Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – Discussion

This is the fourth in this series. I recommend that you read or re-read Part I here, Part II here, and Part III here.

I have received two comments on the first two posts and I want to share those with you, together with my responses:

Michael Cerratto Esq. of Westville, New Jersey, wrote:

Good, something I don't feel so intimidated commenting on!

 The closing incident reminds me of a comment I once heard about the "cops vs. bad guys dynamic" being nothing more than our young delinquents vs. THEIR young delinquents. In any event, there are just too many dead bodies littering the streets lately, and the fact that we are only just now beginning to ask the questions which will, I pray, lead to some explanation of what is going on does not speak well of us. But then, again, I wonder if we really want the answers? Time will tell.

To which I replied:

You ask: "But then, again, I wonder if we really want the answers?"

According to CNN we do not.

I quote from my blog: "Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture - I”:

How many people are shot by police every year? Nobody seems to know the exact number (something that is itself disturbing -- no official government agency tracks the full data for the entire country)

… nobody wanted to fund it and the (police) departments didn't want it. They were concerned with their image and liability. They don't want to bother with it.''

If you have any observation on my later post, I welcome it.

And Bob Russo of Montclair, and its former mayor, chimed in with:

I loved your 20 year old letter to the Editor... and the reference to the Ham sandwich being indicted...the more things change, the more they STAY the same, I think is the correct version. Anyway, I think you are absolutely right on all counts. I just have a hard time as former Mayor and Deputy Mayor demonstrating against my police department as I have been asked to do by protestors of police brutality, which I believe really does exist, but should probably be referred to as overzealous excessive use of force. I just don't know what the solution to mistrust of police based on legitimate fears and negative past experiences is...while we still need the security provided by adequate community policing and foot patrols. I think we should be putting more police on the streets and devoting more resources to public safety and security at this time of increased violence and potential terrorism.....but the nation does not seem to care.....We should devote energy to securing our communities,  especially urban areas and cities,  rather than spending billions on foreign adventures that seem to only fan the flames of more hatred toward us....and we should fix our bridges and infrastructure which are crumbling due to neglect.   We really need another TR and FDR with a public works agenda to make things right again......sorry to write so late......I was just catching up and that is my commentary on yours tonight! 

Which prompted this response from me:

Sorry about not getting the idiom correct. I usually check things on the web, rather than relying on my memory, but in this case, apparently, I felt so comfortable with the form I used, (incorrectly) that I never thought of checking it.

On the substance, neither a TR nor an FDR, nor an LBJ, would make any difference. They all had collaborative Congresses, and overwhelming majorities in those Congresses. Congress does make a difference. And it used to be that politics ended at the water’s edge. All that is gone. 

The Supreme Court is no longer a judicial body, but a purely political one, with power greater then that of either the President or that of Congress. The Congress can be vetoed by the President, and the President can be overridden by 2/3rd in both houses, but SCOTUS can only be overridden but 2/3 of both houses and 3/4th of the legislatures of the states. That is awesome power, and when it is abused, e.g. Bush v. Gore, or the United case, which effectively legalized bribery and extortion, it does harm far beyond what people realize. Had Gore been allowed his victory, as was in fact the intent of the voters, the Supreme Court would have a totally different composition, would be handing down entirely different decisions, and even elections might be run differently, if a different court where to strike down the outrageous suppression of voters and the gerrymandering.

I have become convinced that SCOTUS must be weakened. I think 5-4 decisions should be treated as a tie and of no force and effect. I am aware that this might means that the upcoming 5-4 decision on gay marriage would be of no effect, but that would still leave most of the US with legal gay marriage. I assume that in any case giving effect to the Constitution’s, Full Faith and Credit clause (Article VI -Section 1) so that each state has to recognize a legal marriage in another state, is unavoidable even for the Right wing nuts on the Court. The language in the Constitution is too plain.

As for the police, I don’t think that we have inadequate forces. That may have been true once - I don’t think it is true any longer. But the police must be held accountable. If they are not, we are in deep trouble. But it goes way beyond the police. It is our whole criminal justice system, as I will elaborate in future posts.

As for "securing our communities, especially urban areas and cities” the best way to secure them in the long run is to deal with their economic and social problems. The outrageous under-financing of their schools, which should not be financed by local property taxes, which by their very nature finance poor neighborhood schools poorly, and wealthy ones extremely generously.  But, schools are not enough, unless we attack the underlying poverty and the social and cultural problems that have arisen from years, indeed generations of persecution, under-employment, and neglect.

As for "foreign adventures” I believe we must guard against isolationism (that has never served us well), while guarding against foolish involvement. Examples of sound involvement were the actions taken by Clinton in Bosnia and by George H.W. Bush in stopping the invasion of Kuwait, while Iraq, and of course, Vietnam were major errors. I think we are doing the right thing in punishing an expansionist Russia, but as I have indicated, we are wrong to allow an expansionist Israel.

