False Prophets

If you’re a regular reader of this column, you’ve probably noticed that I have no use for people who substitute fiction for fact. I don’t mind if someone disagrees with me and wants to argue about it. However, if that argument is based on falsehoods, you’re wasting your time.

It’s one thing to share your opinion. For example, you might say that Johnny Unitas is the greatest quarterback in the history of the NFL. I’d probably be tempted to come back with Joe Montana’s career stats. We’d likely spar back and forth a bit and never reach a real consensus because we’re both offering opinions from our individual perspectives.

It would be different if you said Johnny Unitas had more passing touchdowns than Joe Montana. In that case, you would be able to go to the record books and show me the facts. [Note: Unitas is #9 in TD completions. Montana is #11.] See the difference? Instead of relying on your emotions which can skew your thinking, stating your case with solid evidence -- real facts that can be proven without a doubt -- is the way to win an argument.

It’s really that simple: if you stake your reputation on a specific matter, make sure you’ve got your facts straight. As it is with sports chatter, so it is with politics, religion, and any other topic of discussion.

I mentioned politics and religion because it’s clear that many people are willing to go to great lengths to use one to influence the other. Such is the case with many prominent entertainers in those two realms.

Take for example Dr. Ben Carson, a truly gifted neurosurgeon and political neophyte, who recently was a guest on the Sunday morning talk show circuit. He used the occasion of his Meet the Press interview to let it be known that he thinks people of certain faiths should not be elected President of the United States. Specifically, he said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Notice that Dr. Carson wasn’t talking about anyone specifically… giving reasons why the actions and attitudes of a named individual would disqualify that person from holding office. No, Carson is suggesting that you should withhold your vote solely based upon a candidate’s religion. Why? Because Carson thinks that, when it comes to a candidate’s faith, “...if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.”

Carson -- and anyone who agrees with him on this point -- is arguing that there needs to be a method of determining a person’s qualifications for elected office based upon religion. And while Carson is entitled to his opinion, the fact is clear: the Founders of this nation rejected that notion. Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution includes this key phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Essentially, no one’s faith is ever to be used to challenge his ability to serve. Equally important, no one’s faith is ever to be used to give a candidate an easier pathway to office. Try telling that to the television preachers who lead their followers in prayers calling for misfortune and death to fall upon their political opponents.

It is discouraging that people like Dr. Carson will declare their devotion to the Constitution while also being so horribly ignorant to what the document has to say. But then, it’s not that surprising, since we live in an age where it’s becoming commonplace to hear someone claim that their religious beliefs grant them authority over others.

The Constitution does grant a certain collection of rights to you and me, but it’s up to us to understand the limits to those rights. As free speech advocate Zechariah Chafee Jr wrote: “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.”   

Dr. Carson is not alone. The current presidential campaign has several hopefuls who are pandering to extremists. making promises to impose some form of legal framework that would regulate many aspects of both public and private life based upon religious tenets.

Gee, that sounds a lot like Sharia law, doesn’t it?

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald October 1, 2015.)

Born in the USA?

My great-grandfather was born in Europe. He met and married my great-grandmother there and a few years later moved to the USA. Over time, they raised a family. They were poor by most standards, but they worked hard -- my great-grandfather was a cobbler and his bride was a seamstress -- and they were good members of their community.Their children were born here… in the United States… and were each given a priceless gift at birth: citizenship. Because she was born within the borders of this nation, my grandmother instantly became a citizen, something that could never be taken away.

Or could it?

There is a growing movement in certain political circles aimed at ending the practice of birthright citizenship. It’s a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail, and the opinions on both sides are strong, even if the arguments are a bit weak.

The Fourteenth Amendment officially became part of the Constitution in 1868 and since then its opening sentence became the standard for recognizing who is, actually, an American. The amendment’s Citizenship Clause states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

There it is, plain and simple. If you were born here, you belong here. You’re one of us. (Of course, there are a few exceptions, such as children born to foreign diplomats.) But not everyone is happy about that.

Growing out of the long-running debate over immigration reform, the question of whether to continue the practice of birthright citizenship has taken its place as one of the key discussion topics in the current race for the White House. Candidates, commentators, and coffee klatchers are arguing, sometimes fiercely, about whether a baby should have such a right.

