Are budget cuts alone Wyoming's only answer?

Reading the proposed budget cuts remind me of the recent Cheyenne Little Theater production of Casablanca. Ingrid Bergman says to Humphrey Bogart, “”I can’t fight it anymore. I don’t know what’s right anymore. You’ll have to think for both of us, Richard. For all of us.” Amidst all the talk about budget cuts, the people of Wyoming need to do some of their own thinking before they find that those elected to do it for them have not.

Clearly revenue projections are concerning. So is the impact of the loss of 130 state jobs and millions of dollars used to contract with the private sector for vital services.  Budgets were cut by 10% near the end of Governor Freudenthal’s term. Governor Mead asked agencies to slice another 8%. As cuts are considered, people need to think seriously about the impact in their own lives.

To begin, public safety is at risk. As a result of earlier cuts, the Department of Corrections eliminated treatment programs for sex offenders. State Senator Tony Ross, the next senate president, acknowledged the problem. "But certainly the hardest population to treat or rehabilitate is the sex offender population, so cuts in those areas may be quite harmful," he told the media.

Those cuts were harmful. Now the Department faces a greater challenge to its responsibility to maintain public safety. If Governor Mead follows through with these cuts, the Department will have to sacrifice a significant number of officers. DOC warned, “the potential cuts could jeopardize “the safety and security of (its prisons), the inmates and the community.”


Other agencies also warned cuts will dramatically impact their ability to fulfill their obligations. Reductions will mean fewer public defenders to represent those accused of crimes. That may not bother you…unless you are the accused and can’t afford a lawyer. There’ll be fewer law enforcement officers and fewer resources for the District Attorneys to investigate and prosecute crime.

Notably the Governor and legislators focus is exclusively on cutting budgets. There are no fewer than three other options. First, raise additional revenue.  Second, if the legislature is going to make the easy decisions to simply cut budgets and eliminate positions, how about wrestling with which agency responsibilities should also be eliminated? Third, admit it’s “raining” and tap that so-called “rainy day” account they’ve set aside for some ambiguous reason.

There are revenue-raising ideas to be put into the mix. Wyoming has the lowest alcohol tax in the nation. The tax on beer hasn’t been raised since 1936. Surely the nexus between alcohol abuse and crime is enough to consider booze as a source of revenue for criminal defense and prosecution as well as probation supervision. Likewise, even though the legislature is aware tobacco is one of the main reasons the Medicaid budget is skyrocketing, Wyoming’s tobacco tax is among the lowest in the nation. The national average cigarette tax is $1.45 per pack. Wyoming's is 60 cents. Only tobacco growing states tax tobacco lower. Raising this tax could cover most of the shortfall. Also, in past years, severance taxes were reduced to accommodate market problems that no longer exist. How about revisiting those cuts?

Second, there’s the question of legislative responsibility. Every agency duty is the result of their decisions. The legislature mindlessly inserts unfunded mandates in the law, among them the requirements for agencies to expend hundreds of hours preparing useless reports that are never read. It’s easy to simply cut dollars. But what about all the responsibilities the legislature heaps on state employees? Are legislators willing to reduce the workload? Likely not. That would be far too risky.

Finally, what of the millions Wyoming has set aside for a rainy day? If the state cannot afford to hire probation officers, it’s raining hard enough to use some of that savings. “The rain in Spain,” they say, “falls mainly on the plain.” The rain in Wyoming, it seems, falls mainly on the heads of people who need services. 

For the times they are a-changin'

“This Is America. If you don't conform, you suck.” The fellow writing those words on a website asking whether English should be the official language of the United States never won the Medal of Freedom. But the one who wrote these words did.

Come gather 'round people wherever you roam and admit that the waters around you have grown and accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone. If your time to you is worth savin' then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone. For the times they are a-changin’.”

Bob Dylan knows a Ponzi scheme when he sees one. He’s been warning us about the one many Americans have long, too-long and too much invested.

You think of “Ponzi schemes” as financial investments, swindles in which early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones to encourage more and bigger risks. But, “keep your eyes wide. The chance won't come again and don't speak too soon. For the wheel's still in spin and there's no tellin' who that it's naming.” For the loser now will be later to win. For the times they are a-changin’.”

The greatest Ponzi scheme of the day is cultural.

Like the person posting the comment above, there are those who are heavily invested in a future that neither Wyoming nor the United States will ever see. Their investment in the past is being paid off today with the fears generated by the scammers. They take bigger and bigger risks by adopting decidedly un-American beliefs in an effort to realize the investment they thought they were making in America.

If you’re investing in that Ponzi scheme, you might want to consider getting out while you can. It’s on the verge of collapsing. “Come mothers and fathers throughout the land. And don't criticize what you can't understand.”

