Some Democrats in the last election had a hard time voting. Republicans, like Secretary of State John Husted of Ohio, worked overtime, using a variety of means—including restricting hours the polls are open, demanding photo IDs, not supplying enough voting machines at polling places—to disenfranchise those living in traditionally Democratic districts. The poor, African Americans, Hispanics, the elderly, and students struggled in states like Ohio and Florida where Republicans continue to use vote suppression as a political strategy for winning elections.

In his post, “Our recent history of “voting wars,” Arthur Lieber reminds us that the right to vote is guaranteed by the federal government. Given how the right to vote is under siege at the state level by the Republican Party, Republican elected officials, and Republican-backed “Protect the Vote” groups—it makes sense that the federal government takeover our national elections.

Jon Green, writing at Americablog, has thought about what that would look like. He calls for the federal government to create “an independent, non-partisan body charged with administering elections.” The following is an edited version of his ideas. For the entire post click here.

The federal non-partisan body would have the following responsibilities:

Universalize Voter Registration

A federal voter registrar should be established to ensure that every eligible citizen is registered to vote somewhere. Nationalizing and universalizing voter registration would enfranchise millions, resulting in elections that more accurately reflected the will of the people. Moreover, if universal registration were coupled with a national ID card, as it is in many European countries, it would put concerns about voter impersonation fraud to bed.

Standardize the Ballot

A standard ballot, with consistent formatting for all types of races and uniform guidelines for issues such as candidate order, would make it easier for voters to inform themselves and others about what to expect when they show up to vote.

Standardize the Polling Place

It is time to take voting machines out of the hands of partisan Secretaries of State and mandate that each polling location be allocated voting machines and paper ballots proportional to the number of registered voters in that precinct.  And perhaps it’s time we stopped permitting partisans from owning companies that make voting machines, then we could stop worrying about machines that change your vote from Obama to Romney, or about “computer glitches” that suddenly make 1,000 early voters (in a black neighborhood, of course) vanish.

Waiting for all 50 states to pass and enforce meaningful regulations that prevent activities such as these from occurring is a pipe dream at best; federal action is necessary to ensure that voter suppression on this scale is prohibited and prosecuted.


Establish Election Week

To reflect the varying schedules and obligations of our diverse population, many states have increased accessibility to vote by letting citizens vote early. This practice has worked well in the states that have established it, and should be implemented nationwide. While some states offer early voting quite early (Iowans can start casting their ballots more than a month before Election Day), a national voting week would ensure that nobody’s work schedule or weekly routine could prevent them from casting a ballot, while avoiding concerns about whether we’re all really voting in the same election when some of us vote in November, and others in September (thus missing the presidential debates, among other concerns).

Taking the responsibility of administering elections out of the hands of individual states, and setting a clear standard for what an American election should look like, would make our elections freer, fairer and more accurate. After a series of elections fraught with mishaps, federal action is necessary to set things right.

The post Blueprint for a federal takeover of national elections appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The current conflict regarding FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is essentially about whether the federal government should have primary responsibility for addressing disasters, or whether the states, localities, and private organizations should handle these issues. If any disaster demonstrates why FEMA needs to continue to exist in its present form as a federal agency, Hurricane Sandy is it. This disaster hit a dozen states. All of them border at least one other state that was hit; they all have common needs in responding to the effects of the rain and wind. People in these states have all been without electricity, gasoline, essential food products and water. The number of families that are homeless along the New Jersey coast, on Staten Island, and on Long Island is well into the thousands.

Help has come from all over the country. The military, which is under the control of the federal government as opposed to the states, has delivered everything from heavy equipment to gasoline and water from a other areas. Huge C-17 and C-130 Hercules transport planes have flown in supplies from as far away as California. There is no way that each of the states that were hit by the hurricane could have fended for themselves, although Governor Romney has suggested that they should.

To better understand the recent states’-rights movement, we need to look back more than 40 years. In the mid and late 1960s, under the strong influence of President Lyndon Johnson, Congress passed civil rights bills that provide protection for minorities in issues such as voting rights, public accommodations, and fair housing. Southern Democrats (and there were a lot of them in the mid-1960s) and some Republicans opposed the civil rights movement. They viewed these laws were an encroachment of states’ rights. In reality, the states’ rights argument was just a cover to continue to discriminate against African-Americans and other minorities. In the 1968 elections, Republican Richard Nixon appealed to southern states to leave the Democratic Party and join him in the Republicans’ effort to support states’ rights. This point of view was further exploited by third party candidate George Wallace from Alabama.

