We Have Seen This Movie Before

The second week of September, Congress will reconvene after its annual 5-week August vacation.  Frankly, I cannot think of any group of salaried employees less deserving of a vacation of any length.  So far, this collection of politicians has passed just over 20 bills, on track to be the lowest productive Congress ever.  And of those 20, most all are token statements, of minimally consequential impact.  (“Let’s show our non-partisanship by agreeing to name a bridge in St. Louis after Stan Musial!”)

The important social issues of the day have been ignored or are in process of being swept aside.  Reforms in gun ownership are dead, even though 90% of Americans wanted some kind of action.  So it is clear that the opinions of the American public have been closed out of the discussions.  (Which only leaves you to ponder and speculate about who our congresspersons are listening to.)  Immigration reform, in another overweight bill that passed the Senate amid much hullabaloo, is now heading to its funeral service already planned in the House.  Restoration of some Voting Rights Act provisions struck down by the Supreme Court will not even get seriously introduced for consideration.

No, all of these issues (along with others) are going to be pushed aside in the coming months for yet another repeat argument over government spending – which itself is a disguise for a more basic attack on the purpose of government itself.  On October 1^st, the current fiscal year ends, having been propped up by endless “continuing resolutions” to keep the government level-funded through the year.  (Of course, “level” now reflects the drastic, indiscriminate cuts of sequestration from last spring that were supposedly never intended to happen.)  So now what we will spend in FY 2014 will be the focus of the next big argument.

Shortly thereafter, we will once again bump up against our national debt ceiling limit.  And we will have yet another insane Congressional argument over whether we should pay our debts or not – debts incurred to fund Congress’ own spending decisions already made.  It assumes that we spent our money, then realized we spent more than we can afford, so we just default and go bankrupt as a “solution.”  But in the government’s case, its default would become a world-wide default and economic meltdown well beyond the 2008 Great Recession.  It is the ultimate fiscal mismanagement.  And the mis-managers are the same ones now asking us to trust their judgment to fix it all.  Speaker John Boehner has promised a “whale of a fight” over raising the limit.  It is a fight that should not even be fought in the first place.

Tax reform?  Badly needed.  A major key towards economic growth.  But the question of “fair share” has been completely perverted by a Tax Code that favors certain groups over others, or gives direct benefit to individuals with sufficient purchasing power of influence.  But there is not a chance in hell that tax reform will rise to any level of serious conversation or action.

Within all of this nonsensical discussion, yet another old issue will resurface: the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”).  Republican opposition to health care reform was defeated in the Senate, in the House, and to people’s ultimate surprise, in the Supreme Court.  Public polls show increasing support for the Act as more of its provisions are implemented.  Yet the opposition, not to be deterred by reality, refuses to move on and continues to fight over what has already been decided.  The Republican dominated House has now voted over 40 TIMES to repeal this legislation – all to no productive end whatsoever.  More token, symbolic, and meaningless gestures except to raise funds for political campaign treasuries.

Meanwhile we watch some sleazy CEOs using Obamacare as the cover story for other lousy decision-making.  Employee working schedules of highly profitable companies are being reduced to keep employees below the 30-hour threshold for health coverage.  Similarly, hiring is being limited to stay below the 50-employee threshold.  The CEO of Papa John's Pizza argued that providing health care to its employees to meet the Affordable Care specifications would “raise prices on all pizza products”; follow-up research by independent economists concluded that this increase would amount to 1-2 cents per slice.  Trust me, I would be perfectly happy to pay even a whole nickel more to help provide health care to already low-paid employees.  Fortunately, some socially responsible CEOs are getting on with “the new normal.”  Starbucks will continue providing health coverage for employees with as few as 20 hours/week.  Even Wal-Mart has announced additional low-cost insurance options, including coverage for domestic partners/same sex couples – although it still needs to expand the pool of employees covered.

Yes, the biggest flaw of the ACA is that it still replies on one’s employee status as the source and eligibility for health insurance.  I support those employers who object to paying this added and uncompetitive cost.  But such complaints need to be redirected towards achieving a wholly different, and non-employer based, funding base.  Until that time, health care will remain the private insurance company / employer-provided / Congress-endorsed social contract for providing health care.

The bigger issue in all of this is the tiredness of these discussions.  Spending budgets; debt ceilings; Obamacare; shutting down the government.  These are all old news.  Legislation and constitutionality has long been decided.  Budget deficits have been consistently shrinking each of the last several  years.  The economy is growing, albeit slowly and without the proper government support needed.  The American character used to be to fight the good fight over areas of disagreement.  But once the decision was made, accept it and move on to the next issues.  But this Congress is stuck in a time warp, stomping their feet over their losses like petulant children in the school playground.

It is time to move on.  Time to deal with today’s ignored issues, not re-hassling the past.  Even as we try to remain vigilant against further political radicalism and division, the American people are increasingly tuning out listening to these clanging political voices.  And with good cause.

