Let's Repeal the Second Amendment

One of the many pieces of legislation bottled up by the do-nothing-Republican-controlled-and-Republican-filibustered Congress is gun control regulation.  Even after Sandy Hook, Republicans managed to prevent meaningful Federal gun legislation from being enacted - not even the requirement for universal background checks or a ban on assault rifles.  Recourse to the courts for a common sense interpretation of the Second Amendment for the common good is useless.  The Republican majority on the Supreme Court refuses to recognize "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" as the clearly dependent introductory clause that it is.

While some states have advanced tougher gun laws, others are moving into the deep end of the bizarre.  Georgia's State House of Representatives has drafted what's been called the "most extreme gun bill in America" by Americans for Responsible Solutions.  "Georgia lawmakers could soon make broad changes to the state’s gun laws to allow firearms in bars, churches, airports, and certain government buildings." [MSNBC/March 14]  What in hell could these fools be thinking?  In Georgia, no permit is needed to purchase a handgun and the state has the 9th highest firearm homicide rate in the country. 

NRA money continues to flow into Colorado to upend the stronger gun laws passed there last year.  The NRA has been able to defeat two state senators instrumental to the passage of the gun legislation in recall elections.  But so far they have had little success in overturning the laws as Democrats are holding on to a majority in the state legislature.  Seven of the eight bills introduced by the pro-gun industry  have been defeated - Concealed Handgun Carry without a Permit, Ammunition Magazine Prohibition. Concealed-Carry in Public Schools, Governor Cannot Restrict Firearms During Emergencies, No Background Check for Step-Relations, Concerning Background Checks and Fees for Gun Transfers, Repeal Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban.  One (Repeal Regulations on Firearms Purchases in Contiguous States) passed the State Senate and is pending in the House. This last bill, according to John Morse of Americans for Principled Leadership. "actually addresses an outmoded 1969 state statute that has subsequently been eclipsed by the Brady Bill and other federal legislation passed more recently....No harm is being done with this clean up measure."

According Slate.com's gun death tally, more than 12,000 people were killed by guns in the US between the time of the Sandy Hook shooting and Dec. 31, 2013.  Add to this the 20,000 suicides per year and the need for common sense regulation of guns becomes clear.  Mental illness, socio-economic factors, gang violence, guns in the hands of felons - these all contribute to the totals. But taking guns out of the hands of those prone to use them against others or themselves and taking assault rifles out of everybody's hands would make the totals significantly lower.

Every study and every statistic point to the connection between the availability of guns and gun-related deaths.  The gun homicide rate in the US with its relatively lax gun laws is vastly higher than that in other developed countries - 10 times that of Italy and 90 times that of the United Kingdom, for example.  [Wikipedia]  The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released in September 2013, "confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic...[The authors found] “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,...firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent." [Think Progress website]  A Harvard study found that states with the strongest/most gun laws had a firearms death rate 42% lower than the states with fewest controls on guns.  The authors take pains to note that "You can’t necessarily say one absolutely led to the other … but you can say those things are related.”   I found one of the reasons for their hesitation absolutely incredible.  “One of the major challenges that has existed over the past 15 years is that basically all avenues of federal funding – either the CDC or the NIH – have been cut off from studying firearm fatalities,” [the author Dr. Eric] Fleegler said. ”I’m a pediatric emergency medicine doctor. If there are ten children who die from a toy or some sort of injury, there is an incredible human cry that we make sure that we stop those types of deaths. Here on the other side you have 31,000 people who die every single year from firearms. That is a number of deaths on virtually an unprecedented level, and nothing is being done to understand this or reduce it.” [Here & Now webpage, Boston Public Radio website]

I cannot get the objection of those who oppose universal background checks.  If you personally have nothing to hide, why are you reluctant?  I cannot get the point of those who would make possession of high capacity magazines and assault rifles the right of every mentally unstable American.  Under what circumstances other than mass murder or civil insurrection would you ever need these?  Please don't say hunting.  And I really can't get why Federal funding has been cutoff from studies of gun violence. What are they afraid we'll find out?