By 1972, the South had basically flipped from Democrat to Republican. It has been that way ever since. What’s important to keep in mind is that the genesis of the southern migration from Democrat to Republican was the issue of states’ rights, a euphemism for racism. Over the past 40 years, the racism has continued to be an underlying motivation of the states’ rights movement. That’s why so many efforts towards voter suppression, primarily in northern states, have been directed towards making it more difficult for African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities to vote. Anything that can strengthen the states’ rights movement is favored by the mainstream of the Republican Party. These include the dismantling of FEMA, the voucherization of Medicare, the reduction of Medicaid funding, and a host of other programs. Presumably, the Republicans feel that they can advance their agendas more effectively at the state level. They’re probably right about that.

As Jared Bernstein wrote in a special report to the CNN website,

Neither we as individuals nor our cities or states can do it all ourselves. Imagine, as Mitt Romney has advocated, that FEMA were eliminated, privatized, or handed off to states in a block grant. Or consider the House Republican budget — authored by Rep. Paul Ryan and endorsed by Romney during the primaries — a proposal that would cut 22% from the part of the budget that supports this type of aid to the states, amounting to a loss of $28 billion in 2014, including a $2 billion cut in New York state alone.

Further imagine — and if you’ve been following the hundreds of thousands of state layoffs of key personnel in recent months, this shouldn’t be a stretch — that a disaster like Sandy occurred at a time when state budgets are already under great strain (as are many families’ budgets).

So, as you weigh the presumed advantages of farming out the responsibilities and resources of FEMA to the states, consider the recent origin of states’ rights. It has to do with racial discrimination. In reality, the movement goes back to the beginning of the settlement of America by Caucasians and the slaves from Africa that were forced into what became the Confederacy. The U.S. Constitution endorsed discrimination through the “three-fifths” clause, and eventually the Civil War was fought over the issue. What lies behind the 21^st Century Republican movement of states’ rights is what is sometimes called “America’s original sin.” From civil rights to FEMA, it’s important to strengthen the federal government, which is the real protector of our human rights and the general welfare of the country.

The post FEMA: another example of why states’-righters are wrong appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Mitt Romney accused Barack Obama of favoring a policy of “trickle-down government.”  Indeed it was a zinger for Romney.

It handcuffed Obama, although this metaphor is a bit lacking, because the president was playing with one hand tied behind his back regarding this issue.

The president favors much more government engagement than Romney in solving America’s economic and social problems.  He recognizes that government has a significant role to play in regulations, something which even seemed reasonable to Romney that evening.

Obama sees government actively engaged in at least two other areas of our lives. First, he favors redistributing wealth from the wealthy to middle and lower income families, although he’s often reluctant to state this is a straight-forward way. Second, he supports greater protection of human rights for citizens. This includes reproductive rights, LGBT rights, civil rights, consumer rights, and a host of other protections.

Romney’s charge of “trickle-down government,” can have at least two meanings.  The first is that the federal government becomes more involved in the lives of citizens.  The second is that money from the federal government trickles down to lower levels of government, most particularly the fifty states.

It was feasible for President Obama to go toe to toe with Romney regarding the advisability of greater participation of the federal government in the lives of American citizens.  He had numerous examples of where the government is helping Americans.  These included the automobile bailout that has kept American car companies alive and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of American working for these companies, their suppliers, their dealerships, and every other business that profits from the multiplier effect of the auto companies and workers putting more money into circulation.

The economic stimulus package of 2009 has succeeded in meeting its goal of bringing unemployment to under 8 percent  It has resulted in infrastructure improvements, the generation of more alternative energy, startup money for small businesses, and a lowering of taxes for middle income families.

The Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) has provided or will provide remarkable benefits for individuals with pre-existing health conditions, children under the age of 26 who are guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ insurance policies, and ensuring that no one can be dropped by their insurance company because of an illness or injury.

What President Obama cannot do is to challenge Governor Romney on the advisability of sending federal dollars to the states.  Romney plays the “states’ rights” card in numerous ways. When he was governor of Massachusetts, he worked with the legislature to put in place an affordable care act that became the model for Obamacare. Romney sometimes expresses disdain for Obamacare and says that the model should be initiated by the states rather than the federal government. What he is doing is thoroughly disregarding human rights by putting the rights of American citizens at the whim of states. Without naming names, it is easy to list states that would have little or no interest in expanding health care rights to individuals at the expense of insurance companies. We are all Americans, not all Missourians or Mississippians. Our constitution guarantees us certain human rights. By virtue of the 14^th Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts of the mid to late 1960s, we have established a precedent that when states fail to respect basic human rights, the federal government can step in and do it. Without the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it’s possible that African-Americans still could not vote in many southern states.

