Howard Schneider's Open Salon Blog

A True National Discussion Is Needed Regarding Bigotry

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:04:43 -0400

The tragic Trayvon Martin shooting is the latest racial incident to enter onto the American scene. The biggest question in my mind regarding this episode is whether we are going to once again miss an opportunity to honestly have national and local dialogues regarding race and bigotry. The media and politicians usually quickly move on to the next hot story just as they did after the Professor Henry Gates arrest incident and the Shirley Sherrod doctored viral video fiasco. This is very unfortunate. So many issues facing the United States are greatly affected by racial, gender, religious, or sexual prejudice. Immigration, unemployment, education, and crime are just a few of the issues so influenced. I am going to attempt to examine some of the aspects of bias and prejudice. In turn I will try to show how they lead to intolerance and bigotry. Finally I will illustrate some examples of how this is detrimental to our society and what we can do to deal with this problem and possibly start on the road to reconciliation.

I will begin by defining bias and prejudice as stated by dictionary.com. Bias is " A particular tendency or inclination especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question". Prejudice is "An unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought or reason; any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable; unfavorable feelings, opinions or attitudes especially of a hostile nature regarding a racial, religious or national group". Given these definitions I think we can agree that everyone is guilty of bias and prejudice to some extent.

We are born and grow up in our family, neighborhood, and school environments. In these settings we are exposed to constant influences. A family of any particular race or ethnicity will have history regarding relations with other groups. This will affect the way their child is raised even though the parents may not even realize it. Our neighborhoods also have a strong influence over us. This is true for both children and adults. Neighborhoods have different ethnic make ups and histories which may influence a person's views. This is also true of a person's neighborhood schools. My own experience is that I was raised by parents who taught tolerance and politeness to everyone. The schools I attended taught me the same. My neighborhood though was much less tolerant. I will touch on these personal influences later in this article.

Now I would like to turn to intolerance and bigotry which often results from bias and prejudice. They also will be defined by dictionary.com for this article. Intolerance is "Unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races, backgrounds, etc.; unwillingness to grant equal freedom of expression or to grant or share social, political or professional rights". Bigotry is "Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differ from one's own. A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

Intolerance and bigotry are direct outgrowths of bias and prejudice. Adverse influences from our early years can easily develop and grow into intolerance and bigotry. This is especially true if one continues to live and work among like minded individuals. This is the way racism and other forms of bigotry grow and become permanent parts of a society. Groups of people reinforce their convictions through affirmation and the strength in numbers mentality. In this way certain neighborhoods sometimes become racist and it grows from there. Worse yet this intolerance and bigotry are often passed on to their children and a vicious circle is created. I have seen this occur within my own circle of friends. They retell stories and lessons from their parents which in turn are passed on to their children. My own parents taught me to be tolerant but over the years I have noticed that they also have prejudices and biases. I do not believe they even realized it existed within them. This is the insidious way racism and other forms of hate can begin to take hold if one is not vigilant.

Let me now examine more closely some of the situations in our society that have manifested themselves because of these four conditions. Firstly I would like to examine the flight of white families out of cities into the suburbs. Since school desegregation began this phenomenon has steadily grown. White families often argue that they are leaving because of crime, overcrowding, deficient schools, and other reasons. If they were to look deep within themselves, they would realize that the reasons all lead back to race.

Another area to examine is the corporate management ranks within the United States. Civil rights laws of the 1960's worked wonderfully to give African-Americans and other minorities access to jobs in most U.S. companies. Unfortunately this does not also hold true within the management ranks of these same firms. Corporate executives complain about the dearth of qualified minority management candidates. This may be partly true due to the dire state of urban education but certainly not entirely. There is too great a disparity between total minority employment and total minority management.

Women have also made great strides in this regard as well as in the percentage of elected offices that they hold. But they also have a long way to go. The glass ceiling in the boardroom still exists for women. They also still lag far behind men in regards to holding both elected and appointed political positions. However there is hope in the fact that their percentages have grown at a much faster pace in the local municipal ranks. This will give women a much better springboard to soon elect more of their ranks especially at higher governmental levels.

Hispanic Americans and other ethnic groups suffer many of the same problems as African Americans though in varying degrees. There are also many conflicts between ethnic groups. This is primarily the result of competition for a scarcity of jobs and resources. Ethnic groups are also discriminated against due to cultural and language differences. Homosexuals are another minority which has suffered badly in our society. The main reason for this is probably fear. Sexual identity is powerful and anything that disturbs this can be threatening. Religious differences may also breed discrimination. Catholics had been discriminated against widely until recently. Jewish Americans have also experienced extensive prejudice throughout both American history and world history. This situation has also improved extensively though it still exists. It can be observed most obviously with skinhead and neo-Nazi groups. Muslim Americans are being extensively discriminated against especially after the 9/11 terror attacks. This prejudice is due to fear and a lack of understanding regarding their religion.

What then can we do to lessen our biases and prejudices to become more tolerant of other groups? In my case I try to place myself in the shoes of others. I attempt to feel what a person of another group is feeling. This is called empathy. Acquiring empathy is the key in relating to others and treating them as you would treat yourself. I recall a nasty race riot that occurred at my high school on Staten Island, New York when I was a student there in the mid 1970's. These incidents broke out sporadically over minor incidents. Usually they were fueled by long simmering hostilities. My high school was predominantly white. A smaller group of African American students first began to be bused into my school when I first began attending. My fellow white students for the most part began voicing hatred for the black students from almost the very beginning. I could not understand the reason for it since no real reasons were given for the hatred except for their skin color. The black students kept to themselves and seemed to view us with understandable suspicion.

One riot has always remained particularly vivid in my mind. Some white tough guy wannabes began to seek out any black person they could find to beat on one afternoon after a relatively small scuffle between a black student and a white student. I happened to witness the surrounding of one young black woman holding a small child after we were released from class. She was gripped in abject fear. Apparently she had come to our school to pick up a friend or relative and got caught up in the center of the madness. The terrified expression I saw in her face has always remained with me. She was pleading for the crowd to let them go. Luckily the police arrived before the crowd was able to inflict any harm on them.

