Divisions are an Opportunity

What is the State of the Union, anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bamboozle by Remington Arms

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

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

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

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

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

________________________*__________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress Has a Problem With Problem-solving

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

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

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

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

Step #1:  Define the Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step #2:  Analyze Potential Causes

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

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

Step #3:  Identify Possible Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step #4:  Select the Best Solution

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

Step #5:  Develop an Action Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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!