But President Obama can’t go there. Americans are wedded to the outdated notion of the supremacy of states’ rights, because many have an engrained distrust of government, and the easiest target is the big one – the federal government. But the federal government t is the most efficient and most concerned about human rights.

President Obama cannot say this without being accused of favoring collectivism, socialism, and a host of other words that represent the centralization of power. This is why he is fighting with one hand tied behind his back.  hile there were many factors that contributed to his less than stellar performance in his first debate with Romney, one of the key ones was that the misbegotten assumption of many Americans that states’ rights trump federal rights makes it nearly impossible for the president to adequately defend his values and policies.

If progressives are going to succeed in helping Democrats such as President Obama and also advance their liberal agenda beyond what the president is comfortable saying, they are going to have to take on the issue of states’ rights. This includes some outstanding progressives who are in state legislatures and even a few governors’ mansions. Let’s not forget, when Americans get excited, they shout “U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A.,” not “Ohio, Ohio, Ohio.”  The federal government is far from perfect, but I’ll take it any day over any state.

The post Obama had to debate with one hand tied behind his back appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Back in the 1970s, when the presumed (though not necessarily true) reflections of the 1960s still shined a bit, I was involved in the establishment of an alternative school. We were far from the only teachers (and I use that word intentionally in place of educators) who started such alternative schools. The idea was to provide innovative, compassionate, and challenging opportunities for students, particularly those living in inner-city neighborhoods.

None of these schools was based on religious fundamentalism, in fact none of them referred to religion except in historical terms. They had a spontaneity in which the here and now could trump an established curriculum. If something exciting or of special significance happened on a particular day, the curriculum would be put aside and the moment would be seized. I remember once calling the pope collect to get his full opinion on treatment for woman who was comatose and about to die. Surprisingly, the Vatican did not take the collect call.

We often talked of vouchers because some of us were not thrilled at the idea of working for $3,000 a year. Tuition was $580 a year, and frankly, that just couldn’t pull the freight. Foundations and corporations had little interest in such schools, because the type of critical thinking that was encouraged, combined with a certain anti-establishment philosophy, was a threat to them.

We were aware of the fact that there was this new idea of educational vouchers. It was more than an idea; it was even happening in Milwaukee and a few smaller communities. The idea was that public money could be used to help these schools. Actually, that’s not technically correct. Rather, each family would be given a voucher or coupon to be used for educational purposes. They could use it to pay “tuition” to whatever school they might choose. The idea could even be extended so that the voucher would cover such educational activities as piano lessons or special art classes.

There were a couple of problems with vouchers. What about quality control? Could the money go to a school where the staff merely wanted to pocket the money and do very little for the students? And then there was the church-state issue. Could the money be used for religiously-based schools, known as parochial schools? In Milwaukee,the answer was yes, but other communities would have to wrestle with the issue.

In August 2012,  Missouri passed a state amendment giving students the “right” to opt out of certain classes for religious reasons. If a student was a “creationist,” he or she would not have to attend classes on evolution, even though all respectable scientific evidence concludes that Charles Darwin was correct. Missouri has tried to inject more religion and right-wing thinking into its schools. It also has a prescribed curriculum that takes all the spontaneity out of teaching and learning that existed in 1970s alternative schools. What a loss for both students and teachers.

Religion and misinformation have become so prominent in voucher schools in Louisiana that students are being taught such “facts” as “Slave masters were nice guys,: “The KKK was A-OK,” and “the Great Depression wasn’t as bad as the liberals made it sound.” As scary as this content is, it’s equally frightening to consider that this is a state-sanctioned curriculum allowable for voucher schools.

In many states, religious fundamentalists have been pushing their agendas with great intensity in public schools and charter schools. Keep in mind that charter schools are a distant cousin of voucher-based schools.

Frankly, no matter how much virtue I might see in the idea of vouchers (and I still hold reservations about them under the best of circumstances), I really can’t support them anywhere in America. That’s because of our regression into the state’s rights movement that brought us segregation and the abrogation of human rights in the worst way. In the case of vouchers, as so many other issues, states just can’t be trusted. So while I hold great interest in and even hope of progress through vouchers, the presence of fifty states mucks it up so much that I have to withdraw my support. One alternative idea replaced with another, and who loses? The students.