The point I am trying to make in telling this story is that I learned to feel what others felt during this incident. I literally felt the terror I saw on her face. I have never been able to even imagine attacking another person since this incident nor hate another person just because they were different. This occurred due to the empathy I felt with this woman. My conclusion was that if you can empathize with a person or people it becomes impossible to hate them. Your bias and prejudice decreases dramatically along with your intolerance and bigotry. Ignorance and a lack of empathy are at the heart of bigotry against African Americans and all other groups.

Women were seen as passive and not strong enough for management and elective office. They were regarded as simply mothers and nurturers without attributes for other roles. People now see that that this not true and can relate to them as leaders as their numbers have increased in elective office. They see their prior bias as a fallacy. Gay Americans are discriminated against due to fear and ignorance of their lifestyle. Ethnic minorities are mistreated due to the lack of understanding of their culture and language.

The bottom line regarding the causes of all forms of prejudice and bigotry is ignorance and fear. A meeting of the minds is needed between all groups to ameliorate misunderstanding. Instead of having a "Beer Summit" on the White House lawn after the Professor Gates case broke, a public discussion of why the Professor and President Obama reacted so vigorously against the Police Officer's actions would have been infinitely more beneficial. The Shirley Sherrod case became a battle between right wing groups and media on one side and the Democrats and the Obama Administration on the other. Unfortunately no one discussed in detail the inspirational speech that Ms. Sherrod gave at the NAACP dinner in question. Her speech was one of transformation, empathy, and understanding. This unfortunately was drowned out amongst the political noise. Now the Trayvon Martin shooting controversy has exploded upon the American consciousness. If history is any guide this incident will also quickly fade away. Hopefully the explosiveness of the incident and the paucity of criminal justice action will keep this issue on the front burner. Hopefully this will not turn out to be business as usual in the United States. That would be a crying shame. National and local discussions are needed to properly deal with these issues and create the empathy we need to become a more tolerant and open society.

A sharp divide has developed over perceptions of this case between White Americans and African Americans. The seeds of a more substantial discussion of racial issues may have been born over this chasm. Why do African Americans feel that George Zimmerman should be charged immediately? Why do White Americans feel that there has been a rush to judgment? These two groups of people have very significant differences in their perceptions of the other and of our criminal justice systems. These differences are at the heart of the racial problems we have in the United States. White Americans have no idea what it is like to constantly be viewed as a possible criminal perpetrator. African Americans have no concept of why White Americans feel this way and why.

We need a true national dialogue regarding race relations. Racism and bigotry will never truly end until we do. Neither side truly understands or thus empathizes with the other. This incident is a golden opportunity for our national media and politicians to foster a true and lasting national discussion regarding race in this country. In the past, the media has milked these incidents for ratings or circulation boosts. Politicians have often used these same incidents to divide the electorate and energize their base to secure an election victory. I sincerely hope that this time the results will be different. A severely divided country will prove to be a much weaker one. We as a country deserve much better than this. We as concerned citizens must also demand more substantive and fruitful discussions about race relations. Our future as a true civil and just society relies on our doing so. Let us succeed this time for both ourselves and for our children.

A New Focus And Direction For Occupy Wall Street

Sat, 3 Mar 2012 22:03:40 -0500

The Occupy Wall Street movement (OWS) has been evolving over the last few months and I have been observing them with great interest. They began as a seemingly ragtag group of demonstrators but have grown into a very influential movement. OWS has demonstrably raised awareness regarding the growing wealth disparities and corporate malfeasance within the United States and the world. Their commitment to this cause in the face of inclement winter weather, a paucity of amenities, and the growing police crackdowns around the country has been nothing short of inspirational. I myself have wished that I could support them in person on Wall Street. After all, I worked there for 27 years before falling victim to the financial chicanery which took place in those institutions. Now I work difficult hours within the retail field in New Jersey far from Wall Street. My current work schedule is long and tiring making my attendance at the demonstrations in downtown Manhattan problematic at best. I have wanted to support them in some way and have struggled with how I might accomplish that.

I would like to outline the goals and issues that I feel the OWS movement should emphasize to further their cause and to maintain their relevance. The goals and issues I will outline are the ones I have heard and read the demonstrators elucidate upon from time to time along with others I consider vital to our nation. The first three that I will define are issues that I feel are at the core of the movement's ideals. They are the three main foundation issues that should drive the movement on their way to achieving their goals. These issues are the increasing wealth disparity between the rich and poor, the flood of corporate money into our elections and governments, and the increasing size and lack of regulation of our financial institutions. Finally, I will discuss three less central but still very important issues that I feel that OWS should incorporate into their movement. These are affordable universal healthcare, alternative renewable energy, and the increasing threat to our industrial and financial regulatory framework. These three issues come under the umbrella of improving the American quality of life. I hope I will have enunciated a clear program of goals and issues that most citizens can rally behind by the end of this article. This will be my first small contribution to the movement and hopefully not my last.

The most common chant heard at OWS gatherings is that the upper 1% of Americans in wealth are controlling and harming the lives of the other 99%. One way they do this is by influencing governmental policies and legislation that allows these disparities to grow. These wealthy individuals along with Corporate America wield this influence through intense lobbying and massive election campaign contributions. The OWS movement is right on target by focusing on this issue.

The main area where the upper 1% have engineered this increased wealth disparity is by way of their influence on Capitol Hill tax policies. The income tax rates on the wealthy have been falling steadily since the Reagan administration. They dropped from 70% in 1980 to 50% by 1982. They dropped again to 38.5% in 1987 and then to 28% in 1988. The theory behind the last two cuts was that the elimination of most tax loopholes would make up for the lost revenue of the rate cuts. That never fully materialized and the loopholes for the wealthy and corporations soon reappeared. Eventually these rates rose to 31% in 1991 and 39.6% in 1993 to close the massive budget deficit. This was a much fairer rate than those instituted during President Reagan's terms. The budget was balanced ten years after these rate increases were installed. This occurred not only because of the rate increases but also because the economy became very robust during this period generating much greater tax revenue. This disproved the conservative theory that higher tax rates necessarily hurt the economy. These rates remained in effect until 2003 when the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented.

