Thoughts on why Tony Perkins and other anti-gay rights advocates are on the wrong side of history…

Tony Perkins, the acting President of the Family Research Council and a staunch anti-gay marriage advocate, recently spoke with CNN Anchor Brooke Baldwin prior to lobbying members of Congress on Capitol Hill. He, along with other conservative anti-gay rights groups are pushing for a Federal Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. When asked what motivates him to seek Congressional action, he stated that he and others believe that “allowing same sex couples to marry devalues marriage” as an institution. While being pressed by Baldwin on his personal beliefs, Perkins was asked whether he has ever stepped foot into a married gay couples home, or even sat down to discuss the issue with a same sex couple; his answer, “No, I haven’t.” He then deflected the conversation away from his personal experience with the LGBT community, which is apparently non-existent, to an argument of the issue being one simply of policy that does not consider personal feelings or civil rights. Baldwin responded by asking him if he was simply uncomfortable with gay Americans in general to which Perkins emphatically responded “no”. However, the discomfort in his voice and demeanor was obvious on the surface.

The Family Research Council and groups like it are not in favor of allowing civil unions for gay couples, a hard right position that diminishes their argument that the gay marriage debate is not about civil rights. Perkins knows that civil unions are simply contracts that have no bearing on traditional marriage and are not mentioned in any of the religious documents used to isolate the gay community from traditional marriage. Civil unions allow for basic hospital visitation rights for same sex couples and are largely symbolic in nature. However, when pressed to explain what exactly makes same sex relationships less valuable to them than opposite sex relationships, the fallback position for Perkins is that it’s about the kids and his religious freedom. To quote Perkins again: “Allowing same sex marriage takes away my religious freedom and I don’t want my kids being taught that same sex relationships have the same value as that of opposite sex couples.”

If ever there was an argument that screams of a violation of equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment, it is the argument that gay American relationships are of lesser value than those of straight Americans. After all, what should really matter is the word “American” when describing a citizen of the United States and the fundamental rights that go along with being designated as such. This country has already struggled through many of these same type of battles over equal treatment under the laws. Take rights for African Americans, women, and especially on point, allowing people of opposite races to marry each other. There will always be a segment of society who feels that minorities or those who are not like them are out to take something away from them. This time, the class of Americans being isolated is the gay community.

Ironically, allowing the gay community full marriage rights appears to have had a positive effect upon the divorce rate in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, and Perkins and other groups have attempted to counter the numbers by saying that the decrease in divorce is due to the fact that marriage rates in that State are down because of the change in the law. But this argument makes no sense because the reduction in marriages is a nationwide phenomenon that is unrelated to divorce and much more likely the product of the economic times than a trend due to same sex couples tying the knot.

When all of the cards are on the table, there appears to be nothing more than fear of co-existing equally with homosexuals driving Perkins and other social conservatives to lobby for a Constitutional amendment. These groups have clearly not spent any time with the individuals whose fundamental rights they want to suppress. There is no compelling interest unrelated to religious interpretation that drives their efforts. If marriage is indeed a recognized fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, then the Family Research Council and other groups around the country have simply not met their burden of showing how any interest, other than disapproval of gay Americans, drives the movement to define marriage and to exclude a class of citizens from existing on an equal playing field.

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, regardless of how it is framed by opposition groups, and as with the right to vote, desegregation, and interracial marriage, eventually allowing gay couples to marry, who are no different than any other citizen, will be considered a no-brainer. The modern GOP, Tony Perkins, and those who continue to want to segment society into classes of differing value, are simply on the wrong side of history.

If ever there was an argument that screams of a violation of equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment, it is the argument that gay American relationships are of lesser value than those of straight Americans. After all, what should really matter is the word “American” when describing a citizen of the United States and the fundamental rights that go along with being designated as such. This country has already struggled through many of these same type of battles over equal treatment under the laws. Take rights for African Americans, women, and especially on point, allowing people of opposite races to marry each other. There will always be a segment of society who feels that minorities or those who are not like them are out to take something away from them. This time, the class of Americans being isolated is the gay community.

Ironically, allowing the gay community full marriage rights appears to have had a positive effect upon the divorce rate in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, and Perkins and other groups have attempted to counter the numbers by saying that the decrease in divorce is due to the fact that marriage rates in that State are down because of the change in the law. But this argument makes no sense because the reduction in marriages is a nationwide phenomenon that is unrelated to divorce and much more likely the product of the economic times than a trend due to same sex couples tying the knot.

When all of the cards are on the table, there appears to be nothing more than fear of co-existing equally with homosexuals driving Perkins and other social conservatives to lobby for a Constitutional amendment. These groups have clearly not spent any time with the individuals whose fundamental rights they want to suppress. There is no compelling interest unrelated to religious interpretation that drives their efforts. If marriage is indeed a recognized fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, then the Family Research Council and other groups around the country have simply not met their burden of showing how any interest, other than disapproval of gay Americans, drives the movement to define marriage and to exclude a class of citizens from existing on an equal playing field.

