Thoughts from the Middle

Corruption in the Federal Executive Branch

By

Robert Fischer

While no one should be surprised to find out that criminal actions are sometime committed by people in power, I was shocked to note the disparity among the criminal indictments under various presidents Nixon through Trump.  While I was prepared for the Watergate fallout under Nixon, I was more than shocked to see the large number of criminal charges (21) that have occurred in less than 2 years of the Trump presidency.  The following Table has appeared in a number of sources over the past year, updated for the Trump presidency.

Executive Branch Criminal Activities

By Presidential Administration

Years in                   Indictments         Convictions             Prison

Office_____________________________________

Trump                   1.8                          89                           24                           2

Obama                 8                              0                             0                             0

Bush, W               8                              16                           16                           9

Clinton                  8                              2                             1                             1

Bush, GW            4                              1                             1                             1

Reagan                 8                              26                           16                           8

Carter                   4                              1                             0                             0

Ford                       2.4                          1                             1                             1

Since I couldn’t find the actual source for this research in order to validate the numbers, I have included my own tabulation of charges filed against executive administration personnel.  This information was gleaned from Wikipedia and recent news sources.

Since January 2017, 21 persons associated with Donald Trump’s Executive Branch have been indicted or accused of various criminal activities– not the 89 figure listed in the above table.  This discrepancy may be accounted for by including indictments of Russians who have been accused of interfering with the 2016 elections.  However, the 21 person figure is still striking since it represents less than 1.8 years.

Person                                    Position                                              Charges                                                                Conviction

Paul Manafort                   Champaign Chairman       bank fraud, filing false tax returns          yes

Scott Pruitt                         Director EPA                        ethics violations                                              resigned

Albert Kelly                         Director EPA Superfund   bank fraud                                                       fined

Pasquale Perrotta            Security Director EPA       improper contracts                                       resigned

Samantha Dravis              Sr. Counsel Off.  Policy     no show employee                                       resigned

George Papadopoulos   Foreign Policy Advisor      making false statements                            pleaded guilty

Michael Flynn                    National Sec. Advisor       lying to the FBI                                                                pleaded guilty

William Bradford              Dept. of Energy                                  allegations of racial slurs                             resigned

Tom Price                            Sec. HHS                                improper spending                                       resigned

Brenda Fitzgerald             Dir. Disease Control          bought tobacco stock                                   resigned

Taylor Weyeneth             Dep.Dir. Nat. Drug Policy lack of qualifications                                     resigned

David Sorenson                                speech writer                      domestic violence                                         resigned

Vivieca  Simpson              Chief of Staff VA                altered emails                                                 resigned

Rob Porter                          staff secretary                     domestic violence                                         resigned

Rick Gates                           Dept. Campaign Chair      lying to investigators re Ukraine              pleaded guilty

Tony Tooke                        Chief, Forest Service        sexual harassment/retaliation                 resigned

Michael Cohen                  Attorney to President      tax evasion, bank fraud,

illegal campaign contributions,

false statements                                            pleaded guilty

Ralph Zinke                         Sec.  Interior                        improper spending                                       resigned

Konstantin Kilimnik         Aid to Manafort                                 lying/bribery                                                    indicted

Alex Vanderzwan            Dutch Attorney                   lying                                                                     indicted

Richard Pinerdo                                owner Auct. Essistance  fraud                                                                   pleaded guilty

Under Barrack Obama, nine people were accused of improper behavior:

Deann Stone                      Dir Alabama Dept Ed       improper spending                                        convicted

Katherine Archuleta       Dir Personnel Mang.       cyber intrusions, data theft                         resigned

Hilary Clinton                     Sec. of State                       email controversy                                            no charges

Eric Shinseki                       Sec. Veteran’s Affairs    lies re time to treatment                              resigned

Steven Miller                     Acting  Comm. IRS           IRS scandal re investigations                       resigned

Eric Holder                          Attorney General            contempt of Congress                                   no charges

Terence Flynn                   NLR Board member        leaking information                                         resigned

Martha Johnson               Dir. GSA                               Vegas training scandal                                   resigned

David Petraeus                 Dir. CIA                                 mishandling classified material                   pleaded guilty

During George W. Bush’s administration, 25 individuals were involved in questionable behavior

Joseph Schmitz                                 DD Inspector Gen.           obstruction of justice                                     resigned

Francis Harvey                   Sec. Army                            Walter Reed scandal                                       resigned

Felipe Sixto                         Duty Dir. Public Liaison   misuse of grant dollars                                  resigned

Timothy Goeglein            Asst. to President            plagiarism                                                            resigned

Scott Bloch                          Special Counsel                 criminal contempt of Congress                  pleaded guilty

Lewis Libby                         Chief of Staff Cheney     perjury/obstruction of justice                    convicted

Alphonso Jackson            Sec. HUD                             cronyism/favoritism                                       resigned

Karl Rove                             Sr. Advisor Pres.               Improper political influence                        resigned

Richard Griffin                   Asst. Sec. Dip. Sec.          failure to supervise private contractors  resigned

Howard Krongard            Insp. Gen. State Dept.   interfering with investigations                   resigned

Lurita Doan                         Admin GSO                         political activity at work                                 resigned

1. Steven Griles Dep. Sec. Interior obstruction of justice                                     found guilty

Philip Cooney                    Chair Coun. Env. Qual.   editing govt. reports                                       resigned

Jack Abramoff                   Lobbyist w/ ties to White House                                                                               found guilty

Kyle Foggo                          Dir. CIA                                 services fraud                                                    pleaded guilty

Julie Mac Donald              Dept Asst. Sec. Inter.     providing govt. document to dev.            Resigned

