Political Potpourri

By Posted 22 March 2012 | Comment

There have been too many issues worthy of comment lately that I just can’t choose just one. So here’s an article full of mini-blurbs about topics that have been unfolding and getting some attention over the past couple of weeks.

The President Cannot Control Gas Prices

During the Bush administration when gas prices were high, Fox News commentators went to great lengths to emphasize that the President cannot do anything about gas prices. However, some of these same individuals are now implying or directly stating that President Obama shoulders the blame for rising gas prices. However, he doesn’t – and you can’t have it both ways. The only thing that a President can do to cause a slight, temporary lowering of gas prices is to release some of our strategic oil reserve. The President has done this once already and he may do it again – but probably not until closer to the election.

Gas prices are controlled by the world market and are overly inflated due in significant part to Wall Street speculation. Ironically, some of the same legislators who are complaining publicly about high gas prices also oppose legislative action to address the speculation that falsely inflates the prices. So, if you want to see gas prices come down, tell your Congressman/woman and U.S. Senators to support laws to crack down on speculation.

American Oil Production is Not a Magic Bullet

Despite what the media drama queens and kings say, oil production in the U.S. is actually up in recent years. But this doesn’t help our price at the pump because oil companies, many of whom are multinational corporations, sell the oil on the world market. Some people falsely believe that oil produced in the U.S. will automatically make our gas prices lower. Unfortunately, it isn’t that simple.

The only way that U.S. oil production would definitely yield substantially lower gas prices is if we nationalized the oil and gas industry (i.e., the U.S. government took over and corporations were no longer involved). Then we could ensure that U.S. oil would be refined and sold at or near cost to American consumers without the cost inflation that comes from market speculation and oil corporations trying to increase their profits continually. However, if any elected leader even hinted at such a plan, many people would demonize such a proposal as Socialist and Anti-Capitalist. So, don’t look for anyone to propose this – ever.

But the reality is that even nationalizing the oil industry wouldn’t fix the problem as we can’t produce enough oil domestically to support our demand. We would still need to get about half of our oil through world markets to meet our demand. The ultimate reality is that we need to move toward energy independence through a broader range of methods of energy production.

Your Employer’s Religious Freedom Does Not Trump Yours

The founders wrote the First Amendment to protect the individual right to freedom of religion and speech for every citizen. It does not indicate that organized religions or employers should have more protection than individual citizens. Being an employer does not give you the right to impose your religious beliefs on others. This is precisely the type of outcome the First Amendment was meant to prevent.

The founders are surely turning over in their graves after the introduction of the Blunt Amendment that would have allowed employers to deny health coverage for anything about which they felt a personal, moral, or religious objection. Fortunately, this failed to pass in the Senate as it is clearly is not in line with the First Amendment. And, some of the state level legislative bills are horrifying invasions of privacy. For example the Arizona Senate bill that would force women to tell their employers why they were taking birth control pills. Owning a company does not give you the right to control the health, spirituality, or personal lives of your employees. This B.S. needs to stop.

Brownback Should Get Another Job

During the discussion surrounding the Blunt Amendment, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback stated in an interview that women whose employer chose not to cover birth control could just “get another job” if they wanted coverage. As if jobs are so easy to come by these days. Most people cannot just switch jobs at the drop of a hat nor should they be forced to do so because their employer doesn’t believe in birth control. If Brownback wants to see someone who should get another job, he should look in the mirror (and at his plummeting approval ratings). Hopefully, Kansas voters will help him switch jobs in 2014.

People With More Money Do Not Deserve More Speech

Many people did not realize the gravity of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that essentially equated money with speech and stated that corporations and wealthy individuals could not be limited in their political spending because this would violate their right to free speech. This has resulted in ridiculous, unlimited donations to Super PACs that support candidates. It has also created a negative advertising monstrosity that is exasperating for many everyday individuals.

Our leadership positions should not be for sale. The data clearly shows that, in nearly every case, the candidate with the most money behind him or her wins the election. This decision has cleared the way for wealthy individuals and corporations to virtually install whomever they want in office by throwing tens if not hundreds of millions into their campaign machine. Advertising generates name recognition and/or negative associations through negative advertising. Unfortunately, both these variables drive voting behavior.