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, regardless of how it is framed by opposition groups, and as with the right to vote, desegregation, and interracial marriage, eventually allowing gay couples to marry, who are no different than any other citizen, will be considered a no-brainer. The modern GOP, Tony Perkins, and those who continue to want to segment society into classes of differing value, are simply on the wrong side of history.

Thoughts on the DISCLOSE Act and the numbing down of the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision…

Last week, U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Al Franken (D-MN) introduced legislation which is aimed at numbing down the potential effects of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision with regards to corporate personhood and campaign ads. In an earlier KTI article, we discussed how the Supreme Court’s controversial decision is believed by many to be the end for the small guy in the electoral process. Thus giving the largest corporations, foreign interests included, overwhelming influence over election spending in the United States. Also, in allowing corporations to act as individual citizens with regards to their participation in the political process, the Citizens United decision left the door wide open for opponents in Congress to take action in balancing out its effects. The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act) is the first proposed, post-Citizens United legislation, which address’s this matter directly. The provisions, endorsed by President Obama in an address last week, are expected to pass through both Houses, with or without bipartisan support.

The DISCLOSE Act, as written, addresses four key areas:

1.) THE REGULATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF POLITICAL SPENDING
a.) Banning pay to play practices by preventing government contractors and corporate beneficiaries of TARP from spending money on elections.
b.) Preventing foreign influence on elections by closing a loophole for spending by domestic corporations controlled by foreign nationals. Companies with the following four situations will be prevented from contributing to candidates, Pac’s, and parties:
b1. A foreign national owns 20% or more of voting shares in the corporation
b2. A majority of the board of directors are foreign national’s
b3. One or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate, or control the decision-making of the U.S. subsidiary
b4. One or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate, or control the activities with respect to federal, state or local elections
c.) Preventing organizations from coordinating their activities with candidates and parties. More specifically, for House and Senate races, the legislation would ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Congressional candidate in the time period starting 90 days before the primary and continuing through the general election. For presidential campaigns, the legislation would ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate in the time period starting 120 days before the first presidential primary and continuing through the general election.
d.) Regulates Party Communications, stating that any payment by a political party committee for the direct costs of an ad or other communication made on behalf of a candidate affiliated with the party will be treated as a contribution to the candidate only if the communication is directed or controlled by the candidate and party-paid communications that are not directed or controlled by the candidate are not subject to limits on the party’s contributions or expenditures.

2.) PROMOTING EFFECTIVE DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN RELATED ACTIVITY
The legislation ensures that the public will have full and timely disclosure of campaign-related expenditures (both electioneering communications and public independent expenditures) made by covered organizations (corporations, unions, section 501(c)(4), (5), and (6) organizations and section 527 organizations). The legislation imposes disclosure requirements that will mitigate the ability of spenders to mask their campaign-related activities through the use of intermediaries. It also requires disclosure of both disbursements made by the covered organization and also the source of funds used for those disbursements.

3.) DISCLOSURE BY COVERED ORGANIZATIONS OF INFORMATION ON CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY
Requires periodic disclosures to shareholders, members, and donors of information on disbursements for campaign-related activity. The covered organization shall post the information described in subparagraph not later than 24 hours after the organization files the information with the Commission under the applicable provision of this Act, and shall ensure that the information remains on the website until the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on the date of the election with respect to which the public independent expenditures or electioneering communications are made.

4.) TELEVISION MEDIA RATES
Requires media outlets to charge the lowest possible rate for air time and to afford the same rate to all parties seeking advertising spots. This ensures an evening of the electioneering playing field by forcing media outlets to diversify and open their airwaves to less financed candidates. These rates, regulated by the FCC, would apply 45 days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the 60 days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate.

These anticipated, and widely supported adjustments, are a best case reaction to the unpopular Citizen’s United decision that will ultimately serve to improve on the legislative goals of McCain-Feingold. The increased focuses on monetary transparency, and the impending removal of shadowy contributors from the process through CEO and donor testimonials, are widely viewed as positive moves that should be politically popular with most Americans. With regards to protecting the voice of the individual voter, the influence of big money on elections has served to alienate the lower and middle class from the electoral process. Therefore, if implemented correctly, the DISCLOSE Act may be the appropriate legislation to counter to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Senators who drafted this legislation have the important benefit of an electorate that feels trumped by the power of special interests and corporate lobbyists. Coupled with the vociferous support of President Obama, and many progressives in Congress, the lost voices of the individual voter may soon get a much needed boost in volume and importance.

Thoughts on President Obama's tight rope approach to Wall Street reform…

Following the contentious health care debate, there was no doubting that President Obama and the Democratic leadership would seek a different approach to the passing of the proposed Wall Street reform package. Due to the initial framing of the proposed bill as a “bailout” by misinformed/cynical Republicans and pundits, it became necessary for The President to take direct control of the message before those looking to derail reform got any further traction. He immediately made the facts of the bill the story, not the opposition, and by doing so forced Senate Republicans, who in many ways had helped write the bill, to return to negotiations and admit their rhetoric was misguided. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee said it best when he stated on the floor of the Senate: "The fact is, the bill has taken a partisan turn. There are some bipartisan solutions in this bill, I grant that. But there's still work to be done," Corker said. "Let's finish that work before it gets to the floor. Let's just finish what we started."

