Sunday, March 6, 2011

Make Proposed Budget Cuts Transparent for the American People


Believe it or not, but the American people have not been told the impact of the proposed $61 billion budget cuts recently passed by the House of Representatives.  Yes, they’ve been told that health, education, and safety will be impacted, and that some jobs will be lost, but they’ve been given very few specifics to react to.

So today I tried to find out what that impact would be.  To my shock and dismay, I found that there was no … I repeat … no source that answered that question.   No newspaper, no magazine, no government report, no Democratic Party position paper … nothing.   I searched the Internet in vain.  All I could find were the same vague statements being repeated over and over again.

And so I went digging for specifics.  Here’s what I could find:

Veterans:
            $75 million      Would deprive 11,000 homeless veterans of vouchers for housing
Children:
            In total, programs benefiting children are cut 21%
            $330 million    Health
            $2.6  billion     Education … for example, significant cuts are made in Head Start
                                        and other early education efforts that would cause 368,000 children
                                        to lose early education slots.  These cuts will also cause many
                                        Head Start programs to close and many teachers to lose their jobs.
            $139 million    Youth Training
            $3.5  billion     Housing subsidies
            $30   million    Safety
            $782 million    Nutrition, mostly from the successful WIC (Women with Infant
                                        Children) program
Food and Health Safety:
            $1.3  billion     cuts from FDA, FSIS, and CDC budgets.  These cuts will iimpact
                                        everything from the number of federal meat inspectors ($53
                                        million) to dollars spent to control the spread of HIV.
Border and Immigration
            $600 million

The bill would also completely eliminate federal funding for a host of programs including Americorps, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting  (NPR and PBS), and Planned Parenthood. 

The number of jobs .. both government (federal, state, and local) and private … that would be lost as a result of the $61 billion in budget cuts has been estimated as high as 700,000.  Needless to say, any sizeable increase in unemployment will hurt the economy and hurt families.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.  WHY hasn’t the Democratic Party or any news organization put together this vital information, preferably in a comprehensible form, so that the people can see what is happening and voice their opposition … if indeed they are opposed … to their representatives in Congress?

Remember that 2-years extension of the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 that the Republicans insisted on and the Democrats opposed.  That tax cut added $100 billion to the deficit for just that 2-year period.  But the Republicans won’t consider the impact of tax cuts on the deficit.  This is a clear example how they give to the rich and take from the poor and workers.  For them, there is no shared sacrifice.

If ever there is a need for effective communication, that time is now!




Thursday, March 3, 2011

Hate Speech Has No Redeeming Social Value and Should Be Prohibited


Chief Justice Roberts was right when he wrote in yesterday’s opinion protecting the speech of protestors at a military funeral that “debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open.”   However, the particular speech in this case that he and the seven concurring justices ruled was protected by the 1st Amendment consisted of, “God Hates Fags,”  “God Hates Your Tears,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

As Justice Alito said in his lone dissent, these words are more like fighting words … a “vicious, verbal assault … brutalizing innocent victims.”  For once I agree with Justice Alito.

The United States has a long history of upholding the most heinous forms of speech, so long as that speech does not directly incite violence or otherwise endanger people.  Most of the countries of Europe and Canada, on the other hand, have laws that criminalize hate speech.

Why the difference?  Part of the difference stems from Europe’s experience with the Holocaust.   They understand more clearly the evil that hate speech can bring about.

But mostly the reason lies with the interpretation of our 1st Amendment, which prohibits any laws that infringe on the freedom of speech.  Absent a “clear and present danger,” the courts have generally held that even the most vile and hateful speech is protected.

So the result, for example, is that while it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, religion, etc., it is not against the law to encourage hatred against African-Americans, Jews, or any other group.

The question that must be asked is, why is discrimination prohibited but hate speech allowed?  There is no rational answer.   The answer is historical … the right of free speech has long been a sacred cow of American constitutional jurisprudence. 

