SELF-SERVING?

Congress seems to enjoy its blatant displays of dysfunction and self-interest.  First, they display their contempt for 90% of the public by voting down legislation on universal background checks for gun-buyers that the public overwhelmingly supported.  They blatantly put their desires in the foreground and voted down the Manchin-Toomey bi-partisan amendment that would have put common sense background check wording into the original bill.  Not only did that vote show their outrageous arrogance about most people’s opinions and concerns, it demonstrated that their own self-interest takes first place in terms of their jobs.

Their self-interest was clearly in high gear when threatened with the disappearance of campaign funds, and with the possibility of primary battles against well-financed candidates that the NRA and gun manufacturers would likely fund and support in every way possible.  Even then, there were also added attacks on the rules of order that allow the leaders to agree to a 60-vote majority for each of the proffered amendments, despite the fact that such a standard is nowhere to be found in our Constitution.  So, although a clear majority of senators voted in favor of the amendment on background checks, the amendment failed because of a rule that essentially defines the dysfunction of the Senate. You would think that this would be enough to illustrate for the public a dysfunctional, arrogant, non-legislating, corrupted legislature.   But it wasn’t.

The Senate needed to get home for another recess, and thereby hangs a second tale of self-interest taking over the legislative process.  If you missed it, here’s the story.  Sequestration has begun to take hold in many ways.  One very annoying example of the consequences of this foolish policy decision is that government-employed traffic-controllers have begun to be furloughed to meet budget cuts.  Interesting that the Congress seems oblivious to the consequences of its actions.  Imagine their surprise when airlines began to experience flight delays because air traffic got backed-up.  Many passengers began to complain, especially frequent-flyers, many of whom were connected to businesses that just happen to be contributors to certain congressmen.  However, what put the icing on the cake was when legislators realized that they themselves were going to experience delays as they looked toward their spring break.  So what did they do within a matter of hours?  They passed legislation by huge margins to exempt the air traffic controllers from sequestration so that furloughs would be ended at least through September.  Interesting precedent.  Does that mean that old folks and some younger folk with disabilities will be exempt from the burden and harm that will be caused by drastic cutting back of Meals on Wheels?  Not likely.

So these vignettes clearly illustrate what it takes to get our representatives to act decisively:  whenever they are personally affected by legislation that they foisted on the rest of us.  And don’t forget: the Congress has passed vast amounts of legislation from which they exempted themselves.  One example: the Affordable Care Act, and from Social Security itself.  That aside, this latest occurrence is shameful.  It illustrates the horrendous tendency of this Congress to ignore the needs of 98% of the population while it tends to the needs of the richest among us and to everything that is self-promoting!  Is the only way they can become bi-partisan is to be forced to do something for themselves?  So it appears!

And why would we be surprised by that?  After all, at the very base of the Congress is the overwhelming need to be re-elected which is the epitome of self-interest.  Thus, every decision a congressman or senator makes must be evaluated in terms of that opportunity and challenge.  Connected to that basic tenet is another equally gripping criterion: the overwhelming need to raise money and to cow-tow to those sponsors who are already donating on a regular basis.  With the combination of the self-promoting need to be re-elected and the coercive power of money, it’s a wonder that anything beneficial gets legislated.  Lately, it appears that nothing actually is being legislated with any substance.   As responsible citizens, we must take action in regard to both of these obstacles to meaningful law-making.

The first step we must take is to examine the need, once again, for term limits.  The Congress will never basically change if there exists the possibility of making a career of being a Representative or Senator.  These positions were never meant to be concretized by such on-going entitlement.  It is necessary to the nature of the Congress to prevent this from happening.  We need to have a citizen legislature, not a Congress made up of professional politicians.  We need people who are elected for a brief time and then who go back to their communities to inform, reform and strengthen those communities.  It is not in the best interest of our country to have professional politicians calling the shots rather than citizen representatives.  They come from entirely different points of view and perspectives.

The professional politician is terribly concerned with his/her image, position, status, welfare.  The true citizen politician is less concerned with those issues than with how to be a good representative, how to serve his constituency, how to relate to his home community, how to train worthy successors, how to influence the future of this nation.  When there is an end time to your office, you tend to want to get things done before your time is up.  One of the major things to be considered is how professional politicians cling to the atmosphere, the contacts and the privileges of office.  Many of them are looking forward, not to how they can influence the future of their country, but rather their ability to influence the “movers and shakers” who are in positions of being able, when elected tenures are done, to offer lucrative positions in their businesses or in lobbying firms . 

However, we must also dig below the surface and recognize that term limits are not adequate without a method of preparatory and on-the-job training in best practices.  We seem to think that it is just fine for these senators and congress persons to learn “on-the-job.”  With term limits, we would no longer have that luxury.  As concerned citizens, we would have to find ways – in schools and colleges, but also in academies, think tanks, forums and convocations – to train our future representatives.  We can no longer afford the lack of training and nurturing that too many of our political representatives currently have.  We (meaning the concerned political parties) need to consider establishing regional training centers where nascent representatives of the people can be trained in problem-solving, effective law-making, group dynamics, public speaking, political science, effective constituent services, and leadership, to name a few subjects.  Such training would go a long way toward creating effective leaders and competent problem-solving advocates for the people instead of self-advocates.  It wouldn’t hurt at all to have these Centers develop programs designed to train mentors who would assist new office seekers and office holders with the day-to-day questions that may arise.  Mentoring, nurturing, training - sounds like something that might produce a whole new breed of leaders.