Maybe it's time to repeal the outmoded second amendment or at least interpret it in a manner consistent with the amendment authors' intent.  It was written at a time when muskets had to be powdered and reloaded after every shot, when America was a rural nation, when some were worried that the country would be reclaimed by Great Britain and, probably most importantly, when the militia were the only means of defense.  As Dan Heaton writes at Yahoo Voices: "After the Revolutionary War, the standing army of the new country essentially ceased to exist and the various state militias were again the primary means of national defense." .In other words, the militia granted the right to bear arms was the equivalent to today's armed forces.  No other Western democracy has anything like this enduring anachronism from the eighteenth century and they are surviving just fine, thank you.

In Brief - Updates on Issues We've Been Following
U.S. Accidental Shootings mid-February to early March

Oregon and Montana became the fourth and fifth states to restore Congressional food stamp cuts. They joined New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania.  Of the 14 states and the District of Columbia affected by the cuts, at least seven states (Connecticut, Montana, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont) plus D.C. are moving or have already moved to block them, according to a Stateline survey. The remaining "heat and eat" states  — California, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin — are considering doing the same.

Senate negotiators struck a bipartisan deal on March 13 that would renew federal unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless.  The bill could come up for a vote in the Senate by the end of March but its fate in the Republican-controlled House is up in the air.

President Obama rolled out his plan to "force American businesses to pay more overtime to millions of workers, the latest move by his administration to confront corporations that have had soaring profits even as wages have stagnated."

The people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia on Sunday.  On Monday the US and EU announced announced personal sanctions against Russian and Crimean officials.

Louisiana's lawsuit against MoveOn's billboards advocating Medicaid expansion

Sunday Round-Up - February 9, 2014

This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream media.  Today we look at the Syrian Civil War, Israeli-Palestinian relations, the Eurozone recession, the cuts to the US food stamps program and climate change.



Syria
With a three-day ceasefire in place, the first stage of the evacuation of the besieged city of Homs began on Friday.  As reported in The Guardian: "Scores of Syrian women, children and elderly men from the besieged old city of Homs have been evacuated to safety and humanitarian supplies are expected to be allowed in in the first stage of a limited relief operation agreed between the UN and the government of President Bashar al-Assad."  The Assad government has agreed to attend the second round of Geneva II peace talks. The NGO Save The Children welcomed the deal but sees it as a temporary measure: "We need all parties to the conflict to allow immediate humanitarian assistance into Homs and other besieged areas all across Syria, from Aleppo to Damascus." [The Guardian, February 7]


Israel-Palestine

Palestinian workers from Hebron at a checkpoint. Image credit:Emil Salman; Haaretz, February 7

AIPAC and Benjamin Netanyahu are still reeling from their failed ham-handed attempt to derail the Iran nuclear negotiations.  Support for the new Iran sanctions bill is diminishing with several former cosponsors now saying they changed their mind.  So back to the main issue of concern for Israelis - how are the US sponsored negotiations with the Palestinians going?  Recent polls suggest that neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli public believes a deal can be reached.  The negotiations are stalled and the US is signaling that the original April 29 date for a final agreement is in jeopardy.  There is Palestinian anger at the ongoing Israeli permitting of illegal settlements on Palestinian land, and the destruction of Palestinian homes is at a five year high.  A key stumbling block for the Israelis is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.  It seems to me that one solution might be Arab and Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state combined with a recognition of the Palestinian right of return, a guarantee that Palestinians will be accorded full rights in Israel should they choose to return, and an end to settlement activity and home destruction on Palestinian lands.


