A shift in social attitudes

The campaign from the right tried to make the 2012 Presidential election a repudiation of President Obama’s economy.  The message was; there isn’t enough job growth, the economy is sluggish and the deficit is too high.  Many voters did buy into this message.  The electorate clearly moved to the right in this election. 

Most Americas it appears are fiscal conservatives.  In the past, when the economy was slow or sluggish, the incumbent faced certain defeat.  Votes may want their religion and their guns, but what they really want is a job and a future for their children.  There is nothing wrong with that.  After all, the thinking goes, without a healthy economy it may all be for naught.

With the blind confidence that the right’s strategy to focus on the economy was the correct one, many thought the voters wouldn’t notice the other ideas that the right would bring quietly with them to their elected posts.  But, those Republicans who could not be controlled by their party came out of the woodwork.  (Maybe a better word than “woodwork” might be “cave”.)  Most of the ideas from the most extreme Republicans were talking points from a century ago.  Birth control, rape, abortion, race, the rejection of gay rights, the role of government (or lack thereof) and many other old, tired ideas.  While the generation that came from those times may have been happy to talk about them, those from the last two generations rolled their eyes.

With an economy portrayed as being bad and an electorate that shifted to the right (actually, more like a shift to the center) should have been enough.  But, the social positions that the right holds so dearly brought it all back to focus.  It turned enough voters back in support of Obama. 

This represents a fundamental change in the social attitudes of the country, as slight as it may be.  In this election cyle, a president with a liberal social agenda won in what was portrayed as a sluggish economy.  Perhaps as many as four states (three for sure) supported marriage equity.  The voters want the financial reforms that came out of the crisis to stay in place.  They supported the continuation of the health care reform.  The right to choose will be left in place.  Gay rights will be supported by more and more people.  Also, many other ideas from the last two generations will now become accepted as part of a new life of freedom and security in the country.

If the Republicans continue with their current track of holding on to old social ideas they will soon be obscure.  But, if they change they may have a chance.  That of course, in the irony of the times, is actually what they are fighting against.

Gay marriage and dire predictions

Barack Obama has become the first President of the United States that supports gay marriage.  In an interview broadcast on the Today show, President Obama said he personally supports same sex marriage.  It ends a long weekend of speculation after Vice-President Biden said he was comfortable with it.  It also ends a long period of time when the President said he was conflicted about the issue.

There are now statements claiming that America is falling off a cliff and moving quickly down the road of moral degradation.  Similar claims were made when Abraham Lincoln ended slavery.  When Woodrow Wilson came out in support of giving the right to vote to women, more dire prediction where made.  In 1968 when the Supreme Court struck down keeping the races from marriage, it was said to be the end of civilization as we knew it.  But, the world didn’t end and debate soon dried up because of the terrible logic of those supporting the status quo. 

Now the national debate can happen again.  People will have to make choices about perhaps one the nation’s last codified discrimination policies.  There are two arguments over the last couple of days that have come to front and center on the issue. 

First, it is a moral issue.  Many religions think of marriage as only between a man and a woman.  The push to get amendments written into states’ constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman is based on moralists trying to use a community’s laws to up hold their own moral code.  This is not the purpose of law or community.  The purpose of any community is shared responsibility and to build a safe environment.  Communities should address issues that prevent activity that endangers the safety of an individual.  If the community has no compelling reason other than morality to prevent an activity, then it should not be prevented.  Marriage equity doesn’t harm anyone, so it should not be prevented. 

The other is a more fundamental reason for the fear and loathing about same sex marriage, children.  While not often talked about because of its stealth nature, it is now beginning to rise to the surface.  After Obama’s statement, religious leaders on TV talk shows mentioned the issue to grab the fear of people that are undecided about the issue.  Moralists are concerned that by allowing same sex marriage, the couple will adopt children and advance the “gay cause” by increasing the amount of gay people.  They believe that by a gay couple living the lifestyle it will teach others how to be gay.  Besides the fact that there is no evidence that being gay is a choice, children will not be harmed.  They will find themselves in a situation just like their friends that have duel sex marriage.  That as long as the children know they are loved, they are safe and they are expected to succeed, they will be just fine. 

