Always the police raids against Occupy camps seem to come at night, under cover of darkness when most others are asleep."Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, 'Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns'" (Lk 22.52-53).
Far be it from me to compare the Occupy groups to Jesus, and I spent most of my career in law enforcement, but this is still an iteresting parallel.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
My Sister is the 99%
My sister, age 59, has Alzheimer's disease. It has now reached the point where she can barely speak at all and doesn't recognize her own home. She has anxiety attacks, and this afternoon tried to leave home for the first time, another sign the illness is getting worse.
Her husband has taken extremely good care of her, hiring an in-home care giver, and helping her in every way he can. My information is they have gone through their savings and investments. He would sell their home and find something less roomy but the housing market in Florida is so bad there are no takers at anything like the appraised or assessed value.
Because she is 59 she doesn't qualify for Medicare and since they still have some assets they can't get Medicaid either. She will need longterm care soon, but without insurance coverage for that, they will be bankrupt.
It isn't fair and it isn't right. In this great country, no one should have to go broke to pay for needed medical care. No one should be turned out of the home they worked so many years to afford because of a calamity like this.
That's why I stand with the 99%, and do what I can to help Occupy Colorado Springs. She would too if she knew what's going on.
Her husband has taken extremely good care of her, hiring an in-home care giver, and helping her in every way he can. My information is they have gone through their savings and investments. He would sell their home and find something less roomy but the housing market in Florida is so bad there are no takers at anything like the appraised or assessed value.
Because she is 59 she doesn't qualify for Medicare and since they still have some assets they can't get Medicaid either. She will need longterm care soon, but without insurance coverage for that, they will be bankrupt.
It isn't fair and it isn't right. In this great country, no one should have to go broke to pay for needed medical care. No one should be turned out of the home they worked so many years to afford because of a calamity like this.
That's why I stand with the 99%, and do what I can to help Occupy Colorado Springs. She would too if she knew what's going on.
Monday, October 24, 2011
I Am the 99%
Probably I'm pretty well off, at least comparatively. I draw a government pension for my twenty-five years of work for the National Park Service. Since it's under the Civil Service Retirement System, it's outside Social Security, so when I reach retirement age I'll be able to "double dip" and collect a second benefit.
You might think that sounds rather cushy, or even vaguely immoral, but I have worked the forty quarters needed for Social Security after I left government service. Thanks to Congress' never ending battle against freeloaders like myself, my Social Security benefit will be reduced by between half and two-thirds, meaning I'll collect the grand sum of about $300 a month from them.
Meanwhile, although there have been cost of living adjustments to my government pension, the cost of health insurance premiums has risen faster, so today the purchasing power of my pension is somewhere between ten and twenty percent less than it was when I first started receiving it. I'm still employed, as I knew I would have to be, but without the largess of my mother-in-law, retirement would have been a pipedream.
Ten years after leaving graduate school, which I attended to take up a second career as a high school teacher, I'm still paying off student loans. (I wonder if I'm the oldest Anerican still paying these loans.)
But don't worry about me. Worry about all the other retirees who are barely scraping by, the working poor, single parents, those who are chronically ill, homeless veterans and the legion of people who are being nickeled and dimed to death by corporate America.
I am the 99% and am in solidarity with all of them.
You might think that sounds rather cushy, or even vaguely immoral, but I have worked the forty quarters needed for Social Security after I left government service. Thanks to Congress' never ending battle against freeloaders like myself, my Social Security benefit will be reduced by between half and two-thirds, meaning I'll collect the grand sum of about $300 a month from them.
Meanwhile, although there have been cost of living adjustments to my government pension, the cost of health insurance premiums has risen faster, so today the purchasing power of my pension is somewhere between ten and twenty percent less than it was when I first started receiving it. I'm still employed, as I knew I would have to be, but without the largess of my mother-in-law, retirement would have been a pipedream.
Ten years after leaving graduate school, which I attended to take up a second career as a high school teacher, I'm still paying off student loans. (I wonder if I'm the oldest Anerican still paying these loans.)
