The Militant Moderate

One of several pressing national policy issues, all running behind the Iraq War, is that of immigration policy.  This is either a simple or a complex issue, depending upon whether one is an average citizen or a politician.  Because this is also an emotional issue with racial and ethnic overtones, the Militant Moderate has not been anxious to address it.  Arriving at any solution which may be simply stated easily understood has been something of a challenge for him.  The task is further complicated by the somewhat muddled history of the MM’s own thoughts on the matter.  

Three out of four American people say very emphatically, “Close the borders!  Establish tight border control!  Stop the illegal immigration!  Do it NOW!”  That should not be all that hard to understand.  But, alas, it is quite difficult for politicians.  

The clinker for some is the issue of what to do with the 11 million (perhaps 15-20 million) illegal immigrants who are already in this country.  The American people are not quite as decisive about that, but two-thirds of them say, “Remove the illegal immigrants and take them back across the borders.”  However, that is even harder for the politicians to understand.  

Let us look at political differences.  Generally, the democrats favor tight border control.  Republicans favor better border control, but only if an expansive “guest worker” program is authorized and implemented to take care of those party members, corporations, and other donors who profit from the cheap labor that loose immigration provides.  

Democrats are not so strong about removing illegal immigrants, since their kin generally constitute a democratic voting block.  Republicans are not strong on removal of illegal aliens because these constitute a cheap source of labor for their supporters.  In some instances, such as in Jeb Bush’s Florida, Latino immigrants may be a voting block for the republicans.  

Workers and their organizations, which normally support democrats, see immigrants as undermining jobs for Americans and lowering the prevailing wage scales.  Democrats almost universally favor the raising of the minimum wage for workers, while republicans almost always oppose such increases as a favor to their business base of support.  

The president has not exhibited leadership in addressing the immigration issue, and normally avoids it.  However, he is now proposing tightening the borders, but only if an expansive “guest worker” program is approved.  He also favors a form of amnesty (by another name) for all those here now illegally but employed.  Republican majority leader Frist, a candidate for 2008, is pushing a bill to control immigration, but without any guest worker or amnesty feature.  Senator McCain, front runner republican for 2008, supports the president.  It would appear from her utterances that Senator Hillary Clinton favors tight border control, no large guest worker program, but a form of amnesty for most who are here now, working, and exhibiting good citizenship.  A number of democrats and some republicans, running for office in affected states, want tight border control, deportation of illegal aliens, and little or no guest worker program.  

Thus, that which is a simple issue for most of their constituents becomes a complex issue for politicians of both parties.  This is also a hot issue for voters, aggravated by the fact that politicians are doing nothing substantive about it.  

The Militant Moderate agrees with most other Americans in stating emphatically:  “Close the border and enforce it!”  The widow of one of his wartime navy buddies has a cabin and acreage in southern Arizona which is subject to regular trespassing of illegal aliens who pour through our border in that area.  We simply must put the necessary resources into border control.  That is the first step.  

According to various analysts, the amnesty of 1986 did not work well at all.  Therefore, any general amnesty now would be ill advised.  Yet the Militant Moderate would find it very difficult to face the repugnant sight of a round up of more that 11 million people, put into cattle cars, and shipped back across the border like cattle.  Yet these persons are here illegally, in defiance of our laws, and we cannot just keep ignoring or forgiving such a condition.  

Inevitably we must do this very bitter thing on some scale.  The best minds need to be put to work to address the most humane way of handling that effort, possibly allowing a probationary period for some, priority for legal immigration for others, and outright deportation for many.  It is very difficult to allow privileges for this group without giving obvious rewards for past illegal conduct.  Conditions need to be set, and every person and his/her whereabouts accounted.  Our laws need to be stiff enough to provide stiff penalties and prosecution of those who employ illegal, undocumented immigrants.  

But first, everybody must stand up and shout, “Stop the flow!  Secure the borders!”  Then we need to elect people to office who are not the hirelings of corporate and business interests but servants of the people, so we can actually get our laws enforced.  

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA Militant Moderate

In one of his earlier blogs entitled “Things That Bother Us,” the Militant Moderate developed the thesis that a person may be defined by the things by which he/she is bothered.  It has occurred to him that possibly political parties may be defined in a somewhat similar fashion.  It is something of a challenge to test this hypothesis by examining party positions and issues, but the undaunted MM will make an effort.  

