A NEW MIDDLE GROUND

After our most recent election, it may appear that our country is more polarized now than it has been in ages. It seems the gap of ideological differences my never be overcome... But my question remains as to whether or not the differences are mere constructions? Is the gap between left and right really so huge, when either way, under whichever party, we seem to be expanding federal government power, increasing an unsustainable amount of entitlements (aka “government handouts”), and we seem to be looking toward the president to do Congress’ work in representing the “will of the people”.

It seems that no matter what is emphasized by either party, whether it be “fixing” health care for the left or “fixing” taxes for the right. Whether we ever solve for the economy, immigration, or gay rights - we have yet to create and elect an ideology that permanently slows the growth of our government and tackles the bureaucratic beast that was once the federal government.
This is why I didn’t vote, the left seems to me to be unrealistically idealistic in how much the federal government is capable of accomplishing. And the right seems to merely say “no” to all their ideas, or worse, sometimes snag them as their own. This is where the confusing convergence of the parties has impacted the will to vote.

Last week, I referenced one of my favorite authors, Anthony Downs. This classic political scientist also extrapolates on the framework for the conditions necessary for a third and new party to arise and seize power from one of the existing two. One or all of these things might occur:

a. “There is an opportunity for [the new party] to cut off a large part of the support of an older party by sprouting up between it and its former voters”...
Kind of like how old Republicans might have gotten disgruntled about their party taking issues like abortion and anti-gay rights and anti-immigration and global domination to create a “conservative” platform... some might have become “former voters” because they’re idea of conservative -- small government and free markets and constitutional preservation --might no longer be truly represented in any party.

b. “Another situation which may be productive of new parties is a social stalemate... Where voters are massed bimodally at opposite ends of the [ideological] scale... peaceful governance becomes difficult... a faction desirous of compromise may grow up” ...
Is anybody worried about a “stalemated” system for our Congress anytime soon? Would it be disastrous and chaotic? Or would it be an opportunity?

c. “Another situation opportune for new parties is when an entirely new block of voters enters the electorate”....
This is why my hope for the next generation’s ideology for governance lies mostly with the people who are NOT voting right now. There is some ideology that is not factored on our “scale” between left and right which currently stands as being represented by the two parties. These “nonvoters”, if their numbers continue to increase, might soon be a “new block” of future voters.

This is why disgruntled voters that don’t “vibe” entirely with either party right now, may someday have the power soon to create anew. This is why I do not fear a social stalemate, but anticipate it with a hope that the people might be given responsibility again to demand that which they want from our government. This is why I do not vote. Right now it is a waste of my time. Right now, it is more useful for us, the nonvoters, to figure out what the people can agree on someday. A balanced budget? A clear definition of the balance of powers? A few less invasive military presences around the world? A regeneration of that which we find good about our political system... A new middle.

-E.C.Mignanelli

A HOUSE DIVIDED? MAYBE NOT.

Welcome back to our discontented and often cynical reports on the status quo of the American political system. Please forgive me for having taken time off from writing in order to get married (hence the new last name), move living situations again, and begin to pursue my dream of a legal education.

We revisit this blog right now, not in hopes of convincing you, the reader, to share completely in our dissatisfactions and opinions. Rather, we invite you to consider, engage, and debate with our findings, so as we clash and wrestle with the current state of our society, we might work together to agree in how to promote the improvement thereof. JS Mill once said, “If any opinion be compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.”

I write today, because I’ve been disturbed by our last election. We read headlines of a gridlocked and stalemate system. We hear foreign news agencies facilitating debates as to whether or not the American system is now broken. We witnessed a drop in voter turnout by over 20% of the entire population compared to the last election (SOURCE). This is by far the most disturbing aspect for me. For when the people are willingly choosing to abstain from an election, we know that the people’s opinions have been silenced. The danger, then, according to Mill, would be the supposition of the infallibility of those opinions that seem to prevail in our current status quo.