The discussion to set term limits ought to also focus on the length of terms, especially in the House of Representatives.  Two year terms are almost a joke.  By the time a congress person gets oriented and begins catching on to what is happening, it’s time to face an election.  The second year of a two-year term is spent raising funds and schmoozing donors, not legislating as one should.  What we need are three-year terms for Congressmen, with a limit of four terms in overall tenure.  That would equal a 12-year limit or two terms for Senators.  What a blessing it would be for citizens to know if they make a mistake and elect a real dud, he or she will not be able to continue on forever even in a solidly red or blue district.  That brings up one more piece to this puzzle: re-districting of congressional districts must be put into the hands of ordinary citizens who do not hold any public office.  This is imperative if we are to ever have a system built on real representation and not on a carved-up district designed to benefit one party or the other.  It can be done, and needs to be done.

Finally, there is the question of money in politics.  It is ruining the concept of our representative democracy, and destroying the very fabric of our system.  We cannot continue to allow money to rule rather than the people.  First, the  Citizens United decision has to be overturned by a constitutional amendment.  Such foolishness as declaring a corporation equivalent to a person is a travesty.  And while we are at it, let’s also get rid of lifetime tenure for judges and justices.  A limit of 20 years on the bench should be sufficient. 

But, more especially, we must have public-financed elections with strict limits on the amounts that candidates can receive from any one individual, and with corporations, and other incorporated  or combined entities such as PACs, forbidden from making any contributions to any election in any way, either by first party donations or by 3rd party advertisements and flyers or brochures.  Let’s make candidates responsible for their campaigns, and let them spend public monies according to guidelines established by a permanent election council. Second, let’s have a “truth-in-advertising” panel that will determine if anyone is in violation of fair practices, if anyone is guilty of using non-factual material, with the power to impose heavy fines and to bring other charges before a court.  Third, there must be a limit on the amount of money that can be allocated or spent on each race, and it must be set at reasonable levels of expenditure.  Finally, we have to shorten the election season, and restrict campaigning to about 6 months for any office.  Then to top that off, we must open up voter registration and voter participation.

We have been too long involved in making up rules that restrict these two very important activities.  Registration ought to be allowed when one registers a car; when one enters a public building; or even when one sits at his home computer and fills out a voter registration form online.  Elections need to be held on days when people can get to the polls.  A Tuesday work-day is not the most convenient time for people to vote.  We have to change this to be at the advantage of the voter, not the advantage of a politician, a corporate CEO or a member of the 1% of the population.  This is our right and our duty.  Let’s make it easier to register and to vote.  The only way to do that, once again, is to enshrine it in the Constitution, and to make sure ordinary citizens are involved in the Commissions and Committees that are formed to keep things honest and forthright. 

We cannot abide, nor can we afford, to proceed as we are now doing.  The dysfunction is clear; the corruption is rampant; destruction is near.  Our form of government is being taken from us and we are almost powerless to stop the process of disintegration unless we have a ground-swell of support for reform that changes everything from the ground up.  We have precious little time to waste before the oligarchs, the right-wing nuts, the liars and the cheaters, the lobbyists and the lawyers take from us what we dare not lose: our representative democracy.  The Congress -- both Senate and House -- have already demonstrated that neither represents the citizens of this country.  They are too busy tending to their own selfish needs.  Don’t ever let yourself forget the rapidity with which the Congress got rid of sequestration cuts that affected them so they could get home on another intolerable recess.  We must throw the bums out, but first we have to fix the system, and we can’t do that without fundamental changes in our Constitution.  We can make piece-meal changes with legislation, but fundamental change requires that we amend the document that defines our system of governance.  Let us start by over-turning Citizens United.

Immigrants: Punish or Promote?

We are, in some sense, a “punitive” society.  We often like to see certain people “get what’s coming to them.”  We talk about, and have indeed obsessed upon, “law and order,” which was the rallying cry for a whole movement in the 60’s used to vilify a concurrent movement toward civil rights for black people.  It was not only a movement endorsed by mostly conservative politicians, it involved moderates and liberals alike, including some members of the black caucus in Congress.  And, of course, we have invented “Guantanamo”, and used drone attacks, as reminders of “what we do to terrorists.”  

Built into so many of our laws, passed by a Congress that sometimes cannot see the forest for the trees, are punitive measures that do not fit well with the norms and standards that bespeak positive attitudes: forgiveness, second chances, incentives, affirmative action.  Take the very glaring example of  the “War on Drugs.”  What was that all about?  It turns out, based on the incarceration rates, that it was a thinly-veiled attempt at putting the “negro” in his place, for it has been used to put more black young men in jail, removed from society and its opportunities, than one would ever expect.  Read “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander: a brilliant exposition of how incarceration is the new Jim Crow movement against Black men especially.

