Posts Tagged ‘JOHN BOEHNER’
ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, BARACK OBAMA, BASHIR AL-ASSAD, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE, HUMAN RIGHTS, JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN MCCAIN, NBC NEWS, RUSSIA, SYRIA, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 16, 2016 at 12:19 am
On September 11, 2013, the New York Times published an Op-Ed (guest editorial) from Russian President Vladimir Putin, entitled: “A Plea for Caution from Russia: What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria.”
No one should be surprised that Putin came out strongly against an American air strike on Syria.
Its “President” (i.e., dictator) Bashir al-Assad, is, after all, a close ally of Russia. Just as his late father and dictator, Hafez al-Assad, was a close ally of the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991.
Putin, of course, is a former member of the KGB, the infamous secret police which (under various other names) ruled the Soviet Union from its birth in 1917 to its collapse in 1991.
He grew up under a Communist dictatorship and clearly wishes to return to that era, saying publicly: “First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
So it would be unrealistic to expect him to view the current “Syria crisis” the same way that President Barack Obama does.
(A “crisis” for politicians and news media is any event they believe can be exploited for their own purposes.
(In the case of media like CNN–which has devoted enormous coverage to the use of poison gas in Syria–the motive is higher ratings. “If it bleeds, it leads,” goes the saying in the news business.
(In the case of politicians–like Obama and Putin–the motive is to further their own status. And thus power.
(Few politicians really care about the “human rights” of other nations–unless promoting this issue can empower themselves and/or their own nations.
(President Ronald Reagan, for example, often wailed about the Soviets’ oppression of the Polish union, Solidarity–while firing hundreds of unionized air traffic controllers who went on strike.)
In his September 11 guest editorial in the New York Times, Putin offered the expected Russian take on Syria:
- Yes, poison gas was used in Syria.
- No, it wasn’t used by the Syrian Army.
- It was used by “opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons.”
- “There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough [al] Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government.”
But it’s the concluding paragraph that has enraged American politicians the most–especially right-wing ones. In it, Putin takes exception with American “exceptionalism.”
Vladimir Putin
Referring to President Obama, Putin wrote:
“And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is ‘what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.’
“It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.
“There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too.
“We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
Putin has never publicly shown any interest in religion. But by invoking “the Lord,” he was able to turn the Christian beliefs of his Western audience into a useful weapon.
“I was insulted,” then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters when asked for his blunt reaction to the editorial.
“I have to be honest with you, I was at dinner, and I almost wanted to vomit,” said U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey).
Putin had dared to question the self-righteousness of American foreign policy–and those who make it.
Making his case for war with Syria, Obama had said: “America is not the world’s policeman….
“But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.
“That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.”
President Barack Obama
In short: Because we consider ourselves “exceptional,” we have the divine right to do whatever we want.
It’s not necessary to see Putin as a champion of democracy (he isn’t) to see the truth in this part of his editorial: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.”
From 1938 to 1969, the House Un-American Activities Committee sought to define what was “American” and what was “Un-American.” As if “American” stood for all things virtuous.
Whoever heard of an “Un-French Activities Committee”? Or an “Un-German” or “Un-British” one?
The late S.I. Hayakawa once made an obersation that clearly applies to this situation.
Hayakawa was a professor of semantics (the study of meaning, focusing on the relation between words and what they stand for).
In his bestselling book, Language in Thought and Action, he observed that when a person hears a message, he has four ways of responding to it:
- Accept the speaker and his message.
- Accept the speaker but reject the message.
- Accept the message but reject the speaker.
- Reject the message and the speaker.
Americans might want to consider #3 in the recent case of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, ERIC HOLDER, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JOHN BOEHNER, JON STEWART, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, REPUBLICANS, RICHARD WOLFFE, TED CRUZ, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY SHOW, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA PATRIOT ACT
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 22, 2016 at 12:05 am
The ancient Greeks believed: “A man’s character is his fate.” It is Barack Obama’s character–and America’s fate–that he is more inclined to conciliation than confrontation.
Richard Wolffe chronicled Obama’s winning of the White House in his book Renegade: The Making of a President. He noted that Obama was always more comfortable when responding to Republican attacks on his character than he was in making attacks of his own.
Rule #4: Be Open to Compromise–Not Capitulation
Obama came into office determined to find common ground with Republicans. But they quickly made it clear to him that they only wanted his political destruction.
President Barack Obama
At that point, he should have put aside his hopes for a “Kumbaya moment” and applied what Niccolo Machiavelli famously said in The Prince on the matter of love versus fear:
From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved than feared, or feared more than loved. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved.
For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger and covetous of gain.
As long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours: they offer you their blood, their goods, their life and their children, when the necessity is remote. But when it approaches, they revolt….
And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligations which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Niccolo Machiavelli
By refusing to vigorously prosecute acts of Republican extortion, President Obama has encouraged Republicans to intensify their aggression against him.
Their most recent act: Refusing to meet with federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland. Obama’s designated nominee to the Supreme Court after the February 13 death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Kentucky United States Senator Mitch McConnell has flatly stated: There will be no Supreme Court hearing–not during regular business or a post-election lame-duck session.
Had Obama proceeded with indictments against Republican extortion in 2011 or 2013, McConnell–who supported the extortion attempts of those years–would now be desperately meeting with his lawyers.
Rule #5: First Satisfy Your Citizens, Then Help Them
Obama started off well. Americans had high expectations of him.
This was partly due to his being the first black elected President. And it was partly due to the legacies of needless war and financial catastrophe left by his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Obama entered office intending to reform the American healthcare system, to make medical care available to all citizens, and not just the richest.
