Hell is for Children

Every state (and some major cities/counties) has a department/agency that is tasked with helping and protecting children who may be in unstable homes or are the victims of abuse and/or neglect. These agencies tend to be severely understaffed with woefully inadequate equipment and operating under severe budget constraints.  A lot of these agencies have also had their primary mission of goal of doing what is in the best interest of the child changed into preserving the family.

Employees of these agencies are in a noble, if thankless, pursuit: The preservation of a child’s life.  These employees work long, stressful hours and are often on call 24/7 for extremely low pay.  Facing high caseloads (in Arizona, the caseload for each “caseworker” monitoring families is 31 while those monitoring children is 26 which is 60% above state standards) and heartbreaking cases, there is a high turnover rate.  Continued budget cuts only threaten to exacerbate these trends.

Legislators (especially conservatives) love to hate child protection agencies.  They see these agencies as being threats to families and specifically to parental rights.  These legislators are the one who changed the mission from doing what’s in the best interest of the child into preservation of the family.  They also see such agencies as easy targets for budget cuts.  But no matter how many constraints they put on such agencies, legislators never take responsibility for the inevitable deaths that occur.

These agencies will never be perfect, but we can work toward making them more perfect.  We can start by increasing funding to hire more caseworkers (including increasing pay and benefits).  We can also increase funding to purchase needed equipment and software for caseworkers to better access information and track cases.  More money won’t be able to do it all though.  We also need legislators to stop thinking of child protection agencies as the enemy and instead as a much needed safeguard for the least among us.

The constant demonization of child protection agencies does no one any good, especially when legislators are more at fault for an at-risk child’s death than they care to admit.  Legislators need to understand that when they cut any part of the social safety net, they put more strain on child protection agencies.  When they cut the budgets of child protection agencies on top of cutting parts of the social safety net, they set up situations where more children will die.  Children who could have been saved.

If the Arizona Republic notes, in a rare moment of conscience, that we need to “respect the problem”, you know the issue is grave.  The question is: Will the Arizona Legislature do right by the children in need of protecting or will they kick the can down the road and allow more senseless child deaths to occur on their watch?

I weep for our children as this is Arizona and our legislature is not known for doing the right thing.

Separation of Church and State: The Ongoing Battle

I grew up a Methodist.  I was baptized in the Methodist faith, was confirmed in the Methodist faith and even wanted to be a minister in the Methodist faith.  I know that last part might surprise some of you, but yes, for a good portion of my high school years I wanted to be a minister.   Even though I was a Methodist, I was fascinated with other religions, partly because of my family, partly because of my thirst for knowledge and partly because in even in small town Iowa, there is a diversity of religions.

I grew up with Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists and Independent Baptists.  They were my neighbors, my classmates and friends.  We ate at each other’s homes, played in each other’s yards, participated in the same activities at school and yet none of us felt compelled to impose our religious tenants on the other.  Only once did I witness any attempt by one of the religions in town try to impose their tenants on the community at large and sad to say, it was Pastor Dan of the United Methodist Church, my church, who did so.

Like a lot of student governments at that time, our junior class officers wanted to have an after-prom party.  An event where everyone could relax and hopefully not rent a hotel room for the purpose of having sex.  So, they settled on having a casino night, where everyone could come and “gamble” in our school’s gym.  They worked hard to get businesses to donate items that we could redeem our “winnings” for and we were all looking forward to it.   That is, all except for Pastor Dan.

Pastor Dan was a lot more conservative than my previous minister.  Then again, most ministers would have been more conservatives than Pastor Rick.  Anyway.  Pastor Dan considered gambling a sin, even fake gambling.  He didn’t just let the congregation know that he abhorred gambling in sermons, he went to the school board and the let the board know as well.  Problem is, he didn’t go to the school board as private citizen, he went as the pastor of my church.

Pastor Dan crossed the line.  As a pastor he went before a public body and tried to impose the church’s will as defined by him.   That act by Pastor Dan went against everything I had been taught in school and even in church.  Pastor Dan violated the separation between church and state.

Not much has changed in 25 years.  Ministers and pastors are still violating the separation of church and state.  They have publicly proclaimed that Democratic presidential candidates were going to be denied communion because of the candidates’ support of a woman’s right to have an abortion.  They have funded a campaign in California to strip marriage equality from gays and lesbians.

