Month: October 2013

Posted on

government repairs: part 2 of 5

If the government is not irreparably broken, then how can we fix it? 

 

Priority #1:  congressional term limits.

 

Several of you have publicly and privately affirmed the above; the first step to fixing our broken government is to establish term limits for the elect.  The length of each term should be debated.  Presidents are given a maximum of 8 elected years.  I believe a reasonable approach is 12 years for senators — meaning 2 elected terms — and 8-12 years for representatives — meaning 4-6 terms.  If 8-12 years is not long enough to complete one’s job, then perhaps one is in the wrong job.

 

In preparation for suggested priority #1, I sought conservative, liberal, and independent opinion — gleaning insights from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, BalancedPolitics.org, and RestartCongress.org among others.  Utilizing several of their articulations, let me offer the following reasons for congressional term limits:

 

  • Politicians would be less likely to focus on special interests because they cannot stay in office indefinitely.
  • If the elect are less focused on special interests, they will also be less likely to become comfortable with “pork barrel” spending.
  • Being less focused on lobbyists and special interests, chances for corruption will be limited.
  • More of a “citizen” Congress would be created, as opposed to congressional bodies primarily consisting of lawyers and career politicians.  Congress would thus be better in touch with their constituents as opposed to in touch with national party platforms.
  •  If better in touch with constituents, the vote of the elect would also more accurately reflect those they represent.
  •  The elect will then not be too far removed from their experiences in the private sector; hence, they should more easily comprehend how the private sector is affected by their legislation.
  •  Those in their last term of office are more likely to ignore politics and media criticism when considering prudent policy measures.
  •  The need for re-election becomes less important — as then does toeing the party line and holding onto party seats.  Too much of that is the current driver behind individual legislative decisions, which complicates passing legislation.
  •  Committee assignments would be determined by merit and expertise, rather than tenure, another area that currently wields significant potential for corruption.

 

The bottom line is that term limits would help restore ample respect for Congress.

 

One more thing that was eye-opening to me during this research process was the answer to the following question:  who typically opposes term limits?  What people groups seem to be most against the concept — especially when you look at the substantial, ethical reasons above?

 

Primarily in opposition to term limits are political scientists, lobbyists and special interests, and the elect themselves.  The concern among some political scientists is that amateurs may end up running the government.  But the lobbyists? … the special interest groups?  They see their influence as potentially lesser.  The elect?  They like being in office.

 

Term limits, hence, are priority #1.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

government repairs: part 1 of 5

Recent events have me thinking.  Actually, the events aren’t even all so recent.

 

As we’ve witnessed the shut down and the healthcare rollout failure, we’ve also had the even lesser pleasure of witnessing partisans return to their camps.  It’s almost as if, when all else fails, when push comes to shove, the partisans believe they must cling to their camps; they must hold most fiercely what they believe to be true; they adhere to a passionate ideology.

 

Even though to date, for example, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has been unprecedentedly poor, how the politicians and pundits speak of it often depends more on their chosen ideology than on accurately addressing the problem.  Hence, persons in “Camp Obama” are more likely to minimize the failure, while “Team Boehner” or “McConnell” campers may instead utilize the moment to justify more, far-reaching criticism.  My sense is that both camps cloud the conflict; both camps interfere with responsible, effective governing.

 

The bottom line is that politics are impeding government.  The polarization that has escalated and intensified over the past 3 decades has hurt us.

 

This past weekend I had an excellent, challenging conversation with a trusted friend.  Note #1:  the 2 of us don’t agree on all things.  Note #2:  I’ve yet to find a person with whom I agree on all things.  And note #3:  agreement or not does not diminish our ability to discuss nor impact our “trusted friend” status.

 

In our discussion, with an acknowledgement of the partisan camps that so easily entangle, we came to a bottom line question:  is our government irreparably broken?

 

Let me ask again:  can we recover from the brokenness?  Has the polarized politicking digressed so far that we cannot return to responsible, effective governing?

 

It’s a tough question.

It should cause us to pause.

Is our government irreparably broken?

