Actions Speak Louder than Prayers

The actions following a mass shooting seem chillingly predictable now. Representatives and Senators take to Twitter to express their thoughts and prayers, President Obama holds a press conference saying that he can't keep holding press conferences after tragic events like this, the Democrats blame guns, the Republicans blame the mentally ill. A week later, the news media have moved on. Another mass shooting. Repeat.

If the root of these mass shootings is mentally ill people having access to guns, and using those guns to murder people, there are things that can be done. Republicans halting their endless campaign to repeal the Affordable Care Act would be a good place to start. Whether Republicans like it or not, Obamacare will help the mentally ill. One part of Obamacare allows mentally ill people to access treatment, without being denied health insurance for a pre-exisiting health condition. The Medicaid expansion, and ability to find affordable insurance, allows people living with mental illness who are too sick to work to have access to quality healthcare. If Republicans want to help the mentally ill, the easiest thing for them to do is not continue their efforts to roll back Obamacare.

But that's not what the Republicans are doing. If anything, they want to make it harder for people to access healthcare. And it's telling that the only time Republican's talk about helping the mentally ill is after a mass shooting.

On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats have been proposing legislation to curb access to guns. Congresswoman Velazquez (D-NY) and Congressman Jeffries (D-NY) introduced a bill on October 26, 2015. The bill aims to reduce gun violence by creating a tracking system for firearms, and putting a tax on guns. This tax will be used to do what the Republicans keep talking about, and create a mental health trust fund, to provide care for mentally ill people. 

Another bill, proposed in January of 2015 by Representative Robin Kelly, (D-IL) would amend the Brady Act, which mandates that licensed sellers of guns conduct background checks, to prevent violent criminals from having firearms. This particular bill would make anyone convicted of a stalking offense unable to own a gun, among other violent offenses. Finally, Congressman Michael Honda (D-CA) introduced a bill in early November of 2015 to allocate money for researching gun violence, something that isn't being funded right now

None of these bills have made it farther than a committee in the House of Representatives, and not one has been voted on. This is because Republican leadership in the House and Senate refuses to bring bills like these up for a vote. Even if these bills were voted on, they would likely fail, as most Republicans refuse to do anything to limit gun ownership in this country.

Gun control may not eliminate mass shootings all together, but it's as good a place as any to start. The Democrats are trying to do something, with the laws they have proposed. The Republicans are blocking them at every turn, and proposing none of their own solutions. The longer they continue their inaction, the more blood they will have on their hands.

No Room at the Inn

House and Senate Republicans want to send a message to Syrian refugees that there's "no room at the inn" this Christmas season, and they want to attach that message to a bill to keep the government running.

Congress needs to pass a funding bill by December 11th to avoid another government shutdown. With many representatives flying back to their districts over the weekend, it doesn't leave too many legislative days to negotiate, and pass a budget.

It would seem that in these dire times, racing against the clock, and with the season of giving upon us, Republicans and Democrats would put aside partisan differences and focus on passing a budget that would, if not fund the government through the year, at least keep it afloat for more than 2 months.

Of course, that's not what is happening.

In fact, just the opposite is occurring, with politicians attaching policy riders to the bill. That means that within a bill that provides necessary funds for government agencies are provisions about monitoring Syrian and Iraqi refugees, or preventing them from entering the country all together, loosen campaign finance regulations, or even defund Planned Parenthood

Any riders attached, especially regarding the screening process for Syrian refugees, all but ensures a veto from President Obama. President Obama has stated that the United States "can welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety and ensure our own security. We can and must do both" and called the idea of a religious test and only admitting Christian refugees, "not American."

This puts Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) in a tough position, one that Former Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was in not too long ago. Speaker Ryan can carry out the demands of the more extreme wing of his party, and send a bill to the President that includes a rider preventing Syrian refugees from coming into the country. President Obama would likely veto it, to say nothing of whether or not it would pass the Senate, which would plunge the country into another unpopular government shutdown.

Or, Speaker Ryan can pass a clean funding bill, keeping the government running for another couple months, but earning the ire of the right-wing of his party. This was the spot Speaker Boehner was in again and again, until he stepped down earlier this year, courting chaos when few Republicans were willing to put themselves in the same dilemma.

As December 11th draws nearer, one hopes that both parties will put good governance above partisanship, and make sure the government is funded, and thousands of government workers don't miss out on their paychecks right at the beginning of shopping season!

