Saturday, January 24, 2009
PETULANT AND PUSILLANIMOUS
This writer was seventeen, going on eighteen, years of age when he first heard the word “pusillanimous.” This was as an apprentice seaman in a sea of white uniforms, thirty thousand strong, standing at parade rest on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Training Station in San Diego. It was in the midst of World War II.
We were marched onto the parade ground in units and lined up in precision fashion in front of a reviewing stand, and allowed to assume the formal position called “parade rest” while a program ensued. During a part of this ceremony and many others like it later, an officer would step to the microphone of a public address system and read to us the Articles of the Code of Conduct for the U.S. Navy. One of those to which we pledged was that as long as we were still able to fight we would “never surrender nor pusillanimously cry for quarter.”
I did not know the meaning of that term “pusillanimous,” but I knew it was bad. I suspected that it meant cowardly.
I find now that it does indeed mean that. It also means “dastardly” or “mean-spirited.” This is why the adjective seems to apply to the conduct of hard-shell republicans in Congress now. Since “pusillanimous” is one of the worst words I know, I believe it applies to the worst people I know -- those republicans who choose to obstruct, delay, and otherwise hinder the conduct of the business of the nation in crisis.
Another word which has been high on this writer’s list of bad words is “petulant.” He believes that this word also applies to the obstructionist republicans who criticize everything being proposed.
We find that “petulant” means “cranky, puckish, ill-tempered, peevish, fretful, and contemptuous.” Obviously then, “petulant” is a good term to apply to that group of republicans who are against everything any democrat proposes.
This group defies its own more moderate leaders who are willing to move toward the middle and try to make the government work to get something good done for the country. Senator McCain pleaded with his party to stop blocking and delaying tactics on cabinet confirmations. He has asked party members to look seriously at the stimulus proposals before rejecting them.
Unfortunately there are a number of republicans in congress who will not follow more moderate party leaders, as chosen by their own voters, but choose to follow the most cantankerous right wingers in their party. It is sad that these petulant senators and congressmen behave so in expectation of greater political popularity within their own party base.
It is quite clear that the new president has been reaching across the aisle, trying to create bridges for discussion and an exchange of views. If his bi-partisanship efforts fail, then it is equally clear who has chosen the path of dissension, disruption, and obstruction that the American people have rejected. .
If the republican party expects to stay within the mainstream of national politics, rather than be permanently sidelined as a group of cynical fanatics, then they really need to reject that petulant element within their party and move toward a more cooperative, participative, middle stance.
This nation desperately needs some quick, thoughtful, and logical actions taken to pull it away from the abyss -- away from the brink of economic disaster. The new president has gathered the best economic minds in the world, including Nobel prize-winners, to make recommendations. A plan has been put together from that base.
No one knows for sure what will work. But the plan is the best that the brightest can derive. We have to try.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
We were marched onto the parade ground in units and lined up in precision fashion in front of a reviewing stand, and allowed to assume the formal position called “parade rest” while a program ensued. During a part of this ceremony and many others like it later, an officer would step to the microphone of a public address system and read to us the Articles of the Code of Conduct for the U.S. Navy. One of those to which we pledged was that as long as we were still able to fight we would “never surrender nor pusillanimously cry for quarter.”
I did not know the meaning of that term “pusillanimous,” but I knew it was bad. I suspected that it meant cowardly.
I find now that it does indeed mean that. It also means “dastardly” or “mean-spirited.” This is why the adjective seems to apply to the conduct of hard-shell republicans in Congress now. Since “pusillanimous” is one of the worst words I know, I believe it applies to the worst people I know -- those republicans who choose to obstruct, delay, and otherwise hinder the conduct of the business of the nation in crisis.
Another word which has been high on this writer’s list of bad words is “petulant.” He believes that this word also applies to the obstructionist republicans who criticize everything being proposed.
We find that “petulant” means “cranky, puckish, ill-tempered, peevish, fretful, and contemptuous.” Obviously then, “petulant” is a good term to apply to that group of republicans who are against everything any democrat proposes.
This group defies its own more moderate leaders who are willing to move toward the middle and try to make the government work to get something good done for the country. Senator McCain pleaded with his party to stop blocking and delaying tactics on cabinet confirmations. He has asked party members to look seriously at the stimulus proposals before rejecting them.
