Equal Rights and Religion in America

"[T]here remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government & Religion neither can be duly supported... the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against.

Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance... [R]eligion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together...

We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without then with the aid of Govt."
- James Madison, July 10, 1822, Letter to Edward Livingston

This post may be my most controversial yet, but I think my position is well known. Let's start, as it were, at the beginning. 

The United State's was not founded as a Christian nation. That idea is utterly false and is not supported by any of the historical data. Yes, the colonies enjoyed far greater religious freedom than other parts of the empire, BUT it was by no means a strong hold for Christianity. Many people point to the Pilgrims emigration to Massachusetts as a sign of this "religious founding" but we too often forget one important fact: Massachusetts was not the first colony. Nor were the Pilgrims who came the only inhabitants of Massachusetts. 

The first colony in the New World was Virginia. There, the idea that religion was any fort of factor in colonization is laughable. Colonists came to Virginia (and Roanoke before that) for one simple reason: Money.  The almighty dollar (or pound sterling I suppose) was the god of that colony. The British sought to colonize North America in order to make a profit off its natural bounty. Like spices from Indonesia, tea from China, and silks from India- North America offered its own resources that could be exploited: Timber (which was harder to find in the United Kingdom), Fish, game, and, according to legend, gold. Once colonists were here, they learned about Potatoes, Tobacco, Maize, and other crops which could be sold for a profit back in the old Country. The slave trade from Africa developed in response to this craving for more goods. Money and manufactured goods went to Africa to purchase slaves, which were in turn taken to the Americas as cheap labor, which produced the raw materials and food stuffs, which were in turn taken to Europe for manufacturing and distribution. Notice, not once in that description did you hear about God.

Now, as we all know, the Puritans had fallen out of favor in England. Granted the opportunity, they made their way to the New World, far from the eyes of the King and the Anglican church. While they were the first, they were not the last. Jews, Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, and other religious groups which opposed the Catholic or Anglican church also migrated to the New World for the same reason. The puritans were outsiders. With their strict adherence to dogma and refusal to bow to Rome or to the Anglican Church, they were  ostracized from the rest of society. Think of their dress- this was not a fashion statement. When you think of the Puritans, especially their dress, think of strict Mulsims who wear Burqas. They took their religion seriously, so much so that even in today's society, they would likely STILL be ostracized. 

One hundred and fifty years later, the colonial period had come to an end and North America was in the throes of decolonizatievolution or reformation: we'll cover this in a later post). On the other side of the violence a discussion began about the country. Those who we look to for guidance, even today, stood up and began a debate about what the country should look like.

Vincent Phillip Muñoz, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, wrote in his paper "Religious Liberty and the American Founding" published in the Spring/Summer 2003 issue of Intercollegiate Review:

"...Although the founders agreed on the legitimate ends of government, they disagreed about the means the state could use to secure those ends. Specifically, the founders disagreed on whether the government legitimately could employ religion as a means to secure republican liberty. Two general positions existed. On one side stood the libertarians, who emphasized the need to limit government in order to protect civil and religious liberty. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson most clearly represent this position. On the other side were those of a more conservative disposition, who believed religion supported the good order of society and thus that government should endorse and encourage religion. George Washington most clearly represents this position."

Charles L. Cohen, PhD, Director of the Lubar Institute for the Study of the Abrahamic Religions wrote:

"The Framers did consider religion an important source of social morality - but they also knew that religious broils could destabilize governments, and, more than almost anything else, many of them feared denominational conflict."

These two quotes outline my general point. Yes, during the Constitutional Convention, there was much discussion about what role religion should play in the new country. However, their overarching concerns were a government religion, government interference in religion, and the conflicts of different religions or different sects of a particular religion. Notice, not once did I say Christian above- merely religion. 

At this point, we could have a debate nunc pro tunc of the different quotes of the Founding Fathers, but instead, I will summarize thusly: Most of the founders were religions men. Most of them would identify with the Christian religion (although most were Deists which have a particular flavor of Christianity) however, they took clear steps to assure that the government they created was separate from the religious sects in the nation: for the mutual benefit of both. I think this can be summarized by a single, rather famous, quote from Thomas Jefferson: 
 

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jan. 1, 1802, Letter to the Connecticut Danbury Baptist Association

So how does this call in to question the issue of equal rights. This, too, should be clear. There are many social issues in America that have a religious overtone or require religion to be part of the conversation. at some point we will address them all, but obviously abortion is a big one. The other one is what I have called equal right, but could just as easily be called civil rights. More aptly, its the treatment of homosexuals by society as a whole. 

I want to go on a brief tangent here to address why this is even a controversial issue. By all accounts, it shouldn't be. However, after the Republicans suffered huge losses in the wake of Watergate and Jimmy Carter won the White House in 1976, the republicans were looking for an in with the voting public. It had been about 15 years since the "Great Switch" when the two major parties had in great part exchanged their electorates, and in many parts of the country, that move hadn't been completed. It was at that point when the Moral Majority reached out to the republican elite and a partnership was formed. The republicans- who at that point were representing the wealthy whites of the Old South and Mid-west realized that they were on the verge of becoming the party of the minority. So, in a miraculous reformation, they became the party of God as well. Ronald Reagan was elected, and they began to make in-roads in Congress and in the local elections as well. Finally, in 1994, for the first time since WWII, Republicans won control of both Houses of Congress. A war of attrition began which reached its pinnacle in the 2000 election and has plateaued since then: the parties swapping control of one house or another, and eventually the White House as well. 

