photocredit: WashPo

One of the most celebrated “Average Joe takes on the Government” movies of all time is Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, with Jimmy Stewart. Dozens of movies have since copied the idea of one man or woman fighting for justice and all that is good by giving those DC folks an earful. It is, like most movies that take the unlikely and stretch it into the reasonably possible, mostly a fairy tale; it is chicken soup for the frustrated citizenry. Mr. Smith stopped Congress from voting into law an unfair bill by filibustering for 23 straight hours, by himself. One man, one mission, one government being taught a lesson in what is just. The moral was that everyone gets a say, and everyone has power.

This month, two Republican senators, Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, and Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, had their own warped Mr. Smith moment. Sen. Bunning stopped the vote on an extension of unemployment benefits for 200,000 Americans, because, according to him, the government just couldn’t “afford” to pay for it. Sen. Shelby held the nomination process of 70 qualified candidates, most for important Defense roles, because he wanted to secure two pet projects for his home state. They both claimed to be representing the will of the people…but which people? And does this type of representation even qualify as “democratic”?

In a country of over 300,000,000, should the survival of a personal ideology, or the prosperity of a few sweetheart companies, be enough to suspend government? Sen. Bunning’s halt led to thousands of people not getting their unemployment check in the mail, when long-term unemployment is at a historic high. Sen. Shelby’s “blanket hold” (ceasing all Senate activity through procedural maneuvering) left critical Defense and National Security posts empty. Is this still part of a democracy?

On the other end, there are tools and protocols in our system that are misused. The filibuster is no longer used to debate or give pause to transformative legislation. It is now used to fight petty political battles, or threaten gridlock for the sake of a political win. The reconciliation process, which is inherently democratic, is called “partisan” and “forceful” for the same reason.

The rules and the tone of the discussion are being rewritten constantly, by both the majority and minority party. There is no consensus on what classifies as “consensus.” A filibuster can be patriotic to some, obstructionist to others; majorities are allowed to set the pace of the agenda, unless you are in the minority and want your vote to count as much as when you were in power. A see-saw like this can make any American feel thrown out of the process.

With the midterm elections 9 months away, it’s unlikely that the see-saw will slow down. The aftermath of those elections, however, will be a rude awakening for many. Bunning and Shelby are up for re-election this year, so their antics may be more of a show than an pervading attitude. GOP Senator Mitch McConnell’s incessant call for filibustering anything touched by Democratic hands may be more of a distraction maneuver than a party strategy. It may all be glitz and fireworks.

But if Americans want to send a message to political divas, letting them know that power should always be more of a burden than a benefit, they must cast a vote against those flaunting it recklessly. If Americans wants someone like Mr. Smith to have a chance to exist in our politics, they must vote for people who want to fight the good fight, not just fight for the sake of fighting.

You might want to check these out, too:

• 500 Words on: Iran and Mexico, Democracy’s Growing Pains

A certain someone asked me a few months ago whether I thought Obama was really a liberal president.  Of course I answered yes.  He then asked what Obama had done so far in office to make me think that.  After my usual sch-peel of, “well, what has he done period?” I listed a few minor policy changes that I view as far left.

Admittedly, after that conversation I thought it over again and decided that I may have been wrong. (I didn’t tell him that, but I guess the cat is out of the bag now) Despite what I may have been quick to think, at that point I felt that Obama had been a surprisingly centrist president.

But now, a few months later, I retract the ridiculous notion that Obama was actually going to govern from the center.  I’d like to take that thought, set it on fire and throw it out the window.

As always it comes down to health care reform.   We’ve all heard the sob story by now; the Democrats can’t get it passed and the Republicans are being nuisances.   Cue the image of Obama sitting in the Oval Office shaking his head at his bickering kids.  Poor Barack. No one wants to play nice.

When Bill Clinton proposed HillaryCare he faced similar opposition.  Republicans didn’t like it, voters didn’t get it and even some Democrats wouldn’t support it.  Sound familiar?  So the bill died and Clinton worked with both Democrats and Republicans to come up with less radical alternatives that made both parties moderately happy.  In other words, he started tweaking his policies and governing from the center rather than the left.

Obama, it seems, has yet to read that memo.  Unlike Clinton he’s breaking out the defibrillator and shocking his flawed bill back to life.  Again. Despite his plummeting approval ratings, lost elections and experts saying that the reform would be detrimental to the economy, he marches on.

The White House released a spruced up health care plan which fails to fix the real issue.  Americans have one main concern with health care – the rising costs.  Obama’s plan, chock full of regulations and mandates just doesn’t solve that problem.

His televised summit with the Republicans seems like a great way to convince the public he’s trying to compromise with both sides. The reality is he’s clearly intent on passing this bill quickly. There has been talk about using reconciliation, which would allow the Democrats to pass parts of the bill with only 51 votes.

Columnist David Corn commented that it is time to “crash the bill” over the finish line.  Do American’s really want a major overhaul of their health care system that has to be drop-kicked over legitimate concerns in order to be passed?

