Ideas on Reducing Gun Violence

Suggested Legislative Considerations for Gun Safety in America

I am hopeful, as I believe most Americans are, that the tragic events of this weekend, where 41 people died and over 50 were injured, will FINALLY be the impetus for Congress and the President to take action to minimize these actions in the future.  Thoughts, prayers, condolences and support for victims are no longer enough.

But action must be developed with respect for the input from both sides of the aisle in Congress.  Both sides respect the rights of law abiding citizens in the 2nd Amendment.  Here is the specific unedited language of that Amendment: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  On some sides of the debate, this language has been interpreted as an absolute right for all citizens to keep and bear arms of all types, without "infringement" by any laws designed to limit gun violence.

But as Justice Scalia wrote in a previous gun control decision,  "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." It is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." (US vs. Heller).  For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution's ratification and should be permitted today.  He also wrote in that decision that “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill … or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Both sides also seem to agree on the need to prevent people with criminal records, mental health issues, with past evidence of violent behavior, or with extremist ideology tendencies involving hate for other groups of Americans, from owning firearms. But this will not be an easy action to implement, even if there is broad agreement to the principle. How we would define and track these issues before a gun purchase or as part of a regular follow up to the gun owner population, will be a challenging process?

Within that construct of the 2nd Amendment and that recent Supreme Court decision by a conservative majority, we should be able to develop laws that would be effective in significantly reducing not only the impact of mass shooting events on the extent of death and injury, we should also be able to minimize the number of these events as well.  These would seem to be goals that should benefit from broad agreement among our citizens as well as our leaders.

What might the components of a COMPREHENSIVE gun safety law include if it were designed to achieve the above goals?  Here are some suggestions for consideration and discussion:

First: High firing speed weapons and high-capacity magazines shouldn’t be broadly available to ordinary citizens.

It is often stated that guns don’t kill people, only people kill people.  But it is equally true that no one armed with a knife or a standard handgun this past weekend would have been able to kill and injure nearly 100 people in a matter of a few minutes or seconds.  Even if surrounded by “good guys with guns”, it is going to require some minutes or seconds before a mass shooter can be subdued.  

In El Paso, police subdued the shooter within 6 minutes I believe.  In Dayton, it was reported today that it was only 30 seconds between shots fired and the downing of the shooter by police who were in the area.  The police found 41 shells from the shooter’s weapon, and admitted that might not be all the rounds fired.  That would mean a firing rate of over 1 bullet per second.  It seems inarguable that the number of mass deaths and injuries in a mass shooting attack is a direct result of the type of weapon involved; the greater the number of bullets fired per second, the greater will be the number of deaths and injuries.

The two factors that impact the number of casualties in a few minutes are (1) the firing speed of the weapon, and (2) the number of bullets able to be fired in a single magazine without reloading.  So achieving the goal of limiting the number of deaths and injuries in such events would seem to require preventing weapons with high firing speeds, such as those weapons approaching the speed of 1 round per second, high capacity magazines, and the accumulation of hundreds of rounds of ammunition by ordinary citizens.

Second:  Ensure that every purchase of any firearm involves a comprehensive background check, including the mental health, past violent behaviors, and social media history, in addition to criminal records, before being allowed to purchase a weapon.  

If we agree that people with a criminal record, a mental health issue, a record of past violent behaviors, or subscribing to extremist political beliefs of hatred and intolerance of certain groups of Americans, should not have access to firearms, we have to have a background check process capable of accessing all these aspects of a gun purchaser's records.  People who seek to own guns will need to agree to waive their rights to privacy in these areas, and to have their histories checked before being permitted to purchase or own a gun through any commercial channel, gift, exchange or any other means of obtaining a firearm.

Third:  The purchase of a large number of bullets and/or magazines at one time or in a short period of time, or the accumulation of a large number of bullets, magazines, or  firearms over time should initiate a more direct investigation by authorities.  

When a gun owner looks to purchase or accumulate hundreds of rounds of ammunition, dozens of magazines, and/or a large collection of firearms, at one time or over time, this should initiate a further direct investigation of that individual’s current status.  This review would include an in-person interview and a check on how and why the larger than normal numbers of these items are being collected.

Fourth:  Gun owners should agree to have on-going reviews of their backgrounds to continue to have the right to own a gun.  Will a one time, lifetime check on backgrounds be sufficient?  