Plus, there are no truth in advertising standards for political ads. These groups can (and do) say whatever they want even if it is a distortion or a complete lie. Ads for consumer products are governed by laws requiring truth in advertising. We need a similar set of standards and laws requiring truth in political advertising in order to purge the airwaves of the negative crap we see around elections.

We Deserve Better

We must stand up as citizens and say no to this corruption of our democracy. Our personal freedom and liberty should not be directed by anyone – not an employer, not an organized religion. And, we should not allow unlimited money from the rich to sway elections.

Change takes time but everyone needs to lend their voice to ensure that it happens. Tell your elected officials when you disagree with the ongoing shenanigans. Assume everything you hear from a broadcaster or politician is a lie or half-truth. While some in the media do a good job and some politicians represent issues fairly, you never know who is honorable these days. It is sad to say but there is so much B.S. being presented that it is important for all citizens to adhere to my newly proposed motto, “Don’t Trust, Just Verify”.

Comment

Who’s More Like the Communists?

By Posted 23 February 2012 | 1 Comment

If some Republicans in the Kansas Legislature have their way, after the 2012 redistricting process elections in Kansas may be much more like those of Communist countries. Most communist countries have a single-party system with only one candidate on the ballot. In other cases, you can see what is referred to as a de facto single-party system in which other parties or candidates may exist, but the system and rules are so skewed toward one party that no candidate from another party can truly get elected. Some of the outlandish redistricting proposals coming from members of the Kansas Legislature would effectively make Kansas a de facto single-party state ensuring that Democrats in the vast majority of Congressional and Legislative districts have no mathematical chance to be elected and taking voter choice away from Kansas citizens.

From Reason to Insanity

Any glimmer of hope resulting from any small amount of reason exhibited in the early Kansas redistricting conversations is currently being pulverized as the redistricting battle has begun to be driven by extreme partisanship and territoriality. Largely throwing the legislative guidelines to the wind, many State Legislators are creating maps that would eliminate virtually any possibility of voter choice or are protecting their turf to try to ensure re-election.

One recent example, is the so-called “I-70” map proposed by Rep. Anthony Brown of Eudora that creates two Congressional districts that span the width of the state, moves Kansas City, KS and all of Wyandotte county into a district with rural Western Kansas, splits Shawnee county and the Topeka area between two districts, and puts Johnson county into a district with Southeastern Kansas.

Kansas Redistricting Proposal - I-70 District by Anthony Brown

The Purpose of Redistricting

The primary purpose of the redistricting process is to ensure equal sized districts and fair representation for citizens that respects communities of interest within the state. For more detail on this please refer to my earlier article, The Case for Reasonable Redistricting.

It seems as though many of our State Legislators have forgotten the true purpose of this process. The goal is not to grab as much power as you can for your political party by drawing maps that defy reason and combine areas of the state that have little to nothing in common.

Another legal guideline for redistricting directs the legislature to make districts as compact as possible and to avoid splitting areas between districts. Creating two districts that sprawl across the state is clearly moving us in the wrong direction from the size problem that already exists with the current first district. Constituent service and contact is severely compromised when districts are drawn in this fashion. There is also no excuse other than political strategy for splitting the Topeka area and Shawnee county.

Why Disenfranchising Democrats Hurts All Kansans

Some Republicans who like their current representative may be celebrating the idea of skewing the districts in such a way that Democrats don’t have a chance. However, if we allow the redistricting process to move Kansas to a de facto single-party state, voters in most parts of the state will no longer have a true choice on election day. This violates the spirit and principles our nation was founded upon.

Additionally, moving in this direction also opens the door for little to no accountability of elected representatives. Once a district is so skewed that another party cannot be competitive, incumbents are almost guaranteed re-election. The only way to stop them is through the primary process, if a challenger can raise enough money and name recognition to win. However, this can be an extremely difficult thing to do in most cases. This could mean you will be stuck with the incumbent for as long as he or she wants to serve.

