my contention that not all the issues were clearly addressed in-depth. Here are two thoughts that need further exploration, in my opinion.

1)  Churches have certain obligations in a pluralistic society, one of which is the constraint of a tendency to want to establish their beliefs, doctrines, practices and dogmas as the law of the land, or at least as the prevailing opinion.

--It is incumbent upon religions and religious institutions not to push its beliefs and practices on others; only on its own members.  The separation of church and state means, for example, that prayer in schools is unconstitutional because no matter how it is done, prayer is a religious practice, usually done in a format of a particular faith or sect.   No religion or sect should be able to impose its own beliefs or practices upon others (and prayers , in whatever form, are theological statements of belief)
--Likewise, the dogma that contraception is against God’s will for His creation, is a statement that  is totally unacceptable to millions of our citizens 
--If a church or agency of the church accepts federal funds, it becomes a contractor of the government (and of the people) and cannot expect to set the rules as though there was no  separation of church & state
--As a provider of tax-supported services, a religious institution should not be allowed to  use religious doctrine as an excuse to deny certain services that are mandated for its clients or employees

2)  Moreover,  it is most important to realize that Government should not establish a religion, or any particular dogma of it, in its services and operations.  The Catholic Church is trying to get the government to make an exception for its particular beliefs.  John F. Kennedy had the answer for that when he said that no cleric or pope would set government policy under his administration

Forgotten in this heated rhetoric about First Amendment rights is the very important declaration of the 1st amendment (in that phrase that comes before that of the “free exercise of religion”) and that is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The development of this over time through legislation and Court decisions has led us to a society in which separation of church and state is of tremendous consequence.

It is my very strong opinion that Congress (and past Presidents) have skirted, ignored, undermined, and completely overturned this very important part of our Constitution.   In my opinion:  Any money given by government to religious groups for any reason, is an establishment of that religion and is a violation of this provision -- no matter what the Supreme Court may say for they have been complicit in the undermining of this constitutional principle.   It doesn’t even matter whether all religions are treated the same, and all receive funds, for that is still an establishment of religion, as opposed, for instance to those who have no religion.  It violates the right to have no favoring of (any) religion at all.

Traditionally, religiously affiliated non-profits such as Catholic Charities, the Jewish Federation and Lutheran Social Services had to set up separate, secular non-profits in order to receive federal funds and were restricted in how much religious content their programs could have.

However, then-Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), added something called “charitable choice” to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act to ensure that faith-based organizations were not prevented from applying for federal welfare-to-work funds because of their religious character. Later, Congress extended the concept to some federal block grants and drug treatment funding.  This was the “foot in the door.”  From there it was a cake-walk to diminution of the establishment clause, and on to the present situation where the RC Church has the audacity to assert that the government must respect their opposition to both birth control and abortion.  In my opinion, while there is room for government respect of religious belief, there is no room for funding of that belief, directly or indirectly.

Under “charitable choice“, religious groups no longer had to form secular non-profits to receive federal money. And they could hold voluntary prayers, display religious icons and use "religious principles and concepts" in counseling and providing services. However, government money could not be used for sectarian worship, instruction or proselytizing.  “Charitable choice” also allowed faith groups an exemption from federal bans on religious discrimination in hiring. 

Religious groups could not require people in federally-funded programs to participate in religious activities nor could they discriminate in providing social services based on religion. Anyone uncomfortable in a faith-run program was legally entitled to a secular alternative.  The Rev. Emory Searcy, national organizer for Call to Renewal, a Washington-based ecumenical anti-poverty coalition, said his group still encourages congregations to form separate nonprofits to maintain their independence. Perhaps in advancing their argument against government in this instance, the Catholic Bishops and clergy have unwittingly raised the issue of whether their non-worshipping institutions (and those of other faiths) should be required to return to that standard.

It was George W. Bush who followed up on “charitable choice” to establish his “faith-based initiative.”  He said his administration would put the federal government ''squarely on the side of America's armies of compassion'' and he added: ``The days of discriminating against religious institutions simply because they are religious must come to an end''  (an amazing statement, since the establishment clause essentially requires the government to discriminate against all religion in order not to favor any one particular manifestation of it).  But Bush also insisted his faith-based plan to give religious groups a greater role in curing social problems like homelessness, alcoholism and drug addiction, by letting them compete for government grants, would not cross the constitutional boundary separating church and state.  “As president, I'm interested in what is constitutional and I'm interested in what works,'' he said.

