The Silence is Deafening

It has been more than a month since I posted and distributed my commentary "Racism Rears Its Ugly Head In The SCOTUS/The Sequester" where I suggested that the focus on preventing any changes to Social Security and Medicare might just be “the concerns of a predominately white middle class, who are more concerned with their entitlements, than with the effects on the most vulnerable.”

I concluded with “It is time to ask that question!!!”

I had hoped that in posing this challenging question, I would start a discussion of our priorities, but as my title exclaims "The Silence is Deafening."

I urge my readers (and I don’t know how many of the approximately 80 who indicated a desire to remain on my distribution list actually read my posts) to read or re-read my post: "Racism Rears Its Ugly Head In The SCOTUS/The Sequester" (click on the title) or the relevant portion, which you can find here and to express their views.

It is instructive that where at one time a main theme of Presidential campaigns was a concern for the poor, that is no longer a subject addressed. The poor vote in very small numbers. The middle class votes in large numbers. But that is precisely why the middle class, or at least the Liberal segment thereof, must represent the poor.

How much we should be concerned with the poor in our midst is illustrated in an article in the New Yorker entitled "Our Invisible Poor" and commented on in Smithsonian Magazine under the title "How a New Yorker Article Launched the First Shot in the War Against Poverty."

At the same time the New York Times reports in an article entitled "Growing Number Are Near Poverty" that in New York City "nearly half of the population (has fallen) into the ranks of the poor or near poor in 2011" but the problem gets scant attention as the Times Public Editor points out in a article about Times Coverage. See here. 

In the meantime the emphasis on raising the federal minimum wage is getting scant attention, even though the Campaign for America’s Future reports: “4.4 million Americans currently earn the federal minimum wage of $7.25, or less. 284,000 of them are college graduates. Worse, the minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. After adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage is lower than it was in 1956." 

But it seems that the only thing that matters is preventing any change to entitlements.

It is not as though we were protecting the original conception of Social Security. The number of times the Social Security Act has been amended is legion as can be seen from the listing shown here and here. Benefits paid in 1940 totaled $35 million. In 2009, $650 billion was paid out in Social Security benefits. It wasn’t until the 50’s and 60’s “that domestic labor, household employees working at least two days a week for the same person were added in 1950, along with nonprofit workers and the self-employed. Hotel workers, laundry workers, all agricultural workers, and state and local government employees were added in 1954.”

It wasn’t until 1972 that the average payment per month rose from $133 to $166 and the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) was instituted. See here.

The payroll tax as set forth in the original Social Security Act of 1935 was 2% (employee and employer combined). It is now 12.4% (employee and employer combined). That is an enormous burden on low wageworkers. Isn’t it time that we addressed this very burdensome regressive tax. See here. 

Don’t get me wrong!! I have no sympathy for the Republican/Ryan approach, which is to gut the program, and I think the President’s proposal for a chained CPI is wrong, for it reduces benefits on all recipients, including those who desperately need an increase in benefits.

According to the AARP nearly nine million older Americans are facing the threat of hunger; Over 20 million low-income people over 50 do not have adequate financial resources. Over 13 million older Americans cannot afford their housing costs. See here.

But people who have an adequate and even generous income from pensions, 401k savings and/ or investments or other income can accept lower benefits, and even none, so that the needs of those who truly need more can be addressed. The payroll tax on lower incomes must be reduced or even eliminated.

My proposal as set forth here is an attempt to at least start a conversation.

If I cannot trigger some thought, and/or some discussion, then I am wasting my time in writing these posts.

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

Racism Rears Its Ugly Head In The SCOTUS/The Sequester

The presently constituted Supreme Court has long been criticized for the very activism that was once directed at a more progressive Court, but never before has it given any cause to accuse it of overt racism.

To be sure Robert Bork was rejected for a position on the court in part because in a New Republic article he condemned “the public accommodation sections of the (then) proposed 1964 Civil Rights Act aimed at integrating restaurants, hotels and other businesses” because he “feared that government coercion of private behavior threatened freedom… (ignoring the fact that) restaurateurs were not legally permitted to reject service to well-behaved whites and that the new law intended simply to extend that principle to blacks.”