It would seem that anyone owning a gun from a past purchase will also need to undergo such a background check of their on going records. A criminal act, a mental health issue, a violent behavior incident or exhibiting an extremist belief could happen in the days, weeks, months or years after a gun purchase.  So gun owners will have to agree to those on going checks, perhaps annually, to retain their ability to own guns.  

In the 2nd Amendment, in the 21st century in America, what might the definition of “well regulated” requirements for citizens to have their rights to gun ownership not “infringed” mean?  Might “well regulated” in the 21st century reasonably require mental health checks, no violent behavior records, no “red flag” social media posts, no association with extremists ideologies, and agreement of gun owners to have these areas reviewed each year to renew their rights to continue no “infringed” rights to own guns?

The approach described above is hoped to represent a balanced, objective approach to the issue of preventing gun-related violence.  It starts with 2 clear goals, both minimizing death and injuries in mass shooting events, and in seeking to prevent them from occurring.  It then suggests actions designed to directly accomplish the 2 goals that reflect respect for the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens, while also respecting the rights of all citizens to the qualities of life in America that are stated as the Purpose for the Constitution.  

In the Preamble, our Founders stated clearly what goals the Constitution, including all the Amendments, are designed to provide for all citizens:  “…, to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …”.  It could be honestly asked, is the level of gun violence in America over the past two decades consistent with having achieved any of those goals in the our quality of national life?  Are 250 mass shootings so far this year and multiple school shootings consistent with “domestic tranquility, general welfare, or securing liberty for ourselves and our children?"  If not, we have to ask why our leaders who took an Oath of Office to Support and Defend the Constitution, do not seem capable of taking the necessary actions to do so.

I’m sure this approach and these ideas are not perfect solutions.  I hope they stimulate our leaders and my fellow citizens to consider a similar objective, non-partisan approach, starting with specific goals that would clearly reduce the violence, and then suggest solutions on actions to achieve these solutions.

Service and Sacrifice: Thoughts from Independence Day 2019

Service and Sacrifice:  Thoughts from Independence Day, Memorial Day and D-Day Anniversary

As we look forward to celebrating the 243^rd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence this week, I have been thinking of the sacrifice so many citizens in our history have made for the rest of us in their service to the country.  There is no political divisiveness in those military units; there is only the shared commitment to service and willingness to sacrifice one’s own comforts or even life to protect our country’s freedoms and liberties.  

This celebration comes on the heels of a very important 10 days in the history of our country during May 30-June 6:  the 10 day period between Memorial Day and the D-Day Anniversary.  These two very special days, along with our celebration of our Declaration of Independence, should remind us of the ultimate sacrifices so many Americans have made to secure the future of our nation and that of many other nations in the world. 

On each Memorial Day, we recall the service and the sacrifices of all servicemen and women who died in combat during all the wars since World War I.  And on D-Day this year, we marked the 75^th Anniversary of the sacrifices of 2,500 mostly young Americans who died taking the beaches of Normandy to begin the liberation of France and the balance of Europe, and preserve freedom in the 20^th century.

There are 25 American cemeteries in 10 countries in Europe with the graves of 130,000 men killed in action during the two world wars. There are also an estimated 124,000 missing and believed to have been killed in action. What other nation on earth has lost tens of thousands of citizens fighting on foreign soil for the freedom of another country?  Americans did not die in an effort to conquer another country, or to ask “what’s in this for us?”  They fought to free the citizens of other nations from tyranny … citizens they never met, who mostly speak languages they couldn’t understand.

It is often said about the American system of government, based on our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, that it is the best system of government invented by man to govern themselves.  But I believe the memorials we celebrate on these two holidays each year should remind us that the preservation of that government has always required the service and sacrifices of its citizens; from the Revolutionary War, to the Civil War, to two World Wars, to the Cold War, and to the wars against terrorism.  

As we express our admiration and gratitude to those Americans who served the cause of protecting our country and our democracy at the sacrifice of their own lives, I’d like to challenge us to bring our thoughts to the present.  That same kind of commitment to our country and our democracy is evidenced each day by the men and women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces today.  Nearly every one of us will make the small effort to express a well-deserved and sincerely felt “thank you for your service” when we encounter active duty or veteran service men and women. 

But how do we feel about our political leaders, particularly Congressional leaders?  Do we view them with the same level of admiration and gratitude?  Apparently not at all.  National surveys indicate that while the military has an approval rating over the past decade between 72% and 82%, the approval rating for Congress has been between 7% and 13%.  Might it be that most citizens do not see Congress committed to serving our country and our democracy as a whole?  Or that most citizens don’t see Congress members in general willing to make the smallest personal sacrifice to solve many of the problems facing our country today?