But hate speech does not foster reasoned debate on issues of national import.  Rather it fosters just the opposite.  It fosters at a minimum highly emotional positions that actually hinder reasoned debate, and at worst it fosters an atmosphere of fear that can lead to violence.  Additionally, it tears apart our social fabric.  Thus, even absent a “clear and present danger,” there is no reason to protect such speech.

The argument against prohibiting such speech is that it presents a “slippery slope.”  Once you allow for one type of speech to be prohibited, where do you draw the line? 

But the right already is deemed not to be absolute.  Thus the question becomes whether such speech has value … “redeeming social value” in the context of the obscenity cases … to America’s marketplace of ideas, to the furtherance of rational discourse.

The answer is, “no.”  We prohibit discrimination, we prohibit hate crimes, we should prohibit hate speech.  

Monday, February 28, 2011

Why Public Sector Workers Are Not the "New Welfare Queens"


Contrary to the outrageous charge by Governor Christie, neither teachers nor any other public sector workers are the “new welfare queens.”  Teachers, firemen, agency personnel … all of these people provide a valuable service to the state and to the community. 

Anyone who says that they are overpaid has not looked recently at salaries in the private sector where many, not just the top dogs, earn substantially more while providing questionable benefit to the community, other than shareholders.  And that brings me to a point totally forgotten in both the Republican attacks and the workers’ defense. 

The reason why workers in the public sector generally have better benefits than those in the private sector is not because their unions have a cozy relationship with government.  It’s because government executives felt that in order to attract good people to government employment, strong benefits were needed to offset the fact that they could never hope to achieve the type of salaries and bonuses that were available in the private sector if you were a strong performer.

Granted, not everyone is a strong performer.  But benefits, as opposed to wages and promotions, have never been tied to performance either in government or private settings.

As a secondary reason, many public sector employees work under very difficult conditions … think about teachers, firemen, and policemen.  The better benefits can be thought of as equivalent to combat pay.

There are without question many valid issues to be raised with teachers’ unions and others.  One can also make a strong argument that in difficult economic times, public sector workers must make some sacrifice along with everyone else … taking a pay cut, paying a higher percentage of medical insurance costs, etc.

And indeed, the unions in Wisconsin agreed almost immediately to such changes.  They understand the need. 

But to take away their collective bargaining rights and eliminate dues check offs, among other things, turns this from a valid state effort to cut costs to an invalid state effort to bust the unions.  And that is basically what Governor Walker is trying to do.

The Republicans are constantly talking about the need for sacrifice in these difficult times.  But why is it that the sacrifice they suggest always comes solely or mostly from the workers and the poor?  If the well-off were asked to sacrifice by giving up their Bush tax cuts, then the Republicans could make a moral argument that everyone must sacrifice, each according to his ability.

Instead they are just playing their usual game.  Take from the poor and workers; give to the rich.  They have no concern for the common good.  They are hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people.  They have no shame.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

What If Ethics Is Antithetical to the American Ethos?


The financial crisis and the Deep Horizon oil spill have revealed once again an all-too-familiar pattern in American business and government.  Business takes risks without regard for the potential negative impact on the public, and government regulators who are supposed to police such activity choose instead to give business a free pass to do pretty much as they choose.

These two habitual behaviors in tandem pose grave risks to the common good on a daily basis.  And so, there was much talk again about cleaning house in government agencies and promulgating new regulations.  And some minor progress was achieved.

But it seems to me that all this talk misses an important point … the proverbial elephant in the room … these problems at their core reflect a lack of ethics in American business and government.   Which raises the question, what role does ethics play in the American ethos?  By ethics here I mean a system of moral principles, the values relating to human conduct by which the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions are judged.

The American ethos has been defined in various ways … all related.   It is said to have capitalism and democracy at its core; it is said to be competitive; it is said to be a land of opportunity for all.  None of these implies or even necessarily encourages ethical behavior.

Interestingly, these definitions of the American ethos while in part related to our founding documents are quite different in their perspective.  For example, it is quite different to say that, “all men are created equal” as opposed to “equal opportunity for all.”  The latter means that anyone should be able to get ahead in life.  That is more a statement of the grounds of competition than the ethical statement that, “all men are created equal.”  The contention of many on the right that we are a religious country is also totally absent from these definitions of our ethos.

