Democracy Conservator

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Our constitution was written in the 18^th Century, with such different conditions than today that we are operating this nation with some obsolete standards. This precious, important document was written in the 1770ies when primitive transportation and communication were extremely difficult and slow. The country consisted of 13 colonies, whose total area consisted of about one tenth of the present continental United States and a population hardly the size of an average town today. Some individuals are effectively harming this democracy by taking advantage of these antiquated rules. Several changes to the Constitution should be made to correct this situation.

National issues were in stark contrast to what the nation faces currently. Limiting the length of term in public office wasn’t a factor because of the sacrifice required to serve in those days; long difficult and dangerous trips to the capital with slow, inefficient communication with their businesses and families. The Electoral College election system was conceived to overcome the difficulty of voting, vote counting, and communicating with the Federal Government. The requisites for legislation were uncomplicated so restrictions were unnecessary; nor were sunset laws even considered with so few laws in force. Serving as a Supreme Court Justice was so difficult because of the travel requirements and life spans were so much shorter that tenure was established for these justices. At that time, the young political parties hadn’t developed the extreme rivalry and contentiousness of today so that the confirmation process, the budget, and other governmental procedures didn’t have any parameters.

Our forefathers were determined to give this radical experiment in democracy time to be effective. They didn’t foresee a nation of 50 states. Consequently, amending the Constitution was made extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve. Wisely, as insurance against the severe amendment restrictions, they provided for constitutional conventions if there was a need to modernize and adjust this document.

Thus far, in the life span of this democracy, a constitutional convention hasn’t been assembled. It is time to utilize this provision to bring this document into the 21^st Century and close some of the loopholes that people are abusing.

United States exerts a disproportional influence on the world. One, with harmful consequences, is our puritanical devotion to criminalizing mind-altering drugs. The laws of Nature are as valid as the laws of Physics. It is impossible, absolutely impossible to control people’s behavior. Trying to influence individuals not to use these drugs may be effective, but prevention is unachievable.

We have been distracted for 22 months by the Presidential Election Campaign, while our neighbor to the south appears to be heading toward anarchy. Political disorder and violence in Mexico is increasing. Kidnapping and robbery are rampant. Mexican drug cartels generate huge sums of money supplying the appetites of Americans in the thriving U.S. illegal drug industry. These funds are used to corrupt members of the government, police, and the army. Those individuals, who resist, are killed. The Drug Lords suppress the media by threatening or murdering any critical reporters. The violent rivalry of the drug cartels adds to the violence and lawlessness. Thus far, the measures that the Mexican Government has taken failed to quell the violence. There are daily ghastly crimes of torture and beheading throughout the country. The border cities of Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez, and Nogales, Mexico are where most of the warfare takes place. The United States State Department has issued a warning to citizens to stay out of these border towns.

Here’s a shocking chronicle of what is happening in Nogales, Sonora, one of the smallest border towns.  There were 76 homicides in this city between January and September of this year. On Sunday night, November 2, 2008, Juan Manuel Pavon Felix, the Police Chief of the State of Sonora, was murdered at the Marques de Cima Hotel in downtown Nogales. Monday night and early Tuesday morning, there was a two hour gun battle in Colonia Kennedy, a wealthy neighborhood in central Nogales, between the local police and the cartel gunmen. One policeman and three of the assailants were killed. One murderer was captured; five State and one Federal Policemen were wounded. Authorities seized two vehicles, 13 rifles, three grenades and six hand guns.

A solution to this problem, which would not please United States, is for Mexico to decriminalize the use of these drugs. The Mexican government could purchase these drugs from Afghanistan, Venezuela, and other drug producing countries to be sold in retail stores in Mexico. This would deprive the crime families of their income and create revenue for the nation. Statistics from Denmark, where the use of drugs is legal, indicate that a small percentage of people abuse the privilege. The percentage of alcohol abuse is almost identical in other countries around the world where the use of alcohol is legal. The tourist business of Mexico would benefit from foreigners wishing to use drugs.

Assuming other producing countries would follow suit in legalizing drugs; drugs could be traded on the Commodity Market. This would be especially helpful for Afghanistan. The farmers could legally continue to grow poppies, earn a fair market price for their production, and escape the grips of the Taliban. The country’s economy would benefit, not only from the drug sales but also by eliminating the expense of policing and eradicating poppy fields.

Perhaps, if all of this occurred, the United States would be induced to adopt a more practical and reasonable approach to drugs.

All past elections are history, by the very definition of the word, however, this one is unique because no matter what the consequences there will be an historical first for the United States - the first black President or the first female Vice President of the United States.

Women supporters of Barrack Obama in this presidential race have a unique ‘win win’ situation. If Senator Obama wins this election, they will have the satisfaction of supporting the candidate that became President. If Senator McCain prevails, at least, these same ladies can console themselves with the knowledge, that finally, a female broke the glass ceiling of the Federal Executive Offices. For the first time in the history of United States a woman will occupy the office of Vice President.  