Obama needs to scrap his plan and start from scratch.  He should host a summit with Republicans but actually listen to what they have to say instead of showing up with a plan already set in motion.  Enough with the fake bipartisanship.  If he truly wants to lead and be elected for a second term, he must drop this radical reform and work with both parties to develop a more centrist approach to health care.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Biggest Tuesday since the last Biggest Tuesday
• The Blame Game
• The liberal agenda needs unity
• The Specter Aftermath

photocredit: Infrogmation

When Reverend Wright saturated the airwaves and Youtubeways in early 2008, many thought the Obama campaign was about to derail just as it gained its momentum. It ended up being one of the defining moments of his campaign for the presidency. The quiet, potentially unwieldy, elephant in the room was about to take center stage: Obama was black, and that could have radical implications.

The outcome was something few expected. Candidate Obama not only addressed the inflammatory rhetoric coming from the Rev. that had the potential of ending his until-then meteoric rise, but he raised the discussion beyond the political. He took control of the narrative of his campaign.

The administration has done a fairly good job so far at modulating its own voice. This White House has been one of the most well-behaved in recent memory; there is hardly any damning commentary or rebellious side chatter coming from any of the insiders. But that has hardly resulted in regaining the message control they had during the campaign. Obama’s White House has been prone to put blinders on and convincingly discuss a handful of issues, letting everyone else decide what to make of the rest. In doing so it has lost what made Obama such an appealing intellectual: a clear message.

The NYTimes pointed out today that the administration seems to finally be touting the virtues of the stimulus bill. This comes a year after almost every Republican has torn into it, calling it everything from “socialist” to “a failure” to a waste of government money; a year after the Tea Party movement used it as rabble-rousing fodder; a year of Americans thinking their taxes actually increased under Obama’s term; a year after Obama’s team spent too little time “selling” the stimulus to the American people before selling them a war, a reform, and a Supreme Court justice.

Whether the benefits of the stimulus are enough to reject the criticism is not the point. (Although, numbers supplied by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office suggests its positive impact is substantial). President Obama has been skillful at constructing persuasive messaging for many (but not all) topics, including himself. He is still much more popular than his policies or his party. His brand is still the most sellable in Washington. But his laser focus has left other priorities out in the cold. While he was using his charm under his own terms (Leno, magazine covers, George Lopez Show ads), he let the closure of Guantanamo become “dangerous” to Americans. While he explained how close we were to healthcare reform, he let Congress chop it up into something ineffable.

By letting the storyline for the stimulus, the ambitious first legislation that set the tone for the rest of his presidency, be told by everyone else, he forfeited control over most of his messaging from that point on. As a candidate, Obama zeroed in on an issue (Reverend Wright and race; Hillary Clinton and his inexperience; Bush and the economy; hope; reform) and steer into friendlier waters. As president, Obama has followed the same strategy, but as he himself noted when McCain suspended his campaign in order to save the economy, a president’s view must be multi-focal. A president must not only be everywhere and do everything simultaneously, but he must also set the tone for every conversation.

If Obama wants to retell America’s story of perseverance and resilience to the American people, he must be willing to finish telling it all the way through. Letting political opponents, or the unconverted who straddle loyalties, write out the storyline of any move coming out the White House muddles the narrative at best, changes the plot altogether at worst. Obama’s story–raised by a single mother, working his way up the Ive League and the political ladder–made him exceptional. Losing the message war means his story will have an abrupt, unsatisfying ending.

You might want to check these out, too:

• ObamaCare Part II: Push, Pull or Drag it to the Finish Line.
• Is Obama a One Hit Wonder?
• Question Time Comes to America
• Old Posts, Renewed

photocredit: mybulldog

There was a giddy frenzy going around Democratic circles last week. “Did you see Obama in that Q&A with the Republicans? He tore them apart!” A reason to cheer: the president had finally rid himself of the uber-nice bipartisan guise and put on that of a stern teacher tired of telling the class their paper is due tomorrow. That role probably came very naturally to him; the law professor really never left the building.

Cynicism could easily have set in after Obama’s breakthrough performance. Obama has dazzled his peers before. He has often also rolled up his sleeves and gotten back to the grind soon after the razzle dazzle. The latter is slightly less scintillating than the former. But this time, his administration has a new strategy: pet the grizzly.

Calling the Republicans in Congress a “Minority” is a disservice. Not necessarily to the party, but to the power of their obstruction. By being cantankerous and instinctively cranky (McCain, I am looking at you), the GOP has managed to have power when they have none; they have set the pace and outline of the agenda by just standing there, unwilling to budge. They are the grizzly, albeit a slightly lazy one with short, but potent bursts of rage.

Last week’s Q&A, the American version of the British Question Time, shook the grizzly awake.