The post I support vouchers, except in 50 states appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The silly—and nasty—season in Jefferson City, Missouri came to a merciful end last night [May 18, 2012], with the customary cheers and sophomoric tossing-in-the-air of papers that accompany the final gavel of the legislative session. This year, Missouri’s Show-Me-state legislature gained national notoriety by showing the rest of the country how to be a role model for idiotic ideas, hypocritical lawmakers and downright stupidity. [See “The Daily Show,” and “The Colbert Report.”] My sources tell me that, mixed in with the awful bills that passed and failed this year, there were a few worthy efforts—most of which were fiercely opposed by the no-nothings who hold the majority. Sadly, too much of what passes for governance in this state—and elsewhere—is either stupid, mean-spirited, democracy-killing, religiously motivated or corporate-driven—and, sometimes, all of the above.

Here are summaries of some of the most egregious bills of the 2012 Missouri legislative session. For readers who don’t live in Missouri, don’t be smug. Be afraid.

Silly stuff that actually passed

No Jayhawk license plates: Incredibly, the Missouri legislature actually spent time debating whether the state should issue University of Kansas-themed license plates [Kansas?] without special permission from the legislature. Maintaining that old MIZ-ZOU team spirit is one of my top legislative priorities, too.

No bad words in church:  Apparently, the church lady is now in charge of the Missouri General Assembly. This new law establishes as a misdemeanor crime the intentional and unreasonable disruption of a house of worship, including through the use of profanity, noise or rude or indecent behavior. What? I can’t fart and/or say shit in synagogue anymore?

Pre-dawn jello shots: If you’re a nervous flier, this one’s for you. HB 1758 allows alcoholic drinks to be served as early as 4 a.m. at Lambert St. Louis International Airport. That seems like a really good idea.

Sillier stuff that they wanted to enact, but, thankfully, didn’t pass

Aerobic asininity: HB 1063 would have made the jumping jack the official state exercise of Missouri. I’d like to suggest a rider to that bill for next year: stupidity as the official state behavior of the Missouri legislature.

A 19^th century solution: HB 1637 would have declared that gold and silver issued by the United States government would be legal tender in Missouri. This turn-back-the-clock notion isn’t unique to Missouri—in fact, several states have already passed a similar bill. Perhaps next year we can entertain legislation to bring back the horse and buggy, ban indoor plumbing and rescind women’s right to vote.

Casino loan-sharking: Unfortunately for the gambling lobby, the legislature hedged its bet on this one, which would have allowed casinos to make instant loans to gamblers who run out of money.

And now for something completely serious

In the lulls between debates on these frivolous bills, Missouri lawmakers managed to pass some seriously troublesome laws that will negatively impact the state. A few examples:

Chipping away at a national role model: Missouri is viewed as a backwater and flyover in many parts of the country, but its longstanding non-partisan courts plan is seen as a role model for keeping politics out of the judiciary. Many states have used the plan as the basis for their own judicial reforms. Now, the Missouri legislature has passed a bill that will create a constitutional amendment [subject to voter approval in November 2012] to give the governor more control over selection of appellate judges—a change that could inject political favoritism into the process of judicial nominations in the state.

Creating obstacles to healthcare exchanges: Under SB 464, the November 2012 ballot will include a proposal that would prohibit the establishment of a state-based health insurance exchange [as enacted in the federal Affordable Care Act], unless the exchange is established by a legislative act, initiative petition or referendum. [Who cares that it has already been enacted by federal law!] Missouri legislators also tried—but failed—to pass a bill that would have declared the federal healthcare overhaul unconstitutional and set criminal penalties for anyone who tried to enforce it.  These moves are part of a nationwide strategy to undermine—in every possible way—the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. They’re also a frightening assertion of states’ rights and could bring all of us dangerously closer to a situation in which states feel empowered to disobey federal laws that they don’t agree with.

Legislating under the influence of Roy Blunt: The fact that Missouri’s U.S. Senator Roy Blunt couldn’t get it done in Congress didn’t stop the Missouri legislature from passing SB 749, which allows employers to refuse health insurance coverage for services that go against their religious or moral beliefs—including abortion, contraception and sterilization.

The post Stupid legislative tricks: Missouri edition appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There was a time when the term “states’ rights” was simply code for racial discrimination. In the early 1960s, Governors Ross Barnett of Mississippi and George Wallace of Alabama adhered to the policy of “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.” They felt that as governors each state had the right to set policies regarding segregation and integration.

States’ rights are still an essential tenet of the Republican Party. Many Democrats who are scared of the so-called conservative movement in the country also embrace the rhetoric and policies of states’ rights.