Capital gains and estate tax rates were also slashed dramatically leading to a reverse Robin Hood effect. This was the most massive wealth shift from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy in United States history. In the meantime, the Social Security income threshold has remained at $106,800 for more than two decades. This far exceeds the inflationary growth of this period further enriching the upper classes. These trends need to be reversed back to at least the Clinton era rates. The Social Security income threshold must be increased by a large amount to ensure that this essential program remains solvent for our retiring baby boom generation. Elderly retirees have given vast amounts of their income into this fund over the course of their many years of employment. We must preserve this program by increasing revenue not cutting benefits.

The largest threat to our political system and American way of life resides in the exploding influence of unlimited and anonymous election campaign funding. The United States Supreme Court ruled that corporations, unions, and all other organizations have the same "freedom of speech" rights as individual United States citizens when they issued their Citizens United decision. The influence of money on our electoral process had already proven to be enormous even before Citizens United. That ruling turned more than thirty years of campaign finance law on its ear. Now any organization can receive and utilize unlimited amounts of contributions to campaign for or against any candidate. The only limitation is that these organizations are not allowed to coordinate in any way with any of the candidate campaign teams.

The campaign spending during the 2010 elections shattered all previous records. Corporations and wealthy Americans poured huge amounts of money into Republican campaigns all over the country. Many of the Democratic candidates were outspent 2-1or more. The industrialist Koch Brothers had been at the head of their own conservative group long before the Citizens United decision. They funded the Citizens United organization with the aim of tearing down the existing campaign finance restrictions so they could extend their political influence even further. It worked brilliantly. They now fund many right wing organizations including many Tea Party groups. Their funding was essential in creating that movement. They also fund a conservative policy writing organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Newly elected Republican legislatures all around the country have been passing new legislation written by ALEC. These new laws have included lower corporate taxes, slashing or eliminating regulations, curtailing municipal union rights, and placing restrictions on voting groups that lean heavily Democratic.

It is obvious from all of these conservative corporate machinations that action needs to be taken to restrict this unlimited and mostly anonymous campaign financing. They are corrupting our democratic electoral system as well as our governments. The only way I can see for us to effectively accomplishing this goal in our current judicial environment is to actively push for a strong campaign finance constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision declared that corporations, unions, and other organizations have the same rights such as freedom of speech as individuals. This is the personhood issue.

A new constitutional amendment should state from the outset that this corporate personhood premise is false. They should continue from this point and state that all campaign financing should be regulated and fully disclosed from the outset. Political donors are revealed the year after an election under our current system. This is too late for voters to make an educated assessment regarding the influence these donors have and whether it is positive or negative. A public financing mechanism should also be included along with strict limitations on campaign contributions. This goes for both individuals and for all organizations. Contributions would be fully disclosed with easy and quick access provided to the public with this information. No positive changes will be possible for the governance of this country without the elimination of these unlimited campaign funds. The upper 1% in the United States now set the laws and policies within our governments because of these contributions. True change for the other 99% will not occur without an amendment cancelling out the Citizens United ruling. This will bring sanity back to our elections and subsequently our governments.

The third major issue that I feel the OWS movement should adopt is the strengthening of the regulation of our financial markets while also downsizing our "too big to fail" financial institutions. The sheer size and interconnectedness of these institutions constantly threaten our economic security. The 2008 financial meltdown is the prime example of this condition. Financial institutions were given virtual carte blanche in the late 1990's to take any risks they wished while also growing to monstrous sizes. This occurred by way of repealing the section of the Glass-Steagall Act that separated investment banks from commercial banks. Banks were now allowed to invest both their clients' money as well as their own in the stock market as well as other markets.

These financial institutions were soon investing their money heavily with declining degrees of risk management as their profits grew steadily. They also created new and much more complex security instruments such as derivatives to create even greater profits. Over a trillion dollars were invested in these instruments with very little knowledge of what their makeup was and what risks were attached to them. In actuality, they were little more than bets on how certain market segments would move. They were operating as if they were in a casino. These mortgage securities derivatives were cashed in when the housing market crashed to the detriment of these financial institutions. The only thing our federal government could responsibly do was to bail them out to prevent a catastrophic collapse of our entire economic system. This would most certainly have led to another "Great Depression".

We have effectively become the backstop and the insurance policy for these financial institutions. It is about time we held them responsible for proper risk management. We need a renewed separation of commercial and investment banking, the elimination of predatory banking practices, and a return to smaller more manageable institutions. The Dodd-Frank Reform Act of 2010 was a good first step towards implementing common sense reform to our financial system. Unfortunately it was greatly watered down to secure wavering Senate votes. The banking industry lobbied hard for this moderation and is still working behind the scenes to water down or eliminate this legislation. It is reprehensible that they accepted huge bailouts to survive and now want to continue on as they had before the financial meltdown. The OWS movement should continue to place a spotlight on this abomination and advocate for much stronger regulations and smaller institutions.

There are three other issues that I feel the Occupy Wall Street movement should incorporate as their causes even though they are not at the core of the movement. The first is universal healthcare. Our current healthcare system is incredibly unfair and inefficient. Employment is required for most Americans to obtain affordable healthcare insurance. This is very inhumane and as a nation we should be weaned off this system as quickly as possible. The new Affordable Healthcare legislation passed in early 2010 is an important first step though it does not go far enough. OWS should work feverishly to advocate for universal healthcare while also working to strengthen this new legislation. They should also argue for the weakening of the healthcare insurance companies that make huge profits while limiting healthcare options and declining claims. OWS should also demonstrate for the creation of an entirely new results oriented system instead of the current dysfunctional fees for tests and procedures process. This would place a strong curb on the skyrocketing costs of healthcare by curtailing the plethora of unnecessary tests and procedures. These tests and procedures are only ordered to generate revenue for the healthcare provider. This is due to the stingy reimbursement system the insurance companies have created. Healthcare is one of the largest industries in our economy today and is growing rapidly due to the aging of the baby boom generation. Controlling its costs and covering everyone is essential to the revival and sustainability of our nation's economic health.