On a final point, how can the community prevent something that is legal (and doesn’t harm anyone as mentioned above)?  If it were illegal to participate in a same sex relationship, it might be argued that same sex marriage should be illegal.  A ruling by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v Texas judged that laws prohibiting sex between consenting same sex couples is in violation of the Fourteenth amendment.  So, it is not illegal activity.

The President did the right thing to come out in support of gay marriage.  Like all the other times that we have broken with tradition, when we move pass this storm, we will find that no great harm will come to past. 

Our country is enjoying a little bit more freedom today.  Let’s allow it to grow. 
-----

CEO of GM talks about the government investment in GM

The saving of the Detroit auto industry is a popular thing to talk about during this election cycle.  President Barak Obama was instrumental in engineering the structured bankruptcy and the investment in the industry that was needed.  Mitt Romney, the son of an auto executive, said he would have allowed them to crash.

Even hindsight can’t tell us if the dire prediction about the failure of the auto industry would have ever come true.  But, a threat of some kind was there.  It is too easy to say that they should have allowed the industry to fail because new industry would have risen from the crumbling empty auto plants.  Even if one did, how long would it have been before the benefits of the market failure would have worked its “magic?”

The truth is, in practical terms the auto industry is alive, improving and perhaps in the best condition it has been in decades.

Dan Ackerson, CEO of GM, in an interview with The Take Away’s Celeste Headlee, points out that this wasn’t the first time the country has saved an industry and that the benefits were much more far ranging in practical terms.  Ackerson is a Republican.  As a Republican, he is not likely to give an interview in support of something that a president and congress from the other party did in an election year if he didn’t think it was an important thing to do.

Let’s read what Ackerson had to say about the investment we made in the auto industry.

Dan Ackerson -”This is not the first time that the American government has injected themselves into the American economy. If I asked you, who [was] the biggest owner of commercial property in the United States 1990s, you wouldn't say the United States, but it was. [During] the Savings and Loans crisis, [the U.S.] [pumped] in $394 billion dollars. Call it around $400 billion dollars.  Not $50.  $400 billion.

“So it's not unusual to see governments for a short period of time, inject themselves into a marketplace to stabilize it.  The analogy I like to make, you remember last year when Joplin, Missouri had the terrible tornado or Katrina [in Louisiana], it's in the basic DNA of Americans [that] we don't walk to help our fellow citizens, we sprint.  This part of the country, the arsenal of democracy saved this country in many respects along with many soldiers, marines, coast guard's men.  But it built the arsenal that saved Western Democracies.”

During the world wars in the last century, it was the heavy industry that we had on our home turf and owned by United States companies that built the machinery to defend ourselves and our allies.  Without that heavy industry already in place, it is hard to image that we would have been able to build all the factories needed before we built one tank in time to make a difference.  As another example, during the early part of the last century, the shipbuilding industry was in the same situation as the auto industry was during the last few years.  The United States stepped in to save it because of the importance of having the ability to build on our own shores.  Can you image the need to build heavy equipment in times of a crisis and expecting Honda of Ohio and the other foreign auto companies in Georgia to do the building?  What would happen if we went to war with the home countries of those companies?

Ackerson continues - “[After World War II] what did we do[?]  In the interest of international economy, international trade, we lowered our trade barriers.  We lowered them in Japan, we lowered them in Germany, our mortal enemies.  And they built export economies to the detriment of this part of the country.  It didn't happen overnight with a hurricane or tornado: It happened over 30 years.  So a million jobs were saved, that's what I say.  $150 billion it's been reported in terms of total tax revenues that would've gone by the boards had the company not been saved.”

That doesn’t include the increase in taxes on surviving companies to pay for the unemployment benefits that would have been paid on those that lost their jobs.  Instead, as Ackerson says, many auto workers didn’t lose their jobs and are still paying taxes.

Ackerson - “And all the supply chain that would've gone with us.  And then if you back off and you say, at the time we went under, or we went into bankruptcy, we had about a $25 billion pension deficit.  But think back if we'd gone into bankruptcy and liquidated in '09.  That $25 billion would've gone into the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation) which is government sponsored.  Footnote to that comment is, $25 billion would've bankrupted PBGC.  And whose dime would that've been on?  It'd have been on the taxpayer’s dime.  That's never in the calculus.”