Telling People Politics

The TPP has been many years in the making, and I only recently learned what the acronym stood for. I'll be honest, I still think it stands for Toilet Paper Party, in the back of my mind. Unfortunately (fortunately?) the TPP is not a super fun party where everyone wears dresses made out of toilet paper, but an international trade agreement know as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and after five years of negotiations, it's finally ready to be voted on.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is just what it sounds like (sort of). It's a trade agreement between the United States and eleven nations of the Pacific Rim that's been called the most ambitious trade deal since NAFTA. It involves 40% of the world's economy over twelve countries, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and, of course, the United States.

The TPP (no, not the Tall People parade) eliminates tariffs on United States goods entering countries that are part of the agreement. Currently, countries that are part of TPP face high tariffs, which is an international trade word for taxes, on certain American goods, like auto parts. The administration's thinking is that the elimination of tariffs in certain industries, like manufacturing and food, will allow U.S. goods to be more competitive on the global market. The TPP also includes provisions that require countries to commit to worker's rights and protect the environment. On the whole, the agreement serves to eliminate or lower barriers to trade between the twelve nations involved in the deal. 

The TPP (not to be confused with Talented Platypus Puppets), notably, does not include China, though there is a hope that with enough countries involved in TPP, and the sizable benefits of free trade that participating countries receive, China will have significant encouragement to change their practices and sign onto the treaty.

Before this thrilling international tax law can go into place, it must be accepted in all countries, which is not guaranteed. Many lawmakers (lots of them Democrats) in the United States are not happy with the agreement, fearing that it is a threat to American jobs. While this is the first ever trade agreement the United States has signed with labor protections for workers overseas, American workers still fear that it will eliminate jobs here. Another criticism of the treaty is that large parts of it were negotiated in secret, and the benefits to big corporations outweigh the benefits to workers around the world. President Obama faces an uphill battle with Congress, as key members of his own party have spoken out against the deal.

If all this sounds familiar, it's likely because you were alive during the creation of NAFTA. President Clinton created the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, winning barely enough Democrats over to secure passage of the bill. The AFL-CIO claims that 700,000 jobs were lost due to NAFTA, a number that will potentially increase with the passage of TPP (a different entity entirely than the Totally Plastered Pandas). However, because President Obama passed a "fast-track" bill earlier this summer, the bill's passage is slightly more secure. Congress cannot offer amendments of any kind, which will allow the bill to be presented on a straight up-or-down vote, making this a difficult choice for Representatives who want to both safeguard American jobs, and increase trade around the world. While the future of the TPP (not the same as the Tangerine Port Provision) isn't yet secure, it's never too early for President Obama to start implementing my many other ideas that start with TPP, all sprinkled throughout this blog post. Your move, Barack.

Major Crimes and Major Inequality

Murder. Manslaughter. Rape. Assault with intent to commit murder. Arson. Burglary. Larceny.

The Major Crimes Act, passed in 1885, which removed Native American Tribes' ability to prosecute these seven crimes within the tribe. Since 1885, these crimes have been handled by Federal courts. This act curbed the sovereignty of Native American tribes, and today, results in longer sentences for Native Americans on reservations who commit these crimes.

For the most part, if you dear reader, committed a crime, you would end up in your state court. State court handles cases where someone has broken the state law, which covers most of the crimes you can think of committing. Robbery, assault, and yes, murder, are for the most part, prosecuted in state court. The crimes prosecuted in Federal court are mostly limited to crimes where someone violates the US Constitution, has a dispute or commits a crime across state lines (drug trafficking, for example), and cases where the United States is party (where the laws of the United States are being challenged).

Federal court is also used to prosecute these seven major crimes committed on Native American reservations. And unfortunately, these crimes, all prosecuted at the state level normally, often lead to longer sentences for Native Americans.

In South Dakota, assault prosecuted in state court receives an average sentence of 29 months. Native Americans prosecuted federally in South Dakota receive 47 months for assault. In New Mexico, my home state, the disparity is even greater. The average sentence for someone who commits assault on state land is 6 months. The average sentence for someone who commits assault on a reservation, and is prosecuted in Federal court is 54 months.

Not only are Native Americans being incarcerated at rates 38% higher than the national average, they are also serving longer sentences for the same crimes. Across the board, "state punishments for the same crimes tend to be lighter," says Ralph Erickson, a judge in North Dakota.