The second ancillary issue for the OWS movement to adopt is the need for America to convert from our current fossil fuel energy industry into one run on alternative renewable energy sources. The supply of fossil fuels in the world is depleting rapidly. This is occurring just as China, India, Brazil, and other developing countries are rapidly growing their economies. This is similarly expanding their energy needs. The results will be oil and gas prices rising prohibitively threatening the strength of our economy. These fossil fuels are also destroying our environment and promulgating global warming. Both our economic and physical survivals are at stake. I feel that the OWS movement should strongly demand our government fund research into all promising alternative renewable energy options. They should also encourage all of our governments to institute cleaner industry and automobile emissions standards.

Finally, the OWS movement should fight the growing trend of industry deregulation. Corporate leaders have been pushing heavily for deregulation for several decades. They are now able to use unlimited money to accomplish this goal by funding independent Political Action Committees (PAC) to help elect candidates that will be friendly to their deregulation desires. This is due to the Citizens United decision. This is in addition to the massive amounts of lobbying money they already use to influence legislators. Many candidates were elected this way in 2010 by way of independent corporate money. One of the major goals of the Koch Brothers, the leading corporate organizer and donor, is the elimination of as many industry regulations as possible. They feel that they know how best to run their industries and in turn what is best for America. Corporate America has already wreaked tremendous damage upon our country through environmental degradation, product defects, and numerous financial shenanigans. Loosening or eliminating the regulations that already exist would be madness. Strengthening them is imperative to the environmental and economic health of the United States.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has already made a strong impact on the political psyche of the American people. Where will they go from here? They are strengthening their online capabilities to connect with supporters and the public. Will they also combine this with a more cohesive message? My opinion is that they will have to develop one for the movement to significantly advance further. They have successfully brought to the forefront the issue of the gross wealth disparity between the wealthy 1% of our country and the rest of us. They need to continue to hammer this point across while fleshing out the issue with solutions to rectify the problem.

Another critical issue that affects all aspects of our governance and economy is the explosion of campaign finance money in our elections due mostly to the Citizens United ruling. There is no way for OWS or any other group to change the vast inequity of the distribution of wealth in this country or curtail corporate corruption without regulating campaign finance. OWS must press for a very strong Constitutional amendment to limit this corporate financial influence. The third major issue is highlighted by the "Occupy Wall Street" movement name. They need to continue to focus like a laser on the reckless and predatory activities within the financial industry. Wall Street's practices of bundling mortgages and writing derivatives fueled the housing boom greatly enriching their bottom lines. They also misrepresented many of these securities leaving their clients holding the bag when the housing market crashed. The OWS movement needs to continue to hammer away at this issue while advocating for much stronger regulations along with smaller financial institutions.

The OWS movement needs to also support the three quality of life issues I stated as important but not core issues. They are universal healthcare, alternative renewable energy, and the strengthening of industry regulation. These subjects are vital for all Americans. The physical and economic health of the United States hinges on our success in achieving victories within these sectors. My belief is that if the Occupy Wall Street movement adopts and sticks to these issues and goals, they will significantly extend their influence within the American populace and electorate. The movement has the potential of changing both the content and the character of our political system. My hope is that they do not waste this opportunity by presenting a fractured and sometimes confused message. I believe they are organizing now to do exactly this and they will come out in a big way when the weather warms. Our country needs their message, enthusiasm, and dedication. I am rooting for them and I will try to support them more substantially in the future. We all need to do so. The United States is at a critical juncture. We can follow the right wing Republicans into a deeper era of corporate cronyism and anti-intellectualism or we can look to the future and follow OWS as they attempt to make this country a better place for we the 99%.

Immigration Reform By Way Of Fair Markets And Compassion

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:09:47 -0400

The illegal immigration debate in the United States has included many reform proposals over the past several years. It has also included a troublesome level of histrionics from all quarters involved. Unfortunately most of the solutions offered to date have been for the purpose of ameliorating the symptoms of this problem and not the source. What actually is the cause of this illegal immigration influx? Too often we choose to focus on solutions before we actually understand the problem. I will begin this article by identifying and defining the true cause of this current illegal immigration wave. Then I will detail the simple solution that I feel will solve this problem. Next I will propose steps that I feel we should take to deal with the illegal immigrants already residing in the United States. Finally I will reveal an underlying issue that I believe drives all of the over the top controversy surrounding this situation. Hopefully I will be able to shed a clearer light on this dilemma by the end of my article.

Why is this wave of Mexican and other Latin American immigrants fleeing to the United States? Clearly it is for better and more plentiful jobs . Businessmen are always looking to optimize their profits by cutting costs. Their largest cost is usually labor. The normal hourly wages in the countries of these immigrants are significantly below the U.S. minimum wage. Jobs are also not as numerous in their native countries as they are in the United States. Therefore many of the citizens of these countries come here for more lucrative employment. Employers in the U.S. are often willing to employ these workers at or more likely below minimum wage without benefits. They pay them in cash and look the other way as far as asking them for proof of citizenship or legal status. These conditions make the illegal immigrant dilemma basically one of supply and demand.

So how best to address this problem? There are basically two ways. You can attempt to cut off the supply of illegal workers by a few means. The most prominent of these is beefing up security along the border or building a very long and very high fence. These processes never work to any significant degree. They can make it harder to cross the border and easier to catch those attempting to cross illegally. But these methods will never fully work when there are more lucrative jobs to be found in the United States. The same argument has been used for illegal drug control and we know how successful that fight has been.

I believe that the only solution that has a chance of success is to control the demand for illegal immigrant workers. The best way to do this is by making the oversight and penalties for hiring these workers so onerous that continuing the practice would be impractical and more importantly uneconomical. The minimum wage is already a wage that is below the poverty line. Why do these employers feel the need to seek out these workers to work for a lower wage? The answer is pure and simple greed. Government authorities should impose punitive economic penalties for first time offending companies that visibly hurt their business. This will send a clear message that this business practice will not be tolerated. A second offense would provide for a stiffer fine and probationary time. Finally, a third offense will be considered three strikes and your out. A mandatory jail sentence for the owners would be imposed along with the company being shut down.

