Proud of their Record–at Whose Expense?

"We should not be judged on how many new laws we create. We ought to be judged on how many laws we repeal." -- John Boehner

Has a Speaker of the House ever been this negative about his Party’s legislative record?  Probably not.  Perhaps more importantly: has a Speaker of the House ever admitted in public that he and his Party did not carry out their constitutional responsibility?  Doubtful.  This statement from Speaker Boehner represents an entirely new standard of measurement for a legislative agenda.  And yet, he has captured the essence of the mission of this Republican-controlled Congress:  it has established a new record of obstruction, delay and opposition unknown in the modern era.  And all this not only because the President is of a racial heritage that they cannot abide, but because they are being pushed by their right-wing to oppose central government power and largesse.

The founding fathers built into our constitution certain conflicts known as checks and balances.  In terms of the relationship of the Legislative and Executive branches, there are many built in checks.  One is the fact that the Congress has the ability to approve departmental and judicial appointees (including nominees for the Supreme Court), as well as the approval of treaties.  Congress also has the power of the budget, as all budgets must begin in the House of Representatives. 

It is usually a sign of a politically positive relationship when Congress approves the President’s nominees without too many problems especially when the make-up of Congress is at odds with the political status of the president. For example, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill had such a relationship. Clinton as a Democrat had to work with a Republican dominated Congress for most of his two terms in office. President Bush also had to work with a Senate made up of a Republican majority, but after (former) Senator James Jeffords of Vermont changed from Republican to Independent and caucused with Democrats , this was no longer the case. 

No president can avoid political entanglements with Congress (unless he has no legislative initiatives!).  In the recent past, the most important bills were often ratified by Congress after much back room debate. The Great Reform bills of Lyndon Johnson were passed but only after much ‘wheeling’ and dealing in back rooms with Congressional chairman. Nixon, who had a less than positive relationship with Congress, had to seek their support for SALT 1 and for expanding the money spent on the Vietnam War. After September 11th, 2001, President Bush had a relatively good relationship with Congress because Congress had to be seen to be supporting the commander-in-chief in the country's time of need.

Wikipedia reminds us:  “In essence Congress and the president have what is essentially a policy of bargaining if a particular bill is potentially controversial. If certain issues have been put into a bill and Congress does not support them, that is where the back room dealing takes place to get the bill passed… so that it pleases everyone.”

But all that came before Mitch McConnell uttered his infamous statement that his primary objective was to make President Obama a one-term President.  That statement was a declaration of political war.  And there has been no let-up in that war even though President Obama was re-elected in November of 2012 with certain policies and promises also approved by the electorate.  The point to make here is that, not only have Republicans in House and Senate blocked key legislation that could have helped the economy rebound, but by refusing to approve appointments, they have kept this administration struggling to carry out Executive functions. 

What is worse, some radical Republicans continue to attack the President at every turn with racial stereotypes and with innuendo, lies and distortions (as in the recent so-called “scandal” hearings) that are meant to destroy his legacy.  For instance, repeal of the health care reform legislation (Affordable Care Act) has been tried at least 40 times in the House, and although passed there each time, has yet to be considered in the Senate.  Republicans continue to distort and lie about the effects of that piece of hallmark legislation because they have nothing comparable in their legislative repertoire and because it requires the richest 1% to pay a fair share of costs for adequate health care. 

To remind ourselves of the ferocity of this attack, let us review some of the important pieces of legislation that Republicans have shot down over the last few years (part of this list is from dpreview.com):
1)    Tax on Companies that ship jobs overseas- A bill that would have eliminated a tax break that companies get when they ship jobs overseas. Republicans blocked this, allowing companies to keep the tax break they receive when they ship jobs to other countries.
2)    Political Ad disclosure bill- Would have required all donors to political campaigns to reveal themselves. Republicans blocked this, not once but twice.
3)    Subpoena Power for the Committee investigating the BP Oil Spill – Give subpoena power to the independent committee responsible for investigating BP’s roll in the oil spill. Republicans attempted to block this.
4)    The Small Business Jobs Act -would give LOCAL, community banks access to billions of dollars to loan to small businesses. Republicans blocked this, then attempted to block it a second time and failed.
5)    The DREAM Act- Gives immigrant youth who were brought here as children a path to citizenship by earning a college degree or serving the military for 2 years. Republicans blocked this.
6)    Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”- Would have repealed the law that forces gay and lesbian services members to lie about their sexuality and gives the military the right to discharge soldiers based on their sexuality. Republicans blocked this many times and Democrats were finally able to pass it with the support of just 2 Republicans.
7)    Senator Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill – Makes it so that women raped overseas while working for foreign contractors have the right to have their case heard in an American court instead of having their case mediated by the company they work for. Only Republican men voted against this, but it passed.
8)    Benefits for Homeless Veterans- would have expanded benefits to homeless veterans and homeless veterans with children. Republicans blocked this.
9)    Affordable Health Care For America Act- Prevents insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of “pre-existing conditions”. Requires that insurance companies spend 85 cents of every dollar that you pay on your actual health care. Limits health insurance companies profit margins. Republicans blocked this for months before it finally passed and have vowed to repeal it if they are elected.
10)    Health Care for the 9/11 First Responders who got sick from being at Ground Zero- Would provide billions of dollars in health care to help the 9/11 First Responders who were at Ground Zero on 9/11 and are now sick because of it. Republicans blocked this.
11)    The Jobs Bill- Offsets the payroll tax for 1 year for companies that hire new employees, or people receiving unemployment insurance. Also gives other tax incentives to companies hiring new employees. Republicans attempted to block this.
12)    Wall Street Reform- Puts stricter regulations on the banks, preventing them from becoming “too big to fail”. Curbs reckless spending practices that caused the banking crisis. Republicans attempted to block this.
13)    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act- Pumped billions of dollars into state and local Governments to prevent us from sinking into a second Great Depression. Republicans opposed this but now want to take credit for the parts of it that we know are successful.
14)    Oil Spill Liability- Raises the liability on what companies can be made to pay to clean up after an oil spill. Republicans blocked this.
15)    Immigration Reform- Republicans suggested comprehensive immigration reform until Obama supported it. Now they’re rabidly opposed to it and even voted against their own legislation. Republicans blocked this, although another attempt is in the House after Senate approval, but outcome is likely to be piece-meal but not comprehensive.
16)    Unemployment extension bill HR-4213- Would provide additional aid to the millions of Americans still on unemployment who are just trying to support themselves and their families. Republicans blocked this bill for 8 weeks before it finally passed.
17)    Fair Pay Act of 2009- Also called the Lily Ledbetter bill. Requires that women receive equal compensation to men for doing the same work. Republicans attempted to block this.

A number of bills had to do with Department of Defense:
18)    No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
19)    Report identifying hybrid or electric propulsion systems and other fuel-saving technologies for incorporation into tactical motor vehicles.
20)    Protection of child custody arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of a contingency operation.
21)    Improvements to Department of Defense domestic violence programs.
22)    Department of Defense recognition of spouses of members of the Armed Forces.
23)    Department of Defense recognition of children of members of the Armed Forces.
24)    Enhancements to the Troops-to-Teachers Program.
25)    Fiscal year 2011 increase in military basic pay.
26)    Improving aural protection for members of the Armed Forces.
27)    Comprehensive policy on neurocognitive assessment by the military health care system.
28)    Authority to make excess nonlethal supplies available for domestic emergency assistance.

And the list goes on.   How about legislation blocked in 2012 from thinkprogress.org:
A minimum wage increase.  House Democrats proposed legislation in June that would have raised the national minimum wage to $10 an hour, but Republicans blocked it. The minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour, even though it would need to be raised to $9.92 to match the borrowing power it had in 1968. If it was indexed to inflation, it would be $10.40 today.
Campaign finance transparency.  The DISCLOSE Act of 2012, repeatedly blocked by Congressional Republicans, would have allowed voters to know who was funding the attack ads that flooded the airways from secretive groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS.
The Buffett Rule.  Senate Republicans in April filibustered the Buffet Rule, which would have set a minimum tax on millionaires. Huge majorities of Americans consistently support the rule, which would raise tens of billions of dollars per year from Americans who have seen their incomes explode while their tax rates plummeted.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  ENDA, which would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, has languished in Congress for decades, and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) “hasn’t thought much” about bringing it to a vote.
U.N. treaty to protect the equal rights of the disabled.  Republicans blocked ratification of the United Nations treaty to protect the rights of disabled people around the world, falsely claiming it would undermine parents of disabled children. In fact, the treaty would require other nations to revise their laws to resemble the Americans With Disabilities Act and had overwhelming support from veterans and disabilities groups. It failed by 5 votes. 
The Paycheck Fairness Act.  It’s about to be 2013, and women are still getting paid less than men for the same job. This year the Paycheck Fairness Act came up for a vote again (previous efforts to pass the law have been unsuccessful), but the Senate GOP still couldn’t get it together to pass the legislation. Republicans oppose the measure, saying it helps trial lawyers instead of women. But the country’s female doctors, lawyers, and CEOs might be inclined to disagree. 
Cyber security bill – blocked in Senate
Veteran’s Jobs Bill – blocked in Senate
The Bring Jobs Home Act - The bill would have provided a 20% tax break for the costs of moving jobs back to the U.S. It removes tax deductions for the business expenses of jobs moving overseas. Simple enough but 42 Republicans voted to obstruct. 
The Payroll Tax Cut Renewal.  This tax cut reaches 160 million people and stimulates demand by leaving money in consumers’ hands.  Economists call this one of the most stimulative possible approaches for increasing jobs in the economy.
The JOBS Act. Obama broke the bill in 16 parts so that Republicans could block segments that were only tax cuts. Republicans blocked every part except for one to help veterans. That is a total of 17 jobs bills blocked.  They didn't say what they disagreed with.  They just completely blocked debate.

