When did the willingness of Americans to sacrifice end?

The recent Wyoming legislature took an action little noted but deserving of recognition in a country where so few are willing to share any of the pain of tough decisions.

If you stopped reading American history around 1972, you’d be left with the impression that ours is a nation where people have always been willing to sacrifice their own narrow interests for the common good. As an American trait, the willingness to share the sacrifice began with the Declaration of Independence, ending with, "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." Those words established a connection far more binding than any political promise.

On through the Great Depression and World War II, Americans believed in that same mutual pledge. Given today’s political, social and economic environment, how many would be willing to pledge their mutual fortunes and sacred honor?

Seems it all started to change with Watergate, the end of the military draft, the backlash to Viet Nam and the civil rights movement. Then came Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, and Citizens United. It all gave rise to the politics of division. Politicians accepted that they didn’t need most of the votes to win an election, only one vote more than 50%. That put a premium on dividing Americans using fringe issues. There was no longer much to be gained by pledging anything to one another.

Division became the winning strategy. Divided down the middle on most issues, we choose sides based not on what is best for America but what is best for the politicians and commentators we choose to believe. The decade old war is an example. Truthfully, not many of us have any skin in that game. There is no threat of a draft. For the most part, somebody else’s children do the fighting and the dying. Our generation isn’t even taxed to pay for it. We borrowed from our grandchildren who will be left not only with the tab but also wondering how we could have made another such mistake.

The great American debt is another. That’s where the Wyoming legislature deserves acknowledgement. They passed, nearly unanimously, a resolution urging adoption of the Erskine Bowles-Alan Simpson plan to reduce the national debt. Senators Enzi and Barrasso have endorsed portions of the plan asking Congress to enact only the spending cuts recommended by the plan. The Wyoming legislature asked them to pass the whole enchilada.

Unless Congress passes it as a whole, we’ll continue asking some but not all to join in the sacrifice and that, my friends, is the problem America needs badly to remedy. 

The plan was comprehensive for a purpose. It spelled out several “guiding principles.” Among them, “cut spending we cannot afford – no exceptions, protect the truly disadvantaged, reform and simplify the tax code, recognize the problem is real, and the solution will be painful. But, they said, the pain must be shared. They proposed not only the importance of spending cuts endorsed by Barrasso and Enzi but the implementation of a coordinated six-point plan. Al Simpson argues the plan will work if taken “as a whole.”

That’s why the passage of HJR12 by the near entirely Republican legislature is so noteworthy. Wyoming legislators have given the green light to our Congressional delegation, providing necessary political cover to move boldly away from a Party position to a pledge of mutual fortunes. They’ve freed members of Congress from the pledge they made to Grover Nordquist to oppose any tax increases.

Unless Congress gets behind a comprehensive approach, the pain will continue to fall on only a few. Among them, the 87 members of the Wyoming Air national Guard who are about to lose their jobs and the small communities who are about to lose their post offices.

Here’s hoping Congress is as willing to pledge our mutual fortunes, as were the members of the Wyoming legislature.

Do the words, “When you did this to the least my brothers and sisters, you did it to me” ring a bell?

The community owes a debt to Jack Pugh for his enlightening series of columns on the recent immigration raids in Cheyenne. It was a story that needed to be told because the irrationality of the national political debate over immigration reform has come to our doorsteps. Sheriff Danny Glick should also receive kudos for his open and honest response to Jack’s inquiry, contrasting with the unwillingness of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office (ICE) to answer tough questions.

 Regardless of our political positions on immigration, we in Cheyenne are left with two dead bodies, a frightened mother and her innocent daughter. Do the words, “When you did this to the least my brothers and sisters, you did it to me” ring a bell?

Emile Durkheim was a 20^th century psychiatrist, the first to understand the sociological implications of suicide. Durkheim called suicide “the ransom money of civilization.” He argued some must die for the sins of the society in which they lived.

When someone dies for the sins of another, the issue is no longer political. It becomes theological. Immigration was a theological matter centuries before American politicians set claim to it. More recently, it’s been the talking points of candidates for public office but hasn’t made their “to do” list since Al Simpson did the heavy lifting in the mid-1980’s to actually get a bill passed.

Why does this issue get more talk than action? Politicians have far more to gain by talking about it than they do in acting on it. To actually go through the process of writing a law exposes them to political dangers with which they don’t have to concern themselves by just talking.

On occasion, talk produces a law but not one anybody believes will actually work. They are not designed to work but to gain political points. Take Arizona’s law for example, the result not of political compromise, but of a dogmatic adherence to the talking points. Piece by piece the federal courts are dismantling the law. Rational people knew that about which the advocates did not care. It’s unconstitutional.

Erica Delgado and her daughter, Miriam Ortiz, died for these sins. Our failure to act with justice is a sin. Scripture says so.  Leviticus quotes God. “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born.” In the Book of the Exodus, “Do not mistreat the alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt. Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know what it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.”  God is perfectly clear in Deuteronomy. “Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien.”