Now what if these employers started playing by the rules but could not find enough U.S. citizens to perform the jobs they needed to be filled. I believe that we should dramatically revamp and expand our work visa program or adopt a new guest worker program such as the one President George W. Bush proposed in 2008. These programs should be designed in a way where employers could prove a business hardship and be allowed to obtain legal work visas for the foreign workers they require. They would need to rigorously prove this hardship with extensive documentation regarding their employee search within the United States. This way employers would be able to obtain the workers they needed legally while employing them at a working minimum wage with benefits where legally required. The American government would have the advantage of knowing which foreign workers were residing in the United States and where. Public health as well as national and local security would be protected much more efficiently than under the current chaotic system. These foreign workers would also now be on the tax rolls easing the strain on municipal resources by expanding the tax base. These workers would also have much greater personal security living above board and out in the open. This new and expanded work visa program would be a win win for all parties involved.

I would like to turn now to the subject of what to do with the many millions of illegal immigrants already living in the United States. Hard liners would have federal and local authorities hunt down, arrest, and deport all of these immigrants. This is highly impractical, expensive, and probably impossible. Simply legalizing these immigrants through a blanket amnesty would be unfair to those who went through the naturalization process legally. It would also be a dead on arrival proposal politically. Ignoring the problem and just allowing these immigrants to remain living in the shadows of our society is unjust and dangerous. So what should we do?

My Immigration Reform plan would be quite similar to the bill introduced in April of 2006 by Senator Arlen Specter and sponsored by several other Republican senators. Their plan would have increased work visas from 65,000 to 115,000 a year with an annual 20% increase. Increased border security and a path to citizenship were also included in this bill. I would instead increase the level of work visas to whatever levels employers required as long as they could be properly document their needs. The workers who would get these visas would have to prove they were in the United States and working for an American employer for the prior three years. They would also have to be sponsored by that employer who has documented his or her need for the immigrant's services. A criminal record would automatically invalidate their application. This way these illegal immigrants with employment and roots in the community would be able to stay and live here without fear and continue to be productive. Employers would be ensured of the stable workforce they need.

The 2006 Senate plan would have given these workers a 6 year work visa. I would limit this to 3 years after which the employer would be required to renew the visas and again prove the need for them. These guest workers would now be allowed to apply for citizenship if they wish but would be placed at the back of the waiting list. This application could only occur after paying a fine and back taxes. All of these provisions would be contingent upon the guest worker remaining gainfully employed without any criminal convictions. Criminal convictions would result in deportation after serving their prescribed prison sentence. This new Immigration Reform system would be beneficial to the United States. Only productive foreign workers would remain. Our tax base would be expanded and only truly hard working people would remain here. All sides win in this scenario.

The final issue I would like to discuss is the proverbial elephant in the room. An underlying issue that most everyone denies exists but one I believe is clearly fueling this argument. This issue is ethnic bigotry. The current public demand for immigration reform did not take off until after the 9/11 terror attacks. There had been complaining about the situation prior to this but there was no great public or political outcry for dealing with it. The fear and loathing that followed those attacks was understandably strong and made securing our borders to protect our security an imperative. I believe that solidifying our security in all areas including our borders was long overdue. But the concentration placed on illegal immigration across the Mexican border became hysterical. This is especially ironic since many of the 9/11 hijackers came across the Canadian border. None of the terrorists came across the Mexican border. Why then did this hysteria develop? American citizens have always had fears and suspicions of newly arrived minority immigrants. The more the new immigrant looks and sounds different compared to the majority of the citizenry, the larger the inner fears will be for that majority.

Discrimination was rampant against the Chinese in the 19th century. This has also been true of Hispanic immigrants from the 19th century onward. It is true that this has also occurred to European immigrants through the course of United States history. But never to the same extent. European immigrants have usually been able to assimilate into American society much easier and faster than other ethnic groups. Native Americans who were already here have still not fully blended into our society. African Americans who were brought here as slaves needed a war, constitutional amendments, and landmark legislation just to get them into the game. The common denominator for all of these groups was and is the fact that they look much different than the majority of the U.S. population. There are currently many illegal immigrants from Russia and other eastern European countries formerly under Soviet control. Illegal Irish immigrants were prevalent in the United States in the 1970's and 1980's due to Northern Ireland violence and a depressed economy. In both of these cases no public outcry was ever heard. I argue that this is because they look like the majority of Americans in the United States. The Immigration Reform bills offered since 2006 have had substantial bipartisan support. The far right wing of the Republican party has blocked these bills each time because their supporters were very outspoken and animated in their opposition to them. Political pandering and cowardice ruled the day. My belief is that these common sense plans have been ultimately defeated because of ethnic xenophobia disguised as outrage over illegality.

The outlines for a successful Immigration Reform Bill are already in place. The only aspects missing are strict enforcement mechanisms that would ensure employer compliance along with enough work visas to satisfy employers' work requirements. Why then has Immigration Reform legislation always failed? It is because of the lack of political courage by elected representatives to do what is right for the United States. Our political climate has been toxic since the Presidential election of 1992 when Bill Clinton defeated President George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot. Political initiatives by either party are now usually met with intense almost irrational opposition. This is true even when the proposed legislation is positive and makes sense to all involved. This is what we are facing here. The Dream Act was proposed to give illegal alien minors conditional permanent residency if they graduated from high school, had no criminal record, and either completed two years at a four year college or completed two years of military service. This sensible and humane act was defeated handily in Congress during the 2010 session. This was further proof that partisan and xenophobic politics currently reign supreme in the United States.