Well, that’s a lot of area to cover in a nutshell, but on the criminal justice system, stay tuned.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office. 

The President’s Action on Immigration

As I research and write what amounts to a bi-weekly column on my deeply held concerns about the state of Israel, under the collective heading “I Am A Jew,” I think it is appropriate for a short time out, to focus on another pressing issue, namely the gridlock in the Congress.

The President’s action on immigration, taken out of absolute frustration with the inability of Congress to deal with the needs of the nation, made me address this issue with a short Letter to the Editor of The Record, a North Jersey daily newspaper. I chose The Record because my frustration with the New York Times has reached the breaking point. Getting a letter printed in that storied paper is like winning the lottery, with the odds being similar.

While the New York Times has an average circulation of 1,865,318 The Record has a daily circulation of 138,904 and a Sunday circulation of 167,278 and it is growing. It is better to reach a potential readership of 167,278, than to strive for the moon, and reach no one.

My Letter to the Editor of The Record, which appeared in last Sunday’s edition,  is set forth below:

Regarding “Obama calls for ‘accountability’ ” (Page A-1, Nov. 21):

The president’s action on immigration reminds us once again that gridlock has become the norm in Congress.

An immigration bill passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote, and a vote count in the House showed that it would have passed if it had been put up for a vote.  But the Republican Speaker, John Boehner, refused to allow a vote.

We have a similar situation in the Senate, where numerous House bills have died without being put to a vote because the Democratic Majority Leader, Harry Reid, wants to protect members of his caucus from having to cast votes that might be politically difficult. 

This puts far too much power in the hands of single individuals, and quite possibly, is a greater cause for gridlock that even the infamous filibuster.

The Constitution did not intend one party leader in either chamber to exercise veto power over legislation. I strongly urge that the Congress pass rules that require an up or down vote on any legislation passed by the other chamber.

The American people should demand it. 

Emil Scheller 

Fort Lee, Nov. 21 

Comments are welcome and will be published with attribution unless anonymity is requested. 

The President’s re-election (More Discussion II)

In my post entitled "The President’s re-election (Discussion)" I set forth comments that I received from various subscribers and my responses, including an exchange with Roger Streit of West Orange, N.J. and ended with my rejoinder. But my disputation did not end there, and accordingly, I set forth the further discussion with Roger in my post "The President’s re-election (More Discussion)." While my discussion with Roger has not ended, Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia has joined the fray. I set forth below his comments and in my next post will set forth my rather lengthy response.

Here is what Albert opined with respect to my exchange with Roger:

This exchange is thoughtful - thanks for sharing it, though I'm not sure I can identify accurately exactly where you and Roger diverge. There are too many strands to the argument and chronology for that.

 Suffice to say that I agree with you that the future volatility of interest rates makes our high level of national debt dangerous. However, you may be minimizing the allure to some of inflating our way out of it by devaluing the USD, one way, or another.

 Regarding social security and retirement, we ought to remember that at least 30% of SS recipients have no other source of income. Also, by the mid-60s, many (if not most) people are exhausted and/or unable to continue to work even if anyone was willing to employ them, which is unlikely. If so, raising the retirement age is dangerous. Today, millions of people are struggling to remain employed at all, and therefore able to contribute to the SS fund.

 Based on my reading, the SS fund is NOT a debt of the federal government AND the fund can be rather quickly replenished for the foreseeable future simply by making 90% of all income subject to SS tax withholding contributions, as it was when SS was established; at present, contributions end around incomes of $125,000. This must be changed.

 As for rising life expectancies, where do you find evidence for this myth? American median life expectancy is already lower than that of many OECD countries and insurance companies still estimate that people like me, at age 68, should expect only ten more years of life. If so, that means less than 15 years of retirement on SS benefits--not excessive after a lifetime of work, by my estimate.

 Apart from paying off the Treasury bonds with which Congress irresponsibly stuffed the SS fund over the years, the next greatest federal spending burden is Medicare. Here the Republicans are pushing for a decrease in benefits, which are already inadequate, and ignoring the potential for legislating lower prices from vendors in the healthcare industry, which is currently VERY profitable. As the majority of the population is covered by Medicare, vendors unwilling to accept lower prices (and lower profits) offered by Washington will find ever smaller populations willing and able to pay their higher prices. The alternative approach to lowering healthcare costs, of course, is simply to establish a national health service the provides services directly. There is general agreement that we would see quickly a 30% decrease in useless, duplicative administrative costs even before considering bloated corporate profits.