Naturally, those in favor of changing the status quo are quick to point to undocumented immigrants -- the so-called “illegal aliens” -- and calling for rejection of automatic citizenship for their children. Those who seek to preserve the 14th Amendment as is are just as forceful in arguing that its language was carefully selected to assure that all born here are given equal treatment despite the origins of their parents. After all, some of the first to benefit from the amendment were former slaves who previously had no legal claim to citizenship.

You can be sure that those on the side calling for change would claim that they are only concerned with the undocumented, that they would have no problem with granting citizenship to the children of immigrants who are here with legal documentation. But I have to wonder if it would stop there. Given the power to strip away birthright citizenship from one group, how could we stop the government from ruling that others are also not worthy? Couldn’t such authority lead to refusal of citizenship to people of a certain race or religion?

Couldn’t we see a government that would make such a change retroactive, thus revoking citizenship… and all of its privileges including the ability to vote… from existing citizens? It sure would be an effective means of shutting down your critics, wouldn’t it?

What makes me even more suspicious of the intentions of those pushing this movement is that we aren’t hearing anyone complaining about babies born of parents from places like, say, Norway or Italy or Canada. No, the argument is firmly centered on the children of immigrants who cross our southern border.

What’s further troubling is that the argument is coming from the political right, whose party is sorely lacking in support from the Latino community. Such an unbending stance against citizenship at birth… especially one that is clearly aimed at people who come to the USA from Mexico and other nations to our south… is certainly not helping the Republican Party in its efforts to include people of color under its tent.

That is, if the GOP is still making the effort.

I just read a report projecting the 2016 election turnout broken down by race and its results aren’t enthusiastic for a party that alienates non-white voters. In fact, a party that turns its back on people of color will find that it is virtually impossible to win on the national stage.

I'm not a political consultant, but if someone came to me and asked what I thought would be a good strategy, I'd suggest that being a party of ideas and goals makes more sense than building your platform on exclusion and turning back time.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald September 3, 2015.)

Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends

The Republican Party’s effort to regain the White House kicks into high gear with its first debate. While it’s tempting to say that these events are lessons in futility, there are some valuable takeaways that can be expected from these encounters. You can learn about a candidate’s ability to string together a few talking points into what sounds like a coherent statement. You can get a feel for whether the candidate has a personality, generally displayed by a good sense of humor. And you will probably notice a few who clearly don’t do their homework.

Most everyone following these assemblies will tell you that the Republicans allowed themselves to get bogged down with too many debates in the 2012 campaign. Really, what were they thinking when they agreed to twenty such gatherings? Halfway through that schedule it was clear that the party was opening itself up to way too much self-inflicted damage, as candidates rose and fell in the opinion polls based on how they attacked each other.

In this campaign, the party has shown some wisdom by paring down the list to twelve scheduled debates, the last couple of which are tentative and could be dropped entirely. Still, is there much of an argument to make that a dozen debates are going to be effective in choosing the best candidate?

Essentially, these are not debates in the truest sense of the word. A debate follows a few relatively strict guidelines, keeping to a formal structure, and its moderator is expected to maintain order with an iron fist. These events are better described as multiperson press conferences where the participants seem to do their best to avoid answering the questions as presented, instead repeating as much of their prepared campaign speeches, slogans, and taglines. But certainly we all know this: if you want real answers to real questions, don’t ask a politician… especially one who is actively running for office.

In the last cycle there were ten candidates participating in the Republican debates, though never more than nine at any one event… and only two of those had perfect attendance in all twenty. This time? Seventeen candidates have formally announced, but you won’t get to see them all in action at once. Thanks to the GOP turning over decision making chores to Fox News, the first debate is limited to no more than ten participants, as determined by where they rank in the latest polls. By essentially slamming the door in the other candidates’ faces, Fox News has been granted enormous power to effectively kill some campaigns while giving others a higher profile.

Fox News will argue that its methodology is simply reflective of public opinion and that the news/talk channel isn’t responsible for making the selections. Rather, it would say, the people surveyed by those polls are making it clear who they are most interested in seeing on the stage. But public opinion polls are a flawed source for facts. No two polling firms use the same criteria, ask the same questions, or even seek out the same type of respondents. Each poll is subject to interpretation, and those who read the tea leaves might not understand the message. Remember, up until late on Election Night, Mitt Romney and his team were convinced that he was going to win the presidency… based on opinion polls.