However, you don't win votes by professing religion, loosening corporate restraint and keeping taxes low on the ultra-rich. That doesn't win you votes anywhere, let alone in 'fly-over country'. So they took another route- a deviously smart one. "Keep taxes low on everyone!" They said, "Keep the government out of your pockets!" What they should have said was, we won't raise taxes on you, but inflation and our economic policies will keep you poor and make you poorer. "Keep government small!" they said, but what they didn't say was we don't want the government watching our friends poison you, the environment, and making things unsafe but more profitable. The most devious though, was they said- social issues are the most important thing! Don't worry about the jobs going overseas, don't worry about the crappy economy, don't worry about the trillions we are spending on overseas wars, don't look at how horrible the school system here, or how your dollar buys less and less everyday! NO! There are women making the decision to terminate pregnancies! They are taking God out of schools! The Ten Commandments can't go outside a public building! (and for our purposes here) The gays want to be equal! God says that's a sin and they want to be just like us!

Here's the point: I am, and we all should be, sick of people wrapping hate and fear in the pages of a holy book. More importantly, we should be tired of our politicians telling us that these issues are more important than one's that may affect the survival of the republic. Here's something not everyone knows about me: I am a pastors son. I was once very involved in the church. Given that, I have extensively read the Bible. However, I also know my heart. I have to balance what I know to be right and what my beliefs tell me. For my own knowledge, I have also done historical studies of the bible and every other holy book.

What people so quickly forget is that, neither I nor the state care about your religion. You can worship God any way you see fit- as long as it doesn't affect others. There is even a Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But my view on religion is just like my view on the other parts of the Bill of Rights: that document gives you the right to do anything that you want, right up to the end of your nose, your fingers and your toes. The moment that any right bestowed upon us interferes on a right of another person, our rights need to give way insomuch as they have minimal effect on others.

This argument of religion against civil rights is not a new one. In the middle years of the 19th century, those around the country who supported the continued state of men as property often used the Old Testament to justify that argument. All throughout the Old Testament, there are mentions of the Israelites taking and keeping slaves- the strict rule being that they must be slaves from other lands. Well black africans were certainly from another land. They were just above beasts but much easier to train. Fifty years later, women were moving towards suffrage. White men looked to the Bible to show that women should be subservient and generally they were below men. They shouldn't be equals- an argument they would echo a generation later when feminism and equality in the workplace arose. Another fifty years down the line, the same biblical, religious arguments were used against interracial marriage and voting rights. Now, they are going back to the well, using religious arguments against homosexual equality- more specifically marriage equality. 

When it comes to religion, I have found my own path. Although at some point I wandered away, I never ran from God, I embrace the True God: The God of forgiveness and acceptance. The God whose son didn't judge, and accepted everyone. The Son who would not look at someone and say "I love you, but I can't accept you." Rather, Jesus told them to come unto him and break bread and live as one. It is said that the Bible being a book for yesterday, today, and tomorrow- and they are right about that. Much like Aesop's Tales, it is a book of morality and conduct- using parable to teach lessons, and should not be taken literally. That that is what people do- they point out this verse and that one and use them to justify withholding rights from people. 

I want to be clear- you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs up and until they require that someone else change theirs or that it affects them. When your opinions and beliefs mean that my friends have to fight for years for something that I can drunkenly do as a joke in Vegas and annul the next day. If you ask me, and any logical person, no one has the right to that opinion.

A message that has been popularized in recent week's by the Duck Dynasty debacle is no less harmful. That is the message that "I love them and I accept them- but I don't condone the lifestyle." In and of itself, that argument is not horrible. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I would never ask someone to support something they didn't believe in. BUT- once again, when you use that argument as a reason to deny someone their rights, it is unacceptable.

By taking the "I accept it but I don't condone it" perspective, you are making it socially acceptable for other people, more vocal and active ones, to do just that. To abuse people, to hold up signs saying "God Hates Fags" and to drag people who are just living the way God made them 14 miles behind their truck before tying them to a fence and leaving them for dead. And years from now, no matter how small the impact of what you say is- they will feel the way that so many did from the 50s when they said- "I don't condone black integration, but I accept that there are black people and I can't stop them from having lunch here." Its shameful, whether you take part in it directly or indirectly.

Finally, I'd like to leave you with a metaphor:

I like blue shirts. I like blue shirts so much that no one else should be able to wear blue shirts unless they wear the blue shirt I like, in the way I like it. So I'm going to go every where I can and rail about how you shouldn't be able to wear a blue shirt. I'll see you in a blue shirt and I'll scream in your face and turn my children away. I accept that I can't stop you from wearing a blue shirt- but I can do everything I can to make your life hell for wearing it.

THATS this argument! And, decades in the future, once again this country will be left with shameful period where people had to fight for rights given so casually to others. It should be embarrassing for us all and it will be stain that won't wash away easily.

    © Robert Cheek, 2013

Ethics in Government

‘For whom are you working? It doesn’t seem like you’re working for the American people.’

Government ethics may seem like an oxymoron. Certainly today, its meaning is grossly misinterpreted. When President Eisenhower left office, he warned of a looming military-industrial complex and how we must avoid it. Little did Eisenhower know what an underestimate this statement would become in the future. Surely, today, we have a military-industrial complex, but even more we have a government-industrial complex.

