More Dirty Tricks from Radical Republicans

In 2012, we were treated to some tricks that can be characterized as egregious and just plain dirty.  To wit, vote suppression: making voter registration almost impossible, changing of polling places without sufficient notification, to locations less accessible; limits put on early voting, ID requirements for voters that were potentially onerous enough to prevent many from voting at all.  Turns out that many people who felt they were being disenfranchised put forth great efforts to make sure they weren’t, including waiting in long lines, and up to five hours, to actually vote.

One would think that the vultures behind these dirty tricks would shrink from attempting this kind of thing again.  Think again.  Even though they suffered setbacks on several of their attempts to suppress votes, they’re back to push something that goes to the heart of our constitution.  They are intent on changing state laws to parcel the electoral votes of their state to the victor according to the results in congressional districts.  It’s worth a step back for an understanding of the historic Electoral College.

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is
essential to understand its historical context and the problems that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:
• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and  felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other? 
(Drawn from “The Electoral College” by
William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director
FEC Office of Election Administration)

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible
methods of selecting a president.

Have Congress choose the President - rejected because some felt this would be too divisive, invite unseemly bargaining, or upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, or give the edge to candidates from the larger states
Have State legislatures select the President - rejected because this might undermine the authority of the central government and perhaps the whole idea of a federation
Elect the President by direct popular vote - rejected because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. “At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to     govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.”
Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional     Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.  “The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.  The number of votes per State were to be determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation.

The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:

-Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (as determined in the Census).  There are 538 electors, based on there being 435 representatives and 100 senators, plus the three electors from the District of Columbia.
-The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote.
-Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
-After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions.  The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.
-On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years
divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president
-Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors -- so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder (Maine-2; Nebraska-3) by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
-On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes -- one for president and one for vice president.  In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their
home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
-The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.  The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.
-In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
-At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.

It is important to emphasize that the Electoral College has worked well through the centuries, with the 12th Amendment and a few changes in law bringing about some alterations.  Kimberling asserts:  “The Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years (and in over 50 presidential elections) by ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively.”  Although there were a few anomalies in its early history, none have occurred in the past century.  A number of constitutional amendments have been proposed seeking to alter the Electoral College or replace it with a direct popular vote but these have failed largely because the alternatives to it appear more problematic than is the College itself.

Why, then, is the GOP working to change the design of the Electoral College by getting certain states to do as only Maine and Nebraska have done?  One has to suspect that there is more here than meets the eye. 

“Republicans alarmed at the apparent challenges they face in winning the White House are preparing an all-out assault on the Electoral College system in critical states, an initiative that would significantly ease the party's path to the Oval Office," National Journal reports."  Senior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party's majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis."

"Already, two states -- Maine and Nebraska -- award an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district... But if more reliably blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were to award their electoral votes proportionally, Republicans would be able to eat into what has become a deep Democratic advantage."

As indicated, with the district method, a state divides itself into a number of districts (most likely using congressional districts) allocating one of its state-wide electoral votes to each district. The winner of each district is awarded that district’s electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide vote is then awarded the state’s remaining two electoral votes.
This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though since both states have adopted this modification, the statewide winners have consistently swept all of the state’s districts as well. Consequently, neither state has ever split its electoral votes.
Although this method still fails to reach the full ideal of one-man one-vote, it has been proposed as a nationwide reform for the way in which Electoral votes are distributed.
(http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm)

Republicans used their gains in 2010 to redraw congressional maps in their favor. The map is so tilted toward the GOP that the party won 234 seats to the Democrats’ 201, despite winning only 48.2 percent of the popular vote for Congress.
Democratic votes are concentrated in urban districts -- which Republicans see as both a problem, and an opportunity. As a poster on the conservative website freerepublic.com put it, “This is a great idea for Ohio. There is far too much clout in the major metro areas (Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton), and all of that clout is on the side of the socialists, voted by the entitlement class. Proportional allotment would be a great way to get some voice back to the conservative districts.”

There are six Obama states in which Republicans control the governorship and both houses of the legislature -- Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. (There are no Romney states controlled by Democrats.) If Republicans in each state had adopted this scheme, would Mitt Romney have won the election? Here’s how it would have changed the allocation of electoral votes:
Michigan (Romney 9 districts, Obama 5) Romney 11, Obama 5
Florida (Romney 16 districts, Obama 11) Romney 18, Obama 11
Ohio (Romney 12 districts, Obama 4) Romney 14, Obama 4
Pennsylvania (Romney 12 districts, Obama 4) Romney 14, Obama 4
Virginia (Romney 7 districts, Obama 4) Romney 9, Obama 4
Wisconsin (Romney 5 districts, Obama 3) Romney 7, Obama 3

This would have transferred 45 electoral votes from Obama to Romney, reducing his total from 332 to 287 -- still enough to win the presidency.
Rigging the Electoral College isn’t going to work. Republicans may have to resort to more drastic measures -- such as expanding their base beyond suburban and small-town whites, and running on a platform that appeals to a majority of Americans.
(Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/GOP-Plan-To-Rig-Electoral-College-Wont-Work-187685241.html#ixzz2IrJ8Gk5m)

Why, then, is the GOP cherry-picking states in which to do this?  First, because they are states with either a Republican Governor or with a Republican legislature, or both.  Second, because the chances are that there are enough congressional districts that are already secured for Republicans to make a difference in garnering electoral votes beyond what Democrats can do.  Don’t forget, in many of these states, the Democrat-controlled districts are within urban areas, but not in rural or certain suburban areas. The importance of these rural areas cannot be underestimated.  The Democrat winning of the popular vote state-wide would not be the determinate factor, rather, it would be the number of rural and suburban districts which matter little under a winner-take-all scenario, but swing the electoral vote to the GOP under a district allocation of votes.

Another factor in all this is that of gerrymandering.  Republicans have been working for some time (in states that give them either the state house or the legislature) to carve out districts that favor their brand.  They have had some stunning success, as in Michigan.  Now, they can take those successes and under a district allocation of electoral votes, be assured of certain districts that Democrats can probably never win. 

“After the 2010 GOP electoral surge, Republicans had new majorities in many statehouses and have been able to re-draw Congressional districts to favor their party. Largely thanks to those new maps, the GOP kept control of the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2012 elections, despite 1.1 million more Americans voting for Democratic House candidates than Republicans.” 

“Republicans are not discussing changes to electoral allocation in solidly red states, but only in Democrat-leaning states whose congressional maps were recently gerrymandered to benefit the GOP -- and if these states allocated their electoral votes according to Congressional district the presidential race could have a similarly disparate outcome.” (www.prwatch.org)

Will the fact that Republicans are planning this trick just for Democrat-leaning states be the death-knell for this dirty trick in the sense that it is not universal?  Probably not, since Maine and Nebraska set a precedent.  Will gerrymandering at its base bring reaction on the part of Progressives and Democrats?  Perhaps, but getting rid of gerrymandering, perhaps by requiring a non-partisan commission in every state to re-draw districts, is a long-term strategy and not likely to be passed easily in states where Republicans have control.

So that leaves us, perhaps, with a challenge to this trick built upon the one man, one vote rule.  The "one man, one vote" rule (also called "one person, one vote") derives from the US Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) that held state political districts of unequal size resulted in under-representation of some citizens' interests and over-representation of others'. This was considered ‘unrepublican,’ per Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, and also unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. In order to meet constitutional standards, districts had to be reapportioned so each had approximately equal population.” (wiki.answers.com)  Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 US 1 (1964) applied the same principle to districts of the US House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, both district allocation of electoral votes and gerrymandering might mean bringing lawsuits in each state which would hopefully make their way to being heard by the Supreme Court, a somewhat long-term strategy.  The whole question of gerrymandering must be addressed, lest more rural and suburban districts become Red forever.  These battles have to be fought state-by-state because that is where the control lies.  For instance, to lessen the chances of gerrymandering, there would need to be state legislation making non-partisan groups responsible for re-districting when a census demands such.  That means changing the laws of most states.  Democrats and Progressives need to act now in order to be ready for 2016.  Perhaps the newly structured grassroots group “Organizing for Action” will need to get busy at the state level to influence how states deal with these two interactive issues.  Ignoring the dirty tricks of frustrated losers is fraught with danger!