If we look at American politics, from the very beginning, politics has been rife with dirty tricks.  Even founding stalwarts Jefferson and Adams resorted to underhanded tactics in their battles against each other.

Then there are the ethical questions raised by a country founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, and yet slavery was accepted and women did not have the right to vote.  Yes, these conditions existed elsewhere at the time, but nowhere else was a country founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.  The ethical conflict cannot be denied. 

The Founding Fathers, however, were ultimately pragmatic souls who did what was necessary to achieve the birth of the new country.  It would take the Civil War to free the slaves, but their status in the South was not much improved until the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement.  Women did not get the right to vote until 1920.

During the expansion of the new country and the early stages of the industrial revolution, the government’s embrace of the capitalist system left business enterprise more or less free of any government oversight.   And as they became larger, corporations lost community contact; they became impersonal anonymous enterprises that were concerned only about acquiring wealth and power.  The result was a rapacious system in which the powerful exploited the weak … owners exploited workers, powerful companies devoured weaker ones.  The concept of ethical behavior was absent.

But by the dawn of the 20th Century, progressive ideas founded on the words of the Declaration of  Independence began to take hold in government.  As a result, a series of laws were passed that both limited the power of business and provided a structure that gave workers the power to negotiate with employers.  Thus ethical behavior was imposed on the capitalist system by government.  During the Depression, more laws were passed that both regulated business and provided a safety net for the poor and the elderly.

America was looking more and more like an ethical society.    But that was mostly an illusion.  Where government or the courts did not impose ethics that conformed to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the people, business, and government, especially at the local level, continued to exhibit a lack of ethical standards.   The business world was all about competition and getting away with what one could.  Local government corruption was commonplace.  In the larger society, prejudice and discrimination was prevalent, not just against blacks and women, but against Jews as well.

From this historical perspective, ethics was never part of the American ethos.   To the extent it broadly existed, it was because it was imposed from above, not because it was part of the very fiber of the people. 

But at some point after WWII, it seemed to become more expected for business, people, and government to act ethically.  We were now the leader of the free world and we needed to act like the leader.  Especially at the level of national politics, decorum and courtesy went beyond a formality and was genuinely part of an ethical culture.

Then came the Vietnam War and Watergate.  Suddenly, the ethical façade began to crack.
And Richard Nixon opened the window for an unethical operative like Lee Atwater to begin his rise in Republican politics. 

Almost single-handedly Atwater brought about the nasty, unethical, political culture we have today … at least on the part of Republicans … where the only thing that matters is winning.  Where business, freed of regulation whether formally or through malfeasance of the regulators, has acted as one would expect, having little concern for the public impact of their actions and only concerned with making money.  And where the famous “me” generation of Ronald Reagan has lost a feeling of responsibility for their fellow man. A cynicism about government and authority arose among the people.

America thus seen has merely reverted to its underlying ethos, free of the constraints of a progressive mindset that had brought order to the unruly world of capitalist democracy.  But if we wish to be a great nation, be true to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and do justice to all of the people, then the progressive moment in our history must be restored among Republicans and Democrats alike.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Obama’s Budget – Where Is the Leader We Elected?


Everyone … well almost everyone … agrees that the United States’ budget deficit is something that must be addressed now if we want to maintain the financial stability of this country.  And everyone also agrees that given the size of the projected deficits, the net reduction on a yearly basis needs to be huge.

Three different nonpartisan/bipartisan groups came out with reports several months ago about how to reduce the deficit.   While they differed in their details, they were all consistent in that any serious effort must combine cuts in all areas, including especially defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as selective tax increases.  

Without that breadth of cuts combined with tax increases, there would be no way of cutting the deficit sufficiently while apportioning the resulting sacrifice in a just way.  The pain of austerity needs to be shared by all while limiting its impact on the weakest in our society.

The Republicans, who are serious about cutting the deficit, have put entitlements and defense cuts off the table, they have put tax increases off the table, and they have declared that the impact of tax cuts on the deficit would not be considered.  Given the size of their proposed cuts, this is a prescription for massive pain primarily for workers and the poor.  The sacrifice would not be a shared one.