But this is the first time that a sitting judge has allowed his racist views to escape his lips. During argument on the Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Justice Scalia referred to Congress’ near-unanimous re-enactment of the act in 2006 as a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

Yes, the reader read that right. The right of US citizens to vote is, according to Scalia, a “racial entitlement” totally ignoring that the XIV Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And in Section 5 of that article: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Or does Scalia’s doctrine of “Originalism” deny the validity of its amendments.

But what causes him such concern is that the Act of Congress might interfere with “state sovereignty”, which are words not to be found in the Constitution.

But enough said about a Supreme Court justice who claims to be a close adherent to the Constitution.

The Sequester

This is a calamity that has me scratching my head.

It was not so long ago that my friends on the Left were clamoring for the President to allow the country to go over the fiscal cliff unless Republicans caved, and agreed to the President’s proposal that the Bush tax cuts be extended for all except those making over $250,000.

Or in Paul Krugman’s words: “So what should he do? Just say no, and go over the cliff if necessary… This time, nothing very bad will happen to the economy if agreement isn’t reached until a few weeks or even a few months into 2013.” And “No deal is better than a bad deal.”

And the headline on an article in the Atlantic dated November 21, 2012 screamed: “The Fiscal Cliff Is Not as Scary as You Think (but a Bad Deal Should Terrify You).”

But what would have been defined as a bad deal? Well Krugman, and many others define this as:  “where they must agree to large cuts to public investment and social insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security…”

So now we have what amounts to half the Fiscal Cliff. So if the Fiscal Cliff wasn’t so bad then surely the Sequester would be even less disastrous. What does Krugman say? He calls the Sequester “one of the worst policy ideas in our nation’s history.”

Now I happen to agree with Krugman on the Sequester. It is indeed one of the “worst policy ideas in our nation’s history”. It was designed to be! The theory having been that if this terrible idea was the alternative to a balanced approach, the balanced approach would win out. But this theory didn’t take into account the extent of the Republican commitment to protecting the rich and destroying everything that does not fully serve the interests of the rich.
So where does that leave us. Is preventing any changes to Social Security and Medicare really the most important thing on the planet? Certainly, the President should never agree to the Republican plan for these programs which amount to their abolition. But does it follow that all changes must be resisted as the many “liberal” organizations are urging? Or as the Campaign for America’s Future calls it; “the Grand Swindle.”

Whether we like it or not according to the Social Security Administration, in 1940 life expectancy for males (at age 65) was 12.7 years. In 1990 it was 15.3. As I said in my blog post entitled "The President’s re-election (More Discussion)," “I have nothing earlier or later, but if we go back to 1930 and forward to 2015 we can assume that it is double that, or 6 years. 

So an increase to 71 for males would be justified. Or we could consider changing it altogether, to kick in after 40 years of work. This would have the advantage that those who start work earlier, usually the under class, could draw earlier than those going to college, who earn more and are more advantaged. The figure for women as of 1940 are 14.7 and for 1990 19.6, so at the risk of being sexist, it might make sense to have an older eligibility age for women than for men.” but none of my readers thought this worthy of comment and one in fact asked where I got these ridiculous statistics.

But the Social Security Administration isn’t the only source for life expectancy figures. According to the broker Fidelity “In 1935, when the Social Security Administration was founded, the average life expectancy was about 62 years. Today's average life expectancy is over 78 years.”

I am familiar with the argument that blue collar worker’s have a shorter life expectancy than the more affluent, but that is precisely why I think changes along the lines outlined above should be considered. But I would go further. The payroll tax is 6.2 percent on income under $113,700 and an additional 6.2 percent on the employer. That is a bearable tax on middle and upper-income earners, but it is a devastating tax for those making little, and those earning the minimum wage, which at present is nationally $7.25 an hour, or just over $15,000 a year. Many don’t even make the minimum wage. Isn’t it time that we removed this onerous tax from these people, and all those making under $30,000 or even $50,000 and made it, like the income tax, a graduated tax.

Of course the money would have to be made up by such devices, among others, as raising the eligibility age, removing the cap for the tax, increasing the tax on the affluent, taxing those who have other income, e.g. above $100,000, so that they would in effect get no benefits and possibly increasing the benefits for those having no, or little, other income.
These are not reforms that would bring joy to the Right, and therefor are not tenable at this time, but it isn’t time for a conversation, instead of the cry “no changes."