At least this time Republican voters can hope for a more serious slate of candidates. At least there’s no Herman Cain, who based his campaign on his “Nine Nine Nine” mantra which sounded more like a pitch for a pizza place than a political foundation. At least there’s no Michele Bachmann, whose glazed-over eyes looked like someone who was about to announce the departure schedule for the approaching Mothership.

Nope, this time the candidates are a group to be taken seriously.

Except… this time you have people like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a 2008 hopeful back for another crack at it… taking time away from his other job as spokesman for various quackery medications on the internet.

Except… you have Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and considered by many to be the worse leader of an American technology company in history. Notably, the company’s stock jumped when her forced resignation was announced, the news bringing in nearly three billion dollars in gains in a single day.

Except… you have Donald Trump, the current Republican frontrunner. It seems to me that the people who are excited about a Trump candidacy are the same people who think Sarah Palin is worthy of holding a national office. That pretty much tells us all we need to know about Trump.

I will be watching, and I encourage you to do the same. It’s better to be informed than clueless.

Come and see the show!

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on 8/6/15)

Republicans: prepare to hold your nose when you vote

Let's be clear: the GOP nominee for the 2016 presidential campaign will be

John Ellis Bush.

I know this because:

1. He's got the money.

2. He's got the establishment support.

3. He's got the connections.

And, most important...

4. He's (so far) not saying a lot of ridiculously crazy tin-foil hat stuff.

Sure, JEB has plenty of baggage... most of it because of the guy in the picture. BUT keep this in mind: Republicans chose his brother despite the poor performance of Poppy Bush, so why wouldn't they gloss over W's negatives and usher in yet another member of the family... along with the same group of inept advisors?

Republicans will throw their support behind JEB because the party has a habit of giving the nod to the next in line. That's why John McCain was given his chance in 2008 and Mitt Romney grabbed the Golden Ticket in 2012.

Of course, by that logic Rick Santorum should be next... since he came in second last time. But anyone with a pulse and a functioning frontal lobe knows that Santorum will come out of the general election on the losing end of a massive landslide... no matter the opponent. 

Nope, Bush is the guy... even though he wants to do things that hurt the non-rich on his own side.

Take this example from Face the Nation yesterday:

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about Social Security.

You recently said you favor raising the retirement age for Social Security. To what age?

BUSH: I think it needs to be phased in over an extended period of time. I have seen ideas that are 68, for example.

So people that already have the supplemental retirement system, which is a contract, I don't think we violate that. For people that are about ready to be beneficiaries of their supplemental retirement, I don't think we change that.

But we need to look over the horizon and begin to phase in over an extended period of time going from 65 to 68 or 70. And that by itself will help sustain the retirement system for anybody under the age of 40.

SCHIEFFER: What about means-testing?

BUSH: I think it ought to be considered, for sure.

SCHIEFFER: You do think so? 

BUSH: I do so, yes.

Got that? JEB wants to force you to postpone your Social Security benefits... the ones you paid into with every paycheck your entire life... rather than alienate his deep-pocketed friends who would feel a little pain from the obvious best solution... which is to eliminate the ceiling on earnings (currently $118.500.00) and make the tax applicable on every dollar earned.

Of course, the rich can easily get around that by not taking a paycheck and instead receiving dividend payments and stock options (see Steve Jobs).

But for the vast majority of potential JEB votes, his plan to "save" Social Security will be unwelcome news. 

Still, they'll hold their noses and fill in the oval beside his name anyway... because voting against their own best interests is what they've been trained to do.

Huckabee: kicking aside the law on Day One

You just can't take this guy seriously. As he was officially announcing his candidacy, presidential wannabe Mike Huckabee actually encouraged his fans to violate campaign contribution laws with million dollar donations.

Some will defend him, saying that he was only joking. But deciding who should be elected President of the United States is no laughing matter. If Huckabee is this naive to the law, perhaps he should quit politics for good and stick to promoting quack remedies.

(h/t The Washington Post)

Here's a look at the first Jeb Bush campaign ad...

We REALLY Don't Need No Edumacation

White House wannabe Jeb Bush, never a friend of public schools (see his record as Florida governor where he tried to slash teaching positions and drastically increase the number of students per classroom), recently had a few harsh things to say about America's schools... calling them "government-run, unionized monopolies."

