In pursuit of liberty and justice for all

Even with the progress our society has made in 221 years since the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, we are still far from achieving the lofty goals laid out in the Preamble, or reiterated in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (”government of the people, by the people and for the people”) or the Pledge of Allegiance (”liberty and justice for all”). Our government has been usurped by corporate lobbyists, and a number of other special interest groups, none of which are synonymous with “we the people.” I contend that the only way to achieve these goals is for power to rest with “all” rather than the select few. This is the essence of democracy, and it is why I am an advocate for a more democratic system of governance.

One of the arguments against democracy is that it can be inefficient. However, there is also an argument to be made that democracy can be more efficient than any other form of government in implementing policy and law. This is because when there is broader participation in making a decision, there is also greater acceptance of the decision that is eventually reached, making implementation of the law or policy more efficient and effective.

Another argument often leveled against democracy is that it can lead to tyranny by the majority; however, a truly democratic process involves all perspectives in any debate and ensures that no viewpoint is left out, thus making it less likely that any minority will be tyrannized by the result. In fact, it is a system such as our current two-party system with winner-take-all districts that leaves significant segments of the population out of virtually every decision and results in the marginalization of many minorities.

Of course, marginalization, especially when it becomes systematic, leads to social degradation, which hurts even those who benefit politically and/or economically from the inequalities of the system.
Thus, it is in everyone’s best long-term interest to pursue democracy and justice.

To that end, I suggest that we need to change the following undemocratic aspects of our constitution.

I. The Presidency

First and foremost, we must abolish the most undemocratic aspect of our political system. In the presidency, our constitution gives one single individual tremendous power, including the power to:

• veto legislation passed by both houses of Congress
• appoint all federal judges to any vacancies occurring during his term
• appoint and direct the heads of the various executive departments, as well as ambassadors
• be the chief commander of all national military forces
• issue Executive Orders

These are not the sum of all powers of the president, but they are sufficient to point out the tremendous power invested in one individual, who is not required to deliberate with anyone in reaching decisions on these matters. Indeed, there are checks on three of these, as Congress can override a veto, and the Senate must confirm appointments of judges and executive officers. However, empirical evidence shows us that presidential vetoes are only overridden 5% of the time. Worse, consider the case of Executive Orders.  If Congress were to attempt to supersede an executive order by passing a law, the president would have the power to veto that bill and force Congress to achieve a supermajority in both houses.  Obviously, the president has a stronger position in regard to legislation than does the legislative branch of government.  That is unacceptable in even a pseudo-democracy such as we have.  Furthermore, while the Senate may refuse to confirm an appointee, it has no power to direct the president’s next choice, and if they end their session without confirming an appointment, the president can make a “recess appointment” thereby temporarily sidestepping the need for Senate confirmation.   Thus, in all these cases, the power of the president far outweighs the power of Congress. And while there are problems with how we elect our Congress that make it less than ideally democratic, it is nevertheless a far more democratic body than the office of the president, held by a single individual. If one of these should have more power, it should be Congress.

In the place of the president, we should create some sort of executive council. Perhaps we might retain the term Cabinet for the interdepartmental federal executive council. Rather than a nationwide election in which the issues are subverted by personality and marketing, we should institute a more deliberative but representative process for selecting those who will serve in the top offices of the executive. Furthermore, rather than individuals serving as the chief officers of each department (Secretaries), I suggest that each department should have a small deliberative body of four or five individuals making executive decisions (Secretariats?). Each of these Secretariats should be chosen in a way that will allow for some degree of proportional representation of the American population in each department rather than the one-party executive we have today. One member of each Secretariat should serve on the Cabinet, and that responsibility should rotate among the members of each Secretariat every year, so that no individual will have too much influence on the federal executive. The Cabinet should be a body that will deliberate on behalf of the American people with continuity from one to the next, instead of being dominated by any individual or party with distinct “administrations” and often dramatic shifts in policy between them.

