When Will the Circus Leave Town

In his April 16th post, Ian Marmottin laments the current roster of GOP 2012 Presidential hopefuls.  I join him in his dismay.  I am a life-long Democrat and steadfast supporter of President Obama.  Nonetheless I long for a credible and responsible Republican candidate for President in the 2012 elections.  The problems we face as a nation are very serious and the divisions between us are disheartening.  We don’t have time for the circus anymore.  We need to see the best that both parties can offer.

While the Radical Right and Progressive Left have little appetite for the kind of compromise and cooperation that are essential to good governance, most Americans just want pragmatic solutions to our very real problems.  Whatever one thinks of President Obama’s job as president, he is sober, thoughtful and intelligent.  He is steeped in the details of our current crises. We need someone of the same stature from the Republican side to propose alternative solutions to those promoted by President Obama and the Democrats.  Let the American people see an intelligent debate, free of the hysterical and unhinged attacks on Obama that we currently hear from all the Republican candidates before us now.

I believe the current crop of Republicans hopefuls are just a side show and that we will see a more serious candidate emerge in the fourth quarter of this year.  Even though everything I see from GOP elected officials, both at the national and state level, appears narrowly targeted at a radical base, I’m convinced that behind the scenes the Republican power structure is searching for a candidate who can seriously challenge President Obama from the political center.  They have to know that there is no one currently running who qualifies as that candidate.

The mid-term election success of extremely conservative Republicans around the country has moved the Democrats ever more sharply to the center in American politics.   I continue to hope for a Republican presidential candidate that can pull the GOP from their cliff’s edge as well.   Please join the rest of us Americans here in the middle just trying to make it through these dark times.  Talk to us like adults.  Give us a real choice.  Trust us with the truth. 

Un-American Activity

“Free people, remember this maxim: We may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost.”  Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

Two of our most cherished American values are under assault by what I consider Un-American activities - our right to vote and our religious freedom.   These two pillars of American society set us apart from most of the countries in our world and we must be ever vigilant to protect them.

As President Obama said in his proclamation on Religious Freedom Day earlier this year, “The writ of the Founding Fathers has upheld the ability of Americans to worship and practice religion as they choose, including the right to believe in no religion at all.”  But what we have experienced in the years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 is a mindless attack on the religion of Islam, a religion practiced by an estimated 2 million plus American citizens.   From ill-advised Congressional hearings to attacks on mosques to demonstrations against the construction of mosques, the drumbeat of religious bigotry has been deafening.

Recently Brian Fischer of the American Family Association claimed that the First Amendment was written to protect the free exercise of Christianity and that Muslims are not entitled to First Amendment protections.  We could write him off as an obnoxious extremist were it not for the painful fact that he has been courted recently by at least five of the prospective Republican candidates for President.  It is our shame as a nation that anti Muslim propaganda is not denounced forcefully and repeatedly by our political establishment, neither Democratic nor Republican.  It has been ever so that in times of economic hardship we have settled on a scapegoat, but that does not make it any less un-American.

Results of the 2010 census show our country growing ever more ethnically and religiously diverse.  It is the glory of our country.  But to ensure that our diversity is reflected in our elected leaders and our laws we must embark on a national campaign to educate our citizen on the importance of exercising our right to vote.  Our most fundamental opportunity to participate in the political process is our vote.  In my lifetime people marched and died to expand the franchise to African Americans in the South.  In my lifetime young men under the age of 21 were fighting and dying in Viet Nam but could not vote. It required passage of the 26^th amendment to the Constitution in 1971 to expand the franchise to everyone 18 or older.  

To honor those struggles we should be engaged in a national campaign to make voting easier and turnout more robust.  Instead, in over half our states, Republican legislative majorities are advancing restrictive voter registration and voter ID laws, making it more difficult to vote.  All in response to almost non-existent “voter fraud”. 

Make no mistake, an overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male political movement is seeking to disenfranchise minorities and college students to strengthen their own political power.  That, my friends is the most un-American activity of all.

Obesity and Poverty - An Unhealthy Partnership

In his April 2nd blog post, Nick Patterson cites poverty as a major contributing factor to obesity and its related health problems.  The lack of affordable fresh food in poor neighborhoods had led to “food deserts” in these vulnerable communities.  A 2009 study by the U S. Dept of Agriculture estimated that over 5 million households live ½ mile or more from the nearest large grocery store and that most lack a vehicle or affordable transportation to reach these stores.  The expense of building and operating grocery stores in poor neighborhoods and a lack of access to credit for local grocery operators discourages efforts to build grocery stores in poor communities.  Readily available and inexpensive fast food, high in fat and calories, becomes the default choice for these neighborhoods. 

The Obama administration announced a Healthy Food Financing Initiative in 2010 designed to attract investment in underserved communities with flexible grant and loan financing providing funding to local retailers to build more grocery stores.  The initiative is designed to develop public-private partnerships for a market based approach to the obesity crisis.  Legislation implementing this plan was introduced by Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) in November 2010.  President Obama proposed $345 million for it in his FY 2011 Budget.  The level of funding in 2011 and 2012 is uncertain until a budget is approved but there has been bi-partisan support for the proposal in the past.