The bottom line is that the Republicans want to block any President Obama initiative regardless of its merit. This is why the Republicans are now opposing immigration reform. They also are doing it because they are pandering to their far right which is in the ascendancy within the Republican party right now. I believe this is disgraceful and unstatesmanlike. The opposition believes that any Immigration Reform plan is an amnesty. Why do they believe this? These workers must pay substantial fines and taxes to work legally here and they must go to the back of the waiting line for citizenship. This plan is only for those working hard and obeying our laws. Besides there is no way to find and deport all of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. today. The plan is practical, compassionate, and purely American. Part of the inscription on the Statue of Liberty written by Emma Lazarus in 1883 reads "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". It does not read huddled white masses of European descent. These newest immigrants are seeking that same dream and are working very hard to achieve it at enormous personal risk. They want to work at very difficult low paying jobs that very few Americans want to perform. I for one believe in this American dream and wish to see them given a path to achieve it. Anyone willing to sacrifice so much for so little is my kind of American.

American Public Education At A Crossroads

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:08:47 -0400

Public education in the United States was one of the greatest creations of the nineteenth century. It was an example of our striving to give everyone access to the basic tools to become well rounded citizens and productive participants in society. Our Founding Fathers did not believe that all citizens should be allowed to vote for their government representatives because they lacked the knowledge and wisdom to make those decisions. Fortunately subsequent leaders had the excellent foresight to create our free public education system which allows everyone access to this knowledge and wisdom. It quickly grew to become the envy of the world and was soon copied all over the globe. Our public education system was preeminent in the world until recent times. The rest of the world has begun to catch up with us economically and one of their prime tools in accomplishing this was education. We have become complacent in this area which has allowed our system to erode. I intend to examine our public education system in this article. I will offer my four prime ideas on how to restore the system to its former preeminence. The future of the U.S. rests on our succeeding in this endeavor.

The first aspect of United States public education that I will examine is the innovation of the Charter School Movement. These experimental schools have shown promising results as incubators of new and innovative education ideas and processes. The first charter schools law was passed in Minnesota in 1991. This action was in response to poorly performing schools in that state. They were formed to give parents alternatives within the Minnesota public school system. These new schools were also created to experiment with new ways to educate their children. California followed suit in 1992 and there has been a steady stream of states enacting these laws ever since. There are now over 40 states experimenting with these schools.

I myself am somewhat familiar with these charter schools in Newark, New Jersey by way of a program called TeacherNex. They are an organization that trains teachers for both regular and charter public schools. I applied for this program as an experienced professional entering the education field. I was tremendously impressed with the program along with the schools and my fellow prospective candidates. The pool of candidates was a mix of both education graduates and experienced professionals. There were approximately 300 people being interviewed for the program after the initial screening. Most of the candidates were young education graduates and they were a very eager and impressive group. Approximately one quarter of the candidates were selected. Unfortunately I was not chosen to be part of the program. But I came away from the experience extremely encouraged about the possibilities for our education future. I did not meet a single person in the program that I was not impressed with. The charter school that we interviewed at was also remarkable. The pictures, charts, and articles on the walls illustrated how the teachers engaged their students in interactive work and coaxed them to think critically about civic issues.

This is the type of teaching that I believe we need much more of. Students need to be taught more than simple memorization of facts. I wrote about this form of teaching in my TeacherNex application essay and I was pleased to see it being employed in this Newark school. These charter schools are allowed to implement their own teaching practices and curriculum. The state gives these schools guidelines as to what subjects must be taught and tested upon. The charter schools determine how to teach these subjects. This is where the innovation in our schools is going to come from. The testing results from these schools has been well above average. Hopefully these charter schools will be used more extensively in the future and these positive results will be increased. The new teaching techniques and practices must then be shared on a continual basis with the rest of the public schools to improve the entire system.

The next area that I would like to address is performance and accountability for teachers and principals. I would like to make clear at the outset that I have the utmost respect for teachers and principals. I consider education to be the noblest of professions. The teachers that I have met and interacted with have all been remarkable and compassionate professionals. This includes teachers I had as a child as well as teachers I have met recently at TeacherNex. It also includes the teachers of my girlfriend's son. He is a 5th grader with ADHD and requires some extra patience and understanding which they deliver in abundance.

The problems begin in the school districts where student achievement is woefully deficient. Many of these problem schools and districts develop a culture of failure that builds upon itself. Accountability needs to be built into school systems where they will identify the teachers and principals who are achieving both positive and negative results. The teacher unions and governing school boards must come together and reach a compromise on a new accountability system. One possible compromise is changing tenure rules while also raising salaries. Teacher salary increases should be at least partly based on performance. The unions and administrators should also get together as part of a bargaining process and develop a fair and effective evaluation system for teachers and principals. Teachers should not become tenured until they have reached a sustained level of excellence. Principals should not be allowed to continue in their positions if their schools are failing or declining. The bottom line is that a new system of teacher and principal accountability must be developed otherwise sustained educational excellence will be elusive.

I would now like to discuss the subject of integrity in public education and how it can be improved. This encompasses revamping curriculums and improving student testing. For too long curriculums have been pared down in many school districts either because of budget constraints or to concentrate on core subjects. We should always be teaching our children a broad range of subjects to prepare them not only for an occupation but to become thoughtful and well rounded human beings. Our children should all be taught a comprehensive foundation of subjects. They are mathematics, science, language arts, social studies, foreign language, music, art, and physical education. School districts decide differently the mix of subjects that will be taught in their districts. I believe that all students should be exposed to the subjects I previously listed at some point each school year.

Comprehensive and fair student testing should also be reinforced into the public school system to ensure that our students are actually learning this curriculum. Essay writing should become a more important part of this testing. The students we are graduating out of our schools often times seem to have simply learned their subjects by rote without any real understanding or critical thinking. Essays will give test administrators the chance to see if the student can convey a reasoned argument. This will show us whether our students can put facts they have learned together and write creatively and persuasively. Teachers should also emphasize this more in their classes to teach their students these critical skills.