But that was not what the vast majority of Americans wanted him to concentrate his energies on. With the loss of 2.6 million jobs in 2008, Americans wanted Obama to find new ways to create jobs.
This was especially true for the 11.1 million unemployed, or those employed only part-time.
Jonathan Alter, who writes sympathetically about the President in The Center Holds: Obama and His Enemies, candidly states this.
But Obama chose to spend most of his first two years as President pushing the Affordable Care Act (ACA)–which soon became known as Obamacare–through Congress.
The results were threefold:
First, those desperately seeking employment felt the President didn’t care about them.
Second, the reform effort became a lightning rod for conservative groups like the Tea Party.
And, third, in 2010, a massive Right-wing turnout cost Democrats the House of Representatives and threatened Democratic control of the Senate.
Rule #6: Be Careful What You Promise
Throughout his campaign to win support for the ACA, Obama had repeatedly promised that, under it: “If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”
But, hidden in the 906 pages of the law, was a fatal catch for the President’s own credibility.
The law stated that those who already had medical insurance could keep their plans--so long as those plans met the requirements of the new healthcare law.
If their plans didn’t meet those requirements, they would have to obtain new coverage that did.
It soon turned out that a great many Americans wanted to keep their current plan–even if it did not provide the fullest possible coverage.
Suddenly, the President found himself facing a PR nightmare: Charged and ridiculed as a liar.
Even Jon Stewart, who on “The Daily Show” had supported the implementation of “Obamacare,” sarcastically ran footage of Obama’s “you can keep your doctor” promise.
Jon Stewart
The implication: You said we could keep our plan/doctor; since we can’t, you must be a liar.
As a result, the President found his reputation for integrity–long his greatest asset–tarnished.
All of which takes us to yet another warning offered by Machiavelli: Whence it may be seen that hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil….
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, ERIC HOLDER, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JOHN BOEHNER, JON STEWART, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, REPUBLICANS, RICHARD WOLFFE, TED CRUZ, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY SHOW, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA PATRIOT ACT
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 21, 2016 at 12:07 am
If Hillary Clinton succeeds Barack Obama as President, can gain much by learning from his mistakes.
In 2011, Obama could have ended Republican extortion by invoking the law–that of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and/or the USA Patriot Act.
Or he could have faced down Republican extortionists by urging his fellow Americans to rally to him in a moment of supreme national danger.
Rule #2: Rally Your Citizens Against a Dangerous Enemy
President John F. Kennedy did just that–successfully–during the most dangerous crisis of his administration.
Addressing the Nation on October 22, 1962, Kennedy shocked his fellow citizens by revealing that the Soviet Union had installed offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba.
John F. Kennedy
After outlining a series of steps he had taken to end the crisis, Kennedy sought to reassure and inspire his audience. His words are worth remembering today:
“The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are, but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world.
“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.”
President Obama could have sent that same message to the extortionists of the Republican Party.
Yet this was another option he failed to exploit. And he and the Nation have continued to pay the price for it.
Rule #3: Timidity Toward Aggressors Only Leads to More Aggression
In September, 2013, Republicans once again threatened to shut down the Federal Government unless the President agreed to defund the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as “Obamacare.
They were enraged that millions of uninsured Americans might receive medical care on a par with that given members of the House and Senate.
So on September 20, the House voted on a short-term government funding bill that included a provision to defund Obamacare.
Obama and Senate Democrats rejected that provision. If the House and Senate couldn’t reach a compromise, many functions of the federal government would be shut down indefinitely on October 1.
According to Republicans: They wanted to save the country from bankruptcy–although the Congressional Budget Office stated that the ACA would lower future deficits and Medicare spending.
After passing the House and Senate, the ACA had been signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010.
On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court–whose Chief Justice, John Roberts, is a Republican–had upheld the constitutionality of the ACA.
Yet House Republicans still sought a way to stop the law from taking effect. By September, 2013, they had voted 42 times to repeal “Obamacare.”
But their efforts had failed; the Democratic-led Senate made it clear it would never go along with such legislation.
Finally, unable to legally overturn the Act or to legislatively repeal it, House Republicans fell back on something much simpler: Threats and fear.
Threats–of voting to shut down salaries paid to most Federal employees. Most, because they themselves would continue to draw hefty salaries while denying them to FBI agents, air traffic controllers and members of the military, among others.
And fear–that would be generated throughout the Federal government, the United States and America’s international allies.
Republicans claimed it was Obama and Senate Democrats who refused to see reason and negotiate.
But then a Republican accidentally gave away the real reason for the shutdown.
“We’re not going to be disrespected,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told the Washington Examiner. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”
Martin Stutzman
In short, Republicans–as admitted by Martlin Stutzman–were out to get “respect.” A member of the Crips or Bloods couldn’t have said it better.
The shutdown began on October 1, 2013–and ended 16 days later with even Republicans admitting it had been a failure.
President Obama, a former attorney, denounced House Republicans as guilty of “extortion” and “blackmail.” If he truly believed them to be so guilty, he could have once again invoked RICO and/or the USA Patriot Act.
Yet he did neither.
Had the President dared to prosecute such criminal conduct, the results would have been:
- Facing lengthy prison terms, those indicted Republicans would have been forced to lawyer-up. That in itself would have been no small thing, since good criminal attorneys cost big bucks.
- Obsessed with their own personal survival, they would have found little time for engaging in the same thuggish behavior that got them indicted. In fact, doing so would have only made their conviction more likely.