It might be said that if we hadn't backed the PBGC, we wouldn’t have had the problem with the pension deficit bankrupting the system.  But, then there would have been no pension money for all those currently retired and those that have worked for many years depending on the pension fund.

As for finding private money to invest in GM, Ackerson also addresses that issue. Ackerson at the time GM was going through its problems was managing private equity money for investors.  This is what he has to say about finding private money.

Ackerson – “So when people say, it should've been saved in another way, it should've gone through a bankruptcy, controlled bankruptcy.  I was in private equity.  I was managing many buyouts, where you do a big buyout of corporations with a portfolio of $50-$100 billion.  There was no way you could've gotten me to put a billion dollars into this thing without the restructuring that was really mandated by the government.

“So, you know I know this is a political year and everybody wants to argue for tactical and political advantage.  Again, I don't have the luxury to do that.  I'm not making a political statement.  I would say, let's be pragmatic about it: It worked.

Finally, Ackerson says, “I think the government does have an obligation to step up and help its people.  This wasn't a giveaway.  It was an investment.  It was an investment from the American people.”

Communities are not a separate entity from the people that live in them.  They are not there to just police the streets and facilitate common services.  Communities form for the safety net and security that they provide.

Thank you, Mr. Ackerson.  Your words represent the best of a Responsible Community.
-----

The price of gas and our oil addiction

The nation sometimes reminds me of a man I knew many years ago.  He smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for most of his adult life – if adulthood starts at 16 when he said he started smoking.  At 65, wheezing and dizzy, he went to the doctor and said, fix me.  The doctor prescribed a bunch of medicine that he promptly retrieved from the local pharmacy.  He then went home, took the medicine which helped him breathe easier.  But, he just continued to smoke.  He died a few years later.

America is moving in the same direction when it comes to the gasoline driven society we live in.  Gas prices are on the rise and everyone is upset.  (I am also affected because my job requires me to drive from business to business all day long.)  Recent polls illustrates that we are changing our political allegiance based on the rising prices.  We think that Obama has done little to keep gas cheap and think the republicans will do a better job.      

All of that is going on while we do nothing about our addiction to oil. 

The price of gas is driven up by conditions around the globe that we can’t control.  Syria is in a deep crisis.  Israel and the people of the Gaza strip are throwing bombs back and forth over their borders.  Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and it could spark even more violence.  The revolutions in North African countries have destabilized the entire region.  China has grown so large economically that its demand for oil is increasing dramatically.  All of this is placing pressure on sources of crude and supply lines.   

Making it worse is that we have no alternatives.  Our communities are designed to have a car for every person.  Mass transit, especially here in southeast Michigan, is dismal.  To develop the needed alternatives, we need investment.  But, it isn’t coming because the price of gas is staying below the threshold to bring more money into the alternative fuel markets. 

If we just bring down the price of gas, which I am not sure we can anymore, it would be all better.  We can drive our cars a little longer and die.

Many of the most conservative politicians are suggesting that we drill for more oil here at home suggesting that it will bring down the price of gas.  But, sources tell us that we are.  More oil is being developed in the country than ever before, yet prices are still high.  Listen, just because we drill for oil here, it doesn’t mean oil companies will pass on the savings.  Even if it is cheaper because we produced it here, doesn’t mean they will sell it for less than the market price just like all the other sources do. 

Dare I say this, what we need to do is both let the market price of oil rise and encourage investment in alternative fuels.  Even though I drive all day long, oil prices need to rise.  Once the price threshold for alternative fuels is reached and sustained, new sources and markets will develop.

But, we also need to be prepared at the threshold price to move quickly to alternative fuels and markets.  The community must encourage investment in alternative fuels and develop other forms of transportation.  If we don’t, there will be a crisis.  Gas lines will be back, shortages will hurt third world economies and unemployment will rise again.  Economies and communities that find themselves in crisis mode risk failure and war with those communities that share their desire for the scarce resource.      

Successful communities innovate, not when they find themselves in crisis, but ahead of the crisis.  We need to take an honest look at our oil addiction and the market so we can move in a direction that averts crisis and places us on a path to a more secure future.