NRA LEADERSHIP MISSES THE TARGET!

If it is true, as reported,  that a majority of members of the NRA want universal background checks, and are willing to see the curbing of high capacity magazines, and may even slightly favor the extension of a ban on certain assault weapons, then why is the NRA leadership bent on overturning these proposals?  Why?  Because they are protecting, not their membership, or children in schools, or young people everywhere, but they are protecting their elitist status, their positions, their right-wing ideology, their power and the manufacturers of guns and ammunition.  Why else would they, as elected representatives of their members, act in an opposite direction from them?

The reactions of the NRA leadership to the common-sense proposals of the President are reminiscent of the “Pinocchio-like” untruths of the Romney Campaign.  Almost everything that has been said by the NRA leadership, and their lackeys in Congress, has been rated untrue - at least 4 Pinocchios - for their basis in utter falsehood.

To characterize the President’s proposals as an “attack” on second-amendment rights is an outright Pinocchio.  No legal gun-owner would lose his/her right to his/her legal guns as a result of the passage of any of the President’s proposals!  So what it comes down to is that the leadership of the NRA has decided to defend the right of criminals, of the mentally challenged, illegal gun-runners, people who have a documented history of  violent acts, to own guns.  They are not defending the 2nd amendment rights of hunters,  target shooters, skeet shooters, competitors, or collectors, because the legal rights of these persons are not threatened by these proposals.  The NRA leadership has missed the target!   

For instance, the assertion that the states that object to any laws passed under the President’s proposals can nullify those laws in their states, is not only absurd on its face, it bespeaks ignorance of the ruling of the Supreme Court that federal laws cannot be overridden or nullified by states.  This is simply “crazy talk”; it has no place in a real debate on the issue of gun control.  Yet, among others, the Governor of Mississippi and the junior senator from Kentucky made these assertions recently, and they should know better.    

Or, to demean the President by saying that his Executive orders indicate someone who has a “king complex,” is a epithet that has no business in this debate.  In fact, it bespeaks an ignorance of the place of Executive orders.  They are restricted to current law; they cannot promulgate new law, and they generally deal with agencies and offices that fall under the direction of the Executive, or with regulations that can be amended by the Executive.  Nowhere in the Executive Orders on gun control is there anything that approaches decrees of a king or dictator.  If the radical right-wingers disagree, they should point to specific orders that are examples of legislating.  Here are the proposals (and perhaps those who have made these charges ought to actually read them):

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

It is time to recognize that the takeover of our government by gun lobbyists and NRA officers is akin to the takeover of Congress by the lawyers, officers and board members of large corporations, banks, and other financial institutions.  Except that the takeover by the NRA leadership and lobbyists does not necessarily constitute a plutocracy.  It constitutes a takeover by a cabal who believe that they alone have the mission, the correct interpretation, the protection of gun owners, and of the rights granted by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.  This is known, in some quarters, as a rule by a cabal, otherwise called rule by a junta. 

A lobby this strong is a threat to other rights guaranteed by the Constitution, simply because once one puts forth the primacy of one right - to own guns - other rights are affected.  For instance, a right to safety from irresponsible owners is not protected.  The right to a contrary opinion on the 2nd amendment is not allowed to exist, thus trampling the right to protest or petition, or even the right to speak out.  Lack of responsibility on the part of some gun owners can also be the final denial of rights to life, liberty and property without due process of law, all of which can be taken away in an unguarded moment by a gun left unattended.  Many children have experienced this denial of life as they have been killed by guns owned by friends, relatives or even parents.  The right to assemble peaceably can be denied by the threat of gun carry laws allowing people to carry concealed guns in public areas.  The right to bear arms is not an absolute right, but as with all rights, must be circumscribed with certain responsibilities in order for citizens to have an equal chance at life and liberty. 

The elite leaders of the NRA do not believe in protecting other rights to the extent that they protect 2nd amendment rights, and that is wrong.  They cannot even bring themselves to support a universal background check so that we can limit people with certain aberrations or flaws from owning a weapon.  They cannot bring themselves to support a ban on high capacity magazines simply because they want no limitations on ammunition just as they want no limitations on guns.  This, in spite of the fact that such high capacity clips are used most often to kill people, not animals.  In short, they cannot allow any limitations on guns or ammunition because such limitations represent to them a limitation of the basic right to bear arms. 

Such obstinacy is caused by the flawed idea that one allowed limitation leads to a slippery slope ending in the elimination of the right to bear arms.  If such an argument had any credibility then every other freedom or right that faces limitations would also be eliminated.  But freedom of speech, for instance, which is circumscribed by all kinds of limitations and restrictions, such as limitation on hate speech or speech that bears false witness, is still alive and well.  So is freedom of the press, although slander or libel is not allowed.  The complete paranoia of the NRA leadership is attributable to their fear of losing their positions and their power, not their guns.

The biggest lie used by these intransigent leaders is their charge that our government will be coming after the guns of law-abiding citizens once any limitations are allowed to be imposed.  Such drivel.  What evidence do they have that the government has any interest in such folly?  The only interest the government has in confiscating guns is when people use guns to disobey the law.  So yes, guns have been confiscated: from criminals, from people who traffic in illegal guns, from those who commit crimes against people or property, from those who intend to attack police or firemen or the military, or are committed to fomenting rebellion against the legally established order (the republic; the elected government).   

In this respect, we must bring forth the final falsity that the NRA has the right to defend itself against the government if the government passes laws that it does not like, or that it feels abrogates their 2nd amendment rights.  The leadership of the NRA, and those of its members who hold this false notion, need to be reminded that this is a democracy, and that the citizenry has not elected the NRA as the arbiters or defenders of 2nd amendment rights, or any other rights. The NRA has designated itself to this role, but are legitimate only insofar as they recognize their limited mission as defined in the law.

The threat of a renegade government attacking legal gun owners to take away their right to own guns is nothing but a manufactured excuse for preventing gun violence  restrictions.  There is no recognized right of NRA members to defend the constitution against a renegade government.  An informed public needs to put the NRA in its place.  The NRA needs to know that they are nothing but an association, established under the laws and regulations of the federal government (IRC 501(c)), subject to those rules, and to the structures of that law and to their  application (and their charter) which defines their mission. 

They do not have the right to threaten the rest of us with an armed rebellion against our duly established government.  Such a threat borders on Treason (at the least, insurrection) and should not be tolerated by the citizenry, anymore than we unquestionably tolerate any other organization that claims to speak for all the people, or claims the right to foment an insurrection.  One of the important things this junta easily (and conveniently) forgets is that the Constitution gives power and authority solely to the federal Congress to “provide for the common defense of the United States”; to “provide for the calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

Finally, we have to assert that this debate about gun violence does not really target the right to bear arms.  That right is not being questioned, although it should be limited in a responsible way, just as all other rights are. This debate has to do with violence perpetrated upon our children (and other vulnerable people) by those who should not have a gun in their possession.  That is the kernel of this controversy, and the target of the President’s proposals.  We cannot allow our children to be targeted by people who would do them harm, and even take their lives. 

The NRA leadership is dead wrong in simply proposing more guns (and gun carriers) in schools as the way to protect our children, while erroneously asserting that “guns are not the problem.”  While being challenged as citizens to embrace a broader and deeper examination of the violence that penetrates and permeates our world view, let us not forget the children (and the teachers) who died in Sandy Hook Elementary School because of a deranged killer using assault weapons.  Those children represent our own children and grandchildren and we must do all we can to protect our children, not only from all forms of violence that could threaten their well-being, but specifically from gun violence which can quickly alter or end their existence.  Unlike the NRA leadership, we must stay on target!

Disapproval Is Not Enough

It is time to concentrate a laser beam on our dysfunctional Congress.  I’m sorry, but the Congress does not resemble anything like the constitutional description of it.  Congress doesn’t even seem to know what that is.