- The effect on Right-wing Republicans would have been the same as that of President Ronald Reagan’s firing of striking air traffic controllers: “You cross me and threaten the security of this Nation at your own peril.”
True, some prosecuted Republicans might have beaten the rap. But first they would have been forced to spend huge amounts of time and money on their defense.
And with 75% of Americans voicing disgust with Congress, most of those prosecuted might well have been convicted.
It would have been a long time before Republicans again dared to engage in such behavior.
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, ERIC HOLDER, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JOHN BOEHNER, JON STEWART, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, REPUBLICANS, RICHARD WOLFFE, TED CRUZ, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY SHOW, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA PATRIOT ACT, WARREN BUFFETT
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 20, 2016 at 12:11 am
If Hillary Clinton becomes the nation’s first woman President, that will certainly be as big a historical milestone as Barack Obama’s becoming the first black man to hold that office.
But simply being elected President will not guarantee her success–any more than it guarantees success to any President.
Every President faces challenges that his (up to now) predecessor didn’t. But others can be reasonably anticipated. For Clinton, a totally predictable challenge will be the sheer hatred and ruthless opposition Republicans aimed at Obama.
And unless she determines, early on, to confront and overcome it, she will find her agenda just as blocked and undermined as Obama so often did.
Hillary Clinton
For example:
On July 9, 2011, Republican extortionists threatened the Nation with financial ruin and international disgrace unless their budgetary demands were met.
They refused to raise the debt ceiling unless Democrats agreed to massively cut social programs for the elderly, poor and disabled.
If Congress failed to raise the borrowing limit of the federal government by August 2, the date when the U.S. reached the limit of its borrowing abilities, it would begin defaulting on its loans.
As Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, explained the looming economic catastrophe: “If you don’t send out Social Security checks, I would hate to think about the credit meeting at S&P and Moody’s the next morning.
“If you’re not paying millions and millions and millions of people that range in age from 65 on up, money you promised them, you’re not a AAA,” said Buffett.
Warren Buffett
A triple-A credit rating is the highest possible rating that can be received.
And while Republicans demanded that the disadvantaged tighten their belts, they rejected raising taxes on their foremost constituency–the wealthiest 1%.
Raising taxes on the wealthy, they insisted, would be a “jobs-killer.” It would “discourage” corporate CEOs from creating tens of thousands of jobs they “want” to create.
As the calendar moved closer to the fateful date of August 2, Republican leaders continued to insist: Any deal that includes taxes “can’t pass the House.”
One senior Republican said talks would go right up to–and maybe beyond–the brink of default.
“I think we’ll be here in August,” said Republican Rep. Pete Sessions, of Texas. “We are not going to leave town until a proper deal gets done.”
President Obama had previously insisted on extending the debt ceiling through 2012. But in mid-July, he simply asked congressional leaders to review three options with their members:
- The “Grand Bargain” choice–favored by Obama–would cut deficits by about $4 trillion, including spending cuts and new tax revenues.
- A medium-range plan would aim to reduce the deficit by about $2 trillion.
- The smallest option would cut between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion, without increased tax revenue or any Medicare and Medicaid cuts.
And the Republican response?
Said Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee: “Quite frankly, [Republican] members of Congress are getting tired of what the president won’t do and what the president wants.”
With the United States teetering on the brink of national bankruptcy, President Obama faced three choices:
- Counter Republican extortion attempts via RICO–the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.
- Make a Cuban Missile Crisis-style address to the American people, seeking to rally them against a criminal threat to the financial security of the Nation.
- Cave in to Republican demands.
Unfortunately for Obama and the Nation, he chose Number Three.
Rule #1 Ruthlessly Prosecute the Acts of Ruthless Criminals
But Obama could have countered that danger via the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
In 1970, Congress passed RICO, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. Its goal: Destroy the Mafia.
U.S. Department of Justice
RICO opens with a series of definitions of “racketeering activity” which can be prosecuted by Justice Department attorneys. Among those crimes: Extortion.
Extortion is defined as “a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.”
And if President Obama had believed that RICO was insufficient to deal with this crisis, he could have relied on the USA Patriot Act of 2001, passed in the wake of 9/11.
President George W. Bush signs the USA Patriot Act into law – October 26, 2001
In Section 802, the Act defines domestic terrorism. Among the behavior that is defined as criminal:
“Activities that…appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [and]…occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
The remedies for punishing such criminal behavior were legally in place. President Obama needed only to direct the Justice Department to apply them.
“Activities that…appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [and]…occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
The remedies for punishing such criminal behavior were legally in place. President Obama needed only to direct the Justice Department to apply them.
Prosecuting members of Congress would not have violated the separation-of-powers principle. Congressmen had been investigated, indicted and convicted for various criminal offenses.
Such prosecutions–and especially convictions–would have served notice on current and future members of Congress that the lives and fortunes of American citizens may not be held hostage as part of a negotiated settlement.
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS STRIKE, BARACK OBAMA, BERNIE SANDERS, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, DIXIE CHICKS, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, HENRY J. KAISER FOUNDATION, HILLARY CLINTON, IRAQ WAR, JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN SCHNATTER, JON STEWART, JONATHAN ALTER, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, KOCH BROTHERS, Medical, MEDICAL CARE, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, PATRIOT ACT, public relations, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, REFORM, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD WOLFFE, Ronald Reagan, TEA PARTY, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY SHOW, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on February 9, 2016 at 12:04 am
Barack Obama is one of one of the most highly educated Presidents to occupy the White House.
When he took office, he intended to make healthcare available to all Americans–and not just the wealthiest 1%.