I just wish the man at the beginning of this blog had.  He was my grandfather and I could have had many more years with him in my life.

Where is the outrage for religious freedom?

It was announced about a week ago that a Quran was burned at a United States military base.  Reports vary why it was burned.  Some reports say it was a mistake.  Others have said because it had militant notes in it.  While this may be an overused phrase, I have to wonder – where is the outrage about respecting religion?

The Republican presidential candidates where so upset when President Obama made it a requirement that churches and other religious organizations had to provide health care coverage for birth control.  Obama did this, even though, most of the religious organizations objected to the requirement because it was against their religious beliefs.  Romney, Santorum and others (who are those other guys?) charged that Obama was waging war on religion.

In an earlier Responsible Community blog, it was noted that many times in the history of the United States, we have curtailed a religious right to uphold a legitimate need of the community.  The Old Order Amish have to pay social security tax.  The Mormon’s can’t marry more than one wife at a time.  Even Native Americans can’t use peyote in their religious ceremonies and still expect to receive unemployment compensation if they are fired from their job because of its use. 

There was no outrage for any of those situations. 

Now, all these years after 9-11, we should have learned that Muslims don’t believe in destroying their holy book.  (We have learned it but for some reason we just don’t think it important.)  Military leaders at the base decided to burn the Quran despite this knowledge.  The book could have been shipped somewhere for safe keeping.  It could have been turned over to friendly groups.  There are a lot of things that they could have done that didn’t violate Islam. But, they didn’t.

So, where is the outrage for this religious belief? 

The Islamic groups that are violently protesting the burning are wrong.  There is no reason that anyone should be harmed or property lost because at the very least, the United States military made a mistake.  But, there is no reason that the Islamic groups and the presidential hopefuls should not be peacefully voicing their strong opposition to this action. 

If everyone truly believes in the Freedom of Religion, then they should.  All it does is show the hypocrisy of the presidential hopefuls (including Obama). 

-----

Institutional rights don't trump individual rights

In a speech to supporters in Colorado, presidential candidate Mitt Romney blasted President Barack Obama over his administration’s decision to force religious organizations to provide birth control pills and other related drugs in the health plans they offer. The Catholic Church doesn’t believe that the use of birth control is moral. Other Christian organizations and churches believe the use of most birth control pills is actually abortion. The religious organizations believe that by offering the drugs in the health plan they are supporting an immoral act.

Romney says that if he was president, he would allow the exemption on religious grounds. In the speech he accused Obama of restricting religious freedom. While Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he tried to exempt religious institutions from providing the drugs in the health care mandate in the state. But, the legislature overruled his policy.

Romney is making the choice between an institution (that does have deep religious concerns with birth control) and the individual’s right to make those choices. His belief is that groups, in this case the Catholic Church, are equal in status with individuals. Keep in mind, Romney is the same man that said corporations are people too.

A pillar of conservatism is that the individual holds all the power and the responsibly. It is the individual’s choices that determine his responsibility. Apparently, that is true up to the point that the individual is covered under a health plan.

By allowing the Catholic Church to be exempt from offering birth control in their health plan, it limits the individual's choice and personal freedom. Just because the church provide the drugs doesn’t mean they are suggesting anyone should use them. The church can use their freedom of speech to express their concerns about birth control.

If it was allowed, it could create many other divisions, not even just in the birth control issue. Should a church have health insurance policies rewritten that restrict what clinics, hospitals and doctors can receive payments from the health plan because they offer birth control and abortion? This, even though the health of the woman may dictate that she goes to one of them?

President Obama made the right decision on the birth control issues. The individual’s right to make choices must be greater than the group’s ability to control those choices.

-----

You don't have to be a birther to believe in presenting proof

Let’s hope that Obama’s release of the “long version” of his actual birth certificate puts an end to the drama about Obama’s right to hold the office of President.

The Responsible Community never thought for a moment that Obama wasn’t a naturally born citizen. The campaign released documents that supported it. But more than that, someone in the adversarial environment that is part of politics in this country would have found evidence that he wasn’t if it existed. The Republican Governor of Hawaii would have been a national hero in many people’s minds if he would have presented the evidence. But, he didn’t. The financial resources of many individuals, including the Koch brothers, would have purchased such evidence at almost any cost if there was any. But, there wasn’t. Fox News, the most powerful conservative media outlet in the country would have secured a strong position in the market if they could have found any. But, they didn’t.