Policymic.com sums up the problem and the issue:
“The method Republicans have used to block all jobs legislation in the past two years is the same. A jobs bill comes up, it is filled with positive things for the economy, Republicans filibuster debate, this shields them from having to make floor speeches on why they don't want tax breaks for small businesses... etc.  Why? Well, if the economy recovers too strongly before an election, Republicans will lose power. If jobs numbers look too good, people will want to keep the same party. By Republicans blocking all jobs legislation and keeping jobs numbers from improving they believe this is their ticket to power.  In other words, if you and other Americans suffer just long enough it will pay off for Republicans.  They sacrifice the citizens' jobs with the hopes that they will create more Republican jobs in Congress.”

That is the essence of Republican opposition.  They are hell-bent on slowing the economic recovery for as long as they possibly can, and “sequestration” is the biggest gift they could have been handed in pursuit of their mission!  If Obama’s legacy is wrecked in the process, all the better.  Even on TV talk shows today, Republican spokespersons attacked the Recovery as being slow and ineffective.  Secondly, they blame Obamacare as a major part of the reason for slow Recovery because it is a “job-killer.”  Never do they take responsibility for blocking all the legislation that would have stimulated the economy.

If it isn’t clear to you yet, it may never be.  The Republicans in Congress by their negative votes have said the following directly to you:  we don’t care what you say or what you think.  The survival of our Grand Old Party is now our number one priority; nothing else matters.  We will take control in 2014 and in 2016 and then we will show you what must happen: central government and its many welfare programs will be shrunk beyond current imagination, and governing power will be returned to the states.  The richest 1% will be given their due as the job-creators and power-brokers, but the middle class and lower classes must learn personal responsibility for themselves.  No more dependence on government hand-outs.  The strong will survive in style and the weak will have to get along as best they can. 

Don’t be fooled by the words of John Boehner; he is seriously proud about the record of his conference in terms, not of repeal, but of blockage of the Obama agenda.  He, and Mitch McConnell, want to be long remembered for taking on the liberals and winning a victory that he hopes will prove to be the record that started a new era of laissez-faire capitalism and minimalist national government.  Ignore their bamboozling words.  Remember their actions!  The Congressional Republicans have prevented our economy from growing at a rate that would have given the President a clear political victory, and the middle class a boost.  And, then they try to blame him for the result.

They will continue their war in spite of the items that the people say they need: jobs, affordable health care, attention to education and infrastructure, and protection from rapacious corporations, banks, Wall Street firms; no more tax breaks for the rich or boondoggles for defense contractors; plus, they want fair elections, energy alternatives and protection of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and private pensions.

John Boehner is proud of his Party’s record of repeal and obstruction.  Meanwhile, while Congress holds back on any stimulus of the economy, we are held hostage and battered by their malignant and bellicose negativity.

We Can Do This!

I have a friend who happens to be an African American.  What I have seen in him of late, I also saw Friday in President Obama.  I saw hurt and pain, and resolve.

The interesting thing about this is that I have learned something very valuable.  The Trayvon Martin tragedy, while affecting me in a very profound way, is not the same as it is for my friend and for the President.

When the Republican radicals in various states during the last presidential election, were passing laws to keep African-Americans from exercising their right to vote, I was appalled, angry and sad.  My friend was as well.  But for him, it was something more. 

When those same conservative radicals were telling lies, and saying that the President was a racist, a Kenyan, a Muslim, a socialist, and that he had an invalid birth certificate (after saying that he was not even born in the United States), I was again appalled and angry.  My friend was more than angry; he was incensed and overwhelmed.  There was something more involved than there was with me.

When my friend and I, along with other members of our organization, traveled to the State of Pennsylvania to help register voters, we encountered reluctance of people to sign papers that would serve to get them registered.  I took it in stride, believing it was simple apathy, or the need to get chores done (it was a Saturday, and people were shopping).  My friend had to abandon our effort; it was something more to him.

On the way home in my car, I learned what had moved him.  He said being on the street pleading with people to register -- “begging” them was the word he used -- reminded him too much of days when he had been homeless and literally had to beg for food and beverage.

Friday’s speech by the President was in that vein.  Trayvon Martin’s experience reminded him of his own experiences as a young black man. 

With me, my anger and hurt were based on principles that I cherish, actions that I abhor, and with arrogance that I cannot abide.  With me, it was mostly an attack against my beliefs and my intellectual understandings of this country’s precepts and  underpinnings.  I was outraged by ideas and actions that are offensive to me, not because of my experiences necessarily, but because of my understandings. 

With my President, and with my friend, it’s something much deeper.  As a white man, I need to understand this, and to respect it.

When the President said, “I could have been Trayvon Martin 35 years ago”; or when he recounted the locking of car doors as he walked by, or the pursuit of him within a department store -- he was not using metaphors, or discussing intellectual tenets, or merely recounting experiences. He was living it.  He was feeling what it was like.  He was there in that apartment complex.  He knows within his very being what it is like to be Trayvon; to be a young black man being treated as a pariah, as a threat, as the n-word.  My friend felt all these things so personally in this way that he had to pull back from our organization, go to the doctor, and go through a healing process.  It was then I realized how personal this all is for him, and I remembered an incident related to gun violence prevention where he had to leave the room for a time because he was overwhelmed by a personal experience that is part of his personal history.

The President referred to something else that white men have to understand and respect.  He spoke of the context of history and of a structured racism that is so engrained in the black man’s psyche and soul that it is ever-present and ever a factor in how he sees the world, and in how the world sees him.  President Obama is remarkable in his ability to explain that experience and to also turn it off, so to speak, when it does not serve his broader mission of being President to all the people.  In my opinion, that is why he has not spoken in this way before, but this moment demanded a different and unique approach.  And, he delivered.  His eloquence is contained in the fact that he was able to bring us inside his soul to have a look at what black men deal with every day. 

But, what about that history?  For me as a white man, slavery - forced human servitude - is not engrained in my experience or in my life.  But for most black men and women born in this country, it is there as heritage, as family history, as a living reality.  While that may be fading somewhat in a younger generation brought up in a multicultural society, with many civil rights secured, and with knowledge of slavery limited more to textbooks than to oral tradition handed down, this history may not be as personal.  But the Trayvon Martin incident brings to the fore an oral tradition that slavery probably produced as fathers told sons how to survive, and especially how to be subservient to the overseer and master without losing every ounce of one’s dignity.  That “talk” has now become vitally necessary once again.

Of course, that history of servitude morphed into a history of second-class citizenship in the days following the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.  We entered the first Jim Crow era (1876-1965) when laws were passed in southern and border states (some in northern and western states) to keep black men and women in a state of existence that denied them the basic rights that others (whites) freely enjoyed.  How could that historical denigration not personally affect a whole cohort of the people?  It did, and it still does.  The laws inculcated as many indecencies as could possibly be perpetrated upon a race of people, including segregation of public schools, public places, and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains for whites and blacks, as well as strict definitions of what was and wasn’t appropriate behavior between the races, marriage laws, voting restrictions such as poll taxes and unfair voting requirements such as literacy tests.  They were not able to serve on juries nor run for political office.  “Importantly, even in cases in which Jim Crow laws did not expressly forbid black people to participate in sports or recreation, the laws shaped a segregated culture.”

That last point from Wikipedia is very important, for it is the atmosphere, the milieu that was created that has lived on in the lives of African-Americans because the dominant race and culture accepted and ingested them.  It is the stereotypes, the labels -- like lazy incompetent, dull, stupid, and perhaps evil -- that come down to us and define more relationships between the races than we care to acknowledge. 

Make no mistake.  When my friend and the President talk about the effects of their history, they are telling us that the stereotypes it produced are a living reality for every black man in this country. 

And that is not the end of the matter.  Those stereotypes and denigrations live on within many of our institutions and constitute what has been called “institutional racism,” and what is now being called “structured racism.”
 
I have recently been reminded that there is a difference between individual prejudice (individuals pre-judging someone by appearance or preconceived notions, i.e. stereotypes) or bigotry (holding an intolerant viewpoint unfazed and unmoved by facts or informed opinion), and the concretizing of such prejudices and intolerances into the laws of the land and into the foundational principles, policies and rules of our institutions.  Wikipedia quotes one definition:

“Institutional racism is distinguished from racial bigotry by the existence of institutional systemic policies, practices and economic and political structures which place non-white racial and ethnic groups at a disadvantage in relation to an institution’s white members.” 

One example is public school budgets along with the quality of teachers, which in the U.S. are both often correlated with property values.  Thus, rich neighborhoods are more likely to be more 'white' and to have better teachers and more money for education, even in public schools.

Can we say, then, that the almost exclusive taxing of property owners for the operation of public schools builds in a discriminatory principle against minorities?  That is exactly the case.

Was this an accident, or was it planned?  One opinion is:  “In drafting the Constitution, our founding fathers intended to allow states to retain the power to tax its own residents. Since property taxes benefit local residents with community improvements, the federal government does not play a big role in how each state uses its property taxes or how states tax its residents as long as states do not violate federal laws or Constitutional rights.” (ehow.com). 