Article 1, Section1:   “All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Apparently, Congress does not see itself as a separate branch of government with a huge responsibility for making government work, like the Constitution does.  No, it currently sees itself as a body waiting for the Executive to act (just so they can pin blame on him for anything and everything).  Secondly, there is a radically conservative cohort within the Congress that perceives the federal government at worst as “the enemy” and at least as an overgrown, out-of-control spending machine that must be put on a chopping block and cut down to size. These two visions of Congress are, in my opinion, out of sync with the constitutional view of the Congress.  Let’s take a look at the contrasting portraits.

Article I, Section 7:  The Constitution says:  “All Bills for raising  Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” 

“Capitol Hill's top Republican said that talks with President Barack Obama toward resolving the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled for the beginning of next year continued to stall; Boehner renewed his demand that Obama submit a new plan for evaluation by lawmakers. (Dec 7, 2012).  Get busy, Mr. Boehner; you have the responsibility, along with the Senate, with whom you should be “concurring.”

“The issue of taxes continues to ensnare negotiations on the fiscal cliff.  Republicans made a counter-offer earlier this week that would raise revenue by closing loopholes and deductions, but would also preserve existing tax rates, all of which are set to expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts.”  Too late, Mr. Boehner; McConnell and Biden took you out of the picture!

"It's time for the president, if he's serious, to come back to us with a counter-offer," said Boehner…"
The president rejected the Republican plan as unbalanced because it allowed for no increase in income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans….What Republicans are now demanding is a new version of Obama's plan.”  (Dec. 9, 2012) 
No, the opposite is true -- it’s your responsibility to come up with a plan, Mr. Boehner!

And, of course, Boehner has his oft repeated complaint ready for the press: “no budget from the Senate in 3 years”.  In addition: March 22, 2012:
(CNSNews.com) – “Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized the Senate on Thursday for failing to pass a budget, saying, ‘We’re actually doing the real work’ by introducing House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) plan. The last time the Senate passed a budget was on Apr. 9, 2009.”

So, on the one hand, we have Senate Republicans putting road blocks in the way of the passage of the President’s budget., including the use of the filibuster and it’s accompanying rule known as “cloture,” which calls for a super-majority of sixty votes in order to pass any legislation being filibustered.  Everyone knows that the Senate has overused this procedure, and has blocked multiple bills by doing so.  Notwithstanding, the House through John Boehner, continues to blame Democrats for these blockages, even though the Republicans are using them to thwart the will and the agenda of the President.  This is an out-of-control Party using procedures and rules to act as though legislating doesn’t matter as much as the right to set one’s own rules and to use those rules to play party politics. 

This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when in Article 1, Section 5 they declared that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings….”  In fact, as usual, they had in mind an orderly House, sensible rules, and proceedings which would enable the business of Congress to be done in an effective way.  To back up that idea of orderliness, they indicated that “Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time, publish the same….“ 

They did not envision a Congress so divided by factions that it would not be able to function appropriately.  They intended that a faction or party not be allowed to take over the proceedings and to use them to deter the legislating of suitable laws.  They even had some semblance of cooperation between Congress and the President in mind when they wrote:
“He (the President) shall from time to time give the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he may judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them….”
They were not thinking just of a one-time occasion here that has come to be known as the State of the Union Address.  They wanted appropriate interactions between the branches.

The Radical Republicans have taken the bases of our political life - The Constitution, the making of laws that tend to the welfare of a nation, plus the proceedings that enable orderly pursuit of legislating, and the cooperation that is necessary between the branches of government - and twisted them into a Gordian-type knot that is now strangling our democracy.   They have simply put the power and ideology of a Party first, replacing the primacy of the Commonweal.  This is exactly what several of the Founding Fathers feared: that a party or “faction” would attempt to disrupt and destroy the Republic. 

A second very important point must be made in regard to how this conservative cabal sees its role, believing it can be a blockage to legislation so that the President’s agenda is thwarted.  Yet nowhere in the Constitution is the Congress granted such a power, authority, or check on the power of the President, except in over-riding a presidential veto.  In fact, its role(s) is seen as much more positive and proactive, to such an extent that I believe we have reason to say that the current Congress (or at least the 112th before it) was acting in a way that was in opposition to the extremely strong Article 1, Section 8.  At the end of that 8th Section - after a long recitation of important powers given to Congress, it proclaims:  (Congress is) “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

This is not to be taken lightly.  The major point here is that the Congress is seen as responsible for making laws that carry all of the powers given it into the departments and offices throughout the government.  This implies that Congress must be somewhat of a Guardian for all of Government, not just of a Party’s ideology or platform; not just of laws that conform to its own outlook.  This role of Execution of legislation in line with its granted powers makes Congress partially responsible for how all of the federal government functions!  So how about the power to “borrow money on the credit of the United States?”   Is the Congress carrying out its responsibility for all of government if it refuses to extend the debt limit?  Maybe not.  Can the Congress deny its responsibility for paying the Debts of the US, which is listed among its powers? 

What about that awesome responsibility placed on it to “provide for the defense and general welfare of the United States?”   Can the imposition of draconian cuts to programs that protect the “general welfare” of millions of our people be seen as fulfillment of the execution of laws that “provide for the “general welfare?”  Oh, then there’s that little thing about the power to “promote the progress of Science and useful arts….”  Is the cutback of public radio and public TV a response to the execution of the laws that serve the general welfare?  Oh, and how about cuts to research under NIH or the cuts to art and music programs in public schools?  Should we mention their major attempts to deny the science about global warming?  Congresspersons of a certain bent have even taken part in attempts to shape curriculum in public schools to deny the science of evolution, natural selection, and scientific method.   Are they still meeting their constitutional obligations?

Finally about this point, it must be argued that Congress has failed in its very important responsibility for oversight of departments, offices and programs in the Executive branch.  The role of execution of laws throughout the federal government has evolved into the limited function of oversight, yet Congress has preferred to place blame on others (like the CIA for its lack of oversight of its own operations).  Congress is failing in its oversight and execution of laws it passes that must necessarily be managed by Executive branch officers.  Congress blames rather than corrects; fumes with partisan rhetoric rather than instituting reforms through a process of evaluation and outcome-setting.  Well-planned hearings could be valuable (perhaps small group discussions or seminars could be more valuable), but increasingly, are excuses for one party to blame the other, and to call witnesses that have nothing but axes to grind.  The Congress is a study in abject failure when we look for evidence that they take their execution and oversight functions seriously.

Congress, with about a 15% approval rating by the people (the worst in history) entirely deserves the public‘s ire and judgment, but not just because they cannot get anything done.  More so because they try to block every piece of legislation proposed by the President (or Democrats); are attempting to destroy government support of the middle class; tilt everything they can in favor of the rich; and go on recess enough to deserve the charge that they hardly ever do any work.  That would seem to be enough.  But I maintain that they are working against the very foundation of their existence: the Constitution.  This is not a good thing for our form of government which bases its functioning on the rule of law. 

The Radical Republicans in the House especially, but also in the Senate, have decided that making laws for the welfare of the people is not their primary goal or responsibility, in spite of the Constitution which declares exactly the opposite. 

Low approval ratings are not enough to change this very bad situation.  Congress seems to have lost its way, and its purpose, to the point that ordinary citizens must act to bring about a correction.  It is not enough simply to wait for the next election. We need non-partisan citizen groups required to carry out re-districting in every state so that no congressman is immune from a contested and fair election. We need the Occupy Movement in the Capitol.  We need law suits to force Congress to do its work and earn its pay.  We need citizen volunteers to monitor the Congress.  We need problem-solving processes and structures built into the operations of the Congress.  We need organizations like Public Citizen to find legal means of recalling legislators who are not in conformance with the Constitution.  We need the President and his Department Secretaries to throw every possible piece of job-creating legislation at the do-nothing Congress to see what they will do.  

The Congress has managed to eat away at its very foundations; we cannot allow it to devour our democratic Republic.

What Deal?

Deal?  Cliff?  How about Bamboozle? 

Once again, reality is being hidden by clever words and then forced upon us by the Republican minority.  This is not about deals.  It is not about negotiations.  It is not about reasonable debate or process.  This is about leverage and power, in the form of shutting down the federal government.  It is about the priority of this radical Republican cabal.  They want to destroy the federal government, and their smokescreen is still the misleading mantra that the government spends too much, thus it must be reined in, capped, and cut. 