And may not some of the damage done by the sequester be even worse then being flexible on entitlements? For example, according to the White House, the effect of the sequester, just in the Washington area, would mean, “About 2,000 poor children would lose access to early education. In the area of public health, less funding would mean 31,400 fewer HIV tests and thousands of children may not get necessary vaccines in Georgia."
Is there less concern about these effects then about entitlements because these sequester effects would have less impact on the Middle Class? Are the concerns so heavily weighted about entitlements, the concerns of a predominately White Middle class, who are more concerned with their entitlements, than with the effects on the most vulnerable.

It is time to ask that question!!!

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.

The Real Battles Are Between Elections

I find it amazing how much the media, and as a result, the general public, focuses on the Presidential elections to the detriment of other events, and how much issues are defined between elections, as well as by the outcomes of so-called off year elections to the Congress, and in state elections.

We have just had a Presidential election and speculation has already started as to who the candidates for President might be four years hence.

Yet what was noteworthy in the just-concluded Presidential election was the extent to which issues were defined before the campaign started. I don’t want to attempt here to catalogue the issues that were, or were not discussed, but to illustrate the point by mentioning some.

We had three debates between the major candidates, yet neither Global Warming (possibly better called Climate Change) nor the carnage of our youth in our inner cities ever came up.

Climate Change did come to the fore toward the end of the campaign because of the devastation of storm Sandy, and guns came to the public’s consciousness and entered the political lexicon after the election as a result of the wanton killing of 20 children (and seven adults) in a suburban town in Connecticut, but even now the atmosphere that has been created by the very profitable and free-spending gun manufacturers, makes it incumbent for our President and others to proclaim their adherence to, and support of, the second Amendment, and for our President to show how he too loves guns by publishing a photo showing him with a gun.

But what of the second amendment? As recently as 1939 the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that restrictions on the possession of certain types of shotguns did not violate the Constitution because it has no “reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

So how did we get from there to here? It was not as a result of any election, or the debate or discussion during any election. It was through large expenditures in propaganda by the gun manufacturers, who after taking over the NRA, which used to be a non-political sporting association, used it as a front to propagandize the issue and eventually to intimidate law makers by huge expenditures in opposition to those who did not adhere to their agenda. But this was done over many years, in between elections, and in by-elections, until a bare majority of the Supreme Court  (the usual 5 to 4) in the Heller case accepted the position of the gun manufacturers.

At the same time, the media, as is their wont, misrepresented the views of the public by giving the impression that most Americans were rushing out to buy guns, when, in fact, a small minority were buying many guns, or as Reuters reported: 

“Even as gun purchases rise, the share of U.S. households with a gun has been falling for decades, from 54 percent in 1977 to 32 percent in 2010, according to the University of Chicago's General Social Survey.”

But what else has been going on between elections? One of the things I noticed between elections was that whenever a discussion of increasing inheritance taxes came up, the radio station to which I frequently listened, had a huge up-tick in ads offering counseling for estate planning, which most listeners would not have needed since few had enough assets to be effected by such increases, but which gave the impression that most were likely to be effected. The ads intended to seem non-political, in fact seemed clearly to have that purpose.

And what about the slogans that are so carefully crafted and repeated over and over between elections?

We don’t tax too little; We spend too much.

We want the economy, not the government to grow.

Generational Theft (What greater generational theft can there be then to leave future generations a world of hurricanes, typhoons, rising water levels, forest fires, and tsunamis, or a lack in education, or in infrastructure?)

We are Pro-Life! (Who wouldn’t be) and how does that match up against being “Pro Choice”.

Support the troops!

Cut and run!

Tax and Spend!

These aren’t just slogans during an election. They are repeated over and over again between elections, and they determine how issues are defined and discussed during elections.

In the Presidential “debates” there is an effort to avoid any real discussion. Here is how the Commission on Presidential Debates said the 2012 Presidential debates would be moderated:

“The first debate will focus on domestic policy…The moderator will ask a question, and each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond.”

 “The second presidential debate will be a town-hall style meeting. Voters will be allowed to ask questions directly of each candidate…Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond.”

 “The format for the third presidential debate will be identical to that of the first presidential debate.”