We’ve seen this movie before.  We’ve read this book before and know how it ends.  It is time for a new script, one that will likely require a new set of actors.

©2013  Randy Bell

Where Fear Takes Us

Fear is a powerful motivator, a defining force directing many of our decisions.  It underpins and creates many of our strong negative emotions and actions – anger, rage, frustration, revenge, defensiveness, hatred, bullying, violence.

Fear begins at our earliest age, in infancy and childhood, as a reaction to our helplessness to forces and events that surround and impact us.  Somewhere along our way we suffer from real and perceived, physical and mental, hurts that condition us.  Finally, we learn about the finality of death that ultimately awaits each of us – and brings worry and sadness to all those who love and seek to protect us.  From all of these sources, fear thrives in the very foundation of our being.

Given the early age that fear is created, we likely have little choice about its being fundamental to our makeup.  But if fear is a fixed given from which we may feel powerless, our response to it is decidedly variable and within a measure of our control.  Each of us retains the right and the power to choose whether will we live a life of fear, be defined by fear, or be limited by fear.  Or will we simply acknowledge that fear, and then move on and partake of much good that life has to offer?  Not to live a reckless life, daring danger into our presence, ignoring our responsibilities to ourselves and to others.  But to look our fears in the eye and move through them, knowing that the roll of the dice can turn out in many different ways.  Our meeting with death will come when it is supposed to, even if it is a time not of our preferred choice.

If one chooses, one can certainly see much danger in one’s surroundings.  Disease, drunk drivers, domestic and foreign terrorists, criminal violence, snooping governments, faulty construction, polluted food and waters, transportation accidents, etc.  The potential dangers are endless.  The average life expectancy continues to steadily increase from a century ago, but it is the unexpected and “innocent” deaths and injuries – e.g. the Boston Marathon bombings – that garner the headlines.

Unfortunately, as there are endless potential ways that our fears can be realized, there are also endless people who prey on those fears.  Companies that sell goods and services to “protect” us from our fears coming true – even if they are highly unlikely events for us.  Commentators who sell us ideas and literature – conspiracy theories, unproven dangers, racial / religious biases – all designed to affirm the correctness and righteousness of our fears.  Politicians who capitalize on our fears in order to pass laws and advance their own power and political authority over us, while truth is sidelined as a casualty to our overreactions.  We collectively spend billions of dollars, and allow people into our lives who do not serve us well, all because of our fears.

So we have politicians across many of our states building their reputations by appealing to our fears.  Easy access to firearms is inexplicably made easier rather than harder as a response to firearm violence.  North Carolina just approved allowing guns at public schools if locked in a car; and concealed weapons in bars “if the owner does not object.”  What could possibly go wrong with these ideas?

Florida (and now other states are considering) passed something called a “Stand Your Ground” law.  A law that overturns hundreds of years of legal precedent as well as our human progress towards becoming a “civilized society.”  We have long been taught to first minimize damage in a threatening situation; if at all possible, to retreat if threatened.  A violent response can only be a choice of last resort.  Now in Florida, it is shoot first if you simply feel threatened, whether the threat is actually reasonable or justified or not.  Then you can explain later, and with no punitive consequences.  The law of the gunslinger used to be confined to “West of the Pecos.”  Now it is open season for the quickest draw West of the Atlantic Coast.

Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old African-American kid, was stalked by a white Hispanic man with a gun who had a history of looking to be a self-proclaimed vigilante hero in his neighborhood.  He was a known trouble-rouser in the 911 emergency office who was told that night to cease following Trayvon and leave any problems to real police officers.  But the stalker refused those instructions and continued his provocative pursuit, and came upon Trayvon and threatened him.  These are the admitted facts in this case.  In the ensuing confrontation, this acknowledged instigator shot Trayvon because HE felt threatened by the unarmed young man he had accosted.  The armed instigator shot to kill because his unarmed defender tried to defend himself.  If Trayvon had been armed and shot the man threatening him, would not Stand Your Ground have been his proper defense?  But would a Florida jury have found a young, armed Black man innocent of killing a White adult?

It is madness.  A madness I could never explain to my grandchildren.  A madness I cannot explain, much less justify, to myself.  This is where unmanaged fear takes us.  Into a world turned upside down, turning back and feeding upon itself.  Where we kill each other over religious differences, racial differences, economic differences, political differences – all the while proclaiming that we all want the right to be different and be protected to go our own way.  We keep saying we need to talk about why we fear, why we hate, why we act against people who are different from us.  Instead, yet another purveyor of hate walks free in the bright sun, his young victim buried in the darkness of the dirt.  And countless more trigger-happy haters are now primed to follow his example.