Unfortunately there are a number of republicans in congress who will not follow more moderate party leaders, as chosen by their own voters, but choose to follow the most cantankerous right wingers in their party. It is sad that these petulant senators and congressmen behave so in expectation of greater political popularity within their own party base.
It is quite clear that the new president has been reaching across the aisle, trying to create bridges for discussion and an exchange of views. If his bi-partisanship efforts fail, then it is equally clear who has chosen the path of dissension, disruption, and obstruction that the American people have rejected. .
If the republican party expects to stay within the mainstream of national politics, rather than be permanently sidelined as a group of cynical fanatics, then they really need to reject that petulant element within their party and move toward a more cooperative, participative, middle stance.
This nation desperately needs some quick, thoughtful, and logical actions taken to pull it away from the abyss -- away from the brink of economic disaster. The new president has gathered the best economic minds in the world, including Nobel prize-winners, to make recommendations. A plan has been put together from that base.
No one knows for sure what will work. But the plan is the best that the brightest can derive. We have to try.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
AN INSPIRATIONAL DAY
Oh, what a beautiful day! What an inspirational day! An unbelievable two million people with shining faces and teary eyes gathered for a history altering occasion. They experienced the charisma and the eloquence of a new leader holding sway over the minds and hearts of a diverse body of believers in a new and different American way.
In the words of the poet:
“About the people cast an enchanting spell,
With volition of vision, kinetic to impel…..
The vision must capture the American dream,
And in the teary eyes of its people gleam.”
Long an admirer of skills in erudition of written or spoken words, this observer has been thrilled repeatedly by both the wordsmith techniques and the skills of elocution of the new president. Along with millions, he has been enthralled, touched, and inspired.
To this observer, race was never a primary part in his personal responses to this winning candidate, although at times responses may have been somewhat enhanced by that consideration. Black or white, Barack Obama was by far the most challenging, inspirational, thoughtful, and poised of our aspiring leaders. He deserved his election on personal merit alone.
But to those with African-American ancestry, this victory was doubly meaningful. We have observed the gleaming faces and teary eyes of his black compatriots. To them, the meaning of all this is much more than we whites will ever fathom.
This writer wonders now about what the feelings of his deceased friend, Walter Mason, might have been today. Walt was a master’s degree student under our tutelage at O.S.U during the 1961-62 academic year NDEA counseling institute. Said to be the only black teacher surviving the integration of the Perry schools fewer than five years earlier, Walter went on from us to become counseling director at Langston University and then Affirmative Action Coordinator at the University of Oklahoma.
Walter Mason was a great human being. The only black student among 30 master’s degree candidates, Walter’s race quickly became irrelevant to all of us – students and faculty. But in arranging field trips, meals, and overnight stays, race was still relevant in the outside world. I checked every stop and every hotel in advance, and we passed on any that gave any hint blacks were not welcome.
If he were alive today witnessing these inaugural events, I suspect Walt would have tears running down his cheeks, experiencing an emotion none of us can imagine. If I were standing by his side, I would likely have shared in his emotions.
How strange it is that this beacon symbolizing change for the black people of our nation, and those of the world at large, is also the beacon light of hope for all of us in this country and for the rest of the world as well. It is a new day! It is a wonderful new day!
Although our exultation of today is restrained by the mountainous problems which confront us domestically and internationally, the joy of our hope thrives and prospers.
On this great day this old curmudgeon was inspired to unfurl Old Glory to fly again freely in the breezes of change passing rapidly by his viewing stand. Something which had been lost has now been found. Something repressed is now free again. Freedom is a wonderful thing!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
In the words of the poet:
“About the people cast an enchanting spell,
With volition of vision, kinetic to impel…..
The vision must capture the American dream,
And in the teary eyes of its people gleam.”
Long an admirer of skills in erudition of written or spoken words, this observer has been thrilled repeatedly by both the wordsmith techniques and the skills of elocution of the new president. Along with millions, he has been enthralled, touched, and inspired.
To this observer, race was never a primary part in his personal responses to this winning candidate, although at times responses may have been somewhat enhanced by that consideration. Black or white, Barack Obama was by far the most challenging, inspirational, thoughtful, and poised of our aspiring leaders. He deserved his election on personal merit alone.
But to those with African-American ancestry, this victory was doubly meaningful. We have observed the gleaming faces and teary eyes of his black compatriots. To them, the meaning of all this is much more than we whites will ever fathom.
