Require a return on investment from unemployment

A community can’t afford to make an investment and not expect a return. Sometimes communities make investments for direct economic return. They encourage a company to locate in the community with tax breaks because it brings in jobs. The return on investment from the increase in tax revenue from the income created can be calculated.

Sometimes, a community makes an investment knowing there will not be a direct economic return. A park in the center of town makes the living space much more pleasant. It may have economic value in the rise in housing prices, but many will not benefit from it because they will never sell their home.

In both cases, there is a expectation of a return on investment.

But, the investment a community makes in unemployment and welfare has little expectation of return. Part of that is because of the current system is a compromise between those that want to continue it and those that would like to end it. Some money is provided to help individuals and families, but not enough to have any real effect on solving the problems.

The reality is we need to invest more in unemployment and welfare. That would enable the community to expect much more in return and not just wait for things to fix themselves.

Consider; individuals are expected to live a law abiding life. But, some don’t. If we just asked them to stop committing the crime, nothing would happen. But, if we threaten them with punishment and carry out those threats when they commit a crime, it will reduce crime.

If we give individuals that are unemployed little money and ask them do a few things they won’t if there are no sanctions. But, if we provide enough money for them to make real change in their life and hold them accountable to it, most will.

Let’s make that change.

Make a sizable investment in unemployed individuals. Provide enough income to take care of some of their concerns like keeping up with the house payments, provide health care, pay the bills and provide nourishing food. This would enable them to devote their attention to improving their lives.

At first, they would be given enough time to solve their problems on their own. If they are not able to, then assign them a manager that will both guide them and hold them accountable. Make an evaluation of their life and skills. Find markets that can employ them. Train them for their new jobs. Help them move if necessary to those markets. Now here is the catch, if the unemployed individual doesn’t do everything to help themselves while the community is making the investment, drop them from the program.

The investment needed and the sanctions for not taking full advantage of the program need to be worked out. It was not the purpose of this post to provide all the details – perhaps at a later date, one detail at a time. It is meant to examine the way we invest in the individuals that live in our community and what the expectation of return should be.

We formed communities because there is a benefit in living with others that will help in times of need. If we don’t receive any help, then why are we in a community? In reverse, if the individual that is asking for the help doesn’t help themselves in equal proportions (if not more) then they haven’t earned the community’s help.

-----

Invest more in unemployment and welfare

The value of an investment is based on the return. If little is invested with little expectation of return, that is what will happen. But, if a larger investment is made with expectations of a larger return, it will be there. If the return isn’t, investments will be made elsewhere.


Right now we are investing little in unemployment and welfare. With that little investment we are asking little in return. Both are suppose to be used to get people through a difficult time. Perhaps the economy is in a downturn and companies understandably need to layoff some workers. It might be a family tragedy that means the primary wage earner is injured, unable to return to work or has died. Many more situations may exist that demands help from the community.

To those individuals and parties that are market driven, pro-business side of the equation, there is a belief that there should be no need for unemployment and welfare. They believe that individuals should save more of their income for economic downturns or they should continue to retrain for future jobs. The reasoning in the perfect world is sound.

On the other side of the equation, those that may focus entirely on the needs of workers and families, believe in something different. They believe the individual has little or no control over events and would help for as long as the economy takes to come back. If the individual truly had little control, evolution would not have been so kind to our species.

The answer in the Responsible Community is taking the benefits of both and addressing the downside of both.

That is for the next blog post.

-----

You can’t do that in a Constitutionally Limited Republic

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a community can’t ban the possession of guns. It is a right that is not only safe guarded specifically in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, it is a right that is guaranteed by the Nine Amendment.

That's right, the Ninth amendment. Even if there wasn’t a Second Amendment, the Ninth states that just because the document listed some of the rights that people have (the Bill of Rights), doesn’t mean it is all the rights that are “retained by the people.”

An argument that could be applied is that if the voters of the community decide they don’t want anyone owning a gun, even for a very good reason, then the government should not have the right to trample on the rights of the voters by declaring the law unconstitutional. That would be absolutely true if we lived in Greece 2,500 years ago. At that time, the form of government was a straight forward democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules absolutely. If one more voter supported the banning of guns than the other side, there would be no guns. And, more importantly, the Supreme Court would have nothing to decided, the voters have spoken.

But, we live in a constitutionally limited republic. The difference from a straight forward democracy is that the majority does get to make the rules but they can’t make rules that violate the rights of the minority without good reason.

In California, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the ban on gay marriage passed by the voters of California is unconstitutional. Charles J. Cooper, the lead counsel defending the ban, said, “The decision whether to redefine the institution of marriage is for the people themselves to make, not a single district court judge…” (1) The attorney seems to believe we are living in a democracy and not a republic.