However, as a beneficiary of campaign funding from embattled Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs ($994,795 in 2008), President Obama must walk a tight rope when criticizing those who are responsible for some of the worst practices against consumers of investment products. He knows that during his 2008 campaign he received money that was indirectly tied to the very derivatives market which he now intends to regulate. So, in framing the reasoning for the passing of this bill, he has chosen to make the argument that the proposed regulations will encourage firms to take a look at their worst practices, fix them, and work within an ethical, responsible, and increasingly consumer friendly framework. Therefore, the details of the bill, and The President’s ability to sell its contents, are of the utmost importance to his ability to knock down false attacks on both the reforms he seeks and his true intentions in pursuing them.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, as written in H.R. 4173, outlines new commissions and regulations for the following areas: 1) Creates the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), a new, independent federal agency solely devoted to protecting Americans from unfair and abusive financial products and services, 2) Creates the Financial Stability Council to identify and regulate financial firms that are so large, interconnected, or risky that their collapse would put the entire financial system at risk, 3) Ends “too big to fail” by establishing an orderly process for dismantling large, failing financial institutions like AIG or Lehman Brothers, 4) Establishes “Say on Pay” by giving shareholders a an advisory vote on pay practices including executive compensation and golden parachutes, 5) Strengthens the SEC’s powers so that it can better protect investors and regulate the nation’s securities markets (response to Madoff and Stanford frauds), 6) Regulation of Derivatives: the bill regulates, for the first time ever, the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives marketplace.7) Establishes a simple standard for all home loans institutions: They must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold, 8) Reforms Credit Rating Agencies by addressing the role of credit rating agencies in the economic crisis, 9) Requires almost all hedge fund advisers to register with the SEC, and subjects them to systemic risk regulation by the Financial Stability regulator, and 10) Creates a Federal Insurance Office that will monitor all aspects of the insurance industry.


By touting these bipartisan reforms, President Obama should have no problem selling this bill to a public which is fed up with Wall Street betting on their futures. The regulation of the derivatives and hedge fund markets are long overdue. Advisors should be registered with the SEC, and the SEC must have the power to stop the worst practices of financial criminals such as Bernie Madoff and others. With the wind behind his back on the issue, and Republicans in a position which should ultimately force them onboard, there is no reason to expect less than 65 votes for this version of the bill. Senate Republicans, who wrote the 50 billion dollar bank funded side account for responsible deconstruction of failing institutions into the bill, must only look to their leadership for the answers as to why they are against these common sense reforms. The Senate will now debate the intricacies of the bill, and there will be numerous attempts by Republicans, as I mentioned in a previous article, to change the topic or distort the details of the bill in order to prevent a legislative victory for The President. Unfortunately, these deceitful and cynical stall tactics are fresh in all of our minds, and this time Republicans and others who choose the path of “No” do so against the clear will of the American public they so adamantly wish to serve.

In the end, despite his deep ties to the firms he wishes to regulate, President Obama can only be commended for pushing the ball back into the people’s court, and going forward with regulations against the most powerful lobbying forces on Wall Street and in the banking industry. His tight rope walk between his political future and the future of our economic systems are becoming historic in nature. And as for the Republicans, will they eventually support a bill they largely wrote themselves? We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, the debate in the Senate should once again be contentious.

Thoughts on the GOP’s unfortunate response to Chris Dodd’s Wall Street Reform bill…

Today, Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, put their cards on the table with regards to Wall Street/financial reform. While all parties on both sides can agree that new consumer protections are necessary going forward, it already seems as if Republicans are destined to rerun the partisan dynamic of the health care debate by saying no upfront to the proposed bill. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut is the sponsor of the new bill, which aims to protect consumers of mortgages and credit cards by setting up a regulatory committee within the Federal Reserve that will make sure Americans are getting a fair deal, and also sets up a system to wind down failing companies to prevent bailouts from being necessary. To do the later, the wealthiest banks will pay a tax which will create a $50 billion dollar fund to be used to bring large failing banks and financial institutions down easy.

Instead of going forward on the sources of common ground that exist in the bill, McConnell did the exact opposite. He pointed out that he believes that the bill does not go far enough to prevent future bailouts, a description which does not seem to hold water given the second provisions implicit purpose. This move immediately puts the process in a familiar place. Rank and file Republicans will replicate the sentiments of the Minority Leader, while Democrats are likely to be forced to fend off myth after myth about a common sense bill that should be passed in a bi-partisan form as written. It seems way too convenient for the Republican leadership to all of a sudden become the anti-bailout party after ignoring the need for real regulation for decade after decade. Once again though, it seems that reasonable ideas of the few bi-partisan actors left in Congress are being framed into partisan talking points, which will only lead Republicans down the road to yet another defeat on a bill they should be for in principle.