After reminding the grizzly that it, too, has a role in government, Obama wants to show voters how willing he is to cooperate by being nice to this burdensome beast. He is, in a way, forcing them to make a move that doesn’t involve sitting back down. He invited Republican leadership to his Super Bowl party; he is seriously considering implementing some central GOP proposals into his healthcare reform package; he invited Republicans to a brainstorming meeting next week, as well as some trips to Camp David. Obama is being nice to the grizzly. So nice that any attack or disgruntlement on behalf of the GOP will make it the party to blame.

Whether this strategy will work or not is unknown. Republicans could easily brush this off as “faux bipartisanship,” as they have in the past; Obama could also throw his hands up in the air and go into street fighter mode (Chicago politics were his training ground). But this time, the president is going for a lasting effect. Even if the Republicans don’t play ball, he has already sowed the seed of mutual-responsibility in the mind of voters. Republicans, even in their minority status, are also in charge of governing. If Obama can make the argument that a minority is only as strong as it lets itself be, voters will start to share the blame, as they should. Republicans have coasted for too long on just saying “no.” Now they must at least say, “no, but…” Quite a stretch, even for the largest of mammals.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Is Obama a One Hit Wonder?
• Question Time Comes to America
• Healthcare Tumbles, Democrats Fumble
• Don’t expect 2010 to be 1994. Part 2: Healthcare

In his State of the Union speech, Obama tried to recapture the mood of his campaign.  He reminded voters that he is on their side, not Washington’s side, and that he sympathizes with their concerns.  Only this time around, it was a hard sell.  A year of slow-moving decisions and failed health care reform has turned supporters into skeptics.  People just aren’t seeing the change that was the focus of his campaign.  The euphoria that the Democrats experienced after a successful, driven campaign has faded.

That being said, Obama is in danger of losing the support of a key demographic that could make or break an election: young voters.  Voters ages 18-29 turned out in record numbers for the 2008 election.  If the Democrats fail to come up with and pass a solid health care reform bill that people can actually support, these voters (who are the most likely to be affected by the bill) may pass on 2012 elections.

The state of the economy will without a doubt still be a major factor in the 2012. Even if the job market is improved, the country will still be far from recovered.  People lack patience; they want the economy fixed now.  If they don’t feel that there has been enough “change” they may wish to hedge their bets with the next Republican candidate that comes around (providing that it’s not someone with the name Palin.)  America is a nation that likes to place blame. Fingers were pointed at the Bush Administration and in 2012 they could very well be pointed at Obama.

Obama’s major downfall is his unwillingness to veer away from his extreme statist policies, even when they clearly aren’t working.   He’s attempting to push through a healthcare reform bill that just isn’t popular.  In 1996, Clinton stopped pushing HillaryCare and focused on bipartisan solutions.  Clinton realized that in order to accomplish anything, he needed to lean more towards the center and away from big government.

Scott Brown’s election win in Massachusetts is a prime example of America’s centrists view. Republicans have acknowledged that Brown appeals to independents and moderate democrats because he does not represent traditional republicanism.  Brown’s victory should be a wakeup call to Obama that at this point, the country is more moderate than left-leaning.

According to Polifact.com, Obama has broken 15 promises so far.  For a president who is dealing with a “deficit of trust” these broken promises are significant.  His new budget projection shows an increase from last year, a contradiction to his many statements that he would reduce spending.  Domestic discretionary spending was increased by 84 percent, a fact that Republicans are making noise about.  They are calling out his credibility and ability to lead, serious allegations when he’s already on a slippery slope.

If Obama doesn’t quickly re-evaluate his strategy and accept blame for failed policies, he could be opening the door for a Republican in 2012.  Because voters so passionately believed in him, they will easily be disappointed if he doesn’t do what is expected of him.  His campaign of change won’t be enough to carry him to another term if he can’t produce results.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Question Time Comes to America
• Public Option Continues to Confuse
• Obamacare and its discontents
• Liz Cheney Sharpens Her Candidate Teeth

After delivering his State of the Union Address on Wednesday, President Obama visited GOP leaders to talk about the issues on Friday. What was meant to be an untelevised discussion ended up being Question Time, a traditional event in the United Kingdom,but completely unheard of in the US, where the Prime Minister is grilled by members of Parliament, broadcasted live. The end result was President Obama taking each point raised against his budget, healthcare reform, his stimulus, and his efforts at bipartisanship, by Republican party members and tearing it apart, piece by piece. He managed to extemporaneously defend his policies and approaches, all while being civil and cool-headed.

As one Republican official said after the first Q&A ever of this type, bringing the cameras in was a “mistake.”

It sure was. For the Republicans, however, it wasn’t all bad. Many party leaders afterwards were very enthusiastic about this back-and-forth, saying it showed the American people they indeed have ideas to solve our country’s problems. They might’ve just been trying to hide the tears, but they’re right about the benefits of this type of discussion.

This might be the beginning of a new tradition: Question Time might finally come to America. And with it, trusting Washington might begin an upswing.