In terms of the selection process, I suggest some sort of random selection process of citizens that will guarantee that every political viewpoint, age group, gender and gender identity, race, sexual preference, and socioeconomic class will be represented proportionally. These citizens would then evaluate candidates for executive and judicial positions. I suggest that they be divided into three groups. The first and largest group would evaluate applications and resumes of candidates, and refer the best choices to the second group, who would nominate the requisite number of candidates for each position, and rank the others referred to them as alternates. Then the third group would evaluate those nominated by the second group, confirming or denying each, and considering alternates for each candidate denied in the order ranked by the second group.

II. The Federal Judiciary

Second, aside from the presidency, the least democratic aspect of our government is that our federal judges serve life terms. Of course, part of the problem with the federal judiciary is also that they are appointed by the president. If we adopted the changes above, this aspect would be less egregious, but I still agree with those constitutional scholars who advocate a single fixed term for federal judges.

One of the primary reasons for life terms for federal judges was to avoid their being dependent on the politics of the day for their positions. Changing the selection process so that they are not appointed by a single partisan individual (president) and confirmed by a political body (Senate) and instead using a system like that described above should also provide some insulation against the politicization of judges, but in any case, a single term of ten to eighteen years should be sufficient to ensure that judges are able to stay above the political fray, and by making the term non-renewable, it should remove any further temptation to succumb to political influence.

Additionally, the duties of the Supreme Court should be divided among several courts. We should have one court whose function is solely to determine the constitutionality of statutes. This Constitutional Court should have two tiers. There should be several regional courts to which a civil or criminal court can refer a case for consideration of constitutionality, and a superior court to which appeals from these regional courts could be made. However, these courts would make no decisions specifically about the outcome of the original case. After the Constitutional Courts had reached their decision, the case would be returned to the original civil or criminal court.

We should also divide the Supreme Court into civil and criminal branches, and each branch should have three coequal courts, each having jurisdiction over three of the circuit courts of appeals. This should allow many more cases to be heard at the highest level, and remove some of what I believe are political reasons for not hearing cases.

III. The Legislative Branch

Undoubtedly, the legislative branch is the most democratic of the three branches of our federal government, yet there are still many problems with it that separate the government from the people. Democracy is citizen self-government, and that goal will only be realized when the citizens and the government are in essence synonymous. The legislative branch is the most likely place to make this a reality.

In order to set out a better design without completely starting over, we need to look at what is wrong with our current system. One is the incredibly disproportionate Senate. Seven cities in the U.S. have over a million residents, and seven states have fewer than a million. Three of those cities are in Texas, and two are in California. Those three largest cities in Texas combined — Houston, San Antonio and Dallas — have a larger population than the six smallest states combined. The two largest cities in California (LA and San Diego) have more people than all seven of the smallest states combined. Nevertheless, Texas gets two senators, and California gets two senators, and so do Wyoming, Vermont, North and South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware and Montana.

Since no legislation can be passed without going through both the House and the Senate, thus giving each house a “veto” over the other one, this gives these small states, and to some extent, their residents, an inordinate amount of power on the national stage. Of course, it is not as egregious as the presidential veto, but it is a problem that should be addressed.

A related problem is that it would seem on the surface that we can do little about this problem, due to the final clause of Article Five of the constitution: “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” However, we do have some options. There are also other problems related to Article V, including the requirement that amendments be passed by 3/4 of the states. While it is understandable that we would not want 26 states to be able to ratify an amendment to which the other 24 states have principled objections, neither does it seem just that 13 states can prevent the other 37 from fixing what they see as a problem in the constitution. I will address my ideas for remedies to such problems later, or perhaps in a separate post, but the important point now is that these point out that we do not, and can not have equal justice for all Americans with these problems in our constitution.

