Local Congressman’s Decision has Broad Implications

On Thursday, March 21, 2013, Representative Richard Hanna from Barneveld, NY, Republican  representing the 22nd Congressional District in central New York, made the decision to vote YEA on the Paul Ryan Budget Plan for 2014.  As a result, he has finally revealed for all to see, his real intentions and positions.

First, he has joined with 220 other Republicans to give the richest among us special breaks they don’t merit by simply being rich, by being in positions of corporate power, or by their claims to fame.  The richest 1% of Americans -- of which there are about 1.4 million in the nation as a whole-- have been the ones who have prospered through this deep recession because of tax breaks, loopholes, write-offs, and subsidies unknown to the rest of us.  Mr. Hanna has voted in their favor, and thus approved what this budget does for them:

--It reduces the top individual and corporate tax rates to 25 percent. This would give the wealthiest Americans an average tax cut of at least $150,000 a year. The money would come out of programs for the elderly, lower-middle families, and the poor.

--The federal government will be selling a massive portfolio of foreclosed homes owned by HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to private investor conglomerates at extraordinarily large discounts to real value.  These properties will only be sold to those that can bring “a billion dollars or more to each transaction” – entities like hedge funds, foreign sovereign wealth funds, or companies like Goldman Sachs.

--Does away with the current seven tax rate system applied to individual taxpayers, which currently ranges from 10% to 39.6%, and replaces that system with only two rates: 10% and 25%. In the past, Ryan has stated that the 10% rate would apply to taxable income less than $100,000, with the 25% rate applying to all income in excess of that threshold. (Tony Nitti on Forbes.com)
The Tax Policy Center has run the numbers and determined the tax savings generated by the Republican plan when compared to current law. The results:
$200,000 – $500,000:     $9,873 average savings
$500,000 – $1,000,000:     $52,000 average savings
> $1,000,000:             $408,000 average savings
$40,000 – $100,000         average savings of approximately $1,000

--Repeals the alternative minimum tax as well as any and all taxes imposed by Obamacare, including the 3.8% tax on a taxpayer’s net investment income, and the tax on certain medical appliances.

--Transitions the international tax regime from the current “deferral” approach to a full territorial system.  Forbes.com explains:  Under a territorial tax system, U.S tax would never be imposed on income earned by a US company’s Foreign branch from non-U.S. sources. The U.S. would simply allow the Foreign Co.’s home country to tax its earnings. When Foreign Co.’s earnings are subsequently repatriated, the dividends would not be subject to U.S taxation.  By eliminating the U.S. tax on repatriated foreign earnings, U.S. companies will no longer have to pay to bring overseas income “home,” thus encouraging investment in the U.S.  But, on the negative side, this “encourages U.S. corporations to shift activities to jurisdictions with lower corporate tax rates, taking jobs and revenue along with them and eroding the U.S. tax base.”  (Tony Nitti of WS&B on Double-Taxation.com).

--The Ryan Budget purports to be revenue neutral (will make up for lost revenue from rate decreases by closing certain tax loopholes).  Unfortunately, the Ryan Budget does not name the loopholes it would close, deferring to the House Ways and Means Committee.  Does this mean that, on top of a substantial rate reduction, the rich might be able to maintain their mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions because of inaction on the part of that Committee?  You might want to count on it. 

-- Would force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to allow oil to travel from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. It would also end many of the subsidies for renewable energy companies that were included in the Democrats' stimulus bill. Ryan would promote policies that would favor conventional domestic energy sources including oil, natural gas and coal.  All of which is aimed at enhancing the already enormous profits of the huge energy corporations. (Jon Corrido News)

Millionaire Hanna just couldn’t resist all of these goodies for the rich.  In fact, one would expect him to garner some truly useful campaign money from this vote.  Moreover, Hanna has now shown that any worry or concern he may have had before the vote for vulnerable people in his District -- like DSAS or Rome Lab workers, labor in general, Seniors, women and children, schools, Head Start (which he called a “vital” program) -- all that is seemingly out the window.  Richard Hanna has voted against the middle class, against the poor, against children and young people, against wage earners.  Instead, he has shown himself to be a “party man”, and a person voting in his own favor, not that of his constituents.  He can no longer be considered either an “independent” or “maverick” Republican”.  He cannot even be labeled a “moderate,” unless one calls him an “opportunistic moderate” -- one who votes a moderate position only when it benefits his re-election chances, or his campaign revenue sources.