This writer wonders now about what the feelings of his deceased friend, Walter Mason, might have been today. Walt was a master’s degree student under our tutelage at O.S.U during the 1961-62 academic year NDEA counseling institute. Said to be the only black teacher surviving the integration of the Perry schools fewer than five years earlier, Walter went on from us to become counseling director at Langston University and then Affirmative Action Coordinator at the University of Oklahoma.
Walter Mason was a great human being. The only black student among 30 master’s degree candidates, Walter’s race quickly became irrelevant to all of us – students and faculty. But in arranging field trips, meals, and overnight stays, race was still relevant in the outside world. I checked every stop and every hotel in advance, and we passed on any that gave any hint blacks were not welcome.
If he were alive today witnessing these inaugural events, I suspect Walt would have tears running down his cheeks, experiencing an emotion none of us can imagine. If I were standing by his side, I would likely have shared in his emotions.
How strange it is that this beacon symbolizing change for the black people of our nation, and those of the world at large, is also the beacon light of hope for all of us in this country and for the rest of the world as well. It is a new day! It is a wonderful new day!
Although our exultation of today is restrained by the mountainous problems which confront us domestically and internationally, the joy of our hope thrives and prospers.
On this great day this old curmudgeon was inspired to unfurl Old Glory to fly again freely in the breezes of change passing rapidly by his viewing stand. Something which had been lost has now been found. Something repressed is now free again. Freedom is a wonderful thing!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Saturday, January 17, 2009
PROSECUTING BUSH OFFICIALS
There is an increasing vocal demand for the Obama people to go after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others for civil liberties offenses against the American people and for war crimes in violation of law and the Geneva Convention rules (incorporated into law) for treatment of prisoners.
A similar call comes from some international sources for war crimes violations. If these come to a head in the form of an investigation and bringing of evidence before the court at The Hague, then some Bush officials could be in jeopardy if they should travel abroad. This would cause a strain in world relationships, even if international courts are unrecognized in this country. This could be very serious.
Both Bush and Cheney have admitted to knowledge of water-boarding and other extreme measures in interrogation of prisoners, but declare that they instructed those involved to seek legal opinions first. We know now how A.G. Gonzales worked on this, and took it to then current A.G. Ashcroft in the hospital where it was refused. But it was later cleared by them anyway.
Bush and Cheney lied to the people through the media about tapping Americans’ phone calls to one another without court approval. White House officials lied during the Valerie Plame CIA outing, but only Scooter was prosecuted and his sentence commuted. Justice department and White House officials lied while rejecting subpoenas about the firing of U.S. district attorneys for political reasons and use of the justice system as a partisan political tool in filing of baseless charges. Bush and Cheney lied about intelligence reports leading to the Iraq War. Officials have engaged in practices commonly recognized as “torture,” translated “war crimes.”
There is little doubt that there is a fairly strong case for prosecution of numerous Bush officials for legal infractions. It is understandable why many citizens and many media people are demanding that Obama pursue prosecution to hold them accountable and teach a lesson for future would-be usurpers of power.
Many democrats remember well the republican-sponsored, suborned, continuous legal harassment of Mr. Clinton throughout his two terms for past business dealings and for matters of personal conduct with women. In their minds, the republicans deserve no breaks on allegations of crimes in office involving the welfare of the nation.
In spite of all this, Mr. Obama is reluctant to make any statements promising to hold the past officials accountable legally for their crimes. Instead, he calls for the nation to direct its attention forward rather than backward.
We agree with Mr. Obama.
It would be an extremely bad precedent for a new administration from a different political party to come in and execute a sweeping legal vendetta against the predecessor.
Besides inciting hostility from the party of the past administration, setting such a precedent could lead to excessive timidity in future administrations to make tough and bold decisions that are often needed in unusual or crisis situations. While no one condones deliberate law breaking, such offenses are impeachable and, if flagrant, that should be the contiguous remedy.
However, it probably is appropriate for the justice department or similar authority to establish some kind of impartial commission with subpoena powers to investigate and report on allegations of wrongful conduct. Thus, an authentic record could be established, and those guilty of misjudgments, mistakes, or wrongful conduct can be cited.
Some care should be exercised in any domestic investigation lest it provide fuel to a fire of international demands.
While some regard the Commission approach as a “slap on the wrist,” and view it with disdain, the view here is that such is sufficient for the historical record, for deterrence, and for defusing international concerns.