It was, she says, Barry Goldwater who laid the foundation for the “get tough on crime” movement that would emerge full-blown years later.”  Turns out, Richard Nixon and George Wallace both made “law and order” a central theme of their campaigns, and together they garnered 57% of the popular vote.  But, it was not until the 1980s that this conservative revolution was in full development.  Crime and welfare were the major themes of Ronald Reagan’s campaign rhetoric, and it was October 1982 when he announced his “War on Drugs.”  By waging a ‘war on drugs‘, Reagan managed to provide a vehicle for a fierce punitive backlash against the Civil Rights Movement, and against African-American males in particular. 

In spite of the tremendous community spirit and unselfish and heroic acts shown in the city and environs of Boston in recent days, we now have to consider what will happen with immigration reform.  There will be some, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, who will want to “punish” or “exclude” Chechen’s (and others of Islamic background ) from any list allowed to work toward citizenship; or even allowed to come here at all.  There are already other voices urging delay in consideration of this legislation.  Delay is their way of killing the measure entirely. We must not allow such negative rhetoric to drown rationality not while we still have a chance to promote alternatives to punishment with positive amendments.

I have just a few things to say about two items in the immigration legislation unveiled to the Senate recently.  One: 13 years is way too long a time for people to have to pursue a path to citizenship, unless a way is devised for undocumented immigrants to exchange up to four community service years for the extra four years of provisional status.  Two: a point system for allowing certain people to advance toward  a visa is a good thought but not if it is based on negative measures some politician thought up! 

Is it really necessary to be so punitive toward people who came here illegally?  I find it offensive that we cannot find other ways to forge a path to citizenship besides fines, having no more than 3 misdemeanors on your record, learning the English language, and having an understanding of civics.  Whatever is behind such provisions other than stereotypes, punishment, and lack of understanding of who these folks are and what they want to be.  Is every undocumented alien a felon?  Are they all non-English-speakers; are they all intent on bilking the government for welfare benefits?  Do legislators have a handle on who they are?  Do they even have statistics on, or testimony from, these folks?    

Why do we want to deny them a path to citizenship based on real merit and their real contributions?  Why must we punish them?  Because they broke the law, is the answer most heard.  And which of us would not break a few laws to protect our families; to seek a new life; to experience the dignity of a paycheck and to feed our kids?  The illegality we are speaking of could be a forgivable offense, especially if someone who made that illegal entry has contributed something of value to his or her community and new nation. 

That’s what I think is missing from this legislation: a path to citizenship based on an affirmation that all immigrants - undocumented or documented - have something to give to this nation and to their communities.  Indeed, if we want good citizens, we want people dedicated to the welfare of their families, their schools, their communities, their states and their nation.  You don’t build good citizenship by punishing people; you build it by giving them opportunities to do good things, to create and construct, to bring talents to bear, to raise good families, to be part of communities that build-up people, not tear them down.  I cringe from the lack of creativity and boldness and community-mindedness that results from thinking fines, no public benefits, and “security triggers”.

Here’s what I’m thinking. First, why not find out what positive things have been done by those being considered for citizenship.  Who are they?  What contributions have they already made and what will they make as citizens?  What have they done to impact their families and communities in a positive way?  Second, let’s find out what they’d like to do or be. What do they seek to do with their lives?  Are there nascent medical practitioners among them?  Or Entrepreneurs?  Are there some willing to take vocational training to advance their skill-development.  Third, let’s set them on a path to service, not just to citizenship.  Let’s reduce the number of years they have to spend at this arduous task by crediting them a year for every year of community or national service they perform as a volunteer, as a member of the armed forces, as a trusted and loyal worker in a factory or farm or wherever.  Fourth, let’s not treat every person as part of a group.  Let’s build a path to citizenship for each individual so every individual has a plan: a point by point map toward the goal of citizenship.  You say that takes money.  Not necessarily.  It takes people, and there are people everywhere who are willing to volunteer their time and effort to help others become citizens.  So maybe every immigrant who needs  a mentor and guide to traverse this citizenship landscape should have one.  Let’s involve AmeriCorps and Vista; let’s involve Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions and RSVP, let’s use the Teacher Corps and youth organizations and every volunteer agency we can enlist to assist individuals toward their goal.  Let the candidates for citizenship learn from the experts: the men and women volunteers who know how to make citizenship meaningful.

We want and need good citizens.  We do not need people languishing in a system built to punish them for coming here in the first place.    They came here for a myriad of reasons. They came here to find hope, occupations, a better life, to be with relatives.  Let’s not assume because they did it outside the regular channels that makes them criminals.  We have to eschew the images we have of “illegals”  and “wetbacks” and  “lawbreakers”.  We have got to get down to basics.  We are dealing with human beings with the same aspirations, dreams and needs that all of us have.  And, what is more, with the same ambitions, talents and potential that is part of our make-up.  Let us find ways to citizenship that recognize the positive aspects of those among us who long for that day when they can take the oath and declare that they are loyal citizens of this great country.