This blog does not believe all to be lost. Rather, perhaps all is merely beginning...
Anthony Downs once summarized, in his most famous work, his economic theory for the interworking of democracies and the interactions between voters and parties (SOURCE). He extrapolates on how the majority of voters, in the standard two-party system, remain mostly in the middle of the two parties when voting. The strategy for both parties, therefore, would likely be the gradual shifting of these parties, closer and closer to the middle point in their ideologies in order to safely win over the voters in the middle, without losing too many of the voters that remain on their respective fringes. The shifting of the two parties, in our case, seems to have resulted in the homogenization of the left and right into one super-political party.

We saw how the floosy rhetoric of abstractly positive concepts such as “hope” and “change” and “cooperation” helped win a landslide victory in our last presidential election. Because it only took these feel-good platforms, and an attractive character to spout them, in order to satisfy voters on both spectrums, it is not surprising to me to have seen a shift in power to the opposition Republicans in the House of Representatives just two short years later. The shift in voter preference does not seem to come entirely from a sense of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party, but also from a lack of participation due to an inability to be able to differentiate between the goals, beliefs, records, and therefore trustworthiness of the two parties.

I say this because it is clear the people still believe voting to be important. A recent federal government survey found that 93% of infrequent voters agree that voting is an important part of being a citizen. Also, 81% of nonvoters agreed it is an important way to voice their opinions on issues that affect their families and communities (SOURCE). If this is true than people choose not to vote because (a) they believe issues facing the federal government no longer affect their families or communities, (b) they believe neither party to have unique solutions to the issues at hand affecting their families, rendering voting a waste of time, or (c) they believe neither party to have ANY solution, still rendering voting a waste of time.

We will try to prove next week, given any of these three scenarios, why all of this gives way to an opportunity for the emergence of a third and new party to become one of the major two, turning our status quo into our generation’s political revolution...

-E.C.Mignanelli

TEA PARTYING IN KANSAS CITY, 04-15-2010

I got off my lazy bum to visit a Tea Party here in the Kansas City area. I really didn't know what to expect from the experience. I went based off my intrigued and wanted to witness first hand a rally that has been vilified by the media and our own Government. When people have talked about the Tea Parties, you hear terms like "crazies," and "racists," and you hear a lot of wild allegations against a group who is speaking out about real issues that they strongly believe in. I'm still sitting and digesting the whole experience, but I think despite my agreement or disagreement with their issues, I was certainly humbled. Witnessing this large group coming together with concerns for a cause, who are hardworking Americans from the surrounding Midwest areas, ranging from farmers to local retail stores clerks to small business owners, really inspired me. I'm admittedly an idealist and can easily hide behind my computer or canvas, but these people were the ones putting their backs into their work, hoping to achieve that American dreams by it, and who were active in trying to speak out about what they view is wrong with the Government. Seeing this kind of action by this group was definitely inspiring.

With that being said, when you have the President of the United States, Obama, stating fleeting comments about these rallies like, "I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying thank you," (SOURCE) it makes you question his working-for-you tactics the current administration is trying to adhere to. Who is this administration really working for? Solely and supposedly the poor people? The Unions? Special interest groups that funded his campaign? As Dana Mills from the Washington Post wrote in her article about the Tea Parties she snubbly pointed out that these people who are protesting are "wealthier than average" and "better educated." (SOURCE) Just because you're wealthy and educated does that mean the rest of the world should turn a deaf ear to you when you have a problem with the Government? Isn't that the end goal of this Country, that American Dream, wealth and education? I think it's unfair to merely shrug off what they have to say based on their supposed "elite" status. Despite that, from what I witnessed, the people who I talked with were from a working class, some who were even Veterans from past and present wars, who were tired of big government and who believed in an honest pay for honest work.