It should be noted that the candidates cannot even decide on the topics they want to address, and does anybody really think that an enlightening answer can be given in two minutes. Is it any wonder that we have the focus on who scowled, who invaded the others space, or who looked at his watch.

And then the media lauds the small state caucuses that are so important in deciding who gets nominated. Not only does this mean that a small percentage of a small population, has an outsize voice, but these people, according to the media, don’t decide whom to vote for until they have shook their hands. Boy, that really tells us what the candidate stands for!!! Or as the website for New Hampshire lauds its state: “Shake hands with as many Presidential Candidates as possible.”

And then there is the argument that the best government is the one closest to the people. That is supposed to mean that the state government is better than the Federal, the town or village government is better than the state, etc. But what it really means is that the smaller the jurisdiction the fewer people vote, the less information on the candidates and the issues is available, and very few even know who represents them. But that according to these avatars of the Right that is what is best for us. Government closest to the people indeed!!

But the fact is that while we are celebrating the re-election of Obama we have already forgotten the shellacking Democrats took only two years ago. To be sure gerrymandering played a role in the fact that even though Democrats won one million more votes than Republicans in the total votes for House seats, an even greater factor was the turnout was far, far smaller in the “off year election” than in the Presidential one, and there is the rub. Unless we can get people to turn out in the off year elections and in the State governors elections and in the state legislative elections, getting the turnout in the Presidential election will never, never be enough.

Finally, we need run off elections. No country in Europe, or in most of the world, would let a candidates win by less than a majority. It is doubtful that Senator Marco Rubio, who is being touted as the Republican savior, (God only knows why) would have won his seat if there had been a run-off. He won with 49% of the vote, with former Gov. Charlie Crist garnering 30% and Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek polling 20%. It is highly likely that if there had been a runoff that Meek’s vote would have gone to Crist, and Rubio, who was rated by the Koch Brothers-financed group Americans For Prosperity as the “only perfect senator,” would have lost.

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.

Reality Check (Further Discussion)

On February 7th I posted "Reality Check!! (Discussion)" to my blog and it was distributed to subscribers that evening. In that post I first set forth my exchange on that topic with Albert Nekimken PhD of Vienna, Virginia, but in the second portion presented an exchange with Mike Cerrato Esq. of Westville, New Jersey. That exchange continued, but was not posted promptly because I felt the need to address "The President’s Second Inaugural Address." Both posts can easily be accesses by double clicking on their titles shown in bold above.

Now I would like to share with my readers the concluding portions of my discussion with Mike Cerrato. Mike wrote:

OOOH, you are making me think about this stuff. That hurts! 

I guess we are going in the same direction, but from slightly differing directions. Of course, I cannot disagree that the reality of what I will call capitalistic opportunism does not in any way come close to the horrors of slavery, I don't believe the mindsets of the opportunists are all that different than the slaveholders. The only difference is, I fear, degree. Only a little over a century separate us from the days when the chains were all too real to today, when they consist of those created by self-appointed masters of the universe who have constructed their more-figurative chains through the crony capitalist-supporting legal and economic systems which enable them to grab most of the pie while forcing the rest of us to fight over the scraps they allow to fall off the table. I cannot help but believe that, had today's robber barons been born in 1860 below the Mason-Dixon line, they would have been all too happy to own a few other human beings. 

I wholeheartedly agree with you, however, about the need to "balance the system."

My response is set forth below:

Thanks, for that compliment. If I can make my readers think, that is far more important than having them agree.

It is second only to giving them facts that they did not possess, and if in the process I slay a few myths, then I am having a very good day.

I am afraid that you are decrying the nature of the beast. Man, or should I say Homo Sapiens, to make sure the female is not overlooked, is and always has been a selfish species. It is the argument against Democracy, which is often referred to as the rule of the mob. It is why our founders created a Republic, and not a Democracy. They were a bunch of aristocrats, who didn't trust the people. That is why the President was to be chosen by electors, rather than the people. Why Senators to be chosen by state legislators and not by direct suffrage. The vote restricted to male property owners and not to others.

Over time we became a Democracy. Still an imperfect one, but a Democracy nevertheless. Many on the Right would like us to return to the Republic of our forefathers. Would our plutocrats of today enslave us if they could? I don't know? Certainly some would! Most I think not. It is irrelevant.

Homo Sapiens are what he/she are, and we have no control over that. It is only what system we employ that we can control.