President Barack Obama
But he made a series of deadly mistakes:
- In crafting the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare);
- In building public support for it; In underestimating the venom and opposition of his Right-wing enemies;
- In underestimating the opposition of the business community in complying with the law; and
- In allowing himself to be cowed by his political enemies.
Obama is by nature a supreme rationalist and conciliator–not a rough-and-tumble street fighter.
And his career before becoming President in 2008–or even the United States Senator from Illinois in 2004–greatly strengthened this predisposition.
From 1985 to 1988, Obama worked as a community organizer, setting up a job-training program, a college preparatory tutoring program and a tenants’ rights organization.
Such activities demand skills in building consensus, not confrontation.
He then taught at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years–as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, teaching Constitutional law.
University of Chicago Law School
Law professors spend their time in clean, civil classrooms–far removed from the rough-and tumble of criminal defense/prosecution.
If Obama had accused President George W. Bush of conspiring with Al Qaeda–as Republicans have repeatedly accused Obama–retribution would have been swift and brutal.
(On March 10, 2003, nine days before Bush ordered the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the country music band, the Dixie Chicks, told a London concert audience: “We don’t want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”
(A Republican-approved boycott of Dixie Chicks music followed, as well as death threats DJs refused to play their music, and President Bush refused to criticize the KGB-like tactics of his Right-wing supporters.)
Natalie Maines, left, of the Dixie Chicks
But Obama could not–or would not–bring himself to attack his sworn enemies by attacking their own patriotism or invoking Federal criminal statutes against their extortionate and terrorist threats.
In short: Obama–who believes in reason and conciliation–paid the price for allowing his sworn enemies to insult and obstruct him.
Obama Mistake No. 6: Failing to closely study his proposed legislation.
Throughout his campaign to win support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Obama had repeatedly promised: “If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”
But, hidden in the 906 pages of the law, was a fatal catch for the President’s own credibility.
The law stated that those who already had medical insurance could keep their plans–so long as those plans met the requirements of the new healthcare law.
If their plans didn’t meet those requirements, they would have to obtain coverage that did.
It soon soon turned out that many Americans wanted to keep their current plan–even if it did not provide the fullest possible coverage.
Suddenly, the President found himself facing a PR nightmare–charged and ridiculed as a liar. Even Jon Stewart, who on “The Daily Show,” had supported the implementation of “Obamacare,” ran footage of Obama’s “you can keep your doctor” promise.
Jon Stewart
The implication: You said we could keep our plan/doctor; since we can’t, you must be a liar.
As a result, the President found his reputation for integrity–long his greatest asset–shattered.
All of which points to a final warning offered by Niccolo Machiavelli:
Whence it may be seen that hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil….
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that, if she’s elected President, she will push for incremental changes in the ACA.
Vermont United States Senator Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has called for the implementation of a single-payer plan. This, in effect, would accomplish what Republicans have spent the last seven years trying to do: Repeal “Obamacare.”
A single-payer plan would prove simpler and more comprehensive than the ACA. But the chances of its passing a Republican-dominated Congress are absolutely zero.
The passage of the ACA was–as the Duke of Wellington said of Waterloo–“a damned, close-run thing.”
Right-wingers like former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin flat-out lied that the ACA would create “death panels.” And millions of reactionaries, furious that a black man now occupied the Oval Office, eagerly believed it.
When Democratic politicians organized town meetings for public discussion of the Act, Rightist hooligans often used violence to break them up.
Republicans remained silent while President George W. Bush lied the nation into a bloody, budget-busting war in Iraq. But they have repeatedly damned the ACA as a lethal drain on the American taxpayer.
Thus, any changes to come in the ACA will have to come as Hillary Clinton proposes, on an incremental basis.
The only thing that can be said with certainty about the ACA is this:
If any Republican wins the Presidency in 2016, the Republican-dominated House and Senate will send him legislation decreeing the death of affordable healthcare for all Americans. And he will of course sign it.
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS STRIKE, BARACK OBAMA, BERNIE SANDERS, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, DIXIE CHICKS, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, HENRY J. KAISER FOUNDATION, HILLARY CLINTON, IRAQ WAR, JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN SCHNATTER, JOHN STEWART, JONATHAN ALTER, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, KOCH BROTHERS, MEDICAL CARE, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, PATRIOT ACT, public relations, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, REFORM, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD WOLLFE, Ronald Reagan, TEA PARTY, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY SHOW, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics on February 8, 2016 at 12:15 am
On July 2, 2013, the Treasury Department announced a major change in the application of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more popularly known as “Obamacare”:
“We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively…We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action.
“The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin.”
[Boldface in the original document.]
In short: The administration allowed employers an additional year to refuse providing healthcare to their employees–or to face fines for not doing so.
And how did Obama’s self-declared enemies react to this effort at compromise?
On July 30, 2013, House Republicans voted to proceed with a lawsuit against the President–for failing to enforce the Affordable Care Act.
“In 2013, the president changed the health care law without a vote of Congress, effectively creating his own law by literally waiving the employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it,” House Speaker John A. Boehner said in a statement.
“That’s not the way our system of government was designed to work. No president should have the power to make laws on his or her own.”
John Boehner
Thus, Boehner intended to sue the President to enforce the law that the House had voted 54 times to repeal, delay or change.
Obama Mistake No. 5: Believing that public and private employers would voluntarily comply with the law.
The ACA requires employers to provide insurance for part-time employees who work more than 30 hours per week. Yet many government employers claim they can’t afford it–and have thus limited part-time workers’ hours to 29 per week instead.