But don't worry about me. Worry about all the other retirees who are barely scraping by, the working poor, single parents, those who are chronically ill, homeless veterans and the legion of people who are being nickeled and dimed to death by corporate America.
I am the 99% and am in solidarity with all of them.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Words Unspoken
So, I was driving through the supermarket parking lot yesterday, when coming towards me were a teenage boy and girl. There was some tomfoolery going on between them that ended when the boy shouted, "Give me my fucking hat, bitch!"
He snatched the hat from her and the two walked in different directions. I was minding the other cars in the parking lot, so didn't say anything, though I wish now I had. What I would have said was, "Dump him quick, girl. You can do much much better. Stick with him and you're guaranteed a life of unhappiness."
So often we regret what we haven't said, regret what we didn't do. My cousin Bob, the minister, had a good piece recently on the epistle of James, and about the fair weather friends who offer words of comfort without giving any material aid to people in distress. But words can help too, I'm convinced, and I didn't say any of them to that teenage girl.
What would I have said to the boy? "Clean it up. You gotta treat other people decently if you want to keep them in your life?" I probably would have earned a one-fingered salute.
There's a line from the movie "A Man for All Seasons" that I think of often: "We must just hope that when your head stops spinning your face is to the front again." It's a fancy way of saying "Grow up," but I really like it.
He snatched the hat from her and the two walked in different directions. I was minding the other cars in the parking lot, so didn't say anything, though I wish now I had. What I would have said was, "Dump him quick, girl. You can do much much better. Stick with him and you're guaranteed a life of unhappiness."
So often we regret what we haven't said, regret what we didn't do. My cousin Bob, the minister, had a good piece recently on the epistle of James, and about the fair weather friends who offer words of comfort without giving any material aid to people in distress. But words can help too, I'm convinced, and I didn't say any of them to that teenage girl.
What would I have said to the boy? "Clean it up. You gotta treat other people decently if you want to keep them in your life?" I probably would have earned a one-fingered salute.
There's a line from the movie "A Man for All Seasons" that I think of often: "We must just hope that when your head stops spinning your face is to the front again." It's a fancy way of saying "Grow up," but I really like it.
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Vatican Rocks! (For Once)
Vatican to Issue Radical Document on Economy By Fr. Tom Reese, S.J.
Posted on October 21st, 2011 by James
in
B16
catholic
economy
Occupy Wall Street
548Share
tweetmeme_url = 'http://www.ourdailythread.org//content/vatican-issue-radical-document-economy-thomas-j-reese-sj';
1comments
comment
On Monday, the Vatican will release a document on the reform of the international financial system which will be to the left of every politician in the United States. It will be closer to views of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement than anyone in the U.S. Congress. It will call for the redistribution of wealth and the regulation of the world economy by international agencies. Not only will it be to the left of Barack Obama, it will be to the left of Nancy Pelosi.
It is easy to predict what will be in the document by simply looking at what Pope Benedict XVI has said in the past. In his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth). Pope Benedict’s encyclical calls for a radical rethinking of economics so that it is guided not simply by profits but by “an ethics which is people-centered.”
Profit is not an end in itself but a means toward the common good. “Once profit becomes the exclusive goal,” he writes, “if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.” That certainly proved true by the economic greed and reluctance that caused the recent recession.
The Pope decries “Corruption and illegality” that are evident in the economic and political classes in both rich and poor countries. He also says that “Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers.”
Benedict, like his predecessor Paul VI, hoped that economic development would produce real and genuinely sustainable growth, of benefit to everyone. Benedict disappointedly acknowledges that “The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase” [italics in text]. He does not accept the trickle-down theory which says that all boats will rise with the economic tide. Benedict, like Paul VI, decries the “The scandal of glaring inequalities” and sees a role for government in the redistribution of wealth.
“The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require,” he affirms, “that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner, and that we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone.”
The encyclical notes the globalization that has taken place, but he notes that globalization “makes us neighbors but does not make us brothers.” True “development of peoples,” he writes, “depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side.” The goal of such development, he says, is “rescuing peoples, first and foremost, from hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy.”