And what has President Obama proposed in his 2012 budget?  A timid approach to cuts combined with increased investments in various areas resulting in an admittedly insufficient attack on the deficit.  What he said was that any moves to tackle cuts to the entitlements would have to be bipartisan.  Defense seems to be pretty much off the table for him too.

Where is the leader that we elected?  Where is the change that we want?  With the backing of the three studies on how to reduce the deficit, the President would have had good cover to put forward a bold budget that incorporated many of their suggestions.

Had he done so, he then could have said to the Republicans, “Your way is not the American way …it is not the fair and just way to reduce the deficit.  My proposal is a proposal for shared sacrifice across the entire spectrum of America’s populace and business community, incorporating a “means” test:  those that can most afford it sacrifice the most; those that can least afford it sacrifice the least.”

That is what I would have expected from the President.  That is what needs to happen to move the debate forward in a constructive fashion.  Are there people left in the halls of power who will rise to the occasion?

Monday, February 21, 2011

Robin Hoods in Reverse – Republicans Take From the Poor and Give to the Rich


 I don’t know how the Republicans get away with it.  In the budget cutting debates, they keep saying that people must sacrifice because the situation is so serious.   That statement is fine in the abstract.

But why is it that all the sacrifice that they are proposing is going to come from workers and the poor.  Whether its as beneficiaries of the domestic programs and services that are being gutted or public service workers whose collective bargaining rights they want to end, the sacrifice is coming from those who can least afford it.  And since these cuts will hurt state and local economies and increase unemployment, they will receive a double whammy.

Meanwhile, the rich and near rich … who have done very nicely during the financial crisis … aren’t being asked to sacrifice anything.  Instead, they get tax cuts!  Whatever happened to the concept of "shared sacrifice?"

When are the people in this country, including those in the Republican base who are not well off, going to rise up and tell these jokers, “Enough! You do not have a mandate to do us harm.  If there must be sacrifice, it must be apportioned justly.”  They need to hear from the people.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Waffling on Israeli Settlements - The Establishment Wins Again


From the outset of his administration, President Obama has clearly and forcefully stood against Israel’s settlement policy.  In his Cairo speech he said, “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.  This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace.”

Yesterday though the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling the settlements illegal … basically saying what the President said in his Cairo speech.  As a matter of fact, the Palestinians were very careful to craft the language of the resolution to match language that the Obama administration has used on this issue.

Ambassador Rice said that the veto should not be misconstrued as our now approving of the settlements.  This statement misses the point.  It isn’t a question of whether we approve or not … clearly the Obama administration doesn’t.  It’s a question of whether the President will stand up for what he believes when the going gets tough.

How this action will be construed by Israel and the rest of the world is that regardless what the President thinks or feels, the United States will not stand with others to stop Israel when push comes to shove.   This will leave the Israeli’s feeling that they are free to do whatever they want and the Arab world feeling that the United States still can’t be an honest broker for peace. 

Contrary to Ambassador Rice’s statements, this action is a setback for peace.  And it is a setback to the President’s overtures to the Muslim world.

I have no way of knowing, of course, but I have the feeling that the President wanted to hang tough on this issue and at least abstain from voting.  But once again, as in case of Afghanistan and in Egypt, the foreign policy and military establishments have held sway and forced him to submit.   

The same thing is happening with Bahrain … I cannot believe that the President doesn’t want to say something forceful against the deplorable use of force to crush the protestors.  But that would be “against our strategic interests.”

The foreign policy and military establishments are stuck in the mindset of the past and their view of strategic interest is very short term.  Our autocratic allies in the Middle East will all be gone in the next few years.  In their place will be countries that will more likely be anti-American because of America’s historic support for those autocrats and its failure to get ahead of the curve on this issue and support the revolution that is occurring in an appropriate way. 

It doesn’t have to be this way.  But history will undoubtedly repeat itself and the United States, as it has often in the past, will lose the opportunity to be the beacon of freedom it should be and instead will be viewed as the front man for the military/industrial establishment.