That investment some made in defining marriage by their own terms is about to crash. You can’t bail it out now even if you supported a bailout. The courts interpret the Constitution, not your Bibles, in favor of same-sex marriage. Last month’s federal Court of Appeals decision is the future. “Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command. Your old road is rapidly agin'. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand. For the times they are a-changin'.”

As for those who still think the world, or at least their part of it should speak English alone, that investment is fast going south. Those you see as “minorities” i.e. those of any race other than white, constitute a third of the U.S. population today.  By 2050, 54 percent of the population will be minorities, or should we say the majority. If you like “white privilege” you’d better enjoy it while you can. “As the present now will later be past. The order is rapidly fadin' and the first one now will later be last. For the times they are a-changin'.”

Knowing how hard change is for many people, there are some changes on the way for which you should start preparing yourself. Lament it if you will but the future in which you’ve invested your prejudices is underwater. And it’s not why you think. It’s not illegal immigration which has, despite the talking points, stopped for the most part.

It’s the belief in America and its future giving non-whites faith enough to have children. The growth of Latino-Americans is, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, the result of a younger population and higher fertility rates. Asian populations are increasing for the same optimism. Four states -- Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Texas, plus the District of Columbia -- already have majority-minority populations.

Your investment in a white, English-speaking America that could have its personal moral structure defined narrowly in accord with your beliefs was always doomed. The arc of history, as Martin Luther King said, is bent inevitably toward freedom. And freedom, as it should be, is America’s future.

It really isn't about the Bible...

It is about hate. From Mother Jones...

North Carolina's GOP Wants to Protect You From Discrimination–Except if You're Gay

—By Xian Chiang-Waren

| Wed Jun. 13, 2012 3:02 AM PDT

24

No rainbow flags for this state's GOP. Jeff Kubina/Flickr

During the first weekend of June, Republicans, including guest speakers Donald Trump, Rick Perry, and former Minnesota governor Tim "T-Paw" Pawlenty, gathered at the North Carolina GOP State Convention in Greensboro.  Energized by last month's passage of Amendment One, which banned recognition of any domestic legal union except heterosexual marriage, the state's GOP presented a platform with a plank that effectively condones discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Section 3 of Article III (titled "Individual Liberty") reads: "Government should treat all citizens impartially, without regard to wealth, race, ethnicity, disability, religion, sex, political affiliation or national origin. We oppose all forms of invidious discrimination. Sexual orientation is not an appropriate category."

"This [plank] is something that has been ongoing," Buck Golding, a member of the 2012 Platform Committee, explained in a phone interview. Referring to Amendment One (whichpassed with 61 percent of the vote) he added, "We had a poll here. Marriage in my state is thought of as between a man and a woman and I concur with that."

North Carolina LGBT rights groups called the platform an inaccurate representation of Republican interests, pointing out the broad bi-partisan opposition to anti-gay legislation. Equality NC, an active opponent of Amendment One, released a statementshortly after the convention denouncing the state's GOP members for "seek[ing] to put our state on the wrong side of history."

"The state Republican Party platform targeting LGBT North Carolinians stands in stark contrast to the recent tidal wave of Republican opposition to the anti-LGBT Amendment One," said Dan Gurley, Equality NC's Board Chairman, who was formerly a RNC Field Director and the Executive Director of the North Carolina Republican Party. "North Carolina Republicans deserve better than an agenda that would ceaselessly expand government encroachment in the lives of LGBT North Carolinians as well as singling out gay and lesbian citizens for exclusion from basic provisions."

And while the gay marriage ban dominates the current conversation, alarm bells are going off for those who noticed that the language of the plank goes further than denying same-sex couples the right to get hitched. As the New Civil Rights Movement, an online journal of LGBT issues, pointedly blogged:

Sexual orientation is not an appropriate category…of school kids to protect from bullying?
Sexual orientation is not an appropriate category….of workers to protect from being fired?
Sexual orientation is not an appropriate category…of travelers to guarantee a night's lodging?
Sexual orientation is not an appropriate category…of college kids to keep from being hung on a fence post?

Common ground in the Senate: Mike Enzi

If you watch the news, you’d think Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell never agree on anything. Alas the two leaders of their respective parties have found common ground. They both appreciate Mike Enzi.

Last week Senators did something they don’t often do. They passed a bill and an important one at that.  According to govtrack.org, four of five bills making it through a senate committee do not receive floor vote. So it was noteworthy when something as complex and controversial as the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act passed last week. The bill closes gaps in the oversight of the global pharmaceutical supply chain, promotes safety and innovation of medical devices, and incentivizes development of life-saving antibiotics. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions worked on the bill for 18 months. Mike Enzi is the ranking Republican on the committee. Iowa’s Democratic Senator Tom Harkin is committee chair.