Those of you who thought Hanna was on his way to deserving these appellations of “moderate“ and “independent,” must now consider that he has fallen into the arms of the radical right-wing, as have so many others of his party.  As an article on Christian Science Monitor online asks: “So what’s the guiding principle here? Pure social Darwinism. Reward the rich and cut off the help to anyone who needs it.  Ryan says too many Americans rely on government benefits. ‘We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency‘.”

The proof of Hanna’s defection lies in the pudding.  By his YEA vote, here are some examples of what he actually approved for the other 98-99% of us, particularly for those who are most vulnerable.

Ryan’s Plan Threatens the Middle Class. “Each component of the new House Republican budget threatens the middle class while doing nothing to add jobs or grow our economy. It ends the guarantee of decent insurance for senior citizens, breaking Medicare’s bedrock promise. It slashes investments in education, infrastructure, and basic research, all of which are key drivers of economic growth and mobility. And it cuts taxes for those at the top, asking the middle class to pick up the tab. It’s a budget designed to benefit the top 1 percent at everyone else’s expense.” [Center for American Progress]

What the President’s Plan has always contained is a commitment to balanced deficit reduction—which includes both spending cuts and revenue increases—and realistic proposals with numbers that add up.  “Rep. Ryan’s new plan doesn’t come close to fitting that bill. It’s definitely not balanced. Not only would he place the entire burden of deficit reduction on the middle class and the poor but also would actually give the rich additional tax breaks at the same time. And the numbers don’t even add up to real deficit reduction. The tax proposals alone would break the bank, and the spending cuts are unrealistic in the extreme. It’s no wonder that Rep. Ryan didn’t allow the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate the budget’s actual policy proposals.” [Center for American Progress]

Ryan’s Plan Destroys 1.3 Million Jobs in 2013. “Paul Ryan’s latest budget doesn’t just fail to address job creation, it aggressively slows job growth. Against a current policy baseline, the budget cuts discretionary programs by about $120 billion over the next two years and mandatory programs by $284 billion, sucking demand out of the economy when it most needs it and leading to job loss. Using a standard macroeconomic model that is consistent with that used by private- and public-sector forecasters, near-term spending cuts would result in roughly 1.3 million jobs lost in 2013 and 2.8 million jobs lost in 2014, or 4.1 million jobs through 2014.” [Economic Policy Institute]

Ryan’s Plan Cuts Critical Education Programs. “The Department of Education would be cut by more than $115 billion over a decade. 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether. This would derail bipartisan education reforms and deeply undermine K-12 education and college opportunity.  Roughly two million slots in Head Start would be eliminated over the next decade — cutting 200,000 children from the program in 2014 alone.” [OMB]

Ryan’s Plan Undermines the middle class
Nearly every important element of the Ryan budget proposal would weaken the middle class in America. First and foremost, the plan ends the Medicare guarantee of decent health insurance in retirement. It also slashes critical middle-class investments, such as education and infrastructure by 45 percent and 24 percent, respectively. It includes not a single new measure to help the nearly 13 million unemployed get back into a decent job. And on top of all that, the middle class would end up paying higher taxes as well. [Center for American Progress]

Ryan’s Plan Threatens Health Care Coverage
Many seniors would be forced to pay sharply higher premiums to stay in traditional Medicare and keep their current choice of doctors.
New Medicare beneficiaries could pay more than $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050.
More and more seniors would gradually shift to private health insurance plans over time, increasing the privatization of Medicare.
Hundreds of thousands of seniors would become uninsured.
Premiums would increase for most Medicare beneficiaries.
More than 47 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage in 10 years.
Tens of millions of Americans would lose consumer protections that are essential for health and economic security.
States would be forced to slash Medicaid eligibility, benefits, and payments to health care providers.

But the House budget’s cost-shifting approach would not stop with Medicare. The budget would also shred the safety net for the middle class and the most vulnerable people in our society—jeopardizing the health and economic security of tens of millions more Americans. All told, more than 47 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage in 10 years.

The Ryan budget would repeal affordable health insurance coverage for 33 million Americans under the Affordable Care Act. And the budget would eliminate the new law’s consumer protections, which have already benefited tens of millions of Americans.

The House budget would also transform Medicaid, replacing guaranteed federal funding with block grants to states. This would shift costs to states, which are already under enormous strain. According to the Congressional Budget Office, states would be forced to reduce eligibility, benefits, or payments to health care providers.