If the passed and proposed reforms in both health care and finance prove to be effective, it will be a hard sell for Republicans to explain to voters why they were against reforming these two broken systems, amongst the many other reforms they have rejected. The minority party cannot accept its current status in second place, thus there is no honest desire shown by Republicans to compromise with the majority party on anything non-unanimous. This is unhealthy for a proud democracy like ours; where it is expected that we disagree on many things, but where it is also expected that we do what is right for our citizenry despite our politics. We should act to reform our weaknesses in the name of making America a better place for generations to come.

In an election year such as this, it is fairly predictable that the Republican establishment will do whatever possible to prevent President Obama from advancing his ambitious agenda. They will likely once again threaten the use of the filibuster, and even threaten to shut down the government over the funding of healthcare reform. It is then up to the voters to determine whether this is how they want their nation governed. Will we allow petty politics to impede progress? Or is it time to encourage the leadership of both parties to acknowledge the damage their partisan behavior has had on the already fragile reputation of the legislative process? As we watch the debate over financial reform and Wall Street regulation play out, it will be interesting to see who acts predictably, and who sides with common sense bi-partisan solutions to the costly banking and financial sector problems we face.

Thoughts on the politics of fear and homegrown militant groups…

Over the past few weeks, there has been a sharp increase in the mainstream media’s coverage of domestic born militia groups. These fringe groups have existed for some time, tending to loom in the shadows while leaders they support are in charge, only to pop up when leaders they perceive as a threat to their liberties are in power. The 2008 election of President Obama has fueled the fire for some of these mainly conservative militias and impressionable activists who fear that the end of times is coming, and that a socialist big brother type government is coming to get them. Recent action from groups such as the “Hutaree” and the “Guardians of the New Republics”, have reopened the conversation on the cause and effect of militia groups in modern day America.

On the surface, it’s easy to dismiss the members of such organizations as crazy, confused, and mostly talk, but when a militia begins to act out on their credos, we must remember our not so distant past and apply the lessons we learned from domestic based terror incidents such as the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1993 ATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco, Texas. With political conditions that are all too similar, if not more intense, the time has come to put a collective clamp down on these groups before their radical messages reach the wrong ears.

The fact is that none of these armed militias are truly capable of individually or simultaneously challenging the United States Military in a fire fight, but their calls to action are a cause for concern to those whose jobs it is to protect our elected officials and government workers in the workplace. These groups tend to do all of the talking, but none of the action, relying on lone wolves to carry out their dirty work. Militia leaders prey on these fearful souls, and are actively looking for those who will take the fall in order to become a “hero” of their particular cause. Fanning the flames of these types of movements, though indirectly, are certain political leaders who have chosen to use hateful discontent for political gain. This is not only irresponsible and borderline illegal under the Smith Act, but extremely dangerous given our fragile history.

Though it is not scientifically provable, the provoking actions of the past year by Republican members of Congress, along with targeted fear speak from primarily Conservative talk show radio hosts, has no doubt indirectly resulted in a call for action to paranoid homegrown extremists. Given today’s revelation that the GNR sent letters to 30 US Governors, telling them to “leave office within three days or be removed,” and the recent arrest of the Hutaree Militia in Michigan, the responsible action by political leaders and talk show hosts is to condemn these actions, not to promote them through dangerous rhetoric.

Representatives Boehner, Cantor, and Bachmann in particular, along with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Erick Erickson, and other fringe feeding radio and TV hosts, are increasingly guilty of fueling the fires of domestic discontent. From drastic claims of Armageddon and “death panels” during the lead up to the passing of health care reform, to the inciteful waving of “don’t tread on me” flags in front of an angry mob-like crowd in the capital by Republican members of Congress, the first year and a half of the Obama Presidency has been marked by increased fear mongering by fringe activists and pundits. Distorted political scare tactics fed by irresponsible elected officials and media people in a position to reach millions of Americans every day, who put their stamp of approval on the behavior of the radical few.

We don’t want to see a repeat of our tragic history, and lose more of our best leaders due to unfounded fears and hate. If we see a friend, family member, or colleague engaging in incendiary or hateful commentary, we should let them know that we have already traveled down this path, and the results were devastating to our country. In 2010, we must be smart enough to realize the amazing power of our words. Whether you do or don’t support a politician, policy decision, or certain ideology, we must all agree that violence and hate are not the answer to attaining a better union. Let’s hope that our leaders in Washington DC, state capitals, townships, and in the media will take heed of their responsibility in keeping the discourse of our debates and conversations civil. Only then can we avoid the same tragic consequences suffered by generations before us.

Thoughts on the 2010 United States Census…

With regard to the powers granted to the Congress as they pertain to counting the total population of the United States, Article 1, Section 2 states that for determining the number of Representatives and Electoral College Votes for the individual states: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." Therefore, as we discuss the various details of the 2010 Census, we must be mindful of both its intended and unintended purposes.