Yet, have you noticed, they pick and choose when they wish to violate the separation of church and state?  Have you ever heard them call out a politician for voting to make cuts to the social safety net?  Have you ever heard them call out a politician for voting against worker’s rights?  Have you ever heard them call out a politician for supporting the death penalty?

For me, religious organizations lost the moral high ground 25 years ago when Pastor Dan violated the separation of church and state regarding the prom after party.  For others, it has been longer.  No matter the time frame, the Founding Fathers would be appalled.

Stagnation: The Curse of the "Occupy" Movement - Updated

One of the pitfalls of being a successful political movement is stagnation.  Once the original message of the movement has reached the desired audience, the movement needs to strike while the iron is hot and push for permanent inclusion in the political discussion.  The creators of the astroturf “tea party” movement knew that they had a very limited window of opportunity to get their movement permanent inclusion in the political discussion.

The creators of the “tea party” movement corralled the ginned up anger and put their money behind people willing to run for office under the “tea party” movement banner.  It was money well spent.  60 adherents of the “tea party” movement were voted into the House of Representatives, such as Congressman Paul Ryan, helping to sweep the Republicans into power.  A few “tea party” movement darlings also were elected to the Senate, such as Senator Rand Paul.

Even though the “tea party” adherents in Congress are a minority, even within the Republican House and Senate caucuses, they have been able to wield incredible power.  They have been able to force vote after vote on destructive legislation.  They have been able to include destructive amendments in must pass legislation.

But the destructive force of the “tea party” adherents hasn’t been limited to Congress.  In state legislatures and governor’s mansions, the “tea party” has installed itself.  With their new found power, they have inflicted almost irreparable harm to social safety net.  They have pushed for requiring food stamp and unemployment insurance recipients to be drug tested.  They have thrown tens of thousands of childless adults off of their state’s Medicaid rolls and capped enrollment. 

The “tea party” has targeted public and private sector employees by stripping them of their right to collectively bargain and by creating more so called “right to work states”.  They are pushing for the “free markets” not only to be taught as a class, but to be a requirement for graduation.  They are forcing schools to offer elective classes about the bible.  At the same time they are cutting school budgets.

This destruction is all due to the seizing of the moment to push candidates that support the “tea party” movement or are members by those who were the creators of the movement.  They didn’t fall into the trap of stagnation.

The “Occupy” movement, on the other hand, has become stagnant.  Although they once focused the nation’s political discussion on the massive income disparity in our nation, they have become stagnant and have failed to seize the moment.  They have yet to field one candidate to challenge a sitting Democrat or Republican.

Protests have their purposes.  But protests have a limited shelf life.  If they don’t evolve, the core message dies and people forget.  If the core message of the “Occupy” movement is to survive, the “Occupy” movement has to evolve and evolve quickly.  They need to field candidates.  But they need to field candidates who are going to push the core message of the 99%.

My fear is that they are all too happy being protestors.

*Update* I was sent a message during the night on Crooks and Liars that Nathan "Nate" Kleinman is the first "Occupy" candidate and actually had a write up in Politico. 

The War on Food Stamps

My dad is a proud man.  He worked grueling hours at the John Deere plants in Waterloo, Iowa to provide for his family.  He dealt with the annual two week shut down and the constant fear that he would be one of those laid off during the farm crisis of the 1980s.  The first time I saw my dad cry was when after having been laid off for a month he resigned himself having to food stamps to see that his family was fed.

It wasn’t an easy decision.  He and mom fought for days trying to figure out how to pay the utilities, the mortgage, make the car payments and put food on the table.  After a rather loud argument, I walked upstairs to the kitchen and found my dad sitting at the table with his head in his hands.  I could hear the quiet sobs as I approached him.  I was 15, scared as hell and all I wanted to do was comfort him.

He looked up and I could see that he was a broken man, all 6’ 3” of him.  I sat down and asked him what was wrong.  After what seemed an eternity, he composed himself and explained that he and mom were going to apply for food stamps.  He said that if they didn’t, we wouldn’t be eating.  He said it wasn’t something he wanted to do, but something that needed to be done.

People have forgotten that many people who receive food stamps do so only because it’s the last option to make sure that food is on the table for the families.  Like my dad, many feel that they failed their families and have failed as human beings.  As I told my dad, they haven’t failed.  They have made the tough decision to see that their families are provided for.

