Since the election and the first month of congress, and the acsension of Newt Gringrich as Speaker of the House, we Americans have had a new set of promises made and have had a chance to follow their likelyhood of implementation and success. With the GOP's "Contract with America" in one corner and Clinton's "New Covenant" in the other, the question of what will America look like in the future grows indistinct. Partisan bickering both from the politicians and the public needs to stop (or at least, slow down) if we are to study our options carefully and lobby for the America that is most likely to let all Americans fulfil the promise and the dream, else we are likely to find outselfses living in a future crafted by those with the loudest and largest mouths...not neccesarily the best and brightest ideas.

Certainly the "Contract" receieved better press...but was it really a better idea?

There are many compelling element's the new America that Newt endorses, Ironically many of these elements are mirrored by the President. (Contrary to popular belief Clinton has not moved "more to the Center" as a review of his 1994 State of Union address will show. (Selected Excerpts) His position was at that time, far clearer in the light of the Contract as oppossed to the fuzzy political positioning of the Democratic Party in general).

Both Newt and Clinton support making Congress abide by it's own laws. (Proposed last year (in 1993, during the 103rd Congress) and killed by the Republicans in the Senate, like many other planks in the Contract, I find the attempt to re-cast a previously sabotoged idea as bold thinking or progress over the previous Congress as insulting to the intelligence of the american people.)

Both Newt and Clinton beleive in personnel responsibility and reduced crime, but it is the differences that brings our possible future into sharper view.

Democrats and reluctant Republicans agree that deficit reduction over the last 2 years has been been the greatest in decades, yet Newt argues within the contract that congress can not be trusted to balance the budget without waffling or caveing in due to polical pressures. To my mind the Line Item Veto, and the Balance Budget Amendment simply force the choices to be made by someone else. (The President and the Courts respectively) They also force the descision on what should be cut to be made at the last minute rather than with a even handed economic strategy in mind. Since the Congress refuses to state what will be cut in the Balanced Budget amendment we have no list of priorities for which national funds are prioritized in the cutting process. Will cuts be made from the least critical programs only, or across the board on an even keel? If the prevailing political pressure is to Balance the Budget, which it already appears to be, doesn't that pressure have any effect? It seem to have worked over that last two years. (And since the original writing of this essay in 1995 - the budget has been balanced without a BBA)

The argument that the amendment will solve all our problems is spurious. California has a Balanced Budget Amendment yet has a $2 billion dollar debt. If you don't have the money you can't Balance the Budget and since Congress has voted in a super-majority requirement for tax increases, cuts are the only way to go. These bills ensure that after a year of careful planning on the budget if the estimates don't match actuals, the axe will fall in the worst possible way, guaranteeing unpredictable economic results. We should indeed balance the budget, in fact we should go much further and REDUCE THE DEBT. We should strive for a goverenment that runs at a surplus. But exactly why does it have to be done in seven years? (by 2002 the GOP's date certain)

Who picked that number anyway? What's the reasoning behind it? (I mean the real reason, not just the coincidence that this was the year that the Medicaid Trust Fund was going to run out of money...this estimate of 7 years had been an improvement over the previous estimate)

Look at it this way, if you spent your entire adult life (let's say 40 years) adding greater debt to your credit accounts and then suddenly decided that you should pay all 40 years off, is it reasonable to ask you to do it in only seven years?

No.

But, to be fair his analogy isn't quite right. The BBA doesn't require that the debt be paid off. What is required by the BBA is to stop borrowing, effectively outlawing the use of credit by the Federal Government.

This amendment is a crock. It's a carrot to the voters that congress can do the thing's we send them to do, not because we can vote them out, but because they don't have any legal choice. What if the voters change their minds after the amendment is in place and decided to use an Unbalanced budged (i.e. Credit Line) to reach specific goals. We would no longer legally have the option. Meanwhile the amendment gives carte blache to kill any program that smacks of liberalism, or helping those who need it while providing cash gifts to those that don't under that age old theory of the "Trickle down" and "Corporate Welfare". Don't get me wrong, I do beleive "Trickle down" works, I was a direct beneficiary of it...however, I also beleive hat it has to be based on a solid source or economic growth and private market innovation rather than than the artificial injection of defense spending that boosted the economy during the 80's...and rapidily evaporated when Communism and the Berlin Wall came down leading to the recession of 91-92.