The Congress, through these above mentioned powers, can decide what questions are asked of the people, while also determining the budget of the Census Bureau. They also dictate the detailed terms of each conducted survey. The Census, like many other parts of the Constitution, has evolved to include previously excluded populations; such as American Indians, women, and African American’s. The Census Bureau is ultimately in charge of executing the enumeration process. In addition, under privacy laws, Census data does not become part of the public record until 72 years after the date of a given Census. Therefore fears of private information being made public are completely unfounded. To put this in perspective, consider that the results of the 1940 Census will not be made public until April 1, 2012.

Still, many people continue to give in to misinformation fermented mainly by fear of government intrusion. Some members of Congress, such as Rep. Michelle Bachmann, said they would refuse to fill out the entire 2010 Census form because of dreamed up fears about the role of the now non-existent ACORN in the door to door counting process; stating in June of 2009: “I think what the threat of ACORN would be the deluding of the ballot box and the effectiveness of our vote," she said. "They will be in charge of going door to door and collecting data from the American public, this is very concerning.” Ironically, despite her apparent fear of ACORN foot soldiers, she voted “Aye” on H.R. 1096: A measure encouraging individuals across the US to participate in the 2010 census. It’s this kind of obvious, fear driven cynicism that is dangerous to the integrity of our government, and a giant disservice to the information seeking citizens of that official’s district or state.

The fact of the matter is; in order for our elected officials to effectively garner the appropriate level of funding for national, state and local projects, an accurate head count of the number of individuals in a given district, state, and the nation must be done as required by the Constitution, and for responsible democratic governing. Without the Census to guide money streams, there would essentially be huge disproportion of funding for communities across the nation. In addition, the future funding of local schools, hospitals, law enforcement, roads, and more, are at stake.

There are only two reasons not to fill out the Census; fear and laziness. As of the writing of this article, only 54% of Americans had mailed back their Census form. This low level of initial participation is both costly and inexcusable. There are only 10 simple questions to answer, and it takes you no more than 10 minutes. There is a even a return envelope with free postage included with your Census package. Those who are a frugal, yet still hesitant, should take note that it will cost an additional allotment of taxpayer funds to foot count those who refuse to mail in their forms.

The information we gain also allows us to know more about ourselves as a people, and provides agencies with valuable demographical information that we can use to improve the quality of life for all Americans. If you truly care about your community, and feel vested in the future of your state as well as your country; do the right thing, be counted, fill out and mail in your 2010 Census form today.

Thoughts on political incivility in 2010

It’s time for us all to take a deep breath. Our history has shown us that the current path of incivility some have chosen to take will only lead us to repeat our darkest days as a nation. Whether you supported health care reform or not, we can all agree that we collectively want to be defined by the best we have to offer, not the worst. Right, left, or middle politically, no reasonable person can excuse the recent threats of violence made against multiple members of Congress and The President of the United States. This should not be the case in 2010, a time where the perception abroad of the strength of our democracy must not be in question. With two wars still in progress, we must remain strong and united in our purpose to represent what makes America great: our civility and our common ideals.

No matter how deeply rooted your opposition to any one particular policy; there is nothing in our character as a nation that allows for such hateful actions. No elected official who voted for the Health care Reform Bill deserves to have their families targeted, nor should people take to arms and fire at a Republican representative’s campaign office. Have we not learned these lessons from tragic events such as the Oklahoma City Bombings in 1993, the Civil War, and the assassinations of JFK and Abraham Lincoln? Now is the time for us to unite despite our differences, take a moment to realize we are all Americans despite our political opinions, and put an end to this violent nonsense.

When we allow our own selfish reasoning to outweigh common sense civility, we endanger the very core of our values as Americans. Violence against our neighbors, agree with them or not, is not something we can afford to tolerate. It’s our duty to let those who are distraught know that they need only vote to express their disdain for public policy. Our leaders need to come together on a bi-partisan basis and show Americans that they are united under one flag, one constitution, and a lasting creed to remain civil in the midst of tough argument and debate.

As we deploy our troops to foreign nations, it is imperative that we set a good example for those whom we are trying to help achieve a free democracy. We need to respect one another’s opinions, and if we should disagree, act like we’ve been there before, and put hatred to the side. Our country cannot afford to become more divided. Unless we can return to an era of respect towards our political leaders, and most importantly, one another, the ideal of America as a civil democracy will quickly fall into jeopardy. Today is the best time to end the hate, the animosity, the incitement, the cynicism, and to allow the best of us to come forward. I hope we can all agree that coming together in condoning the past weeks actions of a radical few is in the best interest of all Americans.

Thoughts on the future of the Tea Party Movement

The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was a landmark occurrence in the sequence of events leading to the American Revolution. That day, fed up colonists revolted violently against the imposing taxes placed on tea by King George. Their cause, defending the rights of the colonies to engage in commerce without such a huge tax burden imposed by the British, ultimately led to the tar and feathering of British soldiers in front of an angry mob. The actions taken that day eventually helped to allow revolutionary aspirations to reach a fever pitch.