You appear to be attacking the Capitalist system in all its forms. To that I say the same as I say about Democracy. About that I quote Winston Churchill, "It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

I have to say the same about Capitalism. It too is the worst form of an economic system except for all the others that have been tried.

Today every country that has any kind of successful economic system has a free enterprise system including, "Communist" China. The only variations are the degree to which the system is regulated and the extent to which the state has a hand on the tiller. Where socialist systems have been tried they have failed. We don't have to look at the usual straw men systems such as the Soviet Union to see that. The Labor Party in Britain kept nationalizing the economy every time they came to power. It didn't work. They gave it up.

There are very few instances of managed economies left in the world and they are all failing their people. Venezuela is a prime example. Well meaning, but a disaster. Uganda? Cuba? Well we can make excuses for Cuba because of our economic boycott, but the rest of the world trades with them. I don't think their failures, and I recognize they have some successes, such as good health care, can be blamed entirely on the US.

I am a lawyer like you, only I practiced on the international scene. I remember when India was a Socialist country anxious to keep out foreign capital. It didn't work.

What makes Capitalism work is the very fact that people are essentially selfish. We can't change that! We can only devise a system that takes advantage of that inherent trait.

Like sports, it depends on competition. Like sports, it needs rules, so that mere muscle and unrestrained power does not carry the day. Like sports it needs referees to see that the rules are enforced. Without these rules and the referees it becomes a fixed sport known as crony capitalism.

That is where the battle lies. We fight about the rules and their enforcement and leveling the playing field. To make, as I have said, false equivalencies about good and evil, and the inherent greed of homo sapiens, brings us no nearer to a juster society (and I will not speak of a just society, because there is no such thing). We strive, and the struggle endures; it never ceases. That is what it is all about!

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. 

The President’s Second Inaugural Address

I find the reaction to the President’s Second Inaugural Address both surprising and puzzling.

Republican Speaker John Boehner in a speech to the Ripon Society following the President’s speech said:

Given what we heard yesterday about the president’s vision for his second term, it’s pretty clear to me that he knows he can’t do any of that as long as the House is controlled by Republicans… So we’re expecting over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration as they attempt to annihilate the Republican Party. And let me just tell you, I do believe that is their goal — to just shove us into the dustbin of history. (Emphasis added)

Wow! Was it really that radical?

Paul Ryan, the Republican Chairman of the House Budget Committee and the architect of the Republican budgets declared on Meet the Press that:

[what] you saw his speech, say, at the inauguration, it leads us to conclude that he’s not looking to moderate, that he’s not looking to move to the middle…He’s looking to go farther to the left, and he wants to fight us every step of the way politically…

And Mitch McConnell the leader of Senate Republicans declared: 

One thing is clear from the president’s speech: The era of liberalism is back. His unabashedly far-left-of-center inaugural speech certainly brings back memories of the Democratic Party in ages past. If the President pursued that kind of agenda, obviously it’s not designed to bring us together, and certainly not designed to deal with the transcendent issue of our era, which is deficits and debt.

So let us look at the President’s speech and parse it: 

The text can be found here.

“Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.”

Radical? Can even these avatars of the Right challenge this?

Well, the President goes on to say:

“For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.”

This may not be all that much to their liking but can they, or for that matter anyone, question it?

“For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.”

Well, that may not suit them all that well, but do they really want to challenge this. It sure wouldn’t be a popular thing to do.

“We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures…”

Republicans have long urged revamping our tax code. Surely they are in favor of remaking our government. What is radical here?

“We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.”

This sounds like something right out of their playbook. What is their problem?

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

Ah! Radical! Republicans have long insisted (well, maybe not so long) that there is no “Climate Change” and if there is, it is not man made. So is this the radical stuff that upsets them so?

When John McCain was the Republican standard-bearer against the President in 2008 he said he would combat global warming with a cap-and-trade system to cut carbon emissions and increase use of nuclear power and alternative energy. Here is how the Seattle Times reported on McCain’s position.

“In a major environmental speech, Sen. John McCain on Monday said he would combat global warming with a cap-and-trade system to cut carbon emissions and increase use of nuclear power and alternative energy.”

Obama went on to say:

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law…”

Well, this may be radical, but we know that more and more of the American people share this believe, and particularly our young people do. Are Republicans really ready to write off the views of future generations?