Enjoy:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You might want to check these out, too:

• Is Obama a One Hit Wonder?
• Public Option Continues to Confuse
• Obamacare and its discontents
• Liz Cheney Sharpens Her Candidate Teeth

Obama kills at White House Correspondents’ Dinner

LGBT group call out Obama on Defense of Marriage Act brief

Vanity Fair’s Palin profile

500 words on: Caring about Michael Jackson’s death

You might want to check these out, too:

• Sexy Pretty Political Things
• Biggest Tuesday since the last Biggest Tuesday
• LGBT group call Obama on DOMA Brief
• poliPicks

President Obama ‘s first State of the Union was a mixture of contradictions, exaggerations and pointed fingers.  His attempt to bring revive the spirit he generated during his campaign fell flat and at times his speech seemed contrived, lacking the usual intellectual rhetoric that we’ve become so used to.

It was obvious that the goal of this State of the Union was to reassure cynical voters and independents that Obama can do his job, that is, if the Republicans would stop being so obstructive.   While he often spoke of bipartisanship, ironically Obama did not hold back his attacks on the Republicans.  This speech was possibly the boldest we have seen the President, as he challenged the Republicans when he said, “just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.”

Blaming the Republicans for lack of success during the past year seems like a cop-out.  If Obama fails, it will be his fault, not the fault of the GOP.  The Democrats have the majority in the House and the Senate.  Lack of support from his own party to pass the healthcare reform bill is what is holding it back.  Perhaps instead of blaming Republicans for being obstructionists he should revisit why members of his own party refuse to support the bill.  Or why the majority of constituents are fervently against it.

There were many points that Obama made throughout the speech that were overstated and inaccurate.  He claimed that the stimulus plan saved 2 million jobs, failing to note that this is just a projected number pulled from reports put together by his own advisors.  In addition to the exaggerated numbers, the jobs he mentioned were mostly government jobs, (cops, firefighters, clean energy) a contradiction of his earlier statement that “the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses.”

During one surprising moment, Obama criticized the Supreme Court ruling on campaign advertising, causing Alito to shake his head and mouth, “That is not true.”  Obama claimed the Supreme Court ruling would allow foreign corporations to spend without limit in elections. While this could be a possibility in the future, it is dependent on future rulings, not the one which the Supreme Court just passed.   The calling out of the Supreme Court was desperate and inappropriate. Given that the justices are to remain impartial, Obama essentially taunted them.

He spoke briefly of healthcare reform, encouraged Congress to push forward but failed to communicate a plan for doing so, placing the blame on the Senate for falling to push it through.  This statement incited criticism, even from Democrats.  Sen. Landrieu said, “Moderate Senate Democrats, who give the Senate the 60 votes, come from states that have to appreciate a broad range of ideas and since the president ran on a bipartisan, change, working with Republicans, [he] doesn’t do a great service to then say everything the House passes without any Republican votes is something the Senate should just take.”

Obama did finally call to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” but didn’t say much beyond what he had previously promised in his campaign.  At best, gay rights activists can put the pressure on and hope that Obama gets around to dealing with the issue this year.

Overall, a major problem with the speech was Obama’s failure to take responsibility.  Yes, he apologized for the lack of trust constituents have in the government, but quickly turned it around to blame lobbyists and Republicans. He attempted to separate himself from Washington by aligning himself with the American people, using words like, “we” and “them” and called out politicians for being in permanent campaign” mode.  A laughable statement, considering this week he brought his own campaign manager to the White House.

It is doubtful that the American people will feel satisfied with Obama’s half truths and poor follow-throughs.  He was voted into office based on his promise of change, and while he was right when he said “I never suggested change would be easy,” he has to accept that until he starts showing real leadership, he will face harsh criticisms from disappointed voters.

You might want to check these out, too:

• ObamaCare Part II: Push, Pull or Drag it to the Finish Line.
• Biggest Tuesday since the last Biggest Tuesday
• Is Obama a One Hit Wonder?
• The liberal agenda needs unity

photocredit: twoblueday

As a veteran of the Great Progressive Disappointment of 2000 and 2004, I know what is bouncing around in most left-leaning minds. Compromises. Botched opportunities. Defeats. Disarray. Cynicism.

Despite what many people in the center or right may believe, this is a very tough time to be a liberal. I’m far from a traditional liberal myself, but I know what is expected of President Obama and the Democrats in Congress by the lefty crowd–and the despair setting in after a few years of apparent political gains. Without going too deep into what specifically is being sacrificed or sidelined in the progressive agenda, there needs to be a discussion about whether America is a country that is receptive to this sort of agenda at all. Can America find room in its political landscape for an honest progressive initiative? Can things like gay marriage, health care reform, and government spending ever be seen in a positive light, without having to coat them with “moderate” or “conservative” overtures? Is, and will America always be a center-right nation?

Last night, at his first formal State of The Union Address, President Obama presented a few shrewd political ploys. He proposed an across-the-board spending freeze ( not include entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, or security funding), and an elimination of the capitals gains tax. He’s already been getting flak for the freeze(as he should, having previously campaigned against such an ineffective gesture). The larger point here, however, is his reason for adopting such traditionally conservative proposals. The message is clear: inroads into conservative ground.