 

I’ve decided to be intentional…  do a little research…  think a little longer… ponder solution.  I have to believe the broken, American system can be fixed.  Granted, it’ll be challenging… ok, hard… maybe even, well, a little daunting… intimidating… unnerving… hmmm, better stick with hard.  But the Intramuralist believes it can be done.

 

Some time ago, my older brother encouraged me to not only acknowledge a problem but to also offer a solution.  If the government is not irreparably broken, then how can we fix it?  What must be done?

 

Over the next few posts, my goal is to explore the repairs.  We will offer potential solutions to an inefficient, ineffective, irresponsible, broken means of governing.  No one solution will be “it.”  If “it” was that easy, the Intramuralist would probably be writing this from inside an oval office.

 

We will cover tangibles and intangibles, specific steps, and perhaps some virtues to embrace.  I will also include your respectfully submitted ideas.  We’re in this together — together under a broken government.  We desire something better and more.

 

Our first step will be introduced on Thursday.  Can you say term limits?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

who you work for

Attractive trait #1:  humility.

 

Note that I didn’t say dormancy nor being trampled upon nor squelched into submission.  I’m speaking of authentic, genuine, attractive and contagious humility — an increasingly rare trait… perhaps even more difficult to cultivate.

 

With all the ongoings of the week — watching the federal government attempt to administer a colossal, complex policy — witnessing the realm of reactions, I was reminded of a message I felt we need to send to each of our elect and their staffs…

 

To the President… to Congress… to the Cabinet… to each of their aides.

To the Democrats… Republicans… independents… and even the colloquially categorized extremists.

 

We have one humble message for you.  You will need humility to hear it; we will attempt to be as humble as possible in how we say it.

 

To the elect… You keep forgetting this.  You keep arrogantly spewing and spouting and thinking you know best.  You keep talking past each other.  Sometimes you even talk down to one another.

 

Why the berating?  Why the demeaning?  Why diminish your own integrity to score some sort of partisan points?

 

Rep. Alan Grayson, granted you hail not from my home state, but what would cause you to stoop so low to compare the Tea Party to the Klu Klux Klan this week?  What are you thinking?  Why are you behaving in such an arrogant way?

 

Still such is not what we most need to remind each of you.

 

Again, to the elect…

 

What’s your logic?  What’s your justification?  Why do you use your positions of power to represent only the 1%, 37% or 51%?

 

Congress, thinking of representing only a limited percentage of people, why would you pass legislation (note:  see “Care Act,” arguably “affordable”) with zero votes from another party?  How and why is it appropriate to pass colossal, complex policy that only one party supports — especially when that policy impacts 100% of the people?

 

Still not our message…

 

With growing calls for Health & Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius to resign, Sebelius took to the microphones to not-so-humbly share that, “the majority of people calling for me to resign I would say are people who I don’t work for…”

 

My message to Sebelius, to the President, to Congress, to the aides, to all persons from all parties:  you work for us.  You don’t work for a person.  You don’t work for any select percentage of people.  You work for us.

 

Remembering that should keep each of you a little more humble… and maybe even a little more attractive.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

affordable care problem

The current, primary problem with the new healthcare law isn’t all the major glitches with the website.  Truth be told, if all Intramuralist readers based their opinion of our ongoing dialogue on the initial days of our website, we, too, would probably have far fewer numbers than the some 2,000 of you that are regular visitors.

 

The primary problem isn’t even the deep polarization surrounding the law.  Democrats supposedly love it — a historic, long-coveted legislative victory!  Republicans hate it — we’re doomed via this socialist, massive government control!

 

No, it’s not even the consistently negative public opinion of the law.  From CNN’s most recent poll this month, showing 56% in opposition of the legislation to even Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart — not known for any conservative allegiance — calling the law/rollout a highly descriptive “turd” on this week’s broadcast.

 

I really don’t believe any of the above are the primary problem.

 

As stated repeatedly amidst these posts, the Intramuralist has serious concerns about the Affordable Care Act.  Having read the entire piece prior to its passage, there are multiple, specific aspects and implications driving my concern, primarily in regard to cost, inefficiency, economics, and increased government control.  Nonetheless, I don’t see it as the current primary problem.