I doubt there are any official figures on how many members of the bureaucracy are former industrialists and how many industrialists are former bureaucrats. However, anyone who works inside the beltway knows how prevalent this is in our system. There are only two reasons people take the underpaid, overworked positions: eventually they want the highly paid, elected position OR they want the highly paid industrial jobs as a consultant or lobbyist. The reason that this second class of positions exists is that people work in government just long enough to meet the right people, the right connections, and earn the process so that they can leave for the greener pastures of the private sector.

This begs the question again: for whom do you work, Mr. Corporate Climber, when you are taking a government check? Are you working for the American people or for yourself?

The Government, so concerned about the problem, created an entire Executive Agency to address it. The mission of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is to foster high ethical standards for executive branch employees and strengthen the public’s confidence that the Government’s business is conducted with impartiality and integrity. The OGE was established by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, It was part of the new Congresses accountability platform following the resignation of Richard Nixon. It is the agency that provides overall direction, oversight, and accountability of Executive Branch policies designed to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest. OGE is also charged with promoting high ethical standards for Executive Branch employees.

While OGE sets policy for the executive branch ethics program, the head of each agency has primary responsibility for the ethics program in that agency. To support the day-to-day activities of the ethics program, each agency head selects an individual to serve as the agency's designated agency ethics official. That's right, although the OGE sets the policies, it is left to the agencies to self-police, with the guidance of the OGE of course.

The OGE created the The Standards of Conduct in 1993. The Standard covers issues such as gifts, conflicting financial interests, impartiality, seeking employment, misuse of position, and outside activities. They are designed to address not only actual conflicts of interest but also activities that give rise to the appearance of such conflicts.

In addition,the financial disclosure program is designed to help agencies spot and prevent conflicts of interest before they occur and to promote confidence in the integrity of Government decision-making. Through regulation, OGE establishes the procedures for administering the executive branch financial disclosure system. In addition, OGE has an important role in certifying the financial disclosure reports for all Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate and the most senior White House staff members. Finally, through monitoring and oversight, OGE ensures that agencies implement effective financial disclosure processes.

The OGE has no role in the ethics programs of the legislative or judicial branches of the federal government. Similarly, OGE has no jurisdiction over state or local government ethics programs. OGE does not conduct investigations and cannot represent citizens in legal matters.

In the 34 years since the formation of OGE, none of the 5,700 employees working in the 133 executive agencies has found any wrongdoing to be significant enough to trigger enforcement of ethical standards.

What about Congress? How are they policed ethically? Self-policing of course! The Senate Select Committee on Ethics handles ethical reporting on Senators. The Senate sets the rules and the committee "enforces" them. What about the House? Well for the House of Representatives, there is some oversight. The House Committee on Ethics does establish rules conduct of Representatives. But in addition, there is the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) was created in March of 2008 as an independent, non-partisan office governed by a Board comprised of private citizens. The OCE reviews allegations of misconduct against Members, officers, and staff of the House and, when appropriate, refers matters to the House Committee on Ethics. The OCE is not authorized to determine if a violation occurred. The OCE is also not authorized to sanction Members, officers, or employees of the House or to recommend any sanctions. The OCE is not able to provide advice or education on the rules and standards of conduct applicable to Members, officers, and employees of the House. A pretty powerful group huh?

The US has hundreds of laws and statutes dealing with ethics and more than 5,000 federal employees at more than 130 federal agencies charged with interpreting them.

The authority of Congress to discipline its members is found in the Constitution, which states, "Each House determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

By 2004, the House had heard 150 cases of members accused of crimes. 12 of those members were convicted, but not expelled. Although the House is forgiving of its own failings, it has impeached 12 federal judges and two executives.

Finally, there are the lobbyists. Last year, they numbered over 12,000. That's about 20 for every member of Congress. Those are the registered lobbyists. Not all lobbyists register. The rules that control lobbying, totaling a massive 19 pages of statute, can be found here. When it comes to lobbyists, its basically the wild west.

So what do we do? This is a new problem, relatively. It arose most strikingly through a classic conservative plan: deregulation. It was sold as taking the government off the backs of industry. The public was told that industry is basically good and that, through market forces, it could regulate itself. Instead, deregulation brought about the boom in corporate power for which we can thank our current destructive situation. Obviously, with industry regulating itself, the dollar was more important than protections.

Since the source is so clearly identified, the solution is as well. As part of a greater effort I will outline later, deregulation needs to be rolled back and reregulation needs to occur. Further, although there has never been regulation on lobbyists, there needs to be a licensing, registration, and identification system for them. Additionally, there needs to be more, or any, government oversight of the entire lobbying industry.

As part of this effort, there need to be limits on transfers between the public and private sectors. Everyone has a plan for doing this: here is my suggestion. Any person at cabinet-support level or above, appointed position, or elected official; are barred from consulting and direct lobbying in any private position that requires advocacy or the expenditure of funds. This bar is in effect for two years from when the person left the public or elected job. For any lower level official, there should be a bar of one year for a move from any position in the bureaucracy to an advocacy or consulting job in the private sector. I’ll address more of this when I talk about cutting red tape, but as a basic outline, I think this is a start. Taking these steps can help bring some measure of ethics to the government process and cut into the billions of dollars trading hands under the current system of questionable ethics.