“Spending cuts” are the key to this smokescreen.  Yes, we need them.  Yes, the government has grown and over-reached.  Yes, there is too much bureaucracy.  As with past recessions, we need to act in a balanced way - increase revenue, stimulate the economy and cut government spending where that is prudent and necessary.  But the deficit is not the major problem.  What is a major problem is the fact that the economy is recovering so slowly.  Instead of stimulating a dragging economy by repairing infrastructure and providing jobs, Republicans would rather cut the very programs that are enabling certain sectors of our society to continue to put money into the economy where it is desperately needed.  If we do what Republicans want, we will find that the Great Recession will deepen and the economy will take forever to recover.  But Republicans say “no” to this even though, in the first term of FDR, cutting federal spending was tried and failed, so FDR went for the New Deal to stimulate the economy as much as possible.

  The Congress is the problem: they make the laws; they appropriate the money; they manipulate the tax code.  All the debt that we owe is because of legislation already passed by the Congress.  So, logically, that says to me that Congress is not serious about spending cuts or deficit reduction.  What they are serious about is the destruction of government programs that they do not support.  What they are most serious about is an ideology that proclaims the federal government as unwieldy, ineffective and cumbersome.  So, they portend, it must be reduced in size and gotten out of the way so that the States can oversee most programs and projects.  The most recent example of putting ideology above need and even above emergency relief is John Boehner’s insistence that federal relief for victims of Sandy, the storm that devastated parts of the Northeast, be held up and voted on piecemeal, as though that is what will reduce our deficit.

This whole “fiscal cliff” thing - first that of revenue enhancement, and now that of spending cuts -  is simply a ploy to make the voting public believe that the country is facing a fiscal crisis that will affect our children and grandchildren.  History of deficit reduction does not support that particular image.  As a country, we usually resolve deficits through a balanced plan of spending cuts and tax revenues, and new jobs.  Sometimes war has had an effect, and at other times, a long peacetime accompanied by a manufacturing and consumer buying boom has helped to overcome a deficit/debt situation.  But, one would be hard-pressed to find a situation where the next generation inherited a debt that crippled their advancement, unless we count the Era of the Depression when families were definitely affected through more than one generation during the 1920s to the early 1940s.

If the real problem is over-spending, then it makes eminent sense to find those parts of the budget where the largest spending occurs.  That would, of course, be the budget of the Department of Defense. But, where are the Republicans when this is presented?  Hiding, of course (or passing appropriations that are larger than those asked for by the military).  They do not want to touch the DoD budget and even when sequestration was used to force a budget solution, they acted to nullify the over $500 billion cut to the DoD budget.  Such an action gives the lie to their cry of  “spending cuts” and “spending crisis.”  Even the Simpson-Bowles Commission said that cuts to the military budget are imperative, but not the Republicans.  In spite of what Secretary Panetta says, or the Republicans say, this is the place to start. 

Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.  He summarizes where we stand in terms of this budget and proposes some solutions.

“While reducing projected levels of defense spending will not solve the country's massive federal deficit, defense must play a part. The current budget comprises 20 percent of overall spending, about the same as Social Security and more than 50 percent of the discretionary budget. Moreover, defense has accounted for two thirds of the increase in the discretionary budget over the last decade.
“The budget is also now in a position where it can be safely reduced. In real dollars, it has grown for an unprecedented 13 consecutive years and is now higher than at any time since World War II.
Even excluding war costs, the regular or baseline budget has grown by about 50 percent over the past decade, the U.S. share of global military spending has risen from one third to about one half, and the United States now spends more on defense than the next 17 nations combined.
The Pentagon has already been ordered by the President to cut its projected spending by $450 billion over the next decade and, if sequestration happens, the cuts could total $1 trillion.  Despite the doomsday scenarios continually espoused by Secretary Panetta and the military chiefs, a cut of that size would amount to only 15 percent, in real terms return spending to its 2007 level, and still leave the United States above what we spent on average in the Cold War. Finally, such a cut would be far less than cuts made by Eisenhower (27 percent), Nixon (29 percent), and Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton (35 percent), which were done without jeopardizing security.
Obviously, a reduction of a trillion dollars would have to come in a balanced way and, as was done in previous draw-downs, it should be implemented through a phased approach and would involve all components of the budget.
To give but a few examples, our nuclear arsenal can be slashed from the current level of 5,000 to 311, as recommended by some Air Force strategists. Since we are withdrawing troops from the Middle East and are unlikely to need large armies there anytime soon, the size of our ground forces can be cut back by 100,000 to their pre-9/11 levels. Since the Cold War ended 20 years ago, the 80,000 troops still in Europe can be reduced to 20,000. Since the military increasingly relies on unmanned planes and precision-guided munitions, the number of carriers and Air Force fighters can be reduced by 25 percent.”

Where do we next look?  Republicans will quickly lead you to what they call “the main drivers of our spending:  Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  This is the “sucker punch” -- getting us all to believe that these government insurance programs are the main cause of our debt.  As expressed on Salon.com, “America does need long-term reforms to its entitlement system and tax system . In addition to regulating excessive healthcare costs, the United States needs a middle-class welfare state that is bigger, not smaller. It’s the restricted, elitist private welfare state that needs to be cut, not the universal public social insurance system.”

The Salon.com writer makes a very cogent point about the reason for the attempts to “reform” Social Security.” 
“We are barraged with propaganda demanding that we cut Social Security, the successful public program, and expand the private savings alternatives like 401Ks and IRAs that have failed so miserably.
Why? The answer is that Wall Street wants to charge fees on as much of our retirement money as it can get its tentacles on. The well-funded campaign to partly privatize Social Security under George W. Bush failed. But the same forces want to achieve the same result indirectly, by getting Obama and enough conservative Democrats in Congress, along with the GOP, to cut Social Security. Their manifest objective is to compel Americans to try to make up the losses in public benefits by gambling more with their savings in mutual funds, from which hefty profits will be skimmed by overpaid money managers.”

Social Security is not part of the government’s discretionary budget, and therefore, has little effect upon it.  These smoke-screen Republicans forget to tell you that the Affordable Care Act actually targeted $716 billion from waste and overpayment in  Medicare over a ten-year period.  “Entitlement Reform” should be done as a separate deal.  These programs are too complicated to throw into the discretionary spending mix.  It is a huge mistake.  Michael Lind of Salon.com tells us why:

“Medicare and Medicaid are different from Social Security, because they involve the very structure of the U.S. medical-industrial complex. But the basic policy choice is similar. Is the goal of reform to enrich fee-skimming middlemen belonging to the 1 percent by forcing Americans to channel their healthcare spending, like their retirement savings, through private corporations? Or is the goal to provide universal health security along with universal retirement security by the simplest and most efficient means?
Today the actual scale of government is disguised, because politicians and policymakers fail to describe tax-favored private health insurance and private retirement saving accounts as “government” or “entitlements.” In public discourse we need to expand the definition of “entitlements” to include the tax-favored private savings and health insurance that chiefly benefit the few, not just the public spending programs that benefit the many.
If our objective is what is good for most Americans, rather than what enriches parasitic middlemen, then we should reduce inefficient and inequitable tax-favored private spending on retirement and health benefits and use the savings to increase more direct, fair and efficient public spending, including an expansion of Social Security. The alternative of cutting public benefits while favoring private benefits through the tax code means bigger, guaranteed windfall fees for America’s bloated financial industry — forever.”

So there it is: the same old story from the 1% Republicans.  Their “reform” of entitlements is aimed at making it easier for private corporations to profit.  They have no concern at all for improving these government programs.  They want to get their hands on your money, and manage it for you.  Ask yourself why Part D under Medicare could not be passed until private companies were protected and given full rights to setting rates and managing the money involved in medicines under Part D.  Why was there a “donut-hole” built in?  Why was Medicare (the government) specifically denied the ability to negotiate lower drug costs?  Every provision of that legislation points to the favoritism provided through our tax code and legislation for private corporations.  Republican spending cutters do not want to “reform” Medicare and Medicaid; they want to grab more of it for their clients. If we allow the government to negotiate with drug companies, that will save an estimated $220 billion. That’s 1.8 times as much money as the “chained CPI” – and it comes from the drug companies, not vulnerable Americans.