Mike Enzi stands out in today’s often poisonous, partisan environment. He stands out by, well, by not standing out. Mike is a workhorse, not a show horse. He’s not one of those from both parties we see all too often pontificating on FOX or MSNBC. Politicians earn bookings on those programs with a willingness to add fuel to any fire. Invitations are seldom issued to those who seek the common ground rather than a battleground.

Mike Enzi approaches political responsibilities differently, almost nostalgically. He harkens back to a time when people understood they had a responsibility to the nation far exceeding any responsibility they have to their party. Those types are an endangered species.

I’ve been a Mike Enzi fan for a long time, from when he served in the Wyoming legislature. There he exhibited the qualities that continue to make him a unique and special public servant. He has always been willing to do the hard work of legislating. Mike never allowed dogmatic positions to stand in the way of good relationships with those on the other side of an issue. That’s why conservative Mike Enzi and liberal Ted Kennedy were such close friends. If Kennedy had lived, my bet is they’d have ironed out a health care compromise that would have saved the nation from the bizarrely harsh debate we are still enduring.

Many politicians come to the table with a sledgehammer. Senator Enzi brings a belief he can reach an agreement with any opponent on at least 80% of any issue. He doesn’t believe senators should allow the 20% on which they disagree to prevent progress on the 80% in which they can find agreement. Once there, it makes compromise on the toughest of remaining issues possible.

And so it was when the senate set out to debate a reauthorization of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. In an era where much of the work of the senate is stymied by partisan votes, this important bill passed by a vote of 96-1.

After the vote Republican and Democratic leaders headed for the microphones. But their purpose was not as it is most of the time. No harsh partisan rhetoric. Instead they each praised Mike Enzi. Republican leader Senator McConnell started. “I want to take a moment to thank my good friend, the Senior Senator from Wyoming Mike Enzi, for the work he has done shepherding the FDA bill through mark-up and across the Senate floor. Mike has shown the command of complex topics, steady leadership and interest in his colleague’s priorities that have characterized his tenure at the HELP Committee.”

Then it was the Democrats’ leader, Harry Reid’s turn. "I have already said in my caucus how much I appreciate the work of Sen. Enzi. He is a fine senator. He and Sen. Harkin have worked so well together on this. It's exemplary for what the rest of us should do. I appreciate very much the work they have done. I repeat, it's how we should get other work done.”

And the people of the nation said, “Hallelujah!”

Now it's up to women.

A tough day for those who are concerned about income inequality in America. First the Republican minority in the Senate blocked a genuine effort to reduce the wage disparity between men and women. Though Wyoming has the greatest gap between the wages of men and women in the nation, both of our senators voted to make sure the gap grows larger.

Then, with surprising support from union households, Wisconsin voters retained a governor who promised to destroy the labor movement in a state with a proud history of protecting worker's rights.

The labor movement has been tottering. This vote likely means it is done. Nearly 40% of Wisconsin union members voted to retain the man who loathes them. But union members have grown accustomed to voting for candidates who loathe them. For years union households have been increasingly more concerned about gun rights, illegal immigration, and social issues than they are about their own pocketbooks. It is hard to see the relevance of unions any longer in the fight to bridge the gap between the rich and the middle class much less the poor.

My sense is there will be a total readjustment of the progressive-liberal coalition. Clueless men are out. It will be led by women who understand what male union members have forgotten. In their willingness to vote against their own economic interest unions have forfeited their claim to speak for working people. These macho guys worried Obama, Clinton, Kerry, and Gore were going to come and take way their guns. While they were guarding the gun cabinet, the rich guys took away their future.

The mantle must now pass to women who know what the gap means, who understand how much more difficult it is for families and children than ever before. Women grasp the fact that the use of social issues and hot button rhetoric is a direct threat to their lives. Union members once knew that, but when their children were born on third base, they thought they had hit the triple. You can find very few union members with an appreciation for what the movement did historically that made their lives better and they have been willing to squander it all. I suppose we should have seen this coming in the '60's when the so-called "hardhats" joined Nixon and Agnew in going after anti-war demonstrators in the streets.

Now it's up to women. Unless they fill the progressive vacuum created by self-indulging union men, the next four years under a GOP president and Senate may make the American dream irretrievable.

Liberal=communists, marxist, maoist, fascist, nazi

I try hard, harder than some may believe, to understand how the religious right folks think. But a letter to the editor in this morning's Wyoming Tribune-Eagle just made that task much more of a challenge.