Another problem with the legislative branch is the way we choose our legislators. That is, our voting systems are not the best ones to insure that the people are best represented in Congress. We have a system in which every state with more than one representative in the House of Representatives uses an individual congressional district for each seat, and each district then can choose only one person to represent all the people who dwell there. It should not be hard to imagine then, especially given that each of our congressional districts has over half a million residents, that one person cannot truly represent all of the people in such a district. While there may be no perfectly representative system, since our constitution was written, several other nations have implemented systems of proportional representation, and have shown such systems to be a better way of representing a broader cross-section of a population.

Some might argue that this problem does not stem from the constitution and therefore does not require a constitutional amendment to fix. We could indeed pass a proportional representation statute that would not violate the existing constitution, but the Preamble sets out the purpose of the constitution as “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Defining the means of selecting representatives to ensure that we provide ourselves the best method of representation possible would seem an important step to most of these ends, while failing to do so has allowed us to continue using an inferior system, even when proportional systems have been in use in many countries for nearly a century.

There are several issues that we must confront with regard to the conduct of elections.  Paper ballots vs. electronic/computerized voting, full public financing, and free and equal media ads are among the most important issues we must face in regard to how we elect officials.   However, I think we can eliminate these issues entirely by changing the way we elect public officials entirely.  By moving to a system wherein we begin our legislative process at the local level in community assemblies of no more than 200 people, and proportionally elect delegates to wider and wider-area assemblies until we select our city, county, district, state and federal representatives through these assemblies.   Using this system, there will be no protracted campaigns.  Elections will be among the members of an assembly based on the proceedings of that assembly, not on advertising or other methods requiring any funds.  In an assembly of 200 or fewer people, the votes will be easy to recount and verify.

One issue that we should address immediately, and which should remain in place even if we move to a system of graduated assemblies is term limits.  Democracy begs that as many of us as possible be afforded the opportunity to participate in some aspect of our government and that we eliminate career politicians.  Therefore, no person should serve more than one consecutive term in any office, and should serve no more than four years in any ten year period.

Conclusion

With so many changes to our constitution needed, and very little chance that career politicians will voluntarily take these steps to bring about a participatory democracy that will eliminate their jobs, we the people will need to bring these changes about by some means not expressly laid out in our current constitution.

I suggest that we should build a national transpartisan organization, a citizens’ union, similar in many ways to a trade union, but open to all Americans regardless of employment status, and negotiating not with employers but with our governmental officials.  When we have built a substantial organization, then we will have the ability to elect new officials to replace those who do not support the democracy we seek with others who will support the constitutional amendments we hope to achieve.  Failing that, we can create the local and graduated assemblies of a future democracy and use those to propose constitutional amendments and pass them on to the national level, and then to call state conventions to ratify them.

Starting Over

Well, my campaign for Congress is now over because the Green party was not able to gather enough petition signatures to achieve ballot access in Texas.  During the campaign, I had neglected this blog to focus on creating and maintaining a campaign website (which was also a WordPress blog).  It is now time for me to return to this one.  I have moved the old position pages into an archive, and will write new pages and posts here to express my current views on where we should be going, and how we might get there.

Amendment Proposal - 4th revision - Executive Branch

 

I have tried to explain my rationale for the abolition of the presidency to a variety of folks on different blogs, but have been met with nearly unanimous opposition to the idea. Apparently, this idea is too radical for even most Americans who are trying to reform the system. Therefore, instead of that concept, I will offer some less radical suggestions on amending Article II of our Constitution. I hope this will meet with more open-minded consideration.

Below I have copied the original text of Article II of the Constitution (italicized) and will add my comments and amendment ideas in bold.

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in several Executive Departments, coordinated by a Cabinet, whose presiding officer shall be the President of the United States of America. The various chief officials of the executive branch shall hold office during the term of four years, and be elected or appointed as follows:

The President and a Vice President shall be elected separately in a national election, according to the principles of instant runoff voting.

