We Need You: A Case for a New Grand Old Party Agenda

Last week Mark Wilson articulated that the GOP’s “alternative” plan for economic recovery was really just more of the same tried and un-true tax-cut policies. On Sunday, Frank Rich went so far as to say that the Republicans’ “desperate” tactics (such as Bobby Jindal’s callow performance Tuesday night and GOP Party Chair Michael Steele’s assertion that the Republican party needs an “off-the-hook” hip-hop makeover) were close to “committing [political] suicide.” While the stakes are definitely high for Obama and the Democrats to pull off this economic recovery, the Republican Party’s future is in dire straits if they don’t come up with a (positive) message—and leaders—fast.

On Wednesday, New York’s registered Independent mayor Michael Bloomberg met with local GOP leaders to ask for their support for his run for a third term as mayor. Although it’s understandable that they would be wary of his sincerity (he dropped the party back in 2007, and many think he only wants their endorsement because he’d be placed more visibly on the ballot), there are currently no clear Republican front-runners that could legitimately challenge Bloomberg when he runs later this year. And, while the party certainly reserves the right not to back him, they ironically need a candidate like him—someone who understands their commitment to balanced and fair economic incentives but also encourages public works projects and city-supported programs for the broader citizenry. In fact, if you look at New York as a political microcosm of the United States, Republicans can only remain relevant in this country if they promote candidates and leaders with Bloomberg-esque ideas; ones that offer innovative policies for their fiscal proposals along with new, bolder initiatives that support individual citizens.

Of course, Bloomberg isn’t perfect. However, the point is that if the Republican party wants to survive, it can’t only look to out-of-touch spokespersons such as Mark Sanford to deliver their fractured message. Although they seem to be avoiding it like the plague, Republicans are going to have to change their agenda, their ideas, and even their mission to go beyond the same old trickle-down, tax-cut, tax-credit mantra. Americans just aren’t buying it.

One possible reason the Republicans are having such a hard time promoting a new, appealing agenda is because while they’ve certainly evolved since their inception to favor the interests of an elite minority of the electorate, they’ve also clung to the image that they represent just the opposite. This stolid Party-of-No got its start by being a conflicted party of misfits: Disgruntled Democrats, frustrated Whigs, angry Know-Nothings, and other politically passionate individuals who really could only agree on their opposition to slavery. This team of outcasts banded together in Wisconsin in 1854 to form the party that only six years later would usher in its first and most famous president—Abraham Lincoln. As the party evolved from one that supported small businesses and individual rights to one that consistently favors corporate tax breaks and social conservatism, it has tried to hang on to its message and supporters by pretending to be Joe the Plumber when it’s really Joe the CEO. Granted, the Democrats are just as guilty of supporting big banks and big companies. However,  they lack the Achilles heel that the Republicans will not confront—denial. Republicans don’t want to change their image, but, ironically, they often misrepresent themselves and don’t embrace the interests of most Americans.

Despite all the best efforts of the Democrats, we need Republicans to challenge them, offer ideas, and approach our economic problems with a different, fresh perspective. We don’t need one party running the show in Washington. Unfortunately, the GOP is making this paradigm easy when congressional members stonewall Obama and his administration, GOP governors threaten to deny crucial funding for their constituents based on ideological disagreement, and Republican leaders and pundits cry “Socialism!” every time the Democrats offer forth a plan but at the same time fail to offer any constructive agenda of their own. (Sorry, the so-called “minority tyranny” that Senate filibustering provides does not constitute as a genuine effort either.)

In his speech on Tuesday night, Governor Jindal implored:

Democratic leaders in Washington, they place their hope in the federal government. We [Republicans] place our hope in you, the American people.

Of all the patronizing statements he made that night, this was the most striking. If the past election taught Americans anything, it was that they are their government and can certainly accomplish a lot if they stay motivated and involved. Jindal’s assertion corroborates the Republican “people v. government” attitude and fails to recognize that Americans want Washington to work for them—they don’t pay taxes for their representatives to sit on their hands. By suggesting that Americans have the power and know-how to overcome the hardships of the economy, health care, and education as individuals, Jindal minimizes the severity of the people’s problems and shirks the responsibility of the post in which he was elected.

Americans don’t expect government to solve all their problems. However, they do expect them to make their best and most qualified effort. If Republicans want to complain about how horrible and intrusive government is, then why are they involved in government at all? They can’t claim the title of watchdog, if they’re just going to bark and not bite.

Which brings us back to Bloomberg. Why exactly did this very popular Republican leader leave the ticket he ran on in two successful elections? In a speech at the University of Southern California in 2007 he explained:

The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy.

This was pre-economic crisis, and yet his words still hold true today for the Grand Old Party. And if the Republicans can’t convince a Wall Street billionaire that they’re capable of instituting effective, industrious policies, whom can they convince? Hey, if Bloomberg wants you back, take him.

What’s a Republican Governor To Do?

You know, it’s hard out there for a governor, when he’s trying to make the money for his state budget, and all the infrastructure and unemployment insurance money’s spent, and all the RNC leadership is talking … too much.

Not a single House Republican voted in favor of the “bipartisan” H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by President Obama last Monday. Republicans were proud of their united opposition to what they called a bill filled with “pork,” though, technically, “pork-barrel spending” is defined as non-essential spending made for specific, pet projects in a congressman’s home district — say, for a $398 million bridge from one scantily-populated town to an airport. Using that definition, there is no pork in this bill, since it allocates money for only large, federal projects, with no mention of specific projects and nothing targeted at specific districts (in fact, the bill’s flaw may just be its breadth, with line-items for things like “Science” within NASA’s budget).