As was so often true, Bush missed the main point: giving government money to religious institutions is an establishment of religion, even if the institution is involved “in curing social problems,” and even if all institutions - religious and non-religious -- have equal opportunity to obtain the government funds.  The Government is still enabling religious institutions to establish religious influence with non-members.  The government should simply not be in the business of monetarily supporting religious organizations in any form of proselytizing.  And, that is a major problem here with the Catholic Church and others who support them on the question of contraception:  the Government is using the people’s money to support religious institutions with certain beliefs about abortion and contraception that run counter to the beliefs of others (and to the law of the land), and who do not shrink from trying to force their beliefs upon the rest of the Republic, utilizing the very funds provided by the government. 

If the Catholic Church (or Evangelicals) want to advocate their religious views in a pluralistic society, they are free to do so,  but let them give up receipt of government funds in the pursuit of their enterprise.  That is the price of religious liberty and the price of separation of church and state.

The Catholic Church has accused the government of an attack on religious liberty in this case, but the truth is that the Church is advocating the diminution of others’ liberties by trying to overlook, and to veto, the separation of church and state by accepting government aid while (and in support of) spreading its activities and its beliefs.

The “faith-based program” of George W. Bush was ill-conceived from the beginning.  He tried to walk a line that one cannot walk under our constitution.  He was right to say: “Government, of course, cannot fund, and will not fund, religious activities.”  He should have stuck with that view, because that is the essence of separation of church and state and the non-establishment of religion.  Non-discrimination against religious agencies doing social work, or putting them on an equal footing with non-religious agencies who do the same work, are not valid reasons for overturning the concept of separation or establishment.  They are simply rationalizations for aiding and abetting certain religious groups.

A reader commenting in The New York Times, said: "The honorable thing for Catholic universities to do under these circumstances is to refuse to accept federal aid, in order to be true to their principles. If these universities do not refuse federal aid, then they should abide by federal rules."

Another reader commented: “Catholic universities are free to pursue their religion without federal aid, and in this case, should do so and celebrate their freedom.”

It is time for the American Catholic Bishops to advocate for a return to the Constitutional provision of no establishment of religion and its legal interpretations leading to separation of church and state.  Let them affirm their beliefs by giving up government aid for their institutions and programs -- including hospitals, Catholic Charities, universities, etc. -- if they do not agree with mandates by government that disagree with their doctrines or practices. Unfortunately, they are disparaging government restriction of their religious liberty while, at the same time, freely accepting government funding.  Strong and true advocates would protest government action by giving up government funds!  If they cannot voluntarily do that,  consideration should be given to the gradual withdrawal of federal funds from all religious institutions so that we can begin to reassert the primacy of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment!  (Since that is probably not going to happen, a return to separate secular non-profit arms of religious organizations that seek federal funding is an acceptable alternative).

The Obama administration’s compromise on the issue of contraceptive coverage and religious liberty is certainly one way around this controversy, taking both the government and the Catholic Church off the hook. Bill Moyers, writing in an op-ed piece on February 16, said this about the compromise:  “So here we are once again, arguing over how to honor religious liberty without it becoming the liberty to impose on others moral beliefs they don't share. Our practical solution is the one Barack Obama embraced the other day: protect freedom of religion -- and protect freedom from religion. Can't get more American than that.”

However, the issues of no establishment of religion and separation of church and state remain, and must eventually be carefully addressed.  This is the “elephant in the room” that has grown larger and larger as religious organizations continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths, viz., ‘don’t interfere with our beliefs but keep the government money flowing.’  The establishment of religion by government funding leads inevitably to a conclusion on the part of religious organizations that they have been given the right to make protection of their beliefs the main issue rather than the primary issue being: how do we prevent government establishment of any set of religious beliefs or practices, while still supporting free exercise of religion?

TAXES: Who’s Paying What to Whom?

According to a post by Kevin McCormally, Editorial Director, Kiplinger.com, October 13, 2011:
“The latest numbers from the IRS -- based on 2009 tax returns -- show what it takes to be among the top 1% of income earners: adjusted gross income of $343,927 or more. The 1.4 million Americans with this elite status reported 16.9% of all the country's taxable income.   But that same tiny group also kicked in 37% of all the taxes paid.

“How much do you need to make to be in the top 50% of earners? Just $32,396.
Fall below that level and you are in the bottom half, along with nearly 70 million of your fellow taxpayers. All told, that bottom group earned just 13% of the income reported on 2009 tax returns. And they coughed up 2.25% of all the income taxes paid.