Let me be more specific now about the legislation.  I think a six-year provisional status to begin with is not an entirely bad idea.  Even the combined fine of $1,500 has some merit.  But we need to have ways to pay that fine in other than cash.   What can a person do that will be equal in value to that $1,500?  How can they use their time and talents to contribute something of value to their communities?  A fine is punishment.  A thing of value bestowed is a gift.  Let them give gifts to their communities in lieu of a fine.  Let them give back, and if they can show that they have already produced a thing of value in their communities, let that count.  The same concept applies to the responsibility for paying back taxes.  But in the latter case, the in-kind service ought to be expanded to include some very specific community projects that actually save the taxpayer money, or that can generate money to be placed in the U.S. Treasury.  For instance, why can’t some undocumented immigrants become VISTA or AmeriCorps volunteers themselves? 

The add-on of renewed provisional status for another 4 years smells of over-kill and punishment.  What is the purpose of this extra four years: to prove one’s merit?   If that hasn’t been done in the first 6 years, it probably isn’t going to happen!  I find no rationale for this second step of 4 more years of provisional status except to pay another fine, and to introduce the absurdity of external “triggers.”  That is why I have proposed the concept of accepting community service years (involving varying forms of service) up to four years in lieu of this second level of provisional status.

And just what are these “triggers?”  Well, they essentially have nothing to do directly with the immigrants, except the impact they can have on their progress toward citizenship.  First, the government has to put into place a broader security and fencing plan within 6 months before undocumented aliens will be eligible to apply for RPI status.  And, for them to be able to apply for visas, the plan must reach a goal of 100% surveillance of the borders and a 90% apprehension rate in the border’s most high-risk areas. Moreover, new entry-exit systems must also be in place for employers; a process that could take up to 5 years.  So, legislators have chosen to mollify the “law and order” crowd who simply want the borders protected.  These “triggers” are something over which the immigrants have no control; they are at the mercy of the government’s ability, and willingness, to get the job done.

There are some who say that the 10-year provisional span is necessary so that it’s not faster for undocumented individuals to get a green card than it is for people trying to enter this country legally.  An even more bureaucratic reason is so that a backlog of legal immigrants can be cleared before letting anyone else in line. And then, there’s the economic factor. Such a lengthy term makes the overall process cheaper because the longer people remain on provisional status, the less government needs to spend on benefits (but the immigrants will be obligated to pay current and back taxes!).  Once again, not a very creative solution to some fabricated ideological problems. 

A  potentially unpopular thought just occurred to me: why don’t we ask undocumented aliens how long they feel it should take to get a green card; what they think is fair in light of the wait line for documented persons, and what benefits they would be willing to forego for a period of time?  I can hear the cries of conservatives now -- you can’t ask immigrants, they’ll just take unfair advantage; you can’t ask “illegal” immigrants their opinions - they either haven’t got any or they’ll take you to the cleaners.  I happen to believe that most people, when given the chance to set personal goals, and to decide on actions and opportunities that affect them, turn out to be quite conservative and fair in their responses.  But whatever the outcomes, the input of undocumented (and documented) aliens to the process is vital for determining their commitments, their hopes, and their goals. 

Finally, there is something called the “merit-based visa” in this legislation.  A first example of this includes people who have been in this country for 10 years or longer, and who are waiting in the employment or family backlog.  This legislation makes them eligible for a green card.  No points involved. What an interesting way to deal with bureaucratic backlog!  Instead of funding adequate numbers of agents (or enlisting the help of volunteers) to deal with day-to-day processing of people and documents,  Congress wants to unclog the system by a blanket assignment of green cards, and then return to the same understaffing problem that resulted in a backlog in the first place.  Legislators who want results or solutions, but are not willing to pay for the positions needed to bring about those outcomes, are simply incompetent planners and irresponsible budget-cutters.  Across-the-board spending cuts, rather than targeted reductions or spending limits, result in backlogs.  It’s that simple.

The second example is a merit-point system based on what you are before getting to come to this country.  High-skilled workers with college or advanced degrees plus low-skilled workers in agriculture and certain other programs, would go through the merit-based system, which is designed to reward the most deserving candidates.  Or, just possibly (and cynically), it’s designed to reward those who possess what is most needed at the moment by employers, perhaps to increase the profits of large corporations and farm conglomerates.  Well, so be it, but can’t we find other reasons to assign merit points?  maybe like some of the service ideas I proposed above?

This legislation is like much of what we see today from Congress: it‘s compromised so much by competing ideologies that it is watered down and sanitized, making it bland and rather meaningless; plus, it embodies some attitudes that ought not to see the light of day.  It is not creative, bold or innovative, and, in the end, it does not champion the cause or the goals of immigrants.  Nor does it adequately address the needs of a nation that is built on  broadly-based immigration policy.  It displays far too much interest in resolving problems of ideology rather than problems associated with immigration and immigrants. Laws written by legislators who listen only to special interests on every issue, are not laws that are passed for the welfare of the people, but for the advancement of a minority of Plutocrats.  It’s time to change that unhealthy scenario.

There is a song sung at a particular football venue called “We are the Champions”.  Too bad Congress can’t adopt that appellation and apply it to themselves.  Unfortunately, they are not championing anyone except those who can pay their way: lobbyists, lawyers, CEOs, the 1% and other special interests like big banks, and big oil.  Immigration reform is almost too important to be left in such hands, but there is no choice.  So, let us be clear: with the lack of Champions in the House and Senate, it is up to the ordinary citizens of this country to wrest the levers of government from the Plutocrats, and to champion immigration reform that meets immigrant needs and desires; assists them through the process with an individual plan of achievement, and rewards them for community and national service that contributes to the larger society.   Let us propel them toward their worthy goal, not punish them for wanting to be United States citizens.