Russia Today reported on Friday of the protests lodged by aid groups and the UN on the destruction of the Palestinian homes.  "In a statement Friday, 25 aid organizations said the number of demolitions went up by almost half and the displacement of Palestinians by almost three-quarters between July 2013 – when peace negotiations began again – and the end of the year, compared to the same time period in 2012.  The groups said that of the 663 Palestinian structures destroyed by Israel in 2013, 122 were constructed with international donor aid. The 663 demolitions mark the highest number in the last five years. 'International and local aid organizations have faced increasingly severe restrictions in responding to the needs created by the unlawful demolition of civilian property, in violation of Israel's obligation to facilitate the effective delivery of aid,' wrote the groups, which included Oxfam. 


On Thursday, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on the meeting between "chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat  [and] U.S. Middle East peace talks envoy Martin Indyk, against a backdrop of tension between Israel and the United Sates and criticism in Jerusalem of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry...Erekat said Thursday in an interview on Al Jazeera television that the Palestinian response to Israel’s continued construction in East Jerusalem was to join the Geneva Convention, in preparation for declaring the settlements a war crime and bringing Israel to the International Criminal Court in The Hague." 

Eurozone Recession
The Guardian reported on January 31 that  Eurozone unemployment dropped for the third straight month in January.  Overall unemployment in the Eurozone is still at 12%, ranging from ~5% in Austria and Germany to over 25% in Spain and Greece. "Youth unemployment fell by 23,000 to 3.53 million, with the youth jobless rate falling to 23.8% from 24% in November."  European policymakers are "becoming increasingly concerned about the risk of deflation, with the latest data showing inflation fell to 0.7% in January from 0.8% in December."

Food Stamp Cuts
The Republican assault on the social safety net continues.  Not only have they blocked the extension of long-term unemployment benefits - the measure fell one vote short of the required 60 to break the Senate filibuster - but they managed a big win in the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program passed as part of the farm bill.  Mother Jones reporter Erika Eichelberger wrote on January 31 of the impending passage of the Farm Bill by the Senate with its subsequent sign-off by the President.  Both of these steps have now been executed and $8.6 billion will be taken from the food stamps program over the next 5 years.  It's less than the Tea Party wanted but double the amount in the original Senate bill.  Eichelberger explains why the compromise level of cuts is a Republican win: "In addition to the [nearly] $9 billion in food stamp cuts in this five-year farm bill, another $11 billion will be slashed over three years as stimulus funding for the program expires. The first $5 billion of that stimulus money expired in October; the rest will disappear by 2016. In the months since the first $5 billion in stimulus funding was cut, food pantries have been struggling to provide enough food for the hungry. Poverty remains at record high levels, and three job applicants compete for every job opening.And yet, despite the $5 billion in cuts that already happened and the guarantee of $6 billion more, Republicans succeeded in getting their Democratic peers to cut food stamps further."  As the non-profit Feeding America noted "The $8.6 billion cut means that 850,000 SNAP recipients will lose an average of $90 in monthly benefits. That’s not a talking point. That’s real food for families that are struggling."

Climate Change
Haven't heard much on climate change in the news recently?  You're not alone.  Tom Engelhardt bemoans the lack of coverage in a February 2 essay on the TomDispatch website.  "That the anything-but-extreme Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) offers an at least 95% guarantee of human causation for global warming is not a story, nor is the recent revelation that IPCC experts believe we only have 15 years left to rein in carbon emissions or we’ll need new technologies not yet in existence which may never be effective.  Nor is the recent poll showing that only 47% of Americans believe climate change is human-caused (a drop of 7% since 2012)...Climate change isn’t the news and it isn’t a set of news stories.  It’s the prospective end of all news.  Think of it as the anti-news."




Link
Food bank locator - find a food bank in your area - from the Feeding America website

A Progressive State of the Union

President Obama is giving his sixth state of the union Tuesday. Things haven't quite worked out as hoped for our President. Partly his fault, partly that of a resurgent and extremist right-wing. We are where we are so there's no sense thinking of what might have been. Nevertheles, here is the State of the Union you won't be hearing tomorrow night.