Flash forward to 2008, following the selection of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, it seemed there was a dramatic split between the social conservatives in the party and John McCain’s moderate Republican base. McCain, considered barely a Republican by many conservatives (dating back to his battles with George W. Bush during the 2000 Republican Primary process), never had control of his own party’s message. Social conservatives felt alienated by the mainstream Republican’s lack of enthusiasm for their core issues, including abortion, gun control, and a united disdain for Barack Obama and the Democrats. Their discontent would seal his fate.

Though McCain would attempt to entice the far right with gimmicks such as “Joe the Plumber”, most social conservatives felt a lack of enthusiasm by the mainstream Republican Party towards their social agenda, and they stayed home on election night in 2008. The next morning, it was obvious that there was a considerable gap in the conservative movement. Born out of discontent towards Washington, a perception of taxation without representation, and a general dislike for the agenda of President Obama, The Tea Party Movement, as they called themselves, took on increased traction by filling the gap amongst social conservatives looking for a platform to organize upon.

The Tea Party quickly grew into a group of loosely affiliated sub-groups, rallying behind politicians who fulfilled their agenda of a more socially conservative union. Though on the face, the movement had legitimate grass-roots ideals, such as opposition to the bank bailouts and the Recovery Act, the lack of leadership amongst the group allowed a radical element to hijack their cause. During the heated debates over health care last summer, The Tea Party jumped upon every rumor, true or false, and marketed health care as a government takeover. Followers took to the streets and town halls, and the opportunists in the crowd began to use the publicity of the moment to promote anti-minority, anti-government, and generally divisive sentiments among the movement.

Though it is true that many Tea Party members are good people, the above-stated hijacking took center stage this past weekend with the actions of health care protesters in Washington DC. Representing the Tea Party “Patriots”, some in the crowd channeled their inner 1960’s by raining down verbal abuse on minority members of Congress as they made their way to debate and vote on the bill before them. 50 years after the civil rights era, a radical few have tainted the image of the social conservative movement in this country. Tea Party members, lacking a leader, have no unified message with which to combat the hijacking of their cause by the fringes of the right. Some seem to condone the actions, and some seem to hold these people in contempt. What is sure, is the demise of the Tea Party Movement should they continue to allow uncivil behavior to define them going forward.

Republicans who have embraced the Tea Party, such as House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sarah Palin, stand guilty of inciting these crowds by playing to their most cynical and egregious claims for short term political gain. The result of this kind of irresponsible guidance has been mob like action by radical Tea Party members who have taken the support of these politicians to heart. The reality is that the Republican Part cannot allow the Tea Party to grow too large without incorporating them, or they run the risk of having the conservative vote split in November.

In the upcoming weeks, we will see attempts by many previously moderate Republicans to embrace the Tea Party. Even though they fly to the right of their true political identity. Already, in an attempt to reign in the Tea Partiers, former Bush Chief of Staff Karl Rove has begun talking down to them, blaming their lack of civility on the politically unsophisticated nature of the movement. Leading to the bigger questions going forward: First, will a cause, which has taken on its own identity, begin to run its own candidates in opposition to Democrats and Republicans? Second, will the Tea Party fold to pressure from the GOP and join the Republican cause going forward? And finally, can the Republican Party survive without gaining their support? The answers will arise in the months ahead, but the impact on the political landscape, much like the Tea Party of 1773, will be felt for years to come.

Thoughts on Congress moving forward post health care reform

There is no denying that the historic piece of health care reform legislation passed by the House of Representatives Sunday evening will leave lasting memories in the minds of most Americans. Deep rooted ideological differences, legal maneuvering, political posturing, and the messy nature of the bill passing process were brought to the forefront. At the same time, it’s quite possible that our system worked exactly as it was intended. When faced with a complex paradigm like the health of our citizens, both chambers of Congress exhausted the plentiful arguments of both sides, triggering a tidal wave of opinion across the entire country.

In the third way tradition of FDR and Clinton, President Obama let the arguments of both sides reach a collective boil, taking into account the best ideas of both sides, incorporating over 200 amendments from the minority party, and directing the bill towards the center of the political spectrum. The fringes of each side, tending to be the loudest of the American citizenry, put pressure on Congress and the President to appease both more radical forms of change by the left and putting a halt to the process altogether by the right. The winners in the end would be those with pre-existing conditions, the uninsured, the middle class, and the millions who overpay for insurance that doesn’t always serve its purpose of delivering a quality deal for the sickest Americans.

It was common knowledge that no one bill could appease all sides of such a personal debate, with the costs so high for both parties, there was no question that this would be an ugly process. The protests took a negative turn, but civil minds prevailed, therefore the question now shifts to moving forward to solve the other pressing issues facing us. Largely overlooked throughout the health care debate were bi-partisan bills which passed to get people back to work, such as the HIRE Act. Immigration reform, environmental and energy policies, and a host of other potentially divisive issues will soon take hold of the conversation, but we can rest assured that despite our differences there can still be meaningful policy made by our government.

It may be true that in politics nothing is simple, there are always going to be opposing viewpoints, but when civility, common sense, and healthy debate are allowed to take the stage, the result is often a legislative product that will benefit the whole of our society, not just the loudest, richest, or the most powerful amongst us. The promising result of a century long debate gives us good reason to be optimistic for the future of our country, and a chance to realize and appreciate the power of uniting our ideas beyond simplistic, and often divisive political theatre.