God spare us from the zealots and the vigilantes.  And from the politicians, businesses and organizers who thrive on our fears.  And God spare us from ourselves when we succumb to their preying reach into our fears.  What we fear becomes what fears us.  What we hate becomes what hates us.  We need to manage our reasonable fears, and reject our unreasonable fears and the dark beliefs and places to which they take us.  Instead, we need to live openly and confidently from the better place that exists in our hearts. 

©2013 Randy Bell

Not-So-Supreme Decisions

June is always a busy month for observers of the U.S. Supreme Court.  It is the end of the annual judicial term, and the Court often announces its “blockbuster” decisions at that time.  This year four decisions were announced on some of the most contentious and sensitive issues around.  But what was also most interesting was not just what the Court decided, but what they did NOT decide.

Take Affirmative Action (AA).  AA is a “judicial remedy” that came out of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.  It requires entities guilty of past discrimination to make up for and remedy it by over-compensating the future hiring or placement of the class of discriminated victims.  To its supporters, it has been a major tool over the past 50 years to successfully correct many workplace discrimination abuses.  To its critics, favoring one race over another – even for corrective or noble purposes – is yet more discrimination on its face, two wrongs making no right.  There is also a belief that AA’s objectives of equal treatment and opportunity have been achieved in today’s workplace reality, and so the use of the tool should be ended.

The University of Texas-Austin uses racial mix as a criteria to create a diverse student body, believing that exposure to diverse peoples is a major benefit from a college education.  A lower federal court accepted UT’s defense that race was a “last resort” criterion to achieve its diversity aims.  Several members of the Supreme Court expressed critical opinions about this use of Affirmative Action, thereby putting higher education “on notice” to proceed with caution.  But in the end, they did not overturn the UT practice.  They merely sent the case back down to the lower court to re-review “with greater scrutiny and skepticism.”  It was a warning shot across the Affirmative Action bow, though not a fatal blow.  But clearly AA is now a tool to be used carefully and infrequently.  In the end, racial outcomes and fairness will still be the concern.  And other examples of AA’s uses will come to the Court once again to be tested.

Another issue from the 1960s was with the Civil Rights Act of 1965.  That law made possible an enormous expansion of voter participation from racial minorities.  It included a provision that some specified state and local entities that had a long history of racial discrimination in voting would have to have any change in their voting laws pre-cleared by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).  Such pre-clearance thereby prevented many continuing attempts to circumvent the free expression of voting rights.  Congress has near-unanimously renewed the law on multiple occasions ever since its initial passing.

50 years later, the Court determined that the objective of this provision had been achieved for some of the listed entities.  African-Americans now out-vote their White counterparts in many of these jurisdictions, and are now heavily represented in public offices.  Meanwhile, there are some wholly new jurisdictions that have their own new set of issues.  So the Court said that the old list of named entities was outdated, had to go, and communities should not be held captive interminably to past mistakes of 50 years ago.

It is a reasonable and fair legal conclusion on its face.  The Court actually left the pre-clearance feature in place.  It just required a new list of discriminating entities based upon current data and conditions across the country.  It also left intact the DOJ’s ability to sue entities for current discriminatory practices.  So contrary to many editorializers, the Court did not “gut” the Voting Rights Act.
The problem is a logistical one.  And it is a serious problem.  A revised list of offending entities must come from Congress.  And as we know, our current Congress is incapable of passing anything meaningful.  So no new list is likely forthcoming, much less imminent.  Further, lawsuits filed case-by-case after the fact is long, slow, expensive, and laborious.  How the DOJ will react to the flood of new voter ID laws, gerrymandering of voting districts, and other nonsensical actions now racing through various statehouses is hard to predict.  The Supreme Court may have ruled.  But the jury is still out on whether they will be able to succeed in bringing the law into “current reality.”

Which brings us to the two big decisions around same-sex marriage.  One was the California “Prop 8” ballot initiative the voters passed to ban such marriages. The Court had an option to issue a comprehensive ruling about the constitutionality of barring same-sex marriages, but chose not to.  Instead, they made a narrow technical ruling that these particular plaintiffs had no legal standing to sue to overturn the lower court ruling that invalidated Prop 8.  So it essentially threw out the case and said nothing about whether or not same-sex marriage is universally constitutional.  It opted to wait awhile longer for more of American society to collectively move further on this issue.  But this issue will be back on their doorstep.  In the meantime, California has now joined the growing ranks of states allowing such marriages.

The more interesting ruling was on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress in the 1990s.  DOMA prevented federal benefits and guarantees that are given to “married couples” from being extended to legally married same-sex couples.  DOMA was struck down for same-sex couples living is a state that legally recognizes their marriage.  For this Court, marriage is a marriage is a marriage.  It does not come in gradations.