I would ask you to consider that Congress as an institution today no longer seems to govern the way citizens expect to be governed in the representative democracy passed down to us by our Founders in the Constitution.  Over the past several decades, members from both parties seem to focus more on serving their own careers, their donors, their party’s base and special interest groups, than on serving the nation. 

In our representative democracy, don’t citizens have a right to expect that their elected officials who take the Oath of Office will serve the needs and concerns of all their constituents, including those citizens who didn’t vote for them as well as those who did, and those who are not in their party’s base as well as those who are?  Today, it seems that there is hardly an elected official who would make any degree of personal or political sacrifice to place service to country over themselves, their positions of power, or their party; even though the sacrifice required to do so pales in comparison to the sacrifices so many ordinary Americans have made and are still making today during times of war.

How has this situation with so many Congressional and Administration leaders from both parties developed under our extraordinary Constitution?  Aren’t there protections in the Constitution citizens can rely upon?  The short answer is “no”.  Our Constitution is not a document that defines HOW elected officials should operate to serve the people in a representative democracy, or WHAT actions they should follow in governing.  Defining such processes or actions would have been a difficult goal to achieve among the drafters, none of whom had ever seen or lived in a representative democracy. 

So the Constitution our Founders wrote and passed on to us essentially defines the “structure” of our government, and the powers given to each independent Branch – providing us with the critical system of “checks and balances” between the Branches.  However, the Constitution does not define the “operational rules” of how elected officials should govern.  These rules were left to the elected officials themselves to define over time.  Our Founders believed that if the elected officials did not act to serve the people, the people would use their votes to remove those from office who acted to serve themselves, their party, or special interest groups, or who acted corruptly. 

It is understandable that our Founders could not possibly foresee the rise in the influence of incumbency, of money, of donors, or of partisanship, and the dangers to our representative democracy that these influences now represent.   But some of our most prominent Founders did warn the country against one of the greatest dangers they foresaw early in our history.  See how relevant these warnings seem today:

John Adams wrote on October 2, 1789, just  6 months after our current Constitution was ratified, and 5 months after taking office as our first Vice President:

 “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

George Washington  echoed this apprehension in his Farewell Address on September 19, 1796:

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

Does it seem that these fears of the potential risks of partisanship to our representative government as expressed by our first two Presidents in the early years of republic, may be coming true today?  Over the past several decades, we have seen officials in both parties when in the majority fail to develop policies that serve the entire country versus their own base or donors.  In election years, the candidates compete in proposing new policy ideas that appeal largely to their party’s base.  But no candidate talks about policy ideas that might serve the major needs of most of the country, by taking into account the needs and concerns of citizens in both parties.

As an example, the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, was passed by a one party marjority, as was the 2017 Tax Cut law.  Neither has been a particularly effective policy for the country overall.  They have resulted in great benefits for the party’s base they were designed to help, but provided minimal benefits, or even created new burdens, for major parts of the country outside of their base.  This is not how a representative democracy, focused on serving the country, the nation overall, should act … it is more aptly how a one-party dictatorship might act.  And under today’s rampant partisanship, that is perhaps a more apt description of where our current leaders have taken our government today.

Perhaps after 238 years, it is time to consider a “Renewal” of our Constitution; not to change the purpose or structure established 238 years ago, but to update the Constitution by adding some specific rules to define HOW our elected officials should govern.  This “Renewal” would ensure elected officials more directly serve the people than serve their own careers and interests, the interests of their donors, their partisan bases, and special interest groups, by defining new “rules” for how Congress should operate and govern within the Constitution itself.

The purpose of these new operational “rules” would be to require elected officials to focus on serving the country, and ALL their constituents, even when it might require some personal and political sacrifices.  The goal of these rules would be to attract elected officials who seek office primarily out of a sense of duty, obligation and service to the country, not as a career to enrich themselves; and to free elected officials from the undue influences of needing to please their base voters, donors and special interest groups in their desires to sustain a career in office.

Today, this partisan focus on governing has led to an incredible urgency in each party to win, and created an unhealthy fear of losing.  This is true for both the candidates seeking to sustain their careers and power in the institutions, and the citizen members of each party, who fear not having their needs and concerns reflected in future policies if their party loses.  This “winner take all” approach to majority power governing has led to a “win at all costs” approach to elections. Thus, we have seen party loyalty and identity supersede loyalty and identity to the country overall or even to the Constitution and rule of law. 