Sounding like a union organizer, Benedict argues that “Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development.”
Rather the goal should be decent employment for everyone. What does he mean by “decent employment”? It “means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labor; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living.”
The pope disagrees with those who believe that the economy should be free of government regulation. “The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from ‘influences’ of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way,” he writes. “In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise.”
Benedict even supports an international “political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity.” The purpose of this world authority would be “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration....”
While Benedict acknowledges the role of the market, he emphasizes that “the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy.” He unflinchingly supports the “redistribution of wealth” when he talks about the role of government. “Grave imbalances are produced,” he writes, “when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.”
In short, Benedict is to the left of almost every politician in America. What politician would casually refer to “redistribution of wealth” or talk of international governing bodies to regulate the economy? Who would call for increasing the percentage of GDP devoted to foreign aid? On economic issues, the pope is to the left of Obama. He is even to the left of liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi.
Login or register to post comments
Comments
Catholic Social Teaching in political boxes?
Posted on October 21st, 2011 by Roaming Catholic
Login or register to post comments
"Left of Nancy Pelosi" is probably an oversimplification. It sounds more in line with the distributism of Rerm Novarum, which rejected any concentrated control of resources, whether in the hands of the state (socialism) or of a wealthy elite (laissez-faire capitalism). Actually, the pope's concern for human-centered economy is just following the whole trajectory of Catholic Social Teaching with its fundamental tenet of universal human dignity.
This is the same thing the Vatican has been saying for the past 120 years. The Catholic Left doesn't like to admit this because it doesn't fit their caricature of the pope, and the Catholic Right doesn't like it because it doesn't fit their narrow conception of tradition and church teaching.
I feel proud to be Catholic when the pope comes out with something like this, which (as in all of CST) doesn't fit any of our ideological molds. And then I feel embarrassed to be Catholic when people immediately try to make it fit a political mold anyway, and the reactions are predictably polarized.
Advertisements
Our Friends
America Magazine
Bold Faith Type
Busted Halo
Catholic Democrats PAC
Catholics in Alliance Common Good Forum
Commonweal
National Catholic Reporter
The Open Tabernacle: Here Comes Everybody
The Reluctant Prophet
U.S. Catholic
Our Daily Thread is a project of Catholics United
Posted on October 21st, 2011 by James
in
B16
catholic
economy
Occupy Wall Street
548Share
tweetmeme_url = 'http://www.ourdailythread.org//content/vatican-issue-radical-document-economy-thomas-j-reese-sj';
1comments
comment
On Monday, the Vatican will release a document on the reform of the international financial system which will be to the left of every politician in the United States. It will be closer to views of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement than anyone in the U.S. Congress. It will call for the redistribution of wealth and the regulation of the world economy by international agencies. Not only will it be to the left of Barack Obama, it will be to the left of Nancy Pelosi.
It is easy to predict what will be in the document by simply looking at what Pope Benedict XVI has said in the past. In his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth). Pope Benedict’s encyclical calls for a radical rethinking of economics so that it is guided not simply by profits but by “an ethics which is people-centered.”
Profit is not an end in itself but a means toward the common good. “Once profit becomes the exclusive goal,” he writes, “if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.” That certainly proved true by the economic greed and reluctance that caused the recent recession.
The Pope decries “Corruption and illegality” that are evident in the economic and political classes in both rich and poor countries. He also says that “Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers.”
Benedict, like his predecessor Paul VI, hoped that economic development would produce real and genuinely sustainable growth, of benefit to everyone. Benedict disappointedly acknowledges that “The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase” [italics in text]. He does not accept the trickle-down theory which says that all boats will rise with the economic tide. Benedict, like Paul VI, decries the “The scandal of glaring inequalities” and sees a role for government in the redistribution of wealth.
“The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require,” he affirms, “that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner, and that we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone.”
The encyclical notes the globalization that has taken place, but he notes that globalization “makes us neighbors but does not make us brothers.” True “development of peoples,” he writes, “depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side.” The goal of such development, he says, is “rescuing peoples, first and foremost, from hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy.”