 

Let’s return to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) profound statement from March of 2010, saying, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

 

The current, primary problem with Obamacare is that we still can’t find out what’s in it.  There’s too much controversy, too much salesmanship, and too many ambiguities or potential mistruths.

 

Regarding the controversy, remember that the law was enacted without a single Republican vote.  When Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) was elected and the chances for a filibuster-proof bill fizzled, the Senate then utilized an obscure budgetary tactic even though the bill was not about the budget.  Any significant piece of legislation passed in such a manipulated way would seem to invite such controversy.

 

There’s also too much salesmanship.  Instead of objective analysis, the elect and their microphone-loving cohorts are trying to convince instead of educate.  Education allows for the good and the bad; however, our leadership works instead to convince us of only the good or the bad.

 

Just yesterday, for example, I received two ironically contrasting emails.  One was from a conservative writer, telling me that “Obamacare is broken beyond repair.”  The other was from Obama, telling me he needs me “to be a part of Team Obamacare” and tell everyone I know about the law.  The challenge with both of those messages is that they only include the good or the bad.  They are trying to sell us on a product or perspective.

 

Lastly, there exist too many ambiguities and potential mistruths… the whole idea that “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep” it… the “death panels”… and just this week, HH&S Sec. Kathleen Sebelius (the current most likely candidate to be thrown under the bus, by the way) saying the President didn’t know anything about the website failures beforehand… former Obama Press Sec. Robert Gibbs saying “there’s no doubt” people at HHS and those involved knew… CBS News saying the website is providing “incredibly misleading” estimates.  The ambiguous examples are countless.  It’s simply too hard to know what’s true.

 

The current, primary problem with the healthcare law?  Nancy Pelosi was wrong; we still don’t know what’s in it, as we remain in the fog of the controversy.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

snarky & arrogant

From an interview last week with NBC congressional reporter Luke Russert — son of the widely respected Tim Russert — when asked if he believes the media and larger population has some sort of bias against people of faith:

 

“I think that’s absolutely accurate, and I think the current world in which we live in, specifically with the American media, snark is valued.  [emphasis mine]

 

And it’s very easy to come after people of faith no matter what their religion is — Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu.  That you’re sort of tagged with this label of being puritanical and not understanding of others or of different viewpoints and I think that’s kind of, it’s lazy, number one, and I think it’s just something that just feeds the snickering masses if you will in that regard.

 

For me, I think issues of faith are very complex.  When you cover them as a journalist, you simply can’t, I feel, stereotype somebody as fitting into a box…”

 

The Intramuralist actually finds Russert’s acknowledgement refreshing.  As one within the profession, he articulates what many of us outside have long increasingly sensed.

 

In all of culture’s efforts to supposedly refrain from being judgmental, many have still justified looking down upon persons whose faith guides their reasoning.  Yes, as acknowledged by Russert, a non-religious arrogance has permeated our media; and even more challenging is that such a perspective is then thinly veiled as “news.”

 

Let’s offer a few actual examples of such “news,” examples in which we will find both agreement and disagreement here on the Intramuralist.  It’s not that I share or do not share the below perspectives.  My question is how the media presents the perspective…

 

How does the media handle the perspective of the Catholic business man…  who based on his faith, does not believe he should have to provide free contraceptive and reproductive services via Obamacare to his employees?

 

… Does the media then look down upon his perspective — and air a “news” piece that makes him look foolish and his mandate to comply a wiser, necessary approach?

 

How does the media handle the perspective of the Washington state florist… who based on her Christian faith, refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding?

 

… Does the media then look down upon her perspective — and air a “news” piece that makes her look vindictive and the ACLU’s suit against her a victory for all of humanity?

 

How does the media handle the perspective of the Methodist man… who based on his faith, is an advocate for collective bargaining and thus supports striking union workers?  (Note:  collective bargaining is included in “The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church”…)

 

… Does the media then look down upon his perspective — and air yet another “news” piece that lambasts the man for his outdated, ineffective tactics?