Thougts on whether arguments against health care reform based on abortion language are warranted

Having just listened to Rep. Cao of Louisiana acknowledge that he is voting against health care reform based on his religious beliefs, rather than fulfilling the will of his constituents, I think now is the perfect time to analyze the validity of the anti-abortion argument as it relates to the current health care bill before the House of Representatives.

In the previous article, I spoke about the need for Senators and members of Congress to represent the collective views of their districts and states as opposed to voting for, or on ideological, party line, or personal religious reasons. Obviously, not everyone will share the same religious beliefs as Rep. Cao, so the debates on policy in this country really should hinge on the content and merits of the bill, rather than on one single minded congressman’s thoughts on an idealistic, anti-abortion, America.

After reading the text of the legislation closely, I’m struggling to see how any honest legislator, on either side of the aisle, catholic or pro-choice, can argue that the bill before them will ultimately lead to federally funded abortion in the future. If these congressmen and women are so inclined to fight abortions, they should focus more closely on the fact that private insurers, not the government, are already covering thousands of abortions at this time.

To deny 32 million Americans health care coverage in the name of something that doesn’t exist in the bill at hand seems to make absolutely no sense. In the name of compromise, it has been stated from the very beginning, that the intention of this bill is not to increase access to abortions, nor to involve the government in the practice. Republicans and Democrats who have read the full text should know this, which is why many people might be dumbfounded by the voting decision of Rep. Cao on that basis.

Not to lay this all on Cao, but he represents a population in desperate need of care and has chosen his own selfish religious ideals over solving one of the biggest problems facing the population which he was elected to represent. There is still a group of congressmen, including Cao, and led by Rep. Stupak, who insist on staying firm based on their belief in a huge abortion rush in the future.

Is it time for these representatives to take a hard look at themselves, the people they represent, and decide whether saving the lives of thousands of Americans is less important than a fear of fulfilling a selfish virtue? Should a bill, which can be amended and fine-tuned in the future to clean up small disparagements, fail on the basis of a matter which has been settled in principle already? Are representatives who vote for themselves, or their parties, over the needs of their constituents the right people to lead our country?

As we have learned from the messy process before us now, who we send to Washington to represent our collective interests is a vital decision which we must take seriously. The responsibility ultimately lies with each of us to stay relative in the political process by exercising our right to vote in every election, even the less popular mid-term elections. Collectively, we need to do a better job picking our leaders this November. If we do this, we may be able to avoid elected officials like Cao who will stop progress based on fact less claims.

Thoughts on Speaking for All Americans

Over the past year, it has become increasingly apparent that our major political parties have become infected with members who insist they speak on behalf of all Americans. Yesterday, I heard Rep. John Boehner continue to insist to CNN that “Americans don’t want this health care bill,” which no matter how you feel about its passage, is clearly both untrue, and arrogant. No matter which party you may support, we can all agree that there is only one elected official who has been sent to speak on behalf of all Americans, The President of the United States.

Whether you support the right, left or the middle, it is simply not true that a Senator or Congressman/woman is sent to Congress to represent anything other than the needs of their particular state or district. If you represent Virginia, don’t tell someone in Texas what they think, they didn’t elect you. If you support a bill, or are adamantly opposed to something, speak on behalf of your constituents, not the entire nation. It reeks of arrogance, and turns off many people who don’t appreciate being told what they believe.

The recent Health Care Summit was a prime example of this, with both sides collectively claiming things that are not unanimous by any means, and even though there may be polling that shows favor towards on side, it still does not mean that all Americans feel a certain way about it. This infection has spread like a wildfire through the minority party as of late, which is very ironic since Republicans are not in a position to truthfully claim they represent the prevailing interest in this country. If that were true, Barack Obama would not be in the White House, which leads to a closing thought.

In my opinion, it is a sign of disrespect to most Americans when officials who represent states with tiny populations claim to represent the entire country. There is a reason why the representatives of the 50 states are sent to a chamber where they are to collectively determine the best interests of the country. The purpose of the Senate and US Congress is not minority rule. When the collective of the Congress is in favor of a measure, even still they cannot claim to speak for all Americans, just a majority of Americans. The minority party, to be truthful, would have to pre-phrase their statements with “a minority of Americans feel” or “the people of my state feel.” These recommendations, though they will most likely be victim to deaf ears, may be the recipe for more realistic political statements. Let the current President speak for the Americans who voted for him, and let the Senate and Congress collectively speak for their respective States. Anything more is simply outside of the scope of reality.

Thoughts on Deaths Related to Lack of Health Insurance in the US

Today, while doing my research for this article, I stumbled upon an old USA Today article from May of 2002. In the article, it had been determined by researchers that 18,000 people in the United States had died from a lack of health insurance in 2001. The article also mentioned that approximately 30 million people lacked health insurance at the time, a number relatively equal to the amount of people who will be covered under the Senate’s health care bill. These numbers, while staggering, pale in comparison to the numbers researchers found in 2009.

