Reconciliation: 25

Regulations derive from laws. I’m not sure a lot of us understand that. For example, regulations involving the protection of the air we breathe are designed to carry out or protect the provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. These were signed, respectively, by those famous flaming liberals Richard M. Nixon and George W. Bush. As things are progressing, the current leader of their party is not likely to sign any such laws, but that is a story for another day.

The point is, if we deplore regulations, we should go back to the law that spawned them. In our current examples, they were laws designed to protect the air being used to keep humans, including the newborn, alive. If we don’t think that is a worthwhile goal, we simply need to elect politicians who feel the same way.

Oops. Belay my last.

So that is where my friends on the other side of the political spectrum and I must agree to disagree. I stood on the balcony of an apartment in Los Angeles in 1967 and felt my eyes burn to the point of producing tears. I could only wonder what my lungs were thinking. I like clean air. Sorry.

People calling themselves libertarians might say, well just move to a state where they regulate such things as air quality. I’m afraid they fail to understand, among many other things, that the forces of weather and climate neither recognize nor reflect state boundaries. We’re all sort of in this thing together.

So, I respect regulations while realizing that regulators can and do run amok from time to time. Fining a corporation for not painting, “Do not stand here” on the top of a stepladder seems, to me at least, to deny humankind some small measure of hope for improvement to the gene pool. I believe, along with my conservative friends, that regulations should, from time to time, be forced to fight for their lives, so to speak.

That having been said, what concerns me now is the number of mean-spirited laws being passed or proposed at the national level and state levels. These are not laws designed to protect any aspect of health, safety and welfare, but rather to make a statement that we don’t love—in what seems to me to be in direct contradiction to the words and life of The Galilean—everyone around us.

Further, these laws are neither policy-based nor evidence based. For example, some states are rushing to require drug testing for certain recipients of public financial assistant. Not farmers, corporations, churches, or home-mortgage holders, but food stamp recipients, the vast majority of whom are children.

Meanwhile, according to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, in the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent.

The fact is that some of the politicians we have elected lately find it nauseous that we, as a society, should assist “the least of those among us.” Go figure.

As regards drug testing, one recent proposal in particular makes me nauseated: a proposal to require the unemployed to submit to drug testing in order to receive benefits for which they are entitled. Yes, I mean unemployment benefits.

Friends, on November 11, 1970, I was honorably discharged from the United States Navy after four years of service. I had no idea when I might find employment because the draft-dodgers had all the good jobs. So, as a matter of precaution, I filed for unemployment. It was one of the most humiliating experiences of my life, not because of any feelings of guilt, but because of the way they treated applicants.

It turns out that I found a job within a couple of weeks. It didn’t pay much to start but it launched me upon a successful career. At any rate, I never needed any unemployment benefits.

I can’t begin to tell you what I would have felt if I had needed unemployment assistance after serving my country for four years—one of which was in a war zone—and some knuckle-dragging, Bible-thumping, mean-spirited sonof …moron had suggested I be drug tested.

Okay, Okay, I’m all right now. I simply want folks to think about what it means to thank someone for their service. Actions do speak louder than words.

    

Reconciliation: 14

Don’t know about you, but I rejoice to know we still live in a nation governed by laws. The country had, it seemed to me, been drifting too much along the lines of the Weimar Republic to permit a comfortable night’s sleep.

Politics is a messy business that many people don’t understand. In my household, decisions involve only two people. Even then, they may involve hours of analysis, scenario-imagining, alternative analysis, and fiscal computations before she decides what we will do and I begin figuring out how to do it.

Imagine, on the other hand, if you had to convince a majority of 99 other people to follow your thinking on the resolution of a single issue. Imagine further that a majority of that majority will not form a decision based on your logic, or any logic at all. Factors as disparate as ideology, party loyalty, donor demands, and personal prejudices will control any number of votes.

The truth is, it is a miracle that laws ever get passed at all. The rare individual who is good at getting them passed at all may be a creature more ruthless than redemptive. But, consider Lyndon Baines Johnson. Hardly admirable in his personal habits, and unable to evade the tragedy of Vietnam, millions now have health care and millions more are free to exercise a right to vote because of this man who wouldn’t shrink from the most deplorable methods to pass a law.

Perhaps that is why we often hear the quote, “One should never watch sausages or laws being made.” It is ofttimes attributed to Bismarck. Don’t know if he actually said it, but it’s popular from time to time to attribute quotes to him, so what the heck?

That having been said, there should be boundaries that we don’t cross, and it seems we have crossed a few lately. When such a danger looms, it is the rule of law, not prayer, that saves us as a country, one more reason for the First Amendment separation of church and state. Is this to say personal spirituality doesn’t matter in our voting patterns? Of course not. I even place my voting habits on a segment of Christian literature. Yes, I do. I always try to offer my vote to the candidate who best fits my favorite scripture in theology, to wit:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn: for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek: for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness: for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful: for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

Does anyone ever make all eight points? Of course not. The real terror is that we elect so many that fail to score even one point, while trying to force their own brand of religion upon us.

Just thinking.

Reconciliation: Day Three

People often say that “government should be run like a business.” I realize that this is an honest, sincere appraisal and should be taken seriously. Having worked as a consultant to local governments for all these years, I can agree that, in many cases, government can be operated in a more businesslike manner.

In such matters as fiscal conservatism, long-range attention to operation and maintenance costs, productivity, considerations of life-cycle costs, and employee proficiency, the public sector can learn from its counterparts in the private sector.

I know my friends will allow me, though, to point out some differences.

First, government entities operate under what is known as “The Antideficiency Act. This act forbids agencies from “making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law.” 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A). In other the act forbids from spending money on any purpose not explicitly authorized and funded by a specific law.

The act also forbids government from “accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.” 31 U.S.C. § 1342. So, government can’t operate like a non-profit corporation either.

I hope we can agree that those are substantial differences. Further, business can use any means to make a profit as long as the means are legal. (We might agree that some corporations skate closer to the edge of that pond than others).

Government must not only operate legally, it must also operate strictly within the limits of specific enabling or operative legislation, including the ancient stricture of protecting the “health, safety, welfare, and morals” of the community.

One additional point merits consideration. Government must provide services to all eligible citizens. It can’t pick and choose which members of the public to serve. For me, personally—and you are free to decide for yourself—that’s what unnerves me about the concept of “charter schools.” We once had a concept in the South called “pretty-bolling,” or picking only those cotton bolls that were large and easy to pick. The others were left to rot.

This all reminds me of a time I complained to a good friend, a legal scholar and teacher of The Law, about the behavior of some attorney. He carefully (we were out jogging and had plenty of time) explained that America’s judicial system, unlike that of some countries, was based on a form whereby the aim was that each side was protected by the laws and adequately represented by a legal advocate.

“If you want to change the way our attorneys behave,” he said, “you’ll have to change our entire legal system. And I don’t think that is going to happen.”

We might apply that lesson to government. Our system of government operates in the way for which it is designed. Could we not all work together to make it operate well for all under that system, rather than seeking to destroy it?

Just thinking …