 When U.S. vendors are unable or unwilling to sell at prices that the national service can afford, procurement should be opened globally. Also, if SS and Medicare payments were made to recipients for payment anywhere in the world where they may reside, you would see an earthquake of price adjustment in the healthcare industry. 

Finally, as you know, defense and intelligence spending must shrink. Alas, there is growing evidence (especially to Washington, DC residents) that the heretofore untouchable spending on intelligence has gone totally out of control. We could likely obtain the same, or better, intell while spending half of what we spend currently--again due to waste, duplication, and sheer incompetence. 

The defense vendor community is resisting spending reductions fiercely, but this is a fight that we must win--even at the cost of raising unemployment temporarily. Employment that is supported entirely by federal spending should be better shifted to time-sensitive, temporary unemployment benefits. 

Must end. Thanks again for resuming your blog and keeping our brains agile.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

In Defense of Romney – Discussion

On January 19^th I posted my commentary "In Defense of Romney."

In response thereto Pam Tisza of Branchburg, NJ wrote:

You did not comment on Senator Bernie Sanders bill to counteract the big money in the elections---or did I miss it ????

To which I replied:

No, I didn't and I am not sure what bill you are referring to. Do you mean his introduction of a Constitutional amendment to overrule Citizen United? If so, I am glad he did that, but it is not very newsworthy, since it is not likely to go anywhere. I expect it will not even get out of committee and if it does it will not get a majority, at least at this time around, and it need 2/3 of both houses in order to go to the states for ratification, where it needs 3/4 of the state legislatures (both houses) to become part of the Constitution, given that Democrats now control 35 total chambers while Republicans are the majority in 60 chambers. See here. There are three tied chambers with the addition of the Virginia State Senate.

Article. V. of the Constitution provides:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;…”

If you were referring to something other than the above, please advise. In fact please let me have your further comments in any case.

Her rejoinder was:

Thanks for correcting me. I went back and read the original e-mail I got on this and they mention "constitutional amendment”; but then go on as if it is a bill. Poor reading on my part. I agree with you. Nice idea--no hope.

I must add that despite the fact that at present there is no hope of enacting such an amendment, many liberal organizations are organizing petition drives in support of such an amendment, which is a good idea. It must be kept in front of the public.

Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia challenged me on my views with respect to the activities of Bain Capital, writing:

I don't share all of your enthusiasm about Romney's version of private equity capitalism, but I agree with your view that all income from all sources should be taxed at the same rate. As for the corrosive effect of money on politics, the Harvard professor, Lessig, who (in his new book) proposes that ALL political campaigns be publicly financed through a $1 per taxpayer, voluntary contribution on his tax return, which seems like the most promising solution. 

You were correct to emphasize the dire issue of the high cost of education today--and rising. This is killing social mobility. Student debt (now inextinguishable even in bankruptcy) is the next huge bubble ready to burst. Indebted and unemployed students cannot repay these debts. So long as educational institutions are able to coerce/convince students to incur debt as a condition of enrollment, there are/will be no brakes on the rise in cost. When the bubble bursts, many schools will go with it.

To which I posed the following question:

I am interested in your views on "Romney's version of private equity capitalism.” Do you think it is destructive? Do you think parts of it should be illegal? If so what parts? If you can, please be as specific as possible.

And added:

As for Lessig's proposal, we already have a provision in the tax code for deducting, not $1 but $3 for Presidential campaigns. The tax code provides, for a Presidential Election Campaign Fund which helps pay for Presidential election campaigns. The fund seeks to reduce candidates' dependence on large contributions from individuals and groups and seeks to place candidates on an equal financial footing in the general election. Tax Return 1040 provides: “If you want $3 to go to this fund, check the box. If you are filing a joint return, your spouse can also have $3 go to the fund. If you check a box, your tax or refund will not change."

However this check off has come out of favor. "...participation in the tax checkoff program has declined each year, from a high of 28.7% for 1980 returns, to 7.3% for returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2010." See here.

There is a limit in how much one is allowed to spend to get matching funds. In 2008, presidential primary candidates who accepted public funding had a maximum entitlement of $21,025,000 (50 percent of $42,050,000). (Ibid) It was because of this limit that Obama waived the public funding in 2008 to much criticism. He felt he could raise and spend much more than the limit.

As I understand Lessig, all he is advocating is essentially to extend this system to Congress. I would favor this, but unless there is a limit on contribution and spending, it would end up the same as the Presidential fund. As long as Citizen United stands, and I am not hopeful of an overrule in less than two decades, we are stuck, money will rule.

On improving mobility, making decent education available to all, regardless of economic status, is the ultimate class leveler and vouchers can never achieve this. Here too we need to reverse the financing curve. The poor need more financing than the rich, not less. Even in school buildings many are antiquated. No corporation would or could operate in such antiquated buildings. But as long as money rules this will not happen. I hate to say this, but I am not optimistic.