As expected, the conservative Right went apoplectic over this one.  The supposedly “conservative-friendly” Court had once again – after approving Obamacare – failed them.  Yet the very great irony on this decision is that the ruling was based upon accepting one of the conservatives’ most prized ideals – states’ rights – and then turned that idea on its head.  Each state has always been the primary defining authority of who is “married” within its jurisdiction.  13 states now consider same-sex marriages as fully legal.  Hence, in acknowledging the primacy of the states on this topic, the Court said the federal government has no right to discriminate (or de facto invalidate or override) such state decisions!  For conservatives, it was a classic example of “be careful what you ask for.”

But once again, what was left unanswered?  De facto, the Court recognized the legality of same-sex marriage in those states where they have been authorized.  They have not yet ruled on whether the remaining states can prohibit such marriages – just as the court was called upon to rule 50 years ago regarding laws banning interracial marriage.  Further, states have always had reciprocal agreements among themselves to honor marriages conferred in other states.  So when a legally married same-sex couple in Massachusetts moves to North Carolina, where such marriages are now prohibited by a state constitutional amendment hurriedly passed in 2010, will their marriage still be considered legal?  Will DOMA then intercede and become valid and still apply to this North Carolina couple?  This is the next case coming to the Court.

Stay tuned.  None of these Rights and Citizenship issues is done quite yet.  The Court is not done quite yet.  We are not done quite yet.

©2013 Randy Bell

 

The Secret About Secrets

Recently, a reader wrote to me asking about my thoughts on the NSA revelations and the whistleblower.  My response was not quickly forthcoming, as I feel drawn in multiple directions by its several implications.

The first issue is the accusation of governmental spying.  If the nature of the National Security Agency’s activities is as reported, then it is questionable to describe it as “spying.”  The agency is gathering together existing data from commercial communications networks and loading it all into one super-database.  The stated intention is that if a terrorist threat arises, this database would facilitate quickly identifying linkages among potential suspects.  No phone conversations are listened to; no emails are read.  NSA is simply gathering together and logging existing information.  To take this second step requires a court-ordered warrant as is standard for any other review of otherwise confidential personal information.  No new data has been created.

We already have much personal information that we have surrendered to thousands of computer networks.  Information that is tracked long after its moment of creation.  Information that is available in criminal investigations when proven justified.  As long as a court warrant stands between the details of this information and law enforcement, it is hard to see how the fact of my phone call (versus the content) differs from records of my fingerprints, bank and credit card transactions, my motor vehicle and driving records, or the frequency of my voting (versus who I voted for).  Or the new databases of DNA data.

The counterforce to our privacy rights is the very real threat from terrorists.  Americans have become very fearful of various physical and mental threats over the past two decades.  And more desirous of avoiding even the natural risks of life, much less the crimes of terrorist actions.  Hence more demands for “guaranteed safety” – a goal that is not at all achievable.  We see this evidenced in all the finger pointing that goes on after a terror incident (e.g. in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing).  The expectation of absolute safety keeps rising even as the techniques of the terrorists grow ever more sophisticated and pervasive.

In some instances, our fears have led to an excessive surrender of our rights of privacy.  Hence my strong abhorrence of the post-9/11 “Patriot Act” that was not at all patriotic.  But some surrender is required.  It is the reality of the global linkages and terrorist partnerships that exist in today’s digitally-connected world.  If we keep demanding greater protection, then we have to grant greater access to the available tools that can provide that protection.  This is going to be a delicate balancing dance we will be performing for the foreseeable future, an improvised dance as situations arise each day.

Which brings us to the issue of secrets and whistleblowers.  Not everyone in the world is our friend.  We need to not create enemies and false demons where they do not exist.  But we do need to respond appropriately to those who genuinely intend to harm us.  How we go about that response must, at times, be kept secret in order to be effective.  The surprise attack is still often more effective than the frontal assault.  These defensive tactics are valid “national security secrets.”  Unfortunately, we have a penchant for over-classifying too much information as “secret.”  When that over-information is revealed by a courageous whistleblower, I applaud those efforts.  That light of transparency keeps lesser men and women from hiding their corrupt and self-interested actions.  But when someone inappropriately reveals genuinely secure information, especially when it endangers the lives of people who live every day in personal risk as they work to protect the public, then that is not being a “whistleblower.”  That is someone putting personal self-righteousness ahead of reasonable judgment about consequences.

Over 40 years ago, Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg released “The Pentagon Papers” – a secret historical analysis commissioned by the Pentagon that ultimately documented the lies and underhanded hidden dealings that contributed to the morass of the Viet Nam War.  Yet there was no security apparatus or spy operative names or public safety tactics revealed by that release.  The information made public served to inform the debate while jeopardizing no one’s safety.  After Ellsberg made his revelation, he then nobly stood to face the consequences of his actions against the American legal system.  I continue to regard Daniel Ellsberg very highly for his reasoned action and his willingness to take ownership for what he did.