That says to me that the founding fathers were making sure that local property owners were not going to lose any privilege of ownership to a central government.  They made sure to keep control on their home turf.  In fact, as time passed, states passed the taxing power to local governments and allowed local county or city and town governments to implement their own local property taxes.  That historical fact and action says to me that the people who owned property, wanted the property taxing power even closer to home so they would have a greater chance for control of rates and distribution.

According to the National Center for Education, just one-tenth of school funding comes from federal taxes. The remainder of the funding comes from local property taxes. Because property taxes are used for public education programs, school equipment and capital building improvements, there are certain facts and outcomes one must consider:
Ø    Since property taxes reflect a community's collective riches or wealth, the lack of textbooks and equipment, and of excellent teachers, with classes being held in outdated and dilapidated public school buildings, are signs that a community is unable to generate enough revenue through its property taxes to fund basic requirements for a quality education; 
Ø    Equal opportunities to succeed are automatically limited by such a lack of resources
Ø    The worth of students in this environment of limitation and scarcity is questioned not only by more prosperous outside community members, but by the members of the local community, and even by the school faculty and students themselves;
Ø    Schemes for improvement get developed by politicians, business leaders, concerned citizens and many others but these schemes most often fail because they deal with everything but the source of revenue
Ø    As of the year 2000, 14 percent of African-Americans had four-year college degrees, and 5 percent had advanced degrees - indicative of a lag in the quality of public schools in which most blacks are educated.  Black students attend college at about half the rate of white students
Ø    Census figures from 2005 indicate that while more African-Americans owned their own homes than at any time in our history, only 48% of them owned homes, while that figure was 78% for whites; thus, 52% of blacks are automatically excluded from paying into their community school budgets; or, looked at another way: whites have a distinct advantage when it comes to school support and school control
Ø    In 2004, the gap between the percentage of African Americans who owned their home and Caucasians who owned their home was at an all-time low of 23.7 percent. As of last year, it hit 25.6 percent, as the percentage of blacks who own their home hovered around 45%.  The effects of the Great Recession caused African-American home owners to lose their mortgages to foreclosure at twice the rate of white home owners.  School budgets suffered as a result
Ø    In 2004, 24.7% of African-American families lived below the poverty level.  In 2007, the average African-American income was $33,916, compared with $54,920 for whites. Poverty itself is a hardship related to several problems, including low educational attainment, and vice-versa: low-educational achievement pretty much guarantees a low-level of income.

The Supreme Court desegregated the country's public schools in the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. As a consequence, American public schools could no longer reject a student solely on the student's ethnic background. Brown v. Board of Education also led to mandated integration of public schools in what had been historically segregated schools.  In the nearly 60 years since Brown v. Board of Education, many African Americans who attended substandard, segregated schools in the 1950s have grown up to see their children attend integrated elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and universities.  However, substantial obstacles to equal educational opportunity still remain in America’s school systems.  Students of color, including African Americans, lag in equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory courses.  And they experience school discipline and referrals to special education at higher rates than their peers.

The capabilities of schools in impoverished districts are extremely limited due to the structure of public school funding. If a school has minimal funding, the opportunity for impoverished students to excel is made more difficult. When the money is unavailable, the necessities of a solid education such as books, technology, clean and safe facilities, good teachers, and small class sizes often cannot be provided. The students score lower on standardized tests and are unable to compete with the students from wealthier districts with more educational resources.

A vital step to eradicating racial discrimination in the schools is to provide equal funding for all students. The formulas for distribution of property tax dollars to schools is another example of built-in structured racism; structured so that students who are in the poorest of districts receive the smallest amount of funding. The students in these neighborhoods already face innumerable obstacles that inhibit their ability to break out of the poverty cycle. Yet these are the students who are given the fewest school supplies and educational materials. The government cannot expect a school to produce students with quality test scores when the school has no resources to implement improvements.

How does this happen?  Part of it is historical, as we have seen.  But, it is not by historical accident. There has been a tendency for certain individuals and groups in this country to spend much of their time and treasure promoting a deep-seeded intolerance for any other race than the white race.  That elitist attitude has existed since the time of our earliest American settlements, but came to full bloom with the advent of forced slavery of Africans to till the land and harvest the crops, particularly that of cotton in the Southern colonies.

This so-called privileged class continues to use their abundant resources to buy the allegiance, the skills of persuasion and coercion, and the votes of certain leaders at local, state and federal levels who do their bidding in preventing more immigrants from coming in and to keep citizens of color in “their place” and out of the realms of activity of the elite.  They influence the laws, the rules and the regulations of our government and of our economic and social institutions so that people of color will never have the same opportunities as they do.  The Supreme Court of the United States has, with recent rulings, strengthened their position in terms of eliminating or restricting affirmative action and voting rights, plus turning over control of public elections by allowing mass infusions of corporate cash. 

And so it is that institutional racism or, as I prefer to call it -- structural discrimination -- is alive and well, even as we speak.  Friday’s speech by the President made it clear that African Americans are more than aware that built-in discrimination is rampant and must be addressed.  The President suggested, I think rightly, that the “stand-your-ground” laws might be a place to start.  He also suggested that a dialogue on these matters is a necessity, not one led by politicians, but a dialogue of people meeting in homes, schools, and workplaces.  I think he has it about right, although I personally believe that more formal dialogue, perhaps in regional conferences around the country, may eventually be necessary to propose legislative and policy solutions to the White House and to the Congress. 

For now, I am content with personal home dialogues because they are in line with what I started with in this Blog.  We need to hear personal stories and experiences.  We need to understand how a history and personal experiences can live inside a group of people and affect them, and their health, in such a profound way.  We need to be sensitized to the personal damage and hurt that an incident like the Trayvon Martin tragedy can engender, along with all the other incidents that have occurred, and that keep occurring.  We need to hear how the history of denigration of a people can affect their outlook and their lives in our times.

We need to get personal and try to feel the depth of the hurt and pain that our institutions and our individual prejudices can cause people of color.  This is a moment in history when we have a real chance to move toward a more perfect Union.  We dare not listen to the voices of derision, despair, degradation and division.  As always, they are motivated by fear, bigotry and hate.  We must listen to the better angels of our nature and seek to bridge the divisions that keep us from perfecting the underlying precepts and principles of our democracy. Start a dialogue today and promote understanding where others propagate discord.  We can do this. 

The Path to Destruction

Like it or not, we are on a course in this country that has been destructive in the past, and will be again in the future.  No one knows exactly how long it will take to destroy a system built on the people’s will rather than on the will of a small group of elites who seek to run both the economy and the government to suit their own ends.  However, I am speculating that another generation is about all that is necessary.  Whatever am I talking about?
 
Let’s start with a societal comparison taken from a very interesting book titled: “Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty.”  The authors, Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, advance the basic theory that the causes of poverty and prosperity are not so much based on geography and culture, as they are on the kinds of institutions that are developed within a country or settlement.  Their first chapter highlights the differences in prosperity and poverty in the city of Nogales, a city divided by a border fence into Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Mexico.  They make the point that there is no difference in geography, climate or disease environment.  And even the background of residents is quite similar; they share common ancestors, enjoy the same food, and the same music – the same culture.

Yet basic components in the two halves of the city are markedly different.  In Nogales, AZ, the average income per family is about $30,000.  Most teenagers are in school, and the majority of adults are high school graduates; the population is relatively healthy with a relatively high life expectancy by world standards.  Many are above age sixty-five with access to Medicare, which is one of the taken-for-granted services government provides along with electricity, telephones, a sewage system, public health, and a road network linking them to the rest of the area and to the United States.  Law and order is another provided service that everyone expects to enjoy.  The government is their agent and their servant and they can vote to replace any official who is not doing an adequate job.
 
Life south of the border fence is quite different.  Family income is about a third less; most adults do not have a high school diploma; many teenagers are not in school.  Poor public health conditions contribute to a lesser survival age and infant mortality is higher.  Public services and amenities are much less – poor roads, crime is high, opening a business is a risky business; paying off public officials to obtain services is a way of life, and politician’s corruption and ineptitude are every-day occurrences.  Democratic processes there are a recent experience since until 2000, the people were under the corrupt control of the PRI – the Institutional Revolutionary Party.
 
The authors draw what they consider a reasonable and self-evident conclusion: not geography, but the economic and political institutions of the United States make the difference.  Being able to choose occupations freely, acquire skills and schooling, and to be able to encourage positive actions by employers - combined with ready access to political institutions that enable them to elect their leaders and to hold their representatives to providing services that citizens demand - all contribute to the relative prosperity on the northern side of the border.  The authors point to early history where “an institutional divergence took place, with implications lasting into the present day.”

Eschewing a similar foray, let us simply enumerate what Acemoglu and Robinson found to be true of early Spanish and English conquests and colonization in conquered lands.  According to the authors, “Early Spanish, and English, colonists were not interested in tilling the soil themselves; they wanted others to do it for them, and they wanted riches, gold and silver, to plunder.”  They generally followed a similar pattern wherever they sought to colonize: capture the indigenous leader, demand tribute from the leader and his people, set themselves up as the elite, and take control of the existing methods of taxation, tribute and particularly, forced labor. After an initial phase of looting and confiscation, the Spanish created a web of institutions designed to exploit the indigenous people, and to force their living standards to a subsistence level while extracting whatever they could for themselves.  This was achieved by expropriating their lands, forcing them to work but offering low wages for labor services, imposing high taxes, and charging high prices for goods, all of which turned Latin America into the “most unequal continent in the world and sapped much of its economic potential.”

