"Politics...it's about governing"

Henry Clay once said: “Politics is not about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness, it’s about governing. And if you cannot compromise you cannot govern.” For his role in helping reach an agreement on the Nullification Crisis and slavery, Clay was dubbed "The Great Compromiser." Now, on the brink of a government shutdown, it looks like we could use another "Great Compromiser."  As I look at our government right now, I see one side that absolutely fails to compromise and another side that is really bad at compromising. 


As we approach this shutdown, Tea Party members of Congress are refusing to budge on the budget. They absolutely refuse to compromise at all. (I will note that a number of Republicans seem to want compromise, but are being pressured by the new Tea Party members to refuse any compromise)


On the other side, the Democrats are really bad at compromising. Up to this point the Democrats, led by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, were giving all the way.  It seemed as if compromise to them meant give in so that a deal can be made. In all the "compromises" so far, it seems as if the Democrats gave in and the Republicans held strong. 


Now, as a shutdown looms, Democrats have changed their game, deciding not to give in anymore.  The problem is that since they've given and given all this time, they have little to work with. Compromise is about having something to offer that the other side wants, and them having something you would like in return. 

Webster's dictionary defines compromise as: "a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute."  The problem for the Democrats right now is that they don't really have bargaining chips, and the Republicans (guided by the Tea Party) refuse to give anything up. 


I think if Henry Clay's quote could be revised today it would be something like this: "Politics SHOULD NOT be about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness, it SHOULD BE about governing.  And if you cannot compromise you cannot govern."  The problem is that politics right now is entirely about ideological purity, not about governing. Rather than compromising in order to actually govern the country, our politicians on both sides are fighting for their ideological purity.  


What has happened? Why are we unwilling to compromise?  


I think part of it has to do with the fact that we have become so focused on a single issue. Rather than saying "We have a budget problem and we do need to address it, HOWEVER, we also have a country to govern," the Tea Party is saying "We have a moral crisis that has led to overspending, and if we don't address this now, our country will collapse." 


I agree that we need to cut back on spending, but we need to be responsible about it. The more I look at proposed budget cuts (including Paul Ryan's proposed FY2012 budget) I see cuts across the board, with little thought as to what is actually being cut.  This leads to trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. It's fairly clear that those who will be hurt most by the proposed budget cuts are those who rely on government services and a social safety net for their livelihood.  Now if we want to say that these programs need to be fixed so that people aren't dependent on them and can support themselves I'm all in and I'll jump right in and help.  However, what I'm hearing sounds more like "these programs need to be fixed so they don't cost us so much...so we should cut them."  


I feel like I'm starting to ramble, so I'm going to try to end this soon, but I just can't get over the fact that the House of Representatives seems to be ignoring the fact that these budget cuts have real human impact.  People are actually affected by these cuts, and people will suffer if these cuts go through. 


We need to fix the budget. Blind slashing is not the way to fix it. Let's be responsible about this.  Start by cutting programs that we don't need (such as fighter jet engines that the military doesn't even want).  Then let's look at fixing programs what we need, but aren't working right. This won't happen immediately, but if we take our time to do it right our future will be much better than if we rush to slash the budget. 

Some Thoughts on Immigration

The House of Representatives in Michigan is currently debating passing HR 4305, the "Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act."  The proposed bill would require law enforcement officials to verify the legal presence of any person over 18 if: they have been stopped for another purpose, and "a person who is or should reasonably suspected of being unlawfully present in the United States."

Now, I understand the need for immigration reform.  Undocumented immigration is a huge problem in the United States, and we need to do something to address that issue.  However, that solution should come in the form of Federal immigration reform, not individual states attempting to implement their own immigration laws.

Specifically, when it comes to this proposed Michigan law I have various concerns, but I'll stick to mostly talking about just one of them for now.  My main concern is with the phrase discussing probably cause.  The phrase I quoted above says that an officer must verify the legal presence of a person in the U.S. if the person they stopped is reasonably suspected of being unlawfully present in the United States.  This is where I have a problem.  On what grounds is a police officer supposed to decide if a person is or should be reasonably suspected of being here illegally?  The fact that this proposed bill does not specifically lay out guidelines for what this "reasonable suspicion" makes me worry about how "reasonable suspicion" will be decided.