No so with this NSA release.  Edward Snowden is not a whistleblower.  He is a criminal who violated his signed oath of confidentiality without regard for his consequences, or without consideration of a balanced review of rights versus safety.  He has acknowledged that he sought his NSA job specifically to access these secrets in order to reveal them to the American public.  Yet the information has also simultaneously gone to unfriendly terrorists and foreign governments.  He dumped the information out, then ran off seeking asylum from countries who are the epitome of government secrets and a lack of freedom of speech and press.  He is not the whistleblower who reveals corporate pollution, false drug research trials, or political corruption, and thereby stimulates needed correction.  Instead, his actions have endangered the lives of many innocent people.  He is the wrong person on the wrong topic at the wrong time with the wrong outcomes.

Balancing rights versus safety, privacy versus citizen responsibility, whistleblowing versus treason, is very hard.  In this particular instance, I am willing to call reasonable a database that only tracks instances of data, versus listening to my conversations which is unreasonable.  I am willing to give credence to the oversight of the courts and to the bipartisan support from Congressional leaders who have known about and monitored this program since its inception.  But this acceptance is not a blanket one.  It is still a case-by-case discussion, and an assessment of each person-by-person whistleblower.  And unless it is absolutely otherwise necessary, the default remains for the government to stay out of my personal life.

The true overriding “big picture” issue here is the idea of secrets themselves.  We increasingly live in a “tell-all” Facebook age where sharing the details of our lives – even with near-strangers – has become the expectation.  Post-Woodward & Bernstein, the media builds upon that new culture and presumes how dare one not be forthcoming to any question they ask – whether pertinent or not.  And all conversations within government are expected to be made public.  Secrets are seen inherently as being bad.

But there is a case for secrets.  We all have parts of our lives and history not intended for public consumption.  Performance conversations between a manager and an employee are not appropriate to tell other employees.  Debates to determine policy and to give guidance to leaders require secrecy around frank discussions to develop best-considered recommendations.  One of the greatest government secrets of all was the four months of meetings which produced our marvelous Constitution – a total secrecy kept from the public by all convention delegates.  James Madison later reflected that had there not been such secrecy to allow for wide-open discussions and changes of opinions, our Constitution which embodies our freedoms would never have been produced.  So let us not have a modern-day knee-jerk reaction to secrecy itself.  Let us pause to judge the appropriateness of each secret on its own merits.  And judge the revelation of that secret, and the revealer, on the broadest measure of its consequences.

©2013 Randy Bell

The Non-Profit Sham

For years, the purpose for having non-profit and tax-exempt organizations was clear and acceptable to the public.  Artistic groups, hospitals, private schools, museums, and charities supporting the underprivileged, disaster victims, and medically stricken all appealed to our sense of a general good that should receive special, broad-based support.  It has been a general good that transcends politics, favoritism and self-reward.  For-profit corporations are intended to earn a surplus of revenues, pay taxes on that surplus, and to distribute those profits to its stockholders.  Non-profit corporations have no shareholders, accumulate no profits to be distributed, and if tax exempt (as most non-profits are) pay no income taxes on their surplus.  This exclusion from taxes is intended to enhance the resources for, and thereby the benefits of, their services to the public.  To further this enhancement even more, donations made to these corporations are also tax deductions for the individuals making them.  So the tax exemption created by these corporations is effectively doubled, to the tune of perhaps $50B in excluded federal income taxes annually.

It has been a tax loss we have been willing to absorb for years as a national priority.  But in light of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court that unleashed millions of dollars into our political debate and elections, and the genuine scandal of for-profit corporations posing as non-profits with a tax exemption, it is time that this national priority be reexamined.

One of the requirements for obtaining tax-exempt status is that an organization avoids partisan political activity, avoids endorsing any particular political candidate, and avoids trying to directly influence legislation.  But is there hardly any major national non-profit that is not seeking to do just that?  My donation to the Brady campaign that lobbies Congress for gun safety is not tax deductible.  But a donation to the NRA would be deductible as a “social welfare organization” of fellow gun owners.  To say that the NRA is less political than the Brady Campaign – two opponents in the marketplace of opinions – is laughable.  Similarly would be my donation to any number of environmental groups, who commendably seek to protect our fragile landscape, but do so by heavily lobbying legislators or filing numerous court cases over their pet causes.  Is this so different than my nondeductible donation to the ACLU who fights constitutional abuses?

The recent rise of myriad political action committees (PACs) is a more blatant example of this hypocrisy.  The claim is that such PACs fulfill a political educational function for the public by espousing certain political opinions.  But Karl Roves’s PAC and its admitted goal of promoting particular political candidates (and the Republican Party generally) based upon telling a one-sided story, or Michael Bloomberg’s PAC of mayors against gun violence, are hardly “educational” in the recognized sense of the National Geographic Society or the Museum of Modern Art.  The fact that the sources of funds for many of these political groups can be kept secret from the American public who granted them their special tax-exempt status is an added insulting travesty.