Claude Allen                       Advisor to Pres.                                felony theft                                                        found guilty

Lester Crawford               Comm. FDA                        conflict of interest                                           resigned

John Shaw                          Under Sec. Defense       corruption                                                           fired

Bernard Kerik                    nominee Homeland Sec. employment illegal alien/tax fraud        pleaded guilty

Thomas Scully                    Admin CMS                        withholding information                               resigned

Janet Rehnquist                               Inspect. Gen. HHS           delay of investigation                                     resigned

Carl Truscott                       Dir. ATF                                                lavish spending/misuse of resources      resigned

John Atchison                    Asst. U.S. Attorney         sex with juvenile                                              suicide

John Farren                        Dep. WH counsel             attempted murder                                          found guilty

In addition, during the George W. Bush years, citizens saw the Walter Reed Medical Center scandal,  Lawyergate, Bush White House email controversy, WMD/Yellowcake forgery; Coalition Provisional Authority Cash Payment Scandal; Valerie Flame affair; NSA warrantless surveillance; and John Yoo memo scandal.

During Bill Clinton’s time in office, there were 4 persons in the executive branch accused of criminal behavior:

Bill Clinton                           President                            impeached for perjury/obstruction         acquitted

Ronald Blackley                 Chief of Staff Agricul.     perjury                                                                 found guilty

David Watkins                   Dir. Office Admin.            improper use of govt. equipment            resigned

Darleen Druyun                                Undersec. Air Force        contract violations                                           found guilty

Under George H.W. Bush there were 6 allegations of misconduct.  The most significant dealt with the Iran-Contra affair where 6 individuals under investigation were granted clemency.  One additional person was convicted:

Catalina Villalpando         Sec. Treasurer                   obstruction of justice/tax evasion            pleaded guilty

Ronald Reagan’s administration was the subject of a number of investigations, including the Iran-Contra affair, Operation Ill Wind, the Housing and Urban Development scandal, Wedtech, and the saving and loan scandal.  Thirty seven individuals were accused of various crimes or misconduct.

Melvyn Paisley                  Asst. Sec. Navy                 accepting bribes                                               pleaded guilty

James Gaines                    Dep. Asst. Sec. Navy       theft                                                                      resigned

Victor Cohen                      Dep. Asst. Sec. Air Force accepting bribes                                             pleaded guilty

Samuel Pierce                   Sec. HUD                             bribery                                                                 not charged

James Watt                        Sec. Interior                       perjury/obstruction of justice                    found guilty

Deborah Dean                   Exec. Sec. S. Pierce          perjury/conspiracy/bribery                         found guilty

Philip Winn                         Asst. Sec. HUD                  bribery                                                                 pleaded guilty

Thomas Demery               Asst. Sec. HUD                  bribery/obstruction of justice                    pleaded guilty

Joseph Strauss                  Spec. Asst. Sec. HUD      bribery                                                                 found guilty

Silvio DeBartolomeis       various posts HUD           perjury/bribery                                                                found guilty

Edwin Meese                    Attorney General            bribery                                                                 resigned

John Fedders                     Sec. Exchange Comm.    battery of wife                                                  resigned

Emanuel Savas                  Asst. Sec. HUD                  using staff for personal business                               resigned

Oliver North                       National Sec. Council      diverted funds                                                  found guilty

Casper Weinberger         Sec. Defense                     perjury/obstruction of justice                    pardoned

Robert McFarlane            National Sec. Advisor     withholding evidence                                    plea bargained

Elliott Abrams                    Asst. Sec. State                 withholding evidence                                    plea bargained

Alan Fiers                            Chief CIA                             withholding evidence                                    found guilty

Clair George                       Covert Ops CIA                 perjury                                                                 found guilty

Fawn Hill                              O. North’s Sec.                  conspiracy/destroying documents           immunity

John Poindexter               National Sec. Advisor     conspiracy/obstruction of justice             found guilty                                                                                                                                                                                        overturned by                                                                                                                                                                                   Supreme Court

Duane Clarridge                                CIA                                         perjury                                                                 pardoned

Richard Secord                  Major Gen. Air Force      false statements                                              pleaded guilty

Albert Hakim                      Businessman                     supplement O North’s salary                      pleaded guilty

Michael Deaver                                Dep Chief of Staff Pres. perjury                                                                 pleaded guilty

Anne Gorsuch                   EPA Chief                            contempt of Congress                                   resigned

Rita Lavelle                         EPA Administrator           misuse of funds/perjury                                               found guilty

Louis Giuffrida                   Dir. Emerg. Mang.            fraud, waste                                                      resigned

Fred Villella                         Dep Dir. Emerg. Mang.  fraud, waste, sexual assault                        resigned

1. Lynn Helms Dir. FAA fraud                                                                     settled,                                                                                                                                                                                                resigned

Bob Nimmo                        Chief Veterans Admin. fraud                                                                     resigned

Peter Voss                          US Postal service              theft/accepting payoffs                                                pleaded guilty

Carlos Campbell                Asst. Sec. Comm.             fraud

Jim Petro                             US Attorney                       tipping off witness                                          fired

William Kennedy              US Attorney                       smuggling                                                            fired

Marjory Mecidenburg   Dep. Asst. HHR                  improper use of funds                                   resigned

Guy Fiske                            Dep. Sec. Comm.             conflict of interest                                           resigned

Jimmy Carter

There were no resignations, indictments, or allegations of misconduct during the four years of President Carter’s administration.

Gerald Ford

Earl Butz                               Sec. of Agriculture           racial slurs                                                           resigned

There are several conclusions that can be made from the above.  I’ll leave you, the reader, to make draw your own.