We need to adopt a fiscal strategy that does not bring down the deficit at all costs, but brings it down at a reasonable cost and a reasonable time frame.

Everybody seems to want more prisons. Everybody seems to want longer sentences and for those convicted to serve what their given. O.K. How much do prisons cost. Somewhere between $20,000 and $60,000 per prisoner. Their are supposedly 1 million people in jails in this country. (As of 1997...that's 1,218,256 people in our Prisons) This accounts for an Corrections outlay of over $31 billion just on incarceration. (as of 1992, the overall combined local, state and federal budget for law enforcement was $94 Billion)

Newt claims that prevention programs don't work, but the national park service disagrees saying the crime has dropped as much as 20 percent in areas with programs like these. It's simple, if children are committing most of the crimes, if you keep them busy doing other activities which provide the same feeling of belonging, hope (i.e. jobs ) and to some extent community that gangs provide you will have less crime. I spent the first 21 years of my life in infamous South Central Los Angeles. I can remember several programs from the 70's (CETA and Teen Post) that at the vary least keep me busy as a latchkey kid growing up in a single parent-single income house. (By the way, I must give my mother mountains credit, for not only being a role model but also not getting married and giving me a step father who didn't care about me. So much for "Two Parent Households" being the solution)

I find it very ironic that funding for many of these programs ended just before we suddenly had a major drug and crime problem in our inner cities. There were other factors involved I'm sure, but I just think it's funny.

So what do you get when you give police a pile of cash and tell them to do anything they want with it, while you increase the prison size and limit hope in already hopeless communities?

Big business.

What you say? What big business? Who makes money from crime? Well, I'm glad you asked. Companies that provide security. Insurance Providers. Lock Makers. Alarm installers. Pepper Spray makers. Gun Manufacturer's. The police themselves and of course the Prisons. (Since I originally wrote this piece, I did a stint working with the California Department of Consumer Affairs, which handles the liscensing for all the above under the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. BSIS by far included the largest percentage of licensees at the department with 2 Million license holders in the state of California. In 1992 there were 1,797,704 Governmental Justice Employees (PDF File) - from police to lawyers to corrections - in all states, meaning that California alone has more "police" in the private sector than the rest of the nation has in the public sector)

Just like any other business the Police are a business, and their commidity is people.

Human flesh.

America practiced an open slave trade 130 years ago, where manual labor was used to cultivate an argricultural crop...now, the people are the crop. This is especially chilling when one reads the entire text of the 13th Amendment which allegedly abolished Slavery.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

(Emphasis Mine)

It's not in the best intrest of the Police forces to actually lower crime because, if crime rates are lower then we don't need as many police. Or police as well equiped. This point was made very vivid in the recent threat of a strike by L.A. police for a pay increase (Which was overdue, by the way). Billboards showing a car-jacking in progress were placed all over town with the caption "This could be you without the Police". Angelenos laughed, because that's us Now, WITH the Police. (Only most often it's the police holding the guns and a judge who collects the ransom).

If you take that $30 billion I mentioned before and add all the other costs inherent in this process (an unoffical OMB estimate of) the total cost to the nation is something like $300 billion. (Yes, that is more money than Bill Gates makes) That kind of money would balance the budget right now (1995), not in seven years. I don't expect anything like that to happen in my life time, but even a 20-30% cut would have an incredible effect. The prevention programs are one credible down payment on that. Were talking $150-300 per child per year verses $30,000.

What makes better economic, logical and moral sense?

and Job Creation

I don't have lot to say here except, if you say that after two years of AFDC you must have a job. Where is that job supposed to come from? Didn't we just go through a decade of DOWNSIZING? In order to counter the increased wages in america verses other countries american businesses have "cut the fat" from their companies and now force fewer people to do more work at the same pay they had earned before. I hear productivity has gone up. No kidding. That's because effectively wages went down. O.K. so who got all the jobs. What in the contract talks about jobs. The capital gains tax cut? Don't we have a deficit? Don't we have a $4 trillion DEBT? Is this that trickle down stuff again? I don't think that a pro-business cut is totally out of line mind you, just that 50% across the board capital gains cut is a bit much to swallow, especially since the 103rd Congress already cut Capital Gains for amall business.