Not surprising. As a way of doubling-down on his efforts in Florida, Bush is joining the ranks of the haters like Scott Walker and Rick Santorum in portraying America's schools in a bad light.

As Steve Benen writes:

We rarely hear this king of talk about other parts of the public sector. For example, Republicans don't usually run around chastising police departments or fire departments as "government-run, unionized monopolies." Conservatives do, however, direct this ire at public education.

Why would Bush and Company want to damage public schools and their teachers? Could it have anything to do with efforts to privatize education... turning over the instruction of our children to for-profit corporations?

That's my guess.

We Don't Need No Education... (updated)

Just a couple thoughts regarding the big stink some pundits are making about Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the fact that he never graduated college...

...a degree by itself is no measurement nor guarantee that the person is capable of good job performance...

...eleven U.S. Presidents never earned a college degree, including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln...

...one of the least-capable presidents of all time holds an MBA from an Ivy League school...

...Sarah Palin has a college degree...

So let's just call a halt to all this foolishness. There are many good reasons to keep Walker from gaining the Oval Office.... but the lack of a college degree is not one of them.

UPDATE: Scott Walker is picking the wrong fight.

Not long after I wrote this column, Gov. Walker appeared in an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly... and decided to take the Santorum Approach to the idea of a college education.  Prompted by Kelly's remark that Sec. Hillary Clinton has a degree from Yale, Walker chimed:

"I think there's a lot of Americans who have looked at some of the leaders we've had over the last few years who've come out of those Ivy League schools and said, 'Maybe it's time we got people who are in touch with people all across the rest of America'."

Granted, one of those recent leaders was Pres. George W. Bush (BA, Yale and MBA, Harvard). Still, Walker's need to criticize those who were successful in earning a post-secondary degree is a bad strategy. No one who aspires to be the Commander in Chief should try to get there by ridiculing the education accomplishments of others.

Then again, this is the same Gov. Walker who wants to make massive cuts to his state's education system. Perhaps his lack of a degree has caused some personal bitterness...?

Another Example of John McCain's Poor Judgment

Pictured above is former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The same Sarah Palin who continues to tell anyone who will listen that she is interested in running for president... who covers her Facebook page with all sorts of religious-themed posts... who wants you to believe that she is all about "family values"...

The same Sarah Palin who is praised by supposed Christian leaders like Franklin Graham...

That same Sarah Palin is shown here enthusiastically holding a sign with both a profane phrase AND a gun-flavored threat to filmmaker Michael Moore. (See the gunsight crosshairs?) And don't let anyone tell you she didn't notice what the sign says; that's her autograph in the lower left corner.

What a role model!

Yep, John McCain made a huge mistake in putting this fool on the ticket... giving this TV personality just enough exposure to get rich by saying and doing stupid stuff.

It's sad that Sen. McCain still refuses to admit that he was wrong to pick her as his running mate.

It's even sadder that there are a lot of people who faithfully follow her.

(H/T to Andrew Kirell, Editor of Mediaite, for finding this picture.)

The Absolute Hypocrisy of Mike Huckabee

Former Arkansas governor and perennial presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been making a lot of noise recently in his criticism of Beyoncé. Huckabee has attacked Beyoncé's music as "vulgar" and denouncing President and Mrs. Obama for allowing their daughters to listen to the pop star's songs.

Yet Huckabee counts as one of his favorite performers one Mr. Ted Nugent who is known for songs like "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang", "Yank Me, Crank Me (But Don't Wake Up and Thank Me)", and his biggest hit, "Cat Scratch Fever", a song that Nugent recently performed on Huckabee's Fox News program... with Huckabee playing bass guitar.

The song has two clear meanings: promiscuous teenage (and pre-teen) sex and contracting a sexually-transmitted disease as a result. Though Nugent has denied the latter, the phrase "cat scratch fever" was a commonly-used slang term for syphilis in the Seventies. The lyrics suggest that Nugent's denials are not truthful:

Well, the first time that I got it I was just ten years old

I got it from some kitty next door

An' I went to see the doctor and he gave me the cure

I think I got it some more

On The Daily Show (January 19th, 2015), Huckabee told Jon Stewart: "That song is an adult song, geared for adults." Really? Tell that to the hormone-loaded teenagers -- myself included -- who bought Nugent's albums in the Seventies. Tell that to the parents of those Seventies teenagers who were shocked to hear their innocent children singing along with:

Well, I make the pussy purr with the stroke of my hand

They know they gettin' it from me

They know just where to go when they need their lovin' man

They know I'm doin' it for free

Of course, his criticism of Beyoncé's music is a small part of Huckabee's schtick... but it's part of his central theme of separating this nation into two parts: Bubble-ville and Bubba-ville. He is very condescending when talking about people from urban areas and those with advanced education while portraying the rest as more wholesome and practical. He attacks one in order to celebrate the other. It's the same tactic used by other political extremists like Sarah Palin who suggest that some parts of this nation are the "real America", as if they are the only ones worthy.