Here, from the Center for American Progress, is a review of the likely consequences:

• In 10 years the block grants alone would reduce enrollment by more than 14 million people, or almost 20 percent (presumably by establishing enrollment caps or waiting lists)
• To slow the growth in health care costs substantially, states would most likely cut benefits that are not typically covered by private health insurance. Benefits that are critical for people with severe disabilities—such as case management and mental health care—would be at risk. Also at risk would be comprehensive preventive care, screening, and follow-up treatment for children, known as Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment, or EPSDT.
• States would likely increase premiums and cost-sharing substantially—limiting access to needed care for the most vulnerable people in our society.
• Since payment rates under Medicaid are already low and inadequate in many cases, health care providers may not be willing to accept even lower payment rates. 
• In 10 years the House Republican budget could reduce payments to hospitals by more than $84 billion each year, or 38 percent. Hospitals would receive much less revenue as a result of reductions in payments, benefits, or eligibility. At the same time, the loss of coverage and benefits would increase the cost of uncompensated care substantially, placing an enormous burden on hospitals.
• All told, the House budget would cut Medicaid by more than $1.4 trillion over 10 years. But these cuts would not go toward deficit reduction. Rather, they would largely pay for expensive tax cuts. In essence the House budget seeks a massive transfer from the middle class and the most vulnerable in our society to high-income individuals.

Under the Ryan Plan, billions of meals would be missed by struggling families amid deep job losses in food-related industries
According to americanprogress.org, the House budget proposes to give states “more flexibility” in how they administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which ensures millions of Americans do not go hungry. What this really means is deep cuts to this effective program, which would inhibit its ability to respond during times of recession and would likely mean cuts to eligibility and benefits.  Under the House budget proposal, millions of people could be kicked off the nutrition assistance that stands between them and hunger, or could see their benefit set so low that it would be difficult to afford three meals a day, causing great harm because 76 percent of SNAP households included a child, elderly person, or disabled person.

Cuts to supplemental nutrition assistance hurt more than struggling families. Small businesses, including grocers and retailers who benefit from community members using these benefits to buy food for their families, would see fewer customers coming through their doors. If divided evenly over 10 years, an annual $13.4 billion cut would result in as many as 8.2 billion meals lost and 184,000 jobs lost in just one year.

The Ryan Budget would continue non-war defense spending at the expense of caring for our returning veterans
The House budget’s cuts in supplemental nutrition assistance, for example, could affect veterans and military families since $31 million of this funding in the last year for which complete data are available, was spent at military commissaries to help feed military members and their families who struggle against hunger.

The House budget will squeeze other domestic safety net programs that serve veterans and non-veterans alike. For example, a veteran lives in one in five households benefiting from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides heating and cooling assistance, and 1.2 million veterans used mental health services in 2010.
Yet the Ryan budget leaves the non-war defense budget untouched -- even with $70 billion in cost over-runs -- caused by management failures in the Department of Defense military contracts from the past two years alone. We could easily reduce the unprecedented level of baseline defense spending and invest in growing our middle class, without undermining our national security. But the House budget does the opposite.

The American people need to recognize the consequence of enacting the House budget plan in the coming fiscal year: it will tilt our economy even further in favor of the wealthy at the expense of broad-based economic prosperity for the middle-class and lower income Americans.  Representative Hanna has come down on the side of those who believe austerity is the way to reduce spending, in spite of the horrific consequences for those who need a helping hand or a short-term rescue or an opportunity to get back on their feet.  Like it or not, Government programs are an essential part of our economy, as are government jobs.  Apparently, Mr. Hanna does not see it that way.

Congressman Hanna has abandoned his constituents, and the time is fast approaching (2014) for them to abandon him!

CHILD NEGLECT and a Filibuster

I wrote last week about the neglect and abuse of children that Congress produces by its inaction,  and by its failure to understand what outcomes its actual legislation produces.  Along comes Senator Rand Paul to put an explanation point on what I wrote.  First, he manufactures an issue that does not exist.  Second, he stresses the power of the Executive branch of government as a negative while he fails to see what Republicans like him have been doing to use the power of Congress to prevent the passage of legislation meant to aid people, particularly children.  Third, comes forth the utter hypocrisy of all he stands for on this issue of drones attacking American citizens, while ignoring real children being killed by hunger, guns and inadequate health care.  His filibuster was not the heroic speech that some like-minded conservatives suggested, but a rant about a made-up problem and issue that, at best, might occur in a country run by Tea Party-like right-wing radicals.