So, once your incumbent Congressman/woman or State Legislator is in a virtually impenetrable district, don’t be surprised to see them turn a blind eye to the concerns and opinions of the voters. If you want your elected officials to ignore you, then stand by silently and allow the power-hungry to skew the maps their way and that’s exactly what you’ll get.

Want a Better Result? Use Non-Partisan Redistricting

These issues and problems are why so many states have moved to a non-partisan process for redistricting. In my opinion, Kansas should move in this direction. Elected officials are human and, as such, they cannot fully separate themselves from their emotions and motivations to protect their political party or their own seat. Taking it out of their biased hands makes it much more likely that the legal guidelines for redistricting will be followed.

What Now?

A non-partisan process is something that we could consider in the future, but for now we must use the current system with all its various drawbacks. If you have concerns about making the redistricting maps fair, contact your State Representative and State Senator. If you aren’t sure who these folks are you can find out by typing your address in here: Find your Kansas Legislator. And, you can find contact information for State Legislators at: KSLegislature.org.

You can also consider signing petitions such as the one located here: Keep the Maps Fair. Although this was originally formed to protest combining Wyandotte county with Western Kansas, anyone who want to keep the maps fair can sign on.

If you believe in following the legal guidelines for redistricting and keeping Kansas elections Democratic rather than moving us toward a de facto single-party Communist-like state, please add your voice and tell your State Legislators you want to see a legal process and fair maps.

1 Comment

Birth Control: Not Just for Sluts

By Posted 17 February 2012 | Comment

Yesterday, Rick Santorum’s primary financial supporter, billionaire investor Foster Friess, announced to the world in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that birth control was simpler and cheaper years ago: “You know, back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”

The implication of this comment, of course, is that today’s women should just keep their legs closed and not have sex, as was the case years ago. Since he said “gals” one could also speculate that he may be referring to unmarried women, although this wasn’t explicitly stated. However, it is quite clear his opinion is that young people today are more and, perhaps, too promiscuous.

Married Couples Prefer Family Planning

First of all, birth control is not just for single folks. The vast majority of married couples use some form of birth control during their marriage. This is because most couples prefer to be responsible and plan to have children when their financial and life situation allows them to best care for and support a family rather than just leaving everything to chance. Although some couples choose to have as many children as their biology will allow (e.g., the Duggar family of “19 Kids and Counting”), these families are the exception rather than the rule.

If Mr. Friess was not referring to unmarried women, is he also suggesting that married women should keep their legs closed around aspirin? Surely, even extreme conservatives recognize that sexual intimacy is part of a healthy, loving marriage.

The Myth of Purity and Chastity in Previous Generations

Older individuals tend to perceive the youth of today as having diminished morals no matter when “today” happens to be. The flappers of the 1920’s were chastised for their behavior as were young people during the 1960’s. However, when we examine actual data about sexual behavior, this myth that young people are more promiscuous and immoral than their elder counterparts is shattered.

In a 2007 study entitled “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States 1954 – 2003”, Dr. Lawrence Finer found that “almost all Americans have sex before marrying” and the proportion of individuals engaging in premarital sex “has been roughly similar for the past 40 years”. According to his findings, the median age of first sexual experience was either 17 or 18 during these 40 years.

We need to stop this ridiculous cycle of implying that today’s young women are sluts with loose morals. If they are, so are today’s young men and, according to the data, so were almost all young people for the last 40 years.

Where the Boys Are

In a recent discussion with a close friend who is a conservative, he stated, “women have more responsibility for unintended pregnancies because they can always just say ‘no’ to sex”. I was flabbergasted and outraged by his comment. I asked if men should be allowed to pursue sex with every woman they meet with the responsibility falling only on the woman if she says yes. He walked his comment back and finally agreed that the responsibility was indeed shared.

Unfortunately, there is a good deal of sexism in how we talk about and think about issues of contraception and pregnancy. Mr. Friess’ comment was clearly sexist in that he indicates the responsibility is on the “gal” to keep her legs closed. Why should we not say that we should put a lock on young men’s zippers instead?