© Robert Cheek, 2011, 2013

A New Declaration

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to redistribute the power which has for so long been drained from the majority and given to the oligarchy, and reassume among the powers of the earth, the equal station to which the Laws of this Nation entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of all require that they should declare the causes which impel them to their action.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their mere existence with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted amongst the people, deriving their just and limited powers from the consent of the governed;

That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right and Duty of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to protect their Safety and Happiness. 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly history has shown that people are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their current Government. The history of the present Oligarghy is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the People. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

They have forbidden their elected officials to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation until their assent can be obtained; and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them.

They have obstructed the administration of Justice by refusing to assent to appointments for establishing a working judiciary.

They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

They have kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of people.

They have acted to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

For continuing large and unpopular wars on foreign soil, utilizing bodies of armed troops taken from their positions at home.

For establishing ‘Free Trade’ with all parts of the world, causing the removal of millions of jobs and billions in capital.

For imposing Taxes on the majority while removing taxes from the wealthy:

For depriving us, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For abolishing our most valuable and protective Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

They have plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, raped our natural resources, and destroyed the lives of our people.

They are at this time organizing large Armies of police and National Guard to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the heads of a civilized nation.

They have excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and have endeavored to bring on the citizens of our Nation, at home and abroad, merciless terrorists whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. Leaders, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, are unfit to be the representatives of a free people.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the Majority of the American Citizens appealing to the common sense of the Majority for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of this Nation, solemnly publish and declare, that the power of this Nation, Right ought to be returned to the people from which is derives, that we are Absolved from their ursurpation of power.

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

Cutting Government Red Tape

“Bureaucracy is the art of making the possible impossible.”  ~ Javier Pascal Salcedo

If there is one complaint about government that has been a constant for generations, its government red tape. 

Red tape can be loosley defined as excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that can be considered redundant or bureaucratic and hinders or prevents action or decision-making. It is usually applied to governments, corporations, and other large organizations. Another definition is the collection or sequence of forms and procedures required to gain bureaucratic approval for a project, especially when oppressively complex and time-consuming. A third definition is the bureaucratic practice of hair splitting or foot dragging, blamed by its practitioners on the system that forces them to follow prescribed procedures to the letter. Red tape generally includes filling out paperwork, obtaining licenses, having multiple people or committees approve a decision and various low-level rules that make conducting one's affairs slower, more difficult, or both. Red tape can also include filing and certification requirements, reporting, investigation, inspection and enforcement practices, and procedures.

It’s a problem for the public and it’s a problem for elected officials. Today, the real problem, besides the inherent delay in government, is that the only time red tape would serve a useful purpose; the special interest groups have organized a way around it. The result is a lot of good does not get done and a lot of harm is not avoided. 

For instance, I personally know that the Mayor of the City of Salisbury, James Ireton, has been organizing an effort to clean up the Wicomico River, which runs through his city. A major part of this effort is to remove some rusting boat wrecks from the river. This is an effort that everyone and anyone can get behind. However, in reality, the red tape and delay have stalled the project multiple times and made it far more difficult and expensive than necessary.* 

Meanwhile, a developer in Dorchester County has made a concerted effort to build a resort on land that has been set-aside as a wildlife refuge. While he has yet to be successful, it is action by the public that has blocked him. When it comes to red tape, he has become an expert in cutting, skirting, and avoiding hassles. The difference should be clear: when money and power are at hand the red tape doesn’t serve its purpose. The people are not served by this system. 

As always, lets take a look at the history. The origin of the term "red tape" is somewhat obscure, but it is first noted in historical records in the 16th century when Henry VIII repeatedly asked Pope Clement VII for the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He used around eighty or so petitions. Each document was sealed and bound with the obligatory red tape, as was the custom. Around the same time, the Spanish administration of Charles V started to use the red tape in an effort to modernize running his vast empire. The red tape was used to bind the important administrative documents that had to be discussed by the Council of State, and separate them from the issues that were treated in an ordinary administrative way, which were bound by an ordinary rope. Although they were not governing such a vast territory as Charles V, this practice of using red tape to separate the important documents was quickly copied by the other modern European monarchs to speed up their administrative machines. In the 19th century, all American Civil War veterans' records were bound in red tape, and the difficulty in accessing them led to the modern American use of the term, but there is evidence (as detailed above) that the term was in used in its modern sense sometime before this.

While red tape has always been a government problem, it became exacerbated as many things did, in the 1950s and 60s. After WWII, the federal bureaucracy, streamlined (somewhat) by war, had created clear rules, most of which did not require a lawyer to follow. However, with deregulation, complex but clear rules gave way to ‘The Exception’. Bureaucratic bodies abandoned their traditional clear-cut rulings and created loopholes, exceptions, and conflicting case law. As a result, not only was a lawyer helpful to navigate the system, it became necessary. Instead of following a process, one had to and must now dig through decades of case law to find a precedent or argue for the creation of a new one. What this created was what we discussed in the last post: a system where an insider can learn the process and then be paid for that knowledge in the private sector. The result is the system we have now. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 is a federal law enacted in 1980 designed to reduce the total amount of paperwork burden the federal government imposes private businesses and citizens. The Act imposes procedural requirements on agencies that wish to collect information from the public. It also established the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and authorized this new agency to oversee federal agencies' collection of information from the public and to establish information policies. A substantial amendment, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, confirmed that OIRA's authority extended over not only agency orders to provide information to the government, but also agency orders to provide information to the public. Unfortunately, they did little to solve the complex regulatory system. 