For a Senator who serves on the Senate Sub-committee on Children and Families, his legislative record is a vote against children at almost every turn.  Let‘s mention just a few instances:

* Note: Rand Paul has a 100% conservative voting record according to CPAC. * Voted Nay on extending student loan interest rates, and on prohibiting an increase in those rates;

* Introduced Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013 (nothing about protecting children from gun violence) * Introduced an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning claims about the effects of foods and dietary supplements on health-related conditions and disease

* Introduced an amendment to prevent the creation of duplicate and overlapping Federal programs 

* Co-sponsored repeal of Affordable Care Act more than once

* Co-sponsored Health Care Bureaucrats Elimination Act - Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Board charged with developing and submitting to the President, for Congress to consider, detailed proposals to reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.

* Co-sponsored Repeal of the CLASS Entitlement Act - Repeals provisions of the Public Health Service Act enacted under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (entitled the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act or the CLASS Act) which establish a national, voluntary insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports for individuals with functional limitations that will allow them to maintain their personal and financial independence and live in the community.

* Sponsored Parental Consent Act of 2011 which mainly prohibits mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian of the individual involved; also prohibits federal funds from being used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socio-emotional screening program. (Unhelpful in terms of dealing with aberrant or violent behavior of teens)

* Co-sponsored Cut Federal Spending Act of 2011with cuts in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) budget, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Indian Health Service, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Health (NIH), and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (all of which involve children#‘s well-being)

While chipping away at budgets and departments that essentially contain programs benefiting children, this member of the Sub-committee on Children and Families has not, to my knowledge, sponsored or co-sponsored any legislation that benefits children in any major area, including health, nutrition, housing, education, pollution control, or community services for children with special needs, since he came to the Senate. Exactly what is he doing on that sub-committee?  Oh, I know -- protecting children from being attacked by drones!

Therein lies the real shame of this man‘s wasting of the Senate’s time.  Instead of dealing with the major issues of our day, he makes a major calamity out of a non-existent issue.  How many American citizens have actually been killed by drone attack on our soil?  Not one!  But how many children were killed or injured by gun violence in the last year we have full statistics (2010)? -- Over 18,200! Senator Paul needs to get his priorities straightened out.

However, to be fair, we must point to the main reason for Mr. Paul’s filibuster.  It was to keep talking until the White House clarified whether it has authority to kill U.S. citizens on American soil with drones.  Administration lawyers said in all but the most extreme cases, the answer is no.  Speaking about hypothetical circumstances, Paul mused for hours about what kinds of circumstances might prompt the White House to unleash drones on Americans and what kinds of Americans might be targeted.  After 13 hours, Paul finally closed down his filibuster, having gotten an answer to his hypothetical question.  The real question for Paul, of course, is the power of the Presidency.  Although he seeks it openly, h,e fears it, and wants us to do the same.  He has a tendency to see things where they do not exist, as we shall see in just a bit. 

What makes this even more unpalatable were the reactions of arch-conservative talk show hosts, plus those of members in the Senate and the House.  They lauded the courage and leadership of this man; Rush Limbaugh even describing the filibuster as a watermark for changing the direction in which Washington is moving.  In my estimation, these reactions are more than adequate reminders that the radical Republicans are neglecters and abusers of this country‘s children.  It‘s past time to realize that they are the epitome of what is wrong in Congress: lack of attention to the needs of our citizens, especially our children, and being absorbed in non-issues, or manufactured issues that have little basis in reality.  (I won’t be caught saying this very often, but kudos to John McCain for speaking out against what Paul was trying to do!)

In regard to wasting the people’s resources and time, let us take a brief look at examples of  legislation on which Senators like Rand Paul spend precious time:

*Cut Federal Spending Act of 2011

*Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 *A bill to limit suspicious activity reporting requirements to requests from law enforcement agencies, and for other purposes.

*A bill to require the Attorney General to establish minimization and destruction procedures governing the acquisition, retention, and dissemination by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of certain records.

*A bill to remove the extension of the sunset date for section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act

*A bill to provide judicial review of National Security Letters.

*A bill to modify the roving wiretap authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

*A bill to require judicial review of Suspicious Activity Reports.