So, anyway, Republicans are very proud of themselves. But it may be a case of cutting off their noses to spite their faces. On the one hand, they want this stimulus bill to be their first major conflict with the Obama administration, so that they have a clearly defined message in opposition to his; i.e., “wasteful spending.” On the other hand, states are seriously hurting for money. Just this last week, the Great State of California finally closed a $40 billion chasm in its budget for next year. (Although, in spite of that, Governor Schwarzenegger terminated 10,000 state employees and cut the salaries of thousands more in an effort to save some cash. Hasta la vista, employees.)

Republican governors are also in charge in some of the poorest states, like Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi, where this money could be really useful! At what point does adherence to ideology actually start hurting people? You may wish to ask the citizens of Louisiana, where Republican Governor Bobby Jindal may refuse $4 billion in infrastructure funds allocated to it under the stimulus plan, according to CBS News. The New York Times reports that Governor Jindal has already refused expanded unemployment benefits because it would raise business taxes.

Republicans don’t want to appear to be hypocrites, so they’ll do the next-best thing: appear to be obstinate. Of course, all of this posturing isn’t being done because Republicans staunchly adhere to their ideals. What did you think this was, Bizzaro United States? Oh, no; these governors are refusing the money because they plan on running for president in 2012! Refusing stimulus money may cause real damage to millions of people in states where demand for social services and entitlement benefits is on the rise, but that clearly isn’t important to Republican presidential contenders who need to be able to point back to a time when they were 100% in line with the Republican talking points about the stimulus.

Thankfully, Governor Schwarzenegger is not running for president (unless they amend the Constitution. Fingers crossed!). Maybe that’s why he will not only take the stimulus money allocated to California, but why he is urging other Republican governors to do so (although he also said he would gladly take whatever money the other governors don’t want). Unless, of course, the other governors are so unselfish that they’re willing to risk the welfare of their states for a cynical attempt at appearing “fiscally responsible” so that they can make a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 by out-conservativing each other. That’s change we can sink in!

Let this serve as another example of why Republicans lost so much in November: as it turns out, they may not care about people. That may be a generalization (and it is!), but I wonder about the guy in New Orleans who’s been laid off and who can no longer make his mortgage payments. I know it will do his heart good to know that Governor Jindal is fighting to prevent him from getting any help because, in so doing, Governor Jindal would boost his chances of being elected president. What does the word “constituency” mean, anyway? Especially when you have to choose between an electorate that can only drag you down and a Republican elite that could be your meal ticket to the presidential nomination.

I’ll give this much to them, though: they stick to their guns, even if those guns will send them hurtling over a cliff. You’ve got to respect someone who is self-centered enough to play chicken with other people’s lives simply to prove a stupid point.

Or not. Which is good, because I don’t.

Should We Call it Bailout Stadium?

If you’ve ever yearned to see your favorite sports team play at a ballpark not named after a bank, the phone company, or a purveyor of dog food, relief may be in sight. At the very least, two Congressmen have, shall we say, started the ball rolling. Ohio Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich and Republican Texas Rep. Ted Poe have asked the Obama Administration to require Citigroup to cancel its arrangements to pay the New York Mets $400 million over twenty years for the right to call their new stadium Citi Field.

Now, annoying as the practice may be to some sports fans, naming rights deals have become pretty routine these days. San Diego fans, for instance, have to go to Petco Park to see the Padres and for two years the Houston Astros played at Enron Field (and no, it wasn’t renamed Felons Field, it’s Minute Maid Park now.) But what separates this deal from the routine, of course, is just how famously short of cash Citigroup is. So short that the Bush Administration ponied up $25 billion of taxpayer money to bail the bank out last October followed by another $20 billion in November. All of this while the bank released a plan to drop 52,000 employees – the nation’s largest layoff announcement in fifteen years – on top of a lay off of 17,000 earlier in the year.

So now that it’s become a ward of the state, does Citigroup have any plans to reconsider its spending priorities and save the $40 million for something maybe more central to its corporate mission like, say, banking? Not on your life. Eric Eve, Citigroup’s senior VP of global community relations assures us that the Citi Field deal “is a smart business decision,” and while acknowledging that “these are trying times for everyone,” he remained enthusiastic about being “able to see all of the nonprofit that we’re going to be able to bring to this field and enjoy these games” and “build and strengthen community relationships.”

The Congressmen saw it differently. Noting that the Treasury Department “forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet,” Kucinich suggested that it “also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead begin to repay their debt to the taxpayers.”

If every cloud really does have a silver lining, then maybe a silvery glint in the current recession, depression, or whatever we wind up calling the situation is that in times like this it suddenly becomes much easier to recognize the fact that is we the people who are the ultimate source of corporate wealth. And with that recognition comes the idea that we ought to have some say in how corporate executives use that wealth. A year ago, the idea of limiting executive compensation was wild eyed radicalism; today it merits but a passing headline.

There aren’t a lot of corporations that have provided a stronger case for limiting executive compensation than Citigroup. According to the New York Times, when the bank brought Vikram Pandit on as its chief executive earlier in 2008, his total compensation package amounted “to at least $216 million.” The bank’s compensation committee explained its generosity as “recognizing that difficult economic conditions make rewarding key talent especially important.” (The Herald Tribune also noted that Robert Rubin, Treasury Secretary under Clinton and adviser to Obama, “had been paid $17.3 million [by Citigroup] in 2006 and collected more than $150 million in the last eight years.”)