The various departments of the executive shall be administered by a Secretary, a Deputy Secretary and an Undersecretary. The President, the Vice President, the Senate President Pro Tempore, and the Senate Minority Leader shall each nominate not less than one nor more than two candidates for each of these offices. Between the fifth and ninth days after the inauguration of the President and Vice President, the candidates shall be interviewed by the Committee of the House of Representatives responsible for oversight of the relevant executive department. The House Committees shall narrow each field to three candidates, and nominate these to the relevant Senate Committees. The Senate Committees shall nominate a single candidate from these for each position, and submit them to a confirmation vote of the entire Senate.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office or any of the chief executive offices described in this article who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

In the case of removal, resignation, death or other inability to carry out the duties of office of any other chief officer of the executive branch, Secretaries shall be replaced by Deputy Secretaries, who shall be replaced by Undersecretaries, and each department shall designate at least five other positions in that department in specific order to succeed these officers, and upon approval by the relevant House and Senate Committees, these orders of succession shall become law.

These officers of the executive shall, at stated times, receive for their services, compensation which shall neither be increased nor diminished during their term, and shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before entering on the execution of office, they shall each take the following oath or affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of [title of office], and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section 2.

A. The Military

Whenever there exists no declaration of war by Congress, the command of the military shall be by a Defense Command Committee consisting of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Undersecretary of the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President, Vice President, and chairs and ranking minority members of the Armed Forces Committees of both the House and Senate. In deliberations of this Committee, the Secretary of Defense shall have two votes, and the President shall have three.

Upon declaration of war by Congress, or upon invasion by a foreign power, it may designate one member of this Committee to be Commander-In-Chief. Until such appointment is made, the President shall serve as Commander-In-Chief. At any time during such war, the Congress may appoint any other member of this Committee to replace the Commander-In-Chief.

Unless there is a declaration of war, the military shall remain primarily a reserve force, with only enough regular full-time personnel to maintain a defense of the national borders, airspace, and territorial waters against foreign invasion.

B. Executive Departments

Operation of the executive departments shall be by joint decisions of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Undersecretary of each. In these deliberations, the Secretary shall have two votes, and in case of a tie, the President shall cast the deciding vote.

All decisions that involve the coordination or cooperation of more than one of the executive departments shall be made by the Cabinet. The Cabinet shall consist of the President, Vice President and the Secretaries of the various executive departments. In sessions of the Cabinet, the President shall preside and shall cast two votes.

The Cabinet may exercise authority over the operations of a department only by a 3/4 vote.

C. Pardons and Reprieves

The President, the Attorney General, and the Party Leaders in each House of Congress of all Parties represented in each House, shall have the power to appoint one member each to the Federal Board of Pardons and Paroles, which shall be the sole authority to grant pardons and reprieves in matters of federal law.

D. Treaties

The Secretary of the Department of State shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Foreign Affairs Committees of both the House and the Senate, to make treaties.

Repeal or withdrawal from treaties and other international agreements may be recommended by the President, the Secretary of State, the State Department, or the Cabinet, but must be approved by both houses of Congress.

E. Other Appointments

The President, Vice President, President Pro Tempore and Senate Minority Leader shall each nominate not more than two persons to be considered to be Ambassadors, Consuls, Federal Judges, and other officers of the federal government. The relevant House Committee shall choose three of these to be interviewed by the relevant Senate Committee, which shall designate one person for each position, who upon approval by the entire Senate shall assume that position.

The Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

If any appointed office shall become vacant during a recess of Congress, the President may grant a commission which shall expire upon the 15th day after Congress reconvenes.

Section 3. Removal

These executive officers, or any other elected or appointed member of the federal government, may be removed from office upon impeachment for violations of the duties of office, failure to uphold the oath of office, treason, bribery, or other crimes against the Constitution, the nation, or the people. Such impeachment may be brought by a majority vote of either House, relevant oversight committee of either the House or the Senate, majorities in 2/3 of the states’ legislatures, petitions of 10% of the voters (measured by the most recent presidential election) in 2/3 of the states, a 2/3 vote of the Cabinet, or by a recommendation of removal by the President. Conviction and removal from office shall occur upon a 60% vote of the House and the Senate.