There are a few courageous politicians who acknowledge the reality of “we’re all in this together” and the federal government is the entity that addresses the challenges that face all of us. One who supports strong federal involvement in domestic policies is former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. Her views come from conviction and experience. She was governor of Michigan as its economy began to tank in the early 2000s, well before the rest of the country fell into a recession. The early 2000s was a terrible time for American auto manufacturers and Michigan bore the brunt of the distress more than any other state in the nation.

In her book, A Governor’s Story: The Fight for Jobs and America’s Economic Future, Granholm states:

After three decades of conservative ascendancy, global competition is confronting us with the hard fact that pure laissez-faire, free-market theory no longer works. Recent experience shows that tax cuts, deregulation, and a hands-off approach to government don’t amount to a magical formula for jobs, profits, and prosperity.

Throughout the book, she explains the limitations of what Michigan, as a single state, could do to address the serious economic problems that it faced. She was as energetic and creative as any governor could have been, but Michigan was caught between the vice of corporate greed and federal indifference during the George W. Bush years until the waning months of his term.

Finally, with the stimulus package fashioned by the Obama Administration with a Democratic Congress, necessary aid came. Granholm describes the good news that came in the form of a phone call from an aide to Vice-President Joe Biden. Here’s part of what Michigan was getting from the stimulus package:

“KD Advanced Battery Group—$161 million, factory to be built in Midland, Michigan. Johnson Controls—$299.2 million, factory to be built in Holland, Michigan. A123 Systems to get $249.1 million—factories to be built in Romulus and Brownstown. Compact Power, also known as LG Chem—$151.4 million for battery cells for the GM Volt, facilities to be built in Holland, Pontiac, and St. Clair. General Motors and Ford—two awards each for four different projects. Chrysler’s getting one. Magna E-Car Systems of America is getting $40 million for a plant in Holly. Eaton in partnership with the Coast Air Quality Management District is getting $45.4 million for a plant in Galesburg.

In order to appreciate the full significance of the Obama Administration’s commitment to the stimulus package as well as Governor Granholm’s clear understanding of its need, it is helpful to reflect on the vital engagement of the federal government in domestic issues in the 1960s and then see how Republicans have continuously tried to undermine it.

During the 1960s the federal government passed a series of civil rights laws based on the premise that human rights enforced by the federal government trumped states’ rights. Had the Civil Rights bills of 1964, 1965, and 1968 not been passed, it’s quite possible that in the South and other isolated locales, African-Americans could not eat at the same restaurants as whites. They could not stay in the same hotels. They could not live in communities where whites did not want them to be their neighbors. They would not have equal access to employment opportunities. There would be no enforcement procedures to ensure that African-Americans had equal rights to vote.

At the same time that the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations were advancing human rights, they were also addressing the economic needs of the poor and some in the middle class. These programs, known as the Great Society, included Medicare, Medicaid, the War on Poverty, increased federal aid to education, and increased federal assistance for mass transit. Additionally, consumer protection laws were enacted to provide protection for citizens against deceptive practices by some corporations.

The human rights and economic advances of the 1960s were of enormous benefit to the disenfranchised. But that’s not the entirety of the equation. In some ways, the advances for the “have nots” was a loss for the “haves.” Business owners could not refuse to serve African-Americans if they chose not to do so. Few African-Americans could vote in the South which ensured that candidates would continue to try to “out-segregate” one another. Politicians did not need to concern themselves about appealing to at least a modicum of moderate and progressive voters.

States’ rights has become the mantra for virtually all the Republicans running for president as well as a number of other candidates running for offices at the federal and state levels. In many ways the reason is residue from the advances of the 1960s. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, “laws cannot change the hearts of others, but they can change their habits.” The progressive laws of the 1960s have provided vital new opportunities for minorities and others who are disenfranchised. However, the laws appear to have not done much with regard to changing the hearts of others.

In many ways, the support of states’ rights by the Republican party is the residue of or a reincarnation of the Southern bigotry that has existed through most of the country’s history. The planks of their platform are largely based on trying to undo the civil and economic rights that became the law of the land of the 1960s.

1. Republican views opposed to human rights:

a. Anti-choice

b. Anti-contraception

c. Anti-gay rights

d. Anti-euthanasia

e. Anti-immigration

2. Republican view opposed to economic rights for the poor and middle class

a. Opposing ending Bush tax cuts for the wealthy

b. Initial opposition to payroll tax cuts (only applying to lower and middle class)

c. Opposing additional stimulus to provide more jobs for the unemployed

d. Opposing retaining maximum length of unemployment insurance at 99 weeks (or increasing that number if necessary)

e. Opposing the Affordable Health Care Act which extends health care coverage to an additional 35 – 40 million citizens

f. Opposing federal aid to education

g. Favoring reducing spending on virtually all domestic programs.

h. Anti-environmental protection

i. De-regulation which increases corporate profits at the expense of consumer and worker interests.