Bill Clinton, as president, made a similarly perplexing move. He labeled himself the “balanced budget” president. He loudly opposed big government, saying in 1996 that its “era is over.” Clinton and Obama, two left-of-center presidents,  adopted ideologically puzzling initiatives. Why?

They might have been facing the cold, compromising reality. Going into his first year in office, Obama had a decisive majority in the Senate and in the House, a clear political mandate after a landslide victory, as well as approval numbers that were historically high, even for a new president. Yet, a year after that cold morning in DC when he was inaugurated, he is still struggling to pass a stripped-down version of healthcare reform, defending the virtues of the stimulus bill passed last year, and holding back on progressive measures: gay marriage, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, cap and trade, immigration reform, to name a few. If it’s left-leaning, it comes with complications. The GOP, in its superminority status, needs only to nudge any of these proposals to make it wobble.

In California, one of the most supposedly stalwart liberal states in the country, a measure to ban same-sex marriage was passed in 2008 with a comfortable margin. The legal battle to reverse the voters’ decision in that state is currently under way, reminiscent of the legal battles faced by those fighting for civil rights in the 60’s, or women’s rights in earlier in the century. While neither of these movement are strictly progressive, they have roots in progressivism: equal rights for all, minority rights guaranteed through government and judicial activism. The path leading to the fruition of any movement or cause founded on progressive ground is slow, painful, and costly. In comparison, George W. Bush easily passed three unpopular tax cuts to the country’s wealthiest, waged a polarizing war, and nearly dealt the death-blow to gay marriage, without breaking a sweat.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. believed American politics progressed in cycles. He believed every 15-20 years the political pulse of the nation swung from liberal to conservative and back. In “Paths to the Present,” Schlesinger theorized that the liberal eras in the 20th century were 1901-1918 (Teddy Roosevelt), then 1931-1946 (FDR), and 1961-1980 (Kennedy, LBJ, Carter). Schlesinger passed away in 2006, but he predicted in his book that 2001 would begin a new liberal era. This, of course, did not happen. Many think that his numbers were off, and in actuality his theory would make the liberal era begin in 2010. This remains to be seen. But to Schlesinger it was clear that American politics did not have a singular pulse, an underlining modus operandi all political discourse was founded on, as is the case in countries like France and Mexico. He figured our ideological bent was never rigid, just finicky.

Reinhold Niebuhr, on the other hand, believed that we have had a bent all along. His philosophical and moralistic judgement of American politics led him to conclude that America is and will always be a Christian nation. The peculiarity of our country is how devout we are to Christianity, yet how much we attempt to keep our social and political environment secular. This pulls us in different directions: to serve God, or to serve the State? As mentioned above with social movements, religiosity is not strictly a conservative trait, but it does adhere to the school of thought much more than it does to liberal thinking. The focus on piousness and tradition is very much more in tune with conservatism. To Niebuhr, America has a Christian foundation, which in turn feeds into our belief of “American exceptionalism.” Any shift away from what is thought of as Christian will probably lead to revolt. The Republican party figured this out back in the 80’s.

Liberal groups should still be hopeful. The election of Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress means victories are closer than ever before. Even though presidential and congressional vacillations can be frustrating, and crippling compromises can be infuriating, the climate is ripe for progress. The liberal agenda needs patience and resilience. It also needs to be a part of the solution. Instead of chastising elected officials for any imperfect policy proposal, it should focus on whether it is better than before, and keep moving forward.

The slow-burning process is to be expected of progressive movements in America. It took nearly 80 years to secure voting rights for women; nearly a century to grant civil rights to African-Americans; and 41 years after the Stonewall riots gays are still treated as second-class citizens under the law. But progress was made, and is being made. Perseverance is not a liberal or conservative trait–it’s an American trait.

You might want to check these out, too:

• The liberal agenda needs unity
• Obama’s Nobel Prize speech and the necessity of Just War

While open borders would be an ideal situation, resources and materials have their limits. Overpopulating any country comes with extreme consequences and measures must be taken to prevent the United States from becoming overburdened.  The catch-22 is that in order to keep our country from becoming poverty-stricken (in a third world sense) limits must be placed on the number of people allowed to flee the same situation our country fears.   

Restriction of legal immigration leads to the inevitable issue that the United States has been struggling with for years: illegal immigration.  With over 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., there are many legitimate concerns that must be dealt with, including its effect on crime rates and the economy. The Center for Immigration Studies states on its website:

“Even though illegal aliens make little use of welfare, from which they are generally barred, the costs of illegal immigration in terms of government expenditures for education, criminal justice, and emergency medical care are significant. California has estimated that the net cost to the state of providing government services to illegal immigrants approached $3 billion during a single fiscal year. The fact that states must bear the cost of federal failure turns illegal immigration, in effect, into one of the largest unfunded federal mandates.”