The English had a similar model of colonization, but found few riches of gold and silver among the indigenous people of North America, and thus had to amend their strategy of colonization, by utilizing their own human resources, i.e. tradesmen and workers from England, and initiating trade with the native peoples.   However, the Virginia Company, accumulating little or no profit from the Jamestown adventure, decided they needed a new model of governance.  Long story short, there grew up the concept of incentives; settlers were given their houses and freedom from their contracts, and in 1619 a General Assembly was introduced that effectively gave all adult men a say in the institutions and laws governing the colony.  It was the start of democracy in the United States, although as North America developed, English elites tried time and again to set up institutions that “would heavily restrict the economic and political rights for all but a privileged few.”

Without delving further into their stories of early colonial exploits, let us return to the present and ask just what this has to do with the “path to destruction” of which we speak.  I make no excuses or apologies for saying that there is in this present time, another attempt by the elite, and certain ideologues, to break down or weaken existing financial and political institutions, replacing them where possible with rejuvenated elitist strategies and institutions. 
 
Let us begin with “capture the leader.”  What more need be said than to say that Republican extremists have clearly indicated their willingness to destroy the current President (Mitch McConnell’s famous declaration will suffice:  “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”).  But the “capturing” did not stop there.  Ever since he was elected, radical Republicans have declared war on this President: declaring him to be illegal because he wasn’t born in this country; painting him as a Muslim; calling him a socialist; denigrating every accomplishment, including health care reform, saving the economy, saving the American auto industry, and getting Wall Street up and running again.  His attempts at job creation, economic stimulus, and improvement of our infrastructure were all “too big” and destined to increase the national debt (turns out we needed greater stimulus, more jobs, and more innovative programs that would increase the debt but boost the economy even further).

Nor does it stop there.  The Senate minority took it upon themselves to hold hostage almost every major executive branch appointment, and to require almost all major legislation to pass by a 60-vote majority by using a rule that was meant to give the minority a full voice in debate.  The filibuster/cloture rules instead allowed a minority to stop judicial appointments, cabinet appointments and important legislation that could (and would) have furthered the nation’s recovery.  But neither did the “capture” end there. 

The radical Republicans used their authorization and appropriation power to prevent budgets from passing.  They then had the gall to pass individual appropriations that were way out-of-line, especially in terms of the Department of Defense, and to pass certain tax laws that favored the richest 1% and the biggest corporations so that our Executive was boxed-in by unequal treatment of favored Republican cronies and donors.  The radical Republicans tried to box-in the President even further by holding back their votes on major government issues (like the debt ceiling and extension of unemployment) until they got concessions for their own clients tax cuts and tax breaks.
 
Let us then move to extraction of “riches.”  The radical Republicans have decided to plunder the Treasury of the U.S. Government in order to make their clients and supporters even richer than they had been.  They chose to do so with the most stealth they could muster.  They used the U.S. Tax Code to hide their intentions from the general public who basically think that the tax code deals only with income taxes and how they are paid.  Not so.

Republicans (and Democrats) have so amended the Code that individual corporations and businesses are able to get tax breaks or loopholes applied only to them; even certain individuals have benefitted by provisions that apply almost exclusively to their individual situation.  Then again, these plunderers have added loophole after loophole and break after break, incentive after incentive, to the point where few of the 400 richest people in this country actually have to pay more than 19% in income taxes (some far less, especially corporations like GE).  Mitt Romney was a perfect example of the breaks that enabled him to pay a paltry 14% tax rate in one of the years he reported.

As if this were not enough plundering, many of our political representatives also moved to make money for themselves by being in on the testimony and reports of certain businesses that gave them “insider trading” information that allowed them to make some substantial bucks on Wall Street and in other forms of financial gambling, such as local development. But the buck does not stop there.  These hooligans in the Congress extracted more dollars from the indigenous citizens by keeping their wages low, their taxes high, and their opportunities to advance a rung up the ladder of success at a minimum (in fact, almost impossible).  What middle class family wouldn’t rejoice to have the 33% increase in annual income that has made it into the coffers of the richest 1% in the last 20 years?

Moving even further, as some protests began to surface, the radical Republicans turned their attention full time to the inevitable “destruction of economic and political staples and institutions.” 
First, came an attack upon the democratic and economic institution of labor unions.  Their bargaining rights were curtailed; the minimum wage was opposed, extension of unemployment benefits delayed, extension of middle class tax cuts held up; the closed shop dropped in favor of “right to work laws”; and more restrictions put on government employee unions.  Not only restrictions, draconian cut-backs in numbers of teachers, first responders, and other governmental workers destroyed their jobs so that union membership and representation meant little.  Contractual benefits began to dwindle as well until labor was reeling from the attacks, and the labor movement was diminished once more to fewer than 12 million members in 2010 compared to 20 million in 1983.

Next, let us remind ourselves that the elitist Republican conservatives, who have always been uneasy with women in the workforce, in the military, and in the Board room or in Executive offices began to attack women’s rights to contraception and abortion; as well as their health needs.  Equal pay for equal work was scoffed at, and the Violence Against Women Act first went down to defeat, but was then passed.  But again, that was not the end of that. 
Some forget that these right-wing lawmakers have taken aim at women another way: through their children.  Women who work must depend on certain supports, one of which is child care.  Is that what the sequestration cuts in Head Start amount to? Another attack on women?  What about cuts to acute care centers, or cuts to research into child diseases, or the refusal to pass expanded background checks for gun sales, or drastic cuts in the WIC program, or food stamps, or any other program that protects children.  Are these veiled attempts to put mothers in the uncomfortable and difficult position of having to return from the work place to the home base to care for their children?

Let us remember vividly that the right-wing reactionaries are after government programs that help populations that are most vulnerable.  These are well-established programs that have been in the forefront of government services to the elderly, the disabled, children, wounded warriors, those with physical or mental challenges; the poor, the student, the underserved, the under-employed, the uneducated, the destitute and the homeless.  All of these face drastic cuts, and some face extinction:  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, Meals on Wheels, subsidized housing, food stamps, veteran benefits and subsidies, school rehabilitation, special education.  You name it; this radical elitist Congress will take some action to nullify or diminish it.

And let us remind ourselves once more that certain institutions and cherished principles and rights are also under attack from the Right-wing: public schools,  the disestablishment of religion or separation of church and state, free and fair elections, voting rights, majority rule, the welcoming of immigrants to our shores and over our borders, racial integration, but mostly, these radicals have disavowed, and worked against, a strong central government which is essential for a multi-faceted society dealing with multi-faceted problems, and with a multi-cultural population.  These Republicans want to turn their backs on a constitution which is very explicit in assigning primacy to a central government revolving around a working Congress.  Instead they prefer to bring back the rejected model of state supremacy which, as far back as the Continental Congress, was found wanting by the Founding Fathers or they would never have done what they did which was to fashion a model of a strong central government restrained by checks and balances.

Under the guise of smaller government, reduction of the deficit, reform of the Tax Code, and states’ rights, modern-day radical Republicans are seeking to change our institutional structure so that they can hold on to power and use government in ways that advance the prosperity, rights, privileges and property of a small elite group of the richest and most powerful men in this country.  They have already begun to accomplish several major strategies that put them closer to their goal (some of which we have already mentioned or referenced):
1.    Control of state houses and legislatures
2.    Drawing congressional districts in ways that favor Republican representatives being safely elected time after time
3.    Controlling elections by the utilization of unlimited PAC and super-PAC monies that are also unrevealed as to their sources mainly to distort the issues and to denigrate the opposition candidates (SCOTUS helped further this by allowing unfettered campaign contributions from individualized  corporations in Citizens United)
4.    Disenfranchising certain voting blocs that are known to favor progressive candidates: Hispanic- and Afro-Americans, women, students, labor (again, the SCOTUS recently aided this with its strike-down of certain voter protections that checked the tendency of certain states to discriminate against blocs of voters, sending several states into a frenzy to pass voter restriction legislation)
5.    Deregulating restrictions on businesses, industries and corporations while increasing the restrictions on consumer protection laws and agencies (which helped lead to the recent Great Recession and a corresponding diminution of the buying power of the middle class)
6.    Increasing the acquisition of media outlets that can be used to promote conservative and reactionary viewpoints (the Koch brothers have moved to buy up certain media outlets to further this aim)
7.    Attacking programs that are at the heart of the New Deal, such as Social Security, but also attacking the principles behind those government social programs to the extent that people will come to believe that government should not be in the business of supplementing or uplifting anyone with special or exceptional needs
8.    Reducing the political and economic power of unions and the Labor movement
9.    Making males (and some females) of certain ethnic groups felons for life, so that they cannot obtain well-paying jobs, nor have a normal life ever again.  This has happened to African-American males in particular, but also to Hispanic males.  All this is being done under the guise of law and order but more particularly under the guise of a “War on Drugs” (consult Michelle Alexander’s excellent book, “The New Jim Crow”).

And that leads us to the big fat elephant in the room: under the guise of smaller government, states as laboratories and being closest to the people, reducing the deficit, plus getting rid of social programs, the right wing of the Republican Party is practicing what Republicans have always endorsed and kept alive – racism, pure and simple.  This is not the first time that a conservative movement has attempted to use states’ rights, nullification of federal laws, and even secession from the union as their credo when all along they simply wanted to protect and defend the institution of slavery, then of Jim Crow laws, then school segregation, etc.
 