Sounding like a union organizer, Benedict argues that “Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development.”
Rather the goal should be decent employment for everyone. What does he mean by “decent employment”? It “means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labor; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living.”
The pope disagrees with those who believe that the economy should be free of government regulation. “The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from ‘influences’ of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way,” he writes. “In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise.”
Benedict even supports an international “political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity.” The purpose of this world authority would be “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration....”
While Benedict acknowledges the role of the market, he emphasizes that “the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy.” He unflinchingly supports the “redistribution of wealth” when he talks about the role of government. “Grave imbalances are produced,” he writes, “when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.”
In short, Benedict is to the left of almost every politician in America. What politician would casually refer to “redistribution of wealth” or talk of international governing bodies to regulate the economy? Who would call for increasing the percentage of GDP devoted to foreign aid? On economic issues, the pope is to the left of Obama. He is even to the left of liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi.
Login or register to post comments
Comments
Catholic Social Teaching in political boxes?
Posted on October 21st, 2011 by Roaming Catholic
Login or register to post comments
"Left of Nancy Pelosi" is probably an oversimplification. It sounds more in line with the distributism of Rerm Novarum, which rejected any concentrated control of resources, whether in the hands of the state (socialism) or of a wealthy elite (laissez-faire capitalism). Actually, the pope's concern for human-centered economy is just following the whole trajectory of Catholic Social Teaching with its fundamental tenet of universal human dignity.
This is the same thing the Vatican has been saying for the past 120 years. The Catholic Left doesn't like to admit this because it doesn't fit their caricature of the pope, and the Catholic Right doesn't like it because it doesn't fit their narrow conception of tradition and church teaching.
I feel proud to be Catholic when the pope comes out with something like this, which (as in all of CST) doesn't fit any of our ideological molds. And then I feel embarrassed to be Catholic when people immediately try to make it fit a political mold anyway, and the reactions are predictably polarized.
Advertisements
Our Friends
America Magazine
Bold Faith Type
Busted Halo
Catholic Democrats PAC
Catholics in Alliance Common Good Forum
Commonweal
National Catholic Reporter
The Open Tabernacle: Here Comes Everybody
The Reluctant Prophet
U.S. Catholic
Our Daily Thread is a project of Catholics United
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
In Which He Gets Far Above Himself
Did I ever tell you that I once met the Princess Anastasia (as she claimed to be)? Well, I did. It was on Yorktown Day, October 19 of either 1980 or 1982, and I thought of it just now because Yorktown Day has come around once again. I hope everyone sent their Yorktown Day greeting cards early this year and you will all commemorate the occasion with proper dignified festivities.
Anyway, it was Yorktown Day and my assignment as a park ranger was to keep the small parking lot across the street from the Victory Monument clear during the wreath laying ceremony. The governor of Virginia would do the honors.
Shortly before the governor was to arrive, however, an old rattletrap stationwagon pulled in to the parking lot before I could stop it. I went over to the car to tell the driver he's have to move, but an elderly gent climbed out as I approached and introduced himself as a Dr. Manahan of the University of Virginia and said he had Princess Anastasia in the car with him. As I tried to explain that I didn't care who he was he would still have to remove his car I heard what I can only describe as a kind of barking from the passenger seat. Dr. Manahan and I went to the passenger side of the car, I because I was concerned that someone was being abused, but Manahan explained that the Princess had been stricken by a stroke and no longer could speak.
Well, of course I felt a great deal of sympathy for both of them, ewspecially as I looked at the squalor of the car they had, but still had to insist that they move, which they reluctantly did.
And that's how I not only met royalty, but actually gave it the boot. (Almost everyone now agrees that the woman was in truth named Anna Andersen, and her claims to the throne of Russia were a mad delusion.)
Anyway, it was Yorktown Day and my assignment as a park ranger was to keep the small parking lot across the street from the Victory Monument clear during the wreath laying ceremony. The governor of Virginia would do the honors.