In a CNN article from September of 2009, It was determined that over 45,000 Americans died in 2008 because they did not have health care insurance, a number we can only sadly predict as having risen since. This, with approximately 45 million Americans off of the Health Insurance rolls. At the same time, health insurance CEO’s raked in massive salaries, while denying coverage to many of these people who are no longer with us. 15 Million People joined the ranks of the uninsured, and a staggering increase of deaths amongst this group makes this the biggest homeland threat we have ever faced.

We have spent nearly 750 billion dollars on the War in Iraq, but nothing has been done to respond to the thousands of deaths occurring right under our noses. Using basic math, passing the current bill would save approximately 30,000 lives over the course of a year, just by providing basic health care services to the sick and needy. The short term costs of a trillion dollars over 10 years, while tough to swallow, are nothing compared to the costs to families across the country. If the current system remains in place, we are effectively allowing people to die on our watch. It’s really that simple. No matter what the partisan debate of the moment may be, we must all agree that the status quo is not acceptable.

In the end, the bill will not make anybody 100% happy. But, if we can save that many lives per year, and potentially pay down the costs over the next decade, then why not use the Senate Bill as a starting point, a base from which adjustments can be made over time? If we can save the lives of our fellow Americans by passing this historic reform package, then it would seem passing the bill now would be in the best interest of everyone but the insurance companies.

This week should see resolution of a yearlong debate over the current process and the product created by both houses. Will everyone be happy? No, but if we all do some soul searching, and think about those less fortunate, maybe we can all agree that saving the lives of our fellow citizens, and making health care a right, not a privilege, will be in the long term best interest of our economy, our communities, and our country.

Thoughts on Hypocrisy in the US Congress

It may be difficult to take an objective look at the state of affairs in the US Congress, especially in the midst of the chaos surrounding the health care reform bill before them at this time; But, maybe now is the best possible time for us to closely analyze the stances taken, primarily by conservatives, against majority legislative procedures such as reconciliation and deem.

These procedures, though used numerous times to pass bills with narrow majorities, and utilized by both parties when they have been in the majority, are being called unconstitutional by some who claim that these methods have never been used to pass social reform. These elected officials know very well that these procedures have been used numerous times for social change. Most recently, the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy passed by reconciliation and the raising of the debt ceiling by previous Republican and Democratic Administrations passed through use of the deem procedure.

Often, as a member of the minority party, it is easy to complain about the process when you know you can’t win the argument based on ideas. This has happened to both sides over the course of history, and now the health care bill is in the same boat. The minority didn’t support the bill last March, still, they had many ideas of theirs incorporated into the bill, knowing it will be passed no matter what due to the process. But now they are using misinformation about the bill to win elections in November while claiming opposition to many of their own ideas. This is what tends to happen when a political argument is allowed to fester for too long, people begin to suffer short term memory loss. Cynically opposing ideas you are truly in favor of has to be the worst form of hypocrisy present in our politics today.

If we as citizens can’t see this, and are unwilling to call out those who are purposely cynical, the future of our government is in dire straits. We need leaders who will not only stand by their ideals, but also listen to reasonable ideas from their opponents, finally formulating their opinions and voting decisions based on facts, not on how bad it will make the other side look. The US Congress is causing headaches for all Americans, liberal and conservative. Until we can rid our system of this kind of cynicism, meaningful bi-partisan reform of any kind will not be possible in our legislative branch.

Thoughts on former NY Congressman Massa and his troubles

Perhaps the most intriguing Democratic political scandal since the late 90’s has to be that of now former Congressman Eric Massa of New York. From his initial claim that he was stepping down due to cancer, to allegations of an uncomfortable confrontation in a health club shower over his health care vote with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and finally, his admission to inappropriate comments to a staffer at a wedding, there is utter confusion as to what happened in the weeks leading up to his resignation.

This story has also taken on yet another puzzling dimension with the odd embrace of Massa by conservative talk radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Despite Massa’s adamant support for the Public Health Care Option, a position most conservatives oppose, they are calling him a conservative hero in the fight against a government takeover of health care.

Add to this, Massa is now claiming that his resignation was the result of pressure from the White House and his fellow congressmen, proclaiming himself as the decisive vote on healthcare. The House Ethics Committee then stated that Rep. Massa was being forced out due to the wedding incident, and were contacted by a friend of the staffer, contradicting Massa’s claim that he was never contacted by Ethics Chairman Steny Hoyer or his staff. Nonetheless, he is insistent upon blaming his resignation on his own party’s pressure over a yes vote on the senate bill.

It is my opinion, that while he may have been under enormous pressure from all sides with regards to his vote on health care reform, his acknowledgement to the inappropriate actions he took should end the conversation. In a political environment where restoring public trust is of the utmost importance, there is no room for people like Massa who take their elected responsibilities for granted. Even if it was a joke, you have to know that as an elected official, your every action will be scrutinized, and the opposing party will always use your mistakes against you. In the end Mr. Massa, you have no one to blame but yourself.