Among those states affected:
- “Our choice was to cut the hours or give [employees] health care, and we could not afford the latter,” Dennis Hanwell, the Republican mayor of Medina, Ohio, said in an interview with The New York Times.
- Lawrence County, in western Pennsylvania, reduced the limit for part-time employees to 28 hours a week, from 32.
- In Virginia, part-time state employees are generally not allowed to work more than 29 hours a week on average over a 12-month period.
President Obama and those who crafted the Act may have been surprised at what happened. But they shouldn’t have been.
Greed-addicted officials will always seek ways to avoid complying with the law–or achieve minimum compliance with it. And what goes for public employers goes for private ones, too.
The Act doesn’t penalize a company for failing to provide health insurance coverage for part-time employees who work fewer than 30 hours.
The result was predictable. And its consequences are daily becoming more clear:
- Increasing numbers of employers are moving fulltime workers into part-time positions;
- Refusing to provide their employees with medical insurance; and
- Avoiding fines for non-compliance with the law.
Some employers have openly shown their contempt for President Obama–and the idea that employers have an obligation to those who make their profits a reality.
One of these is John Schnatter, CEO of Papa John’s Pizza, who has been quoted as saying:
- The prices of his pizzas will go up–by 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order; and
- He will pass along these costs to his customers.
John Schnatter
“If Obamacare is in fact not repealed,” he told Politico, “we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders’ best interests.”
If President Obama were truly a student of Realpolitick, he would have predicted that most businesses would try to avoid compliance with the ACA.
And the remedy would have been simple: Require all employers to provide insurance coverage for all of their employees, regardless of their fulltime or part-time status.
This, in turn, would have produced two substantial benefits:
- All employees would have been able to obtain medical coverage; and
- Employers would have been encouraged to provide fulltime positions rather than part-time ones.
The reason: Employers would feel: “Since I’m paying for fulltime insurance coverage, I should be getting fulltime work in return.”
If the President ever considered the merits of this, he decided against pressing for such a requirement.
Obama is one of the most rational and educated men to occupy the White House. So why did he fail to expect the worst in people–especially his self-declared enemies–and arrange to counter it?
Niccolo Machiavelli provides a shrewd insight into the repeated failures of the Obama Presidency.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Writing in The Prince, his classic work on the realities of politics, Machiavelli states:
…He is happy whose mode of procedure accords with the needs of the times, and similarly, he is unfortunate whose mode of procedure is opposed to the times….
If it happens that time and circumstances are favorable to one who acts with caution and prudence he will be successful But if time and circumstances change he will be ruined, because he does not change the mode of this procedure.
Put another way: A conciliator will prosper so long as he works with others willing to compromise. But facing uncompromising fanatics, he will be defeated–unless he can exchange conciliation for confrontation.
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS STRIKE, BARCK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, DIXIE CHICKS, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, HENRY J. KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION, HILLARY CLINTON, IRAQ WAR, JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN SCHNATTER, JON STEWART, JONATHAN ALTER, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, KOCH BROTHERS, MEDICAL CARE, NBC NESS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, PATRIOT ACT, public relations, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, REFORM, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD WOLFFE, Ronald Reagan, TEA PARTY, TERRORISM, THE DAILY SHOW, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on February 5, 2016 at 12:08 am
President Barack Obama came into office determined to find common ground with Republicans.
But they quickly made it clear to him that they only wanted his political destruction. At that point, he should have put aside his hopes for a “Kumbaya moment” and re-read what Niccolo Machiavelli said in The Prince on the matter of love versus fear:
From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved or feared, or feared more than love. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved.
For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger and covetous of gain.
As long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours: they offer you their blood, their goods, their life and their children, when the necessity is remote. But when it approaches, they revolt….
And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligations which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Moreover, Machiavelli warns that even a well-intentioned leader can unintentionally bring on catastrophe.
This usually happens when, hoping to avoid conflict, he allows a threat to go unchecked. Thus:
A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must inevitably come to grief among so many who are not good. And therefore it is necessary, for a prince who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case.
For Obama, such a moment came in 2011, when House Republicans threatened to to destroy the credit rating of the United States unless the President agreed to scrap Obamacare.
Obama, a former attorney, heatedly denounced House Republicans for “extortion” and “blackmail.”
Unless he was exaggerating, both of these are felony offenses that are punishable under the 2001 USA Patriot Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act of 1970.
RICO opens with a series of definitions of “racketeering activity” which can be prosecuted by Justice Department attorneys. Among those crimes: Extortion.
Extortion is defined as “a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.”
The RICO Act defines “a pattern of racketeering activity” as “at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years…after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.”
And if President Obama believed that RICO was not sufficient to deal with extortionate behavior, he could have relied on the USA Patriot Act, passed in the wake of 9/11.
In Section 802, the Act defines domestic terrorism. Among the behavior that is defined as criminal:
“Activities that…appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [and]…occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
The remedies for punishing such criminal behavior were legally in place. President Obama could have directed the Justice Department to apply them.
If violations had been discovered, indictments could have quickly followed–and then prosecutions. The results of such action could be easily predicted:
- Facing lengthy prison terms, those indicted Republicans would have first had to lawyer-up.
- This would have imposed huge monetary costs on them, since good criminal attorneys don’t come cheap.
- Obsessed with their personal survival, they would have had little time to engage in more of the same thuggish behavior that got them indicted. In fact, doing so would have only made their convictions more likely.
- Those Republicans who hadn’t (yet) been indicted would have feared; “I could be next.” This would have produced a chilling effect on their willingness to engage in further acts of subversion and extortion.