*A bill to modify the criteria used by the Corps of Engineers to dredge small ports

*A bill to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from awarding any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other financial assistance under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for any program, project, or activity carried out outside the United States, including the territories and possessions of the United States.

*Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012

*A joint resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Libya and the Government and people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same.

*A joint resolution declaring that the President has exceeded his authority under the War Powers Resolution as it pertains to the ongoing military engagement in Libya.

*A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner no longer held the confidence of Congress or of the people of the United States.

*A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the mitigation by States of cross-border air pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Perhaps this is enough to pinpoint the difficulty with Ron Paul.  He likes to find obscure difficulties or flaws that he can make into major legislation.  It must be such fun to be able to criticize the administration, block meaningful programs, and find all kinds of national security details.  But where is the legislation that might speak to real national issues, and thereby address existing problems, like the need to provide a world-class education to our children and young people.  His answer, I fear, is bound up in a joint resolution that he co-sponsored in 2012.

S.Res.99 - A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children in the United States are the Constitutions of the United States and the several States, and that, because the use of international treaties to govern policy in the United States on families and children is contrary to principles of self-government and federalism, and that, because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child undermines traditional principles of law in the United States regarding parents and children, the President should not transmit the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent.

Perhaps this is the epitome of what we are referencing about Rand Paul and other radicals.  Not only does he confess that he believes centuries-old documents are the primary protectors of children, along with family of course, making it abundantly clear that he does not support a declaration of Children’s rights ratified so far by 193 countries, including Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia, plus all other member countries except Somalia, South Sudan and the USA.  He believes that national governments should not get in-between parents and children, and that international laws that guarantee rights to children threaten US laws that support the primacy of parents. It comes down to a conflict of national and international law, in his mind, but in many areas of the Convention, there is no conflict.  Again, Rand Paul and 36 other co-sponsors have made up a crisis of legal conflicts in order to disparage the positive aspects of this Convention.

What does the Convention cover?  Essentially Wikipedia says it supports the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children.  “The Convention requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach found in many countries that had previously treated children as possessions or chattel, ownership of which was sometimes argued over in family disputes.”

“In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws. The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.”

“The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, and to have their privacy protected, and it requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.  The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children.”

In its General Comment 8 of 2006, the Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that there was an "obligation of all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children".  Article 19 of the Convention states that State Parties must "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence".

Rand Paul and his cohorts apparently need to read this Convention more carefully.  It just so happens it addresses many of the real issues and problems that children face the world over.   Perhaps they and he would do well to take a look at the Principals of Legislation published on their website by the Children’s Defense Fund as a guide, not only to the importance of the U.N. Convention’s provisions, but as a guide to future legislation aimed at children‘s well-being, and to the defense of children against austerity measures.

“Any budget cuts”, says CDF, “must improve and not worsen the state of America’s children by:

1)    Protecting investments in children and low-income families from cuts.  Since the Budget Act of  1985, the fundamental principle of protecting children and other vulnerable populations has been a cornerstone of deficit reduction -- every automatic budget cut mechanism has exempted low-income assistance programs from all cuts.

Children are the poorest age group in America, with more than 1 in 5 children (1 in 3 in communities of color) living in poverty.  Polls show that almost 60% of Americans oppose cutting investments in anti-poverty programs

Cutting children from the budget now will cost us more later, increasing poverty rates, drop-out rates and jobless rates

2)   Investing in children to create jobs and promote economic growth for the nation.  For instance:

Early childhood programs have an estimated inflation-adjusted return rate of 10% or higher; society as a whole enjoys the majority of the economic return

Investments in high school education that raises graduation rates have been shown to yield a public benefit of $209,000 per student, and an economic benefit to the public purse 2.5 times greater than the costs

3)   Ensuring the most advantaged Americans and corporations pay their fair share.  Corporate tax deductions, exemptions, and credits cost the nation about $103 billion in lower tax receipts in 2011.  Each hour, about $11.8 billion is lost through these loopholes -- money that could instead be invested in:

Annual salaries for 420 Head Start teachers; or Pell grants for 3,100 low-income students; or WIC benefits for 23,600 women and children for a year; or SNAP benefits (food stamps) for 9,700 children and adults for one year.”