So now we come to that part of the government that gets little attention, and when it does that attention is turned into “tax reform”, which is not what is needed.  We’re not talking here about changing the deductions on the taxes of the rich; we’re not talking about changing to a flat tax regressive system of taxation.  We’re talking about real money here: those provisions of the tax code that allow certain individuals, corporations and industries to extract money from the federal government under the general topic of “tax expenditures.”  A great deal of government spending is hidden in the federal tax code in the form of deductions, credits, and other preferences.  These are the government “entitlements” that need to be targeted, not those that support the middle class and the working poor.  These are preferences that seem as though they let taxpayers keep their own money, but are actually spending in disguise.

“Spending in disguise.”  There it is:  the bamboozle, the scam, the dirty work of legislators and lobbyists and lawyers over the years.  Let us take a quick look at some of these “tax expenditures.”  Independent estimates say that the “chained CPI” will slash Social Security benefits by $122 billion over the next ten years. Here are some solutions that will save more money - and really will reduce the deficit.

1) “The hidden cost of allowing the top 5% of income earners to deduct healthcare costs is… significant: 12.2% of $172.9 billion dollars is over $21 billion dollars in lost revenue or the same amount the Federal Government spends on student financial aid every year”

“The biggest subsidy to our top 5% of income earners are tax incentives for retirement savings: They enjoyed 41% of the benefit, costing the Government over $81 billion dollars, almost equal to the entire amount proposed by Obama to spend on Unemployment Insurance in 2011. As opposed to the entire bottom 60% of wage earners who enjoyed only 7.3% of the subsidy, or less than $15 billion.
So that's $145 billions of dollars that the Government loses in income to benefit the wealthiest 5% of Americans. “ (Fri Mar 18, 2011 Daily Kos)

2)   Close multiple loopholes in the capital gains law: $174.2 billion. (1.42x)
Lawmakers could save nearly one and a half times as much money as they’ll get from stripping seniors, the disabled, veterans, and children of their benefits - 1.42 times as much, to be precise – by closing capital gains loopholes.
They include the “carried interest” loophole, which taxes hedge fund managers’ service fees at the low “investors’” rate; the ‘blended rate,’ which taxes some quick derivatives trades as if they were long-term investments; the ability to ‘gift’ capital gains to avoid taxation; a dodge for bartering capital gains; and the ability to ‘defer’ gains to future years.
A more aggressive approach – eliminating the capital gains altogether – could yield more than $900 billion in savings, but that might affect middle-class families and seniors. By using the “chained CPI,” America’s seniors, vets, and disabled are taking a hit so that hedge fund managers can keep their loopholes.

3)  Eliminate corporate tax loopholes: $1.24 trillion (10x)
A 2007 Treasury Department report (prepared under President Bush) concluded that “corporate tax preferences” – that is, loopholes – resulted in lost revenue of $1,241,000,000,000 over a ten-year period.
That number looks pretty good – especially when it’s stacked up against the “chained CPI” figure of $122 billion.

4)  Instead of providing a tax break for hedge fund managers, how about adding something to the tax code that would be a huge boon, although a small tax . Create a financial transactions tax for high-volume Wall Street trading: $1.8 trillion (14.75x)
A financial transaction tax like the one they’ve imposed in the United Kingdom. The UK tax rate is tiny – 0.25 percent of each transaction, levied on both parties – but the overall impact is substantial.
Not only would this tax bring in substantial revenue, it would also discourage the massive volume of ultra-high-speed computer-driven transactions that have turned the stock market into both an imperceptible ‘black box’ and a real-time mega-casino operating in nanoseconds (see AlterNet.org for more on each of these matters).

During the next month or more, we are going to experience the smokescreen rhetoric from the Republicans about budget cuts and deficits, as well as entitlement reform. Don’t be bamboozled.  Question everything you hear and remember one more thing: do NOT allow the President to give in on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, or to allow “spending cuts” that fall heavily on the poor, the elderly, veterans, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations. 

The Republicans are not truthful about spending cuts or entitlement reforms.  You are being swindled, bamboozled and misdirected.   They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, aiming to get your tax money into the hands of their private sector puppet-masters. Don’t let it happen! 

Garbage In/Garbage Out: A Culture of Violence

From CommonDreams.org comes an article, titled “A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill,”  by Lucinda Marshall, Founder and Director of the Feminist Peace Network, posted on Dec. 15, 2012.  It is a summary of many of the elements that make-up our culture of violence.  Because it is set forth in a staccato-type manner, I have chosen to quote most of it to introduce today’s subject.

“The Sandy Hook massacre isn’t just about the need for gun control laws, it is about a culture that condones the killing of children and teaches children that killing is okay.”
It is about a country addicted to violence on television and movie screens.
It is about cuts in education spending.
It is about environmental and health policies that expose our children to all manner of toxins in the air, land and water.
It is about thinking we have the right to kill children with drones or by dropping toxic munitions on their countries that cause birth defects and miscarriages.
It is about telling boys (and men) they have to be tough and to fight and kill for what they want or think is right.
It is about a national policy that denies children basic rights and systemically teaches them that violence is okay.
And it is about a media so insensitive that it thinks it is okay to shove a microphone in the face of young victims in the name of sensationalized 24/7 cable “news” while under-reporting the root causes of this tragedy.
Sandy Hook did not happen because of a lone, disturbed young man and it is not an isolated incident. It is an epidemic and we are all to blame. And today (and tomorrow and every day after that) is the time to confront this self-inflicted tragedy.”

Unfortunately, it is about even more than that.  Our culture of violence has grown and prospered through many phases and over many decades.  And, the elements of that culture are ingrained in us so deeply that we do not recognize either their origins or their cancerous growth.  We are, in some sense, destined to repeat what we inherited because we accept without question the premises and the myths and the ideologies that have been handed down.

It is about a culture and a government that was conceived in a revolutionary war  against its own ruling country, but is mostly seen as a new nation and government conceived in liberty, freedom and equality.  Yet, that new nation was mired in a system of enslavement of native peoples from Africa, about which we did nothing at our founding.  The violence against America’s own native people was oft repeated when this nation’s white settlers ran into, and violently destroyed, the lands, families, settlements as well as the peaceful culture of these native Americans.  We were unfortunately as much conceived in violence as we were in liberty.

It is about a culture that had violence in its background as well.  That is, the violence of European culture was transferred to the new world.  Bull-baiting and cock-fighting, hangings, drawing and quartering, the glorification of the military, and the violence visited on many countries by invaders, by conquering armies, by marauders, by bands of thieves, by the elite overlords of the manors, and by kings and queens who had to protect their holdings and lieges (not so much their citizenry).  In most cases, our settlers brought cultural violence with them.

Do we even have to mention the “Wild West”, where lawlessness was epidemic at times, and where individuals often had to join together in posses and associations and antagonistic groups in order to defend their property and their livelihoods (e.g. sheep herders vs. cattlemen).  We need to recall the many skirmishes and battles fought  against native Americans to keep them on reservations and to end their battles against settlers and each other (Wikipedia mentions around 90).  And, how about drunkenness (yes, alcohol-induced violence was a problem), or the violence perpetrated on women who had few rights even in their own homes.  (Did you think all those men & women settlers got along like the Engle’s in Little House on the Prairie?) 

The frontier was not the only place where our violent culture reared its ugly head, after all, there were major urban areas growing up in our developing nation, and the crowding, the menial jobs and the threat of new immigrants taking those jobs, were factors in urban violence.  When the industrial revolution moved in, so did the violence of child labor, low wages, long hours, and few rights. 

We could go on like this, but there is little room and your time is precious.  Shall we just mention: the prejudice and discrimination, not only against blacks and native Americans, but against the Irish, Chinese, Roman Catholics, Italians, etc.   And, don’t forget the Civil War during which we afflicted violence upon each other for several years.  Yes, I know: at least we freed the slaves.  But do you recall Southern Reconstruction during which freedmen were subject to laws that demeaned and treated them as second-class citizens?  Oh yes, and then there were the “carpet-baggers” and other charlatans from outside the South who came to take advantage of the defeated South. 