Nekimken responded:

You likely saw the article in today's New York Times entitled “Taxes at the Top” and another one entitled "Romney’s Estate Tax Cut Would Save the Koch Brothers Up to $8.7 Billion Each" but I call them to your attention in case you missed them, it because they bears on the question at hand: Romney's wealth. 

To tell the truth, I have mixed feelings about the role of private equity in modern capitalism. On the one hand, I believe it does serve a useful tool of Schumpeter's "creative destruction" by feeding on weak companies like insects on the forest floor, paving the way for new growth. 

On the other hand, much private equity activity appears to be motivated, not by any long-term desire to turn around failing companies by making new investments and providing new management in order to make them successful and grow and, presumably, to create new jobs, but by a desire to create a transaction that results in a quick profit. 

On the contrary, most of this activity seems to be motivated by a short-term desire to strip assets from a failing company, reduce staff, and (often) to loot the company pension fund. Often private equity owners load a newly acquired company with fresh, unsustainable debt that can be made to "disappear" in bankruptcy, or in a future sale at an inflated price to a bigger fool. 

As a result, much of what private equity firms do falls into the category of "financial engineering" that serves no useful purpose except to make a few "engineers" very wealthy. Unfortunately, I can't think of any coherent and effective way to prevent this. 

The situation is so complex that I don't believe there is any way to regulate this area of finance in order to prevent them from plundering weak companies and destroying jobs. Better would be to reform tax policy (i.e., tax all income from all sources at the same rate), reform bankruptcy and pension laws, and protect employees more effectively, perhaps by making company owners pay severance and re-training expenses for employees who lose their jobs--as is the case in Europe. 

I hope this is helpful.

I concluded this discussion with:

I really don't know enough about how a company like Bain operates to agree or disagree with your description of "financial engineering." However, while your description of the European system of "making company owners pay severance and re-training expenses for employees who lose their jobs--as is the case in Europe" has appeal, I fear that it may be counter-productive. It has long been charged that these potential burdens make employers reluctant to hire in the first place, and I fear that there is truth in this.

Comments are welcome and will be distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

In Defense of Romney

In my last post entitled "Congress and the Public - Kudos to Sarah Palin," which was distributed on Friday the 13^th, I addressed three issues: the huge amount of money influencing, one might say controlling, our public servants; the lies that dominate our public discourse, so as to bring government into greater disrepute; and the insider trading that is prevalent in Congress.

Paul Negri of Clifton, NJ expressed the view that what is behind the money cursing through our political, and indeed our economic system, and is the reason for scandals such as the insider trading in Congress is “greed and opportunism, (and that these) to a greater or lesser degree, are part of human nature, … and develop more in those who have, through circumstance, the best access to ways and means to self-advancement. The question is how do we push the equation to the lesser, rather than the greater, degree?”

I think the answer has to be through effective legislation, which in our present system can only be brought about by the use of money in the cause of fighting the misuse of money, at least until such a time, when money does not dominate our public discourse. One example that illustrates this, is the Gay Marriage issue in NY. Gay Marriage was legalized recently in New York because some courageous Republicans broke party ranks, and supported its legalization. As a result the Conservative Party of New York State threatened to withhold from them their endorsement and the considerable amount of money that goes with it. Now backers of Gay Marriage have countered by promising to offset the withdrawal of money by their own financial contributions. See here. Something similar can be done with respect to insider trading in Congress. Single issue campaigns are always more effective than broad ideological ones, and here it might be possible to draw money from all sides of the political spectrum, demanding of our law makers that they sign a pledge to support a bill drafted by the organization along the lines of the Palin recommendations.

But greed is not always bad. There is little doubt that greed is what drives our capitalist system, and it does not inevitably lead to the destructive greed of a Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street.” But that is why we need laws and regulations. Left unchecked the engine of creation becomes an engine of destruction. The entrepreneur, while lauding competition, hates competition and seeks monopoly, which is why we have anti trust laws that have not been enforced adequately lately. The investor while lauding good research, seeks a leg up, by seeking or selling insider information, which is why we have laws against that, which have not been enforced until lately.

The banks seek to exploit their credit card customers, making them think that they can spend more than they make, and encouraging them to pay back tiny installments, so that they run up their interest debt at outrageously high interest, and then if they overlook one monthly payment hit them with even higher interest rates and penalties, so that their debt often ends up a multiple of their original one, and then using their money clout in Congress to deny them that, which every business has available, i.e. bankruptcy protection and also using its financial clout to prevent the capping of interest rates from becoming usurious. Even the Mafia never charged more. See here and here.