The Obama Administration’s $500,000 cap on executive compensation for bailed out companies is not retroactive, by the way, so a $20 million dollar a year naming deal may still seem like relatively small change for the top guys at Citigroup. Likewise, in the sporting world, it wouldn’t even match the annual salary the Mets’d have to pay for a top-of-the line hitter like Alex Rodriguez or Manny Ramirez. But for the rest of us, it’s still quite a bit of money. It’s four hundred $50,000-a-year jobs, for instance.  Citigroup employees who kept their $50,000-a-year jobs could probably afford to buy their kids tickets to see games at Citi Field instead of having to perhaps try to get them through the nonprofit organizations Citigroup looks forward to bringing to the ballpark and building relationships with.

The bottom line on all of this that a publicly subsidized corporation obviously has no business giving a sports franchise $400 million so that they can continue to pay athletes salaries as outrageous as the ones that corporate executives pay themselves. Of course, these salaries were just as absurd last year, but last year an argument that this type of splurging demonstrated that there was simply too much wealth in corporate coffers had no place in mainstream American political discussion. Things are different today.

Kucinich and Poe are not the first to try to buck the corporate naming wave. The entire city of San Francisco has already weighed in on the question. In 1996, the naming rights to the city’s Candlestick Park, home to the baseball Giants and football 49ers, were leased to a computer networking company called 3Com. However, when the contract expired in 2001, 3Com Park reverted to Candlestick and in 2004 four members of the city’s Board of Supervisors, led by Board President Matt Gonzalez, decided to try to keep this from happening again. They placed a proposition before the voters to declare that “the City-owned sports stadium located at Candlestick Point … is hereby named and shall be referred to as ‘Candlestick Park.’” This, they said in the city’s voting guide, would be “an opportunity to send a signal that San Francisco remains on the front lines against the increased corporatization and commercialization of everyday life.”

On election day, 55% of the city’s voters sided with them, but by this time, the administration of Mayor Gavin Newsom, who had narrowly defeated Gonzalez for that office the prior year, had already acquiesced to a deal in which the 49ers leased the name of the publicly owned stadium and split the proceeds with the city. The 49ers did not reveal the exact terms, but said the city would net more than $3 million a year. Newsom characterized arguments that the naming deal represented a corporate sellout as “extreme and absurd.”

So the will of the voters notwithstanding, the City by the Bay is now the proud owner of a stadium called, for the moment, Monster Park. Newsom is, not surprisingly, unrepentant about his course of action. In fact, in a year when even corporate chieftains like Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit thought it politic to stay away from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Newsom attended the international corporate lovefest for the third year in a row. But given what’s going on in Washington, Newsom, who is known to be contemplating a run for governor of California, and all of the other politicians still looking for love from the Fortune 500 might just want to reconsider just what kind of, um, monster they could be creating for themselves.

Obama, Mexico, and the Drug War

Remember the War on Drugs? Sure you do. It was after the Cold War and before the War on Terror. It continues to be an attempt to crack down on the illegal drug trade into the U.S. It turned out to be little more than an excuse to continue the Cold War in places like Colombia. It also resulted in new domestic judicial rules such as three-strikes-and-you’re-out, and draconian mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, over-crowding prisons with disproportionately minority, nonviolent, first-time offenders in possession of small amounts of drugs.

Since September 11, 2001, we haven’t heard much about the War on Drugs. With the attacks of that day, the threat of religiously and ideologically motivated radical Muslim terrorists immediately became more grave than the crime and violence connected to Latin American (mostly) drug cartels. Our collective focus has been on the threat posed by Islamic terrorism since 2001 and we have largely ignored the growing threat posed by increasingly powerful drug cartels on our southern border.

Last year, drug violence and corruption in Mexico surged, especially in towns and cities along the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2008 over 6,000 people were probably killed – that adds up to over 16 people every day – twice as many as in 2007. Many of these killings were particularly gruesome – beheadings and execution style killings. Drug cartels are suspected of downing a plane, killing Mexico’s Interior Minister, and corruption related to drug trafficking has reached the highest levels. The Sinaloa, Gulf, and Tijuana cartels have infiltrated the judiciary, the police, and political parties. The director of Mexico’s Interpol Office and an employee of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency were both arrested for collaborating with cartels. Last spring, the Justice Department declared that Mexican drug cartels pose the “largest threat to both citizens and law enforcement agencies in this country and now have gang members in nearly 200 U.S. cities.” And the U.S. Army High Command has determined that due to the violence, corruption and instability caused by drug trafficking in Mexico, its government, along with Pakistan’s, should “bear consideration for rapid and sudden collapse.” Former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey recently stated that thanks to drug cartels “Mexico is on the edge of the abyss – it could become a narco-state in the coming decade.” Mexico’s foreign minister has had to defend her government against accusations of its being a failed state.

These are damning statements that President Obama’s incoming administration should not take lightly. While I hope the situation in Mexico and U.S.-Mexican relations will be treated with the seriousness they deserve, Obama has not shared his plans concerning Mexico or the Drug War very openly with the American public. Indeed, he appears to have followed Bush’s lead and has focused his foreign policy sights on – you guessed it – Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and other problems in the Middle East. Given our country’s complex and numerous entanglements in the region, this is understandable. But with the drug trade destabilizing our southern neighbor and threatening to cross the border and sow violence, corruption, and instability on U.S. soil it is surely necessary to give our attention to all of these situations, however difficult it may be.

The U.S.-led Drug War has always been deeply flawed and arguably ineffective. The U.S. has always been eager to solve the problem by force – instigating violence in other countries (massive military funding to Colombia, Mexico, etc.) and treating the drug trade in the U.S. as essentially a moral and policing problem that can be solved with a zero tolerance approach and enough cops, guns, and jails. The U.S. has been reluctant to pursue cheaper and more effective ways of battling the drug trade – drug treatment for addicts in the U.S., and development aid for farmers in other countries for example. The War on Terror has pushed the War on Drugs to the back burner, and it has pushed ‘soft’ strategies even further back. It seems we have given up trying to reduce the demand or the supply of illegal drugs in the U.S.