As evidence of this change, we have seen partisan “gerrymandering” of Congressional districts be executed by both parties, whichever is in control of the process, to protect their own candidates and majorities at the expense of the basic principle of “fair” elections reflecting the true will of citizens. This results in having representatives picking their voters instead of the voters picking their representatives.  Elected officials from those areas do not come to Congress with the goal of serving all their constituents, or the country overall, by compromising or collaborating with officials representing different constituencies.  As a result, the country either gets no policies to address the country’s major needs at all, or we get only the approach designed by and for a single party majority.

Elected officials in both parties have also made rules for the lawmaking process that benefit themselves and their parties and to ensure their own re-elections, at the expense of following the Constitution.  As a recent example, when there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President “shall appoint with the advice and consent of the Senate …” a replacement candidate.   Is there any part of this language that indicates the Senate Majority Leader can block a Supreme Court appointment by a President at any time by themself alone?  There’s no exclusion in the Constitution that says “only in a non-election year”, or “only if the Senate Majority Leader agrees”. 

Under our Constitution, there’s only one way to express the “advice and consent of the Senate”, of the whole Senate, and that is to have the whole Senate vote, up or down, on the nomination.  But in 2016, the Republican Senate Majority Leader, which is not even an office defined in the Constitution but an office created and given powerful controls over the governing process by elected officials for their own benefit, essentially violated this Constitutional requirement, by deciding on his own that there would not be a vote on a Presidential nominee from the other party, by refusing to hold a vote of the full Senate.

In this case, why didn’t Democrats charge a Constitutional violation?  Why didn’t they go to the people with the outrage that one party had just ignored their Constitutional duty?  Why didn’t they go the Supreme Court and ask that the Senate be required to discharge their Constitutional obligations?  There were two reasons, both driven by political and not Constitutional considerations.  First, Democrats were very confident that Hillary Clinton would win the upcoming election and be in position to appoint the next Supreme Court justice, so they saw this only as an inconvenient delay.  Second, Democrats themselves had proposed their own “rule” on when the Senate should consider a new Supreme Court justice appointment in an election year (known as the “Biden” rule), and they didn’t want to lose that precedent of choosing not to follow the Constitution when politically inconvenient for them.  They were as equally motivated by political and not Constitutional considerations as Republicans.

This is just one example of why it may well be time to consider a “Renewal” to our Constitution … not to change the eternal principles or structures enshrined in that wondrous document, but to add an element that is missing to better protect our democratic republic.  Instead of leaving the making of rules of how Congress should operate to the Congressional members themselves, perhaps it is time for “We the People” to define the rules … how we require Congress to govern in a representative democracy.  Don’t these officials work to serve the people, instead of the people working to serve them?  This “Renewal” would incorporate some clear operational rules within the Constitution that would limit or prevent future elected officials from acting on the basis of building a personal career by favoring donors, special interests and partisan political considerations instead of serving the country. 

What would the specific operational rules that would be part of this “Constitutional Renewal”?  And how could these operational rules be added to the Constitution to ensure that the “People’s Rules” can not be overridden, changed or ignored by Congress, or negated by an increasingly partisan Supreme Court?  There are a list of ideas that have been presented in a course I created entitled “How to Get Congress To Serve the Nation”.  They have been shared with over 250 citizens in 4 Ohio counties in 3 university Lifelong Learning and Learning in Retirement programs. Those ideas will be the subject of future blog posts, so if you are interested, please continue to follow and share this blog with your networks.

But in the meantime, please consider how important to our country’s future are the final words from the Declaration of Independence from the days well before we were a country:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

To me, this indicates that our Founding Fathers believed that the survival of our Independence just declared would depend on the strength of our Interdependence.  I believe that is still true today … and perhaps it is even more true for this time than for the time it was written, 243 years ago this week.

I hope you all have a safe and meaningful Fourth of July celebration!       

Thoughts on Mid Term Voting Choices

I am writing this blog post in the closing days before the midterm Elections.  I voted early two weeks ago.  Over the past two weeks I’ve watched hundreds of candidate messages and ads on TV and received dozens of candidate mailings, from candidates in both parties.  I am struck by two things:

1.  I would estimate that 3 of every 4 messages do not contain positive messages about WHAT policies they would enact to improve our state or our country; they are focused on negative messages about the other candidate or party;

2.  The messages that are positive provide no basis to understand HOW the promises being made would be enacted.

So I am wondering … is this the best the world’s greatest democracy can do in selecting its leaders?  Don’t citizens deserve better than this?  Doesn’t our country deserve better?