Section 4. There shall be no executive privilege. Neither the President nor any other officer of the federal executive shall be privileged or immune against investigation by Congress or the courts.

Section 5. Veto Power

Upon passage of both houses of Congress, a bill shall be presented to the President who shall have power to sign the bill into law, fail to sign it, upon which it shall become law after 30 days, or recommend a veto, either for constitutional or other reasons.

If the President believes the law that would result from the bill would be unconstitutional, the bill will be presented to the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court in this case shall consider only whether or not it would be unconstitutional. If it does not find the law would be unconstitutional, it shall immediately become law.

If the President’s recommendation for veto is for any other reason, the bill shall be presented to the Cabinet. A 2/3 vote of the Cabinet shall be necessary to uphold the veto. In any such vote, the President shall be recused from the deliberation of the Cabinet.

Any bill passed by 2/3 of both houses is only subject to the constitutional veto.

Section 6. Executive Orders

The President shall have no power to create law by Executive Order. The Cabinet may create temporary law by Executive Order by a 2/3 vote. Within 90 days of any such Executive Order issued by the Cabinet, it shall be entered into both houses of Congress as a bill. If Congress does not pass the bill, the law shall be expired. No Executive Order of the Cabinet may counter or circumvent any law passed by Congress.

Section 7. Open Government

All proceedings of Congress, all committees and subcommittees thereof, the Cabinet, and the executive officers of each department shall be available to any registered voter at any public library.

A question about the filibuster

So, the Democrats assumed the majority in both Houses this year, apparently at least in part due to changing public opinion about the conflict in Iraq.  Yet Congress has not been able to get any substantive measure passed to reduce troop levels or end the conflict, even force a veto, much less actually change our course there.  One of the reasons for this has been the Republican filibuster in the Senate.   Most recently, they apparently stopped the Webb-Hagel Amendment that would have forced the military to give active duty military equal time at home to recover following any tour of duty in Iraq, and reservists and National Guard members two or three years at home for each year served in active duty.  Some of you may know the specifics of the matter better than I do, and I will not be offended if you want to help clarify the issue in comments. However, what I really want to talk about is the nature of the filibuster itself.

I guess I’m naive, and don’t watch enough CSPAN, but it seems to me that the filibuster is a measure that prevents cloture, which is to say, that it prevents ending debate on the issue at hand.  It does not kill debate, or kill the issue, but rather extends debate…right? So, why then does the Republican filibuster against the Webb-Hagel Amendment indicate that the amendment has been “defeated,” as has been reported so often already? Instead of defeating it, it seems to me that the filibuster should indicate that either the amendment should still be being debated, or some other measure, such as tabling, or referring to committee, should be required before the Senate can move on to another topic. Have they done something along these lines?

While it makes some sense that a large minority should be able to keep something from moving forward to a final vote prematurely, and that is a legitimate use of the filibuster, but it should not be able to kill anything, unless it is continued long enough to get either more people to vote for cloture, or more people to vote against the measure. However, if something has at least 50% support, but less than 60%, then it should stay on the floor until it is resolved in some way.

So, if there is somebody reading this who understands, and can explain to me, how simply failing to get 60% on one single vote constitutes a filibuster and somehow kills a measure that has majority support, I would really appreciate it.

Does pot lead to psychosis?