When a bureaucratic system becomes too complex for a layman, the system is no longer serving the public. With complexity comes an increase in cost and a decrease in speed- neither of which serve the public interest. Further, a complex system is designed for industries that can afford and take the time to find an end around the system, not for the public who needs simple, straightforward answers.. The current system does not serve the people. 

Many politicians run on a platform of cutting red tape, but none of them are successful. It is a great ploy to get votes, but in the end, when they can't change the rules, they blame it on the red tape that they sought to eliminate in the first place. The time for excuses is over. This is one way, of many, that we need to stop the status quo in Washington. We need to say, once and for all, that this is unacceptable. If changes aren't made, we'll change the ones ignoring us.

The solution is much clearer and more straightforward than most others, however, it is also a longer-term solution. The Executive and Legislative Branches with the advice of the Judicial should form a Commission to begin a two-year study by an independent group of legislators, judicial, and executive officials. This commission will analyze the entire United States Code, all Federal regulations, all Federal Rules, all agency decisions, and all other aspects of the federal bureaucracy. This will be done in an effort to remove, simplify, clarify, and, in all non-substantive, ways re-write the Federal Code and federal bureaucratic system documents. The hope is, after this study, the system can be standardized among agencies and return the system to one that can be comprehended and handled by a layman. 

This is not a new idea. Many states have undertaken this very process to modernize their laws and codes. This will be applying that strategy to the federal government. The result will be a system that will reject money as power. A corporation or wealthy individual should not be able to buy their way around the roadblocks that others face. This will be the final part of getting the money out of politics that will be started with campaign finance reform.

© Robert Cheek, 2011, 2013 

* Mayor Ireton has since had success in his efforts to begin cleaning up the Wicomico River and has won re-election as mayor of Salisbury.

The future of this blog.

"And now you know the REST of the story." – Paul Harvey

Thus far, I have covered many topics. Some of the them have been about current events, and others have been about general political ideas. I will continue to do this as the blog progresses. However, as I've said before, this blog is part and parcel of my life's work: a forthcoming book which will outline my political philosophy and my plan for reforming the American political and social system. The two most important posts, and the ones that make up the base of my ideological approach are the posts on Campaign Finance Reform and on Economy Reform. What follows is the rest of the story.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. I must stress that none of my political ideals that you have read or will read in the future is really new. Rather, this is an amalgamation of other ideas. I am putting together parts of ideas that are often separated by time and geography. Moreover, the broad plan is really just combining these ideas into one big plan; many aspects of which have been attempted, in part at least, in the not so distant past. The flaw of those past efforts has been in the implementation. The government is a huge machine and, like a boulder rolling down hill, a small adjustment will only bring big changes if given the chance to affect that change in the long term. With House races every 2 years, Presidential every 4 (and a 2 term limit), and Senate races every 6; there is just not enough time for these small adjustments to turn into changes that elected officials can run for re-election on. Sadly, that is what elected officials are counting on.

The status quo in Washington has been to do everything possible to make it look like progress is occurring without rocking the boat too much in reality. The politicians can run on the "change" that has occurred, but with the high turnover of ideas and the changing tide of ideology, no real change will occur. Thus, real change requires something else. Rather than a small change, or a series of small changes, we need to implement something drastic. We need a reformation: total change.

Unfortunately, as stated above, the system itself is adverse to change and is not capable of it. Thus, the system itself must be changed to accomplish the goals, and that is why the change must come along the lines outlined here.

First, we must be sure that the system is working for the people’s best interest. Until the money is taken out of politics, none of what I've outlined or will outline in the future will be possible. Instead of one special interest group confronting a single issue, all of these groups will be confronting one issue together.

Sweeping reforms like I will outline in the future will have many enemies. These reforms will cut deeply into the pocketbooks and power of many people and organizations. When they feel that the status quo is in danger, they will fight it. In their efforts to fight it, they will use all the resources they have. Their resources are vast and those are not odds that the people, even united, can defeat. Thus, campaign finance reform is the first step in the process. Without it, the rest of the reform cannot be accomplished.

Once the system is capable of the reform, we then need to wake-up the populous and fund the reformational changes that need to be made. Generally, when people are worried about feeding themselves and their families, keeping a roof over their heads, and taking care of the basic necessities; the greater issues of the republic are not important. That is where the economic reforms become essential. We must make the citizenry economically secure and then their lives can be made better. We must also make the funds available for the reforms, which may be costly, without exacerbating the deficit and debt problems we are all ready facing.

Thus, we come to the next steps, and the ones I will address going forward. As this blog continues, I will outline the largest proposed change of federal policy in a century. I want to be clear: although I will discuss them over time, they must be implemented together. That drastic change cannot be ignored or dismissed by elected leaders or the federal bureaucracy (I'll cover the way the bureaucracy can ignore policy changes and keep "the boulder running downhill" despite our best efforts and intentions as well). If this effort is tied with a movement to reduce red tape and revamp the federal code, it will make permanent the improvements we need. I look forward to sharing this plan with you in the coming weeks and months.