“No citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.”

Republicans have been very busy suppressing the vote, but surely they will not come right out and declare themselves against this principle.

“Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”

At a time when Republicans are rushing to show there willingness to reform our immigration laws and open a way to legalization of the 11 million in our midst, do they really want to declare this a radical idea?

“Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.”

Is this a radical idea? Are Republicans, whether they are against an assault weapons ban, or against better background checks, or any other measures to stem the daily slaughter of our citizens in our cities and towns, willing to stand against this proposition? Is it truly radical?

And what about a ban on assault weapons?

Here is what Ronald Reagan, their claimed icon, wrote in a joint letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter in 1994 to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assault weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime. 

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47. 

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon. 

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

And in 1991 Ronald Reagan wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times endorsing the Brady Bill.

So what is so radical about the President’s vision as set forth in his inaugural? John Harwood writing in the New York Times states what I think should be obvious.

For all the talk that President Obama has shifted leftward, much of his early second-term energy seeks simply to preserve the status quo.

It is not the President who is the radical. It is the new Republican Party that is the radical party, seeking to push this country back to the days of President McKinley, or possibly even, in some ways, to an Antebellum period, as we once again hear the cries of secession from their Texas Republican governor, and theories of states rights that we long thought had been put to rest by the Civil War and the 14^th amendment.

The Republican Party is at a crossroad. Do they have their eyes on the future, or as David Frum, the former speechwriter for George W. Bush, has worried:

We Republicans may console ourselves that we did win two big victories in the recent past, 1994 and 2010. But those were off-year elections, when 60 percent of America stays home, and those who do turn out are the wealthier, the older, and the whiter. Exit polls indicate that 34 percent of the 2010 electorate was over age 60; in 2012, only 15 percent of voters were older than 65. The Republican success in those elections only underscores the bigger problem: the GOP is rapidly becoming the party of yesterday’s America.

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.

Reality Check!! (Discussion)

I posted my last commentary on February 4, 2013. For those who may want to re-read it, it can be found by double clicking on its title "Reality Check!!"

I received two comments in response thereto both of which led to exchanges. I want to share these with you.

The first came from Albert Nekimken PhD of Vienna, Virginia, whose reaction to my post was as follows:

Your skewering of Jindal was delicious and absolutely on target. Regarding the prospect of millions of new Hispanic voters, I was surprised that you didn't even mention the recent vote in Puerto Rico in favor of statehood. How long can Republicans ignore this fervent plea to join the Union (and add Democratic votes in Congress…)? 

As for gerrymandering of House districts, I continue to believe strongly that the only way to solve this is to amend the Constitution so that ALL members of the House are elected by a national constituency, as is the president. The current system is hopelessly anachronistic and, as you describe cogently, thoroughly sabotaged. A national constituency would have the corollary benefits of diluting the effectiveness of lobbyists and narrowly directed PAC money. It would force the creation of multiparty, national governing coalitions. 

Beyond that, you are absolutely correct in sounding the alarm regarding GOP efforts to change the electoral college system, which--whatever its faults--seems to be working as intended at present.

My response follows:

Not all agree that there is a fervent plea on the part of Puerto Ricans to join the union. See here. 

Quoting from CNN:

"In response to the second question, which asked voters to select an alternative, 61% of those who cast ballots chose statehood, but more than 480,000 people abstained from voting on that question.

They could have voted for statehood, if they had really supported it," said Maria de Lourdes Santiago, senator-elect for the Puerto Rican Independence Party, which supports the island becoming its own sovereign republic. "When you combine all the votes, statehood doesn't appear as the true winner in the second question about non-colonial options."

But it is irrelevant. Congress will never allow it. You may remember that when statehood for Hawaii and for Alaska was being considered it only became possible because one was considered Democratic and the other Republican. Without a balance it is not possible.

As for gerrymandering the solution does not require a Constitutional Amendment, and I think that your national House is neither a good nor a viable solution. The Solution lies in the Supreme Court striking it down as a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

In VIETH V. JUBELIRER the Court would not intervene because they could not agree on a suitable standard. But that is not needed. They don't have to agree what would be legal, only what is not. I think this is an issue where Kennedy could be won over and we might have the practice stopped.