Granted, I'm sure, as Ms. Mills pointed out in her article, you can easily latch on to the supposed corrupt elite hand in this situation, just as easily as I can point out Andrew Stern's elite hand in the Obama-Health-Care-Bill, but that won't get us anywhere at this point. I think the main issue at hand is what those people were there for; it was a yearning for change in our Government that has strayed from it's foundation. Honestly, I don't think we should rule them out so quickly. We should take a closer look at the issues and take them seriously. These people are just as American as anyone else is, and they certainly have a right to be doing what they're doing.

Here are some more photos I took that evening (some pretty hilarious)...

I don't know if my dad would like that one! Ha! (He works for the IRS.)

Some boys dressed up patriotically, passing around a Pro-life petition.

This was a hilarious happening. I read the first part of this gent's sign and found it funny...

Then when he turned around, someone yelled "YEAH RON PAUL!" and I caught him in the perfect moment. YES!

Aye... Palin.

They did a tribute to Veterans there at the Rally. There were a LOT of Veterans there that night.

Gotta love that quote!

Do it man... do it.

-N.S.Soria

4TH AMENDMENT POLICIES AND IMMIGRATION LEGALITIES

Two weeks ago, one of my student’s father’s was by the side of the freeway, helping his brother-in-law fix a car that had broken down. A police officer pulled over, immediately questioned them both for proof of their citizenship or residence status. This father (being undocumented) was immediately taken to prison, and is currently in the process of being deported to Mexico; leaving behind him a family, job, and a hope of returning anytime before 10+ years. The warrant for him having been searched and questioned: he looked Mexican.

In April of last year, a Baptist pastor was driving home to Phoenix from San Diego. At a border checkpoint, he was questioned and interrogated while still in his automobile. After refusing to cede to an unwarranted search, he was forced to allow the authorities to search his vehicle after they busted open his two front windows, dragged him from his vehicle, and nearly beat his head to the point of unconsciousness (SOURCE). The warrant for him having been beat into submission for a search (which ended in finding nothing but tools): he was driving close to Mexico.

A few months ago, a good friend from Phoenix was stopped by a police officer while riding his bike through a residential area. The police officer proceeded to attempt to intimidate my friend into showing some sort of identification, after citing a bike light law that he was apparently infringing upon. After citing his fourth amendment rights, the police officer eventually backed off, and left my friend in peace. Warrant for the interrogation: my friend looks Mexican. (Or maybe the officer was really more concerned with public safety… I’ll let you, the reader, judge…)

The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution provides, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Today, this amendment is largely forgotten about in a country which fears more the undocumented Mexican immigrant than the inflated policing and regulatory powers we are entrusting to local authorities in the name of stopping the immigration “problems”. Some might hold that the first police officer was justified in questioning lawful and peaceful citizens, because that officer ended up catching and deporting an undocumented resident. I would argue that once we cede the rights of any human beings within our borders, we eventually cede those rights of all human beings within our borders. The ACLU eloquently states, “the fundamental constitutional protections of due process and equal protection embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to every "person" and are not limited to citizens. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all understood the essential importance of protecting non-citizens against governmental abuse and discrimination.” (SOURCE). The very circumstantial racial profiling that you might sometimes find justified, easily leads to the entrusting of great power to police to racially profile in all circumstances, as long as they find it subjectively necessary to do so (i.e. in the case of my friend, a lawful and natural citizen, being questioned unnecessarily).

The concept behind the drafting of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee certain human rights within American territory (to all human beings, not just card-holding citizens). The protection of all people (whether documented or undocumented) is necessary in order to preserve the morals behind the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution. By rendering Mexican migrants as dangerous, and a threat to our society, we have enabled authorities to periodically forgo the humanity of the Mexican person under question, and usurp authority to search them without warrant, all in the name of preserving a fluid definition of our “security”. By forgoing the humanity of a Mexican person, we set the precedent for any person’s humanity to be rendered less valuable (i.e. the case of the pastor or the case of my friend riding his bike).