As stated above, something can't be banned just because a majority of voters support it. In this case, the rights of people who would like to marry, the minority, would be violated. In a constitutionally limited republic, the government can not allow the rights of the minority to be violated without good reason.

The U. S. District Judge made the best ruling possible in the case of marriage.

(1) http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/08/13/news/cops_and_courts/doc4c645dd9dfda6976950235.txt

-----

Interpretation of the Constitution

The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the possibility of amending its wording will take center stage over the next couple of years. The interpretation of the Constitution has always given reason for some passionate debating on both sides. Those that believe in original intent suggest that we should examine the words and culture at the time to find precisely what the authors meant. Those that view the Constitution as a living document would interpret it by applying current community standards. The answer lies in the document itself.

As an example of the shifting community standards and how the Constitution applies we should examine the use of pillory and red lettering as punishment. Judges and juries issued both forms of punishment during the time of the writing of the Constitution. There were no appeals at the time for what would be considered today cruel and unusual.

The Supreme Court at the time didn’t take such cases because the punishments were not usual, if they were cruel. In fact, discussion at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, according to the book “Discussion on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution”, was concern that the form of punishment discussed above and others at the time would be made unconstitutional if it was adopted. But, cases that tested the cruel and unusual clause of the Eight Amendment, didn’t come forward until many years later.

In today’s society both punishments, pillory and red lettering, most likely would be ruled by the Supreme Court to be both cruel and unusual. But, by looking at the original intent, both were not considered unconstitutional at the time. So, what is the reasoning behind declaring both cruel and unusual when it was clear at the time that the authors of the constitution and the legislatures that approved it didn’t think they were?

It is that the authors, in this case specifically and in the entire document with some exceptions, intended the Constitution to be interpreted with some consideration to the contemporary standards. The authors used vague language at times, modifiers, conditional phrases and other things to weave together a document that could be approved at the time and would last more than a few years as did the Articles of Confederation.

In this specific case, they used the terms, “cruel and unusual”. Courts would need to rule that a punishment was both cruel and unusual, as they have throughout history. This would allow the community standards at the time of the writing of the Constitution to stay in place, but, as one debater observed at the time, “if a better way can be created, then so be it.”

When there was full agreement on an issue they wrote in very exacting terms. They didn’t use the same phrasing used in those parts of the Constitution where they were concerned about finding a compromise. The primary example of which is The No Religious Test Clause Article VI, section 3. It would appear that no one had any objection to insuring that no office holder or appointee had to be of a certain religion, or religious at all.

The authors of the document tells us by the words they used how to interpret the Constitution. When they felt strongly about an issue and where able to work without much compromise, they used very clear language. This tells us in itself something even greater than the clarity on the issue the authors were addressing. This tells us that when they were able to and wanted a strict interpretation, they could use clear language. But, when the authors were intending to allow contemporary community standards (and, by extension perhaps, community standards) to have some weight in a decision, they used more vague language that would allow some room to shift the application of the established principles.

There is room in the interpretation of the Constitution to consider contemporary community standards. The authors were smart people that had a lot of experience in hammering together a nation. They know that community standards would shift over time and wrote a document that reflected that.

-----

Where personal responsiblity begins

Flowers in the alley

Do you wonder where personal responsibility begins?


It starts with flowers along an alley in Pontiac, Michigan. The alley runs south off of Huron Street for two blocks. It is clear the alley has been around for a long time. The base pavement are bricks from at least a hundred years ago. Many other coatings have been added, most of which is breaking up. The back of the buildings that face the alley are in even worse shape. They need repairs, paint, windows and brick work. Weeds and trash are all around.

But, on an entrance to what appears to be a flat are flowers. They are multi colored pansies that were planted in the Spring. They are well watered, healthy and there are no weeds. Someone has taken the time to make this dull, broken alley a little better. Perhaps at their own expense.

Bricks falling form a building

Just around the corner there is a building for sale. Broken pieces of brick are falling from the second story on to the sidewalk. Someone placed a yellow tape around the area to keep people from getting hurt. The broken bricks have been laying on the sidewalk for as long as the flowers have been planted in the alley.

The difference between the two is personal responsibility. Someone that occupies the flat in the alley took personal responsibility to make the community environment just a little better. The person who planted the flowers could have spent money just on themselves, but instead invested in the community. While they may have little or no control over the repairs that are needed on the buildings or the alley, they have made a personal investment.

As for the broken pieces of brick that are falling off the building around the corner, the owner is not doing what he or she can. Since the building repairs have not been made, a hazard has been created. Perhaps the owner is having a difficult time financially, or the bank owns the building, but none of that matters. Someone’s lack of personal responsibility over the things that can be controlled is, well, for lack of a better word, irresponsible.

