I posted my last commentary on December 12, 2011. For those
who may want to re-read it, it can be found under the title "The Deficit Reduction Committee I and II (Discussion)."
In that post Robert Malchman, Esq. of Brooklyn, NY reacted
to a rebuttal that I had made to a column written by Charles Krauthammer with:
"using your skills on someone like Klownhammer is like using a
flamethrower on a strawman." In response thereto, I offered to consider a column by Ross Douthat entitled "An Argument Against Redistribution," which has more meat to it for rebuttal. However, I concluded with an invitation
for additional comments, and many came. Therefore, before I venture on new
ground, let me share with you the comments, some of which covered new grounds,
and the exchanges to which they led.
Former Judge Edwin S. Bernstein Esq. of Boynton Beach Florida spoke to me on the telephone and said some things that disturbed me, prompting me to write the following rebuttal:
Former Judge Edwin S. Bernstein Esq. of Boynton Beach Florida spoke to me on the telephone and said some things that disturbed me, prompting me to write the following rebuttal:
Apropos our telephone conversation, you aroused my curiosity about where my parents were born, causing me to use Google to see what I could find. I told you my mother was born in Zalishchyky, which could possibly be called a shtetl. According to its web site: it has a population of 13.000 people. The 1772 census listed 159 Jewish families in Zalishchyky. The Germans sent 200 Jews to the Kamionka (Kamyanka) labor camp; about 40 others were sent to a nearby army camp and forced to dig mass graves. Soon the other 800 were brought there and gunned down.
However, my mother had left there with
my grandmother when my mother was quite young and settled in Vienna, Austria.
My mother was born in the late 19th century. During 1772 -
1918 Zalishchyky belonged to the Austrian empire (later
Austrian-Hungarian empire when the double monarchy was introduced in Austria).
This is important to me, because my mother always claimed that since at the
time of her birth the city was part of Austria, she was born in Austria. But
the US authorities classified her as Polish because at the time of desired
immigration to the US (1938-1939) it was part of Poland.
This was crucial and almost cost her
life because the Austrian immigration quota was a favorable one, and if she had
been classified Austrian she could have come to the US with her children in
1938, instead of having to wait until 1939 for her Visa, which she obtained
while a refugee in Italy.
A similar story applies to my father,
who was born in Lemberg, which was also part of Austria when he was born, but
which was part of Poland in 1938. Its
population in 1869 was 87,109 of whom 26,694 were Jews; in 1890 it was 127,943,
including 36,130 Jews; in 1900 there were 44,801 Jews in a total population of
159,618, probably too large to be called a shtetl.
Same immigration classification by the
US. Had my mother not had a Visa forged, he would have died in the Buchenwald
concentration camp.
With all our claims (US) of being
hospitable to immigration, such quotas and exclusion acts make it a motley
tale.
On our political discussion, I am very
disappointed that you do not seem to be reading my blog postings. They would
frequently prevent you from adopting "facts" that are wrong. I write
them not to express opinions, which in most cases my readers share, or at least
have similar opinions to mine, but to make sure my readers are familiar with
relevant facts, toward which end I spend many hours doing research.
For example I was bothered by some of
the comments you made, e.g. that we ought to cut foreign aid, which arises from
a neo-isolationism that has gained popularity both on the Left and Right.
Please take the time to click on the following.
As you will readily see we are not a generous
nation. Less than one per cent of our federal
budget goes to foreign aid. US
aid, as a percent of personal income, is second to last among wealthy
nations. We give about 25 cents per American per year in
foreign aid. Our total aid in dollar amount is $47.7 billion of
which economic assistance is $33.9 billion, and that includes helping
African babies avoid the scourge of Aids, Malaria, etc and helping hurricane,
earthquake and tsunami victims. Would you argue we should not extend such help?
Military assistance comes to $13.7 billion. Of that almost $4 billion goes to Israel and another $1.5 billion goes
to Egypt to persuade it to keep the peace with Israel. See here.
As for interest on our
debt, our treasury notes pay an astounding less that 1% on 30 year notes (see here) and less than 3% on average. See here.