Adding insult to injury, the Congressional committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa convened yesterday to discuss women’s health issues with an invited panel full of men. I commend the female Representatives who exited in protest when adding a female panelist was refused. Any men who think this was an acceptable practice need to ask themselves how they would feel about a committee largely comprised of women calling a panel of only women to discuss possible legislation stipulating mandatory vasectomies or castration. Obviously, this would never happen but the example illustrates the point. I am sure men would not be in favor of a select group of women attempting to craft legislation making decisions about the fate of their reproductive organs.

Vote Like It’s 2012 – not 1612

Presidential candidates and elected Congressmen and Senators who are jumping on the bandwagon to exploit the birth control controversy are either too backward to be serving as an elected leader today if they really believe in these positions or they are opportunistic slime balls if they know better but are riding this wave for political exposure.

Rick Santorum needs to hop in a time machine and run for President in another century. Taking the position that birth control is “not OK”, women shouldn’t be in the workforce, and women shouldn’t be in combat (despite the recommendation of Major General Gary Patton) does not really work in 2012. This type of discussion is probably why President Obama is ahead of the Republican field by 20 points among women.

I truly hope that all those who believe in an egalitarian society in which everyone has the opportunity to pursue their passions and dreams in the professional realm, family life, or both remember those elected officials who are pushing this anti-liberty agenda and vote accordingly in 2012. The good old days are largely a myth similar to the sexual purity of the youth in former generations. To make things better we must move forward, not back.

Comment

Control Issues

By Posted 09 February 2012 | 3 Comments

To those who are currently spouting outrageous remarks indicating the decision that all health plans should cover basic contraception services is anti-constitutional and impinges freedom of religion, I would like to offer a response based in fact, logic, and reality.

The True Purpose of the First Amendment

In addition to specifying the powers and structure of the government, the U.S. Constitution discusses how these powers should be limited to protect individual rights and liberties. The founders were particularly sensitive to religious persecution having emigrated from England at a time that this was problematic. They wanted to protect against the government imposing a particular religion or banning the development or practice of new faiths. This was an important part of the First Amendment along with freedom of speech. Again, the goal was to protect individual rights to religion and speech, not the rights of organized religion or other groups.

No Violation

Requiring employers (Catholic or otherwise) to ensure that basic women’s health care including contraceptive services are a part of their health insurance coverage in no way prevents people from being Catholic or worshiping as a Catholic and, therefore, does not violate freedom of religion as described in the First Amendment. Catholic women who do not wish to pursue contraceptive services are not required to do so. To hear some conservative politicians talk you would think the current administration is outlawing Catholicism and force feeding birth control pills to Catholic women who object to family planning. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth.

Imposing Their Beliefs on You

It is also completely reasonable to expect any person or organization who chooses to be an employer to provide a benefits package that is respectful of the wide range of religious traditions of their employees. Imagine if a Christian Science affiliated organization took the position that employee health plans would consist of church leaders praying for you to get well and resisting providing actual health coverage because of their religious belief that you should rely on prayer for healing. Although most people would argue for an individual’s right to take that position in their own lives, virtually no one would want another individual’s religious framework imposed upon them in this way. Similarly, non-Catholic employees or Catholic employees who embrace contraception should not have their personal freedom to basic health care squelched because of a dogma that they do not personally believe.

Protecting Individual Freedom

We must strive to protect individual freedom not the preferences or practices of a particular religious tradition. If anything is a potential violation of freedom and liberty, it is to allow the Catholic church to attempt to deny health coverage for those women who want or need contraceptive services because some hospitals or universities are Catholic-affiliated. Some might retort – “Well if they want it they can pay for it themselves. They still have the freedom to buy it.” But, quite frankly, some individuals do not have the money to pay for these services at out-of-pocket rates. It would be analogous to saying that we all have the freedom to buy a mansion in the Hollywood Hills or to buy a yacht. If the price tag is too high for you, it doesn’t matter if it is available. Freedom without appropriate resources leaves you right back where you started.