On top of all the injustices Native Americans face in this country, a law from 1885 is ensuring that they serve more time in prison than people who do not live on reservations. There has to be a way to ensure that people who commit crimes are sentenced at the same rates, no matter where they live, without compromising the sovereignty of reservations. Assault is terrible no matter where it is committed, but there is no logical reason that people on reservations should serve 54 months, when those not on reservations are only serving 6.

Balancing Act

There's a lot of moments from the Republican debate I could fact-check, dispute, and tear apart for my many blog readers (all 12 of you). But while there has be article after article about Marco Rubio's flip-flopping, Donald Trump's sexism, and the Christie/Paul debate, no one has written about the incredibly interesting and sexy issue of John Kasich and balancing the federal budget.

If you watched the debate, you may remember John Kasich, current governor of Ohio, touting numerous times that he balanced the federal budget. It's certainly correct that John Kasich was the Chairman of the Budget Committee in 1997, which was the last time we had a balanced Federal budget. It's true that this was the first time the United States had a balanced budget since 1970. It's true there was a Republican-controlled Congress at the time. And yes, it's true that Bill Clinton was the President the last time the Federal budget was balanced.

It's also true that the Federal government will probably never have a balanced budget again. President Obama won't be able to do it, Hillary Clinton won't be able to do it, and John Kasich won't be able to do it, no matter how much he likes to think he could.

This isn't because America isn't receiving enough taxes. It's not because we're spending too much on the military, or entitlement programs, or domestic programs. Yes, working to curb our spending may help, more taxes may help, but the budget wasn't balanced because of taxes and spending cuts. The budget was balanced because of a line-item veto.

A line-item veto is exactly what it sounds like. It allows executives to veto certain parts of the bill, while passing the bill as a whole. So if a Republican Congress included a provision to defund Planned Parenthood in the national budget, a president who had line-item veto power can veto that provision and pass the budget. Or, in more practical economic terms, a president can veto certain projects or programs in the budget, to cut out wasteful spending, but pass the budget as a whole.

You can imagine how this might help balance a budget. Instead of forcing all 535 members of Congress to renegotiate and pass a whole new budget, just to eliminate several pet projects, the president can just veto wasteful spending programs, or policy amendments that have nothing to do with the budget. It's an excellent tool for managing the budget, which is why many state governors have the ability to use a line-item veto.

The President, however, no longer has that power. For years, presidents had fought for the privilege of a line-item veto, and only in 1996 was legislation providing a line-item veto passed by Congress. President Clinton was able to implement it in 1997, which lead to his balanced budget in 1997.

But all good things must come to an end. In 1998, the Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision held that the line-item veto violated the "constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto." Lawmakers said they would try to find a constitutional way to pass the law, but so far, the line-item veto has never returned.

Could the budget be balanced without a line-item veto? Possibly, but I don't know for sure, as it has never been done before. Any presidential candidate who brags about being able to balance the budget needs to be asked how they plan to do it without a line-item veto. And John Kasich, specifically, should be asked how he plans to balance the budget again, now that there is no more line-item veto, and much of his past experience with a balanced budget is rendered useless.

The Iran Meal

Thanks to an unnamed acquaintance who runs @TheIranMeal on Twitter, I've been slowly learning more and more about the Iran Nuclear Deal. Is it complicated? Yes. Does making the deal about food help me understand? Absolutely. Am I going to now pass what I've learned about nuclear deals (and Persian food) onto you? You bet I am!
 

For those who don't know, or who are too overwhelmed by the massive amount of partisan opinion on the topic, The Iran Deal is an agreement between Iran, and countries in the P5+1 (the United States, the UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and the European Union) that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. 

The deal accomplishes this by forcing Iran to reduce the number of centrifuges (used to enrich uranium, an essential component for a nuclear bomb) and reduce its current stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%. The deal will also compel Iran to redesign a reactor that could create weapons grade plutonium, blocking another pathway to a nuclear bomb. No enriched uranium, or enriched plutonium, and no technology to create it will make it much harder to create a nuclear weapon. Finally, Iran will submit to regular and robust inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency to hopefully ensure that the country isn't pursuing a covert pathway to a nuclear weapon.

All good things for the United States. But some people feel like we lost more than we gained. Iran gets to keep some weapons grade uranium stockpiled, and the restrictions in this deal will only be in place for ten years. Iran will also gain relief from the sanctions imposed on their country that were causing an economic crisis. The deal does not include, "anytime, anywhere" inspections, and Iran will receive notice before any international inspections, which leaves some people very skeptical. Some argue that by agreeing to this deal, which doesn't permanently prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon, the United States is granting legitimacy to a repressive regime, and aggravating key allies in the region.