Are we a bellicose nation or a peaceful nation?  We like to think of ourselves as the latter, but our history of war with peoples, nations, and religions belies our tendency toward peacefulness.  Shall we mention a few, beginning of course with the Revolutionary War, and moving onto:

War of 1812
Mexican-American war
Civil War
Spanish-American War
Philippine-American war
Panama
China
Occupation of Haiti
WWI
WWII
Occupation of Japan
Korean War
Cuban Missile Crisis
Vietnam War
Sinai multi-national
Grenada
Panama
Haiti Operation: Uphold Democracy
Bosnian War
Desert Storm (Kuwait)
Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan)
Operation Iraqi Freedom

Are there some in that list you didn’t recognize?  That’s just the tip of the iceberg.  If we count up all of the Battles with Native Americans, the putdown of Slave revolts and insurrections, range wars and boundary disputes, labor-management disputes, state secessionist attempts, riots and public disorders, plus counting all of the extraterritorial and major domestic deployments, as well as deployments in other countries to protect U.S. interests, we are left to wonder when we ever had time for anything other than violent intervention.  It is not an inspiring record, and it reads like America was simply an armed camp ready to fight about everything! (Take a look at Wikipedia’s Timeline of Military Operations).

So where do we begin to change this culture of violence?  There is no one answer that stands alone.  Perhaps we should think a bit about a few concepts:

We must examine the history books we use in our public schools and rid ourselves of those that teach myths, distorted facts and ideology, rather than the true facts of our culture and history; we must not continue to hide from our history and heritage of violence, but must face its implications for our culture head-on (a “People’s History of the United States 1492 to Present” is perhaps a place to start).  Better that young people understand our flaws from the beginning than discover later that they have been fed untruths.  After all, is it not a stronger argument for our greatness as a nation that we have forged admirable outcomes in spite of our flaws, and that reform is achievable even against great odds?
  
There is a saying from the early years of desk-top computing which may have some relevance here: “Garbage In, Garbage Out.”  In the realm of physical health, we say that a healthy diet of food that goes in our bodies will help to produce a healthy body.  Yet, we do not often enough hear of the bad effects on our minds and spirits of a constant diet of violent images from news, movies, books and video games. 
In fact, there are those who say that such images might only affect the already disturbed mind and “trigger” a violent episode, but they do not produce violence in otherwise healthy individuals.  While I do not argue with that hypothesis on its face, I do wonder if any in-depth studies have been conducted to show the long-term effects of such violent images on our minds and our psyches?  It is my contention that we are all affected in mind and spirit by a steady diet of violent images and programming going into our heads, not necessarily in terms of triggering violent acts, but in terms of skewing the way we perceive our culture and the way we look at what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in terms of other violence that is prevalent in our culture.  Have you ever seen the short documentary reports on television about ordinary students or adults of solid backgrounds who were led to give electric shocks to others in ever increasing doses, simply on the suggestion or command of an authority figure?  Most did do so, in spite of the painful cries of the recipients. 

In other words, I’m concerned about how this bombardment affects our outlook on violence in all its forms.  There is some evidence that we are becoming immune to many forms of violence, including attacks on women, for instance.  Are we more tolerant of damage being done to the environment (hydro-fracking, for instance) because we are more accepting of violence done to our planet in exchange for profit?  What manner of violence lurks in our minds because of what we are fed constantly by media?

“Garbage In, Garbage Out” is for me a phrase that should not be ignored as too many wish to do.  And, I have to wonder: how much of our ability to ignore violence in our culture is partly the result of the steady input of violent images into our minds by our entertainment culture?  I believe we are fooling ourselves when we recognize the truth of this phrase in terms of data entry and physical health, but ignore its truth when we discuss our mental and intellectual health, as well as our cultural health.  According to AlterNet.org, “Neuropsychological science has discovered that either seeing, or imagining actions directly impacts our neurology. Repetitive viewings of violent occurrences can install trauma triggers, even inducing nightmares and flashbacks typical of post-traumatic stress. While it’s important to follow trustworthy news sources to serve as a well-informed citizen, repeated viewings of violent scenes without any clear purpose engraves terror into the neurology of the populace.”

Is Ann Curry’s “26 Acts of Kindness” suggestion on Twitter partly “the cure” for our culture of violence?  Perhaps some would say: “not to a great extent“, but there is definite validity in attempting to replace our tendencies toward violence with kindness and charity and positive feedback as more appropriate responses to fellow human beings.  After all, responses to other humans is what determines the kind of world we are building, and that extends to relationships with other cultures and nations.  Take Iran, for example.  We are engaged in an effort to change the direction toward nuclear proliferation by that country’s government.  Our approach has been, as it so often is, to use sanctions and threats and negative feedback and hyperbole as the way to get a foreign government to change its ways.  Will it work?  Probably not.  Will it come to some kind of attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities?  Probably.  Does that advance world peace, and the security of our nation?  Hard to say: on the one hand, it will appear to stabilize the situation in the short-term, but long-term be assured that memories of past violence against such countries are not forgotten.  We are still paying the price of enmity from such middle-eastern countries for interventions and insults by Western countries in the past.
 
So what can we do?  Try “diplomacy” it is suggested by some.  Is that the best we can do?  Or is there something to be said for fostering relationships with countries built on acts of kindness?  Sounds very far-fetched, but it has worked before: the Hoover Plan and help for refugees and other projects through the United Nations, the Aids Project funded under George W. Bush.  These are but examples that come to mind of acts of kindness still remembered by recipient countries. 

So perhaps it comes down to how we want to be perceived and remembered in the world.  Acts of kindness rather than bellicose actions could change our image.  Unless of course, one prefers bellicosity and war and enmity as strategies for getting along with others.  Maybe I have missed the point: is the point to control the actions and destinies of others so that our lives are safer and more secure?  Is national security, and not national pride or international peace, the primary consideration in our relations with nations?  And, is bellicosity the way to get to that desired outcome?  Perhaps we should ask some hawkish Republicans, like John McCain or Lindsey Graham.  At least, they would mince no words in telling us how naïve we are!  But hawks are predators, and therein lies the problem!
 
Here are some other possible considerations for changing our culture of violence:
-- Enlist entertainment media in making documentaries and theme films that reveal the devastation caused by violence in our culture and that reveal the importance of acts of compassion

-- Toleration of bullying in schools and sports must be reduced to zero tolerance, and perpetrators must have do community service, see a counselor, apologize to the person(s) bullied and join with them in a project of caring and community uplift.
Dr. Philip E. Humbert says it is important to “acknowledge the connection between sports and violent behavior. Again, sports is a sacred icon in American culture, but it seems that sports have been separated from athletics. Instead of every child participating in gym class and competing in intramural sports, we have a culture of super-hero super-stars who are virtually above the law. Hockey, basketball, football and other sports all tolerate behavior that would result in arrest for assault outside the sports arena. Competition and fitness are valuable; organized violence is not acceptable!”  (Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8109)

-- Video games must be further regulated to keep them out of the hands of children, of troubled teens and young adults, and should be required to be scored for violence by appointed groups of parents and mental health practitioners.

-- Violence toward children must be dealt with severely; too often perpetrators of sexual abuse, physical abuse, and spiritual abuse are treated as though this can be excused, overlooked or reduced in some way; the time has come to let child abusers know that they are in danger of going to prison for life. 
-- Violence against children must include the topics of homelessness, malnutrition, starvation, and lack of health care; thus, responsible leaders and office-holders must also be held liable for their actions and inactions on behalf of children: is impeachment, community service, even jail time too much to ask for them upon proof of negligence or malignant intent?

-- We must also assess our own personal “violence footprint”; how often do we ourselves contribute to our culture of violence?  Can we do something to stop personal behaviors that are not appropriate to a compassionate life?  The answer is Yes and No: sometimes we can on our own; sometimes we need help.
 