Personal responsibility is anchored in what you can control and do something about. It is balanced with what is good for the individual, the family and the community. Like the example in the Bible of the poor woman who gave all she could even though she had children to feed, the person that planted the flowers is to be rewarded. The owner of the building who has done nothing with the hazard that is created by the broken pieces of brick falling on the sidewalk needs to answer to the community as to why the repairs have not been made.

The community’s right to know why the repairs have not been made is the beginning of the shared responsibility between the individual and the community.

On a personal note: To the owner of the building, fix it before someone gets hurt. To the City of Pontiac, clear the walk of the bricks and issue a summons to the building owner to answer for the lack of responsibility.

To the person that planted the flowers, you have my respect. It was you that sparked my imagination to write this blog post.

-----

Leave the guns at home during political rallies

Gun right supporters at Miller rally (1)

Leave the guns at home boys. We don’t need them at political rallies. Nobody is going to take away your right to own guns as long as there is the Second Amendment.

In a rally for Joe Miller, senate candidate in Alaska that has the support of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express, some of the marchers worn guns over their shoulder or strapped to their waist. This is allowed because the guns were not concealed and Alaska is a right to carry state. Miller, a gun rights supporter, said that he wasn’t bothered by the presences of guns at his rally.

The Second Amendment, supported by the Responsible Community, guarantees a person’s right to “bear arms” in the United States. There is disagreement to the full meaning of the amendment, but it does support gun ownership in some way. But no right is absolute. There can be reasonable restrictions placed on gun ownership.  As an example, those that have shown a lack of restraint in the past can have their second amendment rights taken away.

But there is also another restriction that should be honored at political and other social gatherings. That is the restriction of personal responsibility. Political rallies are, in the last couple of years, very heated. The political events that were part of the health care debate last year are just an example. People from all sides of the spectrum were their showing their passion – and sometimes nearly uncontrolled anger. If the heated political environment continues at the pace it is and there are guns at the rallies, trouble is going to follow. One side or the other is going to get out of hand.

Remember Kent State at the end of the turbulent ‘60’s. Those deaths happen when there was a command structure in place that was suppose to prevent such events. Yet, fear, anger and a lot of passion got the best of everyone. Even Vice President Spiro Agnew in a David Frost interview at the time said that the killings were an, “over-response in the heat of anger.” (2) That over-response killed four people.

Passion is a part of politics. That can’t be denied. As passion builds in the climate we have, fear and anger can overcome a rational person. If someone has a gun handy or if they are concerned about a weapon that someone else’s has, it is going to become too easy to take action.

Leave the guns at home. We don’t need them at political rallies.

(1) http://www.bradynetwork.org/images/content/pagebuilder/23320.jpg
(2) Stone, I.F. (1970-12-03). "Fabricated Evidence in the Kent State Killings". The New York Review of Books 15 (10). OCLC 1760105. ISSN 0028-7504. 
-----

Show me the money on illegal immigrant violence

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer

Show Me The Money…

In April, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona said that the state was going through a crime wave because of illegal immigrants. Illegal’s had “invaded” the state over the last decade and pushed crime up, especially murder and kidnapping.

Well, show me the money, as the expression goes.

The fact is, crime is down. According to the latest reports from the FBI, the four large cities in the U. S. (that is, cities with population over 500,000) with the lowest violent crime are all in the southwest, San Diego in California, Austin and El Paso in Texas and yes, Phoenix, Arizona. Larry Dever, sheriff of Cochise County, where a popular farmer was killed a few months ago and blamed on illegal immigrants says that, “we’re not seeing the [violent crime] that’s going on” across the border.

Arizona has an illegal immigration problem that is only second to California. But, last year, the state’s overall crime dropped 12%. Between 2004 and 2008 it experienced an ever higher drop in crime of 23%. The city of Phoenix had a drop of 17% in violent crime last year and over 33% drop in the past decade.

States, according to the constitution, have not been granted the power to decide who belongs here and who doesn’t. It is the Federal government’s responsibility. Even given some disagreement with the responsibilities, if each state determines citizenship for the country, we will end up with a patch work of legislation that would confuse honest residents and leave gaping holes that could be exploited by those that would do the country harm. (Image, a cop in Michigan determining whose citizenship laws he should know about when arresting an individual.)

The country does have an illegal immigration problem. As with any issue, let’s face the problem on honest and real terms. By making grand statements that are at best just not true, we confuse the issue and raise fears that have no basis. Government has a responsibility to create legislation that is limited to the problem. Unsupported claims of violence in this case only promotes legislation that goes well beyond the limits of government responsibility.

Additional reading:

http://responsiblecommunity.blogspot.com/2010/04/going-backwards-because-of-immigration.html

http://responsiblecommunity.blogspot.com/2010/05/end-immigration-in-five-steps.html

-----