Wal-Mart has launched a major initiative to improve the food choices they offer in their existing stores and to build new stores in underserved areas.  They have moved to reduce sodium and sugar and remove trans fats in their private label food products and have been reducing prices to make their products more affordable.  They are also increasing their charitable support to nutrition programs to educate families about healthier food choices.

These are two examples of how government can work hand in hand with private enterprise to tackle a serious and costly health crisis in our country.  I hope they will inspire other retailers to step up to the challenge.  We should all root for their success.

Careful What You Wish For

In the historic 2010 mid-term elections voters worried about the economy and stubborn unemployment numbers gave Republicans an overwhelming victory both in the US House of Representatives and in state houses and legislatures all over the country.  Republicans enjoyed gains from independents, women voters and blue collar voters.  In fact, Republicans earned the majority (51%) of the women’s vote, something that has happened only a handful of times since the emergence of the gender gap in the 1980s. 

Even more surprising exit polls showed 62% of the blue collar vote went to Republicans.  This after the almost year long fight in 2010 to extend unemployment benefits to the long term unemployed.  Prominent Republican officials opposed to extending the benefits labeled the unemployed as “lazy”, “hobos”, “drug addicts” and “people with poor work habits”.  In the end the extension was only possible because President Obama and Congressional Democrats agreed to extend the Bush era tax cuts to the nation’s wealthiest citizens. 

Yet women and blue collar workers took a leap of faith that a change in leadership would lead to job creation and a healthier economy. 


So, let’s pause a moment to reflect on what the Republicans have actually proposed since taking control of the House of Representatives.  First up was the largely symbolic vote on H. R. 2 Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.  It had no chance of passing the Senate but was an important nod to the base.  The next gift to the base was H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act which when first proposed suggested changing the language regarding the exemption for rape to "forcible rape".  The language had to be removed after widespread criticism.

Now Congress is consumed in the fight over H.R. 1 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. The bill and its amendments contain provisions to defund the Health Care Act, Planned Parenthood, Title X (comprehensive family planning and preventative health services), and the National Foundation on the Arts and cut Head Start programs 22.4%.  A review of the 583 proposed amendments is a soul-killing experience.  The issues that have traditionally been considered women’s issues - education, healthcare, programs for children, social welfare and housing are all clobbered by this legislation.

There has so far been no specific legislation related to job creation.  Indeed the most promising opportunity for long term job creation and innovation, alternative energy, is specifically targeted by amendments to H.R. 1 that expressly prohibit funds made available under the “Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy” for being used for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, wind energy, solar energy, vehicle technologies, water power and industrial technologies. 

For weeks we have watched as states across the country have demolished collective bargaining rights for workers.  Now some states are considering, and Michigan has passed, legislation reducing maximum state unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 20 weeks for the first time in over 50 years.  Workers of the world despair.

Research from the Pew Research Center suggests that only about 21% of voters in 2010 voted specifically to support Tea Party candidates and issues, yet it is clear that the Republican Party is catering to the extreme positions of their Tea Party supporters.  Now a radically conservative group of freshman Republicans in the House is refusing to negotiate their demands for the proposed budget cuts and amendments in H.R. 1 and are threatening a government shutdown if they don’t get what they want.  They are supported by prominent senior Republicans in the House and the Senate and it is uncertain if cooler heads will prevail.

Voters should have considered the consequences of electing candidates who so freely expressed their contempt for government institutions and the social safety net.  I expect they are doing so now.  Buyer’s remorse anyone?

Let Them Eat Farm Subsidies

In the March 21st edition of Think Progress, Pat Garofalo reports that the House Agricultural Committee is proposing to reduce funding for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, otherwise known as food stamps, as a deficit reduction measure.  As Garofalo notes, this is a time when nearly one in five households are food insecure.  Food insecurity is defined by the USDA as lacking access at some time during the year to adequate food for active healthy living for household members.   A 2009 USDA report showed that 49 million people, including nearly 17 million children, were food insecure. That was an increase of 30% from December 2007, the start of the current recession.

The House Agriculture Committee reported to the House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan (R-WI),  that SNAP funding had tripled over the last ten years and that much of the increase had come through government action rather than macroeconomic forces.

Garofalo acknowledges this fact but points out that those increased benefits have already been reduced to pay for a jobs bill passed last year.

By contrast the chairman of the committee Frank Lucas (R-OK) and the ranking member Collin Peterson (D-MN) are proposing that “tens of billions” in annual agricultural subsidies also administered by the USDA should be exempt from any reductions.  They are calling for cuts to the food stamp program only.

Agricultural subsidies were enacted in the 1930s during the Great Depression when farm-household incomes plummeted.  They were meant to be a temporary measure to deal with the emergency presented by harsh economic times.  Now, over 80 years later the “temporary” subsidies are a fixture of the US budget.  Garofalo points out that 61% of agricultural subsidies go to just ten percent of subsidized farmers and that 90% of the subsidies go toward production of just five crops -  corn, wheat, rice, soy and cotton. 