Writing in the New York Times on July 11, Robert Perry sums it up neatly: “Mainstream commentators endlessly dance around the obvious explanation for the Right’s intense anger against “guv-mint” – and indeed against any significant legislation that addresses the suffering of minorities and the poor, whether it’s immigration reform, health care or food stamps. That unspoken word is racism. Racism is the subtext for many of the actions of the modern Right and the modern Republican Party. The mainstream media may desire to dress up the motivations as some principled commitment to small government, but both historically and currently, the insistence on a tightly constrained federal government has been about maintaining white supremacy.  This aspect of “colonialization” is well underway. 

Again, according to Robert Parry, “Patrick Henry and George Mason fought ratification of the Constitution because they perceived that the document’s concentration of power in the federal government – stripping the states of their ‘independence’ and ‘sovereignty’ as specified in the Articles of Confederation – would eventually doom slavery. Slavery, after all, was not just some peculiar institution, part of the South’s unique cultural heritage. It was the South’s dominant industry. It was where the Southern aristocrats had invested their money.  The Constitution’s key Framers, including George Washington and James Madison, were determined to expand the power of the central government out of frustration with the states’ rights-oriented Articles of Confederation. That was the document that made the states ‘sovereign’ and ‘independent,’ language that was eliminated by the Constitution, which shifted national sovereignty to ‘We the People of the United States’ and made federal law ‘supreme’.”

The “path to Destruction” is not just a title for this piece.  It is a description of the chaos and vituperativeness that dominates our current economic and political scene.  It is illustrative of the reactionary attitude of radical Republicans both in the Congress and in the SCOTUS that threatens to move us back to a non-effective system of government (Articles of Confederation) that will allow the elites to destroy the will of the people and the powers of central (federal) government.  For those who think that this is just “politics,” let me assure you that you are mistaken.  This is not just legislative acts, or judicial decisions made separate from each other, so that each piece stands alone. 

This is part of a Plan and Strategy that intends to “capture,” “enslave,” “plunder,” and finally, disenfranchise, if not the entire broad middle class, then certainly enough parts of it so that economic and political power will be returned to the less-than-one-percent of this country’s population where “they” believe the power and control should be.  Yesterday’s decision by the jury in the George Zimmerman trial indicates that another step has been taken.  That is: that the “Stand-your-ground” “self-defense” laws of certain states will allow the killing (lynching?) of certain racial group members without a worry that one will be punished for the wanton manslaughter of another human being.

This is not “politics as usual.”  This is an all-out power-grab by privileged white people who have always believed that they should be the ones to determine the destiny of this nation.  They are relentless in their mission, and they are gaining, even though they did not achieve their goal in the last Presidential election.  Since then, however, they have made progress; so much so that they are undeterred in their quest.  Be warned: this movement is the result of 40 years of neo-conservative ascendency through planning and manipulation of every system and process available for capture and plunder. 

Progressives, as usual, are late to the field of battle with no cohesive on-going plan of their own.  The question persists: when will it be too late to stop this destruction by the right-wing?  The answer lies with a new, untrained generation of very smart Progressive students who now have to contend with a rise in the interest rates on their student loans, and the lack of really decent jobs.  Was this part of the radicals' Plan to divert the attention of nascent Progressive/Liberal leaders?  A negative answer to that question could be why so many of us have not prepared adequately for the steps it will take to divert us from the elitist “Path to Destruction!”  

Is Something Delayed also Something Denied?

In the wake of the heinous decision by the SCOTUS to declare part of the Voter’s Rights Act of 1965 as invalid, as well as voting to limit Affirmative Action, and then to grant federal recognition of gay marriage but not a corresponding recognition by states that outlaw it, Progressives have once again been drawn in by a conservative Republican-affiliated Court to believe that gains are being made.  YES, there is some hope in the fact that federal rights to marriage equality are Court approved.  This is a recognition that one type of marriage -- heterosexual marriage -- cannot remain the only norm in a free society, just as past bans against interracial marriages in certain states could not survive forever.  

However, according to Wikipedia, “In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving vs. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2001 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.”

It took about 34 years for all the states to undo those outrageous laws on interracial marriage.  This should give great pause to those who say the Court has taken a huge step in declaring DOMA unconstitutional and setting the requirement for the federal government to abide by their ruling.  What this Court has really done is to recognize a right to marriage for all persons as to federal protections and judgments, but has delayed justice once again by not ruling that states have to comply.  The Conservative Court has spoken with forked tongue and granted rights at one level while denying them at another level in order to protect “states’ rights.”  And why? Because they know from past experience that, in spite of public opinion moving toward acceptance of gay marriage and gay rights, the full implementation of all those rights will be a matter of future history because they chose not to invalidate the ability of state legislatures to determine marriage laws in their (shall we say it?) sovereign states! 

I’m going to venture to say that the cadre of conservatives on the SCOTUS knew what they were doing.  First they attacked civil rights, and to blunt that attack, they put out a decision that looked like a great victory for the gay community.  It had the desired effect -- the attack on voting rights received little press, even though small-minded legislators in several states went right to work crafting legislation that will limit voting rights of minorities in their states.  Secondly, as if by plan, the Justices did that which has worked so many times in the past: they declared a law unconstitutional, but delayed justice so that full implementation could be denied for as long as possible.  As with the abolition of slavery, as with the declaration that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional, thus with segregation and school integration,  thus with Roe v. Wade and the constant delay of full rights to choose, exemplified by the latest Texas attempt at restricting abortion and the restrictive Ohio abortion law that just passed there.  In all these cases, and many more, the result is that justice delayed is justice denied!  They knew what they were doing!

This is just one more reason to be a discouraged Progressive. There are many others, of course.  And, although I hate to do it, let us take some time to remind ourselves that Conservatives have a very different view of the world around them than do Progressives, which results in what the radical Right is doing to undermine progressive and common sense values. 

1. Conservatives are tied to a view of  rugged individualism.
2. They believe in a social Darwinism that implies that only the strong should survive; that individuals must take personal responsibility for their own development and their own prosperity
3. They believe that central government should be at the least restrained and at the most weak and unable to intervene or interfere in the day-to-day lives of individuals.
4. They therefore hold to a view of the states as being sovereign, or at least being  “laboratories” where one should determine to what extent and by what method government should assist and support its citizens
5. They believe that all government is potentially evil; that it can turn upon the people at any moment, and take away our god-given (or constitutionally provided) rights and privileges.  Thus, they advocate the unalienable and unrestricted right of citizens to bear arms so they can be prepared to defend themselves against rogue government action.
6. Conservatives believe in a system that should be as tax-free as possible, but they know that neither state nor federal government can exist without taxation of some kind.  And so, they advocate as few taxes, and the lowest tax rates, that one can make possible.  Not only do they want to lower current income tax rates, they want to abolish our current tax system and replace it with a consumer tax, a flat tax, or a two-tier tax system.
7. Then, they believe that all other taxes must be abolished (or drastically reduced), including: corporate income taxes, the estate tax, the capital gains tax, tax on interest earnings, etc.
8. Although they believe in the individual, they happen to believe that there are certain individuals who are more worthy than others of government support and largess.  While touting the importance of government incentives for small businesses and huge tax breaks for large corporations, they are more than willing to limit government programs that support the disabled, the homeless, the unemployed, the college student, the returning veteran, the poor and the sick.  In other words, the richest 2% get special treatment because they have proven themselves to be the kind of individuals one would want running things (the fact that they have money to spend on members of the Congress, doesn’t hurt their standing!)
9. Conservatives have a world view in which patriotism is at the top of their list of values.  Individuals must come together to support their country, especially in conflicts with other nations.  But individual citizens must also be willing to sacrifice on behalf of their country (unless it involves them).  The Republicans have a great deal of difficulty with the concept of peace or peaceful negotiation as the way to co-exist with other nations on this planet.
10. This leads inevitably to a view of our nation as “exceptional.”  And that is the view of this Republican party.  However, once one accepts that view, it leads to all kinds of delusions: that our nation should be regarded as the best in all things; that our nation is the leader of the free world; that our nation must be supported even when it holds views, practices or policies that are detrimental to other nations (“our country right or wrong”); that we should be at War, rather than making peace because we are exceptional, they are not.  Pro-active war with rogue or out-of-line nations (or terrorist groups) is a result of an “America first above all” approach to foreign relations.  Constant talk of “war” in this country is a trap and a killing machine.  We sacrifice more of our “best and brightest” than I care to recall: in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and places like Bosnia and Serbia, Korea; but we also sacrifice their lives in places like  Somalia, Grenada, and Lebanon.