So what exactly does Obama plan to do about the threat posed by illegal drug trafficking? He did not mention Mexico or drugs in his inaugural address, and his public statements since being elected haven’t given many clues. The new whitehouse.gov foreign policy agenda page says nothing about Latin America, preoccupied as it is with Middle East concerns. And as a candidate, Obama said little specific about Latin America or drug trafficking, though at least he mentioned Latin America on his campaign website.

It appears President Obama will not be as hands-off as President Bush when it comes to problems in Latin America. He has indicated a desire for closer and improved relations with Mexico. President-elect Obama was visited by President Felipe Calderon in Washington where they discussed economic issues (including Obama’s campaign pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, something Calderon is opposed to), the environment, immigration, and drug trafficking. Neither man gave many details about their discussion, but Obama has indicated support for the Merida Initiative, passed last June, which commits the U.S. to increasing aid to Mexico for equipment and training to combat organized crime. It does nothing to reduce the U.S. demand for drugs, however.

President Obama also envisions an ambitious new Partnership for the Americas”. In a Miami speech during the campaign he declared:

We need an agenda that advances democracy, security, and opportunity from the bottom up. So my policy will be guided by the simple principle that what’s good for the people of the Americas is good for the United States. That means measuring success not just through agreements among governments, but also through the hopes of the child in the favelas of Rio, the security for the policeman in Mexico City, and the shrinking of the distance between Miami and Havana.

This soaring rhetoric is unfortunately not, as far as I can tell, matched by detailed or original strategies for combating the drug trade along the U.S.-Mexico border. Increased cooperation between the U.S. and other Latin American countries will surely be helpful and appreciated, but in the midst of so many other problems, the U.S. may not have the resources or the political will to see these changes through. Yet there are glimmers of hope – commitments to improve cross border partnerships between U.S. and Mexican states and pledges to increase drug treatment programs in the U.S.

It is also instructive to examine the recent decisions Obama and his inner circle have made regarding the Drug War. As a candidate, Obama promised to end DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California, but since his assuming office raids have continued. Obama’s staff has said that as soon as new Department of Justice officials are appointed the raids will end, heartening news for those who support medical marijuana laws – and a difficult promise to avoid making good on. Obama does not support legalizing drugs – not surprising for a U.S. president – while at the same time advocating more treatment than incarceration for users, a significant shift from previous presidents. He has suggested ending mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent first-time offenders, and ending a federal ban on funding needle exchange programs reversing years of federal drug policy.

This appears promising, yet Obama’s coterie does not have a history of breaking ranks with the War on Drugs consensus. Joe Biden has been a strong supporter of law enforcement solutions, toughening sentencing rules for drug users, and criminalizing drug use. He played a significant part in creating the position of Drug Czar. He has made more moderate decisions in recent years, but many Drug War opponents remain skeptical of him. Rahm Emanuel has been a vocal supporter of the Drug War, at least when it fits his political agenda, and has a mixed record on issues like medical marijuana. Incoming Attorney General Eric Holder also vigorously supported harsher Drug War policies during his years under President Clinton and as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Obama’s interim Drug Czar – Ed Jurith, a longtime lawyer for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and former Clinton Drug Czar – has been described as “civil and thoughtful” in the ongoing debate over drug policy though he has by-and-large supported the Drug War. It is rumored that Obama’s permanent Drug Czar pick is Republican Jim Ramstad, who has opposed needle exchange programs, a crucial tool in decreasing the spread of HIV and other fatal diseases amongst addicts. While Drug War opponents may not be thrilled with these selections by Obama, many are taking a wait-and-see approach and acknowledging that these individuals are at least politically open to making policy changes.

And in Mexico? Will Obama put forward drug policies innovative and intelligent enough to effectively curb the violence and corruption flourishing along the U.S.-Mexico border? Will he be able to create a new, smarter mix of drug fighting strategies that reduces the violence and corruption that has accompanied drug trafficking in the U.S. and Mexico? While Mexico and the U.S. border states (dealing with the threat of the same drug-related problems) are committed to effectively managing and limiting, if not stopping, the drug trade, it remains to be seen how committed the Obama administration in far-off Washington will be. Inspirational rhetoric is one thing, but confronting difficult societal problems and defeating organized gangs of unrepentant killers is another – just ask former President Bush.

Fiscal Implications of Illegal Immigration

Unlike a few years ago, there has been relatively little talk about illegal immigration in the last two years. With both presidential candidates holding similar views, there was rarely a mention during the recent campaign. In 2008, Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at the non-partisan research organization, Pew Hispanic Center (PHC), reported that there has been virtually no growth in the illegal immigration population to the United States since 2006. The reason is likely because of the recession and the lack of jobs in the United States. While the poor economy is currently thwarting illegal immigrants from entering the U.S., there are still critical fiscal problems caused by illegal immigration that cannot be totally ignored.

The Issue

The PHC estimates that there to be about 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.  In 2004, 49% of illegal immigrants were high school dropouts as opposed to 21% for legal immigrants and 11% for natives.  Low education often leads to low-skill jobs and low pay and thus an inability to climb the economic ladder of success and pay a higher share of taxes.

In addition, legal taxpayers are paying for many illegal immigrants health care bills. Since many illegal immigrants are below the federal poverty line, they often have to rely on social services such as uncompensated health care which is predominantly funded by cost-shifting to legal taxpayers with insurance. In Texas, the state controller estimated that illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006. In California, a 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform put the state’s annual cost at $1.4 billion. In Colorado and Minnesota for 2005, the costs were estimated to be $31 million and $17 million respectively.