Republicans have often stated that the democrats are for “big government,” that their prevailing behaviors are “tax and spend,” and that they advocate “government control” of business, the economy, and the American way of life.  Democrats say that the republicans are for “big business” practice “borrow and spend,” and favor “special interests.”  They say the party is controlled by the wealthy class, and that the party exercises control of government in behalf of those interests.  

Perhaps it would be appropriate to examine the two parties and take a look at the control elements exhibited.  

Recent actions in the republican Oklahoma State House would indicate that party is most interested in controlling what is taught in science classrooms so as to include creationism, what type of degrees teachers must have to be given raises, what tests will be required for graduation from high school, and what percentages of school budgets must be for classrooms versus counseling, buses, utility bills, and other costs.  Republicans want to control which shelves books are placed upon in public libraries.  The House tries to control all state government by blocking moves by the Senate and the Governor to fund prisons, raise teachers’ salaries, or even ordinary costs to run the government.  They seek to limit the estate taxes paid by a few wealthy families, and they label it a “death tax.”  

Republicans are interfering with pharmacists filling prescriptions as written by doctors.  They are controlling freedom of drug stores and citizens to obtain cheaper prescription drugs from Canada.  They are controlling access to birth control drugs and procedures.  They want to control who cohabits with whom, at least legally, thus indirectly controlling hospital visitations, estates, and various legal rights.  

Republicans want to take personal choice from a woman and control whether she will become or stay pregnant.  They want to control religious exposure of children in schools, and what kind of prayers may be said in school or at school functions.  They would like to control which religious postings may be made or exhibited on government or school property.  It appears that republicans desire to impose their own religious and moral beliefs on everybody through the laws they make.  

Republicans seek to control citizens’ access to courts for redress on liability for faulty products and liability for negligent acts of others, such as hospitals and doctors.  They have set controls over the rights of a worker, injured on the job, to seek treatment of his/her choice and just compensation.  Prominently, republicans want to control and reduce taxes paid by the wealthy.  

Democrats have also sought to control a number of vectors besetting the daily lives of Americans.  They have sought to control formation and behavior of business monopolies or oligopolies, such as exist in the oil industry, to manipulate prices and gouge the public.  They have sought to maintain control over the rates and profit levels of utility company monopolies, and keep these from victimizing consumers.  Democrats tried to set limits on production of gas guzzler autos in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil.  Democrats seek to control out-sourcing of American jobs, and the ability of corporations to avoid taxes by moving out of the country or setting up offices off-shore.  

Democrats have sought to control efforts of businesses and hospitals from taking away the rights of citizens to declare bankruptcy when hit by financial catastrophes.  They have passed rules and legislation requiring the proper labeling of food products sold, and controlling the quality of meat and produce reaching the grocery shelves.  They have sought to control companies’ efforts to refuse workers’ right to organize and bargain with employers.  Democrats want to set a decent minimum wage which must be paid to workers, thus trying to control sweat shops and sweat farms.  They have sought to control some conditions of child and other labor here, and in countries that sell to us.  Democrats want to control illegal immigration and the undermining of wages of American workers.

Democrats have passed legislation which requires banks to make local loans, and to make loans to people who represent the ethnic makeup of the community.  The party has sought to control those who would by subterfuge make race a qualification for voting.  They have sought to control the denial of health care on the basis of ability to pay.  Democrats have established some controls over the latitude of prosecutors to ride roughshod over the rights of defendants, protecting the innocent and the guilty.  They have sought to provide alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders.  

Democrats have developed numerous controls over big business which irritate managerial tycoons to no end.  Foremost among these are environmental protection controls, such as air, water, and nature.  They have tried to put controls on safety of pharmaceuticals that reach the consumer market, with liability penalties for violation.  They regulate workplace safety through standards and inspections, often to the chagrin of employers.  Democrats control fair employment practices through wage and hour laws, and they control hiring and firing abuses of employers by prohibition of discrimination.  