First let's talk about the situation here at home.

Let's get one thing straight at the outset - the problem is not the deficit. It never has been and never will be. The problem is the lack of jobs. The problem is an overbloated military budget and our overseas misadventures. The problem is a tax structure that taxes incomes of the wealthiest at one of the lowest rates in the developed world. The problem is the impact of money on elections and the influence of lobbyists on legislation to serve their interests and not those of the nation. The problem is that in this, the wealthiest nation on earth, we have 46 million living below the poverty line, 49 million living in food insecure households, and nearly 50 million without health insurance.

The recession continues for many. An under-funded stimulus in 2009 and continued Congressional inaction on a jobs bill over the past five years have brought us to this point. Yes, the official unemployment rate is "down" to 6.7%. But we all know that when you add in underemployed part-time workers and those discouraged from looking for any job, the number is much higher. It's 13.1%. Therefore I am immediately sending to Congress for their action a jobs and training bill designed to remedy this sorry state of affairs. Infrastructure improvements - roads, bridges, tunnels, schools - will be a high priority. Assistance to city and state governments to hire teachers, police, and firefighters will also be provided. Jobs in the environmental sector to combat the coming effects of global warming - both in alternative energy industries and in developing engineering solutions to the problems that will face low-lying areas of our country. In addition, we are investing in a massive program of medical research to eliminate cancer in our lifetime. 

I am asking Congress to restore long-term unemployment benefits until this jobs, training and research program has its desired effect - an official unemployment rate no greater than 3%.   I am asking for a hike in the Federal minimum wage to $9.25 per hour to be automatically adjusted annually according to the rate of inflation. This will get us back to an equivalent minimum wage as we had in 1968. Also, I am signing an executive order tonight that will require government contracts to be awarded only to contractors who pay a living wage - $14.75/hour. This will allow a wage earner to support a four member household at 125% of the poverty line. I don't think anyone working a full-time job should live in poverty in this country. Finally I will veto any spending bill that comes to my desk that contains provisions for cuts in food stamps. To do so at this time while maintaining massive subsidies for agribusinesses is obscene.

And here's a message for the Republican-controlled House of Representatives - do something that actually helps the country recover from this recession. Vote against the Affordable Care Act all you like if it makes you feel good. As you and the rest of the country know, I will veto any such bill that makes it to my desk. But do something useful in the meantime. The above would be a modest start. Another item requiring your immediate attention is the immigration reform bill passed by the Senate back in June. If you can't think of anything better, just pass the bill from the Senate. It's not perfect but it is a start.

Our democracy is under attack. These attacks are not from any external threats but from the influence of money on elections and legislation and from the well-funded and organized attack on the right to vote. There is no greater, more distinguishing right in a democracy than the right to vote. I have therefore ordered the attorney general to contest voter id laws passed since 2010. We all know why these laws were passed - they are an attempt to disenfranchise minority, older, younger, and poorer voters. It is an assault against our democracy to deny up to 5 million citizens their right to vote. And don't give us any nonsense about voter fraud. That's about as common as shark attacks and you know it. We will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law any state or group to unfairly deny or threaten to deny any citizen his or her right to vote. In addition, I have requested that the Department of Health and Human Services fully comply with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires federal agencies providing public assistance to help voters get registered. Finally, we will introduce and work tirelessly for an amendment to the Constitution that will provide for public financing of all Federal elections and which will open the way for states to do the same. No longer will the money and interests of a few determine the direction our nation takes.

Under no circumstances will I allow the Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare programs to be threatened in a phony deficit crisis. These programs need to be strengthened not weakened. If any spending is to be cut, it will come from the military budget, which is vastly in excess of any rational needs for our defense. Effective immediately, I am ordering the dismantling of our nuclear arsenal and ask other nations possessing these weapons to do the same. All troops remaining in Afghanistan will be withdrawn as soon as safely practicable and we are immediately stopping all combat operations in that nation. In addition, I have requested the heads of the military branches to prepare base budgets for the coming two fiscal years that are, respectively, 25% and 50% below the current year's funding.