Additionally, the highest percentage of Americans in recent years, perhaps ever, will cast their votes in this election. Indications are that there will be significant changes in the makeup of Congress. This election Democrats are predicated to enjoy an even larger majority in the House of Representatives and possibly, have a “veto proof” 60 member edge in the Senate.

In spite of this predicted sweep by Democrats, at least 90% of the incumbent members of Congress will be re-elected. This stands in stark contrast to the dissatisfaction with Congress, as reported by recent polls, proving that polarized American are brainwashed by the “blame the other political party game.” Congressional members of both political parties are responsible for the mismanagement of our government because they’re primarily interested in extending their careers in public office.

There is little chance for real change in our government until we remove the self-serving careerists from Congress. Career politicians represent themselves and the special interests that provide their campaign funds, not the American citizens, who provide offices, staff, excellent salaries, health care, overly generous pensions, and numerous perks. We at the point where we citizens need lobbyists to insure that are interests addressed.

For years, CEO’s outlandish wage packages were tolerated by the stock holders of publically traded corporations. The rational was founded on false premises - They were worth the expense because there were so few individuals capable of successfully running these companies and the competition for them warranted their astronomical pay. Besides, these incomes were in keeping with other industries like sports and entertainment.

One of the few benefits of our present financial crisis is the fact that the wages, benefits, bonuses, termination pay, and golden parachutes of these executives are being scrutinized and hopefully reduced to reasonable levels. The US Treasury Assistance Program, the government bailout program, in its concern about CEOs’ income pegged to performance, warns about pay packages that “encourage unnecessary and excessive risks.” Perhaps, in this difficult economic down turn, other corporation board of directors will become intolerant of extravagant earnings for their CEOs. That might be too much to expect since corporation board of directors are usually the appointees of the CEO.

The Security Exchange Commission, SEC, can remedy the situation by setting a salary formula for all public traded corporations to protect stock holders. This formula can be based on the corporation’s industry, gross income, number of employees, and profitability. For example, all companies in a specific industry based upon gross income, number of employees, and extent of profit would pay the CEO a specific multiple times the salary of the lowest paid employee. No other CEO perks would be permitted that had any financial benefits. No stock options, bonuses, termination pay, golden parachutes, loans, apartments, and use of planes except for business purposes. In those circumstances, Chief Executive Officers could concentrate on the long range success and profitability of their corporations without the present emphasis on meeting or beating quarterly projected gross income and profit expectations. 

The Constitution of the United States is open to interpretation because of the nature of the written word. This is disconcerting because it is so much more comfortable to think that this important document is the rule of the land, etched in stone. Written words are imprecise because they are interpreted by the reader. For example, the word “loud” will connote a wide range of volume to each and every reader. An extreme case in point is the famous answer President Clinton gave during his interrogation, “That depends on the meaning of the word “is.” When words are assembled in sentences, paragraphs, and texts the meaning and/or interpretation is even more varied. That explains why so many Supreme Court decisions are carried by a slim majority, instead of a unanimous vote.

Unfortunately and quite naturally, Supreme Court Justices are influenced by their ideology in their interpretations of the Constitution. In this politically, polarized environment, confirmation hearings are not about qualifications but rather about ideology. These hearings have become intense and contentious character attacks used by Senate Confirmation Committee members of the opposing political party to turn down candidates. Americans are deprived of having the best and brightest individuals serving on this court because many qualified judicial prospectives refuse appointment rather than be subjugated to this demeaning treatment. Consequently, the President of the United States must resort to selecting less controversial and talented candidates.

An elegant solution to this vexing problem is to have the sitting President, for each term of office, select two appointees to the Supreme Court. Shortening life terms on the court may present a slight disadvantage, but sixteen years is long enough to give the justices the security to render decisions unencumbered by outside influences.This arrangement should reduce the contentiousness of the confirmation hearings because the balance in the court would change regularly. Each political party would have the same opportunity for their president, rather than the present system, where the chance of selection for the number of replacements relies on the retiring or dying of Supreme Court Justices. Another benefit of this arrangement is the elimination of the possibility of a justice serving beyond his or her full mental capabilities.

It’s difficult to admit but unfortunately the facts confirm that the United States is slowly sliding from the perch of the most powerful nation in the world. This slow process has been building for years caused by Presidents, Congress, bureaucrats, special interests, and the citizens of United States.

Congress, often aided and abetted by sitting Presidents, whose political interests outweigh economic interests, pass socially laudable but economically reckless legislation that is ruining this country. Many years of populist politicians, intent upon staying in office, have polarized Americans and created an environment that emphasizes money and politics; neglecting what is best for this nation.