While many statistics can be skewed in favor or against immigration, allowing people to illegally enter the country puts us at an enormous security risk. The government has been attempting to fix immigration policies for many years, the last being the failed attempt by George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy in 2007. 

Recent events have brought to light the urgency in which immigration reform must be dealt with.  Not only is a comprehensive plan that protects our borders and determines the fate of 12 million or so illegal immigrants essential, but the law must also protect the rights of those immigrants.  The New York Times recently obtained documents that exposed the cover up of abuse that led to the deaths of 107 immigrant detainees in government custody since 2003.  

The Obama Administration has pledged to address immigration reform in 2010 after it spent the past year on the back-burner because of a little issue called health care reform.  But alas, a new year brings room for a new hot topic and immigration policy is moving up in the ranks.  

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently discussed a strategy that would focus on improved border security with stronger fences, motion detectors and “real ID’s” being implemented.  Speaking to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee she said, “You have [to] deal with what is drawing people across the border, and that is a job.”

As the former governor of Arizona, Napolitano certainly has the experience and knowledge to tackle immigration policy.  The trick will be to implement new ideas instead of trying to beef up the same tired ideas that have been tried in the past, while offering both parties something they can chew on.  While Republicans and Democrats can both agree on enhancing border security (thought maybe not agree on how) Napolitano’s proposed strategy of offering a path to citizenship for current illegal immigrants will be a tough sell to Republicans.  

The most action immigration reform has seen since Obama took office is when Rep. Luis Gutierrez briefly introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIRASAP) in December.  Gutierrez’s bill appears to be a slightly longer version of the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which both Democrats and Republicans vehemently rejected. 

The CIRASAP would allow illegal immigrants to become legal citizens after satisfying certain requirements (learning English, background check, etc) as well as increased border security and efforts to crack down on drug smuggling and other crimes.  Nothing new there.

Where the CIRASAP differs from the 2007 attempt is the plan that allows immigrant workers into the United States in the future based on the recommendations of a federal agency.  This agency would use research to determine the need of U.S. employment and place workers where they are needed.  A modern day bracero program, if you will. 

While Gutierrez’s bill proposes some new strategies, it will hardly be the end all to the immigration reform debate. If this last year is any indicator, the Republicans and Democrats will once again be at each other’s throats, echoing the current health care reform debacle.  With the Democrats wanting a free for all with a slap on the wrist and many Republicans willing to send illegal immigrants back to their country to wait in line for a visa, a compromise at this point seems far-fetched.   

It is important for both parties to remember that just like health care; there will never be perfect groundwork for a successful immigration system.  Immigration is not clear cut; it is a complicated, emotional issue that affects people’s lives. Exploring options and bringing new ideas to the table while leaving xenophobic nonsense behind will bring our country much closer to finding an adequate solution than tossing insults back and forth.  

You might want to check these out, too:

• Rethinking Illegal Immigration
• poliPicks

SCOTUS pick reflects Obama’s politics

Afghanistan’s no. 1 domestic enemy

500 words on: Iran and Mexico, and Democracy’s growing pains

Has gay marriage hit a tipping point?

You might want to check these out, too:

• poliPicks
• Afghanistan and Iran Rule the Calendar
• poliPicks
• 500 Words on: Iran and Mexico, Democracy’s Growing Pains

photocredit: United Nations Development Programme

Hurricane Katrina jolted us as Americans. “How could something like that happen here?” “Why so much destruction? Why so little help? Why so late?” It brought back issues of inequality, race, poverty, and what a cad once called the “Two Americas.”

After a few days of eerily similar footage coming from Haiti, after a 7.0 earthquake rocked the entire country, many more questions are raised. People will ask a lot of why’s–Why do poor countries always get struck with the most devastating disasters?–but they will also raise a lot how’s. How can we prevent this from happening again? How influential was poverty in making an earthquake that would have killed dozens in an American city, into a disaster that will leave nearly 200,000 people dead and over one and a half million homeless?

The devastation in Haiti could have happened in countless other countries. According to Dr. Jeffrey Sachs’ research, one of the leading academic voices in the field of development economics, nearly one billion people around the world, one sixth of humanity, are in extreme poverty; 1.5 billion are poor and barely live above mere subsistence. The poor and the extreme poor make up 40% of humanity. 40%. The direct effects of poverty are clear: hunger, malnutrition, disease, and lack of water and electricity. But poverty has what is called a “multiplier effect.” It turns on a chain reaction that can easily gain speed with the right push.

Haiti’s infrastructure was weak, now it’s crumbling. Haiti’s economy was teetering, barely gaining some modest momentum, now it’s completely halted. Haiti’s health and law enforcement services were spotty, now the island is best described as on the verge of “anarchy.” It seemed as if Haiti was rocking on the verge of a precipice…and this earthquake rattled it into the abyss.

The underlining poverty in that country exists despite decades of foreign aid from industrialized countries. One discussion that has left development economists with more questions than answers is how can an influx of foreign aid be effective. Some believe the focus should be the amount, making each grant small and focused, i.e. $1m for mosquito nets rather than a $10m blank check. Others think there should never be strings attached, and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) on the ground should manage the use of that money. Almost everyone agrees that foreign aid, as it is used now, is a hit or miss venture. It hardly guarantees a country will be better off tomorrow than today, no matter how much money they are given.

What is a guarantee is that the pervasive poverty seen in countries like Haiti are like a puddle of gasoline, waiting for a match to fall on it. The effects of poverty are not only limited to emergency aid, but extend to people’s reactions. Frustration leads to anger, struggle leads to rebellion: the poor reach an “enough is enough” point. In a country where 80% of the population is poor, and the richest 1% own nearly 50% of the wealth, one earth-rumbling shake is enough.

Katrina reminded us that the poor are often overlooked, until we have no other option than to acknowledge their plight. Our attention hones in on them for a mere moment, compared to the years they’ve spent as a side-note in our collective conscious and politicians’ rhetoric. Katrina came and swept a city; years later, the city has been nearly forgotten. New Orleans is nowhere near done being reconstructed, but we hardly hear any stories about how much it still needs us. The city, like its underlining troubles, are once again dismissed.

In Haiti, there is an opportunity for renewal like never before. Goodwill and resources are pouring in, instilling some optimism amidst the wreckage. It may take years to regain some of the momentum this little island had before the quake, and decades more to truly be on the path to better living standards. The only way it will reach such a path is if the deeper issues are dealt with, long after we seal the dam with a  finger. Along with foreign aid, in whatever type or form,  Haiti needs ambitious and dedicated people and nations to help her stand up, for good this time, empowered and ready.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Liz Cheney Sharpens Her Candidate Teeth
• Mexican Army Using Torture In The Cartel War?
• Ayatollah Khomenei Offers Veiled Threat
• Is Mousavi the same as Ahmedinejad?

The military’s abandon of the suicidal soldier

1984: The book that killed George Orwell

500 words on: The fall of (opposite) marriage

Lincoln’s great depression

You might want to check these out, too:

• Lincoln’s Great Depression
• 1984: The book that killed George Orwell
• Old Posts, Renewed
• Old Posts, Renewed

photocredit: Victor Sira-Uprooted

In the first half of the 19th century, Horace Mann dedicated himself to the Common School movement. Providing free, open, and accessible schools across the country was the great equalizer, the “the balance wheel of the social machinery.” Thomas Jefferson was an early, but unsuccessful (twice in his home state of Virginia), advocate of what is now free public education. Mann made it a reality nearly five decades later.

Nearly a century later, President Roosevelt signed into law the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill. Thanks to the GI Bill, millions of Americans and their families from every generation thereafter benefited from a legion of college-educated servicemen. College was now affordable and accessible, new opportunities were within reach for people returning from military service.

These two initiatives transformed the employment landscape forever. As anyone in the education field will tell you, it is not about what students learn now, but how they use it once out of school. Free public schools and free college for servicemen and women opened doors for them. But the largest ripple effect was felt outside its core: everyone else had to keep up.

President Obama said he will focus on immigration reform in 2010. The issue comes back to the fore at a time when people who can work here legally can hardly find work at all. He is faced with polar extremes calling for a swift and indiscriminate deportation of all 11 million or so illegal immigrants on one end, and an amnesty granting all of them legal resident status on the other.

It’s highly unlikely that Obama will pick either option. He will probably pick a mix, a trademark Obama solution. But he must understand the often overlooked implications of taking any approach. Just as free public education and subsidized college education transformed not only those enjoying the program but also those outside of it, immigration reform will transform America’s vitality for generations to come.

Free public education and the GI Bill both changed the game by changing the rules. They both, in economic terminology, incentivized people to get educated. They made it easier to obtain, and more “expensive” to pass up. There is now an opportunity cost for those choosing to forgo public school. If you do, you will be competing against people who did take advantage of it, and are more prepared, and therefore more appealing to employers, than you. You will find it harder to get a job, and if you do find one, you will almost certainly be paid less than your more educated counterpart. In either case, you will lose money because you are unemployed, or just paid less than the rest, by not getting educated. Same goes for the GI Bill: military personnel opting to skip this benefit will compete with college-educated candidates, and feel the same pain in finding a good paying job. Money is lost in lost wages, skipping these programs becomes expensive.

When policy is being thought out, these implications are sometimes never considered. The benefits are later noticed once the ripple effect is more visible and pervasive. Unfortunately for Obama, he cannot skip thinking of the “then what?” when reforming our immigration system. With 11 million illegal immigrants (a guesstimate at best) in the United States, any change will surely be noticed.