 

While Russert unveils arguably one of culture’s more current, subtle but significant downfalls, the question is:  how does the media’s judgmental approach to persons of faith permeate our news?  Have we allowed a pervasive arrogance to be so meticulously morphed into an actual justification of thought, that we no longer recognize the judgment when it seeps into what is supposed to be an objective broadcast?

 

If the media and larger population look down upon reasoning which stems from spiritual thinking, by definition, that’s arrogance.  I wonder, also, then, if we justify and allow the arrogance based on whether we agree or disagree with the perspective.

 

Trying not to be arrogant in return.  Trying even harder not to be snarky.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

beware of the blogger

After the end of the partial government shut down last week — and most politicians wanting to distance themselves from the dysfunction as opposed to examine their role within it — Pres. Obama gave a speech addressing the issue and his coming policy priorities.  One line stood out to this semi-humble blogger:

 

“And now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do…”

 

I agree with his line discouraging the influence of lobbyists; ever since the lobbyist laws were eased during the Carter administration in the late 70’s, the polarization has exponentially digressed with each succeeding president.  Hence, contrary to the latest to suggest (i.e. Redford, Robert) that the opposition to Obama is rooted in racism, the Intramuralist’s strong belief based on historical study is that the increased access of lobbyists (and their money) to the elect is the primary, polarization driver (and divider).

 

Nonetheless, giving Obama the respectful benefit of doubt, my sense is what the President was attempting to say is to avoid those sources of influence which incite as opposed to inform.  The challenge, however, is that his words also encourage the extinguishing of opposing opinion.

 

In that sense, it seems he is only encouraging what so many of us already do.  We routinely tune into sources where we know we will find the likeminded.

 

Where has this belief stemmed from that it’s wisest to only listen to those who think identical to ourselves?  Where has the justification arisen that it’s wisest to omit oppositional thinking?  Where is the wisdom in thinking that opposing opinion is wrong or even bad?  Have we become so arrogant in our thinking that we are threatened by those that think differently than we do?

 

Unfortunately, it seems, instead of examining the argument and weighing the wisdom or potential lack of it, we are wired to react.  We respond immediately via passion or emotion without ever weighing the wisdom of another’s words.  Friends, regardless of intellect, if we cannot entertain opposing thought and respectfully dialogue about it, what does it say that our own opinion cannot stand up under such scrutiny?

 

The discomfort I have in Obama’s most recent encouragement is that it avoids the scrutiny.  I don’t, however, believe he’s any different than the rest of us.  We often choose to avoid the scrutiny.

 

A wiser approach would mean to engage in the dialogue.  Don’t immediately react.  Listen.  Weigh the wisdom.  Be respectful.  Omit the insults.  Ask good questions… Does it make sense to keep borrowing money?  What are the long term implications?  Is there a true economic benefit to immigration reform?  Are other motives in play?  Is Obamacare working?  How can health care be more effective and cost-efficient?

 

Ask the questions.  Don’t avoid the scrutiny.  And allow your opinion to be changed if it cannot hold up to respectful examination.  That goes for each of us.

 

Let me also note that the President asked us to stop focusing on the bloggers.  Yes, that would include me.  Hmmm… only one more word…

 

Beware. 🙂

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

now

While there certainly exists “a time for everything,” now is not the time for…

 

Blame.

Finger pointing.

Any “I-told-you-so’s.”

Declarations of winning.

Accusations of losing.

Arrogance.

Loquacious boasts.

Rhetoric.

Disrespect.

Nor any pats on the back.

 

While many will cast verbal stones at who’s responsible, our government experienced a partial shut down due to one primary bottom line:  our fiscal house is out of order.  We are spending too much money, too fast, with minimally restricted borrowing… AND… we have no specific, measurable plan to pay it back.  As said here amid multiple posts — just like any financial entity, such an approach is unsustainable.

 

Hence, while there exists that time for everything, now is the time for…

 

Courageous leadership.

Courage to tackle the politically unpopular.

Courage to consider specific plans to pay foreign countries back.

Courage to change the federal programs that continue to run at an increased loss.

Courage to address the meaning of “entitlement.”