I am an Independent voter, unaligned with either political party.  I work to research the positions of individual candidates and to understand the problems and issues impacting the country, and vote independently of party.  Given that background, I offer to share with humility, why this year I chose to vote for Democrat candidates for my state officers and representatives and for my Federal representatives. 

I fully realize that my life experience are not the same as millions of others, and that my conclusions on the best approaches to the problems and issues we face may not be relevant to everyone.  I try to develop beliefs about the best policies to address the key issues we face based on objective facts, analysis and history as to what approaches have worked in the past.  I do not have any other ideology than the ideology of “what works” for the country. I do offer this thinking in the face of negative, false and incomplete messaging, hoping that you might find it is worthwhile input to your own decision on election day. 

Here is my thinking on the key issues that determined my own decisions:

1.  The Republicans Will Not Protect Social Security Benefits

    Ø  You are hearing that Social Security and Medicare “entitlements” are the major cause 

              our unsustainable deficit.  But these programs were set up to be self-funding, not paid 

              out of personal or business income taxes.  I believe they should and can be kept that 

              way.

        The Republicans are publicly stating that if they hold the majority in Congress after the 

        midterm elections, they will cut these benefits by about 20% to help reduce the deficit.          But while it is true that annual SS tax receipts will fall below annual SS benefit 

        payments, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY in either 2019 or 2020, what you are 

        not hearing is that there was a $2.8-$2.9 TRILLION dollar surplus of SS 

        contributions during the years that SS tax receipts exceeded SS benefit 

        payments.  That surplus was “borrowed” to offset spending above income and other 

        tax income over many decades, under the leadership of both parties.

        It also appears that the Republicans plan to just cancel out that surplus, not “return” it 

        to the SS account to be used to fund SS benefits, offsetting the annual shortfall in 

        annual SS tax receipts versus SS benefit expenses.  The Republican announced 

        plans mean they will not only take and not return those SS contributions to the 

        SS account for SS benefit payments, they plan to cut the benefit payment 

        expenses to be in balance with current SS tax income.  To me, this is pretty close 

        to criminal malpractice by Congress ... or embezzlement.

        How hard is it to retain benefits and sustain the self-funding nature of Social Security?  

v  First, if the $2.8-$2.9 Trillion in the “borrowed” surplus is used to offset the shortfall in benefit payments versus tax payments, the solvency of the SS account would be sustained until about 2035. 

  

v  Second, If the current cap in income upon which SS taxes are assessed is lifted,  without any increase in the SS tax rate, this single action could keep the SS account in balance until about 2090.  And concurrently, if the age of retirement continues to increase slowly as it is now, by about 2-3 months every year, the permanent solvency of Social Security AT THE CURRENT TAX RATE and BENEFIT LEVEL would be essentially guaranteed.

2.  The Republicans will not provide access to health care insurance for people with pre-
     existing conditions with the existing protection for this benefit at no premium cost.
  ØYou may have heard that despite many Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable            Care Act, or Obamacare, without maintaining the same level of protection for pre-

            existing conditions that exists today … upwards of over 50 repeal attempts … the 

            Republicans now claim they will protect pre-existing conditions in a new tax plan.  

            However, the protections they have proposed are not the same as the existing 

            protections, which prevent a premium upcharge for such protection.   The 

            Republican “protection” involves essentially returning to the “high risk pools” that 

            existed before ACA became law, which involve higher premiums for this protection.  

            So if you are a family with at least one member with a pre-existing condition, such as 

            diabetes, any heart problem, any form of a cancer diagnosis even if in remission for 

            decades, then under the Republican plan you would very likely see a significant                     increase in premiums to have that protection., if you can find it covered at all.

3.  The Republican Focus on Tax Cuts Is Wrong for the Economy Long Term

    Ø  First, neither party has proposed a pro-growth economic plan that will succeed  

    over the long term, and will help build the economic security of the country.  Why?  The 

    single factor that drives 70% of GDP economic growth is middle class spending and 

    income. 

    Ø  The Republican policy to cut taxes to grow the economy focuses on a factor that may  

              have a 10% impact on the economy IF most of the benefits to companies were 

              being invested in factors that have a greater impact on economic growth … 

              such as sharing profits with the workers who have contributed to the record profits we 

              see today, or training and hiring new workers, investing in new products, opening new 

               markets, building new plants and upgrading current plants. 