Most view immigration reform as a political issue, taking sides with the politicians. We stand on the sidelines or sit in the cheap seats and holler slogans. But now in our community, amongst us, there are two dead bodies. Now what?

For my fellow Christians this is our season of Lent, a time for reflection on what it means when someone dies for our sins. Justice will not likely be found in courts or legislative halls. What if we look beyond the political squabble about the lives of undocumented neighbors and took begin to view this matter from a faith perspective?

Use Matthew 25 for a Lenten meditation? “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me; I was in prison and you came to visit me”.

We must choose between political beliefs and faith. As Robert Frost said, those two roads diverge in a yellow wood. Sorry, we cannot take both. Take the one less traveled by; it will make all the difference.

Few acts are so selfish as to run a red light.

If you spend any time at all driving in Cheyenne, it came as no surprise when a tragedy occurred last week in Cheyenne. It was both predictable and preventable. A Cheyenne woman was killed when another driver refused to stop for a red light and broadsided her car. Red lights should prevent this kind of tragedy. But the assumption we make that others will stop for them is one we make in Cheyenne at our own risk.

Each day we all experience drivers failing to stop for red lights at intersections throughout town. There is no more dangerous violation of traffic law than to run a red light. The report of last week’s death said the victim was taken to Cheyenne Regional Medical Center where doctors attempted to save her life. The time to save her life came when that traffic light turned yellow.

The Cheyenne Police Department should re-double their efforts to ticket any drivers who believe the red light doesn’t apply to them. Few acts are so selfish as to run a red light. Apparently the drivers believe their time is more important than the lives of anyone who might be driving from the other side of the intersection. Truthfully, many more times than not, the offender gets away with it. No accident. No ticket. But on too many occasions someone is seriously injured or dies.

In 24 other states and more than 660 communities, lawmakers have given the police the tools they need. There are not enough policemen to cover every intersection. Those who believe the right to be safe is worth protecting have allowed for the installation of red light cameras at key intersections. The cameras record the license plate number of any selfish motorist who can’t be bothered to stop for the red light. A few days later, the driver gets a letter with a picture of their violation and a ticket. Fines have a way of changing behaviors.

Of course, you can hear it now. “That’s Big Brother.” Some would prefer the cat and mouse game. Maybe they will get caught, likely they won’t. It’s awful when someone gets hurt and dies, “But hey,” they say, “”I don’t want a government camera taking my picture.” They shout it’s unconstitutional, that it invades privacy. Their complaints are as selfish as their driving habits. Bemoaning what they call the intrusion of “Big Brother” or falsely citing mechanical failures in the cameras sound a lot like those who tried to avoid stronger DUI laws.

How it can be “Big Brother” when a camera witnesses dangerous behavior but not when a policeman witnesses the offense? But, it was just those empty arguments that persuaded Wyoming legislators to protect the “rights” of drivers to run red lights over the rights of innocent victims to live.

Are the cameras effective? Do they save lives? Absolutely yes. The Federal Highway Administration has found cameras reduce red-light violations and T-bone crashes, the most common and dangerous collisions at intersections.

A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found the devices reduced the rate of fatal crashes due to red-light violations by 24 percent. "The research is conclusive that they make intersections safer," Jackie Gillan, president of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, told National Public Radio. "If you run a red light and put somebody in danger, I think a ticket is a small price to pay."

Wyoming people seem comfortable with the idea that they should be able to live their lives as they want, unfettered by government. But they generally draw the line when someone’s behavior endangers others. Running red lights endangers you, your spouse, your children. Your legislators should draw the line and care more about that than they do about some phony political argument implicating buzz words like “Big Brother.”

My guess is the family and friends who buried their loved one last week would’ve liked her to have had a big brother.

The legislature wants to drug test grandparents who are raising their own grandchildren. Shame on them.

In 2003, Governor Dave Freudenthal appointed me director of the Department of Family Services. At the press conference announcing the appointment, Bob Beck of Wyoming Public Radio asked, “What happened to all the people who were kicked off the rolls after welfare reform?” I didn’t know but said I’d find out. I did.

Wyoming welfare rolls dropped by 90% when Congress reformed welfare in 1996. The state received national recognition, but no one knew what happened to all those children and families. Who cared?

I learned they went to work. Welfare reform promised that as you were denied public benefits, there would be jobs with livable wages. Ever heard of bait and switch? It’s when a salesman tells you one thing in order to make a sale but doesn’t deliver. The folks who left the welfare rolls were victims of bait and switch.

They became a forced labor supply for employers who wouldn’t or couldn’t pay a livable wage. They went to work for low wages in jobs with no benefits. Conservatives who said women should stay home and take care of their kids were only talking about upper class women. Poor women, they dictated, needed to get a job. But one job didn’t pay the bills. Many got two, some three.

Heroism in my mind but still, after all those sacrifices, they are subjected to the same old stereotyping and scapegoating. Last spring my successor, Steve Corsi, current director of the Department of Family Services, told legislators 30% to 40% of people who enroll in Wyoming Medicaid come dressed like him, in a suit and tie, driving an Escalade. Corsi said, “There is nothing we can do about it.” The argument had great political appeal. Legislators frothed at the mouth and vowed revenge. Few politicians lose votes beating up the poor. 