I’m not ready to trust any individual policing authority in America with subjective entitlement to creating arbitrary warrants, probable cause, and due process in the interrogation or searching of any person within our borders. As far as I’m concerned, the founders of my country entrusted these duties to the judiciary. And as long as I’m here, I’ll strive to see that those powers continue to belong there.

-E.C.Soria

TO LOBBY OR NOT TO LOBBY, THAT IS THE QUESTION

I've been questioning "Lobbyists" and "Special Interests Groups" for awhile now and came to a point of being very confused and frustrated. Due to my ignorance, I was approached by a lobbyist who represents public agencies and was able to interview her on her career and got a broader idea of what lobbying is all about. In this media fueled world it's easy to hear from both sides, Democratic or Republican, about how "Special Interest Groups" are bad and must be stopped. I was almost quick to jump on that bandwagon but now after speaking with this individual I have a deeper appreciation for the job and find it not to be so cut and dry after all.

Special interest groups have been apart of our political structure even before America was America. It wasn't until the Progressive Era when our country started to become highly critical and aware of lobbyists, and yet the Progressive Era itself came to pass due to heavy influence by lobbyists. The Princeton Review regards the lobbying career as the, "art of persuasion." The woman I interviewed, whom I will refer to as Jane for anonymity sake, regarded it as, "the art of education." Either way they play a crucial role in our government and we as U.S. citizens must be aware and educated of this process.

An interesting thing Jane brought up to me during the interview was, "[When Obama was a Senator] Obama's staff rocked because they obtained expert information from interest groups such as mine, and then imparted their acquired knowledge to Senator Obama, who then was able to make educated decisions on how he was going to vote in the Senate. That was the only way he was able to maintain his seat in Congress." She later hinted that information could have come from constituents or U.S. citizen as well but even so you can't really be sure if they were hired by a special interest group or not. The responsibility of a lobbyist is certainly high, and most of their time is spent watching and reading through bill after bill, making sure the issues they are fighting for are being catered to, and then they correspond to the staff which in turn dictates how the Senator would vote. It's a seemingly rigorous process and can definitely be admired, yet it's also intimidating. I'm not willing or have the time to do what lobbyists do and read through every bill, looking for every issue that I have a problem with and then start emailing my representative! I mean I had enough problems reading the HealthCare Bill and before I could even finish reading it they already voted on it!

I do agree with Jane when she brought up this idea; it is strange to see how some of these Senators, like Obama, speak out against lobbyism and yet use that very system to get ahead or maintain their seat. I'm still not quite sure if lobbying is necessarily the evil here, but maybe it's once you step into the world of Political Action Committees (PAC) in special interest groups... that's when things start to get dangerous. Considering Jane is working with public agencies, her group does not have a PAC. PACs lie more within cooperate entities. What are PACs? As far as we know they've been around since 1944 and are pockets in special interest groups where they hold money for campaigning for or against Senators. Using PACs a lobbyist could essentially promise money to a senator's campaign when facing reelection. This is where a red flag comes up. From a mere citizen's standpoint, this Political Action Committee just sounds like a fancy term for "bribe." I think we need to learn the distinction between some of these interest groups, especially the ones who are using PACs, because I now know that there are some doing great good out there, and others who are abusing the system.

Speaking of money exchange, recently laws have been created to try to keep lobbyist in check. The Lobbyist Disclosure Act (LDA) was actually put into place in 1995. It requires lobbying spending to be made public and have them frequently report their spending to the Office of the Clerk. Although it seems a lot of these tasks are left in the hands of registered lobbyist, so I could see where one might be able to abuse the system. There have also been reports of "loopholes" in the legislation so it might be fair to say it isn't fail proof. But the information is there and readily available. Evenmore so, there is a website dedicated to keeping track of lobbyist and interest groups and gives light to some of their dealings: OpenSecrets.org Where would we be without the internet?