         However, we’ve seen that over 80% of the benefit generated by the tax cuts is    

         going to profits that are being used to buying back stock, to grow stock prices 

         and return value to shareholders.  Returning some earnings to shareholders 

         consistently is of course important, BUT using money diverted from Federal revenues 

         with a resulting increase in borrowing and debt to buy back shares is a disaster for the 

         economy waiting to happen.

    Ø  The revenues we’ve lost from the tax cut are needed for investments that would 

              contribute to greater long term growth … repairing our infrastructure which is rated 

              as a “D”; supporting investments in training and retraining of under-employed 

              employees still suffering from the impacts of the 2009-2010 recession and 

              experiencing job loss due to technology and automation; and supporting incentives for 

              the new and innovative technologies and systems in energy and transportation that 

              can support doubling of the economy in the next 20 years.

 4.  The Affordable Care Act Should Be Repaired, Not Repealed and Replaced

    ØThe ACA has major cost problems for the working middle class and for small 

             business.  Yet, neither party has spent any serious effort to address these problems 

             via an ACA repair plan, since the ACA was passed 6 years ago and these problems 

             emerged.  But Democrats would be more likely to propose repairs to the ACA than 

             Republicans, based on past actions and current policy statements.

5.  We Need Comprehensive Immigration and Border Security Plans

     Ø  I think most Americans agree that we need BOTH a secure border AND a 

               comprehensive immigration  plan.   But I think the approach most Americans 

               would like to see is an approach that are based on an objective analysis of the key 

               drivers of the problems, and are focused on fixing those key drivers.  Here’s what 

               might make sense to most Americans:

              v  Most of these illegal crossings do not take place in open country, but at the legal 

             entry points, hidden in cars and trucks going through security.  So investing in new 

             technologies and approaches at these crossings would have more impact on these 

             problems than spending billions on a physical wall.   

        

                  A wall has been described as an 18^th century approach to a 21^st century problem.  

                  There are some places on the border where a wall makes sense. But in many 

                  places, technology and enhanced patrols will have more impact than a continuous 

                  wall across the entire border.

             

                  v   A comprehensive immigration plan that most Americans could likely support would 
              involve a balance between accounting for the both the human and economic 
              interests of immigration policy.  Quotes should be established each year for each 
              category of legal immigration based on the historic ability of the country to 
              assimilate immigrants into our society and industries, and the needed for skilled and             unskilled labor in our country.  Seasonal work visas and visas for skilled workers in
              key industries should be part of the plan.  A limited number of visas for immediate                 family members of current citizens and permanent residents should also be included.
        

         A path to legal status for undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally             prior to the new policy, but who are supporting their families, have no violent or major           felony criminal records, and who are contributing to their communities.  The first step             in the path would be a temporary resident status, to evaluate their continued                         "good citizenship" behavior over some period of time.  A fine would be included as                 part of the penalty for violating past immigration laws.  

          The next step would be permanent resident status, with the added ability to bring 
               a limited number of immediate family members to America.  The final step would be              application for citizenship, which would be on a delayed timing basis versus those 
               who entered the US legally.  
     
              At the conclusion of the enhanced border security and review of legal status                           applications by undocumented immigrants, there would not be any further opportunity           for those entering the US illegally to ever achieve any legal status. or have access to
              status, or have access to any public services or employment.
              

                       v  Immigrants claiming asylum is a problem that should involve following international 

                 and existing US law and applying the lessons of history.  The Marshall Plan at the                  end of World War II invested in rebuilding the societies and economies of our                        allies AND our enemies and helped lead to decades of world peace among the                      World War II combatants.  That plan followed learning that after World War I,                          America did nothing to help allies or enemies rebuild, and extremism took root in                    many of these countries.  A global depression and World War II followed in less                    than a generation.

            We should develop a plan with the UN and the Organization of American States to 
                 invest in a Marshall Plan type approach to help build the societies and economies of 
                 countries in our hemisphere, and in troubled countries in the Middle East.  This is                  the only approach to this problem that is PROVEN to work to reduce or eliminate 
                 mass migrations from broken countries where ordinary residents have their lives                    and family welfare at risk. Concurrently, we should also develop a shared quota on
                  asylum seekers by the more developed societies and economies in our                                  hemisphere.  Each country should commit to work together to improve the                              processing of asylum seekers to minimize the time required to resettle asylum                        seekers and their families.  