(Written in fond memory of Cesar Chavez who I met on a plane going to Syracuse NY in the 1970’s and with whom I was privileged to be engaged in conversation for a considerable time. His dignity and commitment, his words and his message, must not be forgotten!).

COMMON SENSE

We’re hearing an awful lot about “common sense” these days - especially related to the reduction of gun violence - by the introduction of  “common sense” restrictions on gun ownership and possession.  “Common sense” itself is a bit elusive in terms of definition.  It starts with the dictionary definitions which are none too sterling:  “sound, practical sense; normal intelligence.”  In order to be “sound,” common sense has to be reliable, secure, without defect as to truth, vigorous, hearty or thorough.  In order to be “practical”, common sense would need to be connected with ordinary activities; or pertain to practice or action; inclined toward or fitted for actual work or useful activity; in other words, applicable or useful.  ‘”Normal intelligence” is hardly a helpful term, since normal is very hard to determine.  Perhaps what we need to say is that common sense should relate to a common ground or norm that is somewhat pervasive within the culture or mind-set or standards of a community.  For the word “common” itself implies something shared; something belonging to or shared by a whole community; something widespread and general or universal or prevalent and popular.

It is clear right now that a lot of minds are concentrated on common sense gun violence reduction laws.  In fact, if commonality is a measure of common sense, we have within our grasp the makings of some provisions of law that would satisfy this need for some sound, practical, sensible legislation as regards gun violence control.  And, let it be clear that what we are talking about is not “gun control“; the common sense is that we are attempting to reduce gun violence, not the right to own a gun. 

That is so very important to understand.  It is fundamental to the debate we are having.  Our practical common sense tells us that we can allow eligible persons to own guns for all kinds of legitimate reasons, such as target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting, shooting competitions, even self-protection.  What we cannot allow is the unfettered access to certain guns and ammunition clips that are designed for combat forces and community protection forces.  Such semi-automatic weapons in the hands of known criminals or of persons with uncontrolled mental dysfunctions, or even in the hands of juveniles, are a threat to ordinary citizens, and we can no longer allow that to be a norm in our society.

Right there is a point that needs great emphasis.  What we are looking for here is not the ability to stop every act of violence with guns that can and will occur.  The people who argue that we should not have any restrictions on gun ownership because we cannot control what criminals will do, and only criminals will have guns, are missing the important point being made here.  We are not looking to change criminal behavior, although it makes sense to try to reduce it whenever we can.  No, what we are looking for is to establish a norm or standard in our society that certain dysfunctional people should not have access to weapons that can be used to harm other people.  We are trying to put into law, the common sense of the American people, so that this society will have on its books standards that make sense in the context of happiness, peace and tranquility.

Common sense includes the banning of assault weapons, and over-sized ammunition clips, whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself.  54-60% of people surveyed agree.  That is a norm we need to establish right now so that law reflects the standards of  the people, and not just so we can get rid of certain guns for sale, or that we can save citizens from being killed, although a new norm or standard can often lead to the changing of behaviors.  Let us establish the standard, and then see what outcomes we produce.

Common sense, and common experience, also indicates that certain things in our society need to be registered, so that they can be regulated in the interests of public safety and well-being.  Opposition to universal registration of gun ownership is a denial of all the practical reasons we have for registering certain items in our society;  cars and trucks, and other vehicles, for instance.  Why do we register them, and require them to be insured and inspected as a part of that process?  We do it because it makes sense to know if the vehicle is in the kind of poor shape that constitutes a hazard to others.  It makes sense to know who is driving such a lethal instrument weighing in at over 2,000 pounds in most cases.  It makes sense to know who has a condition that may limit their driving skill (eyesight).  It makes sense to know who may be approaching an age when a new driving test should be ordered.  It makes sense to know the license plate of all cars so that law enforcement officials can track, conduct surveillance, and apprehend people who have used a car to violate other people’s rights and the public’s safety and security. 

All that does not even begin to deal with the safety and public health issues that are addressed by the common sense requirements of inspection and insurance in order to register, and drive, a car.  A question one might ask here: does such registration stop all criminals from using cars to commit or abet their crimes?  Of course not.  But, such registration does enable law enforcement to stop lawbreakers before they commit crimes, and also enables law enforcement to find and arrest those who have committed crimes.  These requirements for cars set a certain norm or standard for society that leads to better protection, health and safety for the broader community.  

Then, we have to ask, what is the difference between universal car registration, and the registration of all gun owners?  The 2nd Amendment you say?  The Amendment that gives gun owners the right to own guns, is somehow different from the privilege of owning a car?  Yes, that’s so.  But, common sense says that we have the same reasons for registration in both cases: to prevent aberrant use of cars and guns; to deter ownership for those who violate laws, and who use guns or cars in the commission of crimes, or in other ways that endanger public safety.

