Water Contamination Crisis in Flint:Republicans' Fiscal Problem

For almost two years, residents have suffered through a water contamination problem, an impossible situation. I heard about the lead poisoned water problems in Flint initially on Rachel Maddow’s nightly show, but heard nothing on the mainstream media. (I guess they were to busy covering the minute to minute antics of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump). Now, while poisonous water is still piping into homes in Flint, state officials minimize their culpability and attempt to pass blame to the Federal government. At the same time, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder says he needs $767 million dollars to repair and replace Flint’s water infrastructure which was destroyed in his attempt to save $5 million dollars..

Therein lies the rub for Republican legislators at every level of government. Republicans control the Michigan legislature and the GOP also controls both the House and Senate at the national level. Republicans disparage the federal government every chance they get. The portray the federal government as intrusive, too involved, and determined to fiscally irresponsible. It hard to imagine a Republican Congress approving Gov. Snyder’s request for any parts of  $767 million.

The racial politics are reminiscent of the failure of the federal government to respond in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I can still hear Kanye West saying “George Bush doesn’t care about Black people". In 2013, an increasingly debt conscious Congress and the GOP’s non-diverse base were reluctant to provide necessary assistance to victims of Hurricane Sandy. With a Democratic controlled Senate, the funding was passed with only 9 Republicans voting for it. I wonder what will be said about the government’s response to Flint’s crisis.

It’s interesting to note that Governor Snyder also requests expansion of Medicaid for the youngsters impacted by the poisoning lead in the water they’ve been drinking. Yet Michigan refused to expand Medicaid for it’s eligible citizens.

At least 6 civil lawsuits have been filed seeking compensatory and punitive damages for 30,000 customers who paid for or was billed for Flint’s water. The FBI is investigating the contamination of Flint’s water and Congress has called a hearing and “requested” the Governor to testify. As public awareness increases, the outcry for action continues to swell.

It's interesting that the presidential candidates haven't weighed in on the current crisis in Flint, Michigan. I guess this poor, hard-working city doesn't warrant their attention.

Read More

Iowa Caucus 2016: Does It Really Matter?

After months and months of hype, ceaseless media coverage, political party debates, blatant false statements, personal slurs and accusations, the 2016 Iowa Caucus will be held today. IA voters from 1681 precincts will get together in schools, churches, and public buildings to talk to their neighbors, discuss what their party stands for, choose local party leaders, and vote on their choice for the next presidential nominee for their party.  Personally, I’ve never understood why IA is the first site in the process and as one voter, I resent the idea that the results in IA will have any impact on anything, significant and otherwise.

Some say Iowa is the “touchstone of Democracy” where voters have the first opportunity to express their preference in the presidential nominating process for the major parties. They relish the fact that IA voters are courted by widely known candidates as well as lesser known individuals. Those who are less well funded compete with candidates that have huge financial support. I’m told that IA is a small state where it’s less expensive to run a campaign, easier for average voters to meet with candidates, and find out what they think about the issues. I’m told that Iowa voters are passionate and fully engaged. They take honor in being first and take the process seriously. They attend events, listen to candidates, ask questions, and carefully evaluate each candidate’s prospect of being the party’s nominee and hopefully the next President of the United States.

The first four sites in the presidential nominating process are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. I’m told not to worry about the “representativeness” of any one state, even though IA voter are older activist, not the rank and file of party voters.In 2008, 93% of participants in the IA Caucaus were caucasian.  Data indicates that turnout is usually low, running about 43% of the voting population. Jeff Kaufmann, chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa says “a primary is a vote, while a caucus is a conversation and a vote. The results of the process in Iowa leaves the voters nothing to be proud of. IA’s record for selecting the Republican Party’s national presidential nominee is atrocious. The Democrats were much more successful.

In 2008, Rick Santorum won the Republican vote with 24%, barely besting Mitt Romney, the ultimate Republican party nominee for president, In 2008, Mike Huckabee won the vote with 34% to Mitt Romney’s best at second place at 25%. In 1996. Bob Dole won with 26% followed by Pat Buchanan’s 23%. For the Democrats, the last 3 Caucus winners (Barack Obama-37.6% in 2008, John Kerry-37.6% in 2004, and Al Gore-63% in 2000) won the party nomination. Of course, Obama won the presidency in 2008, Kerry lost in 2004, and Al Gore had his victory stolen from him in 2000.

As this day ends, IA voters are quickly replaced by the focus on New Hampshire. Of course the media will spend days analyzing the results in IA and predicting the outcomes in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Eventually the emphasis will move to the states that carry the weight of the votes that will make a difference in which candidates will compete in the general election in November. 

They tell me that IA really matters, but I’m not convinced. If I had my way, we’d start with California, New York, Illinois, and Ohio. But who am I to decide. Guess it’ll all come out in the wash when the final votes are counted.

Read More

Another Police Shooting: Cleveland, OH 2012

I remember watching Dragnet when I was young. Sgt. Joe Friday always cut through a bunch of unnecessary dialogue with his signature line demanding "just the facts". His terse comment came to mind when I read another news article about the death of two young African Americans, Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams in a police shooting.