Bureaucrats entrusted with administering and enforcing the laws of the land, purposely complicate them to insure their employment as well as provide a chance for advancement. Unsupervised, they routinely waste, lose, and steal millions of dollars without responsibility and punishment.

Special interests, with their hoards of lobbyists, infringe upon the representation owed citizens of this nation by providing career politicians’ perpetual need for campaign funds.

Citizens, brainwashed by the partisan battle between the political parties, continuously re-elect the incumbents, who are really responsible for the harm being done to this democracy.

We have a failing democracy as a consequence of the selfish agendas of each of these groups. Complex, punitive taxes; restrictive regulations; high wages; unaffordable, entitlement programs; and a welfare society in a socialistic climate have made America uncompetitive. Socialism is not economically sustainable.

There are many factors that will determine when the USA will completely fall from its throne. At the moment, there is no one country ready to assume the role of world leader. It is possible that the title will be shared. Upon dethronement, our nation will resemble England, the former leading power of the world pre World War II.

It is possible, but highly improbable, that American citizens will rise up and return this land to its original representative democracy. We have lost our imitative because of our dependence upon entitlement programs. 40% of the population doesn’t pay any income tax and a small number of them are actually given money under the refundable tax credit program. Almost every American is dependent upon the Federal Government for at least one entitlement program, so that there’s little interest in making any changes in the present system. Consequently, it will take an enormous effort and perseverance by dedicated citizens to remove the entrenched career politicians as a first step in reforming this country. 

Little or nothing is being done about the aggressor nations of the world that are threatening world peace. Unfortunately, the current financial crisis in the United States has removed these dangers from our screen. Appeasement avoids threats, which only postpones and magnifies these challenges.

It appears that nothing was learned from history. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of England from 1937 to 1940, believed that appeasing Adolph Hitler would end his territorial ambitions. Chamberlain’s appeasing allowed Hitler to solidify his control of Germany, which in turn resulted in his takeover of most of Europe. Had the former World War I Allies challenged Hitler’s first aggression, there probably wouldn’t have been a war. At that point, even if there had been an armed conflict, it certainly would have been much easier to defeat Hitler before he had built his armed forces into a blitzkreiging monster. All the destruction, loss of lives, and the other horrors of the World War I could have been avoided.

For twenty five years the United States and the other nations of the world have been trying to stop North Korea’s nuclear development. Appeasements, negotiations, agreements, and carrots have accomplished nothing except to give North Korea time to build nuclear weapons.

Putin and his Russian troops pricked the big hot air balloon named the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, when he invaded Georgia on August 8, 2008. This supposed powerful organization guaranteed protection to all nations in the North Atlantic against any aggression. NATO, like the UN, is a powerless organization because nations have veto power that restrains the majority. Germany will veto any NATO action rather than jeopardize its supply of natural gas from Russia. There was plenty of rhetoric and posturing by NATO and its member nations after the invasion. In fact, there are numerous meetings of NATO still going on with little results. Russia is occupying South Ossetia and Abkhazia, refusing UN peace keepers there. In fact, Russia is planning to have open borders with those two separatist regions. Again, inaction and appeasement is going to encourage Putin to invade Ukraine claiming Russians there are being harmed. Should the economic situation in Russia get to the point where its citizens are unhappy with the government might be the impetus for this invasion of the Ukraine. Is Putin the 21^st Century Hitler? Is he going to reclaim the former Soviet Empire? How much more difficult will it be to stop him then?

Today, Iran is continuing its pursuit of a nuclear weapon in spite of repeated warnings and sanctions by the United Nations. Negotiations and offers were made to Iran by United States and European nations to no avail. This situation is a mirror image of what transpired in North Korea. Consider the difficulty keeping peace and controlling an Iran with nuclear capabilities. You can be sure that the inaction about Russia’s adventure in Georgia encouraged Iran to continue to ignore any threats from the UN.

Appeasement is a cowardly, unfounded approach to problems which really postpones and makes them more difficult in the course. Americans and the world need courageous leadership to prevent further catastrophes. 

The Big Three Auto Makers are in deep trouble with little hope of surviving in their present form. Yet, Congress is throwing more of our tax payer money at them with little chance for repayment.

Career members of Congress are anxious to acquire large campaign chests to fulfill their personal ambitions of staying in office. The campaign contributions, usually on a regular basis, come from contributed special interests. Members of Congressmen and Congress women repay, in kind, for the campaign donations by acceding to special interests wishes that are, too often, contrary to what’s best for the average American.

The automobile industry and their unions are among the large contributors to members of the national legislature. Congress is in the process of passing a $25 billion loan to General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford, to aid these corporations to meet the new federal fuel-efficiency standards. A few years ago, these same car companies were awarded $25 billion by Congress to produce a diesel engine capable of 70 miles per gallon efficiency within a specified number of years. At the deadline, the Big Three auto makers reported that they were unable to produce this capability. However, they didn’t return the money.