It is merely common sense that we should register all guns, not as a deterrent to ownership, but as a precaution against dangerous and aberrant use.  After all, the second Amendment does not say that gun ownership shall be unregulated.  In fact, it says up-front that a “well-regulated” militia is necessary to a free state.  In my humble opinion, that means that the Founding Fathers were concerned with how the scattered soldiers, mostly returned to the individual states from which they came, were going to behave.  They put this provision in the Amendment to indicate that regulation of these former Revolutionary soldiers, and their guns, was a necessary function of government.  So regulation of some colonial gun-owners was written into our Constitution. 

It is the next phrase that the NRA grabs hold of for its unwavering opposition to any restrictions placed on gun ownership: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  But here’s the major point: infringement is not regulation and regulation is not restriction.  If you regulate something, you put it in good order; adjust it, arrange it.  It’s a process of managing something.  If you infringe upon something, you encroach upon it or trespass upon it; that means you violate that right.  My opinion of what the common sense of the people is, at this moment, is that management is not infringement.  No legitimate gun owner would lose his/her guns as a result of the laws being proposed.  But certain people would not be allowed to buy certain guns and ammunition because of their particular limitations and/or dysfunctions.  Registration of guns is not an infringement on ownership of guns; it is merely a means to better management,  sorting out those who may use guns to kill innocent people.  So, in essence, this is not about restrictions on gun ownership or infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.  It is a common sense way to account for,  to “manage” who should own a gun and who shouldn’t own a gun, thus setting a norm or standard for society that speaks to regulation, not to infringement.

Which brings us to a final piece of common sense.  Over 90% of people polled have indicated that they favor universal background checks preceding the purchase of a gun.  The current legislation before the Senate has dropped such as applied to private sales, but kept it as applied to sales at gun shops and at gun shows.  It’s not perfect, but it’s something.

Once again, the NRA has taken a negative view, intending to track the votes of all congress persons, not only on the legislation itself, but on the procedural matters that lead up to a vote on the bill.  They have threatened to attempt to defeat those Congress persons who fail to vote against the procedures as well as the provisions of the law.  They are doing this basically because they believe that universal background checks will lead to universal gun registration which will then inevitably lead to the government being able to confiscate guns.  Amazing logic, but without real evidence to support it.  Perhaps they have forgotten that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is already in place as mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.  That system is applicable to sales from federally licensed gun dealers.  Private sales of guns are not covered by the Act, nor are gun show sellers.  But the point here is that a system is in place for background checks, and it is not leading to anything like government confiscation of legally obtained guns. 

NRA devotees have largely argued that background checks will not prevent people like Adam Lanza from purchasing or obtaining a gun (as he did from his mother’s collection), nor will it deter criminals who will obtain a gun somehow if they so desire.  Oh, they are so right.  But unfortunately, they miss a major point.  Laws do not prevent the criminal mind or the deranged mind from finding a way to obtain a gun, or to commit robbery or larceny, or embezzlement, or murder, among other crimes. 

What the proposed legislation does is to make it more likely that people who should not have guns, will have a much harder time obtaining them.  If all elements for reduction of gun violence were in place -- assault weapons ban, no more high-capacity clips, universal registration, along with universal background checks -- our ability to reduce the numbers of wrong-headed persons getting guns would be increased.  As long as the NRA and cowardly Senators and Congressmen keep watering down the provisions that might work together to reduce violent people from getting guns easily, the more likely it is that incidents like we see every hour will begin to increase.  We can’t have a perfect system of preventing gun acquisition by the wrong people.  We can only expect, as with many laws, that we can begin to reduce the violence that is pervading every corner of our country, and killing our children.

And that again is what we want and need: Laws that set standards and norms for our society.  That is mainly what laws do, for laws themselves do not prevent or prosecute criminal behavior.  They set societal norms and standards against which criminal behavior is recognized and judged.  They give law enforcement certain standards and restrictions to enforce; and provide measurements by which criminal behavior is prosecuted and judged.  To say that these new laws will not prevent more Newton's or Auroras or other killings from occurring is to miss the point of these laws, or of laws in general.  Such arguments burden the law with requirements it cannot meet, and with provisions it cannot enforce. 

Common sense demands that we place into law the gun violence reform provisions about which so very many Americans agree because they see that we need different standards than we presently have regarding the killing of innocents with weapons of war.  Let us first set the standards that make sense, and then let us have responsible agencies and public servants address prevention, enforcement, prosecution and punishment.  Such is the responsibility of the Executive and Judicial branches of our government, not the Legislature.   The NRA leadership is leading us all astray in its ravenous quest to support the profit-making of gun manufacturers rather than the norms of a healthy and peaceful society.  They are the flies in the ointment; the obstacles to a more non-violent society, and the purveyors of profit rather than the guardians of all our rights, including the fundamental unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The RULES Have Changed

In my earlier days, I learned that representatives in Congress not only had to represent their constituents, they also had to, at times, step up and lead their constituents to a higher plane; to a new understanding of issues or difficulties facing the nation.  They might, in such circumstances, even be required to vote contrary to their constituents= wishes and understanding.  Such a stance required wisdom, integrity, courage, fortitude, and some degree of bravado, we were told.