It’s when Conservatives act on their world view that I get nervous.  When they act out, or when they act like they’re crazy, it’s best that Progressives understand that they really don’t care what anyone thinks!  They have gone off the edge of reason and sanity, and are verging on a coup d'état.  They are no longer the “Party of Lincoln”, nor the Party of Barry Goldwater, nor even-  God help us - the Party of Ronald Reagan.  This party has moved so far to the Right that one has to expect that they will stop at nothing to gain control of state and federal governments so that they can twist and shape them to support their view of what the nation, and the world, should look like.  Let us list the ways:

• Control certain districts.  Their strategy is to gerrymander not only congressional districts, but state legislature districts, so that some will be perpetual winners for the Republicans.
• Control enough state legislatures and governorships to keep radical conservatism alive and well within the states
• Use decisions by the Supreme Court that favor states’ rights, to delay, overturn, ignore federal mandates in many areas: social welfare, housing, public education, etc.
• Control how social issues (abortion, contraception, gay marriage, women’s issues, minorities, etc.) are dealt with by controlling the make-up of the state governments
• Use big money as the key to winning elections at all levels; above all, do not give in to election reform advocates
• Oppose and undo all legislation that protects the vulnerable and the “lower” and middle classes (health care, women’s rights, gay rights, Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, voting rights, student loans, social welfare such as food stamps, consumer advocacy) and force people to be responsible individuals who must achieve success by their own actions
• Where possible, devolve to the states all responsibility for programs that touch people’s lives where they live such as those mentioned just above
• Make “religion” a major concern in order to control the world-view of the masses; in other words, these radicals are not concerned with the rituals of religion being foisted on society; they want to control what gets spoken, what gets taught, what gets valued. Take the ritual of prayer, for instance. They use the ritual of prayer to teach their values. They are not in favor of just putting “religion” or Christianity”  or “prayer” back into the classroom or the school or as part of national celebrations; they are concerned with controlling, as much as they can, how people think, and what they believe.
• They want a “protestant ethic” to underlie our government which will spread it’s concepts of rugged individualism, personal responsibility, survival of the fittest, heterosexual families and lifestyle, and private relief efforts (good Samaritan approach) throughout the land.  Their concept of religion and their worldview are synonymous.
• Use the Supreme Court to take away “rights” won during the Civil Rights era.  The Court has done their bidding by saying that certain things like ‘affirmative action’ and voting protections are obsolete.  They have opened the way to voting discrimination laws in the states; to lack of minority participation in higher education, and to a view that civil rights advocacy is passé.
• Use well-worn phraseology to confuse the public (“death panels”; “Obamacare”, “welfare queens;”)  and to turn the citizenry that can be so cajoled, away from support for the President’s policy agenda.  It was pollster Frank Luntz who helped Republicans figure out the power of words like: “activist judges” “big government”    “class warfare” “climate change” (instead of “global warming”) “death tax” “Defense of Marriage Act” “energy exploration” (in place of “oil drilling”) “enhanced interrogation”      “family values”  “government-run health care” or “government takeover of health care” “illegal” (describing illegal immigrant) “job creators” “judicial activism” “partial birth abortion” “pro-life” “reform” (euphemism for “cut”) “teachers’ unions”  “right to life”  “right to work”  “tax and spend liberal” “War on Terror” “War on Drugs”

There is right now a central question for all Progressives to answer: what can we do to stop this juggernaut?

As Cole Lystra of Progressives United said recently: “We know our work will never be complete if we don't empower all Americans -- or those striving to become Americans -- to be full participants in our democratic process.  So we're setting Progressives United on an expanded new path, not just to continue our push for campaign and government reforms, but also to defend progressive policies and values wherever they are threatened by the influence of big money -- on issues like immigration reform, voter suppression, and the dominance of the gun lobby in Congress.

But as we look to broaden the promise of democracy, the barriers to full participation are startling:

• The far right wing of the Republican Party continues to fund and beat the drum of voter suppression in states across the country.
• The corporate gun lobby stalls even the most basic background-check reforms that 90% of Americans support.
• Extremists looking to block much-needed immigration reform at all costs frustrate our immigrant brothers' and sisters' struggle to weave into the American tapestry.

We can take on all of these worthy fights, and expand our progressive reach. “

Well, that’s all fine and good, but there are certain internal barriers to expanding Progressive efforts, based upon my experience with more than one national Progressive group of which I have been a member, or local leader.

• Progressives don’t work well in coalitions because their narrowly-defined issues are sacred to them in the groups they choose.
• Progressives have a hard time believing that there are genuine organized conspiracies on the Right and they often ignore remedies until its too late
• Progressives have been lax in formulating a plan of attack, although now President Obama’s grassroots campaign organization has been morphed into a non-profit, called Organizing For Action (OFA), one of whose aims is to bring community groups together into coalitions to attempt a concerted effort at combating right-wing views and activities.
• Progressives believe that intellectual honesty and persuasion are what matters.  They shy away from using “loaded terms” unlike the conservative Republicans.
• Progressives take a short view and don’t attempt longer-term strategies very often; like taking control of certain districts, or getting local boards and councils to pass resolutions supporting various progressive causes, such as overturning Citizens United and amending the Constitution.
• Progressives don’t seem to be able to carry on for very long without getting discouraged.  The same people in local organizations show up for all the rallies, speeches, vigils, and demonstrations; while recruitment for new members and activists falls apart because people respond with “I’m too busy right now”  “Got something else to do”, “I belong to so many organizations, I haven’t got time to give”
• Progressives seem to be somewhat “at sea” in using media to their advantage.

My conclusion is not completely formulated, for it is built around un-doing the negatives I have just mentioned.  Of course we must lessen or eliminate those negatives.  But as to the Positive: what can we do?  I confess I do not know the answer.  I can only list some thoughts here:

1. We must think long-term by amending our Constitution to reflect Progressive values and principles
2. We must protect civil and social rights
3. We have to elect progressive Democrats in 2014, or else a legislature - both houses of Congress controlled by a radical Right Republican majority - will begin the dismantling, not only of central government, but of programs and policies that now serve the vast array of our people.  It has already begun, as Sequestration was probably the greatest gift ever given to the radical Republicans!
4. We have to push for more involvement of ordinary citizens in our governmental processes (example: all commissions that re-draw districts after a census must be made up of non-office holders and seekers, with a bi-partisan spirit, who will draw lines fairly under the possible guidance of a judicial panel).
5. We will ultimately have to come together in some entity that gives us permanent status, such as the Tea Party has obtained.  There has to be a broad-based Coalition of Progressive groups in order to obtain what must be done.  There has to be a party platform; there have to be candidates who will support that platform; there will have to be a strong grass-roots party organization to have a say in which candidates are nominated to run.
6. We cannot continue to operate in a vacuum, as though the realities I have outlined today do not exist.  Paul Begala reports: “The Koch brothers’ notorious political arm is ramping up its vast right-wing money machine at breakneck speed. Just in the last 5 months, they’ve given a whopping $559,000 to dozens of national Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor. That’s a new Koch record for this point in the campaign.”

We know that justice delayed, can often mean justice denied.  In this volatile atmosphere, where the Koch brothers can fund a conspiracy of the Right unknown in its depth to the Progressive Left, indecisive and uncoordinated action on our part is tantamount to victory denied.

Letter on Gun Violence Prevention

The following letter was written in response to a presumably legitimate inquiry from a gun owner and NRA member about the philosophy of a certain non-profit, issues-oriented organization.  As an advocate of gun violence prevention, I was asked to respond.  Although my response was not as long as the answer below, I now offer this as a reasonable response to a reasonable inquiry.  Names of people and organizations have been removed.  The original inquiry was as follows:

“I am just wondering what your organization is standing for. I am an avid gun owner/hunter and believe in my right to keep and bear arms. Now when you say "common sense" do you mean just that or are you against firearms in general?  I believe criminals should not have the right to own guns, but I don't believe that law abiding American gun owners should bear the burden. Most of the current legislation has done little to nothing to attack the criminals, but has made it more burdensome on the honest. How many drug dealers do you know that register their Military look-a-like guns or have to worry about renewing their pistol permit every 5 years. You can see where I am going with this, they don't because they are criminals. Therefore its only the law abiding citizen who is affected by such laws.  Please let me know where your organization stands on Gun Control and just what your definition of "Common Sense" actually means.”

 

Dear Inquirer:

Recently, I was asked by ________________, to send along some of my thoughts on your inquiry about his organization, and about the stance of his organization toward gun control.  First, let me explain that, although not a member of that organization, I am a member of another organization that often works with his group as co-sponsors of issue-oriented events and activities. So, I am speaking as a member of a particular group, but the opinions are mainly my own. Second, we are not gun-control advocates as much as we are advocates of gun violence prevention.

In answer to one of your questions -- "are you against firearms in general? " - I would answer absolutely not.  It is not our intent to limit legitimate access to guns and ammunition for the purposes of hunting, sporting events, contests, collection or even legitimate self-defense.  The second amendment right to bear arms is a well-accepted norm in both existing law and judicial decisions; we are not looking to overturn those basic rights.  Likewise, in answer to a second question, we are not in existence to increase any particular "burden" on legitimate gun-owners.   Present laws and requirements already impose a paperwork "burden," but that routinely comes along with any system of registration, application, or sale.  We are not sure what other "burdens" might come to legitimate gun-owners because of more stringent laws on background checks, for instance.  Please enlighten us if you know of something that would occur as a burden other than some additional paperwork for gun sellers. However, if you mean by this that legitimate gun owners would be having to be part of a national gun registry, that is a myth belied by the fact that pending legislation on expanded background checks specifically prohibits national gun registries.

We are in agreement with your statement that "criminals should not have the right to own guns."  We would add that there are probably others who should not own guns as well, including those shown to be violent toward others in ways that are clearly evident.  This gets into the whole area of the mental health system which is something that our organization is also ultimately concerned about, as that system does not currently have efficient and effective standards for sharing "mental health" information among practitioners in the mental health field, with law enforcement, universities or colleges, or even with relatives of those who demonstrate aberrant behaviors.  Nor is there an efficient and effective way for school, law enforcement and other legitimate providers and relatives to share pertinent information with the mental health care providers and with each other.  So, prevention of gun violence (and other forms of violence) also depends on an overhaul of our mental health system and its requirements, and abilities, for information-sharing. 

Criminals are those who disobey established laws.  Therefore establishing new laws does not insure that criminals will be stopped or that they will even be prosecuted because that is what criminals do:  they find ways to circumvent laws.  There are very few pieces of legislation that even attempt to stop all criminal behavior in a certain area, because they cannot.  Nor do most laws “target criminals.”  Rather they set standards and rules by which criminals can be arrested, charged, and prosecuted in the justice system.  Therefore, we agree with the premise that certain laws we propose - such as universal background checks - will not stop all criminal behavior in connection with gun violence.  However, such laws will provide law enforcement with stronger tools to prosecute those who disobey that law, will set new norms for society, and will have a lasting positive effect and influence on our culture of violence.  Those are some of the intended purposes of our proposals, and are about all that can be reasonably expected. 