Shortly before the governor was to arrive, however, an old rattletrap stationwagon pulled in to the parking lot before I could stop it. I went over to the car to tell the driver he's have to move, but an elderly gent climbed out as I approached and introduced himself as a Dr. Manahan of the University of Virginia and said he had Princess Anastasia in the car with him. As I tried to explain that I didn't care who he was he would still have to remove his car I heard what I can only describe as a kind of barking from the passenger seat. Dr. Manahan and I went to the passenger side of the car, I because I was concerned that someone was being abused, but Manahan explained that the Princess had been stricken by a stroke and no longer could speak.
Well, of course I felt a great deal of sympathy for both of them, ewspecially as I looked at the squalor of the car they had, but still had to insist that they move, which they reluctantly did.
And that's how I not only met royalty, but actually gave it the boot. (Almost everyone now agrees that the woman was in truth named Anna Andersen, and her claims to the throne of Russia were a mad delusion.)
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Occupy Colorado Springs?
Yes, there is an Occupy Colorado Springs cadre, camped on the sidewalk adjacent to Acacia Park in the downtown area. Kris and I went by to talk with the few people there on Friday, took them some supplies and intend to get back to them soon. Meanwhile, in Denver police moved in on an Occupy camp there, dispersed the campers, made a few arrests and stories for all the newscasts and the Denver Post.
It's possible the CSPD will react in a similar fashion despite the fact that here the camp-in is on the sidewalk, not in the park. Not being an attorney or a judge, I'll pass on commenting about the Constitutionality of police stifling a demonstration, and just relate the events in Denver to a different police activity here in Colo Spgs.
Attempting to ascertain whether waitresses at the local Hooters restaurant were serving alcohol to underage persons or to people who were already intoxicated, the department sent undercover officers to the Hooters. Results seem to have been negative, but the local newspaper has been in full war-cry about it because officers were drinking on duty and were devoting time and manpower to this activity when there are other more important crimes to investigate.
Surely if investigating violations of the liquor laws is (comparatively) unimportant, devoting police resources to a few individuals whose only offense is partially blocking a sidewalk is even more of a waste of time. We'll see how it comes out and if our paper with its Libertarian editorial stance notices.
It's possible the CSPD will react in a similar fashion despite the fact that here the camp-in is on the sidewalk, not in the park. Not being an attorney or a judge, I'll pass on commenting about the Constitutionality of police stifling a demonstration, and just relate the events in Denver to a different police activity here in Colo Spgs.
Attempting to ascertain whether waitresses at the local Hooters restaurant were serving alcohol to underage persons or to people who were already intoxicated, the department sent undercover officers to the Hooters. Results seem to have been negative, but the local newspaper has been in full war-cry about it because officers were drinking on duty and were devoting time and manpower to this activity when there are other more important crimes to investigate.
Surely if investigating violations of the liquor laws is (comparatively) unimportant, devoting police resources to a few individuals whose only offense is partially blocking a sidewalk is even more of a waste of time. We'll see how it comes out and if our paper with its Libertarian editorial stance notices.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Grammar Guy Returns
Lets eat Grandma!
(INCORRECT)
Lets eat, Grandma!
(CORRECT)
Punctuation saves lives. But that's not what Grammar Guy wants to disccuss today. Today, Grammar Guy would like to address conundrums, those statements or word combinations that immediately contradict themselves or make no sense.
Since Grammar Guy likes and respects Captain Obvvious, this blog's other superhero, he'll not intrude on the Captain's prerogative to point out what everyone else already knows, and stay away from such hoary chestnuts as "military intelligence" or "conservative think tank." Instead, Grammar Guy will remind readers that he teased them about a month ago with "crucial straw poll," and now presents three more examples of expressions that just defy ordinary reason.
"Instant classic" is the first of today's ridiculous combos. Grammar Guy heard it last week in a reference to the pitcher's duel between Chris Carpenter and Roy Halladay. The St. Louis Cardinals defeated the Philadelphia Phillies 1-0 as Carpenter prevailed.