But what Mitt Romney did at Bain Capital is quintessentially good, beneficial capitalism. It is the essence of “Creative Destruction” so ably described by Joseph Schumpeter, the conservative Austrian economist. See here. Its essence is that inefficient entities must be made efficient or be eliminated, and in the long run the economy as whole will benefit, and while some jobs may be lost in the process, in the long run more will be created. It is ironic that the Right, which claims to be the apostle of free enterprise, should attack Romney for practicing the essence of Capitalism. But I guess the saying that “all is fair in love and war” applies! Is it inter-party war?

What has come out of this, however, is that it illustrates just how unfair our tax system is. The Republican Party has long argued that our “graduated tax system is unfair” in that it taxes the rich more than those with small, or at least much smaller incomes. But what we are seeing is that the system is indeed unfair, it taxes the rich at a rate that is barely distinguishable from the rate applied to much smaller incomes. Romney has now admitted that even though his income is in the millions annually, his tax rate is close to 15%. See here.

I wonder how many of my readers have an effective tax rate of 15%! When Warren Buffett caused a sensation by declaring that his secretary paid taxes at a higher rate than he did, the Right Wing blogosphere went wild with denunciations, and they all stayed on message. One even had a headline, “AP fact check: Secretaries don’t pay more taxes than their bosses," except when the article is accessed no reference to an AP fact check can be found. What percentage of their “income” the rich pay in taxes depends on how “income” is defined. Is it “earned income”, is it “taxable income” or is it total income the way most people would define it?

What causes this anomaly is that as people go up the income ladder more and more of their income comes from capital gains income and dividends. Thus the top 1% of earners on average get 43.4 % of their total income from Capital Gains, Interest and Dividends compared to the next highest quintile who only get 21.4% of their income from Capital Gains, Interest and Dividends, and the lowest quintile only get 1.3% of their income from Capital Gains, Interest and Dividends. The result is that the top 1% who make an average annual income of $1,873,000 pay an effective Income and Payroll tax rate of 20.6% (a lot more than Romney pays) as compared to the top 20% who make a fraction of that at $264,700 (which puts them in the upper middle class) pay almost the same tax rate at 20.1%. See here.

This is neither fair nor sensible. No tax reform, no matter how much the tax is graduated, can deal with this unfair anomaly, unless all types of income is taxed the same. In a country that prides itself on its Puritan work ethic, the discrimination against those who earn their income by working, as opposed to those who earn it by investing, is difficult to understand, and even more difficult to justify. This is even more evident when we consider that most of the rich started out in life with a substantial inheritance, which they could then use to generate more capital and it is further aggravated by our tax law, which forgives even capital gains taxes on inherited stock or other appreciated assets. See here, which is well worth reading.

Romney claims that, “What I got from my parents when they passed away I gave away to charity and to my kids. And so what I’ve earned has been earned through my education, my values, living in the greatest country in the world, through some luck and through hard work.”

Even if that is true, and the reader will forgive me if I am skeptical, he at the very least got an education that most people can only dream of. How often can the child of a blue-collar worker possibly obtain such an education? How likely is a child of a blue collar, or even of the average white collar worker, going to afford a pre-school education beginning at the age of two at $20,000 a year, giving that child a jump by the time it starts grade school. Then when public school begins, how likely is it that it can afford private school at more than the $20,000 mentioned? And even if a “Romney” goes to a public school, you can be sure that it will be an excellent one. On the other hand, with our system, where schools are frequently financed by local property taxes, the schools in a well to do neighborhood will be properly financed, while those in a disadvantaged area will never have what they need to support a first class education. And how many, with all these obstacles will get to, and through college, with their even greater financial burden. Some will. I did. But I would not have made it through college and eventually law school if my college had not been tuition free, something that has long since passed from the scene. 

But none of this should disqualify Romney, except that he is an exponent of this system and an exponent of making it even more unfair.

But most of all I object to his inauthenticity. His father must be turning in his grave, for that former Governor of Michigan, and once Presidential aspirant, put the greatest value on authenticity. See here.

Phoniness is not leadership. Opportunism is a serious character flaw. Inauthenticity is, or should be, disqualifying.

Comments are welcome and will be distributed with attribution unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Congress and the Public - Kudos to Sarah Palin

In my last post entitled "Discussions With My Readership" I quoted Judge Edwin S. Bernstein Esq. of Boynton Beach Florida as pointing out that: “our basic problem is the influence that money has on elected officials.” A truer word could not be said, but it is not the fault of the Congress. It is the system that keeps every Congressman or Senator, beholden to those who finance their campaigns and in fear of those who will bankroll their opponents. We have seen this recently in the Republican primaries, where a number of “Independent Groups” who for whatever their reasons want the nomination to go to Mitt Romney unloaded on the surging Newt Gingrich and had his poll numbers down in a matter of days. $4,470,935 had been spent by these groups and other non-profits to oppose him (Gingrich) as of the end of last week. But just when all seemed lost for Gingrich, casino king and America’s eighth-richest person Sheldon Adelson has given $5 million to Winning Our Future, a political action committee that supports Gingrich’s campaign, according to The Washington Post. And the money comes just in time for the former Speaker of the House, who just placed fourth in the Iowa caucus. Gingrich’s Super PAC will reportedly use the money to run advertisements that directly attack Romney for destroying jobs and profiting from failed companies while at the head of private equity giant Bain Capital. See here.