Setting the precedent of prosecuting one’s predecessor in political leadership is remindful of the third world’s custom of bloody changes of power, followed by the execution of the former leader. Such can lead to even more oppressive measures of those in power to maintain their position, and it undermines the orderly changes through election which have been our democratic tradition.
No long term good comes from vengeance upon the outgoing leadership.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
A similar call comes from some international sources for war crimes violations. If these come to a head in the form of an investigation and bringing of evidence before the court at The Hague, then some Bush officials could be in jeopardy if they should travel abroad. This would cause a strain in world relationships, even if international courts are unrecognized in this country. This could be very serious.
Both Bush and Cheney have admitted to knowledge of water-boarding and other extreme measures in interrogation of prisoners, but declare that they instructed those involved to seek legal opinions first. We know now how A.G. Gonzales worked on this, and took it to then current A.G. Ashcroft in the hospital where it was refused. But it was later cleared by them anyway.
Bush and Cheney lied to the people through the media about tapping Americans’ phone calls to one another without court approval. White House officials lied during the Valerie Plame CIA outing, but only Scooter was prosecuted and his sentence commuted. Justice department and White House officials lied while rejecting subpoenas about the firing of U.S. district attorneys for political reasons and use of the justice system as a partisan political tool in filing of baseless charges. Bush and Cheney lied about intelligence reports leading to the Iraq War. Officials have engaged in practices commonly recognized as “torture,” translated “war crimes.”
There is little doubt that there is a fairly strong case for prosecution of numerous Bush officials for legal infractions. It is understandable why many citizens and many media people are demanding that Obama pursue prosecution to hold them accountable and teach a lesson for future would-be usurpers of power.
Many democrats remember well the republican-sponsored, suborned, continuous legal harassment of Mr. Clinton throughout his two terms for past business dealings and for matters of personal conduct with women. In their minds, the republicans deserve no breaks on allegations of crimes in office involving the welfare of the nation.
In spite of all this, Mr. Obama is reluctant to make any statements promising to hold the past officials accountable legally for their crimes. Instead, he calls for the nation to direct its attention forward rather than backward.
We agree with Mr. Obama.
It would be an extremely bad precedent for a new administration from a different political party to come in and execute a sweeping legal vendetta against the predecessor.
Besides inciting hostility from the party of the past administration, setting such a precedent could lead to excessive timidity in future administrations to make tough and bold decisions that are often needed in unusual or crisis situations. While no one condones deliberate law breaking, such offenses are impeachable and, if flagrant, that should be the contiguous remedy.
However, it probably is appropriate for the justice department or similar authority to establish some kind of impartial commission with subpoena powers to investigate and report on allegations of wrongful conduct. Thus, an authentic record could be established, and those guilty of misjudgments, mistakes, or wrongful conduct can be cited.
Some care should be exercised in any domestic investigation lest it provide fuel to a fire of international demands.
While some regard the Commission approach as a “slap on the wrist,” and view it with disdain, the view here is that such is sufficient for the historical record, for deterrence, and for defusing international concerns.
Setting the precedent of prosecuting one’s predecessor in political leadership is remindful of the third world’s custom of bloody changes of power, followed by the execution of the former leader. Such can lead to even more oppressive measures of those in power to maintain their position, and it undermines the orderly changes through election which have been our democratic tradition.
No long term good comes from vengeance upon the outgoing leadership.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, January 12, 2009
OBAMA'S BLACKBERRY
Why all this fuss about Obama’s Blackberry?
When this was mentioned initially, it was supposed to be a personal security issue. It seems clear to all those among us who watch NCIS, CSI, and similar (fictional scientific and technical) programs that with the right technology interlopers could trace the whereabouts of a person carrying a cell phone or a Blackberry. They might also trace calls made, or hack into private phone conversations. Realistic or not, we thought that was the issue.
Of course, if that technology is commonly available to foreign spies and domestic hackers, or to terrorists seeking to do harm, then there might be good and sufficient reasons for not wanting Mr. Obama to leave his Blackberry turned on and carry it everywhere he goes, or to use it for government business.
But now we are unsure whether this is the issue currently being discussed in the media.
It seems that some in the media are concerned that Mr. Obama’s personal Blackberry might not be subject to the rules, such as they are, regarding White House communications.