Besides these overtly political groups, another tax-exempt sham is with those non-profits who are in fact earning massive profits for their corporate officers.  To be legally correct, there are still no “shareholders” receiving dividends from the “profits” of these non-profit corporations.  Instead, the profits are going into the mega-salaries of the corporate executive team.  They are million dollar salary levels that one does not normally associate with these corporations who supposedly fulfill a “higher purpose of good.”  The most blatant examples of this increasing distortion are within the medical community.  Hospitals, doctors’ associations, and clinical chains are organized as non-profits – even buying out older, established hospitals to keep their charitable-sounding name and favorable tax status.  But they operate just as competitively and monopolistically as any for-profit counterpart.  CEOs are rewarded by corporate standards of salary and bonuses based upon increasing revenues, constructing more shiny buildings, attracting more customers (as opposed to expanding care to those who truly need it), and delivering more quantitative services (whether justified by the medical conditions or not).

We see similar things happening in non-profit higher educational institutions.  More college presidents with million dollar salaries are building bigger facilities and chasing increasingly scarce research dollars.  All in the name of size and prestige rather than educational need or supportable research opportunities.  Costs escalate, and many students needing an education to advance their lives are priced out or are drowning in taxpayer-underwritten student loans.

Finally, there is the sham of certain religious organizations.  For all too many churches and religious groups, their finances are often off-limits to public inquiring minds.  People of goodwill donate to televangelists or other religious figures with no idea of where their money then goes – all too often driven out the door in an expensive BMW.  Many religious leaders publicly decry the separation of church and state even as they enjoy many privileges from that separation, all the while fully engaging themselves in secular and political debates.  The success of religious organizations has become measured by size and influence – witness the mega-churches, religious broadcasting networks, and political elbow-rubbing.  The vows of simplicity and poverty while tending to the needy, as voiced by virtually all original religious founders, have been lost under the protective shroud of the false non-profit / tax exempt classification.

The list of supposed “non-profits” grows inexplicably and endlessly – from country clubs to the NFL, from the Heritage Foundation to the NCAA.  Hurt from “guilt by association” are the many traditional non-profit, truly public service organizations that continue to be part of the backbone of the American character.  Staffed by volunteers, providing genuine services that would not otherwise be available, with minimal paid staff receiving under-market wages, these unique expressions of good will need and deserve our support.  But tax-exempt has become a sham that needs to be reformed, at least for those corporations run by board members who live in a for-profit corporate world, and who have created an unfair trade advantage for themselves.  The continuing backlash against the Susan G. Komen breast cancer charity due to its overtly political actions and its $800K presidential salary is justified, but it is only one such glaring example of this abuse.

It is not just an issue about the obvious PACs on both the left and the right political spectrum.  It is about the use of the non-profit and tax-exempt ruse used to enrich “corporate insiders” that needs to end.  Such shams are yet another vehicle for giving unfair advantages to a privileged few, and are an insult to those Americans who truly give of themselves for “the noble cause.”  Questioning the very basis of our non-profit/tax-exempt institutions is not a conversation for the faint-hearted.  But the hypocrisy of these sham organizations threatens our trust in our fellow human beings and the institutions that make up our social contract with one another.  They contribute to our growing economic divide and an “everyone for themselves” mentality that threatens our basic moral fabric.  The very fabric that binds us together as still a nation of moral worth.

©2013 Randy Bell

Scandals They Are Not

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Senator from New York, once famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”  In the past several weeks, the dominant news from dysfunctional Washington has been multiple supposed government “scandals.”  The news media has gone on non-stop in their never-ending quest for ratings (versus information).  Many Republicans have jumped on their individual soapboxes  seeking continual attention for themselves and preferential votes from their political base.  Goals of enlightened perspective and useful information are non-existent in the cacophony of all this verbiage.  And attention to the really pressing issues of our time has been diverted to this melodrama.  So what can one really say, and what have we learned, about these would-be scandals?

First, there is the killing of our four diplomats last September.  Over eight months ago.  A deeply regrettable scenario that has already been assessed in detail by previous and unending Congressional committees.  In addition, a State Department internal inspection team recommended numerous changes that are already being implemented.  Yet this pet issue of several Senators and Representatives will not go away, even though we have learned virtually nothing new with each new release of emails or witness testimony.  Our very respected Ambassador to the U.N. has been unfairly blamed and has taken the rap for “misleading the public” by simply reading “talking points” prepared by others (CIA and State) that were later proven incorrect.  (Republicans had no such need for distraught committee hearings when Colin Powell “misled” the public – and the world – about WMDs in Iraq based upon CIA-provided analysis.  Yet we went to war over those misstatements, costing thousands of lives instead of four.  Nor was much said when as many as seven or more embassies were attacked during the George W. presidency.)