The Militant Moderate now recognizes that his hypothesis has advanced to a thesis.  Indeed political parties are defined by the elements of American life which they seek to control.  One party tries to control the personal lives and freedoms of citizens, while the other concerns itself with controlling corporate and business behavior on behalf of workers and consumers.  With full knowledge of these differences, voters must then be held personally responsible for their decisions at the polls.    

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA Militant Moderate

In one of his earlier blogs entitled “Things That Bother Us,” the Militant Moderate developed the thesis that a person may be defined by the things by which he/she is bothered.  It has occurred to him that possibly political parties may be defined in a somewhat similar fashion.  It is something of a challenge to test this hypothesis by examining party positions and issues, but the undaunted MM will make an effort.  

Republicans have often stated that the democrats are for “big government,” that their prevailing behaviors are “tax and spend,” and that they advocate “government control” of business, the economy, and the American way of life.  Democrats say that the republicans are for “big business” practice “borrow and spend,” and favor “special interests.”  They say the party is controlled by the wealthy class, and that the party exercises control of government in behalf of those interests.  

Perhaps it would be appropriate to examine the two parties and take a look at the control elements exhibited.  

Recent actions in the republican Oklahoma State House would indicate that party is most interested in controlling what is taught in science classrooms so as to include creationism, what type of degrees teachers must have to be given raises, what tests will be required for graduation from high school, and what percentages of school budgets must be for classrooms versus counseling, buses, utility bills, and other costs.  Republicans want to control which shelves books are placed upon in public libraries.  The House tries to control all state government by blocking moves by the Senate and the Governor to fund prisons, raise teachers’ salaries, or even ordinary costs to run the government.  They seek to limit the estate taxes paid by a few wealthy families, and they label it a “death tax.”  

Republicans are interfering with pharmacists filling prescriptions as written by doctors.  They are controlling freedom of drug stores and citizens to obtain cheaper prescription drugs from Canada.  They are controlling access to birth control drugs and procedures.  They want to control who cohabits with whom, at least legally, thus indirectly controlling hospital visitations, estates, and various legal rights.  

Republicans want to take personal choice from a woman and control whether she will become or stay pregnant.  They want to control religious exposure of children in schools, and what kind of prayers may be said in school or at school functions.  They would like to control which religious postings may be made or exhibited on government or school property.  It appears that republicans desire to impose their own religious and moral beliefs on everybody through the laws they make.  

Republicans seek to control citizens’ access to courts for redress on liability for faulty products and liability for negligent acts of others, such as hospitals and doctors.  They have set controls over the rights of a worker, injured on the job, to seek treatment of his/her choice and just compensation.  Prominently, republicans want to control and reduce taxes paid by the wealthy.  

Democrats have also sought to control a number of vectors besetting the daily lives of Americans.  They have sought to control formation and behavior of business monopolies or oligopolies, such as exist in the oil industry, to manipulate prices and gouge the public.  They have sought to maintain control over the rates and profit levels of utility company monopolies, and keep these from victimizing consumers.  Democrats tried to set limits on production of gas guzzler autos in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil.  Democrats seek to control out-sourcing of American jobs, and the ability of corporations to avoid taxes by moving out of the country or setting up offices off-shore.  

Democrats have sought to control efforts of businesses and hospitals from taking away the rights of citizens to declare bankruptcy when hit by financial catastrophes.  They have passed rules and legislation requiring the proper labeling of food products sold, and controlling the quality of meat and produce reaching the grocery shelves.  They have sought to control companies’ efforts to refuse workers’ right to organize and bargain with employers.  Democrats want to set a decent minimum wage which must be paid to workers, thus trying to control sweat shops and sweat farms.  They have sought to control some conditions of child and other labor here, and in countries that sell to us.  Democrats want to control illegal immigration and the undermining of wages of American workers.

Democrats have passed legislation which requires banks to make local loans, and to make loans to people who represent the ethnic makeup of the community.  The party has sought to control those who would by subterfuge make race a qualification for voting.  They have sought to control the denial of health care on the basis of ability to pay.  Democrats have established some controls over the latitude of prosecutors to ride roughshod over the rights of defendants, protecting the innocent and the guilty.  They have sought to provide alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders.  

