Oregon Strategist

Reinventing the Oregon Dream

Government Shutdown: The Poison of a Partisan Perspective

by

Capitol HillOur federal government has ground to a halt. Again. Republicans and Democrats were unable to meet a deadline to fund the government Monday night. While a group of “combative” Republicans are largely bearing responsibility for the impasse in Congress due to their hawkish advocacy to defund the Affordable Care Act, the reality is the factions in Congress are more varied and deeply divided than ever.

Both parties are to blame for this stalemate, and the result may very well be an ever-divided Congress where each party will blame the other for their unwillingness to negotiate. On the one hand, Republicans are claiming they want to reign in spending but are unwilling to compromise when it comes to military budgets and spending on our overseas police power – a capacity that is becoming increasingly disfavored by the public. And, indeed, the Department of Defense is, by far, the largest contingent that will be affected by the shutdown. On the other hand, Democrats spearheaded a bill that is not feasible to fund given the current economic crisis because the government is strictly not generating enough revenue to support such a program short of spending our future away.

Our government’s sole focus right now should be on economic improvement. While the Affordable Care Act promotes a noble purpose, the fact of the matter is that our government cannot afford to pay for it. Our federal programs, such as Social Security, are already failing for lack of funding and mismanagement. There is little support for the idea that the Affordable Care Act would face any more promising future.

Economic improvement will come from taking military spending and re-investing those dollars here on the home front where our infrastructure and education are sorely lacking. Economic improvement will stem from creating a positive climate for small business and entrepreneurship by removing barriers to entry and by encouraging smaller, more flexible entities. These entities will, in turn, create the types of jobs we want in our society – the types based on relationships and accountability. And, finally, at the heart of economic improvement, is the idea that we decrease the stratification of wealth in our society. Simplifying the tax code is essential for leveling the playing field for all people. Complexities in the code create the types of loopholes that allow for corporate exploitation and tax shelters for the wealthy.

There are very certain and definite roles for our federal government. The services Washington D.C. provide through the unification of essential interstate laws and international treaties should be primary but focused. We must be realistic in what we can and cannot sustainably afford at that level. And let’s be honest, Cover Oregon is doing and would do a better job at providing health care for our citizens than any federal program. If our federal government is unable to afford Social Security and Medicare, then what good will the Affordable Care Act do for us when we ultimately cannot afford to pay the doctors?

Will it take a nationwide default to provide the political impetus to reform?  That is a possibility. But blaming one party or the other is only fuel for a divisive fire. The stopgap just may be to practice viewing this shutdown from an opposing point of view.

 

Syria: Not Another War

by

SyriaAgain we face military intervention in the Middle East, this time from a President who has come to Congress for authorization. 

There is no doubt that action by the United States, absent the formation of a coalition or joint resolution with other nations, would be an act of war against the Syrian government. We face no imminent threat from Assad nor from the chemical weapons he has chosen to unleash against his own people – horrific as these events are.

An act of war, at this time in our nation’s history, is perhaps the last thing we need. Who amongst us is still advocating international intervention of this kind? Are we not able to honestly reflect on our current capabilities as a nation? We have borrowed money to spend it again on our policing powers. Our trade deficits show we are now importing security. So what should our leaders do?

Any proposed military action by the Obama Administration or by Congress should be outright rejected. Our economy, while having shown signs of slight recovery, still drags its feet with 7.4 percent unemployment. The government programs that are still functioning drastically underserve their stated objectives – despite many of their objectives being too broad, too deep, and too overlapping. Our infrastructure is wearing and outdated. John Kerry’s words heard around the world two days ago declared “This is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to a slaughter.” Mr. Kerry: By an act of war against a non-aggressor, you will be slaughtering our Nation’s future.

If strikes against the Assad regime were intended to be limited, as Obama suggests, then striking their chemical weapons capabilities would not be a scenario where “the punishment fits the crime.” On the other hand, a strike that cripples the regime and tips the balance of power in favor of the rebels (as the United States did for Libya) means the United States would be ushering into the power vacuum a proxy regime likely made up of al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.

For now, as the G20 Summit wraps up, world leaders are tremendously divided. China and Russia remain opposed to action against the Assad regime, while only France and the United States have committed to using force. Even the Pope has weighed in, urging leaders to put aside prospects for military action.

To make a dire situation enormously worse, Yale law professor Stephen Carter points out the “limiting lanaguage” in the Senate’s Syria Resolution is deceptively broad.

Finally, authorizing a strike to oppose Assad’s use of chemical weapons to massacre his own people is not morally superior to opposing Assad’s use of conventional weapons against his own people. The propensity of chemical weapons to inflict greater indiscriminate harm on civilian populations than their conventional counterparts originally led to their condemnation in the international community. However, in his use of both chemical and conventional weapons, President Assad has proved indiscriminate towards the killing of civilians and rebel fighters.

Immigration Reform: Preserve and Protect

by

Gang of EightThe Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, or the “Gang of Eight” bill, made significant headlines this week as the Senate proceeded to debate, amend, and pass the most significant overhaul of U.S. immigration law in over a generation. The bill will now proceed to the House of Representatives where it stands a difficult test.

The Gang of Eight bill would grant citizenship to over 11 million undocumented individuals. Success in the Senate hinged on a compromise amendment brought forward by Republicans to increase border security spending by $38 billion which would add an additional 20,000 border security agents, new fencing, electronic surveillance and unmanned drones.

What does this bill mean for Oregon? According to the Pew Hispanic Center, Oregon is home to 160,000 undocumented individuals. Providing a path to citizenship for these folks will help ensure the integrity of their families, will potentially lower crime, and will enhance their access to justice as they will no longer feel the need to hide in the corners of our society.

Immigration reform has long been overdue. Oregon’s north-south Willamette Valley stretch and the rolling grainfields and orchards east of its Cascades employ between 90,000 and 150,000 farmworkers – many of them undocumented. Immigration reform will bring them into the legal, competitive market. Their full citizenship will correspond with full taxpayer status.

The Senate’s passage of the Gang of Eight bill follows the passage of Oregon Senate Bill 833 on May 1st that legalized short-term driver’s licenses for folks illegally residing within the state. The law was passed with rapid fanfare (three weeks after the first public hearing was held), and while critics claim it has the potential to attract more undocumented immigrants to the state, the downsides to the law are significantly ameliorated by the upsides, especially in the event that the Gang of Eight bill is passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Consider the citizen-children of undocumented individuals. Many of these citizens would not be able to attend school or other community activities. Providing these citizens with the opportunities afforded to other citizens is crucial for creating a strong and diverse economy and society. Allowing undocumented individuals short-term drivers licenses increases taxes, puts money into the economy through insurance and gasoline purchases and enhances access to many other Oregon businesses. Issuing drivers licenses to undocumented individuals does little harm to our state and addresses an immediate need felt by their citizen-children who rely upon this legislation to realize the Oregon Dream.

Additionally, a buttressed border and enhanced guest worker program (the former provided by the Gang of Eight bill) is essential to ensuring that immigration occurs through the proper channels. In offering shelter to the homeless, churches and non-profits that provide such services go through a process of registration and procedure. Likewise, the government must ensure the protection of its citizens and the procedure of its immigration.

Finally, this legislation must be accompanied by stronger penalties for hiring undocumented workers. While this will undoubtedly raise the price of our food, such is the cost of ensuring that human rights are protected. If no one is hiring undocumented workers to begin with, the problems that flow from the inherent inequality in their labor are ameliorated.