Yes, in the confusing aftermath of the attack in Benghazi concurrently with violence occurring elsewhere in the Middle East, the CIA and State went back and forth for an announcement that would hopefully buy time against the politicization of this event – the same politicization that happened anyway, then and still through today.  Republican Congresspersons of short memory who today are most vocally chastising the administration for lax security are the same ones who voted against the State Department’s request for additional security funding.  When Senator Rand Paul concluded that main lesson from these committee investigations was that “Hillary Clinton is not fit to be President,” it revealed the truth of the pure politics driving this uproar.

The real scandal of substance here is our failure to recognize that diplomatic posts in dangerous countries are dangerous jobs, including in Libya.  Especially, as this Ambassador believed, if one ventures out into the people and places of one’s assignment rather than holding up behind the reinforced fortress walls of an embassy.  We can, and should, do everything possible to protect our diplomats.  But we cannot absolutely guarantee their safety and prevent against all potential tragedies from occurring.  It is time to move off of this issue.

Second, there is the supposed IRS scandal.  A small field office in Cincinnati that is charged with determining eligibility for non-profit status is accused of “targeting” conservative political groups for political advantage.  Most everyone hates the IRS as an institution, which always makes it an easy target for public outrage.  It is one of those thankless, no-win jobs that needs to be done but will never generate adoration.  In the wake of the disastrous “Citizens United” ruling by the Supreme Court that opened the floodgates of political money into our elections, a corresponding flood of PACs were hatched overnight.  Hundreds of new applications for non-profit status, mostly from groups with a conservative agenda, flowed into this IRS office with no increase in manpower to process them.  This was a whole new piece of business from wholly new constituent groups.

Given the current extreme abuse of “non-profit” status by religious organizations, and hospital and charities paying multi-million dollar salaries, and given that non-profit groups are supposed to be prevented from engaging in overt political activities, all those new applications demanded close scrutiny.  So it appears that the everyday working people in that office tried to do their job in this new environment as best as they could figure out.  Unfortunately, they adopted processes without vetting how their processes would appear in the short-form ticker-tape headlines we now live within – a vetting now seemingly required for every governmental action instead of vetting for substance.  Yet in the end, no legitimate group was denied such non-profit classification.  Once again, if one is looking for a scandal, look no further than the Supreme Court and its Citizens United ruling, and the law of unintended consequences.  And look at the scandal for what today passes for “non-profit” organizations and the many abuses thereof.  Look at the flagrant politicking by many “non-profit” groups.  These are our far greater issues for discussion.

Third, we have the capturing of call records and email traffic by the FBI in pursuit of the leaking of classified security information.  I have been an opponent of the misnamed Patriot Act since it was passed in the aftermath of 9-11.  I protest greatly the potential of government eavesdropping of private citizens.  I also believe that “whistle-blowers” are needed in both government and private corporations and are important to protect.  That said, when I first heard that a dangerous terrorist plot had been exposed by a CIA spy embedded in the terrorist leadership, I remember immediately thinking “why in the hell would you ever announce that?”  And sure enough, that spy’s value was ended, and others suffered subsequent harm.

The news media loves to talk about freedom of the press in as absolute terms as the NRA talks absolutely about 2^nd Amendment gun rights.  But none of our  rights is absolute.  A careful, case-by-case balance between legitimate national security needs and freedom of the press is always required.  From World War II up until Watergate, such a delicate balance of judgment worked out pretty well.  By all accounts it did not work out well here, and appropriately classified information was inappropriately revealed.  Once again, if one is looking for a true scandal, look at governmental over-classifying information as “secret” without meaningful discretion.  Look at a news industry that places misleading headlines and a rush to “scoop” above thoughtful, researched, and grounded reporting that leaves the public skeptical of the whole profession.  (Are you listening CNN?)

Too many people continually want to find a “scandal” where simple incompetency, stupidity, or error in judgment reign.  Watergate and Iran-Contra were true scandals – extreme, inappropriate, and illegal decisions and actions made on high in a continual and deepening sequencing of events with seriously destructive consequences.  Evidence of none of these conditions has been presented in our current litany of political stories.  Not every governmental misstep warrants a “-Gate” appellation.  And politicians and news commentators that were children during Watergate should not cheapen the serious meaning and impact of what a real scandal truly is.  We need to tune out these stories and rhetoric, America.  We have important work to be done that requires our real attention.

A Bullet To Representative Democracy

On April 17, 2013, our United States Senate shot down any new legislation to address gun safety issues.  Most notably, it rejected any expansion of background checks for gun purchasers.  The intent of this expansion was to make such procedures universally applicable for all gun sales, including the now-exempt gun shows and online sales.

An astonishing consensus of 90% of Americans have been consistently supportive of such a common-sense measure, including over 80% of gun owners.  But the Senate saw fit to reject this national mandate.  Or, more correctly, 45 of 100 senators voted against it – sufficient to kill it in a parliamentary setting where “the majority” has now perversely become a 60% standard.  Put another way … a minority of 45% of the Senate “defeated” a majority of 55% and rejected what 90% of the country wants to see enacted.  It is a paradox I can think about only so often or so long, because it makes my head hurt.  Only in the archaic, self-serving world of inflated egos that is our U.S. Senate could this through-the-looking-glass scenario occur.  What had been called “the greatest deliberative body in the world” has now become “the world’s most debilitated body.”