6.  Democrat Control of the House Provides A Check on One Party Governing

     Ø   I think it's pretty obvious from behaviors of both parties over the past 10 years, that  
            when one party controls all branches of government, the country gets major governing 
            policies that are based on the needs and interests of the BASE voters of the majority             party, without considering how to accommodate the needs and interests of the 
            other party's voters. This means that these governing policies are addressing the                   needs of only about 35%-40% of the country, but ignoring the needs of 60% - 65%                 of the country.  Once elected, shouldn't we all expect leaders to govern by                             accommodating the needs and concerns of the voters from both parties, and                         most Americans?                

       Governing by one party is not how a representative democracy should operate ... this           is more like a one party dictatorship.  The "winner take all" approach to governing                 in our country today is perhaps one key reason why there is such angst, fear and                   anger toward the "other party" in our politics today.   So perhaps if the Democrats 
       control at least the House in 2019, there will be more of an incentive for Congress to             govern by working together.  Of course, total gridlock is also possible if the  parties still         refuse to work together.  But given the problems with one party governing we have 
       seen recently.  The Affordable Care Act and the Tax Cuts are policies which were                 passed by one party only and have been shown to have major problems when 
       implemented.  So a pretty good argument could be made that even gridlock might be             preferable for the country more one party governing.

       I hope this thinking is helpful to your voting decision.  Most importantly, very glad that             you are voting and willing to explore issues before making a voting choice.

    

September 11, 2018

Are We Listening to the Lessons of Sacrifice and Unity?

     Today we mark the 17^th anniversary of September 11, 2001.  One of the ceremonies that took place today is the dedication of a new 9-11 monument in Shanksville, Pennsylvania where the passengers on Flight 93 made the decision to try and take back control of the plane from the terrorists.  They knew that 3 other planes had been used as weapons against America, so they took a vote on whether and how to take action to prevent becoming the 4^th terrorist weapon.  They knew the risks that action would mean for each of them personally and collectively.  Surely they all wished to live long lives, but they came to the realization that there was a danger to the country and other people they did not know that they had to try and prevent.  They made the choice to put this greater need and purpose above protecting their own lives.

     In the wake of the passing of John McCain last month, I have been thinking about the example he demonstrated during most of his life of the character trait of choosing the “hard right over the easy wrong”.  That is a value that every military academy plebe hears from induction day until graduation, as the expected cornerstone of service as a military officer.  John McCain’s decision to turn down an early release from torture while a prisoner in North Vietnam and to follow the values in the Military Code of Conduct is of course a clear example of that character.  

     At the time, he knew for certainty that his decision would result in increased torture and beatings without knowing how long his captivity would continue, or even if he would survive.   The strength of courage and depth of character that decision took has been an inspiration to me in my life-long attempt to make decisions and choices based on values and principles instead of personal self-interest.

     Most of the political news, interviews and commentary during the past 20 months has focused on the state of dysfunction and divisiveness in our government.  We have seen the Congress fail to act effectively as a co-equal and separate branch of the government, and fail to challenge statements and actions of the President when they could be described as anti-democratic and in conflict with our national values, character and principles.  And we have seen too many of our citizens become more divided and less tolerant of the views and real needs of other citizens who don’t share their beliefs and life experiences.  The result has been a significant decrease in the level of concern and caring about the needs of other citizens.

     Finally, even in the accomplishments of this Administration, we have seen our leaders and our citizens focus on short term benefits at the risk of the long term health of the economy and our security.  They put their individual self-interests of campaign contributions and re-election over the overall national interests.  The 2017 tax cut was “sold” to the country as a policy that would benefit the working middle class, lead to increases in jobs, and generate more than enough economic growth to offset the immediate increase in the deficit.  However, we have seen about 70% of the profits added by the tax cut have gone to stock buy-backs, with less than 20% going to benefit the working middle class.  The only significant economic impact has been an increase in the stock market price, undoubtedly inflated by the paper transfer of profits to stock on company balance sheets.. But these has been no real or sustained  increase in the real drivers of economic GDP growth … yet.

     While a small fraction of workers have received a one-time payment from some companies, the country is now burdened with a major increase in the national debt.  The rate of GDP growth has increased modestly in the first few quarters since the tax cut over the previous 4 years.  Encouragingly, GDP growth exceeded 4% in Q2 of 2018 for the first time since the tax cut and widely positioned as heralding the significant long term growth.  However, we should recall that we’ve seen quarterly growth rates spike like this in the past Administration.  In fact, this rate would only be the 4^th highest quarterly GDP growth rate of the past 8 years. 