Right now, under federal laws, background checks are limited in scope, as you know, in that they only apply to federally licensed gun dealers.  Even under that less-than-universal law, the current background check system since it started has kept over 2 million criminals and other dangerous people from buying guns at licensed dealers (according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics within the Justice Department). We advocate for expanded background checks to close gun sale loopholes.  In fact, we support H.R. 1565 which is a replication of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment from the Senate, by which background checks would be required for all gun sales in commercial settings, including at gun shows, on the internet and in classified ads.  Private, unlicensed firearms sellers would be required to conduct these checks through licensed dealers using the same system (NICS) already in use for licensed dealer sales.  The bill would, however, exempt transfers of firearms between friends and family from such requirements. 

In answer to your main question, this is what we consider to be an example of "common sense" legislation.  One way to look at it is that this makes a "sound basic sense" that appeals to a broad range of people  with at least an average intelligence.  It doesn't have a lot of complicated language, but stresses a point that most people can understand: that we need to expand background checks to cover most gun sales.  In  this way we have a better chance at reducing gun violence by gun wielders who should not have access to guns in the first place.

But, there is a second meaning of "common sense" not often cited, that applies in this case most especially.  It is the definition of common sense as "pertaining to the whole community or public."  In the case of universal background checks, we have for some time now heard that up to 92% of the public, and around 84% of NRA members, favor this kind of legislation, feeling that it makes good sense.  To their discredit and peril as legislators, certain Senators thought they could simply ignore this expression of the "common sense" and they voted against the wishes of their constituency.  A few of those Senators have seen their positive poll numbers take a nose-dive, and are now feeling the heat of public pressure to change their vote or be fired by the electorate next year.   When a "common sense" develops among voters from across this country, it is not wise simply to ignore it.  This commonality is what has pushed our nation forward at certain critical times in our history, and we believe that one of those critical points has clearly been reached when the "common sense" about background checks must prevail.

Finally, let me add to these answers a bit of a personal note.  I come from a long paternal line of gunsmiths; some of whom started out as independent locksmiths and then switched to gun-making in their hometown of Birmingham England.  Those relatives include my great grandfather, at least three great granduncles and my grandfather.  An uncle and a cousin born in this country continued on that same occupational path.  Some of these men came to the States when they were quite young (in 1886 and 1888) to work in a series of gun factories, first in New York and New England; also in Ontario (where my grandfather came to work with his oldest brother in a company that had been transferred lock, stock and barrel from Norwich, CT).  My grandfather, one of his sons and another of his brothers, ended up their careers working for a Gun Company in my birthplace.  What is important to me is that these men were not only accomplished gunsmiths (three of whom served as superintendents of their factories at one time or another) but they were part of making gun manufacturing in this country a vital industry, and, when called upon, they used their skills and positions to build the munitions that helped win the Great War (WWI).  One of my granduncles worked for New England Westinghouse company in Springfield, MA that had a huge contract for rifles used to end the war; another worked for Henry Ford in his large plant in Highland Park, Michigan that ended up making munitions for the War.  My grandfather, before he immigrated to the U.S., was an Armorer Sergeant in the Canadian Armed Forces that helped forge the way through France and Belgium into Germany to end WWI.  He was on the front lines in some heavy fighting and was a victim of mustard gas causing his early death in 1947.

I tell you all this because I want you to know that I am proud of my family's heritage.  I am proud of their commitment to sporting rifles, and wartime munitions-making.  I am equally proud of their achievements in their communities as Lodge leaders, as churchmen, as people one could always count on.  Although I have never owned a gun, and am part of a movement and organization that believes that every constitutional right comes with certain responsibilities; and, that every right must be restricted when that same right becomes abused or distorted and brings harm to others (such as yelling "Fire" in a closed theater), I am not about to abandon my heritage by helping to impose burdensome or unreasonable restrictions on legitimate gun owners. 

Therein lies something that my ancestors would never have understood: how could a very legitimate club called the National Rifle Association go from a sportsman's club to an advocate of allowing absolutely no restrictions on military assault rifles, made-for-battle ammunition clips, and the right to carry concealed weapons wherever you please, plus an outright opposition to the saving of innocent lives by a system of universal background checks?  My ancestors would be appalled because they knew in their own lives that the right to bear arms meant sport and target-shooting, collection and competition, and self-defense.  They would not have understood absolute gun and ammunition rights advocacy that endangers the lives of innocent children and young people, as well as adults.  In other words, they would not have understood the NRA’s obsession with a totally unrestricted second amendment that allows harm and death to come to innocent citizens at the hands of violence-prone, mentally unstable, or criminally-intentioned gun owners.  Such illegitimate gun ownership would not make "common sense" to them, nor does it to me.

I hope this explanation has been helpful to you.

 

Sincerely yours,

Definitions of “Scandal”

How much longer do we have to endure the specter of “scandal” created by the champions of scandal: the Republican Party? 

Take a quick look at the Republican candidate for Lt. Gov. of Virginia, Bishop E.W. Jackson, and a few of his better-known scandalous quotes:

1. On gay people: “Their minds are perverted, they’re frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally and they see everything through the lens of homosexuality. When they talk about love they’re not talking about love, they’re talking about homosexual sex.” “Homosexuality is a horrible sin, it poisons culture, it destroys families, it destroys societies; it brings the judgment of God unlike very few things that we can think of…”
2. On Planned Parenthood and the KKK: “Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was. And the Democrat Party and the black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide.”
3. On liberals and the KKK: “Liberalism and their ideas have done more to kill black folks whom they claim so much to love than the Ku Klux Klan, lynching and slavery and Jim Crow ever did, now that’s a fact.”
4.  On Obama’s Muslim sensibilities: “Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of ‘The Muslim World’ is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world.”

Such remarks are a good “fit” with the original definition of the word “scandal” which had to do with the “unseemly conduct of a religious person that discredits religion.”  Asked if Jackson was trouble, another senior Virginia Republican responded, “Oh. My. God. Yes.” The danger, the Republican said, is that “Jackson will bring Democrats to the polls who might otherwise stay home. You just don’t want one candidate to rile up the base of the other side. That’s what you’re trying to avoid.”  
 
Another definition of “scandal” is: “malicious gossip; defamatory or slanderous talk.”  So, in essence, that means that the hearings being held by a third of the committees in Congress are scandalous.  That’s exactly what I mean.  Since every hearing that has been held has included malicious gossip (or ignominious innuendo) and defamatory or slanderous talk on the part of certain members, we can safely say that their rhetoric fits with this definition, and that they, themselves, are the “scandal.”  Let’s take a brief look at one example.

Darrell Issa called Jay Carney a "paid liar" this week.  According to The National Journal, Issa’s aggressive approach is just what the Republican House leadership wants.  House Majority Leader Eric Cantor singled out Issa for praise at a closed-door GOP conference meeting on Tuesday. Hours later, Cantor gave him plaudits on national television, saying on CNN that Issa and other GOP chairmen investigating the IRS were doing “a fantastic job.” 

The National Journal continues: Democrats say Issa has prejudiced the IRS investigation by declaring on CNN on Sunday that the targeting “was coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters and we're getting to proving it.” Issa, they argue, is following his well-worn path of lobbing accusations first and then searching for evidence to back them up later.  “It’s hard to trust someone who makes assertions on which he has no basis to make [them],” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., on Tuesday.

In addition, says the Journal, Democrats complain of Issa’s selective use of evidence to bolster pre-conceived “gut” feelings. On Sunday, Issa released only selected chunks of the transcribed interviews that his panel and the Ways and Means Committee had conducted with IRS officials. And he shared the excerpts on national television before giving a copy to committee Democrats—a breach of decorum and protocol, Democrats say.  Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the oversight panel… before a recent Benghazi hearing, had accused Issa of keeping panel Democrats in the dark about interviews with a key State Department witness, Mark Thompson. “They have leaked snippets of interview transcripts to national media outlets in a selective and distorted manner to drum up publicity for their hearing,” Cummings said at the time.

Basically, Republicans agree, without much dissent, that Issa is the poster boy for their efforts to unearth so-called scandals.  He is helping to forge a tableau of an overreaching, overbearing, and unaccountable executive branch—all without real notable proof that any scandal exists, other than his own scandalous behavior.   In like manner, let us use Issa as the quintessential illustration of the scandalous activity of many Republican committee members and move on rather than citing numerous similar examples from other committees.

Instead, let’s stand back a bit and ask, what do we really have here?  In my estimation, it is nothing more than the imperfections of bureaucracy that are omnipresent, and the lack of clear definition of certain policies that have been assumed to be adequate when they aren’t.  What do I mean?