I just read an article suggesting that marijuana may lead to psychosis.  Of course, it was peppered with statements such as “researchers said they couldn’t prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis.”  It also tells us that the increased risk is 40%, but later tells us that the risk factor for most people is 0.5%, which means the risk for pot users, if this research actually could show a direct causal relationship with a 40% increase in risk, that risk would be 0.7%.  In “heavy users” the increased risk was 50-200% (which means an actual risk factor of 0.75-1.0%).  While I haven’t taken many statistics courses, I do feel there is reason to wonder what the margin for error is.  Feel free to let me know in a comment if this question doesn’t pertain to this case for some reason.  The article then says, “Scientists cannot rule out that pre-existing conditions could have led to both marijuana use and later psychoses,” but a few sentences later says,”Some experts say governments should now work to dispel the misconception that marijuana is a benign drug.”  If anything, while this research may suggest that there is cause for further research, it does not prove anything, and is not sufficient evidence to drive any harsher anti-marijuana laws (as if they weren’t harsh enough), although the article suggests that in the UK, it just might do that.

Damning the results of this research even more is the closing paragraph of disclaimers:

“Two of the authors of the study were invited experts on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Cannabis Review in 2005. Several authors reported being paid to attend drug company-sponsored meetings related to marijuana, and one received consulting fees from companies that make antipsychotic medications.”

So, while the AP article tries to maintain support for the interpretation of the results of the research that suggests that marijuana use does increase the risk of psychosis, the reality is that it just seems to be yet another attempt by the drug companies and others to cause fear and maintain support for unjustifiable policies.

The so-called “War on Terrorism”

The whole idea that terrorism can be “defeated” by waging a military campaign is asinine, and has been from the start. There are social, cultural, political, and economic reasons that people turn to such drastic tactics to achieve their goals, and bombing innocent civilians, imposing a police state, torture, indefinite detention, etc. are not going to do anything to fix those reasons. The war on terrorism is just going to create more terrorists. That should be fairly simple to figure out, but of course, the Bush administration, and possibly the subsequent administration, whether Republican or Democrat, is hoping we aren’t smart enough to see that. Unfortunately, too many Americans for far too long bought into their lies, and even now a significant enough portion of the population, including many members of Congress, either still believes it, or pretends to for political reasons.

However, the only way we are ever going to “win” a “war on terrorism” is to first ask what are the real causes of terrorism, and to honestly search for the real answers. Only then will we realize that it is not a military task and that using the military only takes us farther from that goal. However, if anything positive has come out of our military adventures in this so-called war on terrorism, it is that Jon Powers spent enough time in Iraq to realize the truth. “[M]oved by his experience at war and driven to action, Jon sought to help those in Iraq whose voices are least heard - Iraqi children, many of whom have known only war their entire young lives. Jon returned to Baghdad and founded War Kids Relief, a nonprofit organization aimed at assisting the youth of Iraq, providing them the resources and education needed to avoid recruitment by radical and terrorist organizations.” (from a letter from Jon Soltz)

Apparently, now Powers is planning to run for Congress. If you live in Tom Reynolds’ district in the Buffalo, NY area, please consider voting for Jon Powers in ‘08. If you have some money to donate, consider donating to War Kids Relief or his campaign. If you’d like to check out his blog, go here.

Impeach, Convict & Prosecute

I don’t know how many of you have the time or inclination (or a flat-rate long distance plan), but if you would like to join me, this is the action I am taking today:

I am calling the Democratic members (and Ron Paul) of two subcommittees (which appear from their names at least to be a bit redundant):

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs‘ Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight

and

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on National Security & Foreign Affairs

Anyway, I’m calling them to insist that their duty of oversight with regard to foreign affairs includes a responsibility to censure or otherwise punish the President for violation of Public Law 107-243 (which was popularly known as The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq), which authorized the President to use military force in Iraq pursuant to two specific provisions:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

Undoubtedly, any threat to the US which was ever purported to exist from Iraq was removed when Saddam Hussein and his government were removed from power, and it has now become a matter of public record (and some of us knew long before the invasion ) that Iraq never posed a military threat to the United States. Furthermore, the UN Security Council resolutions of which the previous government of Iraq was held to be in violation all pertained to that previous government, and not the current government, which was established by elections and assembled over a year ago. Also, even before that government was seated, the government which was held to be in violation ceased to exist four years ago.