So, now, let’s move on to the heart of the issue.

Any candidate that is running for the office of the President of the United States should have to deliver proof that he is legally able to hold the office. After all, the Constitution does clearly state that he should be a naturally born citizen of the country. It is not out of the realm of the Congress’ roll to require that candidates present the necessary documents. But, anyone that is running for any office in the United States should also have to prove their eligibility.

You don’t have to be a “birther” to believe that one should have to prove their eligibility to hold office. Let’s make it across the board and be done with the issue.

-----

American Exceptionalism

Clearly one of the most troubling issues during the Bush administration were the “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay. Then, Senator Obama, while campaigning to replace Bush in the oval office, promised that he would close the prison one year from the time he took office. He signed an executive order to just that two days after he took office.

It has been more than two years and the prison is still open.

Now, President Obama has signed another executive order to keep 50 of the prisoners there without trial for an indefinite period of time. The same order initiates his own “military commissions” trials for the other detainees. This is creating a bill of attainder that is prohibited in the Constitution, or, just picking someone up and creating a law that allows the individual to be held.

Every administration since Clinton has said the “war on terror” is worldwide. The combatants are located in many countries around the world, including the United States. The battlefield, therefore, as defined by The Geneva Convention is not a tightly defined field but encompasses most of the globe. When people in this “war on terror” are captured the Geneva Convention Treaty has very detailed guidelines on how these prisoners of war should be treated. The United States signed the treaty. But, Obama, who promised to end this abuse of power, has now signaled that we will not follow the convention’s rules, but will only follow our own.

What is so troubling about this?

The United States expects every country in the world to follow these rules. If a United States citizen, civilian or military, are captured, the first thing we request is that they be treated fairly and by the rules. The executive order that Obama signed tosses the Geneva Convention rules out for the United States, just like previous administrations. The people that are being held in Guantanamo Bay are not classified as prisoners of war to avoid the convention’s rules and will not be classified as common criminals to avoid United States law. So, how is it we can expect others to follow the rules when we are not?

The answer is that as a culture, we often believe in American Exceptionalism. In its current use, it is the belief that we are better than other nations because of our belief systems, government, culture and history. The idea means that we can make our own rules at the same time that we expect others to follow different rules, rules of course, that we have agreed to but don’t follow.

Well, we are different. Our form of government is nearly perfect compared to most everything out there. Our belief in civil rights that are enumerated in the Constitution has made us a great country. If someone is arrested and charged with a crime, they have the right to due process. This means they can’t be held until we come up with something to charge them with. Or, if they are a prisoner of war, we have other rules that we agreed to follow.

But, our Exceptionalism shouldn’t provide us with an excuse to make our own rules, but rather that we follow them better than others. It is because we became great in our own right not because we were above everyone else, or in a phrase - above the law, but because we are a community of law.

Our Exceptionalism should compel us to follow the rules as an example, a shining beacon to the rest of the world. President Obama needs to resend his executive order and classify the detainees as prisoners of war or charge them with a crime where they can be tried in open court.

-----

Right idea, wrong target

The Republicans in congress would like more aggressive workplace raids to find undocumented workers. That is one the steps to solve the illegal immigration problem that The Responsible Community supports. (End illegal immigration in five steps) But, those they want targeted in the raids will make a political statement and do little to solve the overall problem. 

Under the Obama administration, work place raids in search of undocumented workers have reached new heights. Republicans, with their new majority in the house, are pressing for even more raids. But, they want the raids to seek out undocumented workers to send them back to their country of origin. They aren’t suggesting that the employers of those raids be punished. But, if the raids would focus on the employers, there would be very few undocumented workers taking jobs away from legal workers.

Raids should be conducted to enforce employment law. This must be done on the national level, not the state or local level. Unless every employer understands the risk they take when they use undocumented workers, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore laws on the most flagrant level.

If raids are focused just on the workers to send them back, then it will be a political statement that will be a mere inconvenience to employers. Perhaps winning votes for the “get tough” Republicans, but doing little to stop the problem. If undocumented workers can’t get a job, they won’t come to the country seeking work.