 

What are the people entitled to?  Who and how shall such be paid for?  Those questions must be asked and answered — and answered free from the rhetoric and disrespect we’ve witnessed these last 3 weeks especially from the legislative and executive branch.

 

Let me add one more idea as to what, also, this is not the time for…

 

Politicians and pundits often pursue policy initiatives based on when they feel they have the strongest “political capital,” meaning they have more leverage and public popularity which could potentially propel into law policy that would otherwise be more challenging to enact.  (FYI:  The Affordable Care Act is an excellent study in political capital utilization.)  If our leaders are going to lead courageously — and not politically — they will pursue what’s most important now; they will not pursue other agenda items first.

 

In the opinion of this semi-humble blogger, what’s most important is getting our federal fiscal house in order.  Now.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

groups

As my teenagers consistently calculate their oh-so-active weekend social schedule, there exists constant talk of, with, and about the “group.”

 

The “group.”  What’s the “group” going to do?  Where are they?  What’s the “group” think?  Text the “group.”  What do they say?

 

For months I’ve witnessed this phenomena unfold.  The evolution and application never quite donned on me… until well, now…

 

The “group” plans everything.  The “group” is in control.  It’s not especially democratic nor does the majority always rule.  It would seem instead that often the loudest voices in the “group” make the decision; sometimes there are several who are simply silent, but who still seemingly, at least, go along with the “group.”

 

It’s not, however, just for the big dance.  The “group” plans pretty much everything… what are we doing this weekend?  Where are we going?  Whose house will we stay at?  What do we want to eat?  How do we feel about that?

 

And membership, well, it’s a bit exclusive.

 

I remember when a new gal appeared, with nothing less than a trepidatious tiptoe, obviously desiring to join them.  “Not so fast,” seemed the initially unspoken claim.  Soon after, however, came, “Well, she can join us, but she’s not a member of the ‘group.’”  [Yes, an actual quote.]  Membership is a privilege.

 

I’ve decided that once again our teens have watched us adults a little too well… witnessing how we behave, taking both conscious and subconscious note, and then emulating our habits in ways which first adopt and then magnify both the good and the bad.

 

For adults, too, we have our “groups”… “groups” in which the identity of the “group” often becomes priority number one…  when the fight for preservation of the “group” trumps what is wisest and best…

 

… we fight for our groups based on team… for Cowboys or Patriots…

… we fight for our groups based on race… for black or Hispanic…

… we fight for our groups based on politics… for Democrats or Republicans…

… we fight for our groups based on profession… gender… demographics… religion… education… based on a singular commonality or focus.  And that singular focus often paves the path for a significant blindside, as when we fight only for our “group,” we tend to lose sight of the bigger, wiser picture…

 

When we fight only for our sports “group,” we no longer can appreciate the remarkable talent on display when Tom Brady throws that perfect, last second pass…

 

When we fight only for our ethnic “group,” we no longer see that when we put one race first, we’re engaging in the same behavior of which we are critical…

 

And when we fight only for our political “group,” we no longer recognize that spending on our party initiatives can blind us to the perils of unsustainable, deficit spending.

 

When we fight only for our “groups,” it seems we act more like our teens.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

handshakes

And then there was this, according to ABC News:

 

“Post-game handshakes are meant to symbolize good sportsmanship, but the ritual has become so volatile on Kentucky high school fields that the supervising association is urging to schools to skip the practice.

 

‘We’ve had situations where young men in football this year reach across and punch a kid below the belt,’ said Julian Tackett, commissioner of the Kentucky High School Athletic Association.  ‘And we’ve had two young ladies at the volleyball net get into a fist fight when shaking hands.’

 

In an attempt to end the post-game fights, the KHSAA released a statement last month telling coaches they should stop the practice.

 

‘Personally I hate to see this change,’ Tackett wrote on Sept. 19. ‘I think we should reinforce behavior and civility, but incidents even in our own state in volleyball, soccer and football, have illustrated this need.’”

 

Now even though the Kentucky High School Athletic Association has since received significant backlash after publicity by ABC, CBS, and FOX and others, which has caused the athletic organization to clarify that they were not “banning” the practice, but rather “advising against it” and will thus hold coaches responsible for any assaults, the Intramuralist can understand the initial, potentially outrageous response.