That’s why I find it disgusting when I see Letters to the Editor that slam (with a tinge of envy) those receiving food stamps.  They claim that the person on food stamps is eating better than they are, even abusing the system.  Of course, all of these claims are anecdotal without any specifics.  But it’s a part of a larger attempt to shame those receiving food stamps even further and a continuance of the war on the social safety net.

Take for example the attempt by the Arizona State Representative Jeff Dial to make bright orange the debit cards of those receiving food stamps.  He claims that his measure isn’t about stigmatizing food stamp recipients but instead to prevent fraud.  I am sorry, but his protestations aside, he is attempting to stigmatize food stamp recipients.

Instead of attacking those who need to use food stamps and trying to destroy the social safety net, we should be encouraging those who qualify to apply.  We are the wealthiest nation in the world and yet for ideological reasons we are willing to allow people to go hungry.  We should be strengthening our social safety net and we should make sure that no person in the United States ever goes hungry.  Stop waging war against the users of food stamps!

A Response to Barry Goldwater, Jr, Child of Means

In the March 14th issue of the Arizona Republic, former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Barry Goldwater, Jr. posits what is wrong with America in a rambling opinion piece.  Bear with me as I respond to him section by section.

Our president and the State Department sit in silence as country after country topples by people wanting freedom. Our foreign policy is a failure because we have no stated objectives or policy. We do not know the people of the countries we are involved with. To top it off, we have a president who has little experience in foreign statecraft, let alone in diplomacy. It is natural for humans to want freedom. We only need to look at America's experience.

I don't think neither President Obama nor Secretary of State Clinton have been silent over what is going on in North Africa and some of the Arabian Peninsula nations.  In fact, I believe that we are doing the right thing by not involving ourselves overtly in these matters.  One problem with our foreign policy in the past has been our assertion that we always knew what was best for a nation.  We helped to topple democratically elected leaders as well as kings if they were an obstacle to our objectives.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton both understand our history and have chosen to stand back and let events unfold as naturally as they can instead of inserting our views and our military.  This means that we actually have taken the time to respect the people and cultures of the nations that are in flux.  The worst thing that we can do in a place like Libya is be seen as taking sides.  It is smart foreign policy, one that a self proclaimed libertarian such Mr. Goldwater should support.

We are a country of many nationalities and what binds us together is that we are Americans. We came here seeking freedom. Never forget your rich heritage, but drop the hyphenation, for we are Americans not Italian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans etc. Each of us has a responsibility to do what we can do to make America a better place to live, expand and protect those freedoms.

This is from a man who ran on the idea of creating concentration camps for those in this country illegally.  Mr. Goldwater is very good at claiming that we are all Americans until its time to run for something and then he has to lay blame on "the other", as many conservatives enjoy doing.  I wonder his opinion is on Sarah Palin's view that there is a "real America" and a "not real America".

We and our fathers left governments that enslaved their people, and we found liberty in America. Few ever want to go back to the type of government we escaped. The genius of our founding fathers was crafting a document, the Constitution, that limited government's power to control its people. It recognized that Americans wanted to be free, not taken care of by a powerful government. That each of us are individuals, not part of a group. Each of us has our own needs, ambitions, desires, beliefs and goals. Only by being free can we find that which we work for and desire.

Not all of our ancestors left their nations of origin of their own free will.  The above paragraph negates the history of slavery in this nation and how slavery helped to define this nation.  It also makes the false analogy that everyone who came to this nation did so to escape some oppressive government.  Many came to this nation to seek their fortune, to stake their claim to what would become the American dream.  Not to mention the many native tribes that inhabited this great land long before any European landed on its shores.

If you notice, the highlighted section of the paragraph is at complete odds with the previous paragraph.  In fact, individuals can and do belong to groups.  Mr. Goldwater claims that we are all Americans yet that we don't belong to any group.  This is how conservatives think.  We can't be any part of a group and still be free, but we do belong to a group as we are all Americans.

America is truly an experiment in liberty. Unlike most countries in history, it was founded on an idea - freedom. For the first time in human history, government's purpose wasn't to grant or deny rights as it saw fit, but to protect its citizens' natural rights.

No, America has always been a grand experiment in representative democracy and it wasn't founded on the idea of freedom.  It was founded on the concept of each man being allowed to have a voice in their government, to have their ideas and their dreams represented in government.  Our Founding Fathers would have been perfectly happy to still be part of the British Empire if only they had a true voice in British government.