Although some illegal immigrants do pay taxes to the government, the Census Bureau found in 2002 that households headed by illegal immigrants used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes.  According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the total K-12 school costs for illegal immigrants costs the nation nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born to illegal immigrants were added, the costs go up to $28.6 billion.  This is problematic at a time when states are cutting public school budgets and laying off teachers, students are often overcrowded in classrooms, and some schools are even thinking of changing the five day school week to four days due to lack of funds.

Possible Solutions

One possible solution to decrease illegal immigration is to make it simpler to enter and stay in the U.S. legally. Currently, the estimated waiting period to get a Permanent Residency Card is three years. On average, a person has to stand in government lines for a total of 45 hours to obtain a Permanent Residency card.  There either has to be less paperwork or more people need to be hired to move the paperwork in the process.

In order to stop the flow of illegal immigration, it must be physically impossible for illegals to enter the U.S. And in order for that to happen, the borders must be secured with precision. All United States borders must be secured with manpower trained to inspect and detect illegal immigrants. The government must make it a priority for the safety of its citizens to secure all borders. As such, there needs to be more funding and training for Homeland Security.

Additionally, anyone applying for a visa should be screened for criminal history in their native country before receiving a visa. Foreigners with temporary visas should be fingerprinted, with the information saved in computers, to be checked if they are overstaying their permitted time period. Once an illegal immigrant is identified, deportation must be carried out in an efficient, yet fair manner. It is therefore necessary for better cooperation between federal and state government agencies. In addition, foreign diplomacy must be culturally sensitive and humane.

For those illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. and are identified, there should be a priority list of who gets deported first based upon criteria such as knowledge of the English language, whether there is an economic need for their services, how long they have lived in the U.S., and how many family members are currently citizens.

Amnesty should be granted to some illegal immigrants because of the fiscal and logistical constraints to mass deportation. If it saves time, resources, and money to keep many illegal immigrants in the U.S. as opposed to deporting them,  then they should be permitted to stay in the U.S. These illegal immigrants would be given temporary amnesty and the opportunity to file for legal permanent residency as long as they met a certain predefined set of rules. In Britain, the Institute for Public Policy Research found that it would save Britain $4.7 billion pounds in deportation costs and raise $1 billion pounds in taxes if they did not deport their illegal immigrant population (assuming they had the ability to do so).  The Center for American Progress estimates that it would cost $41 billion to deport the over 10 million illegal residents in the U.S.

The U.S. needs to make it a priority to prevent illegal immigration and encourage legal immigration. In order to do this, the government must increase intelligence, border security, investigation, outreach, and interstate and foreign diplomacy. It must be evident that coming to the U.S. illegally is a disadvantage and that entering the U.S. legally makes one deserving of public benefits. By doing so, the U.S. will improve its fiscal status during times of economic hardship for all its legal citizens who are currently not receiving the full benefits of their hard earned fiscal contributions to their country.

Federalism and Medical Marijuana: A Match Made in Confusion

Federalism is a funny thing. At its best, federalism provides for states’ individual personalities and needs. At its worst, federalism means “no one really knows who’s in charge.” Federalism led to several “nullification” crises in the 1820s when some Southern states, backed by southerner John C. Calhoun (vice president at the time), believed they had the power to “nullify” acts of Congress. Of course, they didn’t, and the states stewed for forty more years until they had a little fight about it.

But, Federalism is here to stay, mostly because it prevents the concentration of all powers in the hands of the federal government. The phrase “United States of America” should be taken more literally than it is: the Founding Fathers thought that this country would, literally, be a bunch of disparate states united by the federal government. In Article I of the Constitution, they laid out Congress’ specific powers: what it can, and cannot, do. Congress’ powers are limited only to those ennumerated in Article I. In 1791, the amendments within the Bill of Rights were ratified, further limiting the federal government’s power. Of note to us now is the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This is important to remember: if there’s a power someone out there can think of, and that power is not specifically granted to Congress, then the state governments or the people themselves have that power. Take liquor control: there’s no federal law governing alcoholic beverages because regulating liquor is not one of Congress’ specifically-granted powers; therefore, that power defaults to the states.

Sure, great history lesson, but this is all so boring. Does any of this have a point?

Let’s begin in 1970, with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act. This marked the beginning of the War on Drugs. The Controlled Substances Act clearly defined what drugs were always illegal, sometimes illegal, and legal. It divides drugs into five categories, or schedules. Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical value. Schedule II drugs have a high potential for abuse and physical or psychological dependence, but have accepted medical value. And so on down to Schedule V, which are drugs with a low potential for abuse and limited psychological or physical dependence. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I narcotic, meaning it has a high propensity for abuse and no accepted medical value, as far as the U.S. Congress is concerned.

But the U.S. Congress isn’t always correct. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which permitted physicians to legally prescribe marijuana as a treatment and further permitted a patient or a patient’s caregiver to grow marijuana plants for the patient’s medical use. Proposition 215 has been the basis for many a federalist showdown over who has authority in the realm of legal drugs. The U.S. Justice Department has refused to recognize the legitimacy of Prop. 215, and as such, continues to raid medical marijuana dispensaries in California because, hey, federal law always trumps state law (this is the “supremacy clause” of the U.S. Constitution).

The U.S. Supreme Court, while not ruling specifically on the issue of California’s statute, has twice upheld the supremacy of Congress when it comes to drug enforcement. In 2005’s Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court used some curious reasoning and the commerce clause to find that Congress can regulate marijuana cultivation, even if the marijuana never crosses state lines (disclosure: I wrote the above-linked article).