This follows a secretive republican administration which has denied access to White House visitors’ logs, e-mails outside and inside, names of advisory committees on issues such as energy policy, deleted e-mails and other records, and has also stonewalled its staff from responding to Congressional subpoenas. This comes after an administration that has used its intelligence gathering capacities to spy and record personal phone conversations of ordinary American citizens and between soldiers and wives.
Perhaps one can understand some valid media concern with this whole area, but it can easily go too far.
Certain recent media discourses have stated that Mr. Obama’s private Blackberry should not be private at all. When he becomes president this becomes property of his government employer, and thus all his texts and calls are subject to scrutiny as government records.
Personally, we are not fully convinced that all business phone conversations and e-mails sent or received from within the White House should be subject to any kind of open records law. Perhaps it is understandable that a court might direct the disclosure of specific records pertaining to a legal case involving alleged violation of law.
We are fully convinced, however, that Mr. Obama’s personal conversations or text messages on his Blackberry with his wife and two girls are out of bounds. We would think also that there must also be many other personal and family calls to or from the White House within the first family or to and from friends that are not official records.
The president and his family should have personal lives and personal telephones.
Further, the president should also be able to use his own laptop or other computer for personal correspondence with friends, keeping personal notes and family records, and other matters not pertaining directly to the conduct of public business.
We can simply go too far with this expectancy of openness, and at some point it becomes an intrusion into privacy.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
When this was mentioned initially, it was supposed to be a personal security issue. It seems clear to all those among us who watch NCIS, CSI, and similar (fictional scientific and technical) programs that with the right technology interlopers could trace the whereabouts of a person carrying a cell phone or a Blackberry. They might also trace calls made, or hack into private phone conversations. Realistic or not, we thought that was the issue.
Of course, if that technology is commonly available to foreign spies and domestic hackers, or to terrorists seeking to do harm, then there might be good and sufficient reasons for not wanting Mr. Obama to leave his Blackberry turned on and carry it everywhere he goes, or to use it for government business.
But now we are unsure whether this is the issue currently being discussed in the media.
It seems that some in the media are concerned that Mr. Obama’s personal Blackberry might not be subject to the rules, such as they are, regarding White House communications.
This follows a secretive republican administration which has denied access to White House visitors’ logs, e-mails outside and inside, names of advisory committees on issues such as energy policy, deleted e-mails and other records, and has also stonewalled its staff from responding to Congressional subpoenas. This comes after an administration that has used its intelligence gathering capacities to spy and record personal phone conversations of ordinary American citizens and between soldiers and wives.
Perhaps one can understand some valid media concern with this whole area, but it can easily go too far.
Certain recent media discourses have stated that Mr. Obama’s private Blackberry should not be private at all. When he becomes president this becomes property of his government employer, and thus all his texts and calls are subject to scrutiny as government records.
Personally, we are not fully convinced that all business phone conversations and e-mails sent or received from within the White House should be subject to any kind of open records law. Perhaps it is understandable that a court might direct the disclosure of specific records pertaining to a legal case involving alleged violation of law.
We are fully convinced, however, that Mr. Obama’s personal conversations or text messages on his Blackberry with his wife and two girls are out of bounds. We would think also that there must also be many other personal and family calls to or from the White House within the first family or to and from friends that are not official records.
The president and his family should have personal lives and personal telephones.
Further, the president should also be able to use his own laptop or other computer for personal correspondence with friends, keeping personal notes and family records, and other matters not pertaining directly to the conduct of public business.
We can simply go too far with this expectancy of openness, and at some point it becomes an intrusion into privacy.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
GET ON WITH IT!
By the time this appears, perhaps several of these recommended actions may have occurred, or maybe some alternative actions will have happened. But it is time for certain of those in our government who are empowered to act to do so.
The democrats in the Senate are making a mistake in not seating Mr. Roland Burris, the legitimately named appointee of the governor of Illinois. With all due understanding of the charges against that governor, it is incumbent upon the Senate to seat Mr. Burris or offer a substantive reason not to do so involving his own personal conduct.
There needs to be an end in our politics to the stigma of being tainted by merely by association with a person with questionable character.
The governor of the state of New York needs to get on the ball and appoint a senator to take Hillary’s place. There have been more than enough theatrics. He has at least two good candidates from which to choose.
Both young Andrew Cuomo, son of former governor Mario Cuomo and now the state’s attorney general, and Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK are suitable choices. Young Cuomo is showing himself worthy in his short political career, and Caroline Kennedy is smart, serious, cultivated, and unpretentious.