On peaceandbread.org, writer John Hoffman comments: “To help reform our violent culture we can find strength and courage in a less dominant, far less celebrated and practiced American tradition: the culture of peacemaking, what the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. praised as “unarmed truth.” From the Quakers to the civil rights movement to our other religious and secular conscientious objectors to our famous anti-war politicians, we have many fine examples of nonviolent virtue in public life. And not all of our art, literature and entertainment depends on the shocks of gratuitous violence and the well-armed cowboy. Teaching peaceable conduct and the practical use of nonviolent resistance is possible.
“For we cannot depend solely on government to change our culture, however much we need better regulation of guns and other issues related to violence in our society. It is our own hearts and minds that have to change; if we want far less violent communities, a more peaceable nation and world, more of us must reform how we think and act, what we read and watch, what we fear and own.”

-- The effectiveness of incarceration as a strategy for reducing violent crime is limited. There is evidence that for many youth, the experience of serving time in a large detention center may actually increase the likelihood that they will commit violent crimes again in the future.  More emphasis is needed on rehabilitation while juveniles are in custody, and  on re-entry programs when they return to their communities.   This is an opportunity to educate and train young people who may have missed out on a public school education, but we must have more funding and especially more trained teachers.

--  The United States is the only major democracy that permits the killing of convicted criminals, and this too is part of our culture of violence.  The “death penalty” has long been touted as a deterrent to crime, but there is little evidence to support that concept.  It is undoubtedly a “hangover” from our brutish past that somehow we cannot let go, even though we continue to hear of the absolutely brutal nature of the procedure itself, and we continue to hear about innocent people being put to death.  It is simply a way of extracting revenge, having little to do with justice.  Using the State as an avenger and outright killer is an illustration of the hold that violence has on our culture.  It is nothing short of irrational, and must be abolished if we are to make progress on reforming our violent culture.

--  Violence against women and girls cannot be tolerated; it is a sign of deterioration in our culture and of failure in our governing structures.  Domestic violence is one thorny issue that continually impinges upon our commonweal.  Restraining orders, police intervention, forced counseling are not very successful in addressing this issue, partly because they are all reactive and not proactive.  We must begin our proactive stance in the schools, by producing curriculum and situations where boys and girls can learn the value of all persons.  Girls must be put in positions of responsibility in group exercises, in academic projects, in team functioning.  Boys need to have greater opportunities to work with girls in team functions - labs, sports, projects, etc. - that enable them to practice skills that promote equality and equanimity. 
We must, of course, promote legislation at all levels of government to give women equal opportunity, equal pay for equal work, and equal protections under law.  An attack against women’s rights and opportunities, such as recently emerged from a radical Republican agenda is not worthy of a democratic government system.  Any legislator who votes for legislation that targets women and girls for a discriminatory outcome should be targeted as unfit for representative office.

This subject is far too complicated to make a comprehensive set of suggestions here.  Suffice to say that we have a long and arduous task ahead of finding ways to promote non-violence against women and girls, including legislation to prevent sex trafficking, legislation to step-up punishment for domestic violence, legislation that confronts work-related, health-related and equality-related standards.  As one article put it, “the challenge now… is how to create the social, material and structural conditions in which women and girls can develop to their full potential. The creation of such conditions will involve not only deliberate attempts to change the legal, political and economic structures of society, but, equally importantly, will require the transformation of individuals, men and women, boys and girls, whose values, in different ways, sustain exploitative patterns of behavior.” (Beyond Legal Reforms: Culture and Capacity in the Eradication of Violence Against Women and Girls 2 July 2006, Bic.org)

Those words are perhaps applicable across-the-board in terms of the need of our society to confront the internalized, mythological, discriminatory stereotypes that plaque our society in terms of our unexamined, and perhaps unintentional, but nonetheless destructive internalizations, of the outward purveyors of violence in our society.  “Garbage In, Garbage Out” -- it is way past time to take-out the trash!

Mental Health System Is Unhealthy

In the past week, we have been bombarded with articles and opinions about the fact that we must, in light of the Sandy Hook School shootings and similar massacres, pay in-depth attention to the Mental Health system in this country.  The point is well-taken. However, it is not well-taken that we can resolve the problem of mass killings with an emphasis on just one or the other of gun control, mental health reform, and the changing of a culture of violence. We must see them working together as necessary elements of an overall plan for cultural change.   

It has come to light that the mother of Adam Lanza had experienced some difficulties with the local school system in terms of the services offered for Adam.  The reports of her disgruntlement or perturbation, and her subsequent moving of Adam to home schooling, seem to imply that it was she who was the problem.  Having gone through a similar situation with a family member (who is listed on the autistic spectrum, but not prone to violence), I am quite sure that Adam’s mother was experiencing the same difficulty that afflicts so many parents of children with a mental disability or challenge: services are often very limited, and too often there are no choices for the kind of help that is warranted, particularly when episodic violent behaviors are involved.  And often, if an appropriate service is discovered, it is not covered by health insurance or any other grant or subsidy.  Such services often can not be accessed by parents because they are simply too expensive.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 20 percent of young people are affected by a mental health problem and nearly two-thirds of them do not get the help they need. Without treatment, these children often find trouble with the law, fall in with the wrong crowd or drop out of school.  We have seen over and over in the last few years, a pattern with the perpetrators of these massacres: they exhibit anger at their circumstances (taking out that anger and pain on innocent victims); social ineptitude, isolation, loneliness, and anti-social behavior often symbolized by their all-black clothing and their lack of meaningful community or individual relationships.

Before we move on to explore this subject, let us make very clear that Adam Lanza’s reported disability is not a disorder associated with violence.  An article dated 12/17/12 by Nancy Chumin for Dallasnews.com explains this distinction and other pertinent facts.
Much has been made of Adam Lanza “as having Asperger Syndrome, a high functioning condition on the autism spectrum which has recently been reclassified as autism. Experts and parents who have children with Asperger’s Syndrome want everyone to know that there is no correlation between autism and violence and express concern that autism is a developmental disorder and NOT a mental illness. Parents of those with autism, who are already too often stigmatized in our society, are worried that this will lead to their kids being further shunned and misunderstood.”

A statement made last Friday by the Autistic Self Advocacy Network supports this: “Recent media reports have suggested that the perpetrator of this violence, Adam Lanza, may have been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome… or with another psychiatric disability. In either event, it is imperative that as we mourn the victims of this horrific tragedy that commentators and the media avoid drawing inappropriate and unfounded links between autism or other disabilities and violence. Americans with autism and individuals with other disabilities are no more likely to commit violent crime than non-disabled people. In fact, people with disabilities of all kinds, including autism, are vastly more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators.”

Let us now turn to the story of the mental health system in the last 30-40 years: it is one of deinstitutionalization, the gaining of rights for the mentally ill, the evolvement of community-based services that are still evolving because of drastic cuts in state budgets, and the re-institutionalization of certain people with mental aberrations who ran afoul of the criminal justice system and were incarcerated. 

Based on 25 years of experience with the NYS Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (which started out as part of the NYS Office of Mental Hygiene), I believe that the lack of a full-blown, well-financed plan for de-institutionalization of persons with mental illness, an over-emphasis on certain rights which sometimes mimicked the absurd and often endangered ordinary citizens, plus a community-based service system that was never able to meet expectations or the special needs of those who needed it, meant that something close to chaos ensued.  On the other hand, with less emphasis on rights to live as one wished, and more emphasis on “normalization” to live as closely as possible to what is normal for others, OMRDD was able to establish a community living experience for persons with developmental disabilities by utilizing small residences, community-based programming, and integration into public schools. 

In contrast, the separate Mental Hygiene department was saddled with a movement for rights which ended up with persons living on the streets after de-institutionalism, people not taking their much-needed meds, with few opportunities for programs that met their needs, and with fewer housing choices.  Strict restrictions on initial institutionalization, or re-institutionalization, practically made beggars and antagonists of those caregivers who could not cope with abusive and dangerous behaviors, and who tried to find help, often with no affordable results.  In 1980, landmark legislation -- the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 -- fostered the continued growth of America’s Community Mental Health Centers which allow individuals with mental illnesses to remain in their home communities with minimal hospitalization.  Subsequent and continuous cuts in funding at the state and federal levels prevented a full-blown community mental health system from being fully realized.