The dumping of tea in Boston harbor wasn't about taxes, it was that those taxes were imposed without those being taxed having a voice.  Then again, conservatives are very good at revising history to match their ideology.  Just watch Bill O'Reilly if you don't believe me.

Government's legitimacy came from the consent of the governed, "We the People." Whether this Republic is successful will be up to us.

This section doesn't really need any response.

Over a century and a half ago, my great-great-grandfather came to America fleeing persecution in Poland. All he wanted in this new land was to be left alone to build his own empire. Instead of feeling entitled to free stuff, he felt thankful to be free.

What Mr. Goldwater neglects to say is that his great-great-grandfather was feeling being persecuted for being a Jew.  By omitting that salient fact, he can keep the facade that he is not persecuting illegal aliens when he talked about placing them into concentration camps.  He tries to escape his own history in order to push his own ideology.

Economic freedom is the world's greatest success story. It is based on trust. Each party must benefit by seeking to meet their own needs by meeting the needs of others. This interaction between people is often called the invisible hand.

Economic freedom is not based on trust.  Economic freedom is based on the idea that we are all free to strive for economic success on our own terms.  We are free to strive to become teachers, doctors, firefighters and even Wall Street bankers.  But we don't all start at the same place.  Some, like Mr. Goldwater, have a head start over others.  That is the true invisible hand that he speaks of.

Nations decline when they stop doing the things that made them great. Early in our history, the country focused on creating wealth, not redistributing it. Charity came from the heart, not government programs.

No, in our early history our nation didn't focus on creating wealth.  It focused on surviving and protecting the great experiment.  We almost didn't make it on several occasions, the Civil War being the biggest.  Government programs for the poor and the working poor are not charity.  They are a safety net for those who haven't succeeded at "creating wealth".

The preamble to the Constitution, where it speaks of "providing for the general welfare," was not meant to authorize the creation of a federal welfare state. We as a people have responsibility to create a safety net for those who really are in a bad way. When that safety net is abused by those who do not need it, and the rapid growth and size of government becomes a drag on hard-working, taxpaying Americans, then our freedoms are in jeopardy.

I think our government has a responsibility to help provide for those who have the least.  Are government programs abused?  Sure they are, but its not just those with the least who might take advantage.  The rich and powerful as well as businesses have been known to abuse government programs.  Wasn't Haliburton fined for abusing government contracts they had secured?

Our freedoms are not in jeopardy because of the social safety net we have created.  No, our freedoms are in danger because of people like Mr. Goldwater.  They are the ones giving our government more and more police powers.  They are the ones that endorse torture and warrentless wiretapping.  They are the ones that created laws that allow police to stop a person on the street and say "papers, please".

Today we are in a slow destructive spiral. We have traded the ideals of self-sufficiency and hard work for handouts, entitlements. Our country is on the brink of financial disaster.

The current $1.5 trillion deficits and $14 trillion debts present a clear and present danger to each of us and our families.

The only way out of the morass lies with the restoration of economic liberty, free markets, a constitutional republic and, above all, personal responsibility.

We have been in a destructive spiral for the last 30 years.  Not because of the social safety net, but because of adherence to Milton Friedman's concept of "free markets".  Our nation is on the brink of financial disaster not because the poor are poor and need government assistance, but because the "free markets" took us there.

What Mr. Goldman wants is for government to allow business to operate without any restrictions.  He wants them to continue to receive their corporate welfare while taking no responsibility to help the nation as a whole.  He doesn't believe there should be unions or minimum wage.  He believes that government has no place regulating businesses.

We have $1.4 trillion deficits and a national debt approaching $15 trillion because we cut taxes at the same time we invaded two countries.  We have increased military spending while requiring the least of us to sacrifice Head Start and Big Bird.  Instead of doing the right thing by rescinding the Bush tax cuts we are instead talking about cutting Medicare and Medicaid.

As Thomas Jefferson reminded us, "freedom is not free." Regardless from where we came, we are now Americans, and we can count our blessings.

This is a throwaway ending statement.  It doesn't really mean anything except to stir patriotic emotions.

Mr. Goldwater wants us to believe that we are all Americans, but don't belong to a group.  He wants us to believe that government is to provide for the general welfare but not provide a social safety net because someone might abuse it.  He wants us to believe that all it takes is trust and not regulation for a business to do the right thing.  The most important thing that Mr. Goldwater wants us to believe is that his being a "child of means" didn't give him a leg up on anyone else.