A national House constituency runs in the face that smaller units need to be represented, something I agree with.

But I would favor doing away with mid-term elections. Let the House and the Senate be elected every four year to coincide with Presidential elections. Less time spent campaigning and raising money, and a larger and more representative electorate. If possible, state elections should be held at the same time too.

I do not favor multi-parties. They confuse the issues. 

Another comment came from Mike Cerrato Esq. of Westville, New Jersey, who opined:

I've gotten over their having founded their economic system on slavery several hundred years ago (after all, up until that time, everyone was doing it or had done it in the past) I just wish they'd stop trying to REINSTATE it for EVERYONE not earning over a half million dollars/year! But, then again, I always was a wild-eyed idealist.

This drew the following rebuttal from me:

I would not consider slavery as being an integral part of the founding of our nation as being relevant today, were it not for the fact that its influence pervades our culture to this day.

As for "until that time, everyone was doing it" is not accurate. Take a look here and you will see that the US was very late in abolishing it, as compared to most of the world, and no where else did it require a bloody war, to end it. As late as 1850 the US Congress passed the Fugitive slave law, and as late as 1857, the Supreme Court decided the Federal Government did not have the power to regulate slavery within the territories.

But the important point is that race has never ceased to be a major factor in our body politic. It did not stop being a factor even after the Civil Rights movement of the '60s and remains a major factor to this day, as I will discuss in a future post. This is a factor quite apart from the economic class warfare being waged against the middle and lower classes.

Which in turn drew these further remarks:

I don't know about it being "quite apart" from what is going on today. Oh, the suits are nicer, and the words more polished (i.e., "Right to work"), but it still boils down to a bunch of people who still think that it is right to steal another’s' labor, or at least get it as cheaply as possible and morality be damned as long as it gives us "Always low prices." As for the history you cite, all I can say is "American exceptionalism" indeed! As always, thanks for some enlightening information.

Drawing an extensive surrebuttal from me, as follows:

Here I must again take exception. Lower prices are as much a boon to those with little, as higher income. If there were a direct relationship between lower wages and lower prices, it might have some justification. Occasionally there is, but most of the time, lower compensation leads to more profits, which goes mostly to those who already have too much. But I have no quarrel with the Capitalist system that creates these motives, or with the people who take advantage of the system. 

           

I must caution against false equivalence. A system that tries to keep labor costs low is not in any way equivalent to slavery, and we serve both concerns poorly when we make such a false equivalence.

           

All I want is for the government to play its role in balancing the system. A fair minimum wage adjusted to inflation. A fair system of taxation where we get enough revenue from those who can afford it, so that government can meet the needs of the nation and promulgate regulations to protect the consumer, the worker, and the environment, while making sure the nation has the infrastructure and the educational system that keeps it competitive into the future.

           

It is indeed generational theft when we do not do the things that will make us competitive in the future, and destroy the environment in which future generations will be living.

           

But race is different. There is no profit motive when we incarcerate people of color for doing what white people do with impunity, or deny them the right to vote. That is innate to people needing to feel superior, when they have no other basis for it than color.

           

Note how our immigration laws have always, and continue to discriminate against people we deem inferior, whether first Chinese, then people of Eastern and Southern European descent, and now people from the South of us.

           

We, as a nation, suffer from a terrible case of xenophobia and fail to deal with our problems with cries of exceptionalism, which leads to a refusal to recognize our failures and to remedy them.

           

What has made this nation an exceptional one was our creation of a strong middle class, and an educational system that was second to none. This is not the fist time we have temporarily lost our way. We have always managed to right ourselves, often through sheer luck, such as when the reactionary McKinley died and the Reformist VP Teddy Roosevelt ascended to the Presidency. This ushered in a reformist era, when the Republican Roosevelt was followed by the Reformist, though racist Woodrow Wilson, though with the Taft hiatus. We then had the dark days of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, only for the pendulum to swing the other way with Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and would have continued in this vein if the Left foolishly had not turned on Humphrey, prolonging the Vietnam war by eight years, by ushering in Nixon, whose policies, domestically, really weren't so bad, but who with his Southern strategy, based on race, ushered in the Reagan era, which we are only now recovering from, albeit with great resistance.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but will not be distributed, because events are moving too fast and my posts need to keep up.