THEREFORE: The President of the United States, having kept an offensive military force in Iraq well beyond the existence of these conditions, and indeed well beyond a reasonable amount of time after the expiration of these conditions to have removed the offensive military forces, is in violation of US law, and should be punished appropriately, through censure, impeachment, or some other legal proceeding before Congress.

Below is a spreadsheet with the names and phone numbers of the Congress members I am calling. Please join me if you can.

Peace

1	House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Iran

It hasn’t been in the news much in the last few days, but it is still out there.  Our current sad excuse for a president, and many candidates vying for the position for the 2008 race, from both of the “major” parties ,have made statements indicating that attacking Iran could be an option as a means of preventing that nation from getting nuclear weapons.  Even saying such things at this stage is premature and irresponsible, especially when nobody has made any serious or creative efforts at alternative strategies.  So, here’s my idea.

Let’s begin by trying to imagine the cost, strictly in financial terms, of such an attack.  While some of the talk has been of “strategic strikes,” anyone capable of rational thought should realize that it cannot end there.  While the ultimate strategy may fall far short of the efforts in Iraq, it would still cost many billions of dollars.  How many? I don’t know.

Now, let’s try to predict the cost of fitting every house of sufficient construction in Iran with a photovoltaic solar roof.  Probably very expensive… probably in the billions.

Iran’s government claims that it wants nuclear energy only for “peaceful” purposes.  However, even “peaceful” nuclear energy creates nuclear waste and other environmental damage, and is more harmful to the people than going without power.  Solar power, on the other hand, is renewable and causes no noticeable adverse environmental hazards. Having a solar roof usually will entirely take care of a household’s energy needs (even here in America, and we are one of the most energy wasteful societies on the planet), and puts surplus energy back into the grid.  Having every household in Iran outfitted with such a roof would probably handle all of the country’s domestic energy needs, and would certainly obviate any need for nuclear energy.

If the Iranian government should turn down such an offer, it would make their intentions plain, and give the world community a new place from which to negotiate.

While we’re at it, why not outfit all the houses in the US as well?  We could all drive electric cars, and save billions every year in energy consumption, and break our dependence on foreign oil.

Drug War

Without going into why drugs, especially marijuana, should be decriminalized and regulated more like other drugs such as pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and alcohol, I am concerned at the moment with a practical solution to the issue of drug crops in other countries.  While our government, through several administrations, has simply tried to create ever more restrictive policies at home, and ever more militaristic ones abroad, we have never tried, as far as I know, a truly practical and simple approach to the issue. Whether we are talking about poppies in Afghanistan, coca in Colombia and its neighbors, or marijuana in any of the various places it is grown, our government could simply use the money that would otherwise be allocated for its militaristic tactics that do not work, and re-routing those funds into purchasing those crops, guaranteeing farmers that they would sell all their crops, albeit perhaps at a negotiated price. This could take off the streets nearly all the crops that are currently going into the black market, becoming a social and legal problem not only in the US but all over the world, and funding gangs and other criminals.

The government could then sell whatever portions of the crops to pharmaceutical companies, as dictated by the market, using the profits from these sales to pay down debts, enhance public services and/or reduce taxes. Furthermore, the reduction of the legal problems associated with these drugs would save even more money.

To prevent this policy from creating a greater demand for these crops in the market, it would also seem beneficial to research other crops that could be grown in the areas where these drug crops are currently cultivated, and offering farmers an equivalent or higher rate of return for these crops, even if it is not consistent with current “market prices” for these alternative crops.  Also, farmers in other parts of the world who might already be growing these alternative crops would also need to be paid the “new market” prices for their crops. To prevent the entire financial burden of this policy from falling entirely on the United States, many other national governments who would benefit from it in comparable fashion could be brought in as partners. These “alternative” crops could then be sold back to the private sector, at cost in the case of crops whose prices have been artificially inflated, and at market value for any crops which have been bought at or under market value.