This is in the Presidential race, but Congress is just as much if not more beholden to the deep pockets. Recent estimates reveal that many members spend anywhere from 25 percent up to 50 percent (and sometimes more) of their time fundraising. 

Whether that is the reason, or at least one of the reasons, that Congress is held in such low esteem is hard to tell from the polls. What we do know is that the public holds Congress in what can only be described as contempt. According to Gallup’s latest poll, 11% approve of the job Congress is doing and 86% disapprove. 

The reasons for this are many. But the gridlock, the gamesmanship, and the brinksmanship are certainly a major reason. Many, too many in my opinion, react with throw all the bums out, which strikes me as simplistic and downright foolhardy. The only way to reform a corrupt system is to spend the time to know what each and every member of Congress stands for and to be selective.

What we do know is that Republicans are not entirely unhappy with this result. They are anti-government, (being anti government used to be the purview of anarchists who were feared and hated, so much so that the Zacco and Venzetti case is a landmark of the hysteria surrounding that movement) and so a bad opinion of government serves their end. If gridlock, by filibustering, brings about a bad opinion of government, that serves their end. If governing badly creates hostility to government that serves their end, but of course, not if it costs them votes.

So let us examine more of the reasons for the contempt Congress is held in. Part of it is the result of a concerted campaign of lies intended to besmirch Congress. Thus I recently received an e-mail, (one of many in the same vain that I have received over the years.) I went through it – and found that almost every word was a lie and yet a good friend had forwarded it to me with approval. The public’s naiveté never ends.

I urge my readers to first read the e-mail in full without any comment from me. You can find it here. 

Now let me address the lies. The portions from the e-mail to which I have reference appear in italics. My comments thereon appear in bold letters.

How Can We Make This Happen?

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure. Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Most of the above was not said by Warren Buffett. He did say: “I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election" but it was said in jest. See here. What Buffet did say in all seriousness and it is very sound is, "the debt ceiling should be done away with, arguing it is nothing more than an “artificial limit” that ends up wasting time in Congress. See here.

As for eliminating the deficit, that is not so easily done. It was done under the Clinton Administration, but eight years of the Bush Administration’s tax cutting and unnecessary spending, ending in the greatest recession since the Depression of the ‘30s makes it a very difficult task. Ending the Bush Tax cuts would make a large dent, but would not do the job alone. Cutting alone would require doing away with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the SEC, the Fed, the FDA and all the programs of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. As I have said before and will again, adjustments to Social Security and Medicare are absolutely necessary, but the draconian approach of doing away with these programs, as is proposed in the Ryan budget is neither necessary nor desirable. And As I have also said before the Ryan budget actually increases the deficit by $6 trillion. See here.

Now allow me to take the rest of lies one by one.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011    
    

 1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives pay when they're out of office.

                                               

This is the law now.

2.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

                         

This is the law now.                                               

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

                                               

The congressional Retirement system is no different than that given by most corporations to their employees and is the same as that given to all federal employees. Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation. Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS. 

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes. Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. See here.

The Social Security Trust Fund is intact. It is invested in U.S. Treasury Securities, from where it collects interest and the Securities are the safest in the world.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

That too is the current system.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

This too is the current law or something close to it. Congressional cost-of-living adjustments are calculated using a formula based on changes in private-sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index. However, Congress can refuse such raises. A bill nixing Congress' automatic 2011 pay raise was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The move marks the second consecutive year lawmakers have opted not to receive their automatic cost-of-living increase. The law governing congressional pay raises requires members to vote against getting a raise. Otherwise, the increase takes effect automatically. But keeping pay for members low is not desirable. Rich members don't need their salary at all, while it discourages people who are not rich from serving in the Congress.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

Members of Congress are covered by private insurance under the same system that covers all federal workers. Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees, and their families. 

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

That is the law at present. Members of Congress are not exempt from any laws that apply to others. 

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

There are no contracts with members, or past members of Congress. If there were any, their voidance by legislative fiat, like all contracts by anyone, would violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

Now there other valid reasons to be critical of Congress and I urge readers to demand of their representatives in both the House and the Senate to take action as recommended by Sarah Palin. Yes, I said Sarah Palin. Kudos to Sarah Palin for her totally valid demand for reform of the Congress, which was exposed by the TV program 60 Minutes. You can watch the relevant portion of that program here. 