As a result the
present debt is not a significant problem, but projections into the future are
troublesome. At the moment Republicans are using it as a wedge to try to
destroy our safety net and regulatory structure. Every one of their budgets and
proposals actually would increase the debt, not decrease it. (This is documented
at length on my blog postings.)
Republicans keep
arguing that the government should act more like a business, but not a single
business functions without incurring debt, (which is why our banking system is
so crucial and why it they had to be rescued) nor do individuals. Very few could
buy a house without incurring debt, and most need to incur debt to buy large
items such as a car. Borrowing, so as to do that which brings a bigger return
than the interest on the debt, such as infrastructure, makes sense, always has,
and always will.
On the other hand, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not sustainable without some changes. Republican
changes would amount to ending them, but Dems must make changes that will not
necessarily be popular, but without changes these programs will not survive. I
have written on this subject on my blog in the past, and will, in due course, discuss it in
greater detail.
Some time later Bernstein commented on my post entitled "The
Deficit Reduction Committee I and II (Discussion)" writing:
As always, I enjoy reading your blog and its comments. As I have said all too many times, our basic problem is the influence that money has on elected officials. This is especially true in Defense spending, where a grateful representative urges retaining unnecessary defense hardware to please his contributors - and his friends in Congress reciprocate. The cure is a Constitutional Amendment limiting contributions to elected officials. It is highly unlikely that this will occur. In its absence, perhaps the answer is something I have opposed in the past – term limits.
To which I responded:
I hadn't planned to address the issue of money in politics in the near
future, but since you raise it, and since it is one of the most corrosive
influences in our government, I will address it soon, maybe in my next post.
At this point let me just say that the problem is not just the "the
influence that money has on elected officials." It has a much broader
sweep than that. It infects our military procurement officers; it infects our
regulatory agencies; it infects the staff of our officials; it effects our
judges right up to the Supreme Court. You are Right that the cure is a
constitutional amendment limiting contributions to elected officials, or at
least giving Congress the power to do so. We need a Constitutional amendment
stating that corporations are not persons, as persons are referred to in the
Constitution, and that nothing in the Constitution shall limit Congress' power
to regulate Corporations.
We need an amendment that says money is not speech, and nothing in the
Constitution shall limit Congress power to limit or regulate the collection,
receipt, or expenditure of money in the political process, except the equal
protection clause.
Obama meant well when he decreed that lobbyists shall not serve in his
Administration, but it should be the other way around. We need laws that forbid
anyone who has served in the government from ever thereafter accepting
employment from any individual or corporation who was effected by any act
during such person's tenure in government, or from accepting any gratuity or
fee from such person or persons for the remainder of their life.
The delayed bribe for government services rendered is a greater problem
that the money spent during campaigns.
As for term limits, they accomplish nothing, and in fact are counter
productive. The elimination of good people from government service by term
limits is a great loss. It takes time to learn the job and term limits remove
experienced people just when they become most effective, without any reason to
believe that their successors will be an improvement. Stability is a valuable
trait. I would, in fact, like to remove term limits from the Presidency.
You are right it is all but impossible to accomplish these things, but
they are so important that I think an effort in this direction is warranted. It
may take years, or decades but it is so important, that the debate needs to
begin.
How long did it take to gain women's suffrage? How long to emancipate
African-Americans, and they are still not truly emancipated.
If I address this as a full commentary, I will go into the many ways money
corrupts, many of which are far from obvious.
But it isn't only money; it is the gerrymander. We need federal rules that
set the criteria for creating districts. Each with an equal population (within
say 2%) contiguous, without dividing subdivisions such as towns or counties and
providing that minorities be represented within (say 5%) of the population, and
that the lines be drawn by computer based on these criterion.
Of course, the filibuster must be abolished. It is ridiculous for us to be
told that the vote was, e.g. 59 in favor - 39 opposed - the bill is defeated.
Why do we have gridlock? It is the most important reason though there are
others. The rule about not attaching non-Germaine items to a bill needs to be
enforced.
Comments are
welcome and will be distributed with attribution unless the writer requests
that he/she not be identified.
Posts