While Barack Obama has been criticized by some progressives for not pushing a sufficiently strong liberal agenda, over the past year he has been fashioning more policy around the strength of the federal government. He has the strongest bully pulpit of any public figure. With help from other Democrats who can sense the absurdity of many Republican positions, President Obama can help us restore the perspectives of the 1960s when it was clear that major answers to public issues rested with the federal government. The Republicans have given Democrats a wonderful opportunity to bring common sense back to governance. Jennifer Granholm clearly understands the importance of a strong federal government. Barack Obama is moving more in that direction. Now we need other Democrats to seize the moment.

The post A governor says: “State solutions need an active federal government.” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I thought that I had gotten over it; the connection between the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and where it happened – Dallas, Texas. It’s easy to have a visceral dislike of Texas. Simply watch the classic movie Thelma and Louise, in which two runaway women will go anywhere to escape the police and the men who want to possess them …. except for Texas. Look at the last two governors of Texas: George W. Bush and Rick Perry. How can you like a state where the governors take pride in how many individuals the state executes on their watch?

I had a mini-epiphany the evening of October 27, 2011. I was fortunate enough to get a ticket to Game Six of the World Series, a game which has been called, and may have been, the greatest World Series game ever played. It was a single ticket and I was in a section with a few Cardinal fans and a lot of Texas Ranger fans. No sooner was I seated than the gentleman sitting to my right offered me peanuts. He was wearing a hat with the ‘T’ on it for Texas. There were more Texas fans both behind and in front of me. They could not have been more gracious. They naturally cheered for their team, but they also showed appreciation for the remarkable plays turned by the Cardinals. They agonized over their team twice failing to get a final strike to close out the World Series. However, not a disparaging word was said about any Cardinal player, the city of St. Louis, or anything remotely associated with St. Louis.

As child, I liked Texas – what could be more cool than being a real Texas Ranger? They were the “good guys.” But my feelings about Texas did a 180 on November 22, 1963 when President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. While the crime may (and I emphasize may) have been the act of just a single individual, it was clear that an atmosphere of hate existed among many Texans towards anyone or anything liberal. Several weeks before President Kennedy arrived in Dallas, his United Nations ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, was attacked by an angry mob in Dallas. Texas seemed to combine the rebelliousness of the South with the independence of the West. Many people held an underlying disdain for the federal government.

But as I said, my experience at Game 6 of the World Series opened my mind to the presence of decency in Dallas. Even if I hadn’t enjoyed being with Texas fans at the game, it was probably about time that I give up my dislike of Texas. There must be some statute of limitations for harboring grudges. It had been nearly 50 years since that fateful day in 1963.

The Kennedy assassination spawned a cottage industry of speculation about what really happened on that fateful day. Each year, as November 22 approaches, new books are published. I can’t help but look if anything new and interesting might be available.

I was thrilled to hear that Stephen King just released a novel called 11/22/63 about an alternative history of the events – fictionalized. As interesting as it sounded, I vetoed it because it was 849 pages long (I had had many Faulkner and Dostoevsky books assigned in high school and college and correctly or incorrectly, I pretty much came to the conclusion that if you can’t say it in a few hundred words, it’s probably not of interest to me.).

Then I learned of a book written by one of the individuals who had the horrendous task of being on duty on that fateful day in November, 1963. Special Agent Gerald Blaine reluctantly wrote his memoirs, with a particular emphasis on trying to clarify many of the mistaken notions about what the Secret Service did and did not do. It’s a heart-wrenching piece as Blaine takes you into the trauma that so many of the agents experienced, both because of the assassination and because of false accusations that they were somehow responsible.

In the middle of the book, Blaine writes of the horror that Mrs. Kennedy as well as other members of the Kennedy family and close friends had to endure at Parkland Memorial Hospital once the president was declared dead. Blaine writes:

The problem, it seemed, was that the murder of the President of the United States was not a federal crime. Thus it had to be treated as an ordinary homicide in the state of Texas. In truth, Dr. Earl Rose had the law on his side. Admiral Burkley had called a justice of the peace in the hopes that he could overrule the medical examiner. But when the justice of the peace, Theron Ward, arrived, he agreed with Rose. In a homicide case, he had no choice but to order an autopsy. The good news, he said, was that it should take only three hours. Three hours? Clearly Justice Ward did not realize who he was dealing with. “You can’t make an exception?” O’Donnell implored. “This is President Kennedy, for God’s sake.” The young justice looked toward Dr. Rose and replied, “In the eyes of the law, it’s just another homicide.” O’Donnell was incredulous. Just another homicide? That did it. “Let’s go,” he said to Roy Kellerman. “We’re leaving. And we’re leaving now.” Everybody in the presidential party agreed. They didn’t have to put up with this crap. Kellerman, O’Donnell, Powers, and O’Brien forced their way through the futile barrier of Dr. Earl Rose, Justice Ward, and a lone policeman. Clint Hill and Paul Landis stayed close to Mrs. Kennedy as the group marched through the empty hallways toward the hearse waiting in the bay outside. Justice Ward stormed off.

“It’s just another homicide.” How could anyone feel that way? How could officials in Dallas and Texas not feel a measure of responsibility for what had happened? How could they not feel a sense of shame? How could they not understand that John F. Kennedy was the chief officer of the United States of America and that made him far more important than anyone in Texas? How could they not have the decency to let Mrs. Kennedy begin the arduous ordeal of grieving without a gratuitous three hour wait in which presumably she was supposed to just sit and wait in her blood-stained clothes?

Agent Clint Hill describes on 60 Minutes how traumatizing the assassination was for him.

President Kennedy had reluctantly but emphatically taken on the forces of states’ rights. He stood down Governor Ross Barnett of Mississippi and George Wallace of Alabama by federalizing national guards in order to protect the rights of African-American students to enroll in state universities. He knew that the discrimination against African-Americans was generally justified in the south and elsewhere because state laws permitted it. He knew that America was breaking its promises to honor human rights by not challenging these laws. He knew that America’s message to people in other countries to honor human rights rang hollow when African-Americans were attacked by fire hoses as they exercised their right to freedom of assembly.

I’m not pulling another 180 and discounting the positive experience that I had with Texans in 2011. However, I am all the more committed to the notions that (a) the federal government is our primary protector of human rights, and (b) the federal government is entitled to far more respect than any other level of government.

As Tea Party members and virtually the entire spectrum of the Republican Party express disdain and actual hate towards the federal government, I cannot help but think of how inappropriate that is. and how it’s nothing new. I am among those who believe that the history of the United States over the past half-century would have been very different had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. We could have continued the commitment to human and economic rights that was gaining momentum as the Kennedy Administration was implementing the New Frontier.

Nothing that has happened to date can be undone. But we need to renew our commitment to human rights. which means challenging the states’ rights argument whenever it stands in the way of liberty. Reading Gerald Blaine’s book tells us more about our sordid past and how much still needs to be done.

The post How states’ rights affected the assassination of JFK appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Republicans love to bash the federal government and assert that social and economic policy out to be developed by and implemented by the 50 states. They shower states with accolades such as “laboratories for experimentation.”

They may be right that 50 states can take 50 approaches, but frequently they’re dead wrong about the contention that this results in good policy. When it comes to civil rights, a century after the 15th Amendment stated “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” southern states were still busy as laboratories trying to determine how best to prevent African-Americans from voting. Some states required an African-American to memorize 8,624 words in the U.S. Constitution. Other states used tactics of fear – physically threatening African-Americans who tried to exercise their right to vote. Some states took names for future retribution. Voting by African-Americans in Dixie did not take place until after 1965, when the federal government passed legislation authorizing federal registrars to manage voter registration and elections in any locale in which African-Americans had faced discrimination.

The laboratory system has not worked for Medicaid,  where some states have essentially eliminated the eligibility of many citizens in need. Every state continues to operate with an educational funding system that provides far more resources for children from wealthy families than for those from poor families.

Some Republicans many know of the terrible history of states’ rights but don’t particularly care, because it has not had a negative impact upon them. However, for Republican presidential ,candidates, the anarchy of the states in establishing a calendar for caucuses and primaries in 2011-2012 has created great confusion and uncertainty. Though they won’t say it, they probably would be happy with some of the reforms advanced by progressives, including regional primaries that would take place on dates closer to the party conventions.

How bad is it now?

Jason McLure reported in Reuters on the confusion that Republicans are having in establishing a schedule.

Nevada and New Hampshire are among four states authorized by the Republican National Committee to hold the first contests on the road to choosing a nominee to face Democratic President Barack Obama in the November 2012 election.

Aiming to protect the state’s status as one of the earliest contests in the race, Nevada Republicans pushed up their caucus by more than a month to January 14 after Florida bumped its primary in a move that left the nominating process in turmoil.

But Nevada’s move irked New Hampshire, which traditionally holds its primary ahead of Nevada’s caucus. Under current plans, Iowa is tentatively scheduled to hold its first in the nation caucus on January 3, with the Nevada caucus penciled in for 11 days later.

Not wanting to be boxed in, New Hampshire’s Secretary of State has threatened to hold the state’s primary as early as December 6 unless Nevada pushes its caucus back.

New Hampshire traditionally holds its primary on a Tuesday, and state law requires it to hold its contest seven days before any “similar” contest.

A move by Nevada to push its caucus back by three days to January 17 could allow New Hampshire to hold a primary on January 10 and still have a one-week space before Nevada’s contest.

There is no doubt that the federal government makes errors in judgment and mismanages some programs. However, the national government is structured to operate in an efficient and responsive manner. It fails when the human beings in the government and those who choose to influence them (primarily monied lobbyists) fail to exercise good judgment.

On the other hand, the structure of states’ rights is a disaster. It allows 50 units to compete to achieve the lowest common denominator. For instance, which state can offer the greatest amount of giveaways to corporations that are considering locating facilities there? Which states can go furthest in guaranteeing workers the “right to work for less” in order to please corporate powers within their jurisdiction?

As 2011 draws to a close, the camps of candidates Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, etc. can point fingers at particular states for perpetrating some injustices upon them. However, none of these candidates, and for that matter no Democrats in the past, have seriously challenged the anarchical system that we have for choosing presidential candidates.

Democrats are more closely aligned with the values of true democracy. They should use the current laboratory of Republican electoral chaos as reason to advance reforms such as regional primaries and, ultimately, the abolition of the Electoral College. I don’t hear many Democrats suggesting reforms. If they did, I think they’d be surprised at how much the American people would appreciate a system that had predictability and fairness. That’s only possible with federal control of elections. Democrats, please don’t be afraid to advocate that.

The post Are states labs for experimentation–or chaos? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Just as healthcare consumers are beginning to see and like the benefits of the healthcare reform act, Republicans have launched yet another attack designed to disable the gains achieved by PPACA.  Earlier this week, US Senators Lindsay Graham [R-SC] and John Barasso [R-WY] introduced The State Health Care Choice act, which Slate describes as being…

written to allow states to opt out of the individual mandate, the employer mandate, expansion of Medicaid programs and “new federal requirements for regulating health insurance.”

Try this: Substitute “the Emancipation Proclamation,” “The Voting Rights Act of 1965,””the Interstate Highway System,” and “Social Security” for the last 18 words of that quote. How does that sound?

It seems clear that, knowing they don’t have the votes for a blanket repeal the Senate, and not being sure of how the courts will ultimately rule, Republicans are seeking a way to gut healthcare reform through the back door,  by asserting the age-old states’ rights ploy. Even casual students of US history know how well the states’-rights argument has worked for the American public: slavery, separate and unequal education, inequities in state-administered Medicaid programs, abortion rights. When states go their own ways, where a citizen lives becomes the determining factor in fairness, equality and access to services. And when states decide for themselves that they don’t have to comply with Federal law, what’s left?

The latest legislative move by Senators Graham and Barasso is a cynical way around a law [flawed as it may be] that, nevertheless, has many pluses for healthcare consumers. [See accompanying article on healthcare reform rules that took effect on Jan. 1, 2011.] Graham and Barasso call their bill another “dagger in the heart of Obama healthcare,” a fine example of toned-down political rhetoric, wouldn’t you say?

Graham and Barasso’s bill is clearly aimed at gutting healthcare reform before it has a chance to catch on among consumers. They’ve openly stated that they’re hoping half the states will opt out under the proposed law. That scale of non-participation would, of course, hollow out the core of healthcare reform, which is based on [nearly] universal participation via the individual and employer mandates.

In addition, the bill offers no replacement for the healthcare reform law, only the provision for states to opt out.  The result would be  a reversion to the un-reformed system in which healthcare insurers were free to trample on consumers at will. This new bill starkly contrasts with a state opt-out clause already included in the law signed by President Obama in March 2010. Under the 2010 healthcare reform law, states can, indeed, opt out–but to do so, they must get a waiver from the US Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]–and to get the waiver, they must submit a workable alternative plan for their state. That’s something that Vermont is already working on. The Vermont idea, with a proposed single-payer structure–is getting some positive publicity, and President Obama has said that he welcomes this kind of innovation in states.

Healthcare consumers and Congress watchers: stay vigilant.

The post A states’-rights assault on healthcare reform appeared first on Occasional Planet.