This is the type of behavior that causes rifts and makes the division between two sides grow much wider. Huckabee is exploiting domestic xenophobia, the fear and hatred some Americans have of other Americans simply because of their differences.

Huckabee condemns Beyoncé's music as "mental poison"... but he excuses the blatant pornography of Ted Nugent because:

1. Nugent's music fans are overwhelmingly rural
2. Nugent's political views are shared by many of Huckabee's followers
3. Nugent and Huckabee are in agreement on gun issues.

Huckabee may have moral standards... but his willingness to disapprove of some while glorifying others is pure hypocrisy.

Whose 'values'?

Summer has come and gone. I know this because football is in full swing, baseball is nearing the World Series, leaves are changing color, and America has just experienced the annual Values Voter Summit.

Created in 2006 by a group of conservative Christian leaders looking to become more influential in American politics, the event brings together a couple thousand or so attendees who listen to assorted radio and TV talk show hosts, politicians, and other prominent social conservatives as they enthusiastically condemn anyone who doesn’t agree with their point of view. It’s Us versus Them, with no middle ground nor hope for compromise.

Of course, that pretty much describes every political event… from the smallest town hall to the huge conventions held every four years by the two main parties. The speakers are just telling the crowds what they want to hear, and those at the Values Voter Summit got quite an earful.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann declared that the US is engaged in “spiritual warfare” with the terrorist group ISIS, clearly suggesting that the fight against this extremist group is a battle between Christianity and Islam. You would think that Congresswoman Bachmann -- an appointed member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence -- would be aware that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan have all carried out air strikes against ISIS. Of course, that fact doesn’t fit Bachmann’s agenda, so her audience was led to believe that this is a religious conflict.

Senator Ted Cruz told the crowd that he’d like to “abolish the IRS”... which is an interesting concept. I wonder how the good senator expects this nation to operate without revenue?

And what would a gathering of this type be without Sarah Palin? The former Alaska governor got in plenty of jabs against President Obama and former Secretary of State -- and probable presidential candidate -- Hillary Clinton. Sadly, Palin seemed to have some difficulty reading from her teleprompters, especially when she flubbed her punch line about truth being “an endangered species at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue.” (I don’t remember everything I learned in grade school, but I do recall the White House is at 1600 Pennsylvania.) Perhaps someone should send Ms. Palin a map of Washington DC.

But those in attendance… and those who are fans of these and other Summit speakers like Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. Rick Santorum… are willing to overlook these discrepancies. All they want to hear is someone saying what they already believe. They want famous people to validate their own beliefs regardless of those pesky facts that keep getting in the way.

One would be tempted to think that the Values Voter Summit is merely a one-sided event designed to attack one party and favor another. On the face of it that would seem valid, since all of the politicians invited to speak are Republicans. The organizers would want us to think otherwise, that they transcend partisan politics, that they are willing to stand up in opposition regardless of affiliation. They would point out that two very prominent members of the party, Gov. Chris Christie and former Gov. Jeb Bush, were purposely not invited.

In response I would suggest that both Christie and Bush have established records of pragmatic bargaining, demonstrating a willingness to reach across the aisle in order to govern in a way that offers a piece of the pie to both sides. But the Values Voter Summit appears more interested in achieving purity within the ranks, and those who show even the slightest inkling of compromise are not worthy.

Imagine if a similar meeting were held but the only invited guests were from the far left of the political spectrum, packing the airwaves with truth-deprived attacks upon an administration that came from the other side. Same concept, but from the opposite perspective. Would the attendees and their leaders be hailed as true patriots or radical extremists?

Twisting the truth isn’t new in politics, of course, and it isn’t limited to one side. Ever since someone got the bright idea to hold elections, candidates and their supporters have done everything they can to toss aside logic and common sense. The ultimate prize is all that matters. Win at all costs, even if you have to lie to do it.