(Note that these figures include only federal income taxes. According to one study, more than half of all wage earners pay more in Social Security and Medicare taxes than they do income tax. The percentage of those paying more payroll tax than income tax soars to nearly 90% if you count both the employer and employee share of those levies.)

For historical perspective, back in 1986, the top 1% of earners reported 11% of all income and paid 26% of the income taxes; the lower-earning 50% made 17% of the income and paid 6% of the nation’s individual income tax bill.”

Want to find out where you fall on this spectrum?  Take a look at the calculator tool developed by Kiplinger.com.  Enter the AGI from your 2009 or 2010 tax return (line 37 if you used the Form 1040, line 21 on Form 1040A or line 4 on the 1040-EZ. Or enter your annual salary; the IRS categories are broad enough that your result will likely be the same) and you’ll instantly know the answer.  How did you make out?  Were you Surprised?  Satisfied? Horrified?  About where you expected?

Where does it all go?
I found another fascinating tool on Wheredidmytaxdollarsgo.com.  You can enter the same information (your AIG from 2009 or 2010 or your gross salary) into a calculator and it will bring up for you a chart that is interactive, allowing you to click on pieces of a pie that will then give a more detailed analysis of where your dollars specifically end up; based, I assume, on percentage distributions of overall tax revenues.  Nonetheless, it provides a telling portrayal of what our tax dollars are supporting.  The chart uses statistics from 2009, as did the previous calculator, because that is what is available from the IRS right now.  I’ve pulled in an example of what you’ll see if you try it.  Go ahead--try it!

       For an income of $50,000
Federal Taxes: $4,955
(Filing as Married (Filing Jointly), your adjusted gross income was $38,600 after a standard deduction of $11,400)
Social Security Taxes: $3,100
The first $106,800 of your total income is taxed at 6.20%.
Medicare Taxes: $725
Your total income is taxed at 1.45%. There is no upper limit on your taxable income here.
The employer pays an equal amount ($3,825) of Social Security and Medicare taxes on your behalf
Your Total Taxes were $8,780, an effective tax rate of 17.6% for a SALARIED PERSON
(NOTE: The standard deduction is used here.  Your actual tax liability will vary based on the deductions and exemptions you may qualify for)

Using this example, the contribution to Income Security was around $1,406
(notice this piece of the pie above is pulled out from the rest).  Here’s where some of that money goes in this category:
$336    Unemployment Trust Fund
    3.8% of total

$131    Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
    1.5% of total

$128    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
    1.5% of total

$95    Military Retirement Fund
    1.1% of total

$88    Supplemental Security Income Program
    1.0% of total

$34    Tenant Based Rental Assistance
    0.4% of total

$32    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
    0.4% of total

$31    Child Nutrition Programs
    0.4% of total

Who and what are your tax dollars supporting beyond the usual budgetary process?

An article written in 2010 by Lily Batchelder and Eric Toder for Americanprogress.org gets at the heart of where so much of taxpayer dollars end up.  These particular payments are “under-the-radar” so to speak, as they do not fall under the usual budgetary process of the Congress.  As the article explains:

“When policymakers look to trim fat from the federal government they too often ignore half the problem: the vast and complicated set of spending programs administered by the Internal Revenue Service. These programs are often referred to as tax expenditures, but…  they should be viewed just like any other type of government spending.

’Tax expenditures’ are government spending through the tax code. They are distributed through deductions, exclusions, credits, exemptions, preferential tax rates, and deferrals. What makes them look different from grants or checks is that they are delivered through the tax code as part of tax expenditure spending programs.

In fiscal year 2011 we will spend over $1 trillion on tax expenditures. That’s more than three-fourths of all corporate and individual income tax revenues and more than one-and-a-half times the cost of all federal domestic discretionary spending. If all these programs were repealed we could cut corporate and individual income tax rates by over 40 percent and still collect the same amount of revenue.  (OK, Tea Partiers -- where are you when we really need you to pay attention to tax cuts?)

These programs fly under the radar of media and popular opinion for two reasons. First, almost all IRS-administered spending programs are not subject to the same annual appropriations process as discretionary spending. Just as with big entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and farm subsidies, their costs depend on formulas created by Congress that once set are rarely changed. Spending on them rises automatically with increases in eligible beneficiaries and changes in economic conditions, such as health care costs or interest rates.  Second, IRS-administered spending programs appear to be tax cuts instead of spending because they transfer funds to businesses and individuals through rebates that reduce tax liability. But make no mistake: These programs are the same as spending by other agencies.”
 