But now?  Apparently the stance is quite different.  The prevailing attitude seems to be that one must vote first according to the wishes of one’s political base (and that doesn’t necessarily encompass the majority of one’s constituents).  At the same time, the Senator or Representative must be making his stance very clear to those who constitute his economic base.  This can consist of individual donors, corporate donors,  association (group) donors, and, of course, the ever-present PACs and Super-PACs.  In the main, they are all “special interests” aiming at something that they want for their own constituency -- clients, customers, boards of directors, or stock holders.  Their interests are not necessarily those of the office holder’s constituents, although at certain points they may intersect. In meeting all of these interests, the office-holders are most likely focused on re-election, and further, on lucrative future positions with a corporation, association or lobbying firm that presently takes more than passing interest (more like an investment or proprietary interest) in the office-holder. 

Out of this set of circumstances and attitudes, one is unlikely to be able to find very many politicians willing to sacrifice their office or their economic security for a principle or a cause or a tenet that they can put on a plane above the realities of their circumstances.  It is probable that there are very few, if any, politicians left who even believe that there are times when one should vote contrary to the “interests” just described in order to lead constituents to a new understanding of an issue.

Another thing I thought I learned back then was that a simple majority was the way to decide issues by a vote.  It was almost a certainty.  You could even count on it coming up amongst young people on a team, or on a playground, when a team decision was needed.  “Majority wins” was a norm that few ever challenged.  As we got older, we heard more about Roberts Rules of Order which verified the importance of a majority vote on most issues (although there was equal clarity on the issues that required a two-thirds vote). 

But then, along came the “cloture” vote, and everything changed.  While the filibuster has been a staple of the Senate since the mid-19th century (allowing senators an opportunity to extend debate and block a vote on a particular piece of legislation), the rule on cloture did not arrive until 1917 when  senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture.”

According to a history on Senate.gov, the new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation...until cloture was invoked after a 60 day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.

The filibuster has become an increasingly common tool: the 19th century saw fewer than two dozen filibusters enacted. By the Carter Administration, that figure was up to 20 per year.  From 1975 to the present, the cloture rule has been employed sparingly but since 2007, Democrats have been forced to try to break Republican filibusters 360 times -- by far the highest rate in Congressional history.

So now, the common practice of the radical Republican minority is the use of the filibuster and cloture vote (60 votes required) to block legislation which might have passed by a simple majority vote.  It is a device that goes to the heart of our democracy.  Majority no longer rules the day.  But worse, the very function of the Senate as a body meant to deliberate carefully and then to vote on legislation, has taken a back seat to using a rule to keep legislation from being passed, or even to be voted upon.  We have here a rule of the Senate that destroys a norm or standard of action for the rest of our society.  It destroys consensus; it destroys true deliberation and debate (because the outcome of requiring 60 votes is more important than the actual filibustering).  This is a Congress that has rendered its main objective -- deliberating and legislating -- to a mere exercise in futility.

Gregory Koger, associate professor of political science at Miami University, has placed the rules in their present context and approbation:
 
“While members of the U.S. Senate have always had the ability to filibuster legislation—that is, to delay it through open-ended “discussion”—they rarely did so before 1960. Filibustering has skyrocketed since then, from an annual average of 3.2 filibusters during 1951– 1960 to 16.5 between 1981 and 2004. But this statistic only tells half the story: obstruction is so institutionalized in the modern Senate that labeling some action a “filibuster” is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. As a Senate leadership aide explained: “Obstructionism is woven into the fabric of things. The [party] leadership deals with it on a day-to-day, even a minute-to-minute basis. . . . You can’t underestimate the importance of it. There are offshoots of obstructionism every day.”
Filibustering—and the sixty votes required to limit debate using the Senate cloture rule—is so institutionalized into the way the Senate sets the agenda, writes legislation, and considers nominations that scholars label it the “sixty-vote Senate” and treat the filibuster as a veto point on par with the presidential veto.  This change has had far-reaching effects: filibustering empowers individual senators to pursue their personal agendas, and it gives the minority party the ability to block the majority party’s proposals.” 

What a shame!  Let us take just a moment to indicate some of the legislation that might have passed if a simple majority vote had ruled the day:

“Republicans derailed energy and climate legislation, halted the DREAM Act, which passed the House while receiving 55 votes in the Senate, and blocked any debate on the Employee Free Choice Act, which passed the House with an overwhelming majority and garnered 59 supporters in the Senate. Most recently, in July, the DISCLOSE Act – which would have increased transparency over independent groups’ campaign spending – failed to overcome a Republican filibuster and died, despite receiving support from 51 Senators and past support from many current Republican opponents. Also in July, Senate Republicans blocked the Bring Jobs Home Act , which would have encouraged in-sourcing by providing tax incentives to companies that bring jobs back to the United States from overseas. Separately from blocking substantive legislation, Republicans have used Senate rules to gum up even the most basic levers of governance,” such as approval of appointments in both the Executive and the Judiciary.

The use of this tactic did not start in President Obama’s second term, but was utilized extensively in his first term.  In 2008, much of the legislation proposed by the new administration was gunned down by Senate Republicans using the filibuster and cloture rules.  Ranging from environmental reforms and investment in economy to savings in Medicare and increased rights for consumers, especially jobs and stimulus bills, much of the first term legislation failed because of these rules being invoked.  In perspective, this means that the volume of legislation passed in the first term was all the more remarkable.