Our foreign policy will solely be one of humanitarian assistance. We seek no empire and respect the right of self-determination of the peoples of the world. The savings from the reduced military budget will be put to good use in an effort to eradicate disease and hunger world-wide.

We will no longer be arms dealers to the world and request that other nations do the same. We are stopping all military assistance programs. Arms merchants are being put on notice that providing arms for foreign conflicts will be treated as criminal behavior.

Other foreign policy objectives for 2014 are:

• a just and peaceful solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict - one that is consistent with international law and provides Palestinians with a viable homeland and Israel with peace
• an end to the Syrian Civil War
• an Iranian nuclear program monitored to ensure that it is for peaceful purposes and allowed as is their right as signatories to the Nuclear Non-Prolifertation Treaty
• an end to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Africa brought about by using our financial might to address the root causes of these conflicts
  
  

We will do all in our power to bring about these objectives in a peaceful manner consistent with the universal rights of man declared 65 years ago by the United Nations and the four freedoms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

Links

Calculation of the real unemployment rate

Five facts about our military budget

Sunday Round-Up October 20, 2013

In this week's selection of news and opinion from outside the US mainstream media, we look at the Iran nuclear talks, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.  Sources include The Guardian, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Mother Jones.

In an October 16 article, The Guardian reports on the signs of progress in the initial discussions on Iran's nuclear program.  "Iran signalled the possibility of significant concessions over its nuclear programme in talks that closed on Wednesday, bringing the prospect of a breakthrough closer than at any time in the last decade, according to western diplomats."  The talks which ended Wednesday will reconvene November 7. "Those discussions will focus on Iranian indications in Geneva that Tehran could agree limits on its nuclear programme that ensure it can be used for peaceful purposes, and ultimately accept more stringent international monitoring. Iran has also requested that the US delegation bring financial experts to go into detail on how the economic straitjacket on Iran could be loosened."

In a report dated October 15, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace discussed the increasing friction between Saudi Arabia and the US over recent US foreign policy moves in the Middle East - in Egypt, in Syria and in the recent slight warming of relations with Iran.  Of the latter, CEIP's Frederic Wehrey writes:  "That mild rapprochement brought to the fore an old specter: an U.S.-Iranian breakthrough that marginalizes the Gulf states and erodes their long-standing position as beneficiaries of U.S.-Iranian hostility."  Saudi political commentators "raised the fear of Iran reassuming the role of the Gulf’s policeman that it played during the era of the shah, with Obama’s backing. For others, it is not so much the danger of rapprochement—they agreed that U.S.-Iranian reconciliation would be good for regional peace—but rather the fact that the Gulf states are being sidelined, especially on a potential regional settlement of the Syrian crisis."

Also discussed at CEIP in an October 17 article is a way forward to peace in Syria.  Marc Pierini writes that "The Syrian war is being played out in Moscow, Tehran, and Washington. To achieve further progress, the three capitals cannot avoid working together on a diplomatic solution."  Speaking of Russia's long-time support for the Syrian regime, Pierini writes that this "may soon become a liability for Russian President Vladimir Putin." Putin, currently chair of the G20, wants to be considered a "key broker in the new world order."   Pierini writes: "The Russian leadership believes in the supremacy of the UN system...It also believes in political stability—that is, preserving the Syrian state—and Putin fears the rise of Islamist brigades in Syria, which have developed as a result of regime violence. Seen from this wider perspective, it may be argued that Putin’s ambitions in terms of world leadership can hardly be served by associating with thugs of a defunct era. If so, Bashar al-Assad is bound to constitute a major impediment to Russia’s policies."  As for the West, "...the United States, along with France and the United Kingdom, had no real choice but to entertain a plan to dismantle the arsenal of chemical weapons under the control of the rogue Syrian regime, as the weapons could well fall into jihadist hands as the regime crumbles or retreats to a smaller territory."   Finally, he notes "Iran’s primary objective is to regain its place in the international community and, according to recent statements, to exercise its full right to develop civilian nuclear reactors, not a nuclear weapons program. With this priority in mind and a dialogue just launched in Geneva with Western powers on Tehran’s nuclear program, a certain amount of Iranian moderation is needed on the Syrian issue...Iran is therefore expected to exercise a moderating influence on the Syrian regime." Russia, Iran and the United States all have a stake in making the chemical weapons regime work.  "Beyond chemical weapons, ending the Syrian nightmare clearly requires a few indispensable ingredients: maintaining strong Russian pressure on Assad; including Iran in the discussions about Syria’s future, under certain conditions; safeguarding the Syrian state, though without Assad in the final stage; marginalizing jihadist forces; and holding the Geneva II conference with all concerned stakeholders."