What’s wrong with amnesty?

What’s wrong with amnesty? The right-wing anti-immigrant lobby keeps harping on “amnesty” as if the worst possible thing that we as a nation could do would be to offer amnesty to the immigrants who are already here living and working. While I am trying my best to look at this issue from the perspective of one who believes that nation-states are legitimate entities, and that national borders should be respected, even then it seems to me that the most effective solution to the “problem” is an amnesty program.

An amnesty program would allow those who have immigrated here for reasons that are otherwise legitimate to come forward and be documented. This would leave only a small fraction of immigrants who would still have reason to remain undocumented. This would have several beneficial effects: greatly diminishing the “black market” for labor, which diminishes pay and safety standards for American workers, as well as simply removing some jobs from the legitimate job pool; reducing the number of job opportunities available to those who would remain undocumented; and easing the burden on immigration law officers, who would now have fewer people to find, and fewer employers to investigate for violations. This last advantage would also result in the lack of any need to hire thousands more staff, which would save us money.

The simple fact that we have so many undocumented workers living and working in this country is testament to the fact that we have a large black market of jobs available to those without documentation. This black market not offers work and income to undocumented immigrants, but also potentially to Americans and others who may be running from criminal prosecution. Furthermore, because undocumented workers will work for less, and are less likely to complain or bargain about issues like job safety standards, this black market for jobs often cuts these corners. Furthermore, by creating a larger supply of workers, and diminishing the potential supply of legitimate jobs, this also reduces pay and other standards in legitimate jobs, which of course hurts American workers.

However, simply offering amnesty to those who are currently here will not solve the ongoing problem. We must ask ourselves some tough questions that rarely, if ever, are asked in the media or in popular discussions. First, why has this become more of a problem in the recent past? Second, why do so many immigrants choose to enter the country illegally rather than going through the legal channels?

While I do not have readily available statistics, I believe it could be shown that immigration numbers began to increase dramatically after the passage of NAFTA.  This policy allowed American agri-business, living off of government subsidies, which had already displaced most domestic family and other small farms, to move into Mexico and undersell the smaller farms there, which sent farm laborers, especially in the south, into the urban areas looking for work.  Since these laborers would work so cheap, they displaced a significant portion of the southern urban labor force, which pushed them to northern Mexico seeking better wages, which in turn displaced workers there, and sent them into the US to find better wages.

Therefore, part of the solution to our immigration increase is to reverse the effects of NAFTA. I think it should be obvious that the first step in this would be to repeal NAFTA itself.  Then, we need to further counter the effects it has had by enacting in its place a Fair Trade Agreement that will benefit small farmers and small businesses, and thus strengthen the labor market there, making the risks and rewards of illegal immigration less attractive by comparison.
Regarding the question of why so many people choose to immigrate illegally rather than pursuing legal routes for immigration, I do not know the reasons, but I can speculate that at least part of the reason is that we may place limitations on who can enter based on criteria such as professional skills or financial wherewithal, and/or we may limit the number of immigrants per year to an unrealistic number.  My guess is that both of these are factors to some degree, but there may be other reasons as well. However, I would also bet that the vast majority of immigrants would have nothing to hide, and no reason to enter without providing ample documentation if our policy was a more inviting one.  While I realize that there is concern about too many immigrants coming in, and the effects of immigration on the job market for American, it is apparent that undocumented immigrants have a more adverse effect on jobs and other socio-economic factors than any number of legally documented immigrants would.  For many of the same reasons mentioned above for offering amnesty to those who have already immigrated here, having more of an “open border policy” would greatly increase the likelihood that new immigrants would be documented, and would compete in a fairer job market with less adverse effect on wages and working conditions for American workers.

Just like the black market for drugs, policies that create a black market for labor, such as restrictive immigration policies, inevitably lead to more (and worse) problems than they solve.