Now, Grammar Guy applauds the Cardinals for winning the National League diviisional series, but the salutation "instant classic" is still absurd. A classic by definition must be something that has stood the test of time. Don Larsen's World Series perfect game is a classic. Bill Mazeroski's home run to win the 1960 series is another. Both were either so above expectations or so decisive that they deserve the title. Perhaps in half a century sports fans will look back on Carpenter's effort in that light, but I doubt it. A divisional series is not a World Series.
Next, Grammar Guy addresses what is often heard on news reports, but still leaves a bone in his throat, "foul play." We're usually talking about a crime of violence here people. There's nothing in the nature of "play" about it. Yet hardly a week goes by without some local news personality saying a body has been discovered somewhere and the police suspect "foul play." I'll bet the victim of the crime didn't see anything playful about the incident.
Finally, we come to perhaps the most egregious example of all, "pure pornography." Grammar Guy is pretty sure that people who use this conundrum mean to say that something is entirely pornographic, without any redeeming value, but really! "Pure" means unattainted, and usually does refer to sexual abstinance. So how could anything legitimately be both pure and pornographic? It just can't be.
Well, that's it for today, but readers are advised that Captain Obvious will return soon to battle the political demons of our land.
Apologia: this blog inadvertently misspelled the last name of the House Majority Leader in a recent post. It's Cantor, not Kantor. Everything else stands, however.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
A Balanced Budget Amendment?
Mitt Romney and his Republican competitors all are plumping for a balanced budget amendment, as if that would solve all of America's woes. It got me thinking about what the wording of such an amendment might be.
After all, it's completely unrealistic to think a balanced budget is possible in times of war. Wars cost enormous amounts of money and paying for one as it's being fought just couldn't be done.
But America has only actually declared war five times in our long history. Most military actions are not declared by Congress. Sometimes there is a lesser authorization of the use of force, but it's just as expensive whether it's a declared war or not. Would undeclared wars be exempt from the amendment's requirements?
How about national emergencies? Times when the country is threatened but not actually under attack or not vital national interest is in jeopardy.
What about severe economic downturns or calamities such as a plague or an environmental disaster. Congressman Kantor's attempt at cutting other spending to pay for hurricane relief would be the norm unless there was another clause in the amendment citing another exemption.
So here's a proposed text for a balanced budget amendment. "The government of the United States shall not spend more money than it receives in tax and other revenues for any calendar year, unless Congress declares war on someone or other, or lets the president commit American forces in some part of the world, or in outer space, or the president declares a national emergency, or Congress thinks it would be a swell idea to spend some extra money, or maybe there was a surplus last year that's just hanging around the treasury gathering dust, or Congress finds some way to cook the books to make it look like the budget is in balance without it actually being so. Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation (LOL)."
It all reminds me of the Gramm-Rudman act of thirty years ago, and how long did that last?
After all, it's completely unrealistic to think a balanced budget is possible in times of war. Wars cost enormous amounts of money and paying for one as it's being fought just couldn't be done.
But America has only actually declared war five times in our long history. Most military actions are not declared by Congress. Sometimes there is a lesser authorization of the use of force, but it's just as expensive whether it's a declared war or not. Would undeclared wars be exempt from the amendment's requirements?
How about national emergencies? Times when the country is threatened but not actually under attack or not vital national interest is in jeopardy.
What about severe economic downturns or calamities such as a plague or an environmental disaster. Congressman Kantor's attempt at cutting other spending to pay for hurricane relief would be the norm unless there was another clause in the amendment citing another exemption.
So here's a proposed text for a balanced budget amendment. "The government of the United States shall not spend more money than it receives in tax and other revenues for any calendar year, unless Congress declares war on someone or other, or lets the president commit American forces in some part of the world, or in outer space, or the president declares a national emergency, or Congress thinks it would be a swell idea to spend some extra money, or maybe there was a surplus last year that's just hanging around the treasury gathering dust, or Congress finds some way to cook the books to make it look like the budget is in balance without it actually being so. Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation (LOL)."
It all reminds me of the Gramm-Rudman act of thirty years ago, and how long did that last?