Let’s have more raids. But, the focus of the raids should be on the employers.

-----

Short subjects

• Frivolous lawsuits?

Oh, Dennis, have you ever voted to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

Dennis Kucinich is suing the owner of the House of Representatives’ cafeteria. The congressman and one time presidential hopeful, had a sandwich with what was advertised as pitted olives. Well, one of the olives still had a pit much to the surprise of Kucinich. He is suing for $150,000 in damages.

Don’t the members of congress have a great dental plan?

• Parents need to protect their children

It is important to stop the abusers.  It is also important to stop the enablers. The woman in this case needs to go to jail.

A woman, who is not indentified to protect the victims, pleaded guilty to charges of child endangerment and hindering prosecution. Her husband fathered four babies with one of the couples' daughters. If the wife had gone to authorities right away, she could have protect her daughter.

If the father is an abuser, the mother should at least be the defender.

• Keep the news flowing

Reporters would stop informing us about our government if they were afraid of being sued. The Supreme Court understands that. They refused to even hear a case about a media defamation suit against a reporter for accurately reporting the news from court filings.

• Drunk driving in Tennessee

It is very important to get the drunks off the roads forever, but government can’t put someone in jail for an undetermined amount of time. Let’s find another solution. How about in jail for ten years on second time around?

In Tennessee they want to put people that are charged with DUI that have been convicted before behind bars. But, they will be there for as long as a judge believes they are still a danger to the community. The punishment is much to arbitrary.

• Those money grapping politicians! They will do anything for a buck.

Seems that the Hawaiian legislature is going to allowing anyone that will pay $100 to purchase an official copy of President Obama’s birth certificate. While it won’t shut the birthers up, it will raise some money.

-----

No more sermons at the soup kitchen

No more sermons at the soup kitchen.


Government must stay neutral when it comes to religion. It cannot support one religion over another nor can it even have the appearance of supporting one over another.

Yet, under President Bush, faith based organizations could deliver federal aid while preaching their form of religion. Churches and other religious organizations, under President Bush’s executive order, could deliver federal aid, such as the operation of a soup kitchen, while they were delivering a sermon.

That is changing. President Obama has amended the executive order issued by President Bush mandating the separation of the normal functions of a church and the delivery of federal aid.

Faith based organizations, no matter what calling, should not be able to deliver federal aid of any kind. This is a much too close relationship between God and Country. Whenever this happens, it is much too easy for anyone, especially those that are receiving the aid, to draw the conclusion that there is something special with this religion. Especially if the members of the church are preaching while having dinner.

President Obama’s amended of the order mandates the separation of the two activities, which is a start at getting local religious organizations out of federal aid delivery. The president’s order also goes a step farther. The amendment requires the government to “monitor and enforce standards regarding the relationship between religion and government in ways that avoid excessive entanglement between religious bodies and government entities.”

Don’t forget, in England during the pre American colonial days, religion and government went hand in hand. You were required to be a particular religion, depending on who was in power at the time. If you were protestant and the state religion was catholic, as it was under Queen Mary of Scots, you needed to change. Even tax dollars collected from a protestant would in part be delivered to the catholic church for support, but none to the protestant church. [ The Church of England, a legitimate religion by any standard, was separated from the Catholic Church by Henry the Eighth in an effort to support his government and provide legitimacy for his personal activities. It was, by some conclusions, not only a state religion, but one created for the state.]

In the Constitution, in a plan to make sure that state supported religion doesn’t happen in the new country, the signers wrote in the opening lines of the first amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” They also made very clear in the document that no religious test would be provided to elected officials, providing even further evidence that they wanted to keep religion out of government functions.

By placing a seal of approval on certain religious organizations to dole out federal aid, it appears to support that religious organization. If that money was going to catholic organizations, Queen Mary would be very pleased. But, we in the United States should not be.

-----

End earmarks

The abolishing of earmarks is an issue that is supported by the Tea Party and President Obama. With the election of many candidates that were supported by the Tea Party, it is now becoming a hot issue.