Sadly, while the concept isn’t new, it’s more obvious today. We have more opportunities to be persuaded and informed - 24-hour cable channels, talk radio, websites, etc - than ever before. It’s unfortunate that so many people take advantage of those resources to spread absolute falsehoods.

I’d love to be able to tell you that there’s a solution, that things will get better, that truth and honesty will prevail. Sorry, but I’m a realist. As long as even one politician wins a race by lying about his opponent or himself, that tactic will continue indefinitely.

What we’re left with, if we’re lucky, is the lesser of the evils. Sometimes we’re less lucky.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on October 2, 2014.)

Small government? For whose benefit?

We hear it every election cycle. There’s too much government involvement in our everyday lives. If only the government could be reduced in size and influence, all would be well with the world. Grover Norquist, the founder of American for Tax Reform, famously said of our federal government, “I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." (Why Mr. Norquist resorted to use such violent imagery in his rhetoric is unknown, other than to create a lasting impression.) Politicians and pundits make great pains to repeat the “small government” mantra in front of every camera and microphone they can find.


The message is clear: Conservatives stand for small government… and anyone who thinks otherwise is just trying to make you dependent. But have you ever taken a moment to consider the speaker’s intent? How does the message compare to the actions?


As examples of how they would reduce the size and scope of government, they push for lower tax rates and less regulations for corporations, often peppering their arguments with keywords like “job creators”. Getting government out of the way, they say, would provide a great cost-savings to these companies. In turn, they would be more willing to expand their operations, resulting in hiring more employees and bringing more prosperity to all.


These, they say, would be some of the benefits of smaller government. And this is why they continue to push the message. What’s good for those at the top is good for all, they say. On the surface, you could be persuaded if that were the end of the argument. I mean, who wouldn't want to see such happiness throughout our economy?


The reality? The Conservative movement -- at least those who make the most noise on the subject -- only want a small government when it comes to business. The noisemakers who beat the drums of small government are simultaneously seeking to expand government’s intrusion elsewhere. They want to expand or create restrictions on the everyday lives of individuals.


How could that be? If the goal is smaller government, wouldn't that mean more freedoms for each of us? Hardly.


Those same Conservatives want government to intervene in our most personal matters. They want to create a nationwide definition of marriage rather than allow each state to decide (which is ironic since another Conservative message is that the feds are trying to usurp powers that are best left to the states). In defiance of the First Amendment, they want government to prevent construction of some houses of worship while granting certain privileges to other faiths. They want to impose restrictions on what two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. And they want to make it harder for people to vote. How do the small government worshippers explain their desires to grow the size of our federal system to police these matters? In truth, they don’t. Instead they avoid the question and steer the conversation back to how they are dead certain that government just needs to get out of the way of large-scale business.


I can remember when it was considered right and proper for the government to keep us safe from the devastating effects of pollution from factories that dump filth into our waters and our air. It was a Republican president, after all, who established the Environmental Protection Agency. Today, the EPA is targeted for elimination by the small government crowd.


We all want to know that the food we eat is safe, free from contaminants and within common-sense freshness guidelines. But how can we be confident with our food and drink unless suppliers are subjected to regular inspections?


We expect our hard-earned money to be safe, so we need regulators to keep a watchful eye on the banks. We want to be confident that our cars aren't built with faulty parts, so rigorous standards are in place. We need to know that the products we buy are manufactured without dangerous parts and materials, so imported goods are carefully screened and domestic manufacturing is kept under a watchful eye. All these and more are the responsibility of a strong government that is big enough to handle these tasks.


In fact, knowing that we have government agencies acting upon these regulations gives us -- you and me -- power. We can stand up and demand safety and value, knowing that the government that we created and paid for has our backs. Take away the government’s strength and you remove whatever leverage the average American may hold. British writer George Monbiot has said, “Deregulation is a transfer of power from the trodden to the treading.” To put it another way: do away with government oversight and the little guy is left vulnerable and unprotected.


Face it. We are a nation of more than 314 million individuals. Without a strong central government, we’d be facing little more than anarchy. Sure, there is waste and inefficiency within our federal government. But doesn’t it make sense to fix what’s broken rather than simply throw it away?

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald, 7/3/14)