Illegal immigrants are typically filling unskilled positions such as field worker, janitor, busser, line cook, or any other job that can easily be paid under the table. One of the most popular arguments from those hoping to deport every single one of them is that they are taking valuable, sought-after jobs. They claim these jobs, if undocumented workers were not doing them, would be filled by American citizens, therefore alleviating some of the unemployment woes our country consistently faces. This is absolutely true. If these jobs were vacant, millions of Americans would rush to fill them, especially when so few jobs are being created. But the big question here is whether that is actually a good thing.

Keeping illegal immigrants here does what public schools and the GI Bill do: it makes education more appealing. Allowing people from other countries to work here without papers is making our country more educated. Let me explain:

Think of our job market as a giant ladder. The unskilled jobs occupy the lower rungs; the skilled jobs are up top. The more education you need for a job, the higher up the ladder it is. As previously mentioned, illegal immigrants tend to occupy the bottom rungs, not because they are necessarily poorly educated (some have advanced degrees in their home country, but end up an assistant janitor here in the US), but because they do not have the papers needed to fill a more closely monitored and visible job. Those jobs they are doing are obviously filled and cannot be taken up by anyone else; those unskilled jobs are off-limits to legal American workers. In other words, anyone looking to find a job as a field worker will find it nearly impossible to do so, and will have to keep looking further up. To find something above those bottom rungs, however, means they will need more preparation, i.e. more education and experience. It’s either that or be unemployed for an indefinite amount of time. For someone who has no skill set (which is likely the case for someone looking for a job as field worker/busser/etc.), the easiest way to get minimal education, a requirement to being competitive in jobs higher up the ladder, is a public school.

What if they were not here? What if, for whatever reason, all undocumented workers were no longer working those jobs? Then the previously off-limits rungs at the bottom of the ladder would be accessible to all. Anyone looking to find a job, any job, would not need any amount of education. The pay would be dismal, of course, but it would still be better than earning nothing or minimal unemployment benefits. The key consequence of making these unskilled jobs available is that it would, in effect, make education LESS appealing. There would be a fight at the bottom between unskilled, uneducated candidates to fill these positions, since there is no point in obtaining any amount of education for the sole purpose of getting a job. Money could be earned, legally, with absolutely no education. The opportunity cost that was previously there has been taken out.

There are changes beyond the job market, beyond making basic education less sexy and no longer a necessity, which hit everyone. Once legal American workers fill these jobs, the old rules must change. There can no longer be under-the-table arrangements–the federally mandated minimum wage actually has to be obeyed. This will raise wages across the board, which will increase inflation, since more dollars will be flowing around the country, making each dollar worth less/every product worth more. In product industries, like produce, this will be felt even more. Since legal workers will demand at least minimum wage, and that wage will most definitely be higher than what undocumented workers were previously paid, the cost to harvest lettuce and strawberries will rise, and that cost will passed on to consumers in price increases. Inflation will hit everyone, even those who never picked a strawberry in their lifetime.

Inflation eats into the pockets of working Americans, but loss of taxes and social security deposits eats into the pockets of the federal government. Contrary to the myths circulating in anti-immigrant circles, more than two thirds of illegal immigrants DO pay income taxes and have to pay into the social security fund. From 1996-2003, payments coming from people using Individual Taxpayer Identification, a number issued by the IRS to people ineligible to collect Social Security (i.e. illegal immigrants) totaled $50 billion. As just mentioned, they CANNOT collect Social Security. They are, in essence, giving money away to our legal senior citizens. This thankless contribution would cease to exist, not to mention the taxes paid, if and once they were deported.

The other side of the immigration debate wants legal status for all. What if they were given amnesty? Then something similar to the education depreciation/inflation dynamic would occur, but with less of the costs. Wages would rise, since these workers would become legal and demand a minimum wage, starting the same snowballing effect that would lead to inflation. But the money the government received from them through income taxes and SS deposits would not be taken away. They would pay into the piggy like everyone else. They would also keep the bottom rungs off-limits, making basic education a necessity in the workforce. Some would even take advantage of their newfound legal status and strive to get more education, since many states prohibit awarding financial aid for college to illegal immigrants.

The issue does not have a silver bullet. Any proposed solution will have unpreventable consequences. Wherever Obama goes with his immigration reform in 2010, he cannot overlook the indirect effects it will have for the current and following generations. Horace Mann called education the “balance wheel” of society. Now, Obama needs to picture a ladder, and what rungs he wants American workers to strive for.

You might want to check these out, too:

• ObamaCare Part II: Push, Pull or Drag it to the Finish Line.
• (Un)Clear Messages: How Obama is Losing Control of his Narrative
• Is Obama a One Hit Wonder?
• Question Time Comes to America

Deconstructing Obama’s Speechwriting

Do we need another Ferdinand Pecora to put the rich on trial?

Bittman on our diets, our world, and out future

Dating during a recession

You might want to check these out, too:

• Deconstructing Obama’s Speech Writing
• ObamaCare Part II: Push, Pull or Drag it to the Finish Line.
• (Un)Clear Messages: How Obama is Losing Control of his Narrative
• Is Obama a One Hit Wonder?