Thoughts from the Middle

Understanding Impeachment

By

Robert Fischer

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution says “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  Legal scholars have held that high crimes and misdemeanors do not necessarily require a statutory crime. What does impeachment mean?  To impeach is the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something.  In the case of President Donald Trump, the process therefore calls into question the President’s integrity on issues related to his election as President.  Specifically, there are those who allege that he conspired to keep information from the public regarding alleged affairs with two different women.  There are others who believe that the President was involved with Russians who sought to influence our elections.  First, let me be clear that what a person does in his/her personal life is generally not illegal.  Second, it is not to be unexpected that foreign governments try to influence the outcome of many activities in other countries.  In fact, the United States has been involved in many efforts to overthrow governments that are seen as unfavorable to our own interests.  However, the issue in the first case (the alleged affairs) is whether President Trump conspired with his attorney to keep information that might have impacted the election results from the electorate.  In the case of Russia, the question is whether the President participated in decision making regarding Russian interests in controlling the outcome of the election.  In either instance, the President, if involved, is a part of illegal activity.

There are many in the government who believe that the President has in his actions committed crimes to assist in his efforts to become President.  In this case, the political process is impeachment.  A sitting president cannot be indicted, prosecuted, or tried while serving in office.  The president must first be impeached and removed from office before beging charged.  The process begins in the House of Representatives, with the House Judiciary Committee.  If the Committee decides to question the President’s integrity, the Chairperson proposes a resolution that calls for a formal inquiry.  Following the inquiry, a formal resolution is sent to the full House with a statement on whether to impeach or not impeach.  If a majority of the representatives vote affirmatively on any one article, the President is impeached.

At this point the impeachment might be considered the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal case.  The case is referred to the Senate, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the judge. The prosecutors are members from the House of Representatives.  The jury is the entire Senate.  The President is allowed representation.  The case plays out with the House prosecutors presenting their evidence.  Once the case has been presented, the Senate debates, and then votes on the various articles of impeachment.  It requires a two-thirds vote on each article for a conviction. If convicted on any article of impeachment, the Senate may vote to remove the President from office.  At that point criminal charges may be filed by any court of original jurisdiction.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee are currently considering the following allegations:

• Collusion with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election results
• Obstruction of justice by paying to silence persons who have information that might impact on election results
• Massive fraud against the people of the United States by manipulation of the media through fiscal and illegal personal contacts

It is important to remember that in our system, a person is innocent until the case is presented and the jury finds the charges sustainable.  While I have a personal opinion regarding President Trump’s culpability, it is the role of the House (prosecution) to determine if the allegations have enough factual basis to impeach (indict).  If so, it is the responsibility of the Senate to act as a jury in a hearing where Chief Justice Roberts (judge) presides, the House representatives (prosecutor) present the case, the President’s lawyer (defense) presents a case for the president refuting the article of impeachment claims, and the Senate (jury) comes to a decision (verdict).

Thoughts from the Middle

School Prayer and Christianity

By Robert Fischer

I had planned to write my next article on the influence of the dollar and political decisions.  However, two days ago, I received a forwarded email from a former high school classmate and friend.  The email she forwarded was a well written piece regarding the states of Maryland, Michigan and Arizona.  The author noted that these states were allowing Muslim students to prayer at school, something that the author says Christian students weren’t allowed to do.  The article went on to make claims about the Muslim prayer and prayer day in the United States.  I couldn’t let the comments go without correcting the author’s misstatements.  I wrote the following:

I’ve been concerned about the misconceptions regarding religion for a number of years.  This email confirms that truths do not always tell the full story.  First, let’s remember that our founding fathers were concerned about religious persecution.  That’s why they included “freedom of religion” in our Constitution.  We are all “free” to believe whatever we wish regarding God, creation and the universe.  As a former school board member and President, I am very familiar with the school prayer issue.  At one time I had two board members who wanted to start each board meeting with a prayer.  A third member, an ordained minister, was asked what type of prayer we should offer given the diversity of opinions in our community and the Supreme Court decision regarding prayer.  He jokingly suggested it might start with “To whom it may concern,” or “thoughts to the universe.”

In  1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school “sponsored” prayer was a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.  It did not make it illegal for students to pray as individuals.  Students are free to pray alone or in groups during the school day as long as it does not disrupt school activities.  As for the Maryland, Michigan, Arizona references to allowing Muslims to pray at school, while true, it is also true that Christians and others may pray or meditate.

Presidents Truman’s and Reagan’s prayer day recognized prayer, not a specific religion. Citizens are free to observe that day just as they observe others.   It is not true that Obama declared the US no longer a Christian nation (325,000,000 Americans, over 220,000,000 self-declared Christians}.  And, he did not dismiss the 21^st Annual National Day of prayer.  Whether Muslim Prayer Day was observed in Washington D.C. near the Capitol Building should not be an issue.  Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim.  Muslims may observe prayer day wherever they wish.  Obama did not take part in this event. Claims that Obama encouraged schools to teach the Quran were posted on social media in 2016, but no major/credible news source ever reported on such an event!    This type of undocumented information has no place in a civil discussion!

Our nation has an overwhelming majority of Christians.  The faith is not threatened by those who believe in other gods or no gods.  As a” recovering” Catholic, I believe that today’s Christianity is threatened by its own failure to continue to evolve.  Christianity was not a static religion.  It started with three very different approaches, James (Jewish/Jesus/works movement); Peter’s Christian/Roman church approach and Paul’s Salvation movement.  It took centuries of infighting and bloodshed for the early church to develop the theology of the Council of Nicaea.  It was centuries later that Luther and others challenged the Catholic approach.  I personally will not challenge anyone who has found peace in their belief system.  However, I don’t want them to force their opinions on me!