In the $700 billion bailout there is authority for the Federal Government to assume bad car loans. Bad car loans have the added disadvantage of the continuous depreciation of the asset (automobile) so that an extremely large percentage of these loans will be a total loss. Given enough time, the bailed out banks will probably recover; some of our tax payer money may be repaid. There will be no repayment from Chrysler, Ford and General Motors because they will not recover:

·       their employment costs are roughly $1,500.00 per car higher than their foreign competitors,

·       their management is prone to cling to their old fashioned, buggy-whip mentality,

·       and their tardiness entering the fuel-efficient car market leaves them far behind in this technology.

Toyota has 79% and Honda has 11% of today’s hybrid car market. It will be extremely difficult to overtake these two aggressive competitors.

The only chance that these car makers have to succeed is through a complete reorganization, i.e. bankruptcy. Through bankruptcy labor contracts, indebtedness, and management can be revamped to make them competitive again.

Sadly, these tax payer loans and bail outs will be used to pay the generous salaries of the executives of these companies. Even worse, these corporations will use our bail out money to contribute to Congressional campaign funds and lobbyists in order to get special favors and even more bail outs. It seems what goes around comes around at our expense, throwing good money after bad money. You can thank your Congressmen for this exploitation of our personal resources. Expect an income tax increase in the near future to fund all this nonsense. 

Here we go again. There’s no reason to have faith in the fix, no matter its final form. Career members in Congress created this financial crisis and will surely make a mess of the solution. It’s hardly reassuring that the members of Congress that created this predicament are involved in its solution.

Members of Congress prostitute themselves to special interests in order to raise funds for their re-election campaigns. These career politicians, in fulfilling their obligations to special interests, are the source of many of the difficulties we face. Their other motivations are to have the President of the U.S. be a party member and be the majority political party in both Houses of Congress. Accordingly, blaming the other political party is the de rigueur fault, resulting in the polarization of this country.

After the Enron fiasco, Congress hastily adopted the fair-value accounting rule, SFAS 157, requiring current market value for all assets. Under rule 157, long term assets fluctuated like the stock market. In economic downturns, there was   undue pressure for companies to raise cash. The recent drop in the economy caused the demise of major insurance, banks, and investment firms. - Another case of Congressional haste causing unforeseen circumstances.

In this environment of obligated members of Congress, especially the banking committees, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to prevent any oversight of their corporations. In fact, beginning in 1999, presidential administrations and Congress have encouraged Fannie and Freddie to increase the volume of mortgages for middle and low income families. A few months ago, Congress thoughtlessly rushed to raise the dollar limit on mortgages that Fannie and Freddie could accept, to prove to voters that their capable representatives were acting to alleviate the financial crises. Of course it made the situation even worse.

 The members of the Congressional banking committees were responsible for preventing any oversight of Freddie and Fannie. Yet, some of these same committee members had the audacity, the effrontery, the shamelessness to declare that this financial crisis could have been prevented and never should have happened, as if they weren’t to blame.

This $700 billion Trouble Asset Relief Program, TARP was defeated by a vote in the House of Representatives on Monday, September the 29th. The voting decisions were reportedly based upon: fear of not being re-elected (Americans were against TARP 100 to 1), anger against the leadership of the House, acceding to special interests, anxious to embarass the President’s administration, preventing a presidential nominee for getting credit for its passage, and partisanship. No wonder we face an economic crisis. Few members of the House allegedly voted because of their concern about the effect on the American people. The larger question is why do we continue to re-elect these incumbents?

No wonder the country is in trouble. In spite of the fact that there is a severe financial and economic crisis, members of Congress tacked on 2,300 earmarks to the omnibus spending bill.

The self-serving career politicians in Congress are more concerned about being re-elected than the welfare of this nation. $6.6 billion dollars in earmarks or about ten percent of the $630 billion omnibus bill is destined for the personal fiefdoms of these self-serving rascals. The usual “blame game,” pointing to the other political party doesn’t work, because members of both parties are participants in this shameful exercise.

Ted Stevens, Republican-Alaska, has the most earmarks, 39, in the Senate in the amount of $238.5 million; while John Murtha, Democrat-Pennsylvania, has the most pork, 30, in the House of Representatives in the amount of $111 million. There are the usual excuses for this reprehensive disregard of not only their responsibilities of office but more importantly, the well-being of Americans. “Everyone else is doing it,” “they’re throwing money to the rich guys with the bail outs,” and “this is only a drop in the bucket in terms of the $700 billion bailout being considered.”  These members of Congress carelessly spend out tax payer dollars as if it Monopoly money.

We, the American voters, are really to blame for this state of affairs – we continuously re-elect these incumbents, who are the source of most of the problems this country faces.