The priorities of Congress are so upside down right now, that Senators like Rand Paul cannot comprehend the harm they are doing to our most important resource: our children.  Apparently, they would rather let them languish in homelessness, poverty, hunger and ignorance than invest in their future and the future of our nation which stands to benefit from the potential talents and earnings of our youngest citizens.  Our job right now as concerned citizens is to stand up for all of this nation’s children, and to let Congress know that we will not tolerate the proposed austerity measures of sequestration and the Ryan Budget which clearly amount to child abuse and neglect.

 

GOP Attacks On Children

It is far past time to bring out more truth on Republican malfeasance.  After all, the Republican attack on women was and is, horrific, but so is their attack on science and research; their attacks on Chuck Hagel and other Presidential nominees; their attacks on voting rights; their attacks on people with vulnerabilities-- especially the elderly, the poor, laborers and immigrants, and those with disabilities.  Republican radicals are willing to take away benefits, voting rights, decent wages, health care, food programs, housing repair, infrastructure rehabilitation, adequate schools, and a clean environment just so they can weaken, and eventually destroy, the power of the federal government.  In doing so, they put people at risk because the federal government is the protector of the people; a resource and an advocate for those who have needs that cannot be met by individual states.  In my estimation, the Republicans in Congress are now engaged in an attack on our children, whether or not they, and the public-at-large, see it for what it is.

Let us begin by reminding ourselves of the attempts by radical Republicans to repeal what they have described derisively as “Obamacare.”  Congressional Republicans voted over 30 times to repeal part or all of the Affordable Health Care Act.  In doing so, whether intentional or not, they were attacking the CHIP program, which was an integral part of that legislation.  CHIP provides health insurance coverage for nearly 8 million children up to the age of 19 in families where the income is too high to qualify for Medicaid but who can’t afford private health insurance coverage. In that Act, there was a substantial raise in the amount of money being made available to the states for the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Act also included authorization of this program through 2019.  While many will be transitioned over to Medicaid, other recipients will see a 23% rise in the CHIP federal matching rate  beginning in October 2015.  This will result in added federal money going to the states for children’s health care, but radical Republicans, by their repeal votes, betrayed their willingness to harm children who fall under these provisions.

Another area that the radical Republicans were attacking as they sought Affordable Care Act repeal was Medicaid, in spite of the fact (or maybe because of it) that the program was therein expanded to include more needy families that don’t meet the extremely low poverty guidelines, thus covering more children.  It was the Ryan Budget that exposed for all to see, the heinous attitude of the radicals toward the Medicaid program.  By proposing to devolve the Program to state control,  their sights were set on either diminishing or destroying Medicaid, because state administrative and staff costs would eventually eat away at that Program’s services and its benefits.  Unfortunately, that would mean that children and young people, many with developmental disabilities and other handicapping conditions, would be harmed by cut-backs in coverage, to say nothing about those that would have been added under the Affordable Care Act!

On top of that attack on health care, these same congressmen decided to try to cut back on school meals, on food stamps, on grants to families in poverty and special need.  The latter is called WIC and is a program meant to feed pregnant women, infants and children, and would alone be cut by $7.6 billion.  Other cuts to domestic programs that would harm low-income children youth and infants include: $2.3 million in juvenile justice; $1.3 million in community health centers; $210 million in maternal and child health block grants; and $27 million denied to poison control centers.  Bet you thought I was referring to the sequester cuts, didn’t you?

No, that was the story with a Continuing Resolution back in 2011.  But now that “sequestration” has come into view, let’s take a look at what went into effect on March 1, 2013.  Let’s first be quite clear:  sequestration will cause severe harm to programs benefiting the middle class, the working poor, and those caught in poverty, especially seniors and children.  Cuts to education grants to states alone will affect projects for smaller classes, after school programs, and special education programs for children with disabilities.  Even though the proposed cuts are to take effect over a period of ten years to spread out the pain, nonetheless, they total $1.2 trillion and  some programs who are not equipped to handle it, are going to feel the axe right away in order to begin meeting the year-by-year goals.

Start with the fact that thousands of pre-school children will have to be dropped from enrollment in Head Start.  Although some districts may be able to delay cuts until the beginning of the new school year, there will be cuts come September.  Reduced funding means reduced student numbers but also reduced staff numbers, so that the staff themselves face hardship brought on by unemployment.  How does one go about choosing which children and which staff must be cut?  