Now that Congressional Republicans are through with trying to deny access to health insurance to poor people, Mother Jones in an October 17 article reminds us of another of their continuing assaults against the vulnerable in this country.  "Shutting down the government and threatening a default in an attempt to block poor people from getting health insurance isn't the only thing House Republicans did over the past two weeks. They also continued their push to defund food stamps...last weekend, Democratic and Republican leaders in the House selected the lawmakers that will negotiate with the Senate to hammer out a final version of the farm bill, the massive bill that funds agriculture and nutrition programs. The main stumbling block for months has been how much money the bill should devote to food stamps; the House wants to strip $39 billion from the program, and the Senate wants to cut just $4 billion. The fact that Republicans in the House named one of the most anti-food stamp members of Congress [Florida Republican Steve Sutherland] to the committee that will decide the future of food stamps does not bode well for the program."  An estimated 3.8 million people will be removed from the food stamp program if the House cuts are enacted.  There is no need to do any of this, just as there was no need to threaten to default on the government debt other than the Republicans' refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy or even deny them their current loopholes and favorable treatment. 

"On God's Side"

[This is the second part of a discussion of Jim Wallis' On God's Side. The first post (September 17, 2013) can be found at this link.]

"Common good is the whole network of social conditions which enable human individuals and groups to flourish and live a fully, genuinely human life, otherwise described as 'integral human development.' All are responsible for all, collectively, at the level of society or nation, not only as individuals." - Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, The Common Good and the Catholic Church's Social Teaching

In the second part of On God's Side, Jim Wallis discusses "practices for the common good." What actions and behaviors will help our nation achieve the common good so necessary for a democracy and so essential to the Christian view of the world? The first step, Wallis believes, is a return to civility in our political discussion. Indeed, one of the drivers for writing this book in 2012 was the dysfunctional and bitterly partisan politics that had undermined "the people's deep desire for hope and change." How do we return to civility? By all parties focusing on the those ideas of our political opponents that work for the attainment of the common good. Only then will we be able to solve problems rather than assign blame for them.

Both conservative and liberal philosophies have critical contributions to make in solving our problems...The best big conservative idea is personal responsibility...Doing the right thing, the moral thing, the ethical thing in personal decision making is key not only for individual well-being but also...for the common good...The best big liberal idea is social responsibility...Compassion is an essential social virtue and should not be confused with political systems. Hubert Humphrey... expressed it well: "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism."... The question of who will take responsibility [for those, in Humphrey's words, in the dawn, twilight and shadows of life] is a soul-searching one from liberals, especially if those in need are outside of our own families and groups.

Wallis gives two examples of areas where liberals and conservatives could work together to restore the common good- strengthening marriage and ending poverty. In emphasizing his call for a return to civility, he reflects on the shooting of Gabby Giffords, "the least likely person to be targeted by an angry and unhinged man." Wallis contends that the way to get back to civil discourse is by framing it as a moral argument - it's a religious issue, we always speak the truth ("Much of our worst political rhetoric these days is based on outright lies that go viral"), and hold to the early American statement E pluribus Unum - one out of many.