In December of 2012, the organization Common Cause brought suit against the Senate for its misuse of the filibuster and cloture rule.  Unfortunately, the District Court of Washington DC found that the Plaintiff did not have the required standing to bring such a suit, but there are some remarkable facts contained in the Decision.
 
“The number of actual or threatened filibusters has increased dramatically since 1970, and now dominates the business of the Senate.  In 2009, there were a record sixty-seven filibusters in the first half of the 111th Congress -- double the number of filibusters that occurred in the entire twenty-year period between 1950 and 1969. By the time the 111th Congress adjourned in December 2010, the number of filibusters had swelled to 137 for the entire two-year term of the 111th Congress.  During the 111th Congress, over four hundred bills that had been passed by the House of Representatives -- many with broad bipartisan support -- died in the Senate without ever having been debated or voted on because of the inability to obtain the sixty votes required by Rule XXII.” 

The wording of part of the complaint is also remarkable:

“Plaintiffs allege that the Cloture Rule “replaces majority rule with rule by the minority by requiring the affirmative votes of 60 senators on a motion for cloture before the Senate is allowed to even debate or vote on” measures before it.  According to Plaintiffs, “[b]oth political parties have used Rule XXII when they were in the minority in the Senate to prevent legislation and appointments proposed by the opposing party from being debated or voted on by the Senate.” Plaintiffs further assert that Rule XXII has primarily been used “not to protect the right of the minority to debate the merits of a bill or the fitness of a presidential nominee on the floor of the Senate . . . , but to suppress and prevent the majority from debating the merits of bills or presidential appointments opposed by the minority.” (emphasis in original).  “Actual or threatened filibusters (or objections to the commencement of debate which are the functional equivalent of a filibuster) have become so common that it is now virtually impossible as a practical matter for the majority in the Senate to pass a significant piece of legislation or to confirm many presidential nominees without the 60 votes required to invoke cloture under Rule XXII.” Plaintiffs allege that because invoking cloture is “time consuming and cumbersome,” the mere threat of a filibuster is sufficient to forestall consideration of a measure.  Furthermore, because Senate Rule V provides that Senate rules continue from one Congress to the next, and because invoking cloture to close debate on any resolution to amend Senate rules requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of Senators present and voting, Plaintiffs assert that “the combination of Rule V and Rule XXII has made it virtually impossible for the majority in the Senate to amend the rules of the Senate to prevent the minority in the Senate from obstructing the business of the Senate by filibustering.” 
  
Another thing we learned when I was young was that everyone should play fair.  It included every day life, business, and mostly sports.  And, if you didn’t play fair, there were usually some consequences you had to bear, like ridicule from others on your team, or from the other team; like a punishment that usually involved grounding or some such penalty; like a fine or imprisonment if this got played-out on a broader stage.  One could almost count on people and businesses playing fair.  It was the mark of a good person and a trustworthy business.

I have long remembered one time when my father was upset by a business practice that his long-time car dealer undertook during a fund-raiser in the downtown area of my hometown.  It was an auction of used cars, and my Dad bid on one for me based on the dealer’s reputation and his long-standing relationship with that dealer.  The car turned out to be a dud, and my father was so hopping mad that he went to the dealer and demanded his money back.  He got it, too, because reputation and fairness meant a lot in those days!  So did recrimination in the form of some legal proceeding.  I remember instances of business people caught cheating and being fined or punished for their transgressions.  “Serves them right”, many would say.

Now, we find another world almost.  And right there, lies the deeper problem:  our cultural norms have changed.  It appears that Fairness is no longer an honored standard for behavior in many quarters.  The norm is more along the lines of “what can we get away with?”  When a voracious greed drives our enterprises, we cannot expect that fairness will often dictate behavior.  It is a sad commentary on how much our culture has changed, but there are pockets of hope.

According to Robert Kinkead on articlesbase.com, a 2008 workplace study found that fairness in the workplace offered 2 concrete benefits to the employer:

1. Employees who felt they worked in a fair workplace were more likely to engage in behavior that benefited others at work, such as helping a co-worker finish a project on time.
2. Employees who felt they worked in a fair workplace were more likely to engage in behavior that benefited the organization as a whole, such as staying late to finish a report on time.

Marshall Goldsmith, MBA, PhD, a world authority on helping successful leaders achieve positive, lasting behavioral change, reports on WABCcoaches.com, a truly beguiling thought:

“At a time when shredding documents, creative accounting and ruthless tactics come to light in the media on a fairly regular basis, it's no surprise that the young leaders of today have spotted the need for leaders to demonstrate integrity and ethical behavior. As a matter of fact, young leaders of today believe that demonstrating integrity will become the most important characteristic of future leaders.”  It has been said that many women executives in corporations, for example, are better leaders because they are more readily attune to these characteristics.  Perhaps another reason to put many more women into leadership roles on the political front!

We can only hope that some concepts as “old-fashioned” and normative as individual integrity, fairness and just plain caring are again becoming important characteristics for our future leaders.

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.