As much as proponents of legal marijuana may not like to hear it, the law is very cut and dry: when federal law and state law are in conflict, federal law always wins. In this case, California law says that marijuana has medical value and should be prescribed legally. Federal law completely disagrees. Federal law wins. This is most likely what the U.S. Supreme Court will find if they take up the case of San Diego County.

San Diego County and San Bernadino County, two counties in southern California, have been trying for the past three years to overturn Prop. 215. They argue that they should not be required to do something under state law which is illegal under federal law. California’s Fourth Circuit Court disagreed, upholding the legality of California’s statute. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal. Now, San Diego and San Bernadino County are taking their fight to the top and asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against California.

Which is probably what they will do. As for the Controlled Substances Act itself, marijuana has been shown to have some medical value, but these studies are routinely overlooked by anti-drug advocates who, for some reason, believe that marijuana is the most dangerous drug ever invented. These people are also in charge of our nation’s drug policy. Not only is marijuana not that dangerous (the risk of overdose is zero, for example), but there are many other drugs that are far more dangerous (in the link above to a Rolling Stone article, the author points out that the government ignored the real danger of methamphetamine for years, preferring instead to fight the make-believe scourge of marijuana). The War on Drugs has escalated even into the free speech zone, causing people to be prosecuted under the Controlled Substances Act merely for advocating the use of marijuana or for selling devices that could be used to smoke marijuana.

California, though, is not alone. Other states and municipalities have attempted to circumvent the federal ban in other ways. The most popular method is to make arrest and prosecution for marijuana possession a city police department’s lowest enforcement priority — below traffic tickets, below jaywalking. San Francisco currently has such a policy. The city of Denver passed a referendum in 2005 permitting marijuana possession, even though state law still forbids it. When state, federal, and municipal laws conflict, there’s an enforcement problem. It gets even worse when the people doing some of the enforcing fundamentally disagree with the law. And what happens when the law forbids something that many people do, regardless? Should all those people go to jail, or should the law be re-examined? In Ontario, Canada, a 2008 study showed that 14% of adults used marijuana in 2005. That’s a lot of people; are they all criminals beyond the definition of “criminal” as “one who breaks the law”?

Even if potential Surgeon General Dr. Sanjay Gupta doesn’t think marijuana should be legalized (and for good reasons, too: Dr. Gupta acknowledges that smoking anything is bad for your lungs, and some users report anxiety or depression), he recognizes that some studies have shown marijuana to be an effective treatment for nausea or even Alzheimer’s disease. Marijuana is not illegal because it is bad (cigarettes and alcohol are far worse for your health); it is illegal because a minority of people (the same people who brought you alcohol prohibition) seventy years ago convinced Congress that it was immoral and evil, and that taboo has endured.

Federal marijuana policy is very childish and must be changed, but the Supreme Court is not the appropriate place for relief. If the Court takes San Diego’s case, it will undoubtedly mean the end of medical marijuana legislation for the states. No, appropriate relief must come from Congress, which must remove marijuana from its list of Schedule I narcotics (which is also populated by heroin, mescaline, peyote, and LSD; even cocaine has accepted medical uses!). Rep. Barney Frank took a tremendous step last year when he introduced legislation to permit the possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults (disclosure: I wrote the above-linked article). In the meantime, the people who actually do rely on medical marijuana to get through their day (which, it turns out, are AIDS patients who find marijuana much more effective than the anti-nausea medication they must take with their AIDS drug cocktails) will be ill-served by their government.

Sex and the City: Prop K

Memo: Prop K did not pass on Election Day.  For those hoping and praying for victory, San Franciscans, as liberal as they are, voted against decriminalized prostitution.  Prop K, heavily supported by the San Francisco Democratic Party, the National Lawyers Guild, the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, along with many other prominent progressive organizations, would forbid law enforcement agencies to investigate, arrest, or prosecute anyone selling sex, although it would not technically legalize it.  To the keen visitor, San Francisco seems like a city full of prestige, ingenuity, and rich in culture. However, when you venture into the heart of the city, visitors will find that it is teeming with dirty vices.  Brothels posing as massage parlors and nail salons, narcotics being sold on the corner in broad daylight, and strip clubs innocently waiting for the tired traveler.    If you haven’t been to San Francisco for a while, there is much here to suit your pleasure: It is a perfect city for the undiscriminating John.

San Francisco, the flash-forward city of the Pacific Rim, has, for better or worse, become an extremely liberal city.  It has become a home to the Folsom Street Parade that celebrates sadism and masochism, Lovefest–a street festival where neo-hippies gather to share “love,” and a Hollywood mayor who regards his town as a “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants, a haven for those practicing civil disobedience.  Prostitutes, coincidentally, have had a long, famed history in San Francisco, setting up shop on Maiden Lane (a.k.a. Morton Lane) near Union Square during the Gold Rush, then accommodating miners with women of all colors.  Today, Maiden Lane only exists as an alley for delivery vehicles and upscale boutiques. However, the elusive “call girls” have migrated to the online world.  Through this transition, escorts now have access to a more seemingly infinite database than they could ever encounter on the streets and some who they would never imagine soliciting business from.  John’s or “tricks,” one who uses an escort’s service, can now safely view and pick their fantasy in the privacy of their home without the authorities breathing down their neck.  The internet has also given escorts anonymity and has provided them with forums to share their positive experiences, fears, and business information.  Prostitution in the 21st century has become a billion dollar business.

Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession.  And there is nothing anyone can do from preventing a women from selling her body.  Unfortunately, in the modern age, many other despicable trades are associated with it such as pimping, pandering, human trafficking, and child prostitution which have slandered the honest working girl.  To which I am happy that Prop. K did not pass.  Though Prop K’s intent was to protect women and to report abuse without fear of prosecution, it allows pimps to operate legally, opening the floodgates to legal organized crime, threatening the humanity of women.  Whether one thinks prostitution should be legalized or not, one cannot deny the fact that prostitution breads a slew of detrimental activities that ultimately harm society.

The Litigation Begins

I was part of an anti-Proposition 8 demonstration this weekend. Not intentionally, though. As my friend and I walked down Market Street in San Francisco (on our way to find me some fashion), we saw a large crowd marching down the street, shouting slogans like “What do we want? (Equal rights!) Went do we want them? (Now!)” and “Gay, straight, black, white, marriage is a civil right!” So we walked along with the crowd, yelling the slogans, not only because it was an interesting way to get to Union Square, but because we agreed with what the crowd was saying. But then, as we approached Powell Street, my friend and I left the crowd and went to Urban Outfitters where I was to find fashion.

At the time, I thought, “This is an interesting diversion.” I was also aware, though, that for many, if not all, of the people in the chanting crowd, these demonstrations are not a diversion. This is their lives they’re fighting for. I can live comfortably in the assurance that I will never need to fight the government for the right to marry someone (if I even choose to marry anyone at all!).

But there are people whose lives have now been relegated to second-class status under the law.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue. It will accept arguments for and against the constitutionality of Proposition 8 until January. At issue is whether or not Proposition 8 is merely an “amendment” or a “revision” of the state constitution. If the former, Prop. 8 stands, and same-sex couples can’t marry. If the latter, Prop. 8 is unconstitutional on its face, and same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land once again, since a 2/3 vote of both the state legislature and the voters is required to pass a constitutional “revision.”

Opponents of Prop. 8 argue that taking away the rights of a minority is so contrary to the spirit of the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution that a simple majority cannot do it. Alexis de Tocqueville, during his sojourn through the United States in the very early years of the Republic, warned that the majority could conceivably strip a minority group of its rights by virtue of nothing more than majority’s size. This tyranny of the majority, he wrote, was a danger inherent in democracy and something that needed to be guarded against.

De Tocqueville would be disappointed to learn that his warning went unheeded.

The California Supeme Court has only twice overturned voter-approved constitutional amendments: in 1948 and again in 1991. In 1978, the Court said that “revision” referred to “substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions.” So, is removing a right of an entire group of people a “substantial alteration of the entire constitution”? That is what the court will be deciding.

Preliminary indications are not good. Last week, the court voted 6-1 merely to hear the challenge to Prop. 8’s constitutionality. The lone dissenter was Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of four judges who sided with the majority in the May case that legalized same-sex marriage. Her vote will undoubtedly be crucial, but since she doesn’t think that the petitioners even have the ability to file their case before the court, it’s unlikely she would find in favor of the Prop. 8 opponents.

What’s next for Prop. 8? Opponents could place an initiative on the ballot to repeal the amendment. It’s up in the air as to whether or not that would pass. The Mormons, energized by their win this time, could certainly muster up enough money to defeat a repeal amendment.

Shame on Californians who voted for this. They now have the dubious honor of being the first people to amend a constitution so as to take away extant rights.

Dear President Obama: Don’t Do These

Every pundit with a keyboard and at least one hand is writing about what President-Elect Barack Obama (I’ll never get tired of that) should do in his first fifteen minutes as president. Obviously, he should immediately rescind stupid Bush executive orders: over the weekend, he indicated that he would do as much. Two Bush executive orders are scheduled for the chopping-block: one that placed a moratorium on federally-funded stem cell research from new lines of embryonic stem cells (remember when that was the most our country had to worry about?) and another that prohibits federal funds from being used for overseas family-planning organizations that suggest abortion among their family-planning options. Obama also plans for his new EPA to reverse the Bush EPA’s decision to prohibit California and a dozen other states from enacting their own carbon emissions standards.

These are great! But there are two things that have been bandied about — with varying degrees of sincerity — that are not that great.

The Employee Free Choice Act

Democrats have been trying to get the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800) passed for over a year. Bush promised to veto it. Obama has said he endorses it. EFCA provides another method for workers to form unions. Currently, the process for forming unions is as follows: a group of workers that wishes to unionize submits a petition to the National Labor Relations Board alleging that a “substantial” number of employees wishes to form a union. This is proven by 30% or more of the employees signing a petition indicating that they want to form a union. The NLRB schedules a hearing to determine if a question of representation exists. If NLRB determines that a question does exist, then it directs “an election by secret ballot” to occur.

EFCA would create an alternative method for forming a union: if a majority of employees signs a petition indicating that they wish to form a union, and those employees sign “valid authorizations” indicating as such, then NLRB will bypass the election process mentioned above and immediately certify the union. This is referred to as “card check” legislation.

EFCA contains other provisions, like permitting binding arbitration if management and the new union fail to agree on a contract within 90 days. It also strengthens protections for employees forming a union, more clearly defining what, exactly, an employer cannot do to employees forming a union (threaten to terminate employees or otherwise harass or discriminate against them during or after the union-organizing process, e.g.). The fine for such interference is increased from $5,000 to $20,000.

Strengthening penalties is the good part of this legislation. Eliminating the secret ballot is the bad part. Labor organizations like the AFL-CIO have been lobbying for this legislation for a long time, arguing that the union-creation process is long and difficult, and in the time between when employees sign the initial petition and when the NLRB calls for the election, management can attempt to dissuade employees from joining the union. If this is true, it still doesn’t explain why the Express process for forming a union must eliminate the secret ballot. The whole point of having a secret ballot in union elections is to protect employees from intimidation or retaliation, from the union as well as from the management. President Obama should veto this legislation or tell Democrats in the Senate to amend it so as to include a provision for secret ballots. There’s no reason why employees shouldn’t have secret ballots.