- The effect on Right-wing Republicans would have been the same as that of President Ronald Reagan’s firing of striking air traffic controllers: “You cross me and threaten the security of this nation at your own peril.”
It would no doubt have been a long time before Republicans dared to engage in such behavior–at least, while Obama held office.
So: Why didn’t President Obama act to punish such criminal conduct?
Obama Mistake No. 4: He allowed himself to be cowed by his enemies.
In The Prince, Machiavelli laid out the qualities that a successful ruler must possess. There were some to be cultivated, and others to be avoided at all costs. For example:
Niccolo Machiavelli
He is rendered despicable by being thought changeable, frivolous, effeminate, timid and irresolute–which a prince must guard against as a rock of danger….
[He] must contrive that his actions show grandeur, spirit, gravity and fortitude. As to the government of his subjects, let his sentence be irrevocable, and let him adhere to his decisions so that no one may think of deceiving or cozening him.
So how has Obama fared by this standard?
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS STRIKE, BARACK OBAMA, BERNIE SANDERS, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, DIXIE CHICKS, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, HENRY J. KAISER FOUNDATION, HILLARY CLINTON, IRAQ WAR, JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN SCHNATTER, JON STEWART, JONATHAN ALTER, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, KOCH BROTHERS, MEDICAL CARE, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, PATRIOT ACT, public relations, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, REFORM, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD WOLFFE, Ronald Reagan, TEA PARTY, TERRORISM, THE DAILY SHOW, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on February 4, 2016 at 12:10 am
One of the major differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton lies in their views about what should be the future of “Obamacare.”
Sanders, the longtime independent Senator from Vermont, wants to scrap The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and replace it with a single-payer plan.
Clinton, the former Secretary of State, wants to make “incremental” changes in the Act.
The Sanders plan promises greater simplicity and comprehensiveness in providing benefits to those millions of Americans who previously could not obtain medical insurance.
The Clinton approach promises to keep the best features of “Obamacare” and improve those that need changing.
But neither Sanders nor Clinton has directly addressed certain unpalatable truths about the ACA.
These stem not from any intended evil on the part of its chief sponsor, President Barack Obama. Instead, they spring from his idealistic belief that reasonable men could always reach a compromise.
As a result, much of the Act remains seriously flawed. Here are the six reasons why.
Barack Obama is easily one of the most highly educated Presidents in United States history. He is a graduate of Columbia University (B.A. in political science in 1983).
In 1988, he entered Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude–“with great honor”–in 1991.
He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year.
President Barack Obama
He then taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years–as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.
So where did he go wrong? Several ways:
Obama Mistake No. 1: Putting off what people wanted while concentrating on what they didn’t.
Obama started off well when he took office. Americans had high expectations of him. This was partly due to his being the first black to be elected President.
And it was partly due to the disastrous legacies of needless war and financial catastrophe left by his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Obama entered office intending to reform the American healthcare system, to make medical care available to all citizens, and not just the richest. But that was not what the vast majority of Americans wanted him to concentrate his energies on.
With the lost of 2.6 million jobs in 2008, Americans wanted Obama to find new ways to create jobs. This was especially true for the 11.1 million unemployed, or those employed only part-time.
Jonathan Alter, who writes sympathetically about the President in The Center Holds: Obama and His Enemies, candidly states this.
But Obama chose to spend most of his first year as President pushing the Affordable Care Act (ACA)–which would soon become known as Obamacare–through Congress.
The results were:
- Those desperately seeking employment felt the President didn’t care about them.
- The reform effort became a lightning rod for Right-wing groups like the Koch-brothers-financed Tea Party.
- In 2010, a massive Rightist turnout cost the Democrats the House of Representatives, and threatened Democratic control of the Senate.
Obama Mistake No. 2: He underestimated the amount of opposition he would face to the ACA.
For all of Obama’s academic brilliance and supposed ruthlessness as a “Chicago politician,” he displayed an incredible naivety in dealing with his political opposition.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), the Florentine statesman and father of modern politics, could have warned him of the consequences of this–through the pages of The Prince, his infamous treatise on the realities of politics.
Niccolo Machiavelli
And either Obama skipped those chapters or ignored their timeless advice for political leaders.
He should have started with Chapter Six: “Of New Dominions Which Have Been Acquired By One’s Own Arms and Ability”:
…There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things.
For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.
This proved exactly the case with the proposed Affordable Care Act.
Its supporters–even when they comprised a majority of the Congress–have always shown far less fervor than its opponents.
This was true before the Act became effective on March 23, 2010. And it has remained true since, with House Republicans voting more than 60 times to repeal, delay or revise the law.
So before President Obama launched his signature effort to reform the American medical system, he should have taken this truism into account.
Obama Mistake No. 3: Failing to consider–and punish–the venom of his political enemies.
The ancient Greeks used to say: “A man’s character is his fate.” It is Obama’s character–and America’s fate–that he is by nature a man of conciliation, not conflict.
Richard Wolffe chronicled Obama’s winning of the White House in his 2009 book, Renegade: The Making of a President. He noted that Obama was always more comfortable when responding to Republican attacks on his character than he was in making attacks on his enemies.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, ATTORNEYS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, CROSS-EXAMINATION, DAILY KOZ, EWS, FACEBOOK, FOX NEWS, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JOHN BOEHNER, KEVIN MCCARTHY, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, Ronald Reagan, SALON, SEAN HANNITY, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, SPEAKER OF THE, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on October 12, 2015 at 10:56 am
In politics, sometimes your best friends turn out to be your worst enemies.
Take the case of Kevin McCarthy in his September 30 appearance on Fox News.