The final areas that I will address are educational support from parents, companies, and higher education. Teachers will have a very difficult time teaching our children if parents are not supporting them outside of school and inside. The nurturing of a child by their parents before their school years is crucial to a child's development. This holds true for parental support during their school years. A majority of a child's self worth and self esteem is wrapped up in their parents' approval and disapproval. Apathy towards a child's schoolwork and homework will lead the child to assess that this aspect of life is unimportant. This will handicap the teacher's ability to teach the child. All school districts should deploy any ideas and methods that they can devise to encourage parents to fully participate in their child's education.

Corporations and higher education institutions should also be heavily involved in the education of our children. The employees and college students of tomorrow are being developed today. Companies have the money to invest in their workforce of the future. Universities and colleges have the educational know how to aid our public schools to reinvent themselves and once again become the premier public school system in the world. After all, our higher education schools are the envy of the world and they can play a critical role in transforming our elementary, middle, and high schools.

The United States public education system is on the decline but the decline is not so steep that we cannot resurrect it quickly. Some teachers and administrators have become complacent especially in poorer school districts that are failing. This situation can be dramatically and promptly improved through the innovation, accountability, integrity, and support that I have outlined in this article. The charter school experiments throughout the United States are laying the foundation for this innovation. If this is implemented properly it can revolutionize public education. These charter schools along with the other public schools must share new ideas to make this work.

The teachers and principals should be more closely held to account for student performance. They should also be heavily involved with the sharing of new innovative teaching ideas and methods no matter where they originate. This is educational accountability. Teacher advancement in the system and pay raises should be linked closely with student performance. Continual training should be utilized to maximize a teacher's talents. Those who fail to make the grade should eventually be dropped from the school system. Revamped comprehensive curriculums along with proper student testing will ensure the integrity of the public education system. Full support from parents, corporations, and colleges are essential to assist our educators so that our children have all the tools necessary to improve their academic achievement and maximize their potential.

These four processes operating together will ensure a turnaround in our public education system. They will also form a blueprint to maintain and reinforce a system of excellence for years to come. Constant innovation and communication of new ideas throughout the education system will perpetuate this excellence. It is essential that we do not delay in putting these ideas and processes to work. Our public education system is slipping and we need to return it to its former preeminence so that it will once again be the model the rest of the world follows. Our children are our future and we must invest our ideas, energy, and capital in our public education system. It is in our children's interest. The future of the United States is at stake here. The time to act is now.

The Anatomy of the Debt Ceiling Showdown

Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:08:12 -0400

The debate that has been raging regarding the conditions for raising the debt ceiling has been predictably political and murky. It is true that progressive Democrats have emphasized protecting social programs and raising revenues. At the same time conservative Republicans have argued for massive spending cuts especially for social programs with no revenue increases. This is a good and proper debate for our country to have. Is it the proper debate to have right now and under these conditions? Should raising the debt ceiling be tied to these negotiations? There has been much misunderstanding and many false statements conveyed regarding the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling. There are many leaders who are positioning themselves politically and rhetorically in ways only meant to advance their own agendas and ambitions. The American people should not be used as pawns in their political game. This is a time for statesmen and stateswomen. The decisions being made now will affect many millions of people in some manner.

I will attempt to describe to you in this article what the debt ceiling is and what it means to all citizens of the United States. Then I will analyze the positions of the two parties. Also I will show which leaders in my estimation are attempting to be productive in these proceedings and which are not. Finally I will offer my own solution to both this immediate problem as well as the longer term budget issues. I hope I will succeed in answering the questions I have posed to the satisfaction of my readers as well as any others you may have regarding these issues. The American people need to understand what is going on regarding these debates and how it will affect all of us.

What is the debt ceiling? It was first created in late 1917 in the amount of 11.5 billion dollars. The reason for its creation was for the issuance of bonds and other debts to pay for the United States involvement in World War I. The debt ceiling did not significantly rise again until the early 1940's to fund World War II. It has in total been raised 102 times in its 94 year history. The debt ceiling represents the loan obligations which our country has incurred in the past which remain outstanding and obligations that Congress may legislate for in the future . This ceiling needs to be raised when it is estimated that we will have a higher level of these obligations due to budgetary choices in the near future.

All of the past debt ceiling increases passed very easily. Some Congressional members voted against it at times to protest one issue or another. Senator Barack Obama voted against a debt ceiling increase before he was elected President. None of these votes were cast when the vote’s passage was seriously in question. This is because everyone involved knew that the consequences to the United States would be dire if the debt ceiling was not raised. Our credit rating would drop precipitously if we failed to pay our debt obligations. The estimated loan interest payments for 2011 are approximately 420 billion dollars. These payments could easily double if our credit rating was dropped substantially. Interest rates would also rise for ordinary citizens as well as state and local governments because their rates are pegged to the Treasury rates.

The order in which budget expense payments are made is unclear in the event that we ever fail to raise the debt ceiling. Loan interest payments would probably be paid first both because we are legally bound to do so and because the economic consequences would be too expensive and damaging to our credit rating. Our troops might not be paid as well as other federal employees. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other social program payments might also be held back. The reason that we might need to withhold these payments is that our expenses outstrip our revenues. Only 56% of our current expenses are covered by our current revenues. So choices would have to be made if the debt ceiling is ever not raised. What would the U.S. Treasury and the Administration do? This is virgin territory. No one really knows what might happen.

Democrats and Republicans have their contrasting political stances regarding this issue. They also have their own party divides. The Democrats are led by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. They were seeking significant spending cuts along with revenue increases. These increases involved mostly the closing of tax loopholes and corporate tax breaks. They were advocating for deals with various advantages of spending cuts over revenue increases ranging from 2-1 to 4-1. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her progressive wing wanted much lower social program spending cuts than the President had agreed to.

The Republicans have a much more defined split within their party. The newly elected Tea Party faction of the House of Representatives number at least the 87 newly elected members. Their clout is enormous. They insisted on massive social program spending cuts with absolutely no revenue increases of any sort. Grover Norquist, the leader of the organization "Americans for Tax Reform", has the signatures of almost every Republican on his no new tax increase pledge. He has threatened to campaign against any of them if they break that pledge. They have effectively abdicated their power to compromise to this non-elected individual. Some even refused to vote for a debt ceiling increase no matter what deal was agreed upon. Many stated that they did not think it was even necessary to raise the debt ceiling.