Well I know my interest in special interest groups will not stop here, but for now I'll conclude this article. I think the most enlightening thing about the interview was when she said, and I've heard this said before, that "Lobbyist are just exercising their 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech... We are democracy in action." Despite how frustrating this process can be or how much corruption is in it, I find two key words in that statement, "exercising" and "action," that put responsibility on me as a United States Citizen. Essentially lobbyist aren't doing anything you or I couldn't do. When they find concerns in legislation they respond accordingly by sending emails or phone calls to get the eyes of the representatives on it. That's something I don't do. I think a lot of us don't do it. It's much more easier to sit on the sidelines and point a finger at problems rather than approach it.

In the end, if anything this encourages me to take more action towards the things I want to see change in the world around me, and I'm not talking merely within a relationship between a Citizen and a Representative, but with anything that I might have a problem with; cooperations, public services, my own property. We should start voicing our concerns more clearly and I think a lot of us don't and that's what's hurting our Country. I know far too many people who scourer the internet looking for things to criticize. That's not going to change anything. It's like what Teddy Roosevelt said,

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

So despite however big you think this government is and however impossible it is to change it, take courage and try anyways. Hell! The lobbyists are, so why shouldn't we?

-N.S.Soria

NOT MERELY "JUST A BILL"

The Healthcare Bill has recently been passed by our Federal Government and is certainly a turning point in our history. Whether good or bad no one can argue against that fact. Whether for or against no one can deny that this is a prevalent and important issue in our Country right now. I could easily dive into arguments against the bill, but what's done is done, and there will probably be plenty more arguments to come whether here in this blog or in the Courts. Right now I want to implore our readers to take care in those verbal battles that will occur. We, as humans, are passionate creatures and sometimes can let issues come between friendships, families, and community.

As it's said in Proverbs 15:1, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." Now, as ever, we should embrace that noble device known as serenity. Issues will rise and fall like the sun, but we must be steadfast in our approach, and through serenity we will be able to make the necessary changes in people's hearts as well as the necessary changes in our government. "With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone." (Proverbs 25:15) There is power in the serene approach, the kind that can effect a man's soul. That is the necessary change we need right now... our souls.

With this calm approach I believe it will give us clarity of mind to then challenge what we need to challenge, and be able to pick our battles wisely. Despite what may come, let us be in the hands of the Creator and by that be able to live courageously. There will be things we must do and say, and let us say them fearlessly. As Winston Churchill once said, "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Let us approach these issues with that balance. I know I'm no god, and I know the government is far bigger than me, therefore it's my job to educate myself as much as I can and then move how I see necessary.

With all that in mind, let us act. Let us not lay stagnent by our computers or televisions, but let us be real and affect the world around us. The economy is bad, our liberties are at stake, and our country is becoming split in two (or three) but none of these issues will be resolved merely by our anger or brass criticisms, but by our solving the problems inside each of us individually, and then going out and trying to help our neighbors. Part of the problem is that we are not pursuing our dreams that we have the liberty of pursuing. Instead we either shrug problems off or wave a criticizing finger at a world bigger than us. Well, we are apart of that world, and by it we should work hard and enjoy the satisfactions of it's byproducts. As JFK famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." This is just as true now as it was then. What is it that we can do? What is it that you can do? What is it that you need to do? I think we all have the answer inside of us if we are truly searching for it.

I'm writing about these things because I need this reminder just as much as you do. I'm frustrated and can easily become heated about these issues, but I need to keep a sharp and calm mind, not merely for my benefit (Proverbs 16:24) but for the benefit of the people around me. (Matthew 22:36-41) These are important issues so let us handle them by using just as, if not moreso, important standards. Then and only then can we truly make a change.

-N.S.Soria

Ron Paul on the issue.

WHAT IS THE US EXPORT-IMPORT BANK?