Then let us turn to the opposition to the President’s proposal for universal pre-school.  Radical Republicans don’t seem to care that early education is the backbone, the foundation, for children’s progress in learning.  They worry more about where the money for this program will come from than they do about the fact that this is one of the best things we can do for children.  It’s short-term and long-term effects are well documented in spite of some claims by the Radicals that Head Start was some kind of joke. It wasn’t, and isn’t,   They say its effects don’t last beyond third grade, but they never say to what “effects” they are referring.  As with all their other fabricated falsehoods (like “voter fraud” and “death panels“), they never say exactly what they mean.  Which effects of Head Start end at third grade?  Reading ability, socialization skills, attention span, health improvements, self-esteem?  Detractors fail to tell us.  And, since the Program itself has several different functions and goals -- education, how to learn, attention to health and social needs, parenting skills -- this is not a program to be judged on just one skill or effect.  It has many, and universal pre-school would hopefully follow its examples.

So where can the  money come from for universal pre-school?  From anywhere we choose!  For instance, although the Radical Republicans soft-pedaled it, there was a recent report of a “super-computer” project in DoD that cost a billion dollars, but turned out to be a complete waste.  How many other contracts under DoD are a complete or nearly-complete, waste?  We all know the answer.  Let’s find them, expose them, discontinue them and use the funds for pre-school education.  How about some of those contracts let to private firms providing all kinds of support to our troops -- are they still needed?

Apparently, radical Republicans (and recalcitrant Democrats) don’t particularly care that education is all about children and young people making their way in our world (the 21st century, not the 20th or 19th).  Nor do they seem to care that the sequester cuts can have harmful effects on children and families.  The Washington Times has published a list of programs for families and children that will be impacted by the sequester cuts.

* Approximately 10,000 teacher jobs, 70,000 children in Head Start, and 7,200 special education teachers, aides and staff are on the chopping block;
* Up to 2,100 food inspector jobs are at risk, which would put families and children at risk in lost food production and outbreaks from food-borne illnesses;
* Some 12,000 scientists and students who conduct research for critical diseases would see their jobs come to an end;
* Cuts to mental health could impact 373,000 mentally ill adults and emotionally disturbed children who need treatment;
*  Cutting funds for Title I schools could impact 2,700 schools and close to 1.2 million underprivileged students;
* About 600,000 women and children, including infants, could be dropped from WIC from March until September;
* Many families could be affected by lay-offs and furloughs from federal (and states thereby affected) government jobs, many of whom are women with children.
* Close to 125,000 families that receive rental assistance would see that come to an end, adding to the number of homeless children which is already at epic proportions: 1.5 million children are estimated to be without a home and that is about 1 in every 50 children.  But that’s just part of the story. 

A report by the National Center on Family Homelessness offers a snapshot view of child homelessness in America and a summary of the unique needs of homeless children.
Hunger: Children without homes are twice as likely to experience hunger as other children. Two-thirds worry they won’t have enough to eat. More than one-third of homeless children report being forced to skip meals.
Health: Homelessness makes children sick. Children who experience homelessness are more than twice as likely as middle class children to have moderate to severe acute and chronic health problems.
Education: Homeless children are twice as likely as other children to repeat a grade in school, to be expelled or suspended, or to drop out of high school. At the end of high school, few homeless students are proficient in reading and math – and their estimated graduation rate is below 25%.
In addition, the report claims that homeless children “endure a lack of safety, comfort, privacy, reassuring routines, adequate health care, uninterrupted schooling, sustaining relationships, and a sense of community. These factors combine to create a life-altering experience that inflicts profound and lasting scars.”

There is another area where such an attack is not quite so evident, but the outcome is the same: children are being harmed.  That of course, is our precious environment and how we treat it.

“America’s Children and the Environment” is an EPA report released in January 2013 that presents key information on environmental stresses that can affect children’s health.  It shows the status and trends of contaminants in air, water, food soil, etc., biomonitoring of chemicals measured in the bodies of mothers and children, and effects on health of childhood diseases. After all, studies show that the origins of adult diseases (like high blood pressure) are often affected by childhood diseases.  Others are showing that prenatal and postnatal pollution exposures lead to adverse changes in children, including: blood pressure elevation, reduced cognition, behavioral problems, and abnormal somatic growth.