Here is a definition of earmarks:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[3]

That is the formal definition. But, the common definition is when a representative’s or senator’s vote is gained for a certain piece of legislation by directing some – if not all – the money allocated in the legislation to the home state or district.

Sounds to me like a kick back to certain projects that supported the legislator during the elections.

In balance, we all expect our representatives and senators to bring back the bacon. They are our representatives and not others. We all want them to vote for the things we want them to and support our community the best they can.

But, if all things were fair and we attempted to keep politics out of any spending process, a mix of market and need should determine where money is spent on any project or program. To “earmark” (to use the term in the definition) money directly in the legislation is to subvert the market and need distribution process.

That point was driven home by Senator Mitch McConnel. He said that he supported a proposed ban on the addicting habit of directing money to a specific district. President Obama has criticized the process as increasing the budget deficit. This places many in congress between the White house and the Capital. [ In this after election climate, between two very hard places.]

If we as a community believe something needs to be done then we should allocate money. Then a need assessment should be conducted to be determined where the money should be spent. Where the need is most, a competitive process based on the market should be implemented. By “earmarking” money in the legislation this fair and equitable process is damaged.

End earmarks.

-----

It is good to be rid of General McCyrstal

General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), made incredibly disrespectful comments in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. He, and others in his staff, mocked the vice president and the president’s staff. The general’s comments demonstrated a tragic disrespect for the constitution and the office of the president. For this, President Obama was right to fire the general. But, perhaps more importantly, it was right to fire the general to maintain a total, unquestioned, control of the military by the civilian government of the country.


The founding fathers wanted nothing to do with a standing army. All of the kings of England had used them as their personal enforcer. The armies of England had invaded other countries, put down justifiable rebellions and enforced otherwise unenforceable edicts of the kings. Of course, the armies were sent to the New World to keep the colonist in line.

It is clear from the original wording of the constitution that there was not to be an army that might be used against the citizen’s will. In the constitution, it clearly states that armies should only be raised to repel invasion and other such events. Then, only for two years at a time. The constitution also states that the President of the United States, a civil politician, should be the commander in chief of the army. All of this to maintain control of a military that could became threatening if it gained too much power.

From the time of the early republic, generals have been fired. Although, it is not a common event in the country. All of them because they had challenged the President’s policy at the time. None of them, at anytime – at least in public – actually suggested in any form that the government should be over turned, just policy. A general’s job is to carry out the policy of the United States. While it is natural to want as much power as possible to complete any task, the level of power can never be greater than the president.

It isn’t just the generals that we need be concerned about. When the people at the top are mocking those that are in control, the chain of command will be compromised. As orders come down from the president, those that are assigned to carry out the directives are to respond with total commitment. Disrespectful attitudes from superiors about those that are issuing the orders may mean someone will second guess a command. That could be deadly to themselves, their fellow soldiers and to the republic.

It is good to be rid of General McCyrstal.

-----

Expanding Visitation Rights to Gays and Others

The headline reads “Obama orders most hospitals to grant gays visitation rights”.


But read on, the article later reads that this would also allow visitation by un-married heterosexual couples, people of religious orders that may not allow marriage, elderly people with deceased spouses and others.

President Obama issued a memo to the Health and Human Services agency ordering the secretary to ensure that all hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid money to honor all patient’s directives about visitation privileges. This means that the patient can list people he or she would like to have visitation privileges without regard to family status.

A senior fellow at the conservative Family Research Council, Peter Sprigg, insists that, “The memorandum undermines the definition of marriage and furthers big government takeover” of the health care system.

It is difficult to find a compelling reason why government or hospitals should allow visitation rights to only family members when the patient requests non-family members visitation rights. Government should only act when there is a risk to the secure and safe environment. Then, it should act in the least intrusive way. No valid argument can be made that proves this is a takeover of the health care system or undermining the definition of marriage. Just the opposite. First, this is getting government and policy out of the health care system. Second, if a patient requests someone to have visitation rights, why should those rights be denied?

This is a big step for gay couples who in the past have not been able to see their loved one because of outdated hospital rules and cultural norms. But, it is important to understand something even more fundamental. When one person has less rights, all do. These same outdated rules excluded plenty of other people.

People in ill health need the support of people they share an emotional bond with. This move helps assure that they will be around when needed.

-----