Either Cuomo or Kennedy would be a good choice. So, get on with it, Governor!
So, Senator Feinstein feels offended for not being consulted about the appointment of an erstwhile political rival as head of the CIA, no reason to stall around and make criticisms. Leon Panetta is a proven political entity, well-trained in law and experienced in the ways of politics and government.
Competition and friction among the so-called professionals in those law-enforcement agencies has been detrimental to national security. They have allowed their “intelligence” to be skewed and misinterpreted for political purposes.
Illegal acts resembling torture have been practiced and condoned by the intelligence community. There has been illegal spying upon American citizens. They are in bad need of competent, trustworthy oversight.
For heaven’s sake, let’s get the election in Minnesota settled. The process has gone on long enough. If a definitive and clear court ruling does not happen quickly, then let’s seat the guy who has been certified as elected. If some appeals court rules differently six months from now, the Senate can then accommodate some final court order.
Let’s get on with the proposed stimulus package. No matter what we may think of it, this has been put together by the best economic minds in the country, and then tempered with a touch of political pragmatism. Don’t debate it to death. Don’t amend it out of shape. Study it conscientiously but expeditiously, and then get on with it! A traumatized nation waits.
We know that the processes of a democratic government are sometimes slow and cumbersome. Certain of our rights in a democracy are protected by our systems of due process. We would not have it to be different, but let’s get on with it!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The democrats in the Senate are making a mistake in not seating Mr. Roland Burris, the legitimately named appointee of the governor of Illinois. With all due understanding of the charges against that governor, it is incumbent upon the Senate to seat Mr. Burris or offer a substantive reason not to do so involving his own personal conduct.
There needs to be an end in our politics to the stigma of being tainted by merely by association with a person with questionable character.
The governor of the state of New York needs to get on the ball and appoint a senator to take Hillary’s place. There have been more than enough theatrics. He has at least two good candidates from which to choose.
Both young Andrew Cuomo, son of former governor Mario Cuomo and now the state’s attorney general, and Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK are suitable choices. Young Cuomo is showing himself worthy in his short political career, and Caroline Kennedy is smart, serious, cultivated, and unpretentious.
Either Cuomo or Kennedy would be a good choice. So, get on with it, Governor!
So, Senator Feinstein feels offended for not being consulted about the appointment of an erstwhile political rival as head of the CIA, no reason to stall around and make criticisms. Leon Panetta is a proven political entity, well-trained in law and experienced in the ways of politics and government.
Competition and friction among the so-called professionals in those law-enforcement agencies has been detrimental to national security. They have allowed their “intelligence” to be skewed and misinterpreted for political purposes.
Illegal acts resembling torture have been practiced and condoned by the intelligence community. There has been illegal spying upon American citizens. They are in bad need of competent, trustworthy oversight.
For heaven’s sake, let’s get the election in Minnesota settled. The process has gone on long enough. If a definitive and clear court ruling does not happen quickly, then let’s seat the guy who has been certified as elected. If some appeals court rules differently six months from now, the Senate can then accommodate some final court order.
Let’s get on with the proposed stimulus package. No matter what we may think of it, this has been put together by the best economic minds in the country, and then tempered with a touch of political pragmatism. Don’t debate it to death. Don’t amend it out of shape. Study it conscientiously but expeditiously, and then get on with it! A traumatized nation waits.
We know that the processes of a democratic government are sometimes slow and cumbersome. Certain of our rights in a democracy are protected by our systems of due process. We would not have it to be different, but let’s get on with it!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Saturday, January 03, 2009
PAY AS YOU DRIVE
The report of a national commission studying the condition and needs of America’s highway and bridge system was released this week. The findings were fairly simple. America’s roads and bridges are in a poorly maintained condition, and a 50% increase in the highway fuel tax is needed to pay for necessary improvements.
Oh, what a howl we have heard from the tax-dodgers -- excuse me, the big spender/ tax-cutter crowd. When there is so obvious a need, and such a direct relationship of a user tax with its expenditure, why is it that the conservative crowd does not want to pay the piper?
The no-tax position makes no sense, except politically. It is a terribly sorry state of affairs when most Americans are so ignorant of practical governance needs and problems that they will vote against politicians who enact taxes, however worthy and needed.