McCarthy, the Republican member of the House of Representatives from Bakersfield, California, was undoubtedly feeling relaxed.
After all, he wasn’t being interviewed by such “enemies” of the Right as The New York Times or MSNBC political commentator Rachel Maddow.
He was being interviewed by Sean Hannity, a Right-wing political commentator whose books include Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda and Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
The topic under discussion: Who would be the next Republican Speaker of the House, now that John Boehner had announced his decision to leave not only the Speakership but the House itself in November.
Now Hannity wanted to know what would happen when the next Republican Speaker took office. And McCarthy–who was in the running for the position–was eager to tell him:
“What you’re going to see is a conservative Speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?
“But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her [poll] numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”
Kevin McCarthy
In 51 words, McCarthy revealed that:
-
- The House Select Committee on Benghazi was not a legitimate investigative body;
- Its true purpose was not to investigate the 2012 deaths of four American diplomats during a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya;
- Its real purpose all along had been to destroy the Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton;
- To accomplish this, its members had spent 17 months and wasted more than $4.5 million of American taxpayers’ funds.
On October 8, Republicans were expected to choose their nominee for Speaker. On that same date, McCarthy announced that he was withdrawing his name from consideration:
“Over the last week it has become clear to me that our Conference is deeply divided and needs to unite behind one leader. I have always put this Conference ahead of myself. Therefore I am withdrawing my candidacy for Speaker of the House.”
When reporters asked McCarthy if his revelation was the reason he withdrew, he replied, “Well, that wasn’t helpful.”
But then he quickly replayed the official Republican version: “But this Benghazi committee was only created for one purpose: to find the truth on behalf of the families for the four dead Americans.”
Democrats and Republicans were united in their anger that the real reason for the Benghazi “investigation” had been revealed.
Democrats were furious that McCarthy, in an unguarded moment, had revealed that their major Presidential candidate had been the victim of a Republican smear campaign disguised as a legitimate inquiry.
And Republicans were furious that McCarthy, in an unguarded moment, had revealed that the “legitimate inquiry” had been nothing more than a Republican smear campaign.
For McCarthy, the Benghazi Committee had legitimately served the nation–not by uncovering relevant details about a terrorist act but by causing Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers to drop.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan had attacked the leaders of the Soviet Union thusly: “They reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat.”
McCarthy’s comments demonstrated that the Republican Party had adopted the same mindset and tactics as the dictators of the former Soviet Union.
They also proved that the best way to obtain the truth is often the “kill them with kindness” approach.
Veteran attorneys have long taken this approach when cross-examining witnesses.
Witnesses always expect the opposing counsel to immediately start screaming at them. But that only causes the witness to stay alert and say as little as possible.
So the smart attorney comes on as courteous, friendly, even sympathetic.
In one such case: A laborer claimed to have permanently injured his shoulder in a railway accident, leaving him unable to work. He claimed he could no longer raise his arm above a point parallel with his shoulder.
The railway’s attorney asked him a few sympathetic questions about his injuries. And the witness quickly volunteered that he was in constant pain and a near-invalid.
“And, as a result of the accident, how high can you raise your arm?” asked the attorney.
The witness slowly raised his arm parallel with his shoulder.
“Oh, that’s terrible,” said the attorney. Then: “How high could you get it up before the accident?”
Unthinkingly, the witness extended his arm to its full height above his head–to the laughter of the judge, jury and spectators.
In light of Kevin McCarthy’s unintended revelation, no one is laughing now.
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BARACK OBAMA, CALVIN COOLIDGE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DIVINE RIGHTS OF KINGS THEORY, EMPLOYERS RESPONSIBILITY ACT, EMPLOYMENT, FACEBOOK, INCOME INEQUALITY, JOHN BOEHNER, MARK SHIELDS, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, OBAMACARE, PBS NEWSHOUR, PLUTOCRACY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on April 24, 2015 at 12:15 am
If passed by Congress and vigorously enforced by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Labor, an Employers Responsibility Act would ensure full-time, permanent and productive employment for millions of capable, job-seeking Americans.
Among its remaining provisions:
(10) CEOs whose companies employ illegal aliens would be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates. Upon conviction, the CEO would be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least ten years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for controlling illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./ Mexican border.
With CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions, they would take drastic steps to ensure their companies complied with Federal immigration laws.
(11) The seeking of “economic incentives” by companies in return for moving to or remaining in cities/states would be strictly forbidden.
Such “economic incentives” usually:
- allow employers to ignore existing laws protecting employees from unsafe working conditions;
- allow employers to ignore existing laws protecting the environment;
- allow employers to pay their employees the lowest acceptable wages, in return for the “privilege” of working at these companies; and/or
- allow employers to pay little or no business taxes, at the expense of communities who are required to make up for lost tax revenues.
(12) Employers who continue to make such overtures would be prosecuted for attempted bribery or extortion:
- Bribery, if they offered to move to a city/state in return for “economic incentives,” or
- Extortion, if they threatened to move their companies from a city/state if they did not receive such “economic incentives.”
This would protect employees against artificially-depressed wages and unsafe working conditions; protect the environment in which these employees live; and protect cities/states from being pitted against one another at the expense of their economic prosperity.
(12) The U.S. Departments of Justice and Labor would regularly monitor the extent of employer compliance with the provisions of this Act.
Among these measures: Sending undercover agents, posing as highly-qualified job-seekers, to apply at companies—and then vigorously prosecuting those employers who blatantly refused to hire despite their proven economic ability to do so.
This would be comparable to the long-time and legally-validated practice of using undercover agents to determine compliance with fair-housing laws.