© Robert Cheek, 2011, 2013

Reforming our Economy and Economic Policy

Now, anybody who thinks that we can move this economy forward with just a few folks at the top doing well, hoping that it's going to trickle down to working people who are running faster and faster just to keep up, you'll never see it. – Barack Obama

Contrary to the belief of some, Americans do NOT need great economic conditions all of the time. What people want, as the election of Barack Obama showed, is a reason to hope. They want to believe that in four, eight, ten, or twenty years, they could be better off than they are today. More importantly, they want to know they will be leaving the next generation a better place than the one they were given. They will go through hell as long as those two things become become true.

How do we know that? Look at the Great Depression and WWII. People went without, they worked hard, and they did whatever they could to meet our national goals. In the case of WWII, people sacrificed and did without in order to support the war effort and our servicemen overseas. In our age, it will be to make a better nation. Now, all that is missing for a return to economic power is for Americans to answer the call to greatness once again.

So what is the issue? The problem is two-fold and I will attempt to address each one individually. First, in the 1970s, America lost its manufacturing dominance. The economies of Europe and Japan were rebuilt and became true competitors to the United States. Developing nations were, at the same time, creating and growing their own industry. New economic giants like China, South Korea, Taiwan, India, etc were growing rapidly and offering competition to a US economy that had been the only show in town for two decades.

As the 1970s turned into 80s and 90s, American industry just could not keep up. A focus on man-power driven, heavy manufacturing with high wages, high benefits, and high costs tied to a continually diminishing quality of product (when compared to other nation’s output) caused American industry to wither on the vine. A visit to any American store will show this. Situation is the same as it was in the 1960s: any number of consumer goods that Americans could purchase had competing products from American companies and overseas companies in 1960; but today, one can not purchase an ‘American’ TV, computer, appliance, car (with the exception of two foreign nameplates and luxury automobiles), and American textiles have become a niche industry.

As industry faded away, the U.S. transitioned to a service economy, or so politicians told us. The Internet boom was part of this transition. However, the difficulty with this transition is that, unlike the slow changes during the decades of manufacturing, the advance of technology during the transition to a service economy was exponential. The advances in communications and computer technology allowed for, in short order, many of these service jobs to be sent overseas as well, creating the current outsourcing problem.

Today, we are a nation of menial wage service (retail) jobs. Although unemployment has not reached historic levels (set during the Great Depression), what goes unsaid is that the current economy eliminated $22.00 an hour manufacturing jobs and replaced them with $8.00/hr service jobs. This means that, job for job; it was not an equal exchange, even if the number of jobs has remained relatively constant.

The second thing that happened was the rise in the 1980s of deregulation and the return of free trade/laissez faire economics. This is, in many ways, how the problem above developed and was exacerbated. As deregulation began, American corporations began focusing on the bottom line rather than the security of the nation and the workforce as a whole, which is much different than the corporations of other nations or American companies in the early to mid twentieth century. The ‘Me’ generation was born.

If a single CEO could improve his income, as well as, the stock value for a few (or maybe a few hundred) stockholders at the cost of tens or hundreds of thousands of American jobs, there was no second thought: they would make the move, cut jobs, and deposit the check. This led not to outsourcing, as described above, but the transfer of those jobs to countries with cheaper labor costs. In most cases, these countries also have terrible human rights histories and no environmental protection laws.

As the American economy adjusted to the loss of manufacturing jobs to more ‘technical’ or ‘service’ jobs there was a boom in that sector. However, as technology allowed for easier and cheaper instant communications, even these jobs were sent overseas to cheaper labor sources, in service to the bottom line.

On current US economic, trade, and money policy: "If you've been in a poker game for 30 minutes and you don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy." - Warren Buffet

What does this problem really mean for America? Every corporation is looking to cut costs. The lower costs with constant or rising prices means more profit for the corporation. More profit means higher incomes, generally for executives, and high stock prices for investors. This is not a bad result. However, it must be tempered against the impact on the rest of society.Though the leadership class (some might say caste) may benefit greatly, it leads to fewer jobs for Americans AND the divestment of capital to other countries. Sending jobs overseas means that workers in America remain unemployed, and responsively trade deficits rise as products are imported. The divestment of capital to other countries (expenditure of corporate profits on capital investment in other countries and the reduction of investment at home) means that the return of those jobs is not likely, and other positions will be created overseas, never creating a job in the US. This, obviously, further negatively impacts the economic growth of our country.

Further, this is the cause of the global ‘race to the bottom’ where countries seek lower wages and lower environmental and health standards to appeal to investments of multi-national corporations. Some argue that this is a 3^rd world problem, but the U.S. is no exception. One must only listen to the calls, generally from free traders and neo-conservatives, to bust the unions, remove ourselves from environmental and human rights treaties, and further deregulate to see this ‘race to the bottom’ in its American form.

What impact has this had on our country? I have already discussed many of the problems, but there are others waiting. The most pressing may be the rising deficits and mounting debt. Every year that our trade balance remains a deficit, our budget will never get out of deficits either. Another, perhaps more pressing, issue is about the outsourcing of our defense industry.