 

How is such a response a surprise in a culture which continually preaches civility but also, simultaneously, seemingly follows the glaring mantra of “do as I say, not as I do”? …

 

… in sports… relationships… governing…

 

… for example…

 

In September, after a baseball game — note I said “game” — a 24 year old Dodgers fan was fatally stabbed after a confrontation with some fans of the San Francisco Giants.

 

And in Washington, not long after politicians and pundits flocked to the pulpits and podiums to admonish the violent vernacular that may have contributed to the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, in which 6 were killed and 19 were injured — including Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), those same politicians and pundits are arguing today, justifying the use of the very words they at one time berated.  Pres. Obama and congressional Republicans and Democrats seem too busy arguing to solve the current budget/spending/entitlement crisis.

 

So why should it surprise us that a supervising athletic organization of our teens simply desires not to fake it?  Can’t you hear their huddles?

 

Shake hands?  Are you kidding me?!  Why would they shake hands with their opponent?  All these supposedly smart people, grow up and go to Washington; they don’t shake hands.  They don’t treat each other with respect.  Who are they kidding?  At least our high schoolers will no longer have to fake respect.  Why then, should we make them shake hands?

 

If we are going to teach the younger generation well, we should start by not faking respect.  Civility will only be reinforced when we truly mean every ounce of the respect a simple handshake conveys.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

reasoning like a child

Years ago there was a significant part of me that would acknowledge, “I talked like a child; I thought like a child; I reasoned like a child.”  I suppose deep within each of us there will always exist some grappling with that immaturity.  12 years ago my immaturity was altered.

 

I was awaiting my authorized exit from the hospital, having given birth the day before to our third son.  My exit was authorized; his was not.

 

Note #1:  Josh wasn’t the child I expected.

Note #2:  none of our children are what we expect.

 

As valiantly as any attempt, we cannot control all aspects of any child — who they are or what they will become.  With young master Josh, we simply knew that right away.

 

Josh was born with Down syndrome.  He was also born with a life-threatening congenital heart defect that would cause us to spend a month in the cardiac ICU wing, only a few short months after his birth.

 

There is much we could discuss today in regard to the specifics…  how much we knew beforehand… how he couldn’t breathe on his own when born… how the OB staff still saw Josh as a miracle… how I felt no pain, with no meds, even with contractions at their most intense point… the night he almost died… how people walked alongside us, learning to love us both practically and well… how others stumbled forward, not knowing what to say… how it was hard for all of us… how we understood…  how family embraced us… how other moments were awkward and some even ugly… like how the geneticist greeted us by saying, “This must be the saddest day of your whole life.”

 

Each of those could serve as a blog post in their own right (… and maybe they will some day), but with the plethora of unique and raw emotion, what the Intramuralist desires to focus on today — noting all the crud and disrespectful communication that’s especially rampant in the country — is how Josh’s birth changed how I think… how this then newborn babe helped me talk and think and reason a little less “like a child”…

 

I’m a little less judgmental.

I no longer believe intelligence and wisdom are the same.

I value wisdom more.

I don’t believe intelligence is all it’s cracked up to be.

I have a different concept of beauty.

Big words don’t always speak best.

Outward appearances mean less.

I really don’t care about IQ tests.

I care a lot about solid character.

I’m more intentional in teaching our children well.

I value life more.

I realize how little I’m in control.

I know God is real.

I know his ways aren’t always my ways, but I now know they’re still good.

I see a difference between what the world calls wisdom and what wisdom really is.

My heart is softer.

I have a greater recognition of something bigger than me.

I’m not afraid to speak truth.

With compassion, of course.

I love better and less conditionally.

And I recognize that none of us know it all.

 

I didn’t — and still don’t —  know it all.  I didn’t even know as much as I thought I did.  Years ago I never knew how one small child could melt my heart… melting it down to a place of greater compassion… and far greater wisdom… and how what this world considers bad and weak could be so ironically, good and strong.

 

Thank God for 12 years ago… for reasoning a little less “like a child.”

 

Respectfully,

AR