One key ally is Israel. Some are concerned for the safety of Israel because of the Iran deal. Other believe that Iran will soon have a lot of money from the deal, which they will use to fund terrorist activities. Only one Senate Democrat has supported the deal so far, Senator Durbin (D-IL), though several Democrats in the House, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) support it strongly. Senators like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are feeling pressure to choose between loyalty to the party, and the president, and support for constituents who do not think the deal goes far enough to prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon.

However, that may not matter at all. There's no set rules for how Congress approves international relations. Yes, a treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate, but this isn't necessarily a treaty. An "executive agreement," used by President Roosevelt (Franklin, not Teddy) in the 1930s did not have to be approved by Congress, and is different from a treaty in name only.

The Iran deal falls somewhere in the middle of the two thirds Senate vote for a treaty, and the no thirds vote for an executive agreement. What Congress could do is pass a "resolution of disapproval" which would, some say, block the bill. Of course, President Obama has promised to veto any such bill, meaning that if a party wants to make this vote count, they will need a two thirds majority in both houses to override the veto.

I've only scratched the surface of The Iran Deal, and I haven't even begun to discuss the particulars of The Iran Meal (seriously it's a hilarious Twitter, and yours truly has even contributed a couple of tweets, despite knowing very little about the deal, and about Persian cuisine). Complicated foreign policy issues like this aren't something one can form an opinion about in a day, which is why I'm deciding to learn more about the deal before I raise my all important constituent voice one way or the other. If you have questions about the deal, leave them in the comments section! I'll respond with links to articles written by bloggers far more knowledgeable than myself!

Battle of the Liberals

In most interactions, I am "The Liberal." I take a progressive stance on 97% of all issues, so it's very unsettling to me when I find that I am the most conservative person in a conversation. Since Senator Sanders (D-VT) has been rising in the polls though, I've been in that position often. I've experienced an interesting turn around from being not excited about Hillary Clinton just a year ago, to adamantly defending her against people who say that Senator Sanders might be a better choice.

I'm not going to delve into the debate about the value of a tough primary challenge, or talk about how Hillary Clinton and her many years of experience dealing with foreign affairs make her the wiser choice for the commander in chief. But I want to clear up the idea that Senator Sanders is the only choice for progressives, because Hillary Clinton is a moderate wolf in Democrat clothing.

According to the New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voted the same way 93% of the time when they were in the Senate together. According to my favorite statistics reporters at 538, Hillary Clinton is more liberal than 85% of members of the Senate, and more liberal than 70% of Democrats. One scale ranks her at the same level of progressiveness as Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). She's consistently measured as more liberal than President Obama, and only slightly more moderate than Bernie Sanders.

Yes, Bernie Sanders didn't vote for the Iraq War. Yes, he has been an advocate for gay marriage for many years. [4] Yes, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War and only recently "came out" in support of same-sex marriage. On many other issues, however, Sanders and Clinton are debating "how--not whether" certain things will be done. Financial reform, raising the minimum wage, protecting women's rights, expanding rights for LGBTQ people, reforming the criminal justice system, focusing more attention on substance abuse treatment, protecting the Affordable Care Act, and continuing to make America a more free and equal place, are all things the candidates can agree on.

It's not that Hillary Clinton is not for these issues. In my humble analysis, it is that Bernie Sanders is in the press, talking candidly about those issues, and introducing policy proposals. Hillary Clinton has been incredibly press-shy so far, controlling what parts of her message are heard through her official campaign channels, and not granting many interviews. People think she's a moderate because she hasn't made her views clear.

I hope that once she does, people realize that we are not picking between a progressive and moderate. This primary is coming down to a contest between two progressives (and Martin O'Malley, coming in at a distant third). The biggest difference I can find between the two candidates is that only one can win. I think it's great that Bernie Sanders supported gay rights for many years. But my vote is going to go to the candidate who can put another Anthony Kennedy on the bench of the Supreme Court. Bernie Sanders' lack of experience with international affairs and his more hard-line economic positions make him unlikely to win a general election.

Rather than continue to repeat myself, I'm going to give the last word to former Congressional Representative Barney Frank. In a recent piece for Politico, Frank says, "I wish we lived in a country where the most relevant political dispute was over how far to the liberal side the electorate was prepared to go. Until we do — and I will continue to work with Sanders and others to get us there — spending our resources on an intraparty struggle rather than on working to defeat our very well-funded conservative opponents is self-indulgence, not effective political action."