Many Americans would be frightened to know how much of our military technology is produced in countries that, one day, we may call an enemy. For instance, the technology that turns explosive metal tubes into smart bombs (the JDAM package) and cruise missiles, are produced in China. Everything from spare tank parts, to soldiers’ uniforms, to the flags soldiers’ carry and wear is made overseas in South, Southeast, or East Asia- some in countries which are not so friendly to the US. Imagine diplomacy fails and war becomes necessary with any of these countries, or with a country they consider a close ally. In WWII, the domestic economy geared up and started pumping out military materials. Today, that would not be possible and our ability to defend against an attack or to fight a foreign war may be very limited. Some other implications, while not as important as the previous two, certainly do have an impact.

The use of overseas manufacturing and assembly has meant that a black market of hundreds of millions of dollars, which means losses of the same amount, of the intellectual property and copyrighted material, not to mention other types of technological piracy. The question is, relating to the above point, if these countries will allow the black market to ‘knock off’ these products, why wouldn’t they do the same to the military technology they have access to.

“it’s the economy, stupid’ – written on the Clinton ’92 ‘war room’ wall, attributed to James Carville

The question must be asked of why we made the transition from manufacturing to service economies. Economists and politicians said that it was the natural progression of a capitalist economy. They claimed that a manufacturing economy is not an advanced economy. Thus, we needed a focus on service and technology. However, there are examples around the world that show that an advanced modern economy and manufacturing economy can be one and the same.

The Japanese and German economies are based in manufacturing. They advanced the technology of manufacturing rather than staying in the traditional manufacturing format, which was the flaw of the American manufacturing system. Thus, the solution is not to move away from manufacturing, but to have manufacturing the right way, and many studies support this conclusion. It is possible for America to return to economic greatness, and the support of a manufacturing system will be key to that recovery.

An overview of the problem can be reduced to this: the shift from a manufacturing economy to a service economy has never been done- and it is failing. Not for everyone, the leadership class is doing extremely well, but for the American worker, nothing could be worse.

“Capitalism is the childish idea that there is no such thing as too much.” –Anonymous Street Art, Baltimore City

Further, the free trade/free market/laissez faire system has not been truly, fully implemented. That system only truly works when the corporate ownership/control acknowledges and embraces the concept of a modern noblisse oblige, as the early industrialists did in their own time. In the age of the first industrialists, they renewed the sentiment first held by the gentry of Europe and the antebellum South that the wealth they had was taken at the expense of the people. It was not wrong to be wealthy, and it was not wrong that it came at a cost, but they felt they must use some of their wealth for the public good.

From this era come organizations like Carnegie-Mellon University (though Carnegie and Mellon were just two of many). Further, the tycoons of the late 19^th and early 20^th century did not forget about the workers on whose backs their fortunes were built. While Standard Oil and Ford had almost complete monopolies on their products, prices remained low. They did not feel the need to gouge the consumer to make a dollar today, forgetting that there is always a tomorrow.

In a way, Bill Gates can be an expression of both of these concepts. Microsoft held a virtual monopoly on the home PC market. Yet, Windows remained an affordable program, and eventually became standard on any non-Macintosh computer platform. Though he became the richest man in the country or world, Gates has spent his way out of the top position by giving away more money than he makes per year. His foundations and endowments have helped people all over the world. He is a shining example of the best of the laissez faire system. However, he is the exception, and not the rule. In most cases, free trade/laissez faire economics has left us with high underemployment, high unemployment, rising inflation, rising divestment, soaring trade deficits and infrastructure breakdowns. Contrary to the example set by Gates, today, the wealthy build wealth for it’s own sake with no regard for the public who not only buy the products and services they produce, but work for the companies that build their wealth and pay the taxes which create the subsidies that support their business.

Many Board Members and businessmen around the country cry foul. How dare we say that they must remember the consumer, the worker, and the country in which they made their wealth! Where were these parties when they were making the executive decisions that created the wealth? Where were they through the trials and tribulations of business life? What so many forget is whether you are a luxury hotel magnate (Hilton) or a rock-bottom priced super retailer (Walton), that wealth was not created in a vacuum.

To all of those executives, we must ask to remember that public money was spent to create a highway system that could speed goods and tourists to spend their money and create your profit. When criminals or fire threaten your business, it is public money that offers protections. In so many ways, public funds have been expended and it is by taking advantage of these expenditures that the opportunity for your wealth was created. Is it unfair to return to the public treasury a portion of that which, but for the outlaying of public funds, would not be yours?

I offer that it is more than fair. Any person in this country can be an entrepreneur and strike it rich, but all must acknowledge that wealth is not created independently and of itself.

“Accordingly, globalization is not only something that will concern and threaten us in the future, but something that is taking place in the present and to which we must first open our eyes.” -Ulrich Beck

Why did we let this happen? These corporations ARE the special interest groups who spend money on politicians to ensure that the legislature keeps this system operating.

So what can we do? I’ll break down the argument into international and national changes to try and make it a little easier to swallow.

Internationally, we need to realize that free trade does not work. This is plain and simple. Organizations like the WTO have been organized to maintain order in international trade, but they are inept to handle all situations that arise when a nation is actively trying to deceive, rather than work within the system. (For more on this, check out my review of In the Jaws of the Dragon about the rising Chinese economic dominance and the Confucian truth ethic that allows them to bypass the WTO here) Free trade has done nothing but skyrocket our trade deficits, send millions of jobs overseas, and made our debt reach catastrophic highs. So the first step is to remove the US from the WTO and other international free trade agreements, including NAFTA and CAFTA. Then, we eliminate the current Most Favored Nation status of some of our trade partners and reinstitute trade tariffs. Nations will be able to renew free trade with us, after a period of reexamining the trade relationship to ensure that free trade is actually occurring and American business and industry is not suffering. (There will be other concerns as well, that I will address in later posts- such as to be a free trade partner a country will have to have higher wages, as well as, human rights and environmental protections.)