(13) The Justice Department and/or the Labor Department would be required to maintain a publicly-accessible database on those companies that had been cited, sued and/or convicted for such offenses as
- discrimination,
- harassment,
- health and/or safety violations or
- violating immigration laws.
Employers would be legally required to regularly provide such information to these agencies, so that it would remain accurate and up-to-date.
Such information would arm job applicants with vital information about the employers they were approaching. They could thus decide in advance if an employer is deserving of their skills and dedication.
As matters now stand, employers can legally demand to learn even the most private details of an applicant’s life without having to disclose even the most basic information about themselves and their history of treating employees.
* * * * *
Reform starts with facing the truth–however painful–for what it is. And with seeing one’s enemies–however powerful–for what they are.
For thousands of years, otherwise highly intelligent men and women believed that kings ruled by divine right. That kings held absolute power, levied extortionate taxes and sent countless millions of men off to war–all because God wanted it that way.
That lunacy was dealt a deadly blow in 1776 when American Revolutionaries threw off the despotic rule of King George III of England.
But today, millions of Americans remain imprisoned by an equally outrageous and dangerous theory: The Theory of the Divine Right of Employers.
Summing up this employer-as-God attitude, Calvin Coolidge still speaks for the overwhelming majority of employers and their paid shills in government:
“The man who builds a factory builds a temple, and the man who works there worships there.”
America can no longer afford such a dangerous fallacy as the Theory of the Divine Right of Employers.
The solution lies in remembering that the powerful never voluntarily surrender their privileges.
Americans did not win their freedom from Great Britain–-and its enslaving doctrine of “the Divine Right of Kings”-–by begging for their rights.
And Americans will not win their freedom from their corporate masters–-and the equally enslaving doctrine of “the Divine Right of Employers”––by begging for the right to work and support themselves and their families.
And they will most certainly never win such freedom by supporting right-wing political candidates whose first and only allegiance is to the corporate interests who bankroll their campaigns.
Corporations can–and do–spend millions of dollars on TV ads, selling lies–lies such as the “skills gap,” and how if the wealthy are forced to pay their fair share of taxes, jobs will inevitably disappear.
But Americans can choose to reject those lies–and demand that employers behave like patriots instead of predators.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, BARACK OBAMA, BASHIR AL-ASSAD, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE, HUMAN RIGHTS, JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN MCCAIN, NBC NEWS, RUSSIA, SYRIA, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN
TAKING EXCEPTION WITH “AMERICAN EXCEPTION”
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 16, 2016 at 12:19 amOn September 11, 2013, the New York Times published an Op-Ed (guest editorial) from Russian President Vladimir Putin, entitled: “A Plea for Caution from Russia: What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria.”
No one should be surprised that Putin came out strongly against an American air strike on Syria.
Its “President” (i.e., dictator) Bashir al-Assad, is, after all, a close ally of Russia. Just as his late father and dictator, Hafez al-Assad, was a close ally of the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991.
Putin, of course, is a former member of the KGB, the infamous secret police which (under various other names) ruled the Soviet Union from its birth in 1917 to its collapse in 1991.
He grew up under a Communist dictatorship and clearly wishes to return to that era, saying publicly: “First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
So it would be unrealistic to expect him to view the current “Syria crisis” the same way that President Barack Obama does.
(A “crisis” for politicians and news media is any event they believe can be exploited for their own purposes.
(In the case of media like CNN–which has devoted enormous coverage to the use of poison gas in Syria–the motive is higher ratings. “If it bleeds, it leads,” goes the saying in the news business.
(In the case of politicians–like Obama and Putin–the motive is to further their own status. And thus power.
(Few politicians really care about the “human rights” of other nations–unless promoting this issue can empower themselves and/or their own nations.
(President Ronald Reagan, for example, often wailed about the Soviets’ oppression of the Polish union, Solidarity–while firing hundreds of unionized air traffic controllers who went on strike.)
In his September 11 guest editorial in the New York Times, Putin offered the expected Russian take on Syria:
But it’s the concluding paragraph that has enraged American politicians the most–especially right-wing ones. In it, Putin takes exception with American “exceptionalism.”
Vladimir Putin
Referring to President Obama, Putin wrote:
“And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is ‘what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.’
“It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.
“There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too.
“We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
Putin has never publicly shown any interest in religion. But by invoking “the Lord,” he was able to turn the Christian beliefs of his Western audience into a useful weapon.
“I was insulted,” then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters when asked for his blunt reaction to the editorial.
“I have to be honest with you, I was at dinner, and I almost wanted to vomit,” said U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey).
Putin had dared to question the self-righteousness of American foreign policy–and those who make it.
Making his case for war with Syria, Obama had said: “America is not the world’s policeman….
“But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.
“That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.”
President Barack Obama
In short: Because we consider ourselves “exceptional,” we have the divine right to do whatever we want.
It’s not necessary to see Putin as a champion of democracy (he isn’t) to see the truth in this part of his editorial: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.”
From 1938 to 1969, the House Un-American Activities Committee sought to define what was “American” and what was “Un-American.” As if “American” stood for all things virtuous.
Whoever heard of an “Un-French Activities Committee”? Or an “Un-German” or “Un-British” one?
The late S.I. Hayakawa once made an obersation that clearly applies to this situation.
Hayakawa was a professor of semantics (the study of meaning, focusing on the relation between words and what they stand for).
In his bestselling book, Language in Thought and Action, he observed that when a person hears a message, he has four ways of responding to it:
Americans might want to consider #3 in the recent case of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Share this: