I am posting a series of "letters to the editor" designed to try to change the focus of political questions and discussions. Humbly {G} I offer these to all as models
Feel free to copy (and edit them) for your own locations/papers. (Please add a comment to this blog entry, or email me at rjw.progreesive@gmail.com if you use one.)
I believe a significant short coming of Democratic politics is the failure to affect the focus and language of political discussion. I'm aiming to make the letters succinct with easy to grasp concepts.
==========================
The Necessity of Effective Government.
No one believes in or wants "big government."
Many folks have been convinced that government is "too big:" they have caught media attention with their anti-government position: "Government isn't the solution; government is the problem."
We are in the middle of a massive environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and it turns out that over the past decade regulations on oil drilling were rolled back and what remained haven't been fully enforced.
In 2008 and 2009 our economy was on the brink of disaster because regulations on banks and finance had been rolled back and what regulations remained weren't fully enforced.
No one can deny that corporations and large scale commerce have done incredible good for our society, but without effective checks and balances on their power, we have seen that they are also capable of incredible destruction.
And no one can that when government is "too big" our country may suffer, but when government is stripped of essential powers it is rendered ineffective and our country also suffers.
I believe the events of the past two decades years has demonstrated the importance of effective government and the essential need for effective checks and balances on large corporate and commercial interests.
The primary purpose of corporations is to pursue profits for shareholders. The general good they do for society is secondary.
The primary purpose of our government is "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
I believe it is as misguided to pronounce "government is bad" as it is to pronounce "big business is bad."
Effective commerce and effective government are best achieved when (1) both are empowered to fulfill their purposes, and (2) there are checks and balances on the power of both.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Sample Letters to the Editor #3 -Our Constitution, "Strict Construction," and Justice
I am posting a series of "letters to the editor" designed to try to change the focus of political questions and discussions. Humbly {G} I offer them to all as models
Feel free to copy (and edit them) for your own locations. (Please add a comment to this blog entry, or email me at rjw.progreesive@gmail.com if you use one.)
I believe a significant short coming of Democratic politics is the failure to affect the focus and language of political discussion. I'm aiming to make the letters succinct with easy to grasp concepts.
Today's:
======================================
To The Editor:
Our Constitution, "Strict Construction," and Justice
Throughout the history of Anglo-American law, there have been periods when we insist on strict interpretation and application of laws and of procedures in the courts. In such periods, justice may be and is sometimes frustrated simply because a party has not followed some exacting, complex dance step, or is denied a right because of some obscure provision of law. In such periods, proper "i" dotting and "t" crossing sadly sets the standard for the courts and for "justice."
In such periods, some folks try to reduce the law to the playyard simplicity of "calling balls and strikes." In the real world, life is far more complex than nine innings on a grassy field, and the law needs to recognize the complexity of human interactions.
These periods of strict construction alternate with those when our society emphasizes justice by the courts, and recognizes that role of judges: is to judge. We ask "does the failure to dot an 'i' lead to an injustice for one party or the other? Does rigorous insistence on 't' crossing lead to just results?"
We are slipping from a period of focusing on justice and with strident calls to refocus on "Strict Construction," "Original Intent," and sanctified and elevated "t" crossing.
Application of true "Strict Construction" standard would defeat the central concept of checks and balances in our government, because the Supreme Court (and other levels of our courts) would not be allowed to hear any constitutional challenges to laws. The Constitution does not confer any such power on the Courts and they did not have it until the Supreme Court created law in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The power of federal courts to hear constitutional cases is: judge-made law. And that power of judges to make law was embraced by the founding fathers
As monied interests have become close to all powerful in lobbying for, drafting and passing legislation which protects those very interests, the din calling for "strict construction" rises, and the attempts to strip of judges' of their power to exercise their judgement increase, with the result that we are distracted from the central and essential role of our courts: to do justice.