One slightly hidden part of the federal government, which also originated during FDR’s Administration, is referred to today as the US Export-Import bank (the Ex-Im Bank). The Ex-Im Bank exists, according to Sec. 2(b)(1)(A) of its charter, to “minimize competition (through export subsidies)… and to reach international agreements to reduce government subsidized export financing” (SOURCE). The main purpose of this largely financed arm of the Federal Government should cause a pause right away. Essentially, the charter claims that this is an organization, which manages the subsidizing powers of the government (in foreign trade), in an effort to eventually weed out the need for government subsidies altogether. It’s like creating a government-subsidized health insurance organization, which works towards the creation of a world where cheaply provided governmental insurance would no longer be in demand. When have we ever experienced a government bureaucracy efficiently decreasing in its own size and power?

But what exactly, does this extra Federal Bank do? Well, that’s a great question, that I’m still trying to navigate after two days of tossing and turning over government documents and the void-of-actual-numbers website (SOURCE) that the Ex-Im Bank manages. Here’s what I have gathered so far to share with all of you (and for any economists out there, please feel free to elaborate, correct, or better-explain any economic details in which I attempt to unravel in this post)…

The Ex-Im Bank is the official “export credit agency” of the United States. They seek to aid in financing the export of goods and services, with the justification of seeking to contribute to the employment of U.S. workers. The “credit” provided to foreign buyers includes “export credit insurance, loan guarantees, and direct loans”. Their website is careful to specify, as often as possible, “80% of their transactions directly benefit U.S. small businesses” (SOURCE). As much as I wanted to find access to easily understood numbers on their actual website, it proved much easier to turn to other reporting agencies in order to figure out who are really the biggest beneficiaries of this Ex-Im Bank.

Maybe 80% of “transactions” benefit small businesses, but that might just say a lot about the massive budget they maintain, if they can make that claim while simultaneously providing Exxon Mobil with a $3 billion loan in order to fund an oil venture in Papua New Guinea (SOURCE). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I never considered Exxon Mobil as small for size, or as one for creating many American jobs…

Large US corporations aren’t the only bodies that seem to have undue clout amongst the bureaucrats running the Ex-Im Bank. China has also been noticed as having received up to $4 billion in US subsidies from the Ex-Im Bank annually (SOURCE). And these estimated numbers would not even be able to account for the indirect ways in which Chinese buyers and sellers have been assisted. Chinese ethanol benefits from an additional U.S. subsidy. “In 2004, the Ex-Im subsidized construction of an “ethanol dehydration facility” in Trinidad and Tobago—exactly the sort of facility through which foreign ethanol passes duty-free into the U.S.” The very next year, China more than tripled its rate of ethanol exports: the vast majority imported to the US (SOURCE) ….

Would I dare argue, then, that this large Federal Bureaucracy could possibly lapse at times and be more concerned with China’s welfare than that of its very own people? I sure hope the Ex-Im’s bias toward Chinese goods and investment doesn’t have anything to do with the $895 billion in government securities it had accumulated as of last December (SOURCE). The truth is, the US now depends on foreign bodies to buy “securities” from the US Treasury in order to finance our national debt. Without countries like China, Japan, and the Oil Wealth Nations buying out debt, our dollar would’ve collapsed a long time ago (with the rampant creation of money that the Federal Reserve is somehow entitled to). Therefore, the more debt we create, the more dependent we are on countries like China to finance it. The more China finances our debt, the more intertwined our economies become. The more intertwined our economies, the more inclined our Federal financial institutions might be to favor Chinese trade and investment.

But what’s so wrong with this? Is it really so bad to be economically interdependent in an age of post-industrialization and globalization? And in the midst of this era of greater global trade and dependence, will we need larger governmental bodies, like the Ex-Im Bank to finance and protect us in the process? I would argue no on all accounts. The Ex-Im Bank seems nothing more than a glorified form of welfare for the corporate world. And just like we argued last week, the realm of business would also benefit much more richly from the creativity that abounds amidst real competition void of governmental interference. And as for our entangling alliance with the People’s Republic of China… well, let’s just say that I can’t wait to tackle that sucker next week…

-E.C.Soria