Democrats have developed numerous controls over big business which irritate managerial tycoons to no end.  Foremost among these are environmental protection controls, such as air, water, and nature.  They have tried to put controls on safety of pharmaceuticals that reach the consumer market, with liability penalties for violation.  They regulate workplace safety through standards and inspections, often to the chagrin of employers.  Democrats control fair employment practices through wage and hour laws, and they control hiring and firing abuses of employers by prohibition of discrimination.  

The Militant Moderate now recognizes that his hypothesis has advanced to a thesis.  Indeed political parties are defined by the elements of American life which they seek to control.  One party tries to control the personal lives and freedoms of citizens, while the other concerns itself with controlling corporate and business behavior on behalf of workers and consumers.  With full knowledge of these differences, voters must then be held personally responsible for their decisions at the polls.    

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA Militant Moderate

The Militant Moderate wonders how many Oklahomans remember the last time they voted in an election to place debt upon the State of Oklahoma.  You cannot remember?  The MM also has some difficulty remembering, but it was 15 or 20 years ago.  At that time a sizable bond issue of around $100 million was voted for higher education and various other state agencies.  There was a tobacco tax levied by that same vote for the purpose of paying off the bonds.  

The Constitution of the Sate of Oklahoma forbids general state debt without a vote of the people and a dedicated source of funding from which the bonds will be retired within 25 years.  The reader is invited to check the wording from the Constitution as referenced below.  

Considering the constitutional provisions, one would have cause to wonder about all the different state bond issues which are now bandied about with apparently little fiscal concern.  During the Keating administration, it was decided that there were insufficient funds to build and repair highways and bridges.  So the Governor promoted, and the legislature authorized, a bond issue of several hundred million to be paid from anticipated federal highway funds to be received in future years.  When that bond issue was contested, a weak Oklahoma Supreme Court was brow-beaten into approving it as legal and constitutional.  (They also received a new court building from another issue.)  Paying off those questionable bonds is a major cause for the recent shortage of highway dollars.  

From that time since, bond issues have been made for every conceivable government related capital purpose – all to be repaid from regular revenues in future years.  This past year a much needed $500 million higher education bond issue was approved, to be retired from future state appropriations.  The venue of the Capitol Improvement Authority is now used for whatever projects upon which the legislature and Governor may agree, and more state debt is created for various and sundry purposes.  Since all these bonds must be paid from current income, and no special taxes are levied and dedicated, these become a growing state debt year by year.  

We are a state that has a constitutional prohibition against debt except by vote of the people and a dedicated revenue source for its retirement.  Yet we may now be about a billion dollars in bonded debt with no vote and no new taxes identified for payment.  (A little dab of gambling revenue is the exception, although that is not a tax.)  This makes neither legal nor fiscal sense to the Militant Moderate.  

Adding to the state’s future fiscal problems are the huge debts of its pension systems, particularly the Oklahoma Teachers’ Retirement System.  This system now has $7.4 billion in unfunded liability.  The state has failed to keep up its share of the funding for decades, and the fiscal chickens are coming home to roost.  Since the benefits for retired and active teachers are promised in state statutes, the OTRS debt is legally the debt of the State of Oklahoma.  The Oklahoman has headlined this problem on its front page.  

Presently there is a legislative proposal, sponsored on behalf of administrators and the highest paid school and college personnel, which would give these high paid people a windfall of new benefits and load the system with as much as $400 million to $1 billion in added new liability.  There is a contrary proposal, sponsored by the Oklahoma Council of Retired College Presidents, which calls for all such special interest proposals to be denied.  Further, it provides for additional funding from individual, school, and state sources to gradually pay down all system liability.  This latter proposal also calls for low-cost adjustments in benefits for elderly retirees who now receive least.  Which will the legislature choose?  

Compounding the problem of increasing state debt are the constant cries from some politicians for reducing taxes, and then such proposals as TABOR.  The Militant Moderate is compelled to shout, “DON’T REDUCE TAXES!  PAY OFF DEBT AND LIABILITIES!”  One might also add, “Fund education and other state services adequately before any mention is made of cutting revenue!”  The state has been behind for so long that it needs some good years of funding just to catch up.  Certainly it needs to reduce its debt before considering revenue cuts.  


Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA Militant Moderate  


Legal References from the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma:

Article X. S.4
“For the purpose of paying the state debt, if any, the Legislature shall provide for levying a tax, annually, sufficient to pay the annual interest and principal of such debt within twenty-five years from the passage of the law creating the debt.”  