Shakespeare taught us in the 'Merchant of Venice' that, were the court in Venice to invoke "strict construction," justice would not be served. (Ironically, Portia, disguised as a judge, does justice through the extreme "strict construction" of ruling that the lender may take a pound of flesh in payment of a loan in default, per the contract, but because the contract does not provide for taking any blood, the lended may take only a pound of flesh, and not spill a drop of blood, frustrating the "original intent" of the parties but delivering true justice.
Worshiping dried ink on dusty pages and straining the quality of justice by forcing a result which ignores juctice in our courts does not serve our best interests.
PORTIA: The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
The Merchant Of Venice Act 4, scene 1, 184–187
Feel free to copy (and edit them) for your own locations. (Please add a comment to this blog entry, or email me at rjw.progreesive@gmail.com if you use one.)
I believe a significant short coming of Democratic politics is the failure to affect the focus and language of political discussion. I'm aiming to make the letters succinct with easy to grasp concepts.
Today's:
======================================
To The Editor:
Our Constitution, "Strict Construction," and Justice
Throughout the history of Anglo-American law, there have been periods when we insist on strict interpretation and application of laws and of procedures in the courts. In such periods, justice may be and is sometimes frustrated simply because a party has not followed some exacting, complex dance step, or is denied a right because of some obscure provision of law. In such periods, proper "i" dotting and "t" crossing sadly sets the standard for the courts and for "justice."
In such periods, some folks try to reduce the law to the playyard simplicity of "calling balls and strikes." In the real world, life is far more complex than nine innings on a grassy field, and the law needs to recognize the complexity of human interactions.
These periods of strict construction alternate with those when our society emphasizes justice by the courts, and recognizes that role of judges: is to judge. We ask "does the failure to dot an 'i' lead to an injustice for one party or the other? Does rigorous insistence on 't' crossing lead to just results?"
We are slipping from a period of focusing on justice and with strident calls to refocus on "Strict Construction," "Original Intent," and sanctified and elevated "t" crossing.
Application of true "Strict Construction" standard would defeat the central concept of checks and balances in our government, because the Supreme Court (and other levels of our courts) would not be allowed to hear any constitutional challenges to laws. The Constitution does not confer any such power on the Courts and they did not have it until the Supreme Court created law in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The power of federal courts to hear constitutional cases is: judge-made law. And that power of judges to make law was embraced by the founding fathers
As monied interests have become close to all powerful in lobbying for, drafting and passing legislation which protects those very interests, the din calling for "strict construction" rises, and the attempts to strip of judges' of their power to exercise their judgement increase, with the result that we are distracted from the central and essential role of our courts: to do justice.
Shakespeare taught us in the 'Merchant of Venice' that, were the court in Venice to invoke "strict construction," justice would not be served. (Ironically, Portia, disguised as a judge, does justice through the extreme "strict construction" of ruling that the lender may take a pound of flesh in payment of a loan in default, per the contract, but because the contract does not provide for taking any blood, the lended may take only a pound of flesh, and not spill a drop of blood, frustrating the "original intent" of the parties but delivering true justice.
Worshiping dried ink on dusty pages and straining the quality of justice by forcing a result which ignores juctice in our courts does not serve our best interests.
PORTIA: The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
The Merchant Of Venice Act 4, scene 1, 184–187
Friday, May 7, 2010
Sample Letters To The Editor #2 - Effective Checks & Balances
Feel free to copy (and edit them) for your own locations. (Please add a comment to this blog entry, or email me at rjw.progreesive@gmail.com if you use one.)
I believe a significant short coming of Democratic politics is the failure to affect the focus and language of political discussion. I'm aiming to make the letters succinct with easy to grasp concepts.
======
To The Editor:
We Need Effective Checks and Balances
"Oh, They built the ship Titanic,
That sailed the ocean blue,
And they thought they had a ship,
That the water would never go through"
Trad.
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast."
Alexander Pope
Reasonable people can disagree as to how much industry and commerce should be regulated.
For the past 30 years or so, the anti-regulatory ideology has been firmly in control.
Two years ago, the largely deregulated banking industry almost took our country's economy down.
Today, the size and impact of the Gulf oil spill is yet to be known, but we do know isn't going to be minor.
Oil drilling has been accorded a large degree of "voluntary self-regulation" in lieu of legally binding regulation, and has enjoyed permissive attitude from Republican appointed regulators:
"Until now, serious spills [have been] rare. [We thought] Catastrophic accidents had been relegated to history by such gear as “blowout preventers” designed to shut off wells when pressures get out of control.
Blowout valves are the last line of defense. The federal Minerals Management Service (MMS), which regulates offshore oil and gas production has been so confident of this system that it exempted BP from filing an environmental-impact statement."
The MMS commissioned has studied creative ways to cope with massive well blowouts but has never implemented them. It promulgated rules but allowed the oil industry to obey them on a voluntary basis.
(See, Http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aHElyJ.bKpsw&pos=10)
It is becoming ever more clear that the regulatory pendulum has to swing back from the decades of the laissez faire, hands off posture promoted (through multiple millions in lobbyist spending) by large commercial interests.
Our Founding Fathers gave us the system of checks and balances on the then-existing centers of power in our nation: the three branches of government. There was no big business then.
I believe we our nation was founded on the principle of checks and balances, and we need effective checks and balances to prevent damaging excesses by powerful groups which have arisen long after the drafters of the Constitution laid down their pens.
Sincerely
xxx
==============
Sample Letters to the Editor #1- Jobs
I am planning a series of "letters to the editor" designed to try to change the focus of political questions and discussions. Humbly {G} I offer them to all as models
Feel free to copy (and edit them) for your own locations. (Please add a comment to this blog entry, or email me at rjw.progreesive@gmail.com if you use one.)
I believe a significant short coming of Democratic politics is the failure to affect the focus and language of political discussion. I'm aiming to make the letters succinct with easy to grasp concepts.
Today's (which I sent to the Toledo Blade in Ohio)
======================================
To The Editor:
Where Are The Jobs? Who Makes the Hiring Decisions?
Unemployment is still pretty high as of early May, 2010. Unemployment peaked at 10.1% in October 2009, but is still high at 9.9%.
The Federal government has spent a lot, billions, to stimulate the economy, channeling those billions through the private sector to execute the many projects covered by the Stimulus Act.
The government can encourage hiring, it can help create opportunities for job growth, but it is the private sector which decides when to hire workers and how many to hire.
Over that past year, corporate profits have gone up, spectacularly in some industries, and worker productivity (how much work companies get out of their employees) has risen more than any other year since 1963.
But unemployment remains stubbornly high.
One can understand that businesses are reluctant to hire. But corporate America (which has contributed to so much in our lives) seems to have forgotten the lesson first taught by Henry Ford: hire and pay workers enough so they can afford to buy the products produced by our economy.
So, where are the jobs? All we can do is ask American businesses for an answer: they are responsible for making the hiring decisions.
Sincerely,
==============================
Attention Fact Checkers: My sources:
Productivity: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-06/productivity-of-u-s-workers-rises-more-than-forecast-update2-.htm
Profits: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-07/u-s-stock-futures-gain-on-bigger-than-forecast-jobs-growth.html
National unemployment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/business/economy/08jobs.html
Feel free to copy (and edit them) for your own locations. (Please add a comment to this blog entry, or email me at rjw.progreesive@gmail.com if you use one.)
I believe a significant short coming of Democratic politics is the failure to affect the focus and language of political discussion. I'm aiming to make the letters succinct with easy to grasp concepts.
Today's (which I sent to the Toledo Blade in Ohio)
======================================
To The Editor:
Where Are The Jobs? Who Makes the Hiring Decisions?
Unemployment is still pretty high as of early May, 2010. Unemployment peaked at 10.1% in October 2009, but is still high at 9.9%.
The Federal government has spent a lot, billions, to stimulate the economy, channeling those billions through the private sector to execute the many projects covered by the Stimulus Act.
The government can encourage hiring, it can help create opportunities for job growth, but it is the private sector which decides when to hire workers and how many to hire.
Over that past year, corporate profits have gone up, spectacularly in some industries, and worker productivity (how much work companies get out of their employees) has risen more than any other year since 1963.
But unemployment remains stubbornly high.
One can understand that businesses are reluctant to hire. But corporate America (which has contributed to so much in our lives) seems to have forgotten the lesson first taught by Henry Ford: hire and pay workers enough so they can afford to buy the products produced by our economy.
So, where are the jobs? All we can do is ask American businesses for an answer: they are responsible for making the hiring decisions.
Sincerely,
==============================
Attention Fact Checkers: My sources:
Productivity: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-06/productivity-of-u-s-workers-rises-more-than-forecast-update2-.htm
Profits: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-07/u-s-stock-futures-gain-on-bigger-than-forecast-jobs-growth.html
National unemployment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/business/economy/08jobs.html
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Where are the jobs?
Dang.... Where are the jobs?
Unemployment is still pretty high as of early May, 2010.(New figures are due out tomorrow.) Unemployment peaked at 10.1% in October 2009, but is still high at 9.7% as reported in early March.
Is this the federal government's fault? Obama's fault?
It seems to ne that if Obama were really a 'socialist,' they high unemployment rate would be the government's, his, fault, since in 'socialism' the government would be doing the hiring ... not unlike the depression era Works Progress Administration which directly employed millions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration.
But in today's world and with Obama's government, it is the private sector which does the hiring; most of the stimulus money is being channeled through projects being done by private sector companies.
Not much/enough hiring going on? Maybe we should ask the private sector: "why aren't you hiring?"
The answer? Partly, at least, it is that worker productivity has soared, and productivity is the amount of production a company gets out of each employee.
"Efficiency advanced 6.3 percent over the past four quarters, the biggest 12-month increase since 1962. Labor costs fell more than projected." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-06/productivity-of-u-s-workers-rises-more-than-forecast-update2-.html
Government can create conditions conducive for job growth; it can stimulate the economy; but, without much direct government hiring (socialism), the government doesn't create jobs, the private sector is responsible for whether there is job growth.
And the unemployment rate will remain high until the private sector realizes that the more people there are at work, the higher the demand there will be for their products. (Think Henry Ford who paid high wages so his workers could create demand for the products they made.)
Are you out of work? Ask the companies why they aren't hiring, even with all sorts of positive stimulus from the federal government.
(Unless you're a newly out of work teacher or other state or local worker -- the folks to ask are those who insist that all tax cuts are always good, apparently forgetting that you simply don't get what you don't pay for.)
Unemployment is still pretty high as of early May, 2010.(New figures are due out tomorrow.) Unemployment peaked at 10.1% in October 2009, but is still high at 9.7% as reported in early March.
Is this the federal government's fault? Obama's fault?
It seems to ne that if Obama were really a 'socialist,' they high unemployment rate would be the government's, his, fault, since in 'socialism' the government would be doing the hiring ... not unlike the depression era Works Progress Administration which directly employed millions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration.
But in today's world and with Obama's government, it is the private sector which does the hiring; most of the stimulus money is being channeled through projects being done by private sector companies.
Not much/enough hiring going on? Maybe we should ask the private sector: "why aren't you hiring?"
The answer? Partly, at least, it is that worker productivity has soared, and productivity is the amount of production a company gets out of each employee.
"Efficiency advanced 6.3 percent over the past four quarters, the biggest 12-month increase since 1962. Labor costs fell more than projected." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-06/productivity-of-u-s-workers-rises-more-than-forecast-update2-.html
Government can create conditions conducive for job growth; it can stimulate the economy; but, without much direct government hiring (socialism), the government doesn't create jobs, the private sector is responsible for whether there is job growth.
And the unemployment rate will remain high until the private sector realizes that the more people there are at work, the higher the demand there will be for their products. (Think Henry Ford who paid high wages so his workers could create demand for the products they made.)
Are you out of work? Ask the companies why they aren't hiring, even with all sorts of positive stimulus from the federal government.
(Unless you're a newly out of work teacher or other state or local worker -- the folks to ask are those who insist that all tax cuts are always good, apparently forgetting that you simply don't get what you don't pay for.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)