After calling for civility in our political discussions, Jim Wallis writes of the need to redeem democracy (from voter suppression laws, from the Citizens United decision ("one of the most disastrous judicial decisions in American history...which...virtually overturned the beginnings of campaign finance laws") and from the control of money over elections), to restore economic trust (the current global economy is "unfair, unsustainable, unstable, and [makes people] unhappy"), and to have a "servant government" ("the purpose of government...is to protect its people from the chaos of evil and to promote the good of society: to protect and promote").

Besides civility and focusing on solutions, Wallis points to two other necessary elements for making things right - that is, for changing and correcting injustices. The first element is grass-roots movements or post-candidate advocacy. "There are systems that undergird and shape the limits of the political agenda, and challenging those limits to get to root causes and real solutions is always the prophetic task....It is always movements that "change the wind," and only a change in the political wind can change the political policies in Washington..." The second element is healthy households. "Our households are critical places for the practice of human flourishing and for teaching the next generation the meaning of the common good." Wallis sees strong families and the home as the place to nurture values rather than encourage "appetites" (i.e., consumerism, materialism).

Focus on solutions rather than partisanship, encourage movements, and teach values and the common good to your children. Good advice at any time. God bless your optimistic heart, Jim. I hope you're right. 

 

Ten Decisions to Change the World

 

Want to get started on changing the world?  In the Epilogue to his book, Wallis provides "Ten Personal Decisions for the Common Good" and he re-lists these ten decisions in a Sojourners' June 30 post.  Check them out.  Jim's intro to the post reads: After traveling the country this spring — while keeping an eye on Washington, D.C. — I am more convinced than ever that our personal decisions, choices, and commitments will change the world more than our politics. The message in the Epilogue to On God’s Side says this as well as I could do again. It’s short and very practical.

 

Food Stamp Cuts

 

The day before the House of Representatives passed its draconian cuts to the food stamp program, Sojourners issued a press release concerning the call from religious leaders to reject the proposed cuts.  The leaders are from the Circle of Protection, a coalition of more than 65 heads of denominations and religious organizations, plus more than 5,000 church pastors. They have been working for more than two years to resist federal budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people.  From Jim Wallis' letter to Congress: “These immoral cuts are incongruent with the shared values of our nation. They demonstrate the triumph of political ideology and self-interest over sound public policy and concern for the general welfare. Actions like these foster cynicism and distrust of government in the everyday Americans who struggle to meet their families’ basic needs and create a better life for their children.”  The common good took a beating this time but perhaps the pressure from religious and other community leaders will help reduce the size of the cuts (or eliminate them altogether) when it goes to the House-Senate conference. 

Tornadoes, Hunger, and Getting Angry

Be kind for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

- Plato

The personal tragedies wrought by tornadoes over the past few weeks in Oklahoma are just the latest reminders of the difficulties faced by ordinary people in the course of everyday life in this country. Untimely deaths from disease and accidents, impoverished and malnourished children, homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, urban violence, hate crimes, student massacres ... the list is seemingly endless. That is why I can't understand the positions taken by today's Republican Party. If you have the opportunity to do something to relieve or prevent the suffering of the vulnerable in our society, why on Earth would you choose not to?

Former Republican presidential candidate and former Senator Bob Dole, answering a question put to him by Fox News' Chris Wallace, said that neither he nor Ronald Reagan would feel comfortable with the GOP's present membership. Dole said that the party should hang a “closed for repairs” sign on its doors until it comes up with a few positive ideas.    A May 28 NYT editorial put it like this: "The difference between the current crop of Tea Party lawmakers and Mr. Dole’s generation is not simply one of ideology....Republicans used to set aside their grandstanding, recognize that a two-party system requires compromise and make deals to keep the government working on the people’s behalf. The current generation refuses to do that. Its members want to dismantle government, using whatever crowbar happens to be handy."

Dole is a staunch conservative and holds many of the same general policy positions as the Tea Party Republicans - although admittedly less extreme. There are few moderate Republicans around nowadays - at least in the Republican Party. The closest you have to moderate "Eisenhower Republicans" - people like former Senators Mark Hatfield of Oregon and Clifford Case of New Jersey - can now be found within the Democratic Party. Whether because of Republican obstructionism or because of his belief in his role as Compromiser-In-Chief, Obama has effectively become an Eisenhower Republican. This is not what we voted for in 2008 or 2012.   That said, his policy and budget positions are generally better than or, at least, no worse than, those of the Tea-Party-controlled GOP. (For a comparison of the various 2014 budget proposals, here's a link to a one-page summary from the National Priorities Project.)

There is so much to criticize in the proposed Republican budget that time and space do not permit even a partial listing. Their proposed cuts to social services can best be described as Draconian. And then there is the infamous sequester brought about by the Budget Control Act of 2011, which in turn was the compromise response to the phony debt-ceiling crisis initiated by Republicans. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 750,000 jobs will be lost or not created because of this austerity measure in this year alone.

"But", in the immortal words of Arlo Guthrie, "that's not what I come to talk about tonight." What I really want to talk about is hunger in America and the current and future proposed cuts to the food stamp program. The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as existing “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”. Food insecurity then is the opposite: when you don't have enough food to maintain a healthy and active life.

Take a guess. How many Americans, citizens of the wealthiest country on Earth, live with "food insecurity"? Well, in 2011, 50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.5 million adults and 16.7 million children. [Feeding America website] That corresponds to about 1 American out of every 6.

What was our elected representatives' response to hunger in America? The Republican-controlled House Agriculture Committee proposed cuts of $20.5 billion to the food stamp program over the next 10 years. The Senate Agriculture Committee proposed cuts of $4.1 billion. This is all part of the response to the phony deficit crisis - imposing austerity measures in the midst of a recession. On May 21, the U.S. Senate blocked an amendment to reinstate the $4.1 billion for food stamps. It was not just Republican obstructionism this time. For whatever reason, 28 Senate Democrats voted with all the Republicans for the 2013 Farm Bill which put corporate welfare ahead of  low-income families.

The differences in the farm bills will now be resolved in a joint House-Senate committee. As of December 2012, approximately 48 million people relied on food stamps. That's more than at any time in history and a direct result of the number of people thrown into poverty in the Great Recession. The House bill would drive 2 million low-income people off food stamps. Paul Krugman's excellent op-ed of May 30 analyzes these untimely and mean-spirited cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and concludes:

"Look, I understand the supposed rationale: We’re becoming a nation of takers, and doing stuff like feeding poor children and giving them adequate health care are just creating a culture of dependency — and that culture of dependency, not runaway bankers, somehow caused our economic crisis.  But I wonder whether even Republicans really believe that story — or at least are confident enough in their diagnosis to justify policies that more or less literally take food from the mouths of hungry children. As I said, there are times when cynicism just doesn’t cut it; this is a time to get really, really angry."

Yup.

RIP Frank Lautenberg

New Jersey lost one of its finest Senators in history on Monday morning. Frank Lautenberg had a consistently liberal voting record and he will be missed by the Senate majority. He had been ill for a while. But so important was his vote and so total his dedication, he was brought to the floor for several important Senate votes during his illness - including gun control. Unfortunately, thanks to the Republican filibuster, these last public services from the ailing Senator Lautenberg generally went for naught. You can rest assured that Republican Governor Christie will appoint a Republican until the special election later this year. Times will be even tougher for the Senate majority. With the next chance of changing Senate filibuster rules in 2014 and with the unlikely return of the House with its gerrymandered Congressional seats to the Democrats until the next census (2020), it will be a hard time for progressives.