The “no” vote was made up of 41 Republicans and 4 Democrats.  4 politically courageous Republicans sided with 49 Democrats and 2 Independents in saying “yes.”  (Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tactically voted “no” so that he can recall the bill again later.)  In the aftermath of the “no” vote, these obstructing 45 offered up all kinds of varying reasons for their vote against universal background checks – reasons that collapsed under the slightest scrutiny or reasoning:

·       “The bill would add an undue burden and paperwork to gun purchasers.”  (No.  The purchase application is estimated to take less than five minutes.  Far less than registering my car at the DMV.)

·       “The bill would interfere with the ability of qualified purchasers to buy a gun.”  (No.  It would put all purchasers and retail outlets on equal footing, and as intended only prevent the unqualified from buying.)
·       “The bill would lead to a national gun registry database tracking all guns and gun owners, thus invading their privacy.”  (No.  The current background check system has not created such a registry.  The proposed bill specifically prohibits anyone from doing so as a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.  That said, our national registry of automobiles has not limited any qualified driver from buying or owning a car.)
·       “The bill would require onerous background checks for transfers of guns among family members.”  (No.  Provision was made to exempt such private transfers from required retail procedures.)
·       “The bill would not have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre.”  (True.  But it would have potentially led to holding the killer’s mother accountable for irresponsibly making her guns available to her obviously disturbed son.  And it would go a long way to preventing the senseless everyday shooting of our kids on streets and in shopping malls across the country.)
·       “The problem is not guns, but is a mental health issue.”  (No.  Gun violence comes from the mentally ill, from domestic terrorists, from small people trying to act big, and from old-fashioned criminals.  It is a gun owner problem, which is why we seek to do checks on purchasers, not metal firearms.)
·       “Criminals will just ignore and circumvent this law anyway and get guns illegally.”  (On that logic, why do we have any criminal laws?  Criminals by definition ignore and break the law, but the laws prevent many from doing harmful actions.  This “logic” is too stupid to even speak with a straight face.)

All of this false logic, however, attempts to overshadow the three real goals of these 45 votes:
·       to unify a voting bloc of Republicans still intent on defeating any proposal by the current President for their own political advantage, versus governing the country;
·       to stave off in future Republican primary elections potential rivals who would accuse them of being soft on the 2^nd Amendment and of being “pro-government” (as if that would be a bad thing!) – fears about reelection trump good governance;
·       to hide the millions of dollars in political donations from the NRA and gun manufacturers that have been received by 42 of the 45 senators.

So where does this leave the 90% of the country?  We sit anxiously at the bedside of a wounded proposal, but not a dead one.  Remarkably, the public is not yet turning loose of this one.  Approval ratings for these 45 Senators are showing substantial negative impacts.  Media attention continues to trumpet this issue, from conservative Joe Scarborough’s morning commentary to comedian David Letterman’s nightly “Stooge of the Day” pictures spotlighting each one of the 45.  Fundraising to support future anti-NRA candidates is rising, and two leading Republican fundraisers in Florida are refusing to raise money for “no” candidates.  Citizens are showing up at town meetings to call these senators out to answer for their votes.  The tide of action against gun violence may have rolled back for now, but ocean tides of support may well be rolling back in yet again.

Yet all of this legitimate debate about the pros/cons of gun legislation is frankly overshadowed by an issue of even greater and more lasting importance.  Which is that when 45% of our senior legislative body is able to prevent what 90% of the citizenry wants, the unique American concept of “representative democracy” has suffered a major bullet to its core.  It moves “Washington” from being simply dysfunctional to almost treasonable by failing the 225 year old test as to whether “We, the People” can govern ourselves through elected representatives acting on our collective behalf.  This is a far more ominous and consequential threat to our survival as a society than all of the horrible mass shootings combined.  And a far greater and more potent issue for future elections.

Will we remember these 45 votes in the elections of 2014, 2016, and 2018?  This blatant ignoring of the democratic ideal?  The 45 are hoping that their votes will be long forgotten by their next election.  But I have written to my Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) to thank her for her courageous “yes” vote, and promised to work for her 2014 reelection.  And I have written to my Senator Richard Burr (R-NC, recipient of substantial NRA/gun association donations) to tell him that I would remember his “no” vote all the way to his 2016 reelection campaign.  Further, that I would be writing to him once every month until November 2016 to remind him that I had not forgotten.  (I am hoping that other letter writers will do something similar.)

Lest we forget – April 17, 2013.  The day the grand and noble American experiment of representative democracy was critically wounded by a mass shooting from 45 United States Senators.