Then, we must set about to undo the damage at home that has been done by this activity. First, we must pass bid-rules on government contracts that do not allow non-US based companies to bid on those contracts. Thus, companies that were formerly American but have been re-incorporated in the Bahamas or Bermuda or other tax havens, will have to return to the US and pay taxes to get the benefits of these contracts. Further, foreign corporations will have to organize US subsidiaries to bid on these contracts; subsidiaries that will also pay US taxes in order to bid on those contracts. Along with the pride of having our corporations back, a boom in corporate tax payments will also result.

The country will then feel no guilt in giving these industries some subsidies that will allow them to re-tool factories and re-train a work force to do those jobs. Pittsburgh will once again be the home of US Steel, Detroit will once again make American automobiles, and all over the country industries long gone or that never were will make an appearance. Basically, this means two things: jobs for Americans and the chance for our citizens to once again buy American.

This cannot occur in a vacuum however, and there will have to be some concessions. We can no longer employ 400 Americans to make a car when other nations use 40 and robotic assembly. In order to qualify for the subsidies, corporations will have to show that they are joining the 21^st century of production, not returning to the 18^th. American unions can no longer make the high demands that they once did. Their role as protection against corporate largesse and abuse will remain, but we need to have realistic goals for benefits and pay. The government must stand as a bulwark between the unions and management, as they did in the first industrial boom.

As American industry once more becomes competitive and Americans once more go back to work, the government will keep a keen eye on competition and pricing and adjust tariffs to respond to these. This is not about eliminating capitalism, it’s about ensuring that the American worker and the American consumer are getting the best deal for both of them. Are the tariffs protectionist? You bet. Are they against the grain of free trade and globalism? Yes absolutely. Are they necessary? Without a doubt. We have spent three decades breaking down our manufacturing capacity. Had we adjusted relentlessly rather than allowing our corporations to dismantle our hard fought gains, this would not be necessary. However, I think most would agree, it is necessary. Without taking this step, we may never economically recover. Things are as bad as they possibly can be.

What will result from this plan? After a period of high tariffs, economic recovery will lead to true competition from American companies. Yes, an American family car might still be $2,000 more than an Asian competitor, but the American consumer has the choice based on quality and national pride, which today is not available (All American cars are assembled, and most parts are made, overseas/across borders. Often an ‘American’ car is little more than a nameplate with the parts manufactured in Mexico and shipped to Canada for assembly. The only true American cars, with the exception of some luxury cars, are made by foreign nameplates in American factories). That choice is at the heart of this plan.

There are some additional benefits as well. First, as industries come back to America, there will be an improvement in the numbers of pollutants put into the environment. With stricter environmental protections already in place, these industries will have to fall in line with Western ideas of pollution, reducing the total pollutant output in the world. In addition, other countries will be forced to address these issues in order to compete with US companies. This will create a ‘race to the top’ reversing the current trends.

On another tangent, we would return pride to Americans by putting them back to work, putting them in control of their own destiny, and offering consumers an American alternative. Not to mention that the currently dwindling middle class would be revived and a return of the true American dream could be a reality.

Naysayers may argue many things. First, and most loudly, they will cry isolationism. They will talk of the ruin of the world economy. They will talk about Smoot-Hawley Act, which some economist claim turned an American Recession into a world-wide Depression. They will talk about the ‘need’ for American leadership in the economic world. What they will fail to note is the detrimental effects that these policies have ALREADY had on this nation. The question is- must we be willing to lose ourselves, our economy, our nation to line the pockets of a few and support those very things in another state.

Critics will point to the post-WWII era of growth where the seeds of free trade were planted. They fail, however, to note that America stood alone in manufacturing at that time. There were no ‘tariffs’, to be sure, but that is because war had dealt America the tariff of monopoly. Second, the critics may argue that such policies would cause prices to soar. This, in fact, is most likely true.

Prices will rise. This is a fact that we must accept. When you institute tariffs, the low priced items that we have been used to disappear. These products remain of course, but the prices will rise when the tariffs increase them. Ideally, with higher prices, comes competition. This is because profit can be gained in a shorter term than would be possible when a new company must compete with an older competitor with artificially lower prices. If you’ve been following along, creation of competition is the POINT. While the economy is adjusting, before wages rise and jobs are created, cuts must be made.

Critics, however, fail to take into account that with the rejuvenation of the economy, wages will rise across the board. The first few years will be rough and there will be difficulties. Modern America is not one to take this type of situation well. We are used to getting more and more for less and less money. What must be remembered is that in the long term, this crisis will pass and on the other side, the country will be better for our sacrifice. As I said above, it has been done before for far less important reasons than reforming the political and economic system of the United States for the better. In the end, to steal a conservative idiom, a rising tide WILL lift all boats.

I believe this is possible, and many experts agree. We must only be willing to suffer through the opening stages, like any period of advancement, to achieve progress and success.

© Robert Cheek, 2011, 2013