Not only did the Mental Hygiene system have to deal with a radical set of freedoms that sometimes ignored the rights, safety and protection of the general public, it stumbled in terms of the volume and adequacy of community services able to be funded and made available to those who had been de-institutionalized.  In many states, it did not help that de-institutionalization offered an opportunity to cut state budgets.  Those cuts became draconian in some areas, and added to the already inadequate community-based mental health services. 

Along came new generations of applicants for services, and the system was strained to the breaking point.  In my humble opinion, it has never recovered, not only because of the factors I have mentioned, but because in our culture, mental health has never been well-understood, nor accepted as important enough to spend the money needed to enhance it, nor accepted on a par with physical health.  And unfortunately, our culture has long demonized mental illness, looked at it as dark and evil ( Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) and cast some who portrayed symptoms as monsters or as animalistic (Pyscho, Silence of the Lambs;  Jeffrey Dahmer, many others).   We tend to fear the unknown, and we can only blame ourselves for the on-going ignorance and mythical approaches to the subject of mental illness that endure in our culture. 

All of which leads us back to current events, and the need for a plan to look after people who begin to exhibit violent or aversive behaviors and attitudes at young ages.  Adam Lanza is just one more example of the lack of, the unavailability of, and the inadequacy of mental health services. 

It is indicative of where we stand, and of what we need.  We are told by ehow.com that one in five American adults will experience mental illness at some point in their lives. However, only 40 percent of them get treatment. People do not get treatment for mental  disorders for many reasons but difficulty paying for treatment is one factor.  So perhaps that is where we need to begin to change the system:

1) The Affordable Care Act must be amended to require all health insurance carriers to cover all aspects of mental health treatment without imposition of limitations or caps on the number of days they will cover in-patient mental health care or on the number of outpatient visits to counselors or psychiatrists; parity of mental health benefits with other health coverage is imperative
2)  Early intervention and preventative measures are also imperative.  We cannot make substantial progress in mental health reform without this, and trained clinicians are key to making early diagnoses as well as appropriate referrals to proper services. 
3) We need an integrated health delivery system that attends to both physical and mental ills and behaviors, and which follows children with symptoms in an on-going manner, particularly those who get mixed up with the juvenile justice system.  Identifying and integrating mental health needs into traditional health care, social services, community, and work-site settings is particularly important for youth and those who have experienced trauma;
4) We need many more community health centers that are staffed with doctors and nurses trained in both physical and mental health and healing; access to such a system must be made to be as open and easy as possible;
5) We need a data system that tracks the healthy and unhealthy symptoms of patients, along with treatments that work and don’t work; that system must be applicable across all jurisdictions
6) We must educate our adults and our young in the realities of mental illnesses
7) We have to develop new protocols for reporting episodes of violence to an authority that is equipped to act, to counsel, to protect others, to coordinate a plan for services.
8) We must have residential centers, other than institutions or jails or emergency rooms, that can fill a need for short-term, emergency in-house care, and respite care, as well as longer-term stays.  The Affordable Care Act, (Sec. 2703 & Sec. 19459(e)) already calls for States to build person-centered health homes that can result in improved outcomes for beneficiaries and better services and value for State Medicaid and other programs, including mental health and substance abuse agencies, but funding is still key, and on the federal level, Medicaid is under attack.
9) We must acknowledge, and build upon, the many advances already made in the Mental Health field, and must enlist mental health organizations -- that have already influenced and brought about many positive changes through a combination of public education and support for ground-breaking legislation -- into a broad coalition of such organizations to  further the cause of reform
10) We have to encourage more research into the causes of violence in individuals; this cannot be overlooked, since we also need to find ways to treat particular types of violent disorders, but we must also take great pains to deal with a common misconception that all people with mental illness are violent or dangerous. 

“In 2005, a Canadian journal published a review of all relevant past research on risk assessment for violence among people with mental illness. One dominating theme of the review was that violence can be much more accurately predicted by attending to non-mental health variables compared to mental health factors. These variables include age, gender, socioeconomic status, education, and environment. Additionally, a history of violence is a much stronger predictor of future violence than any mental health-related variables. 
“Researchers point out that, more than substance use disorders alone or mental illness (particularly psychosis) alone, it is the co-occurrence of the two disorder types that seems to escalate the risk for violence. In fact, having multiple diagnoses of any kind increases violence risk factors. People with co-existing diagnoses, depending on the number of conditions they have, are up to six times more likely to commit a violent act in the past year than people with one type of disorder. The reason behind this link is not yet fully understood.
“Furthermore, current studies indicate that alcohol and substance abuse far outweigh mental illness in contributing to violence in society. For example, citizens are much more likely to be assaulted by someone suffering from an addiction than a major mental disorder such as schizophrenia, notes the review. The report concludes that it is unlikely that a member of the public would be at risk of violence from a person with a mental disorder who does not also have a substance use problem.” (article on Mental Disorders at HeretoHelp.com)  All this speaks to the fact that in-depth research is needed to clarify the causes of violence.

These have been merely a few suggested steps to be taken toward reversing the trends toward isolation, segregation, and inattention to the need for adequate mental health care.  The list is less than adequate and many more in-depth suggestions are needed; the SAMHSA site provides a possibility for submitting such ideas: http://www.samhsa.gov/healthreform. 
 
In fact, complete resolution is impossible, no matter what we do, but in memory of children, young people, and adults killed in civilian massacres, we cannot fail to do something, and that something must be in the form, insofar as possible, of a common-sense broad-based plan including gun control and mental health reform that seeks to change a culture that makes an idolatry of violence, of rugged individualism, of social Darwinism (that only the strong shall inherit the earth), and that demonizes mental illness.  A strengthened Mental Health system is crucial to a society that wants to deal wisely with troubled individuals who may be prone to violence.  It is one of the legs of a structure upon which we must stand to lend support for our basic concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.   A culture of violence is antithetical to the survival of such democratic ideals. 

A December 14th article on AlterNet by Lynn Parramore sums up the situation politically:

“Inadequate gun control is only one half of the story. The other is the shameful job America does of treating the mentally ill. Today, 45 million American adults suffer from mental illness. Eleven million of those cases are considered serious. Most of these people are not dangerous, but if they can’t get treatment, the odds of potential violence increase.
Yet the mentally ill are finding it increasingly difficult to get help. Mental health funding has been plummeting for decades. Since 2009, states have cut billions for mental health from their budgets. As Daniel Lippman has reported in the Huffington Post:
‘Across the country, states facing severe financial shortfalls have cut at least $4.35 billion in public mental health spending from 2009 to 2012, according to the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD). It's the largest reduction in funding since de-institutionalization in the 1960s and '70s.’
“Thanks to the misguided austerity policies embraced by conservatives, more people are falling through the cracks. There are not enough psychiatric beds, treatment services or community support programs. Medication is expensive, and insurance companies routinely leave patients inadequately covered.  Mental healthcare workers have been laid off. Vulnerable people are neglected until their situation becomes acute – often after it’s too late. Many are incarcerated, often subjected to solitary confinement because prison officials don’t know what to do with them. Others are homeless – as many as 45 percent of the people living on the streets suffer from mental illness.
“This situation is no accident, and it is not inevitable. Economics 101 tells you that when you have a massive economic crisis, the government must step in to fill the gap until the economy can recover… The U.S…. is well-equipped to provide stimulus money to states to make up for budget shortfalls. What gets in the way of meaningful action is political obstruction, not economics. Federal stimulus dollars and other grants have made up for some of the cuts to mental healthcare, but thanks to constant efforts [of the Right-wing] to block adequate stimulus measures, not enough. And if conservatives have their way, budget cuts to programs like Medicaid will continue to ensure that high-risk people can’t get help.
“The [Radical] Right’s program for public safety appears to be that everyone should have a gun and few should get adequate healthcare. That’s a recipe for death and destruction. Killing sprees are on the rise. How many more people will have to die before mental healthcare becomes a national priority?”   (Lynn Parramore is an AlterNet senior editor)