Most of the Republican leaders in the House and Senate were much more forthcoming in their efforts to compromise and reach a deal. They seemed to realize what the terrible consequences would be if they failed in their efforts to reach a deal and raise the debt ceiling. They had been negotiating with Vice President Joe Biden for weeks and progress appeared to be moving steadily forward. Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seemed to be on board. McConnell famously stated in 2009 that his main goal was to defeat President Obama in 2012.

Unfortunately House Majority Leader Eric Cantor threw a monkey wrench into the talks when he stormed out of a session after the elimination of corporate tax breaks was insisted upon by the Democrats. Cantor appears to have picked up the leadership mantle of the Tea Party wing of the Republicans in the House. His no revenue increase stance stopped Speaker Boehner in his negotiating tracks because he knew he would not have the votes for any compromise with President Obama. Cantor's new maneuvers had the look of a naked power grab. His eyes were clearly on the Speaker's job. This left the chance for any significant budget deficit reducing bill in tatters. Senator McConnell and Senator Reid now began developing a bill with Speaker Boehner's approval that would allow the President to raise the debt ceiling incrementally. Much smaller spending cuts would be attached to the bill.

Let me first state that I do not believe that this debt ceiling increase debate should be tied in any way to these or any budget negotiations. I feel that the U.S. Treasury department should be able to pay our bills and debt obligations automatically without any artificial limit derived from the World War I era. The debt ceiling can be totally eliminated by legislation if our political leaders had the will and inclination to do so. Just imagine if you spent money on your credit card and then called the company to state that you cannot pay your balance because you refuse to raise your personal credit limit. You would quickly find yourself in court. Actually, Amendment 14 of the United States Constitution states that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. I feel that President Obama should use this as a basis to pay its debts in the event Congress ever fails to pass the debt ceiling increase.

That being said, these budget negotiations which were tied to the debt ceiling increase were going nowhere. Why were both sides not acting more like adults and statesmen? This was especially true of the Republicans. Obstinately sticking to their no new tax revenue stance is similar to a child throwing a temper tantrum until he gets what he wants. Both sides needed to compromise to reach a deal. President Obama seemed to be bending over backwards to do so. The Tea Party Republicans refused to compromise. Senator McConnell began drafting his emergency legislation to give President Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling after he received a letter from 400 corporate and Wall Street leaders urging him to pass legislation to increase the debt limit. They argued that the consequences to the American economy would be catastrophic to even flirt with not raising it. Congress had to be scolded into doing this which is proof that we have a totally dysfunctional legislative branch.

President Obama originally wanted a 4.5 trillion dollar deficit reduction bill over ten years. This would have had some revenue raisers in it by way of eliminating corporate tax breaks and other tax loopholes. The Republicans refused this and then offered a 2.5 trillion dollar plan of only spending cuts mostly through entitlements. Speaker Boehner then trimmed this to a 1 trillion dollar plan in spending cuts only that would have raised the debt ceiling but only through February of 2012. The Speaker tried to corral the votes to pass this bill that same night. The Tea Party faction refused to support it so Boehner’s bill did not even come to the floor for a vote. Senator Reid had a 2.7 trillion dollar spending cuts only plan that would have pushed the raising the debt ceiling question past the 2012 November election. Both sides claimed that the other’s plan would not pass their chamber.

A backup plan was offered by Sen. McConnell in the event that both sides failed to reach a compromise on a passable plan. His minimal spending cut plan of around 1.5 trillion dollars over ten years would have allowed the President to raise the debt ceiling by way of veto. This piece of legislative trickery would have allowed the President to submit to Congress his intent to raise the debt ceiling two more times before his term was up. The idea being that the Republicans would vote "Nay" each time and he would then veto and raise the ceiling. This way the Republicans were on record saying no but would have actually acquiesced to the President. Is this a proper way to handle this problem? This plan was extremely flawed but it was better to do this and avoid the upheaval of not raising the debt ceiling. Doing nothing was unthinkable. Of course the House Tea Party Republicans were totally against this and their loud disapproval put this plan in doubt also.

Ultimately the two sides made a compromise that allowed the debt ceiling to rise through 2012. Unfortunately it fell far short of the amount of deficit reduction our country needed. One trillion dollars of spending cuts over ten years was agreed to immediately. A super committee to find another 1.5 trillion dollars of deficit reduction by November of 2011 was agreed upon. Mandatory across the board cuts will be instituted if this committee cannot agree on a plan or if their prospective plan is voted down in the Congress. Only time will tell if this process will prove to be a fruitful one. I and many others are quite doubtful it will.

My proposal, though the Republicans in the House would have rejected it out of hand, comes out of parts of my article, "A Progressive Answer to Paul Ryan’s Path to Social Oblivion". I would use the 1.3 trillion dollars of savings in waste and fraud over ten years in defense and entitlements from that article as my spending cuts. Then I would raise 1.2 trillion dollars in revenue increases. These would be obtained by eliminating all oil, farm, and ethanol subsidies. I would also eliminate the state and local income tax deduction and the home mortgage deduction for homes worth more than 1 million dollars. My deficit reduction package would total 2.5 trillion dollars over ten years. Of course this package does not come close to balancing the budget but it is certainly more fair and reasonable than the other plans that have been floated on the Hill.

Unfortunately I do not see any way of reaching a true budget balancing deal until after the 2012 election. This is why I believe that the 2012 election will be so crucial to our future. The American people need to tune into this debate because it will carry on right through that event. We cannot afford the gridlock and bickering that is going on in Washington D.C. right now. Our candidates must hear our educated voices on these budget issues. They must then honestly debate these issues and come to a common sense compromise to start on the road to balancing the budget. I hope this article made clearer what is going on with the debt ceiling question and the budget deficit reducing debates. Please get involved and let your national leaders know your views on these subjects. Also please vote wisely in 2012. Once again our future and our children’s futures hang in the balance.