Desperation and Hypocrisy

I guess desperate times call for desperate measures. Given that too many good things have happened under the current administration (Bin Laden is dead, we ended the war in Iraq, job growth continues to climb, and unemployment is still falling), the opposition is grasping at straws trying to make an issue out of something….anything. Trying to promote this “war on religion” agenda is a loser. There is no war on religion here. Siding with a bunch of obstinate Catholic Bishops about a 21st century reality like birth control just leaves millions of American women wondering why conservative leaders care more about a handful of elderly, dogmatic men than about their health needs. It also leaves me wondering why some politicians who represent the party that talks so much about individual freedom and liberty are quite ready and willing to take our freedom away when it suits them. Their thinking seems to be – government should stay out of people’s lives…. unless they are imposing something I agree with in which case we should do everything possible to force people to conform to the “right” values and behavior. This is the height of hypocrisy and those who think in this way have no place in our country’s leadership.

3 Comments

Answering the Questions

By Posted 17 November 2011 | 2 Comments

Given the underwhelming performance of some of the Republican Presidential candidates, some might assume from the title that this article will focus on the range of delayed and incoherent responses we have seen from some of the candidates. While thoroughly flabbergasting, these gaffes are not my focus this week.

I have very high standards. I expect answers that address the question that was asked. Sadly, I am somewhat dismayed at various Democratic officials who do not reply with answers that are as cogent or germane as I would expect. Last Sunday, David Gregory of Meet the Press played a clip of President Obama during the 2008 campaign describing the irresponsibility of former President Bush in allowing the debt to skyrocket. Gregory asked if President Obama should now receive this same criticism due to the continuing growth of the debt. DNC Chair and Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz replied by citing various shortcomings and problems with Mitt Romney and other Republicans. She made some very good factual observations but they did not answer the question that was asked.

Here’s the Answer

There is no question that President Bush owns the debt that was amassed during his administration. He started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with the authorization of Congress. He called for gigantic tax cuts even though the Congressional Budget Office warned that these cuts would cause huge deficit and debt problems. Congress passed these cuts and they became law. Bush also urged the passage of a popular but unfunded prescription plan coverage which was also adopted. And, finally, the total lack of regulation of the financial sector led to the collapse of the market and the economy when the house of cards came tumbling down after the worthless mortgage backed securities caused the banking crisis.

President Obama is trying to clean up this mess while still being saddled with the laws passed during the previous administration. He has stated repeatedly that our current tax rates are problematic and we cannot pay expenses and pay down the debt with so little revenue. He proposed raising the top marginal tax rate a few percent but was blocked by House and Senate Republicans who threatened to filibuster and defeat unemployment insurance extensions. This, coupled with the high unemployment that resulted from the economic crisis of the previous administration, has yielded much less revenue than we need to pay our expenses.

President Obama is trying to successfully complete the extremely expensive military actions started by the previous administration. He has done exactly as he promised during his 2008 campaign. We killed Bin Laden and we are leaving Iraq. Finishing these actions required extra spending of money we did not have but stopping on a dime was not an option.

President Obama does not own the increases in the national debt since he’s taken office. The ownership lies in part with the Bush administration for proposing tax cuts we couldn’t afford and starting expensive wars that they didn’t finish and in part with Congressional Republicans who were unwilling to allow a slight top tax rate increase that would have provided more revenue.

Presidents do not pass laws and cannot simply disregard laws. Congress passes laws and controls the budget. However, Bush owns his debt (at least in part) because the actions and laws passed by Congress during his administration were precisely what he requested (i.e., authorization for military action and tax cuts). President Obama does not own our recent debt increases because Congress blocked him from increasing revenue by increasing the top tax rate and he had no choice but to see our military actions through to an appropriate conclusion.

Don’t Sidestep the Question

When the growing national debt comes up, Democrats need to be prepared and to respond directly and firmly. Sidestepping questions by bringing up another topic or talking about the other party’s shortcomings makes it seem as though you either don’t have an answer or you are hiding a fallibility of your party. The President is playing the hand he was dealt and has managed to effect a great deal of positive change including 20 consecutive months of private sector job growth and substantial military successes. So, when these unfounded criticisms are raised, we should all give a full-throated rebuttal based on the facts.

2 Comments