If you took your tax dollars and paid corporations directly, instead of through the IRS, you might see your outlay in a different light.  Onenationundermom.com gives an example of a taxpayer owing $2,324  in taxes for 2010 which would be divided between the following companies:
Exxon Mobil: $95
Monsanto: $89
General Electric: $62
Archer Daniels Midlands: $83
Lockheed Martin: $143
DuPont: $139 
and 27 other checks to corporations utilizing the balance

Oil companies pay less in U.S. taxes in part because they receive generous tax subsidies. For example, in 2009, Exxon Mobile paid no taxes and continues to pay at least 10% less than it would in non-US countries.  In other words, Exxon’s U.S. “effective tax rate” is made lower by tax subsidies.  These subsidies will cost the U.S. taxpayers about $3 billion next year in lost revenue and nearly $20 billion over the next five years.

These tax expenditures can amount to a significant portion of federal subsidies for oil and gas. The cost of tax expenditure programs for oil and gas companies made up about 88 percent of total federal subsidies in 2006 (Americanprogress.org).

While we’re at it, let’s mention a few more subsidies or tax expenditures that might not get reported with any great transparency:

--Among the members of the 112th Congress who collect subsidy payments from USDA are six Democrats and 17 Republicans. The disparity between the parties is even greater in terms of dollar amounts: $489,856 went to Democrats, but more than 10 times as much, $5,334,565, to Republicans.  Several new members of Congress who won with tea party support have been less than eager to talk about farm subsidies ever since the news broke last year that they, or their families, personally benefit from those very taxpayer dollars. (www.ewg.org)

--Millionaires in the United States receive about $30 billion annually in government subsidies according to a report released recently by Senator Tom Coburn.
The 37-page report, dubbed 'Subsidies of the Rich and Famous,' details government payments provided to individuals with annual gross incomes of at least $1million.  These subsidies come through unemployment checks, Social Security payments, farm subsidies and numerous tax credits.  (www.dailymail.co.uk)

--The extensive federal welfare system for farm businesses is costly to taxpayers and it creates distortions in the economy. Subsidies induce farmers to overproduce, which pushes down prices and creates political demands for further subsidies. Subsidies inflate land prices in rural America. And the flow of subsidies from Washington hinders farmers from innovating, cutting costs, diversifying their land use, and taking the actions needed to prosper in a competitive global economy.
 
Farm subsidies transfer the earnings of taxpayers to a small group of fairly well-off farm businesses and landowners.  Although policymakers love to discuss the plight of the small farmer, the bulk of federal farm subsidies goes to the largest farms. Since 2000, the USDA has even paid $1.3 billion in farm subsidies to people who own land that is no longer used for farming. (www.downsizinggovernment.org)

--The government paid millions of dollars last year in farm subsidies to wealthy city-dwellers – many of them receiving taxpayer dollars not to farm their rural country estates, according to a new report by the Environmental Working Group.  According to the group, 290 people in New York City received farm subsidies in 2010 and raked in a total of $880,887, 734 "farmers" in Chicago got $2,173,344 in federal subsidies, and 203 people in Miami got $2,472,071 worth. On the West Coast, 179 people in San Francisco were paid $1,094,172.  (ABCnews)

--How would you like to get the Federal Government to invest with you in a hot new business in the global market? For every buck you put up, the government, in the form of something called the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), puts up two bucks. Best of all, if the deal goes sour because of a crumbling economy, currency devaluation or some other unforeseen event, you won't have to pay back the government's share.

Sound too good to be true? It is, unless you have $1 million or more to put in the pot. That's most often the minimum investment required for one of these deals. As a result, investors fall into three broad groups: wealthy individuals, institutions such as pension funds, and large corporations like GE and Citicorp.

In the 1990s, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation established 26 funds, which have invested $3.2 billion in businesses in Europe, Asia and Latin America. The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) has established 11 other funds with 1.4 billion taxpayer dollars.  In the case of AID's so-called enterprise funds, the investment dollars are supplied directly by you, the taxpayer.  (www.cps-news.com)

My point?  Don’t be BAMBOOZLED by all the political rhetoric that says the only way to deal with our deficit is to cut budgetary discretionary spending, and to raise taxes on the rich.  Although necessary to some extent, both remedies are short-sighted and inadequate.  The off-budget expenditure of tax-payer dollars is far more out-of-date, over-blown, unregulated, and costly to your tax-paying wallet.  Let’s get real.  It’s time to look at tax expenditures as we would at all those budgetary expenses and excesses.  Corporate welfare is eating up our tax dollars like nothing else, and makes welfare for the poor look like a pittance in comparison.