The Fairness Doctrine

Prior to 1987, there was a fairness doctrine, also called the equal time rule, present in broadcast television and radio. I’ll quote the above-linked website’s description of it, since it’s simple and good:

Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office. However, a candidate who can not afford time does not receive free time unless his or her opponent is also given free time.

(Upon reading the website linked above, I realized that it was written by Howard Kleiman, the very Miami University communications professor whose class first got me interested in First Amendment law!)

Obama and other Democrats have toyed around with the idea of resurrecting the fairness doctrine. A lot of them blame the rise of conservative talk radio (specifically, Rush Limbaugh) on the elimination of the fairness doctrine. With no requirement for equal time for all sides, the airwaves skewed to the right, creating a pulpit from which people like Rush, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, et al. can spew their Republican talking points. Democrats have attempted, in Air America, to create a similar network of their own, but it isn’t nearly as popular.

Legislating “fairness” is a terrible idea, both in principle and in execution. Just last week, the FCC and Fox Broadcasting duked it out in the Supreme Court over the issue of “indecency.” I can only imagine the tremendous amounts of litigation that would ensue from such a doctrine. That’s just the execution. On the issue of fairness, who is the government to determine “fairness”? The idea that the government exists to provide equity of points of view runs contradictory to the First Amendment. All the government does is guarantee that any side has a platform free from government interference; what the sides choose to do with that platform, or the degree to which they choose to use it, is up to them. The fairness doctrine could also give false dichotomy to scenarios in which there really aren’t two points of view (evolution/intelligent design comes immediately to mind; to suggest that both theories have equal veracity and should be debated equally is ludicrous; intelligent design does not deserve to be legitimized by placing it on par with evolution).

President Obama, please don’t pass the Employee Free Choice Act — not unless it’s altered to specify secret ballot elections. And please, please, please don’t bring back the fairness doctrine; it may work pragmatically to stem the tide of conservative talk radio, but as a theory, it’s broken and could lead to the inclusion of points of view that might otherwise be correctly disdained through the marketplace of ideas.

It Wasn’t All Smiles

While the liberals among us were celebrating our victory over The Empire, there was a group of people for whom Tuesday night was bittersweet. By Wednesday morning, it had become clear that California’s Proposition 8 — which would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage — had won a clear victory. 52% of voters in the most liberal state voted to ban same-sex marriage. Now the fight continues.

This is the first time a constitution has been amended to remove a right. As we have written before, California settled the issue of same-sex marriage in May when the state supreme court struck down a 2000 iniative statute, Proposition 22, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman only. The California Supreme Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional under both the California and federal constitutions. Thrity days from that ruling, until Wednesday morning, 18,000 same-sex couples were issed marriage licenses in California.

Prop. 8 supporters won through a combination of money and deceit. The money came mostly from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints — the Mormons — who recognized that if they could get a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed in California, they could get it passed anywhere. They used all that money to espouse a bunch of lies, including, but not limited to:

• If Prop. 8 fails, churches that perform heterosexual weddings will be required to perform same-sex weddings, too
• If Prop. 8 fails, religiously-oriented adoption agencies won’t be able to discriminate against same-sex couples
• If Prop. 8 fails, schools will have to teach children that same-sex marriage is acceptable and ultimately condone the homosexual way of life

These are not true, of course. Prop. 8 opponents couldn’t successfully convince people that nothing would change if Prop. 8 failed, since the condition of marriage would be unchanged. Churches would still be free to engage in freedom of expressive association and choose not to hold same-sex weddings. Children might have had to learn about same-sex marriage, but only in as much as it was the law in California. Religously-affiliated adoption agencies are a complicated problem and cannot be distilled into a simple tagline. (Please read this article about Catholic Charities, Inc. to learn more about how religion pertains to adoption. Full disclosure: This is an article I wrote several years ago.)

Prop. 8’s opponents are trying as hard as they can to get the proposition overturned. Withdrawing a right, they argue, is so fundamentally against the nature and the spirit of California’s constitution (and, indeed, any constitution) that it amounts to a “revision” of the constitution, not an “amendment.” Words matter, here: an amendment can be passed by a voter referendum. A revision must be passed by the legislature. If Prop. 8’s opponents can get the state supreme court to agree with them, then the entire proposition would be invalidated and same-sex marriage would be restored.

But this tactic is a long-shot. Prop. 8’s opponents tried to get the proposition removed from the ballot back in June using the same logic, but the state supreme court dismissed the case without prejudice. Without prejudice is an important legal word — it means that the case can be re-filed in the future.

Prop. 8’s opponents are also starting a petition to get the Mormon church stripped of its nonprofit, tax-exempt status. The tax code requires that any organization that is tax-exempt must refrain from lobbying for legislation. The Mormon church, as an entity, not only implored its congregants to vote for Prop. 8, but it also provided financial support to the Prop. 8 campaign. If that doesn’t merit being stripped of tax-exempt status, then I can’t think of what does. It’s illegal for churches to take political positions on candidates or legislation — well, it’s illegal if the church has tax-exempt status. And the LDS Church does.

It will be a difficult legal battle, and the Prop. 8 opponents will probably lose. That won’t stop them from putting an initiative on the June ballot to have the new amendment repealed. And I hope they try. And I hope they succeed. Prop. 8’s victory has tainted the sweet victory of this election with an insidious return to the time when separate but equal was the law of the land.

« Previous Page — Next Page »