Thoughts from the Middle

He Said, She Said—

By Robert Fischer

Several weeks ago a last minute introduction of an accusation of sexual assault concerning Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh started something bigger than most Americans clearly understand.  Dr. Christine Blasé-Ford, a credible witness, accused a former classmate of sexual assault when she was 15 and he was 18.  After years of service on the federal bench and having completed what most thought was a thorough vetting process, Kavanaugh, had been assured of approval given the political makeup of the Senate.

What do we make of this situation?  There were three issues at play in this drama– politics, individual rights, and the recent “me too” movement.  What does each contribute to the dilemma?

First, consider the political environment.  Partisan politics has become more bipolar than it has been for many decades.  Republicans are enjoying having control of the Executive and Legislative branches of the government, and relish their further option of shifting the Judicial branch to a conservative perspective.  In consideration of the move to get as many conservatives appointed to the Supreme Court, the Senate previously blocked President Barrack Obama’s nominee from appointment in order to allow the next President to make the appointment.  They were successful, and President Trump appointed his first conservative Supreme Court judge.  Then the second appointment was stalled by an accusation that benefited the Democrats.  Their view was that by stalling the appointment, they were not only gaining retribution for the Republicans blocking of the Obama appointment, but possibly gaining control over the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate following the November elections.  What was there to gain?  The Democrats really didn’t want a Supreme Court judge who has, in his written works, declared that a sitting President should not be questioned regarding his/her actions while in office.  By blocking the appointment, they hoped to buy time to swing the Senate away from the Kavanaugh appointment.

Second, individual rights have made the legal issue of “innocent until proven guilty” part of our culture.  Every accused person is presumed innocent, and. it is the duty of the accuser to prove that the accusation is “true.” Thus, in the case of Judge Kavanaugh, the probability of proving an alleged sexual assault was nil.  Dr. Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh was at a party, drunk, and took her to a bedroom, might have been provable through collaborative statements of others at the gathering.  However, no one except Dr. Ford and the accused will ever know what might or might not have happened in that bedroom.  Judge Kavanaugh had to be given the benefit of the doubt since there was no tangible proof of an assault.  Senator Collins, in her statement before the Senate on October 5, 2018, clearly showed her understanding of this principle.  However, if the judge lied to the Committee regarding his attendance at the party (or other behavior), he was a liar and should not have been considered suitable to serve on the Supreme Court.

Third, what about Dr. Ford’s accusations?  It is fortunate that the “me too” movement has again brought to light decades of treating a woman’s accusations as less credible than a man’s denial. Dr. Ford’s experience is far too similar to that of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings. The social values of the 1950s through 2000, regarding sexual assault and unwanted sexual advances, are slowly  changing.  Dr. Ford had no known ulterior motive for coming forward with her accusations.  The Senate Judiciary Committee generally found her to be a credible witness, with even President Trump stating that he found her testimony credible.  It is time that society fairly evaluates the way that some men have treated women sexually.   In today’s world, “No,” means “No”.  The old days of “No” means “maybe” or “yes” are gone.  However, the caveat still remains that while the complaint needs to be taken seriously, the presumption of innocence is still there.  There must be proof!  It can’t simply be a “He said, She said.” Accusations cannot be enough to convict!!

Thoughts from the Middle

Why All the Scare Tactics?

By

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

It seems that wherever we turn, the news is almost always negative—global warming, too many guns, too many big city murders, bad weather impacting millions, an influx of illegal immigrants set on killing us all, killer viruses, invasions of predatory insects, terrorist around every corner, and many other sensational headlines.  Is the United States really that dangerous?  I don’t think the facts support most of these exaggerations!  While the reports may be true for specific events, the overall impact is less than most of us are lead to believe.  The following will examine a few of the fears that are prominently promoted by our government officials and the media.

Crime

Does the average American need to worry about being a victim of crime?  No!  The statistics gathered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that overall crime has been decreasing over the past 20 plus years.

Weather

Do we need to be concerned about the millions in the path of destructive storms?  While weather-related disasters have been increasing for the past 100 years, the number of people dying from them has actually decreased.

Invasion of Illegal Immigrants

Are non-English speaking people invading our lands?  We certainly see more people who look different than most white Americans.  There are plenty of Hispanics, Indians, Middle Easterners, Asians, and others who are now here in the United States.  The irony is that most of the people we see are American citizens, some with several generations of family who have lived here for decades!  While illegal border crossings are an issue, the truth is that the number of illegals has declined over the past 2 decades.  Demographers have predicted that white Americans will be in the minority by 2024.  However, this is a function of past immigration policies encouraging Hispanics, Asians and others to immigrate.  It is also a function of the declining birth rate for white Americans.

Terrorists

After 9/11 many Americans came to believe that there were terrorists lurking everywhere.  We passed the Patriot Act which established the Department of Homeland Security.  We increased security at airports and other mass transit transfer points.  While there are certainly individuals and organizations that harbor ill will toward the United States, most of our mass casualty events have been the result of individual, non-terrorist attacks. With over 30,000 firearm related deaths each year, gun-related deaths exceed any violence associated with terrorism. Our own government tells us that our chance of dying in a terrorist attack is 1 in 20 million.  It may actually be that we have more to fear from our own right wing nationalists than from foreign terrorists.  These militia groups have disrupted numerous events over the past 20 years.

The Real Threats

The media and government entities have focused on the above as threats to our way of life, but the real threats are everyday occurrences.  Things like:

• impaired driving fatalities,
• texting while driving injuries and deaths,
• disease and illnesses that do not receive adequate attention and research funding,
• the growing gap between the wealthy and poor,
• the world growth in population,
• the increase in the number of elderly who need “warehousing” since we have failed to deal with the right to die issue,
• a growing problem with general literacy.

More people are injured by texting drivers than from gun violence. Annual gun deaths are over 30,000, but injuries from texting while driving are over 391,000 (3,400 result in death).

The class system in the United States is usually broken down into 3 categories—rich, middle class, and poor, which can be further divided in subcategories.  Within the rich category are the super-rich.  This group makes up approximately 1% of the population, or 320,000 individuals.  Their monthly income exceeds $300,000.   The middle class- middle class comprises 45% of the population (14,400,000) and earn between $60,000 to $75,000 per year.  The middle class- working class comprises 40% of the population (12,800,000), making $30,000 to $40,000 per year. The bottom tier, the poor, constitutes approximately 15% of the population (4,800,000).  They live below the poverty line with incomes ranging from $18,000 to $20,000 per year. The real secret is the emerging class of corporate elites who are multi billionaires.  While liberals and conservatives point fingers at each other, the real issue is globalization.  Companies can make the same product for lower costs in other parts of the world.  They are not willing to pay more to American workers.

The population of the world is now 6.5 billion.  By 2078 it is project to reach 13 billion.  If you are living in a low growth rate country, you don’t feel the pressure created by too many people and too few resources.  We do see the problems of mass starvation in countries where these conditions exist.  The problem can be addressed through birth control.  Unfortunately, there is little attention paid to this, probably our greatest challenge as a species. Although recent studies do indicate that there is hope in the future.

As our population in the United States ages, we are faced with the issue of how to care for the elderly who can no longer care for themselves.  The current solution is a home care system that allows for various types of nursing/supervision, depending on the person’s health.  Independent living is a choice for those who want to be free of the burdens associated with home ownership or rental.  Assisted living is a choice that allows those with limitations to have a care assistant when needed.  Full time nursing care is the third level, and often not a personal choice, but one made by family members.  These Individuals have reached a stage in life where their quality of life makes it difficult to see why life is being maintained. While Oregon, Washington and Vermont have specific laws regarding death with dignity, and Montana and New Mexico have legislation supporting that decision, most of the country does not address this important issue. Those who oppose euthanasia have probably never witnessed the suffering and extremely poor quality of life that many of our elderly experience.

Conclusions

Could it be that as consumers of news, we do not want to face these difficult problems.  Perhaps it is easier to consider the news headlines that are shocking, but have little to do with our own quality of life.

Thoughts from the Middle

Questioning America’s Greatness:

Poverty

By

Robert Fischer

I have always believed that America is the best country in the world.  So imagine how shocked I was to read an article that provided a brief overview of a December 15, 2017 report to the United Nations on poverty in America.  While I have never doubted that we had a portion of the population that was poor, the article not only confirmed this belief, but also indicated that it was much worse than I had imagined.  As a police officer in the 1970s, I saw poor neighborhoods and wondered why a nation so rich in so many ways was unable to solve the problems associated with poverty.  After reading the article, I decided to take a deeper look at the issue.  I still couldn’t believe that our nation might not be prosperous for the majority, as I had assumed.  I wondered what our humanitarian founding fathers would think of their great experiment in a democracy that was supposed to provide for the common good of all Americans.

Extreme Poverty in America – The UN Special Monitor’s Report – A Summary, (Alston, Philip, United Nations Report on the USA, December 15, 2017)

Philip Alston is the UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.  He spent 10 days visiting the United States during the latter part of 2017.  During his visit he spoke to state and federal government officials, civil society organizations, and experts on American poverty.  He also talked with many homeless people and individuals living in extreme poverty.  What he saw and reported is more than sad, it is criminal.  For example, there are many people living in poverty who have lost all or most of their teeth because there is very limited dental care for the poor.  He also heard about the increasing number of deaths from opioids, possibly partially created by a broken health care system.  He saw people living next to mountains of coal ash which will likely cause illness and possibly premature death.  To quote Alston, “American exceptionalism was a constant theme in my conversations.  But instead of realizing its founders’ admirable commitments, today’s United States has proved itself to be an exception in far more problematic ways that are shockingly at odds with its immense wealth and its founding commitment to human rights.  As a result, contrasts between private wealth and public squalor abound.”  Is Alston correct?  After all, he was only here for 10 days!

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Countries

This group of 39 countries was established following World War II with a goal of avoiding the mistakes that led to World Wars I and II.  The group’s primary purpose in 1948 (originally called the Organization for European Economic Cooperation) was the oversite of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe.  The group focused on the interdependence of economies.  Canada and the United States joined in 1960 and the OECD was officially created.  Japan joined in 1964, later joined by Brazil, India, the People’s Republic of China, South Africa, and Indonesia.  The 39 member countries currently account for 80% of the world’s trade and investments.

How Does America Compare to Other Developed Nations?

According to Philip Alston’s report

• The U.S. is one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It spends more on national defense than the next 7 nations combined.
• We spend twice as much per capita on healthcare than the average of OECD countries. Yet, on the average, there are fewer doctors and hospital beds in the United States, compared to the other 39 prosperous nations.
• The mortality rate for infants is the highest in the developed world.
• On the average, we have shorter and less healthy lives than citizens of other developed countries.
• On the average, we have the highest obesity rate in the developed world
• The inequality between rich and poor is higher than that of our European counterparts.
• Our nation has an estimated 12 million people living with a neglected parasitic infection.
• We rank 36^th out of 39 in access to clean water and proper sanitation
• We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. The rate is five times that of the average among OECD nations.
• Our youth poverty rate is the highest of the OECD nations. Twenty five percent of our youth are living in poverty, compared to 14% on average.
• Of the top ten wealthiest nations, we rank number 10 in wealth inequality, safety net protections, poverty and economic mobility. Of the OECD nations, we rank 35 out of 37.

Economic Policy and Poverty

While the present report from the United Nations is shocking, from an historical perspective, this isn’t the first time that the United States has seen disparity between the haves and have nots.  Even our founding fathers struggled with how to establish a system where the moneyed interests wouldn’t dominate policy.  Over the years, the influence of money has ebbed and flowed.  In recent history, it took Theodore Roosevelt to stand up to the big monopolies and bring balance to the economy.
And again, following the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt attacked the problems associated with poverty brought on by the gap between the rich and poor.  Following WW II, it appeared that nothing could stand in the way of American progress.  The working person earned a good wage and had a reasonable standard of living.  Many were living the American Dream.

But, by the 1990s the American Dream seemed to become more elusive.  It soon became a major topic in political discussions.    Working class wages seemed to stagnate, small rural communities were struggling, and the two income household became a necessity.  The blue collar jobs of major manufacturing were being replaced with growing automation.  While the corporate and stock holder incomes continued to climb, working family income was stagnating.  The corporate focus was on making money.  Good returns on investments didn’t square with increased salary and benefits for working families.

The irony was that the average American didn’t see big business as the problem.  Instead, they thought that It was big government and its entitlement programs.  Taxes were the problem.  Government was taking the hard earned dollar and giving it to the “lazy” poor and illegal immigrants. While many people blamed the government, they chose to avoid engagement – i.e., not voting.  By the mid-80s some called the non-voter the fastest growing party in America. (Burnham, 1982)

While the non-voters complained, the Republican Party focused on “open” Capitalism – free markets, and aggressive accumulation of wealth. Under Ronald Reagan, it was believed that wealth would “trickle down” to the working classes and improve their standard of living.  Thus they falsely believed the American Dream was alive.  The Democrats, also Capitalists, supported these same general economic principles. However, they also considered the Populist reaction to huge corporate profits and a growing gap between the corporate hierarchy and working persons.  The Democrats, traditionally liberal in their social thinking, chose to focus on moving the excess profits to the people. They emphasized the need to increase taxes on the wealthy for the common good of the country.

By the end of the 20^th Century, control of the political machinery was moving back toward the conservative “open” Capitalism.  The final blow came in 2010, in the Citizen’s United case, when the Supreme Court decided that corporations were in fact citizens and could contribute to political action committees (PACs).  Citizens United created a political environment where the wealthy now have undue influence over our elected officials. Tthe truth is that politics has always been influenced by money in one way or another, but not to this extent!  Our current President is a major player in the economic/political struggle in the 21^st Century.  His campaign focused on improving the economic status of the working person through increased support for “open” Capitalism.  The irony is that the working class which wanted more opportunity to build the American Dream, again bought into the “trickle down” economic argument. .  If unleashed Capitalism is the answer, they are for it.

The problem with this type of thinking is that “trickle down” economics hasn’t worked.  The current low unemployment figures and amazing growth in corporate investments does nothing to protect the working poor or the unemployed  The question might be “Who cares,” as long as the middle class is able to afford a decent standard of living.  We should all care if we believe that America was founded on the concept of the “common good.”

According to a 2016 study by Bankrate.com, 63% of Americans don’t have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency.  The Pew Charitable Trusts also reports that 1/3 of American families have no savings. Few have any type of plan for retirement.  The wonderful benefit programs for the working class have either disappeared or been dramatically modified so that the worker is paying a large portion of the costs.  Along with the changes by corporate America, the Trump administration is working to reduce government “entitlement” programs.  Food stamps, medical care, housing, education and support for those who are not working are being reduced or eliminated.  While I support the idea of workfare, I also realize that there are some who cannot work and need assistance. They should not be abandoned! According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016 estimates, 3.1 million Americans (12.7%) live in poverty, and  eighteen million live in “deep poverty.” These are individuals who earn less than 50% of poverty level wages (Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016 Census Bureau, September 2017).

The parallels between Trump’s “Make America Great Again” and Reagan’s “America is Back” are many.  The lessons of the 1980s under Reaganomics should not be forgotten.  The American people need to consider the current climate of economic inequity, and be actively involved in change.  Part of this effort needs to be getting rid of the “not voting party.”  Our founding fathers believed in the common good for all, not a social structure that would be controlled by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy.

Thoughts from the Middle

The Constitution

Article II

Presidential Powers

By

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

According to the news during the last few days, the lawyers for the President seem to be saying that the Chief Executive has almost unlimited powers—pardoning, immunity from prosecution, control of our jurisprudence, etc.  They claim that he may even have the authority to pardon himself.  What does the Constitution actually say about Presidential power?

The Constitution

It is important to remember that the writers of the Constitution wanted balance among the three branches of government.  Balance meant that each area had certain responsibilities which included monitoring the other two branches.

Section 1 simply spells out the terms of office and the electoral process.  The language was changed by the 12^th Amendment which established our current electoral system.  This section also established the requirements for the Office.  Today, only a natural born citizen can be President.  He/she must be 35 years of age and have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.  This section also sets out the procedure for replacing the President should she/he be unable to complete the elected term.  The salary of the President is discussed.  In addition, it states that the President cannot receive any other Emolument. Finally, it sets out the Oath of Office.

Section 2 sets of the powers of the President.  (1) The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, including the Militia when called into actual service of the United States.  (2) The President may require each Executive Department Head to provide opinions on requested topics relating to their respective offices.  (3) The President may also grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except for Impeachment.  (4) The President also has the power to enter into treaties with the consent of 2/3 of the Senate.  (5) The President nominates ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, judges for the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States as established by law.  These appointments must be approved by the Senate.  The President also has the power to fill vacancies without the consent of Congress when they are not in session.  These appointments expire at the end of the Senate’s next session.

Section 3 provides that the President shall give the Congress information through a State of the Union message and recommend policy.  The President has the power to call Congress into session at extraordinary times and may adjourn them when he/she thinks proper.  The President will receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.  The President will also make sure that the Laws are faithfully executed.  Lastly, the President shall commission all Officers of the United States.

Section 4 provides for the removal of the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States through the Impeachment process for the following reasons:  treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Power from Executive Responsibilities

As the head of the Executive Branch, the President has broad powers that allow for the conduct of government business.  The President can issue rules, regulations and other orders (executive orders).  As a routine these orders do not require Congressional Approval, but are subject to Judicial Review.

The President has also been granted budget power by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.  While the President prepares the budget, Congress must approve it.

The President also has the power to veto Congressional legislation.  All legislation must be signed by the President before it becomes law.

The President is also the leader of the Party and while not true power, the position holds great power over public opinion.

The President may also have Emergency Powers if granted by the Congress.

While Executive Privilege was not given to the President in the Constitution, President George Washington claimed the privilege during his presidency.  Washington created the precedent for executive privilege.    President Nixon claimed executive privilege during the Watergate scandal.  The Supreme Court did not agree with his claim, saying that the “fair administration of justice” outweighed the President’s interest.  The Supreme Court affirmed its position when President Bill Clinton attempted to use the privilege during the Lewinski affair.

Claims of Presidential Power by President Trump’s Administration

Although the powers given to the President are broad, they are also defined (as noted above) in our Constitution or through legislation passed over the years.  The various claims of power to fire Special Counsels do not seem to have much support in our Constitution.  While the President does have the power of appointment of cabinet positions, tradition does not support the President’s reach beyond the Agency Heads.  The President may order an agency head to terminate an employee.  However, the termination is completed by the agency head.

Can the President pardon himself?  I suppose in an absurd way he could pardon himself for criminal behavior, but he has no authority to pardon himself if he is impeached.

It appears that the current President has been “stretching” the limits of the Constitutional powers .  While other presidents have claimed greater powers (Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman) these men were presidents during times of great national and world conflicts.  This time of Trump’s presidency is not one of those times.

Thoughts from the Middle

Civics Education

By

Robert Fischer

Like many of you, I have been busy with life!  Lawns need to be mowed, flower beds cleaned, etc.  However, it is time to think about some of the more important things in life outside of family, friends, and home.

Introduction

How many of you have taken time to read our Constitution?  If you were lucky, you were probably required to become familiar with at least parts of it when you were in either junior high or high school.  You may have even taken a Constitution exam in order to graduate.  I’m not too sure how many of us remember what we were taught, and actually practice good civic involvement.  I am even more concerned that the younger generations, who had less exposure to civics, are letting our democracy slide into the hands of the few.  What has happened to civics education and citizen activism?

A Brief History

Our founding fathers envisioned a democratic nation where the average citizen participated in the election of representatives who voted their constituents’ views.  They repeatedly stated their belief that a public education to prepare our youth for active participation in our self-government was essential to the survival of a healthy democracy.  Citizens should be able to debate using critical thinking.  Name calling and “one lane” thinking were not considered to be valuable skills!  They wanted our educational system to teach responsible engagement in government affairs.

George Washington said, “A primary object . . . should be the education of our youth in the science of government.  In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important?  And what duty more pressing . . . than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?” Thomas Jefferson believed that an educated population was essential to keeping the government in check.  He said, “ I know of no safe depositor of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion [freedom of choice], the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.  This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

Civics Education Today

Our founders wanted not only an electorate that would understand the concepts of self-government, but who also could be critical in their thinking, and able to debate issues with passion–  not anger.  One sided belief was not good for the country.  Fifty years ago, it was not uncommon for American high schools to have three civics oriented courses.  (http://neatoday.org/2014/90/02/the-testing-obsession-and-the-disapperaing-curriculum-2/)

Today, most schools only have one civics course.  All 50 states require some form of government class; however, many of these offerings are nothing more than preparations for state mandated constitution tests.  The attention is on rote memorization rather than meaningful interaction with the subject matter.  Students should be required (or at least encouraged) to look at pending legislation, learn to debate (seeing both sides of an issue), study superior and Supreme Court decisions and their impact, and perhaps volunteer for community activities.  The students at Parkland and their supporters are certainly getting a hands on experience! They are to be commended.

What Can Be Done?

The National Education Associates suggests the following actions:

• Provide formal instruction in government, our history, and democracy that is more than rote memorization to pass a Constitution test.
• Include discussion of current events in classroom discussions.
• Find ways to allow students to experience what they learn in the classroom – e.g., simulated elections and debates.
• Encourage community involvement.
• Expand the role of student government organizations. Give them real issues and real power to find solutions.
• Support teachers who talk about politics and current events.

Unless we provide the information and tools needed to make our democracy work, we will end up losing that which we cherish most — our freedom.

Thoughts from the Middle

The Confused Twenty-first century American

by

Robert Fischer

Who’s confused?  Not Ricky “The Rock” Nemo, former navy seal and now a defensive tactics instructor at the federal law enforcement training center.  The Rock could handle anything.  Yet, he had his concerns.  Not fears mind you, but concerns.  There were mixed messages in the news like keeping his cholesterol in balance; his blood pressure under control, how much coffee was really good for him and now cancer from salmon.  How much wine should he drink to help prevent high cholesterol without becoming an alcoholic? And then there was his government, which over the past two years has promoted the fear of illegal immigrants, and possible terrorist cells  operating in his backyard.  The terrorists could be from international organizations or they might be home grown nuts.  Who could you trust?  That’s a good one.  Everywhere the Rock turned there were advertisements and news reports that played on the fear factor. 

What ever happened to the good old days when Americans drank milk and ate steaks, eggs and bacon without fear?  Life certainly seemed simpler then.

In today’s news, reporting includes commentary and opinion on almost every major event, and commercials promise many fixes to all types of ailments.  And if that weren’t bad enough, the events are covered on multiple media sources with pundits who sometimes spin the stories to a point where they are no longer recognizable.

It seems as if those we used to trust with providing us with information about the world we live in have turned against us, with the intent of keeping us in a continual state of confusion.  Why?  I’m sure that it has something to do with ratings, as well as our own perverse interest in war, murder, and other types of mayhem. (“If it bleeds, it leads!”)

Still, wouldn’t it be nice if the news were reported in the manner of Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Merle?  And won’t it be nice if  we could trust our politicians  again, like we did before Watergate, Arms for Hostages, the Iraq misinformation war, and the more recent issues relating to the 2^nd amendment, and Russian collusion in our election.

How do we go about restoring that which we have lost?    What can we do to get our news sources back to reporting news honestly and reporting  all the news, not just things that promote company agendas or a drive for ratings?

First, an historical footnote.  While many of us lament the growth of social media sources and pundits, a look into our history makes it abundantly clear that political favoritism or promotion of editor positions has been with us since before the formation of the United States.  The big difference is that most consumers of information knew the sources were biased, or publications were clearly marked as editorials.  Of course, there were exceptions, such as when someone using a pseudo name wrote a less than truthful letter to the editor concerning political opponents.

Our founding fathers believed that in order for our democracy to succeed, the country needed an educated and informed citizenry. At that time, Information was provided by newspapers and pamphlets.  Later radio, magazines, and television became part of the dissemination process.  Today, we add social media through the internet and cellphone.

Today we live in a world where the information available is greater than ever.  At the touch on a keypad or a query to Contina or Siri, we can have a potential answer to almost any question. This technology makes it possible to do research without visiting a library.  However, people must learn to evaluate the sources that they use in their research.

The sad truth is that most readers are not critical of the material that they consume.  Some just don’t have the time to consider that there might be alternative views, or that the facts might not support the their conclusions.  Others are just happy to read something that supports their own views.  And there are still others who might want to critically review their reading, but do not know how to go about it.

In today’s world of “fake news,” we all need to be skeptical.  We should all be asking for evidence that supports the materials that we read..  If you are interested in the truth, try the following popular sites:  www.snopes.com, www.factcheck.org, www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/, and www.politifact.com.

A few simple suggestions may also help.  Remember that opinion pieces are usually not entirely factual. Questions to be asked include:  Is the story believable? (Does it seem to present something that doesn’t make sense?)  Are quotes taken out of context? Is the story looking at the future?  (Articles that discuss what might be in the future can’t be taken as fact.) Who is the news source?  (Are you reading someone’s blog or an established publication with years of recognized reporting?) Are alternative points of view noted? (If you are only getting one side of the argument, you need to look for opposition options.)  Look for the reporting of facts.  Don’t accept some pundits interpretation.

I would suggest that whatever your political leaning, you need to read a variety of articles from both the left and right.  The truth is possibly closer to the middle. Also, don’t disregard the main stream press.  Network news, news magazines and newspapers that have been long established are still generally reliable sources. They have been here a long time.  Experience in reporting is a plus.  However,  the interpretation of facts by pundits and the 24 hour news cycle has made it more difficult to determine the real facts.

Good luck!

Thoughts from the Middle

To Vote for Freedom

Robert James Fischer

Over the past few weeks I have been cleaning old file boxes.  In a box from my high school days I found a booklet distributed in my hometown by the Liberty Trust & Saving Bank.   The final page contained an article entitled “To Vote for Freedom.”  This short article is worth sharing.  Today, many Americans seem to have come to take our freedoms for granted.  This attitude has allowed interest groups (Political Action Committees, corporations, labor organizations, and other interest groups) to fill the void. The article is as follows.  I have taken the liberty of editing the article for clarity.

Most of us who can vote have plenty of other things to do on Election Day. We’re busy, too, on the other days when decisions affecting our health, security, welfare and taxes are being made—with or without our help—by the people who are elected.  Besides, we may feel that “one vote can’t make any difference” or that “politicians are all alike.”  But no matter how we explain it, the fact remains that voting intelligently is work, and however important that work may be, “it’s a free country;” there’s nobody around to make us do it.

Yes, it’s a free country—for one reason, because about half the people who can vote do take the time and make the effort to prepare themselves and go to the polls.  Freedom survives and grows today through the personal efforts of the dedicated in every nation.  We’re free because some of the first Americans believed strongly enough in the people and cared enough about the future to establish the principle of equality in representative government and then set out to make it work.

The experiment they started is still going on, and the issue is by no means decided.  Its challenge to each new generation is to seek and earn the privileges of freedom anew by living up to the responsibilities of free citizens. In a world much dominated by fear, poverty, and despotism, perhaps it behooves all of us Americans to vote for freedom by—

• Learning more about how our system works to give Americans the highest living standard, the greatest opportunities and the most freedom of any people on earth.
• Discovering and supporting those measures that resolve public issues in ways that work best for everyone. (Compromise, not confrontation.)
• Finding and supporting the candidacy of persons whom we can expect to work for all of the people if elected or re-elected to public office, and then voting for them! (Humans, not corporations/organizations.)

I suggest you follow your elected legislator’s voting record.  Are they representing your interests??  For a list of your federal legislators, see www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.