And then read the article by Sarah Palin here.

Write to your members of Congress and ask them to act on Palin’s recommendation, which I think to our media’s discredit has not gotten the publicity, which it deserves. The media is only interested in politics as a sporting event.

Money and Politics

  I have been devoting my energies to writing about the ongoing health care debate and will continue to do so hereafter, but we are faced with a situation that so fundamentally changes the character of our Democracy, that I must digress to alert my readers.

 As early as the 19th century Mark Twain said, “We have the best government that money can buy.”

This was dramatically illustrated when in 1896 the champion of the masses, of the debtor classes, William Jennings Bryan, ran against the champion of the entrenched business interests, corporations, and the banking industry, William McKinley. McKinley, who outspent Bryan by an estimated 10 to 1, won handily, proving Hanna’s famous dictum: “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” By 1904 the popular outcry was so great that the then losing Democratic candidate declared, “The greatest moral question which now confronts us is shall the trusts and corporations be prevented from contributing money to control or aid in controlling elections?” In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act, the first federal law barring corporate campaign contributions. States adopted similar laws. Since then, Congress has repeatedly ratified the federal ban. In 1925, it folded the Tillman Act into the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. In 1947, it made clear that the ban included not just corporate contributions, but corporate expenditures on campaigns — and that it also applied to labor unions. In the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, Congress once again underscored that corporations cannot contribute to campaigns. See here.

Thus this principle has stood the test of time, having been affirmed by the people’s elected representatives in Congress time and time again and by the Supreme Court as well.

But now with a court dominated by these same interests, it appears that they are getting ready to strike down these essential restrictions and open the floodgates to the domination of the political process by the billions upon billions contained in corporate treasuries.

The Los Angeles Times summarized potential result when they wrote: “If the justices were to issue such a ruling in the next few months, it could reshape American politics, beginning with the congressional campaign in 2010…

“For example, the health insurance industry would have a much greater ability to target for defeat lawmakers who supported a so-called public option for medical insurance. Banks and investment firms could oppose representatives who favored stricter regulation of the financial industry…And far more money could flow into elections. Last year, the political parties spent about $1.5 billion on campaigns, while corporations earned more than $600 billion in profits.” See here.

Justice Scalia and his brethren on the Right by their questions during argument suggested that in their view corporations are no different from individuals or association of individuals and are entitled to the same rights, but for one who claims to be an “originalist” he ignores that the constitution gives no such rights to “artificial persons” and that Jefferson in 1816 even expressed the hope to, “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” See here.

To suggest that corporations are no different from associations of individuals they would not have the many rights that are unique to them, such as limited liability or as the Solicitor General put it, “Corporations are artificial persons endowed by the government with significant special advantages that no natural person possesses,’’ or as the Boston Globe wrote, “publicly traded business corporation, driven to maximize profits by market competition and its own charter, can’t rise above that mission any more than it can dance nude. Corporations aren’t “voluntary associations’’ with republican intentions, as Justice Antonin Scalia claims; in a civic sense, they’re mindless, because their shareholders change with every stock-price fluctuation.” See here.

But last, but not least, corporations don’t even represent the views of their stockholders. As I wrote on my blog in another context, “Unfortunately, it is not shareholders who decide on compensation. It is the Board of Directors! And who chooses the Board of Directors? Usually the CEOs. To be sure Shareholders get a chance to vote at shareholder meetings for the Board, and whatever issues are placed before them, but the only choices they really have is to vote yes or no on whatever the management chooses to let them vote on. And increasingly, shareholder meetings are held at out of the way places so as to discourage shareholders from attending. God forbid, they might ask embarrassing questions. They are asked to send in their proxies to confirm what has already been decided. The Chinese communist voting system is not much different.” See here. Thus Corporate CEOs, a small select group would have the power to spend untold billions to further whatever their political predilections may be.

A few years ago in a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia sought to counter concerns by reform advocates about the potential corrupting influence of money in politics. Justice Scalia alluded to the signers of the Declaration of Independence as pledging their "fortunes" as well as their "sacred honor."

The solicitor General commenting on this put it very well when she said, "John Hancock pledged his own fortune, …When the CEO of John Hancock Financial uses corporate-treasury funds for electoral advertising, he pledges someone else's."

The impending decision of the Supreme Court may well be the most important event of a century. It could well end Democracy in the US as we know it. Instead of “power to the people” we may have “power to a few oligarchs.”

Health Care Reform – Facts and Fiction

 In a series of commentaries I have set forth the misconceptions, the distortions and the outright lies to which the American Public has been subjected.

  It is difficult to understand why this is being done. There are some business groups that have a stake in the status quo and I can understand their struggle to protect their profits and increase them, even if it is at the expense of the Nation's needs.