Something we rarely think about is the effect upon children from opposition to environmental protection by means of budget cuts, regulation tampering, and policy decisions influenced by big business.  These brands of action have the potential to produce deleterious effects especially on vulnerable children.  From “Slesinger’s Blog” on NRDC - the Natural Resources Defense Council - comes some effects of the budget for the next fiscal year:

• Will make it difficult to protect our health from toxins in air and water by slashing fund for the EPA;
• Will prevent communities from building needed drinking water and sewage systems by cutting almost $2 billion from funds used to make these systems affordable to local governments;
• Will decimate efforts to establish a clean energy economy by slashing funding for research on energy efficiency, renewable energy and alternative fuels, and even for the Energy Star program;
• An Earmark includes a provision gutting the ability of the EPA to extend the reach of the Clean Water Act to developers, livestock factories, and mining operations that dump waste water into United States waters;
• Utility, refining and coal interests have an Earmark relieving them from controlling carbon pollution that they spew into our air.

The salient point to be made is exactly that made in the article itself: “putting health protection on the chopping block means dirtier air, dirtier water, and more children…at risk.”  We cannot escape, no matter how unaware we are to these matters, that inadequate or negative legislation about climate and the environment, about health care and about education have harmful effects on children, not just adults.

And now, we come to what I believe is the ultimate betrayal of our children.  No, not the federal debt, which Republicans cast as the most worrisome aspect of our federal government: spending beyond our means and therefore creating a burden that will be placed upon our children and grandchildren because it will be left to them to resolve.  As I have posted here before, history does not support that concept.  The paying off of debt is a burden on adult taxpayers, and in the past, such an outcome has been well-achieved without austerity measures that might affect the current lives of children.  A balanced approach to the deficit is paying off: it is going down because of the combination of cuts and taxes that our President and his Democrat colleagues have pursued.  The winding down of two wars is also beneficial to that end.  At any rate, it appears that we are on the right track, in spite of Republican rhetoric and inaction.

No, I speak of the potential failure of our congressional leaders to stand up against the NRA and to put into law the President’s proposed common sense restrictions on the gun violence being perpetrated upon adults, and upon children and teenagers.   The Republican opposition to: a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles and over-sized ammunition magazines, to universal background checks and gun registration, plus inattention to reform of our mental health system, especially as concerns young people having difficulty with aberrant behavior and violence, threatens the lives of more of our children and young people.  Is this their way of saying that the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness are not unalienable rights, but gun ownership is the right on which all others depend?  Never mind that these are the people who bluster about debt, but are silent on death that comes to so many of our children because of the culture of violence that they largely ignore.  Gun violence reform is paramount for the promotion of the health and safety of our children.  They have an unalienable right to be protected, and we have the solemn duty to protect them.

One of the organizations with a lengthy record of concern over how guns and children don’t mix is the Children’s Defense Fund.  They have prepared reports on this issue for more than 20 years, and they are still doing so.  Their latest report on “Protect Children, Not Guns”, displayed on www.childrensdefense.org, provides us with some statistics that our Congressional representatives need to take seriously when they oppose reasonable gun control.  Consider the following:

• A child or teen dies or is injured from guns every 30 minutes
• In 2010, 18,270 children and teens died or were injured from guns
• More children and teens die from guns every three days than died in the Newton massacre
• Three times more children and teens were injured by guns in 2010 than the number of soldiers wounded in action that year in the Afghanistan war
• The number of children under five who died from guns in 2010 was more than the number of law enforcement officers who died from guns inn the line of duty: 82 children under five compared to 58 officers.

Some will strenuously object that Congress is not intentionally involved in an attack upon children.  I suspect members in Congress would vigorously and contemptuously deny any such intention.  But, that is exactly the problem here:  the denial of cause and effect.  If you cut programs, deny opportunities, ignore the effects of raping the environment, side-step the lack of a world-class education for our poorer or even our middle-class children, and then pile on the denial of the need for better and greater health coverage for so many of our children, plus refuse to restrain the killing of innocents with guns, while also denying that homelessness is a major problem for children -- that all adds up.

It adds up to neglect and abuse.  Whether they intend it or not, whether they like the appellation or not, congressional representatives who are guilty of being immune to, or unaware of, the outcome of their legislative actions, inactions, and votes, are perpetrating a full-bore attack on the well-being of children and young people.  Such an attack, in my estimation, is nothing short of child abuse, and in my opinion, there is no higher crime than the neglect and abuse of children.  The time has come for parents and grandparents to see beyond the titles and privileges, and to call these representatives out for what they are failing to accomplish for the children of this nation.

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.