It Does My Heart Good
It's the middle of the night as I write this, but I just have to say it. Hurrah for the "Occupy Wall Street" movement! Just when I was ready to despair for American democracy, there's a real grassroots movement aimed at restoring some justice, not to mention sanity, in our political discourse.
I say real grassroots movement to differentiate what's happening now from the bogus Tea Party. I never really objected to the anger Tea Partiers shouted out, I only felt they were angry at all the wrong people (and rude). People who had every right to be angry took out their frustrations on the government that's trying to protect them and allowed themselves to be used as tools by the selfish wealthy of this country.
Now we have something genuine, a true phenomenon that shows us real hope for the first time since the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency, before he rolled over and turned up his toes for the Republican minority.
And naturally, the politicians who are bought and paid for are screaming their frustration, trying with all their might to make people afraid of their fellow citizens who are exercising their right of free speech. Eric Kantor, the Darth Vader of the House Republicans, voices his alarm. Here's a man who has become a multi-millionaire on a Congressional salary, worrying that stockbrokers might be inconvenienced. Kantor referred to the "Occupy" movement as a mob. Give me a break!
So I'm ready to occupy Colorado Springs, if only I could figure out what part of this suburban sprawl I live in would be the right place to do it. Join the movement! Solidarity forever!
I say real grassroots movement to differentiate what's happening now from the bogus Tea Party. I never really objected to the anger Tea Partiers shouted out, I only felt they were angry at all the wrong people (and rude). People who had every right to be angry took out their frustrations on the government that's trying to protect them and allowed themselves to be used as tools by the selfish wealthy of this country.
Now we have something genuine, a true phenomenon that shows us real hope for the first time since the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency, before he rolled over and turned up his toes for the Republican minority.
And naturally, the politicians who are bought and paid for are screaming their frustration, trying with all their might to make people afraid of their fellow citizens who are exercising their right of free speech. Eric Kantor, the Darth Vader of the House Republicans, voices his alarm. Here's a man who has become a multi-millionaire on a Congressional salary, worrying that stockbrokers might be inconvenienced. Kantor referred to the "Occupy" movement as a mob. Give me a break!
So I'm ready to occupy Colorado Springs, if only I could figure out what part of this suburban sprawl I live in would be the right place to do it. Join the movement! Solidarity forever!
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Homicide
The current issue of Newsweek contains an article by David Kennedy (not from the famous Kennedy family) concerning the always distressing tendency of Americans to kill one another.
Specifically, the article discusses the situation in Cincinnati, where rioting took place in 2001 after a black Cincinnatian was shot to death by police over a traffic stop. Kennedy had previously worked in several other cities to reduce the murder rate, but Cincinnati became his greatest success story.
And the rationale for it all was quite simple. The gangbangers and other potential killers had to be persuaded that someone cares about them. A meeting was held for the "at risk" young men of the city at which a surgeon talked about both the care he provides to injured youths, the mother of a murder victim explained how painful it is to have a child killed, and the police agreed that they would land very hard on any gang member who broke the peace by killing someone else.
According to Kennedy, it worked. Homicides in Cincinnati have fallen by 41% in the last four years. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than it was.
Other cities have tried the approach and it has failed if there isn't a serious and ongoing commitment to it. But God in heaven, isn't it worth a try?
Read the article. It's worth everyone's time.
Specifically, the article discusses the situation in Cincinnati, where rioting took place in 2001 after a black Cincinnatian was shot to death by police over a traffic stop. Kennedy had previously worked in several other cities to reduce the murder rate, but Cincinnati became his greatest success story.
And the rationale for it all was quite simple. The gangbangers and other potential killers had to be persuaded that someone cares about them. A meeting was held for the "at risk" young men of the city at which a surgeon talked about both the care he provides to injured youths, the mother of a murder victim explained how painful it is to have a child killed, and the police agreed that they would land very hard on any gang member who broke the peace by killing someone else.
According to Kennedy, it worked. Homicides in Cincinnati have fallen by 41% in the last four years. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than it was.
Other cities have tried the approach and it has failed if there isn't a serious and ongoing commitment to it. But God in heaven, isn't it worth a try?
Read the article. It's worth everyone's time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)