The Republican Party stands opposed, as they oppose all Democratic initiatives, because they see obstruction and denunciation as the means to further their own political fortunes. These positions are unpatriotic for even a “loyal opposition” should put the Nation’s needs ahead of their parochial ambitions.

It is harder to understand the rank and file Republicans who write columns and who write Letters to the Editor distorting the facts, for they have no “horse in the race.” They remind me of the Communists of the ‘30s and even the ’40s who followed the party line no matter where it led them.

In my posting entitled “Health Insurance Reform” posted on August 11, 2009, I set forth unassailable facts and figures to show that we do not have the “best medical care in the world.” In fact dollar for dollar we have one of the worst.

In my commentary, “Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies” posted on 8/19/09, I called attention to some of the lies being circulated and the viscous attacks being orchestrated against reform, running the gamut from unfounded claims of “death panels”, the use of swastikas and the word “Nazi”. I waited for some Republicans out of some sort of decency, some sort of honesty, some sort of responsibility to denounce these lies but instead found them using weasel words to defend them, and sadly this included that “maverick” John McCain. I looked for Republican columnists and Letter to the Editor writers to distance themselves from the worst of these outrages, but their loyalty apparently is to their party and not their country.

In my posting, “Health Reform - Reality” posted on August 25, 2009, I quoted at length from a major brokerage house that pointed out that if nothing is done about reforming our present system, we face economic disaster.

Among the commentaries to Health Reform Realities there are three particularly worth reading. Tanya Keith and her husband, professionals, and middle class earners who had insurance set forth the disasters that befell them because of our crazy quilt system.

Nicole Scheller, a recent mother, in another comment to Health Reform Realities related her horrific experiences with trying to gain coverage from her insurance company after she had her baby. No facts, no personal disasters, move these opponents. They keep inventing dangers from reform that must emanate from their own nightmares, or from the Right wing nut factory, for they have no basis in reality.

Roger Berkley is a small business man but with a business much larger than Tanya’s. He employs about 200 people. He tells at length what is happening to him under the present system. His is in the form of a podcast and I particularly commend the antepenultimate message entitled: Healthcare: The Great American Boondoggle, though the two following are also worth listening to.

One widely circulated e-mail about that the Democratic bill, claims that it “would cede vast powers to a “Health Choices Commissioner”. Where do they get such nonsense? I investigated these claims on the web. It appears that this one is just another one of the endless e-mails on all kinds of subjects that are circulated, and I have received many, that are out and out lies, but which naïve people are impressed with, and they hit the forward button. Snopes.com is a web site that specializes in exposing such e-mails. I suggest to the reader that they go here for the top 25. If nothing else it will be good for a laugh. But what about the “Health Choices Commissioner”? This one is dealt with at length by PolitiFact.com that won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009, and they point out that this lie originated in what may be the “longest chain e-mail ever received” filled completely with falsehoods about the bill pending in Congress.

The only part of this e-mail that is true is that the bill provides for the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. This is part of the Health insurance exchange that is to be set up to create a market place for insurance shoppers. The bill says that a Health Choices Commissioner will run the exchange, and that he or she will make sure that insurers are offering basic benefits and adhering to the regulations. Individuals then choose their own plan from offerings on the exchange. To the extent that insurance plans have to meet basic requirements, those instructions are ultimately coming from Congress. See here for a discussion of this, and for those who want to really know what is and what is not in the bill.

But as usual the liars are ahead of the game. The truth has to always play catch-up, and for many people the truth never catches up with the fears engendered.

I have been wanting to discuss the merits and demerits of the few suggestions that have been offered by Republicans, but so much space has to be devoted to rebutting lies, that there is little left for an honest discussion.

Is a public option desirable? What are the true pros and cons? But even beyond this, if this is the Republican main concern, as it appears to be, let them say, “if you take this off the table we will join you in reform.” But if no concessions will bring them on board, then action must proceed without them, or with such few as allow patriotism to trump partisanship.

If medical malpractice reform is the hang-up, Obama has already met them more than halfway. But except for space limitations, I could show this to be a red herring. What we need to do away with is malpractice, not the right to recover for those injured. This is not a right of lawyers, though to be sure they benefit; it is a right of the injured. If a surgeon amputates the wrong leg am I to be denied an adequate remedy?

Are we all agreed that people with medical pre-conditions should not be discriminated against? If not, let’s debate that.

But stop the lies! Stop the smears! Stop the innuendo!

Debate is good. But opponents of reform don’t want to debate, they don’t want to discuss, they don’t want to compromise. They want delay till hell freezes over. They want the status quo, and the status quo is not sustainable. The status quo spells disaster for the country.

Finally, I commend to the reader the article by Hendrick Herzberg in the curreent issue of the New Yorker.