How about 10%? 20%? Business provides jobs. Jobs get people off welfare. But just because your profit margin is increased this way, doesn't mean that your going to turn it into jobs.

What's that you say? Regulatory Reform? Wasn't that recommended in part of Clinton's National Performance Review? Oh wait, did Newt mean "Unfunded Mandates" to the states?

Ok, Let's see, reduction of Unfunded Mandates will reduces expenses by the states and also by corporations and sub-contractors providing those functions, in an effect to remove some federal regulations so that the expense of keeping our water clean, and our air clean and our food and medicine safe will be reduced and states and corporations currently spending this money can spend it elsewhere, like on jobs. (This torturous train wreck of logic is the best that I can figure is going on in Newt's mind when he talks about "Profound Change".)

The first problem with this logic is the ignoring of the benifits of "economy of scale". When you assume that services can be provided more efficiently through a distributed and serious of inconsistent manners rather then centrally and consistently, you ignore the basic principle that buying in bulk...saves.

Realistically, the first effect of regulatory reform and unfunded mandates as described the by the Contract, will be job loss.

Isn't that the 80's lesson of how best to save money? R.I.F. Redunction in Force. There is no guarantee or even a realistic attempt in the Contract to translate those savings into other meaningful jobs that ex-welfare recipients can have. So, if NEWT has his way you get two years and then it's skid row baby. (I have these vague memories of this thing called HOMELESSNESS, what ever happened to that stuff anyway?) And if not skid row we've got a nice shiny new prison cell for you a $30,000 a shot.

And about the minimum wage, fully 1/5 of current Welfare recipents prefer to stay on welfare than get a minimum wage job be cause AFDC has keep up with the cost of living and the minimum wage hasn't so they would actually LOSE money to get a job at the current $4.25 minimum wage. I'm sure there would be some job loss, but that would be offset by the increased buying power of these people and as a result increased business for many of the same companies with these type of employee's. This IMO is why several studies have indicated that increases in the minimum wage have not led to widespread job loss.

All right, I did have a lot to say.

Now this supposedly will eliminate frivolous lawsuites. Like almost all other parts of the contract I can agree with that goal. However I have problem with how it is acheived.

"Loser Pays" - This will virtually eliminate the legal options available for individuals to sue organizations, as they would be liable to pay for the oppossing sides lawyers if they lose. Who would be willing to take that risk on a civil liabilities, descrimination or health and safety case against a defended with very deep pockets...if the loser has to pay for their legal fees?

"Lawyer Sanctions" - Lawyers who take on cases like the ones I mention above could be fined $50,000 on a "bad faith" issue if they client isn't able to handle their opponents fees.

Burrrr, that's some chiling effect.

There's also a provision to eliminate corporate liability in a case of negligence, when malice is not intended. So this means that Exxon or what ever company would not be liable to correct a tragedy like the Valdis, because they didn't mean to do it. Anyone can claim they didn't mean to do it. It will be very hard to prove that a company that dumped DDT on it's property (Like a recent local case in Torrance California) and let it seep in to the backyards of neighboring homes ment to poison them. If they say, "Whoops were sorry - we didn't mean it", then they don't have to pay. But don't let that make you think that somebody doesn't pay, IN CASH. Someone will have to clean the area up eventually. Someone will have to pay for the medical bills those people will generate. Most likely the people who used to live in those homes, unless Superfund can handle it...oops, I'm sorry - Congress wants to cut Superfund because it's grown so expensive due to the legal fee's of fighting coroporate lawyers.

Someone will pay, it simply won't be the organization that caused the problem. We will have tons of personnal responsibility, but no corporate responsibility.

Again, the goal here is clearly needed, but the method dangerously misguided.

Afterward

Add your comments on this essay to my message board or E-mail me, if your prefer to converse privately.

There have been visits to this page since 07/02/98