Three years ago, Oklahoma voted down miserly increases of a few cents in fuel taxes to bring them up almost to the level of surrounding states. Neal McCaleb, a former highway director under Henry Bellmon and a republican, led an organized movement involving Enid’s own former senator to bring our taxes up to pay for more matching money for improvements to our deteriorating roads and bridges.
We have become so dead set against taxes that it matters not who brings them forward or for what reason. Just this past week, in discussing the national proposal, McCaleb said, “It’s dead on arrival.” When asked why, he said, “Because any politician who votes for a tax increase will be voted out of office.”
How sad! We have lots of politicians of all stripes, but few statesmen willing to stand up and do what is right.
While supporting both state and federal fuel tax increases, this writer thinks that another look should be given to putting a tariff of perhaps $10 or $20 a barrel on imported oil. This idea was first broached nationally by republican Senator Don Nickles, who asked unsuccessfully for a $5 tariff.
While this might make a slight increase gasoline prices, it would be a boon to the oil related economy of our state and the country. It would also hasten the development of alternative fuels and more efficient cars, which has slowed lately with lower gas prices.
Some Oklahoma sources keep talking about augmenting highway funds by taking the auto license money away from schools or the state general fund. This is an obvious “rob Peter to pay Paul” idea, putting interests in one class of state services over the welfare of another.
Those who have done their own federal taxes for a while will remember deduction of the auto license fee is based upon its history as an “in lieu” tax. That is, the auto license fee is “in lieu” of property taxes on the vehicle. Most property taxes go to schools, so the auto license tax went to the schools because of its nature and historical definition.
So there is a history and a logic to this tax dedication, although most people (and legislators) have forgotten this or have never studied the background. Our ill-advised enactment of term limits has led to terrible gaps in the institutional memory of the legislature, as well as the deteriorated quality and experience of its leadership.
Our disdain for taxes to pay for state services is making us a debtor state. It is also making us a backward state. Our national disdain for paying taxes has led to our being a debtor nation. It may soon lead us from second to third class status in quality of services to our people.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Oh, what a howl we have heard from the tax-dodgers -- excuse me, the big spender/ tax-cutter crowd. When there is so obvious a need, and such a direct relationship of a user tax with its expenditure, why is it that the conservative crowd does not want to pay the piper?
The no-tax position makes no sense, except politically. It is a terribly sorry state of affairs when most Americans are so ignorant of practical governance needs and problems that they will vote against politicians who enact taxes, however worthy and needed.
Three years ago, Oklahoma voted down miserly increases of a few cents in fuel taxes to bring them up almost to the level of surrounding states. Neal McCaleb, a former highway director under Henry Bellmon and a republican, led an organized movement involving Enid’s own former senator to bring our taxes up to pay for more matching money for improvements to our deteriorating roads and bridges.
We have become so dead set against taxes that it matters not who brings them forward or for what reason. Just this past week, in discussing the national proposal, McCaleb said, “It’s dead on arrival.” When asked why, he said, “Because any politician who votes for a tax increase will be voted out of office.”
How sad! We have lots of politicians of all stripes, but few statesmen willing to stand up and do what is right.
While supporting both state and federal fuel tax increases, this writer thinks that another look should be given to putting a tariff of perhaps $10 or $20 a barrel on imported oil. This idea was first broached nationally by republican Senator Don Nickles, who asked unsuccessfully for a $5 tariff.
While this might make a slight increase gasoline prices, it would be a boon to the oil related economy of our state and the country. It would also hasten the development of alternative fuels and more efficient cars, which has slowed lately with lower gas prices.
Some Oklahoma sources keep talking about augmenting highway funds by taking the auto license money away from schools or the state general fund. This is an obvious “rob Peter to pay Paul” idea, putting interests in one class of state services over the welfare of another.
Those who have done their own federal taxes for a while will remember deduction of the auto license fee is based upon its history as an “in lieu” tax. That is, the auto license fee is “in lieu” of property taxes on the vehicle. Most property taxes go to schools, so the auto license tax went to the schools because of its nature and historical definition.
So there is a history and a logic to this tax dedication, although most people (and legislators) have forgotten this or have never studied the background. Our ill-advised enactment of term limits has led to terrible gaps in the institutional memory of the legislature, as well as the deteriorated quality and experience of its leadership.
Our disdain for taxes to pay for state services is making us a debtor state. It is also making us a backward state. Our national disdain for paying taxes has led to our being a debtor nation. It may soon lead us from second to third class status in quality of services to our people.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