I've heard far too many people in the U.S. refer to all people of Latino descent far too stereotypically, and at the same time heard far too many people generalize all Latinos as immigrants, assuming the majority of them to be here undocumented.  That leads to the assumption (and I know this is NOT a far-fetched assumption) that so-called "reasonable suspicion" will be brown skin, Latino descent.  Now stop me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like very poorly disguised racism.

Supporters of this bill cite the fact that are an estimated 200,000 undocumented immigrants in Michigan, calling them a drain on the state.  What they fail to recognize, or refuse to admit, is that undocumented immigrants tend to do work that no American is willing to do.  I've gotten so sick of hearing Americans say "immigrants are stealing our jobs," when if you asked that American (employed or unemployed) to do the job the immigrant is doing they 'd get offended.  On the other side of the argument, a recent report by the Michigan League of Human Services estimated that the proposed bill would cause the state to lose $3.8 billion in revenue, and hurt industries such as produce, which draw mostly undocumented workers.

Additionally, the claim of undocumented immigrants being a major drain on the economy is fairly weak.  People complain that undocumented immigrants don't  pay taxes, while receiving medical care and education as well as other public services.  The fact is that undocumented immigrants DO pay taxes, do pay bills, receive far less than adequate medical care, and have absolutely no chance of receiving a tax return or Social Security (which they also pay into).  In short, they pay into almost everything that a documented immigrant or U.S. citizen does, while receiving almost no benefits for it.

Like I said, I agree that we need immigration reform, to address the issue of undocumented immigration.  However, this is NOT the answer.  Responding to a problem by implementing legalized racism is wrong, and we need to avoid committing that grave injustice.

Just So We're Clear...The Truth About Foreign Aid

With the new budget out, and the FY 2011 budget still being debated with the Continuous Resolution and whatnot, I wanted to clear things up a bit on foreign aid, and make it clear how mis-informed the American public generally is.  If you're part of this group who believes some of the statistics I'm about to mention, don't be insulted, just allow yourself to be educated.

WorldPublicOpinion.org, an affiliate of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, recently did a poll regarding American public opinion on foreign aid. The most obvious conclusion was that Americans vastly overestimate the amount of money that we spend on foreign aid.  When asked how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, the median estimate by the general public is 25%.  Asked how much they thought would be an appropriate amount the median response was 10%.

FACT: Total percentage of the federal budget that goes to foreign aid is actually ONE PERCENT (1%).  In fact, foreign aid represents only 2.6% of the discretionary portion of the budget.

So what does that mean?  It means that when Congressmen say that their constituents are calling for cuts in foreign assistance, and when Congressmen themselves say that cuts need to be made to foreign aid, we need to make sure that everyone is educated.  Last Thursday I was with InterAction, distributing our Foreign Assistance Briefing Books (FABB), a policy book on foreign aid that we give out to all the members of Congress every few years.  A staffer at one office told us that they were pushing for cuts to foreign aid because their constituents kept calling saying they wanted cuts to the budget.  That makes sense if they believe that 25% of the budget goes to foreign aid.  However, based on the facts, the general public is actually advocating for an INCREASE in foreign aid.  After all, they said 10% would be an appropriate number, and that would be an increase from just by 9% of the budget.

So Congressmen, when your constituents call saying we need to cut foreign aid, it is your responsibility to make sure they actually know the facts on the foreign assistance budget and can make educated inputs.

US House Foreign Affairs - At least someone makes sense

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Thursday, February 17, 2011

On House Floor, Rep. Berman Condemns GOP’s Irresponsible Slash-and-Burn Tactics That Jeopardize Our National Security

Watch The Video Here: http://bit.ly/dWFJl3

Washington, DC – Congressman Howard L. Berman, Ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, delivered the following remarks on the House floor late last night during debate of H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011.  During his statement, Congressman Berman condemned House Republicans for their irresponsible slash-and-burn tactics to cut spending in a way that seriously jeopardizes our national security and hampers our country’s economic growth.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, it seems to me that in this frenzied competition to see who can cut the most and the fastest, we are losing all sense of reason and rationality.  I am deeply concerned by what I see happening to the international affairs budget, which is contained in Title Eleven of the bill before us.

In past years, the State Department and foreign operations appropriation bill has passed with strong bipartisan support, often by an overwhelming margin.  Members of both parties have understood how important diplomacy and development are -- not only to U.S. standing in the world, but to our country’s own economic growth, to American jobs, and to American national security. 

They recognize that problems such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the spread of deadly disease cannot be resolved unilaterally.  They know that, over the long term, the best way to create more jobs at home is to build more export markets overseas.  They understand that we cannot defeat violent extremism by military means alone, and that, as Secretary Gates said last fall, “Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.”

Yet the process by which this CR has been produced makes a mockery of the responsibilities we have as Members of Congress to advance our economy and protect our national security. 

First, the Republican leadership announced a plan to make $44 billion in cuts.  Then we start hearing other numbers: $58 billion.  $74 billion.  $100 billion.  Each time, it’s measured a different way, against a different baseline.  And no matter how high the number goes, there are proposals to cut even deeper.

These numbers weren’t chosen because they looked at programs and said, “Here’s something that’s not working.”  Or “Here’s something we don’t need to do.”  No – the number was purely arbitrary, plucked out of a hat, and totally unrelated to any thoughtful calculation of what was actually needed and how much that costs.

This bill isn’t about making government more cost effective or more efficient.  It doesn’t promote the kind of reforms and streamlining that are needed to ensure that our aid reaches those who need it most.  It’s simply a slash-and-burn process, hacking away with a machete without consideration for all the critically important work that is being destroyed or how it affects our national security.

The base bill itself might be laughable if it weren’t so appalling.  Humanitarian programs to provide lifesaving assistance – food, water, medicine, and plastic sheeting – to victims of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and famines is cut by 50%.  Do we really intend to stand idly by as innocent men, women and children starve to death?  Will we turn off our television sets when we see people’s homes and livelihoods wiped away by an unexpected catastrophe?

It’s not just disaster aid that is affected: every other program that protects the poorest and most vulnerable people is savaged.  Refugee aid.  Food aid.  Water and sanitation.  Massive cuts in international efforts to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

Meanwhile, funding for the diplomats and aid workers who carry out these programs is also slashed.  If there’s anything we’ve learned over the past few years, it ought to be that we don’t just hand over money to contractors and governments without adequate oversight and accountability.

Over the past month, we have all watched the incredible events unfolding in Tunisia and Egypt.  The United States did not create these democracy movements and does not control them.  But our diplomats did, and do, play a large role in helping to promote peaceful, negotiated solutions so that the will of the people can be heard.  Our security assistance helped professionalize forces in both of those countries so that they did not crush the demonstrators with force, as has happened in so many other places.  And yet, this bill and many of the proposed amendments would slash the kinds of assistance we provide to nascent democracy movements and human rights activists under other authoritarian regimes.

Somehow the draconian cuts in this bill were not enough for many in this body.  Added on top of all these cuts, we now face amendments to remove ourselves completely from the United Nations, to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for Democracy and the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the U.S. Institute of Peace.  They would prohibit us from taking action to address climate change and increase the availability of voluntary family planning for couples who cannot feed the children they already have.  They would cut aid to countries whose support is essential to us in the areas of counterterrorism, intelligence, and non-proliferation, just because they don’t vote with us in the United Nations.

There’s one thing the authors of these amendments don’t seem to understand: Aid is not a gift. The United States provides foreign assistance because it serves OUR interests.  Helping countries become more democratic, more stable, more capable of defending themselves and better at pulling themselves out of poverty is just as important for us as it is for them.

 

Madam Speaker, the cuts to international spending in this bill will not create a single U.S. job – in fact, they will cost jobs.  One amendment would even eliminate the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or OPIC – an agency that helps U.S. businesses compete in world markets, and actually MAKES money for the U.S. taxpayer.

This is no way to legislate.  This is an irrational process that is, quite frankly, a national embarrassment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in telling the leadership: “Enough already.  It’s time to start over.”