Meanwhile fruits, vegetables and livestock production which account for 2/3 of the annual US agricultural production receive no subsidies at all. 

It is not small family farms that receive this largesse.  Garofalo quotes Annie Shattuck of the Institute for Food and Development Policy as saying “most of that 90% went to the large farming corporations”.  Shattuck goes on to say, “much of those commodities were not used for food, but for animal feed and industrial applications”.  Critics of farm subsidies on the right and the left have been calling for reforms in agricultural subsidies but have seen no substantive progress toward reform.  With both the House and Senate Agricultural Committees dominated by farm state representatives, meaningful reform is unlikely.

Garofalo is clearly writing for all those who join me in watching with growing alarm as this new House majority insists on putting the sacrifice required to bring down our deficit on the shoulders of those least able to bear it.  At a time of high unemployment and increasing food costs it is a shameful display of callous disregard for struggling, and hungry, families.

Hearings on Islam in America Begin

In a column in the March 9^th edition of The New York Times, Akbar Ahmed takes a pragmatic, unemotional approach to today’s Congressional hearings on Islamic radicalism in the United States.  He is calling on his fellow American Muslims to look at the hearings not as an attack on their community but as an opportunity to acquaint Americans with their religion.  He rightly blames anti-Muslim sentiment in America on fear of terrorism and ignorance of the Islamic faith.  He also acknowledges the suspicion of many American Muslims toward the law enforcement community who they often find heavy-handed in their interactions with them.  Efforts to cooperate with law enforcement agencies is often hampered by what many Muslim Americans find to be clumsy and insulting efforts by the agencies to “study” them and their religious institutions.  They are convinced that Homeland Security and the FBI are planting informants in their mosques instead of simply reaching out for a dialogue with them.

Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at American University, relates his experience in 2008 and 2009 traveling the country talking to American Muslims about their experiences and attitudes regarding their American Identity.  In talking to people in 75 communities and some 100 mosques he found a diverse Muslim population comprised of African Americans, Middle Eastern and South Asian immigrants and white converts to Islam.  While he found evidence of anger and extremism he also talked to many American Muslims who have found a satisfying and successful life here, including some who told him that America is “the best place in the world to be a Muslim”.

Professor Ahmed also notes that although many American critics of Islam believe radicalism is based in religious beliefs or teachings, he found radicalized American Muslims are more often motivated by their anger at American foreign policy.  Our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially when they result in violence toward women and children, fuel their anger.  He also fears that if these hearings go badly that Muslims around the world who will be following the hearings will feel even more anger and frustration with America which could harm our interests and result in even more danger to our troops.

Professor Ahmed calls on the Muslim community to more fully embrace their American identity, culture and history.  At the same time he urges non-Muslim Americans to make the effort to learn about the Muslim religion and culture and to honor our ideals of religious freedom and tolerance.  He calls for a “civil and respectful” discussion at these hearings. He suggests that Representative King invite respected, credible social and religious leaders from the Muslim community to testify at the hearings while lamenting some of the witnesses that have been chosen. 

I think Professor Ahmed strikes an optimistic tone in his column and is even handed in his call for both sides to make an effort to learn about each other and the values we share.  Islam is the second largest religion in the world and over 1400 years old.  As the anger and suspicion against American Muslims has been escalating over the past couple of years the rhetoric has been venomous and ugly.  Americans are appallingly ignorant of Islam and the religious ideals Judaism and Christianity have in common with it.  Although I fear these hearings will further inflame tensions, I hope Professor Ahmed’s responsible and optimistic approach proves to be true and a beginning of a new understanding between us.

States' Rights takes the Stage

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A number of state legislatures around the country with new and very conservative Republican majorities have been proposing legislation aimed squarely at what they see as an over-reaching, tyrannical federal government.  According to Kirk Johnson in today's New York Times legislators across the country are invoking “states rights” as their reason for proposed legislation to exempt themselves from federal laws and regulations they find objectionable.   Ranging from the absurd to the ridiculous the proposed legislation includes a bill in Georgia requiring banks to accept payment in gold or silver only to a bill in Arizona to exempt all products produced and consumed in their state from federal interstate commerce laws. 

Many of us will remember that the last time we saw such emphasis on "states' rights" was during the Civil Rights era when it was invoked in defense of segregationist policies and Jim Crow laws.  Although this invocation is marginally less offensive it still speaks to some pretty ugly political theater taking the stage around the country.

It remains to be seen how many of these laws will be enacted but even if passed they are likely to be in conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.  As the reporter points out, decades of legal precedent make clear that federal law almost always overrides state law.  At best these attempts seem designed to make a political statement and perhaps divert attention from what will be very painful budget cuts in state and local governments.  The "jobs, jobs, jobs" promises that swept many of these people into office in the mid-term elections are still nowhere to be found.