First of all: you can’t run a government accurately, efficiently or effectively when many of your agencies are run by interim directors and deputies.   That is clearly the fault of Senate Republicans who have held up approvals for Obama appointees at alarming rates.  There are still over 1,080 appointments waiting confirmation from the Senate, many of which are appointments to the federal judiciary.  But, among appointments critical to functioning of Executive departments and agencies, we find the following examples:

Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection and Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission
Principle Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology
Under Secretary of the Air Force
Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances – EPA
Under Secretary for management – DOState
Asst. Administrator of Office for Water – EPA
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services – DOEd
U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund
Asst Attorney General for Justice Programs
Administrator EPA
General Counsel Treasury
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Energy – DOEn
Secretary of Labor – DOL
Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Associate Attorney General

The IRS is a sterling example of this destructive delaying tactic.  First, Obama had to deal with a Bush leftover appointee, Douglas Shulman.  Then he had to settle for another interim appointment, Steven Miller.  And now that Miller has also resigned in light of the Cincinnati office debacle, another interim appointment has been made (Daniel Werfel of OMB), as the Huffington Post reminds us --because his choice for the permanent IRS director’s position has been delayed in the Senate.  “The Senate has not yet confirmed a full-time commissioner since Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee, stepped down this past fall.”

Second, you cannot allow policies from one administration to govern the actions of another administration unless those policies have been thoroughly examined, evaluated and adjusted or amended to fit the philosophy and tenor of the new administration.  I fault the Obama administration for allowing certain Bush era policies, established in the context of, or under the influence of 9/11 to have continued without this thorough vetting.  The right-wing obsession with surveillance, hawkishness and control is all too evident in the Patriot Act and subsequent immigration legislation and policy than can be tolerated.  I believe that the balance between the rights of citizens and the necessity of controlling terrorist actions and activities was upset during the Bush years, and should have been modified considerably during an Obama administration.  Instead, for instance, deportations of illegal aliens increased; surveillance procedures at airports were increased to absurd levels, and use of surveillance of phone records and other private communications was continued without much scrutiny until recent revelations. 

Third, this obsessive investigation of so-called “scandals” within the Obama administration is nothing more than Republican revenge for his victory in 2012 at the polls.  This is a vigorous attempt to destroy his legacy, not because he is a Democrat, but because he is a black Democrat.  The bigots and racists have come forth to fight for their white supremacy views so that, essentially, an African-American candidate in future will find it very tough-going in a general election for this highest office.  This is no longer just about President Obama.  It is now about trying to destroy the legacy of inspiration he has already left with young people of many ethnic origins, including African and Hispanic.

Finally, it is important to say that this whole manufactured scenario of “scandals” not only diverts the public’s attention from the real issues of jobs, economy, infrastructure, climate change, immigration reform, gun violence prevention, the shrinking middle class, homelessness, treatment of returning veterans, plus much more. It also tends to skew the vision of voters in terms of the invasiveness of government.  Even though people’s lives are not being negatively affected by the “scandals” (because our government is mainly there for the protection and care of people), unthinking numbers of voters tend to believe that government is “overreaching” or “interfering” or “disrupting” their lives.  This, in spite of the fact that life goes on much as it did before Benghazi, the IRS missteps in Cincinnati, the collection of AP press phone numbers, and anything else that has garnered the unseemly attention of Republicans in the Congress. 

The point is, these so-called scandals are not encroaching on the well-being of Americans.  We are not living in a punitive state where rights are largely ignored, people are arrested for no cause, property is being confiscated, and the government is watching every move.  It just isn’t happening no matter who tries to make it seem so.  Think about it: if government (the Executive Branch) were as evil or as interventionist as Congressional Republicans like to claim, legislators would be the FIRST to feel its effects, because that is what a run-amuck Executive would do – close down the legislature and get rid of all the legislators!!

Take to heart another quite important definition of “scandal”:  “any act, person or thing that offends or shocks moral feelings of the community and leads to disgrace.”  You want scandals; I’ll give you some examples of disgraceful scandals:

Head Start cutbacks 
All the other sequestration cutbacks affecting children, seniors, the poor, first responders, research, veterans, etc.
The attack upon public education, especially teachers
The Ryan Budget, and the vouchering of Medicare
Un-prosecuted denizens of Wall Street
Attack upon women’s health and women’s rights
48 attempts by House Republicans to repeal Obamacare
No serious healthcare proposals by Republicans
Vote by House Republicans to cut funding to support citizenship rights of children of illegal immigrants
Attacks upon Labor and the right to collective bargaining
The defeat of the common-sense Toomey-Manchin Amendment, and all other gun violence prevention legislation, in spite of the fact that gun violence is a major cause of death for children and young people

These are just some of the real scandals in Washington, DC. There are many more disgraceful acts of Republican lawmakers about which we will comment in future.  For now, it is enough to remind ourselves that another scandal is about to hit:  the Congress will adjourn for the “umpteenth” time, in keeping with its intended schedule of just 126 work days during 2013!  Don’t you wish you could get that much time off, not have much to show for when you did work, and get the pay and benefits that Congress members get? 

The so-called “Scandals” in the Executive Branch pale in comparison to the clearly defined scandals being created everyday by a discredited Republican-controlled, do-nothing Congress!

Open Letter to Congressman Richard Hanna

June 1, 2013

Dear Congressman Hanna,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply of May 23, 2013.  I have been unable to answer until now and beg your pardon for such a delay.

Although I am not a gun owner, I am a descendant of many who were gunsmiths in their day: a great-grandfather who independently made locking mechanisms for gun-makers in Birmingham, England; a great-granduncle who was a gunsmith in the Gun Quarter of Birmingham England; a grandfather who came to Woodstock, Ontario to join his brother, a superintendent at Tobin Arms (which was transplanted from Norwich, Connecticut), in the trade; two granduncles who immigrated to this country from Birmingham, England to continue their work in the gun manufacturing business, and who worked for such companies as L.C. Smith in Syracuse, Hunter Arms in Fulton, Westinghouse Arms in Springfield, MA, Tobin Arms and Hopkins & Allen Arms in Norwich, Ct. One granduncle ended up in Ithaca, NY as a superintendent at the Ithaca Gun Company and one of my father’s brothers spent his whole career employed with that particular manufacturer, also ending up as a superintendent.  A cousin still works for the remnant of Ithaca Gun at King Ferry, NY. 

I say all this only to make sure you know that I have paternal blood coursing through my veins that impels me toward sympathy with the rights of gun owners: a right to the possession of firearms for the purposes of hunting and target-shooting and competition, and whatever sporting use, such as skeet shooting, can be found for them.  Certainly, as you do, I want to protect the legitimate rights of citizens to own guns and to use them in ways that are legitimate.  However, as you succinctly state, “it is clear that we need to keep maniacs and known criminals from owning guns.”  While I would not use the word “maniac” to describe those with mental illness (most of whom do not engage in violent behavior), I do agree that we need “a broad national dialogue on how we keep firearms out of the hands of disturbed individuals” and from those with aberrant behavior that could, at any time, be turned on innocent bystanders.

Actually, dialogue and discussion have been taking place for some time now, but continuous talk is “cheap” and actions must begin in order to set new standards, directions, and guidelines, just as we did when a “smoking is good for you” attitude prevailed although it was killing people left and right.  Now we must approach a culture steeped in a violence that is harmful to our health, and especially to the well-being of children and young people.  Mental aberrations are a contributing factor, video games another, wild west attitudes are another, and gangs willing to shoot rivals are another.  There are a multitude of factors that must be addressed in order to change a prevailing acceptance of a culture of violence. I agree with you that a place to begin is to work toward finding practical ways to prevent firearms getting into the wrong hands.  One of those practical ways, supported by over 90% of citizens in several polls, is to expand gun background checks from where such checks stand now under the Brady Act (covering only federally licensed dealers) to where most gun sales will be covered.

This is not the be-all, end-all of preventing gun violence.  It will not prevent all innocent individuals from being harmed by guns; it will not prevent all persons with aberrant behavior from acting out with guns; it will not prevent all criminals from owning guns.  It occurs to me that there is very little legislation designed to wipe out all the bad things that legislation often tries to address.  Legislation like this can only make a dent; a start; a needed new direction.  The best such legislation can do is to provide the police with a new law that can be enforced; to provide a law that will begin to change attitudes about gun violence; to provide a new atmosphere by which we can advance the cause of the importance of human life and the imperatives we are under to protect innocent life as much as we possibly can.  To do nothing is to allow the existence of a cancerous cultural norm of violence that is as harmful to our health as was smoking.    Yes, we must talk and debate; but, at the same time, we must act.

I commend you for acting as you already did, by voting for increased funding for NICS in the FY 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriation Act.  But as we both know, that particular Act passed the House, but not the Senate.  Therefore, while that vote was one I applaud, it failed (through no fault of yours) to “help to save lives and protect innocent Americans from harm by ensuring that firearms stay out of the hands of those prohibited to purchase them” because it did not pass.  Secondly, it was inadequate because it targeted the NICS which only federally licensed gun dealers are required to utilize, and it failed to close gun show loopholes or attempt to address other gun sales (such as online sales).  For this reason, along with many petition-signers from across your district, I encourage you to move ahead from a lost opportunity to one with more promise.  We have asked that you become a co-sponsor of H.R. 1565, the bipartisan bill on expanded background checks proposed by Peter King and Mike Thompson.

It appears that many of your colleagues have already moved beyond conversation regarding this issue.  The last time I checked, 178 had signed up to cosponsor this bill.  We call on you to do the same.  This issue will not go away, and you are not that far away from a positive position regarding this matter.  We again urge you to make the decision (a courageous one indeed) to cosponsor the King-Thompson legislation.  Thank you for listening.

 

While I have limited expectations regarding this request, I fervently hope that others will write similar letters to their congressmen, requesting similar action.  The point being, that further debate on the functionality of this particular issue – expanded background checks for gun sales – is unnecessary, and results in nothing more than a delaying tactic.  Join me, if you care to, in addressing YOUR congressman on this one facet of the gun violence debate.  Action and concrete results are long overdue – Publius