     Similarly, unemployment has dipped below 4% for the first time in several decades, and this too has been positioned as signaling a significant economic accomplishment. But in fact, this change is about 0.8% lower than in the last month of the previous Administration, exactly the same as the unemployment change in the previous 20 months.   But the number of jobs created in the last 20 months is actually lower than the number of jobs created in the previous 20 months.

     Quite simply, the benefits to the overall economy realized from the tax cuts do not represent a good benefit for the country that is now burdened with the resulting debt.  Thus far, these short term benefits have essentially resulted from an increase in the public debt … borrowing money from our grandchildren to make our current economic condition just a little better for some people. 

     This is not simply bad policy, it is a violation of the traditional American value of sacrificing a bit today to make things better for future generations than we are experiencing today.  The increase in debt puts the economic security of our grandchildren at risk.  Our grandparents in the “Greatest Generation” sacrificed their own comforts to secure a better world and economic life for us, their grandchildren.  Our generation of leaders seem to be headed toward being the “Selfish Generation”, putting a modest increase in our own comforts by burdening our grandchildren with the costs.

     Articles by Fortune and Reuters have highlight that this level of investment in the stock market instead of investing in creating new products, opening new plants or modernizing existing ones, or opening new markets is “starving” American companies of the innovation we need for long term growth.  Several contrary articles have also been written by financial managers arguing that stock buy backs are a smart use of excess cash to generate greater value for shareholders when there is not a better strategy to generating short term returns. 

     This thinking puts the short term interests of share holders above the long term benefits of improving the company’s competitive position in its market, developing new innovations for the future growth of the company, or of sharing profits with employees … and of supporting the overall growth of the national economy for the benefit of all.    

     We also need major investments in transportation and energy infrastructure and better job training and re-training programs to fill open higher paying jobs.  But with the current debt, our leaders will likely not take these actions.  Sustained economic growth will require an expanded infrastructure in transportation and energy … we cannot build a world class economy on a second class infrastructure.  While this has been a major campaign promise of the Trump Administration, there has been no major policy initiative to even repair our existing infrastructure, let alone fund plans to support future growth.  

     Is there any surprise that these actions, or lack thereof, have increased the level of dissatisfaction with Congress from voters in both parties, have increased the level of divisiveness in the country, and undermined our  national unity?

What’s Needed to Change

     Unity in America in either our governing or our citizenry won’t be restored under the single ideology of either party.  Our country is too diverse in life experiences, religions, economic situations, and family culture to be united by one ideology, or the policies addressing the needs and concerns of one party.  What is needed to unite the country are policies that address the needs and concerns of both parties. 

     To accomplish this goal, we need our leaders to collaborate together, working to create what is called “the Third Alternative” by Steven Covey in his classic book The 7 Basic Habits of Highly Effective People.  The policies that unite America will be policies that integrate the alternative approaches favored by each party into a new alternative that satisfies the needs and concerns of both parties.  This simply requires that we harness the creative thinking of leaders who seek to respect, understand and accommodate the needs and interests of the other party along with their own needs and interests.  As a result, both parties would be putting the collective interests of the country over either party.  

     As voters, we hire the Congressional leaders.  We can continue to choose leaders based on party affiliation, or those who commit to support only our beliefs and needs, while ignoring and demeaning the beliefs and needs of the balance of the country.  Or, we can start to choose leaders based on their character and the value and principle of serving the country and not just their bases.  We can choose leaders who have the capacity to work together with the other party to develop policies that address the needs and interests of the entire country, and who will develop policies based on facts and unbiased analysis, rather than on the demands of partisanship or ideologies.  

     This will require that each citizen pay more attention to the policies being proposed, research what is truth and facts in messages, and contact their representatives to demand bi-partisan collaboration by our representatives to support the needs of all their constituents, not merely those who voted for them.  As John F. Kennedy stated, “In a democracy, every citizen, regardless of his interest in politics, ‘holds office'; every one of us is in a position of responsibility; and, in the final analysis, the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities. We, the people, are the boss, and we will get the kind of political leadership, be it good or bad, that we demand and deserve.”    

     Our country needs citizen patriots today – citizens willing to take actions, to avoid partisan divisiveness, to let our leaders know we want bi-partisan governing and not one party partisan governing, and that we will expect and demand higher character values from our leaders.  I believe this is the only approach that will ever unite the country.  And if we can’t unite our citizens on national policies that address the overall needs of the country, we will be a weaker country, economically, socially and militarily.

Are you ready to be change we need?