Here are the facts, in case you missed this story. On November 29, 2012, police officers standing outside police headquarters in Cleveland Ohio mistook the sound of a beat up Chevy Malibu backfiring for a gunshot. Believe it or not, 62 police cruisers and 100 police officers gave chase as the vehicle sped away. A 22 mile chase through downtown ended in an elementary school parking lot in East Cleveland. Ultimately, a total of 137 shots were fired and 2 unarmed people in the vehicle were killed. 24 bullets pierced Timothy Russell's body and his companion Malissa Williams received 23 bullets.

No one knew why the car did not stop. The occupants were mentally ill and addicted to drugs.

After the investigation was completed 13 officers were notified that they faced administrative discipline. The department took action resulting in one officer retiring, six officers being fired, and six officers face suspensions of 21 to 30 days. Patrolman Michael Brelo, formerly acquitted of manslaughter charges in May, is among those who were fired. He fired the last 15 shots of the deadly barrage in this incident. He stood on the vehicle's hood and fired inside repeatedly after the car had stopped and the occupants were no longer a threat. It should be noted that Brelo fired 49 times, more than double that of any other officer involved.

Cleveland police union official Steve Loomis says the incident was tragic, but did not warrant the firings. After an hour long summation of his conclusions, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John P. O'Donnell acquitted patrolman Brelo of the charges.

Relatives of the victims were awarded a $3 million dollar settlement after filing a lawsuit.

These are just the cold hard facts.

Read More

Intent vs. Impact: Recent Landmark Supreme Court Decisions

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest federal court of the United States. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. This week the court issued three landmark decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Barack Obama a major victory on Thursday by upholding tax subsidies crucial to his signature healthcare law, with Chief Justice John Roberts saying Congress clearly intended for them to be available in all 50 states.

In King v. Burwell (June 25, 2015), the court ruled on a 6-3 vote that the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), widely known as Obamacare, did not restrict the subsidies to states that establish their own online healthcare exchanges. It marked the second time in three years that the high court ruled against a major challenge to the law brought by conservatives seeking to gut it.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the court's decision, adding that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid."

The Obama administration has hailed the law as a success, saying 16.4 million previously uninsured people have gained health insurance since it was enacted.

 

On the same day that the ACA ruling was issued, the court issued its decision in Texas Dep't of Housing, & Community Affairs v.Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (June 25, 2015): Claims of housing discrimination based on disparate impact rather than a showing of discriminatory intent may be brought under the Fair Housing Act. To defeat a defense based on business justification or a public interest, a plaintiff must identify an available alternative that serves the defendant's needs and would have less disparate impact. Although this decision got much less airing in the media, it is a landmark decision. In effect the ruling says discrimination may not have been intended in the actions taken, but the effect is discriminatory as evidenced by its disparate impact. This ruling gives further weigh to impact as defense against discrimination under the Fair Housing Law. Oddly enough, the court upheld the ACA based on the intent of the law, while it decreed the intent is also weighed by disparate impact under Fair Housing Act.

SCOTUS issued its ruling on Same Sex Marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (June 26, 2015): Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all states must license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize such a marriage if it was lawfully licensed and performed in another state.

All in all these decisions furthered the cause of equal treatment under the law for all American citizens.

Read More

The Supreme Court-How it Works

The Supreme Court is the most powerful court in the United States. It was set up by the founding fathers of the United States in the third article of the Constitution.

 The court is made up of nine members, called justices. There is one chief justice and eight associate justices. They are appointed by the president and can serve on the Supreme Court their whole lives. A justice can only be dismissed if they do something wrong or illegal. Each justice must be approved by the Senate before they take office.

 The Supreme Court guards and defends the American constitution. It decides legal cases that arise between citizens, states and the federal government. In most cases the Supreme Court hears cases that have already been decided before a lower court. When someone who has lost a case thinks that the decision is wrong, he or she can appeal to higher courts. The highest court of appeal is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, cannot deal with all the cases that are brought to it. Each year it hears about 250 cases, only choosing the ones that the justices think are most important.

 When the Supreme Court hears a case both parties have the chance to bring their arguments before the justices, who may then ask questions. Parties can also present written papers that show their opinion. There are no witnesses at such a hearing and there is no jury allowed.

 At the end of the hearing the justices vote on the case. They must reach a decision by majority vote. Then a justice is chosen to write down the opinion of what most justices think. In many cases not all justices have the same opinion on a topic.

When the Supreme Court decides something it is final. All the other courts in the country must decide an issue in the same way. A Supreme Court ruling can be turned around in two ways. Sometimes the members of Congress amend the constitution, or the Supreme Court itself may later on decide differently in a similar case.

 For example, in 1895 the Supreme Court ruled that the government was not allowed to collect taxes from its citizens. Two decades later Congress passed the 16th Amendment, which gave the government the right to collect money from the people.

In another issue the Supreme Court changed its view on what it thought about how blacks and whites should live together. In 1896 it decided that blacks and whites should have separate public places, like schools, bus stops etc... In 1954 the court ruled that sending blacks and whites to different schools was against the constitution.

Read More