The writer is Rev. Michael P. Hayes. He says there are there are only two ways to look at the world. Either you trust in God or your trust in (his words) "big government ending in tyranny." Now that's a conversation ender.

He says he'd like to find a better label for some of us than "liberal." And then he writes, "There is progressive, communists, marxist, maoist, fascist, nazi, and others BUT these are all just denominations of the same alternative religion."

I understand that the religionists have a lot at stake in the debate over what the Bible really teaches. I get that. They think that is one word of it isn't what they call "true" than none of it is. In other words, if Jonah was not really in the belly of a fish before answering God's call, then you can't believe anything attributed to Jesus. I think that thinking precludes an understanding of the real power of the myth stories of the Bible...but I get it.

But...Rev Michael Hayes has thrown a curve ball at me. Actually, if you know baseball, it is more like a slider that comes right at you and as you swing, the ball tail off into the dirt. After giving a litany of terms that he thinks mean the same thing as "liberal" he then says it is all the same. Whether you call it liberal, communism, naziism, fascism...Rev. Hayes says it all ends in "suffering and death for millions."

He then equates patriotism with "God's plan for a nation." Like George W. Bush said when he took on that highly successful search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "God's plan."

And to think, Rev. Hayes is preaching this stuff every Sunday morning to a group of people who are nodding their heads as they take it all in...with little regard that it is terrible political science and even worse theology.

In the final analysis, I have no framework for understanding this kind of thinking. Neither did Jesus, which is why he called them a "brood of vipers." I have to quit writing now and go to church...to preach my own understanding of what it all means. AMEN.

Redistribute the right to think?

There were many teachers who left a mark on my life. Having celebrated a day to remember those who gave their lives for our rights, let’s consider a day to remember those who used theirs to teach us what those rights mean. One of my favorites was Nick Breitweiser, a 10^th grade civics at Cheyenne Central. Nick used Eric Fromm’s text, Escape From Freedom, to stir our limited ability to think.

I still see him in front of the room asking, “What does it mean to be free?” One or another of the 10^th graders would shout answers.  “We can vote” or “go to church where we wish” or “say what we believe.” Nick would pull on what hair he had left, trying to get us to go deeper, think harder and find more meaning in our so-called freedoms.

What he wanted us to learn early in our lives is that regardless of what the Constitution says, we have no meaningful rights when others do our thinking. It explains why Americans have less freedom today than at any other time in our history. Nick wanted us to think about how much our lives were influenced by Madison Avenue and its cynical use of advertising messages. If he were yet alive, he’d be apoplectic about the use of television and political talking points to form our thoughts and control or minds.

One contemporary example is the use of the term “redistribution of wealth.” Conservatives have developed a “Joe the Plumber” economic theology. While Judeo-Christian ethics may have taught that we all have a responsibility to those who are on the margins of life, Joe the Plumber and his adherents use the term “redistribution of wealth” to suggest that those who believe the rich should pay a fair share are socialists.

Do your own thinking for a moment. Does that make sense? What does it truly mean for government to redistribute wealth? Some conservatives begin the debate by defining the terms. High school debaters are taught that trick. When assigned the “affirmative” in a debate, you gain ground by attributing self-serving definitions to key terms. Back then you were restrained from manipulating the debate because the team assigned the “negative” always got time to counter. That’s what’s missing in today’s public policy debates. Limbaugh and Beck and the others define the terms and disallow those who disagree equal time to question them.

They define “redistribution of wealth” along these lines. “Redistribution of wealth by the government, for example welfare or Social Security, is egalitarianism put into practice at the point of a gun.” They claim, “The redistributionists don't just want to give their money, they want to give other people's money away. They want to take money from those that have earned it, and given to those that haven't.”

Defining terms in a limited manner, those who believe the wealthy should pay their share are seen as peddling socialism and opposed to capitalism. They justify their own votes to redistribute the wealth of the nation when they take money from healthcare, education, housing and food stamps and give it to defense contractors, for example. Any criticism of that redistribution is an attack on capitalism.

Wealth is not “redistributed” only when we help the por. The truth is government is always engaged in a redistribution of tax revenue. When Congress uses your money to build schools in Afghanistan rather than in Wyoming, decides to give tax breaks to oil companies instead of the middle class, funds their own health insurance while opposing affordable healthcare for you, taxes tobacco and alcohol at a rates far below the medical costs borne by taxpayers…that’s a redistribution of wealth.

How free are you if they think for you? None of our rights have meaning if we don’t exercise the right to think for ourselves and dig deeper than the politicians and talk show hosts. It’s time we use our freedoms to redistribute the right to do the thinking in America.