But Mr. Corsi’s argument has a big disadvantage. It is not true.

Yet it’s the same kind of uneducated view leading legislators to introduce bills like HB82. The bill’s sponsors include Representatives Lorraine Quarberg and Matt Teeters. They receive thousands in agricultural subsidies while arguing that if you are receiving benefits for the poor, you should not object to having to pee in a cup so that that state can test your urine. Quarberg and Teeters are among the legislators receiving many times more public dollars in public funds than a welfare recipient could dream of.

The real question is whether legislators who think this a good idea, or a DFS director who believes they all drive Cadillac SUV’s, have ever met one of the people they want to drug test. I have. As DFS director I wanted to know who they were, how they lived. I drove across the state, sat with some of them, and heard their stories. BTW, I never saw an Escalade in the driveway. Not one.

But I did meet a lot of grandparents raising their grandchildren, struggling to put food on the table and buy school clothes. Two-thirds of the people who’ll be drug tested under this bill are those grandparents. The other third are mostly disabled. Most, if not all, cannot work and they certainly can’t afford drugs. That’s why when Florida passed this law, they found only 2% of those tested to be using. Their program cost the state far more than it saved.

If those legislators met these people, they’d be ashamed of sponsoring this legislation. The law is probably unconstitutional. A federal judge in Florida ruled the U.S. Constitution protects even poor people from politicians who get traction by requiring them to take drug tests in order to receive federal benefits.

But we shouldn’t have to rely on federal judges. The people voted for all of these legislators because they parroted the magic words. Government was too big. Government, they said, should get out of our lives. What they apparently meant is that government is too big when it regulates business or protects the environment.

But, for some legislators, a government that can’t drug test grandparents is apparently just too small.

Is this the best way to choose a President? I don't think so.

America needs a better way to choose presidential candidates. Let’s go to the heart of the problem. Let’s not nibble around the edges. Let’s make fundamental reforms.

The current primary process leaves no one standing and gives voters no real choice. The debates, Super Pacs, distortions, outright lies and constant, negative news cycle expose the system for what it has become. Our democracy cannot survive this.

The problem isn’t candidates or their consultants. It’s not the PACS and Super Pacs that finance them. The problem is voters who rely on those tactics in making one of the most critical judgments of a democracy. Candidates do what they do because it works. It works because most voters have become lazy.

America has diluted the responsibility of the voter, using slogans like, “It doesn’t matter whom you vote for just so you vote.” Nonsense. Of course it matters. But if voters only know what they hear from candidates’ talking points or 30-second TV commercials, they should not be voting at all.

Voters who fail to educate themselves on the complicated issues of a presidential campaign become sitting ducks for those who have enough money to create the most alluring media. Uneducated voters are prime targets for campaign consultants who know how to push the right buttons, use the most inflammatory words, and develop messages with the intent of covering or altering the facts.

If voters are either unable or unwilling to educate themselves enough to be genuine players in the electoral process, we should change who gets to vote, at least in the primary.

What if we chose party nominees like we choose juries?

Juries make thousands of tough decisions everyday. Unlike the primary process, the jury process assures decisions will almost always be informed and fair. Those jury decisions with which you disagree with are ones the media has targeted with their own spin. Even then, 9 times out of 10, you’d have reached the same conclusion if you’d sat through the trial and actually heard the evidence rather than the media version.

We’d never consider allowing voters to decide the fate of those charged with criminal offenses. That’s the duty of a jury of their peers, carefully chosen and willing to listen to the evidence. Why not require the same for those who choose a president?

In courtrooms, experts select the jurors. Lawyers, familiar with the facts, question or voir dire prospective candidates for juror. Questions must be relevant to that person’s qualifications to serve. Members of the jury pool are asked about their attitudes, knowledge, leanings, and prejudices. Upon hearing the answers, those who best know the facts choose who will set on the jury and who will be excused.

What if each party chose a small group of people with a depth of knowledge about the issues to “voir dire” the candidates? Anyone who wanted to run could be in the “candidate pool.” No TV commercials, no theatrics, just the candidates and the experts, face-to-face on the issues. A knowledgeable group of persons asking the questions would have only one goal, i.e. identify the candidate best qualified to run against the other parties’ candidates in the general election.

Candidates for nomination would be required to know what they’re talking about. Imagine that! They couldn’t hide behind the masks the media create for them today. The selection process would far better educate voters than what we offer today. There would be no need to raise huge sums of money. Super Pacs would be irrelevant.

Once the parties chose a nominee, all voters, not the Electoral College, would make the final choice from the nominees with the general election campaign publicly financed. Funding should be restricted to amounts restrictive enough to require candidates to actually campaign for office rather than resort to media images and messages.

The current system is an unbecoming charade and doesn’t produce a real choice. We need a change that will restore dignity to our democracy.