Article X. S.25
“….. no debts shall be hereafter contracted by or on behalf of this State, unless such debt shall be authorized by law for some work or object, to be distinctly specified therein; and such law shall impose and provide for the collection of a direct annual tax to pay, and sufficient to pay, the interest on such debt as it falls due, and also to pay and discharge the principal of such debt within twenty-five years from the time of the contracting thereof.  No such law shall take effect until it shall, at a general election, have been submitted to the people and have received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at such election.”  

Some thirty years ago the Militant Moderate made a speech to a group of two or three hundred college freshmen.  The title has long been forgotten, but one major point within the theme of the speech was that a person is defined as much by what he is against as that which he favors.  Certainly, it is important that an individual choose carefully those ideas and causes he/she will support and which will be given time and energy.  But in truly defining oneself as a person, it is also important to clearly delineate those conditions, actions, or events which one opposes with sincerity and often great animus.  

Some things bother the Militant Moderate.  

One of the foremost of these is injustice, or phrased another way, “Man’s inhumanity to man.”  

About a year ago the Militant Moderate was having a customary coffee at McDonald’s with Dr. Joe Struckle, retired president of Northwestern Oklahoma State University and in earlier years a graduate student, faculty member, and administrator under his tutelage.  An older lady came by our table to thank the two of us for championing reforms in the Oklahoma Teacher Retirement System which would bring improved benefits and insurance to elderly retirees.  She told us of her difficulties in making ends meet and buying her prescriptions.  She detailed how it was necessary to cut some pills in half and to skip days with others to get through the month on her retirement benefits.  

This bothered Dr. Struckle.  It also bothered the Militant Moderate.  Whenever we become discouraged in our efforts to improve that retirement system through political action, we think back of this lady.  She and others like her need champions.  These conditions should indeed bother people.  There is an injustice in such cases that cries out for righting.  People in positions of power in this state and in this nation need to be sensitive to the lives of Americans who must depend upon them.  

In a related incident, the MM’s wife recently had an experience with a lady in a service occupation that has bothered the two of us.  The lady confided in her that she was an ex-convict, having served two years in prison for a second DUI offense.  She was a mother and grandmother, who had a short period of personal trauma in her life worsened by alcohol.  Strangely enough, according to her story, she had actually parked her car to avoid driving but was found “in control,” as the law says.  (The MM recalls that a prominent senator was once arrested on that charge while sleeping in the back seat of his car in a parking lot.)  This lady is an independent worker at a modest income, cannot afford health insurance, and was working in arthritic pain because she was saving her last two celebrex pills for the hardest days of the week coming up.  

Presuming that her account has a modicum of validity, and it rings true, then this lady has not had a fair shake in life.  Her condition of personal hardship cries out for help from the rest of us.  There is too much callousness toward the less fortunate.  The Militant Moderate is bothered by such human conditions all around.  

Hearing a TV report on the huge number of new laws that in the making in the legislature, the MM’s wife raised the pertinent question, “Don’t we have enough already?”  Considering the fact that many of those bills involve raising misdemeanors to felonies, and adding penalties and longer prison terms for offenses, then the question is really pertinent.  For instance, we are now going to make a young grocery clerk into a felon for, purposely or inadvertently, selling beer to another young person.  With one of the highest incarceration rate in the country, and with a constantly increasing cost of prisons in taxpayer money and lost human lives and productivity, it seems to the Militant Moderate that we are ignorantly persistent in heading in the wrong direction.  We should be looking for alternatives to incarceration, not for more ways to put people behind bars.  

It bothers the Militant Moderate that so many seem determined to make life harder for others through the legal system.  It bothers him also that so few seem to be sensitive to human conditions and hardships around them.  

Too few are bothered about the right things these days.  Too many are bothered by “hot button” issues such as abortion, gay marriage, tort reform, TABOR, prayer in schools, estate taxes, and posting the commandments.  Too few are bothered by human suffering, the plight of widows and orphans, rates of incarceration, health care for the sick and the elderly, the homelessness of the mentally ill, or the bare existence of life for the poor.  

Indeed, the things which bother us define the person that we are.  


  Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate