How would you respond to a nude, provocative image of Jesus on NY Times front page?

Thomas Paine, famous author of Common Sense, offered treatise on how we should treat religious opposing views

In the controversy regarding the cartooning of the Prophet Muhammad and the violence that occurred against the publication in France that carried the cartoons, few have asked the question about making fun of a specific religion and whether or not the provocative nature of it is a necessary way to express free speech, as folks continue to discuss the nature of expression and how we communicate ideas.

France has historically led the way with its philosophers, who like kings of congresses set precedents for people to use in developing a path to constitutional freedom.  Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States during the early days of the country, was known to be a fan of Voltaire and Rossaeu, using many of their ideas to formulate his own, even in reference to his development of America's foundation of freedoms, its Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Here's what you might not know about the Miranda warning

Judge's tools - Law

Marsha Hunt----Often people listen to a television crime show, hear certain terms and believe they understand what they mean.  One of those examples is the Miranda warning.  But to clarify and to expand on those television briefs, is an attorneys explanation of this very important statement if you ever happen to be caught in a situation where you or someone you love might need to have the information.

The Miranda warning is frequently mentioned in the media, however even in daily life across America police must offer this statement to protect people who face potential criminal charges.  It came about regarding a case,  Miranda v. Arizona (1966),  when the Supreme Court made the decision that suspects who were detained for questioning must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
There are certain basic rights the Miranda Warning is designed to protect.  It doesn't help someone avoid an arrest.  Instead it is warning police must give suspects before they begin an interrogation.  The purpose is to make sure suspects understand their rights and can assert them during the course of that interrogation.

Here are some of the important facts offered by the Shapiro law firm relative to the Miranda warning:

- A suspect can be arrested even if the Miranda warning is not read as long as he or she is not questioned by police in the process.
- If police wish to question a suspect after an arrest, the Miranda warning must be read at that time.
- If a suspect indicates that he or she does not wish to answer police questions at that time, all questioning must be ceased immediately.
- A suspect must still give biographical data, such as name and address, to law enforcement officers even if invoking the Miranda decision.

The suspect is also allowed to change his or her mind while being questioned, even if a previous consent has been given to the police interrogation.  In other words, if the suspect wants the interrogation to stop in the middle of giving some answers, that must be honored.

In 2013 the Supreme Court clarified the use of the Miranda warning, explaining a suspect cannot just stay quiet but actually state he or she wants to use the Fifth Amendment and state they don't want to answer the questions.

Americans have a shared responsibility in Ohio man's execution

[caption id="attachment_7712" align="alignleft" width="480"] Lethal injection[/caption]

Carol Forsloff---While folks debate the execution of Dennis McGuire in Ohio, a reporter learned of the arguments against this specific execution days ago and failed to report those facts, even though an article was considered.  Why?  Because in writing about injustice with reference to the death penalty, there were so many issues, and so many debates, the tiredness of it all became frustrating.  But that judgment error was indeed an error, for although McGuire, a convicted killer and rapist of a pregnant woman, was executed, if the right people knew the facts and had protested strongly, perhaps a delay and a different decision might have been made.  Still the execution was a shared responsibility.

Some folks cheered the execution that took place on January 16, arguing that the crime of killing a pregnant woman deserved the highest level of punishment, and that to die in agony was reasonable, given the horrific nature of the crime that brought the man to death row in the first place.    How is this any different than people gathering around in the public square to applaud a hanging?  Many of these people, however, appeared to know only what they read on Facebook or heard on the news, just as in the Old West, after a man was hanged, the community was simply reminded the punishment was deserved; and that was all.  More research, which this journalist had days ago, might have been enlightening and the right questions asked about this most recent execution.

For if we believe no man is an island, and we are our brother's keeper, than every man has a responsibility when injustice occurs.  And if we know the potential for that injustice, there is virtually a command to speak.  It becomes an error of judgment not to do so, as the calling of the press is to enlighten where there is darkness, to inform and educate, which was Thomas Jefferson's strongest arguments for having a free press.  The responsibility is for every enlightened person to speak, yet the loudest voices are often the most negative, the ones that get the most attention.  Many people did not know the specifics that might have made a difference.

On January 10 the Federal Court of Appeals reviewed the case and the arguments against using the two drugs to perform the lethal injection.  The new drugs, attorneys argued, would cause a very painful death, saying, "McGuire will experience the agony and terror of air hunger as he struggles to breathe for five minutes after [executioners] intravenously inject him with the execution drugs." The new lethal injection procedure use midazolam, a sedative, and hydromorphone, a painkiller.   The Judge had previously expressed concern about Ohio's execution procedures and that the state had previously carried them out haphazardly without following established protocols.

The State of Ohio proceeded with the execution on January 16, despite entreaties from experts that proper protocols had not been used and the punishment in its cruel potential would exceed the limits of justice.   The execution was reported to be a lengthy one, and witnesses to it said McGuire struggled and gasped much longer than it would ordinarily take to die.  The Death Penalty Center reported the statements of  Deborah Denno, a professor at Fordham Law School, who is a lethal injection expert, as saying, “Whether there were choking sounds or it was just snorting, the execution didn’t go the way it was supposed to go.”   Prior to the execution expert anesthesiologists predicted the new drug combination could cause this type of severe reaction.

Yet it is not just Ohio, where questions have been raised.   On January 9, Oklahoma executed Michael Wilson by lethal injection with a different combination of drugs.  Wilson was reported to say, as the drugs were injected, "I feel my whole body burning."

The dictum provided by the Eight Amendment to the Constitution against cruel and unusual punishment has been argued in the Courts for years, to determine its true meaning.  Yet the following summary, appears to give enlightened people pause in the present circumstances as it is further described in the law as this:  Such punishment as would amount to torture or barbarity, any cruel and degrading punishment not known to the Common Law or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community.

The death penalty is a shared responsibility.  It is often something people vote upon.  Errors, including wrongful executions, continue in the United States and are often reported.  America has one of the top death penalty rates and the only developed country that executes teenagers.  Everyone has a right to speak up.  People who vote for the death penalty have a particularly shared responsibility when an execution occurs, and when it is wrongfully carried out that responsibility becomes even more acute.

Society of extremes result of negative thinking in response to our choices

Carol Forsloff — In asking the question, "Are we a society of extremes?" the heart of the question references not just Americans but an attitude that seems to believe in the worst not the best of us, copies and reports that, and finally becomes what social scientists, literary giants and motivation experts maintain, "As a man thinketh, so is he."

When what we talk about, listen to, read, and respond to are the negatives of life, what happens to our psyche? Do we become what we think? Evidence suggests we do. That evidence is anecdotal and scientific as well. And to the extent that is true, what does it mean for our global and individual well-being if we become the worst of our thoughts and fears?

Daily news is fraught with tragedies at the outset. NBC Nightly News highlights the most high-profile news of the day, whether it is a weather disaster or President Obama's trip to Israel, in 10 minutes or less. The rest is commentary, and the good news at the end of the program with the segment "Making a Difference." But suppose we had that good news at the outset, and at the end, with the negatives in the middle so it is somehow literally embraced by the good in ourselves as opposed to our worst.

Most people these days find their email crammed with "news" that isn't news but an opinion from someone with a blog or from a newspaper that has resources and contact information difficult to find and that could be done by a 16-year-old with a great knowledge of Wordpress. Yet these news bites are given as truth and passed from one person to another like Thanksgiving dinner. But most of it does not make us thankful, and often it is not truth but an opinion and often opinions not based upon evidence. It strikes, however, at the heart of our social order, making us look for the worst in ourselves and become gleeful when we find it.

In that way, we are becoming a society of extremes. It's not enough those extremes are reflected in our economic times globally. At the same time, we are pitted against each other because of the movement of people from the middle to the extremes at either end in the socio-political spectrum. We hear Sarah Palin and the Fox News commentators and the MSNBC group or Al Sharpton speaking for the right and left, when there are people in the middle who feel compelled to pick a side. That's in the US, but there are surely divisions in other parts of the world that reflect these tendencies.

Extremism, whether it is in the defense of liberty or for the 'fun' it generates, does not protect but instead creates more divisions, lack of trust, and less serious communication. We become purveyors of conspiracy theories, murder stories, constitution, or Bible thumpers that embrace the ridiculous, and often the contrary and false, in order to substantiate our "side". In doing so, we exacerbate those extremes, bringing the poles of opinion further and further apart and making it difficult for government leaders to make a decision about anything practical. So they reflect us, our differences as well, since we have these grassroots networks that spread the falsehoods in order to get attention that is not always relevant or warranted.

For that reason, there are no links to these sources, since that too increases the exposure of the worst in our midst.

Instead, despite the traditional media making its mistakes, there are some reference points for all of us, that is centrist and from which we can anchor our material. Is it verifiable is the major question for what we hear and read? Otherwise we become what we think, that thinking based not upon evidence or reality but the greed and fears of others instead.

Scientists point out our brains are complex and now part of the discussion in our personal references. But this is what science tells us about ourselves that needs to be examined so that extreme thinking does not occur and we achieve balance instead. Because much of what we believe is inaccurate and based not upon facts but folk psychology, as this selection discusses:

One of the difficulties scientific psychology has faced is that it gives reasons for behaviour that often conflict with folk psychology. Most people assume that their experience of their own mind and other people's actions makes them sufficiently expert to discount any other explanation even if it's scientifically validated.

For example, a great deal of psychology research has shown that we tend not to have a good insight into why we make certain choices. In one of the many studies in the area, Lars Hall and colleagues gave people a survey about their moral beliefs but used sleight of hand to change the choices they had originally made. When asked to justify the beliefs they hadn't endorsed, more than two-thirds of people didn't notice the switch and happily gave reasons for why they supported the opposite of their original position. Folk psychology tells us that we can accurately explain our actions and, consequently, many people think that these well-validated psychological effects never apply to them or simply don't exist. Suggesting that someone may not fully know their own actions and that their post-event justifications might be improvised simply won't wash in everyday conversation.

As a man thinketh, so is he. And only we can change what we think, and that takes going past extremes to looking at substantive evidence and not creating consternation where none exists.

Ex-Convicts in US face little difficulty in getting gun rights restored

[caption id="attachment_17533" align="alignleft" width="800"] Prison inmates[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — "I'm an ex-convict and ex-felon and I own more guns and ammunition then most of all you legal gun owners in the United States." This post is on the first page of Google on felons and gun rights on  January 13, 2013. The problem is he is not alone.

Ex-convicts can't vote, but they can own guns. Some people might find that surprising. After all, many people agree that mentally unhealthy people should not own guns. Yet what is an ex-convict in relationship to the issue of violence, especially when many crimes are committed with guns.

The New York Times points out that ex-felons have little difficulty legally owning a gun. That is in spite of the fact that most Americans believe that those with a criminal history should not. The Times article examines the case of a man in Washington State,  Erik Zettergren, who shot and killed a man who was in bed with Zegttergren's girlfriend. He had two previous felony convictions and a record of mental health problems, yet was able to legally purchase a gun, which he used in the fatal shooting.

As the Times observes, federal law prohibits those who have been convicted of felonies lose their right to bear arms. Yet annually thousands of ex-convicts get their rights reinstated, and often with minimum review. Much of this is because the rights to reinstatement are examined by judges and relegated to the states to make a decision. Many of these individuals use the Second Amendment clause of the Constitution as justification for the reinstatement of their gun rights.

The Times examined the laws in the several states and found that in many states ex-felons have little difficulty getting their gun rights restored. The publication discusses the work of Margaret C. Love, a pardon lawyer based in Washington, D.C., who has found in her research of gun rights restoration laws, that in more than half the states, felons have a reasonably likely chance of getting back their gun rights. Numerous examples are then used to illustrate cases where those with a history of violence, and consequently prison time,  have no problems getting guns.

Gun rights advocates often justify ex-convicts getting their gun rights back by statements like those of Ken Hanson, legislative chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Coalition,. He said,“If it’s a constitutional right, you treat it with equal dignity with other rights,” he said.

Daniel Webster, a professor and the co-director at the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, offers this opinion:

"Given the prior data on the enormous social costs of gun violence in the U.S. ($100 billion a year, by one estimate), criminal recidivism, and public opinion, people convicted of nonviolent felonies should be eligible for review of their fitness to possess firearms only after a substantial period of crime-free living (like 10 years), including no history of restraining orders for domestic violence. The review should also involve an in-depth examination of the individual’s mental health and history of substance abuse."

It's interesting to note that some of the petitions circulating social media for support of second amendment rights following the school shooting in Connecticut, are being promoted by ex-convicts, many of whom may have little knowledge of the foundations of the second amendment or the statistics on recidivism rates and levels of domestic abuse that often ensues following periods of incarceration.

The anonymous poster who bragged about his gun rights as an ex-felon wrote the following on December 14, 2012, after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

"Whne all your guns are taken away. I'll still have mine. You'll still be able to vote but what good will that do when the elections are rigged anyways. Your life is a shame. How much protection do you need that you hand all your freedoms the to a machine that sees all of us as the enemy."

Webster's final argument in Time's opinion column is this:  "Few felons should have guns. "

 

What are the limits of free speech with reference to an anti-Islamvideo?

[caption id="attachment_6526" align="alignleft" width="300"] Judge's tools[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — Many people in the United States echo their rights of free speech as secured by the Constitution.  The Supreme Court, however, has on several occasions indicated that the right of freedom of speech is not absolute, especially when it puts people at peril.

One of those key decisions was Schenk vs the United States. During World War I, Charles Schenk voiced his opposition to the war by mailing pamphlets to American soldiers and was consequently charged with espionage.  The Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Under what circumstances are the rights of free speech limited?

Justice Oliver Wendell wrote the opinion for the unanimous Supreme Court decision. He stated that under ordinary circumstances Schenk would have a right to express his opinion about the war, but freedom of speech depends on circumstances. "The most stringent protection of free speech," Holmes wrote, "would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Justice Holmes compared that circumstance to living in a nation at war. He went on to explain, "The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Presently the United States is being condemned for a YouTube video in which its producer vilifies Islam in inflammatory language.   The video was independently made, and US officials have explained that America does not concur with the video content and that the country should not be attacked because a private citizen uploaded a video that mocks the Prophet Muhammad. A user called Sam Bacile uploaded the film on July 2. The film was dubbed in Arabic and was seen by TV networks in Egypt. After that, the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was burned down. The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three members of his staff were killed and riots broke out in other Middle Eastern and North African countries. YouTube consequently took down the video in what was described as a temporary measure, resulting from the content of the video. US officials, in the meantime, have condemned the retaliatory attacks but also the video, which is said to have inflamed the mobs to riot.

It is the concern of American officials that the situation in the Middle East has great volatility and that a video that mocks the Prophet Muhammad imperils US citizens and the nation's relationships with countries in the region. Supreme Court decisions such as Schenk vs the United States are often cited as the foundation for restricting the rights of free speech when that free speech can be demonstrated as causing, or tending to cause, violence.

The ethics of modern weaponry viewed through the prism of the Coloradoshooting

[caption id="attachment_15848" align="alignleft" width="235"] Assault Rifle[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — As the publisher of Green Heritage News, I set a standard not to be argumentative in politics, which means respect for government leaders as persons in the tradition of rendering unto Caesar what is his. But commentaries with respect to specific social issues, as they relate to humanitarian principles are important, and no more is that of greater significance than in the instance of killing others, for it is that inhumanity that brings all people shame.

Today in Colorado, a solitary gunman shot 71 people. The specific details are reported by the media, and it is not those details that are the focus of my opinion article today. Instead it is the confusion we have with respect to bearing arms and how we ignore both basic faith, scientific, ethical, and moral principles when we uphold certain rights that interfere with the actualization of those rights of others and facilitate the perpetuation of violence.

Rather than enter into the Second Amendment discussions, for there are bound to be many in these days, instead the focus should be on the value of life itself. For every man's life has value. In the rush to judgment and the sensationalism of the Colorado shooting that is forgotten. 12 people are dead. Many others will lose their lives with the proliferation of guns; yet there are people of faith that nevertheless tout the rights to weapons virtually as a religious edict.

While interpretation of Biblical scripture is presented as the foundation for man's right to bear arms, along with Constitutional arguments, the weapons of Biblical days were far less capable of creating the widespread killing of an assault rifle or a manufactured bomb.

In a world where toxic speech continues and where anger rises and people confront each other in anonymous ways to spew hatred and vindictive argument, weapons capable of creating mass killings become even more awful. One might say a crazy man is simply that, and it is the person who kills, not the weapon. Yet, without the weapon, the killings are far fewer, although the value of a single life remains.

As the publisher of Green Heritage News, I welcome people of all faiths and beliefs to share with the staff of this magazine, and many others, in mourning lives lost in Colorado today.

Numbing Numbers Explain US Frog Revolution

[caption id="attachment_14946" align="alignleft" width="202"] Poor of New York[/caption]

Joel S. Hirschhorn --- Believing in the classic American Dream that hard work will deliver prosperity is like believing that buying super lottery tickets is a smart way to become wealthy.  Both are delusional beliefs because both are bets on incredible long shots that will disappoint nearly everyone who believes this garbage.  The American Dream has been destroyed by a revolution from the top.



Americans have been watching authentic bottom-up revolutions in other countries but remain oblivious to a very different kind of revolution by elites that has been in progress for over three decades in the US.  It has not destroyed the government or Constitution, merely bought control of both.  Our government was not overthrown in a bloody revolution.  It was purchased to win the class war against the 99 percent.



Call it the frog revolution.  It is best understood by the parable of the frog in water that stays in it as the temperature is raised, ultimately to the boiling point, killing the frog.  The key indicator of the US frog revolution is a mountain of data showing the rise in economic inequality, the loss of upward economic mobility, and the killing of the middle class.  The vast majority of Americans, the 99 percent of frogs, remain ignorant of how they are being destroyed by that infamous rich and powerful one percent.



Note that in a poll released by Pew, 19 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that “success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside of our control,” the highest number since 1994.  It would be much higher if there was not an epidemic of delusional thinking.  But more on target, 40 percent of Americans — also the highest number since 1994 — agreed with the statement that “hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people.”  For the counter-revolution we need that number must get much higher.



Consider new data about American reality from a study by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez.  In 2010, despite non healed wounds from the great recession, an amazing 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.  Yes, the rich are getting richer.



But there is more to this depressing story. All the talk about the top 1 percent misses the truth about the super rich.  In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a miniscule collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. They saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.  The richer you are the richer you get.



What about ordinary Americans?  The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income was $1,019,089, saw an 11.6 percent increase in income.  Most Americans are no longer sharing in economic recovery or growth.

Consider this finding: David Madland and Nick Bunker of the Center for American Progress recently found that in pre-frog revolution 1968, when 28 percent of the workforce was unionized, 53 percent of the nation’s income went to the middle class.  In 2010, when only 11.9 percent of the nation’s workers were unionized, the fraction earned by the middle class had fallen to 46.5 percent.  And if current efforts to destroy unions are successful the vast majority of non-unionized workers will suffer more.



Still more numbing numbers: Over time the top 1 percent has done better in successive economic recoveries of the past two decades. In the Clintonera expansion, 45 percent of the total income gains went to the top 1 percent; in the Bush recovery, it was 65 percent; now it is 93 percent.   How much more negative impacts of the frog revolution will it take for a counter-revolution to take back our country?



Add to all this: Research by Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution, as part of the Economic Mobility Project, has shown that intergenerational mobility in the United States has fallen far below the levels in Germany, Finland, Denmark and other more social democratic nations of Northern Europe.  In other words, the American Dream really is nothing more than a big, delusional lie that far too many Americans still cling to and that mainstream politicians still boast about.  Those politicians enable the elites to sustain the top-down frog revolution.



Listen, all around the 99 percent the socioeconomic waters are still being heated up more by the rich and powerful 1 percent that runs the two-party plutocracy.  Delusional frog-citizens are mostly blind to the hot water they are in.  Far too many are still clinging to the myth that voting for one party or the other will somehow make things better.  Wrong.  Both major parties have allowed and sustained the top-down frog revolution.  What we need for the counter-revolution is finding a way to overturn the status quo political system.



A major opportunity is using what the Founders gave us in the Constitution: an Article V convention of state delegates with the power to propose reform constitutional amendments.  This should be a priority for both the Tea Party and Occupy movements and any candidate coming through the Americans Elect nomination process on the Internet should also support using the convention option.



[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Occupy Wall Street Visited

[caption id="attachment_10006" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Occupy Wall Street"][/caption]

Joel S. Hirschhorn--Last Saturday while in New York City I went downtown to visit the Occupy Wall Street group and also ended up walking in their protest march around big bank buildings.  It was a terrific experience with a huge group chanting things like “Banks got bailed out, we got sold out!”

My first impression was absolute amazement at how many police surrounded Zuccotti Park, as massive a police presence as any I had ever seen in countless news accounts of protests in other countries, including those trying to overturn awful regimes.  No wonder that New York City has spent over $3 million so far on policing the Occupy events.

As I slowly walked through all the groups at the park seeing how things were organized, how people were living and having occasional conversations I became increasingly impressed.  The park is really very small.  So there is very little space to walk around and some people are sleeping under various kinds of coverings.  Most exceptional of the high quality of place is that it is like a small village with a medical center, food serving area, library, makeshift clothing store, including someone with a sewing machine tailoring clothes, and even two people offering haircuts.

Overwhelmingly, the whole park area was exceptionally clean, and there was a large set of cleaning utensils and I saw one person going around sweeping a small amount of litter.  None of the flower beds were destroyed.

The choice of foods and their quality were exceptional, especially considering that the city outlaws any open flame cooking or heating equipment.

From my conversations and what I listened to demonstrated that the protesters were highly informed and totally committed to their Occupy goals.  Something that does not get enough attention is that a good fraction of the protesters are not very young people, many are in the sixties or seventies.  A large number of people in the park were busy working on their laptops.  I saw no evidence of alcohol or drug use.  And protesters were well dressed, always courteous and very friendly.

Many of the group’s serious discussions and votes are held in offsite locations.

There were a very large number of media people around and inside the park; they also followed the marchers.

Much of the information about the Occupy movement in downtown Manhattan is seriously misleading.  Most ludicrous are criticisms by many politicians and media pundits that specific policy proposals are missing.  The clear success of the Occupy movement as evidenced by an explosion of similar groups in countless US and foreign cities is a testament to its success, not to mention endless media coverage.

The central and correct focus of the Occupy movement is on the failures of the banking and finance sector that has provided insane money rewards to those that have raped the US and global economy and caused great harm to the 99%.  Economic inequality and injustice that come from both a corrupt political and economic system owned by the rich and powerful corporate elites are what I and many others have been writing about for years.  To get bogged down in very specific policy actions would not serve a useful purpose, especially because the Occupy movement sees nothing positive about the two-party plutocracy running and ruining the US political system.  I sensed no faith whatsoever in Democrats, including President Obama, and Republicans and their Tea Party supporters.

If the Democrats or Obama try to convert the Occupy movement into something that serves their political ambitions it would be a shame, especially if it succeeded to any extent.

Even without conventional “leaders” the Occupy movement is succeeding at being a direct democracy and its organizational capabilities are outstanding.  They have been receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations and also huge quantities of boxes of donated materials stored somewhere, much of which have not even been opened yet.  I think mainly because of too little space in the park.  Clearly, as some polls have shown, there is massive public support for the Occupy movement.  It has what it takes to last for a long time.

The big question is how true and deep reforms in our political and economic system needed to fight economic inequality and injustice harming most Americans will be achieved.  In this regard, one of my hopes is that the Occupy movement in the US will get behind the effort by Dylan Ratigan at getmoneyout.com to get a constitutional amendment that would get money out of politics.  This is the only way to directly fight the corruption of government by rich and powerful interests.  The path to getting such an amendment, however, is through the use of the Article V convention option in the Constitution, not by relying on Congress for proposing something to reform it.  Supporting use of the convention option is something I hope the Occupy movement will also support.  I now have more hope that the much needed Second American Revolution may happen.



[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Leading economists against balanced budget amendment

[caption id="attachment_7550" align="alignleft" width="183" caption="Money"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Republicans cite the need for a balanced budget and ask for its inclusion in the Constitution, but the leading economists that include five Nobel laureate professionals oppose it.

When individuals think about balancing their personal budgets, they likely remember that adage to pay off  debt as an important criterion for becoming financially stable.   On the other hand, individuals experience crises that are completely unexpected, so experts advise to have a “rainy day fund” especially for those events.  This advice is to ensure that folks don’t have to tap into money set aside to meet ongoing needs.

Yet those emergencies may come abruptly when  cash funds are depleted, and when that happens folks have to make difficult choices.  Consider what might happen if there was no way out of that financial predicament except to use funds set aside for necessities.  This can impair the potential of saving for an emergency when basic needs are not met.    For those who have a series of emergencies, such as a devastating illness or the consequences of an environmental disaster or losing a job, the multiple impacts on the budget may cause further deterioration of the individual financial condition so that establishing good financial balance can become more and more difficult.

Personal financial planning is akin to the national budget in some of these simple ways, but is very complex in others.  Imagine a personal budget where regardless of emergencies or the needs of dependent family members, one cannot access any funds except those especially designated for use in certain expenditure categories.   That is in some small way how a balanced budget amendment works as funds would be allowed for only those mandated.  So what do financial experts think about a balanced budget for the country?

A group of leading economists, including five Nobel Laureates in economics, publicly released a letter to President Obama and Congress opposing a constitutional balanced budget amendment. The letter outlines the reasons why writing a balanced budget requirement into the Constitution would be "very unsound policy" that would adversely affect the economy. Adding arbitrary caps on federal expenditures would make the balanced budget amendment even more problematic, the letter says. The Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities organized the letter.

These economists contend that by cutting such important funds as unemployment benefits to keep the budget balanced would aggravate recessions.  It would prevent borrowing to finance special needs for infrastructure and other necessities for the well being of everyone.   A balanced budget amendment would mean Congress could enact mandates that aren’t funded and require state and local governments to take care of these mandates without the money to do so.  It would invite the intervention of the courts to decide on disputes to resolve issues on the meaning of budget balance  and when there is a requirement to balance it and not enough votes to inflict the difficult measures.  Furthermore, as the economists point out, the budget was balanced in the 1990’s without a  Constitutional amendment and to balance the budget too quickly could be dangerous in the present economy.

Economist Robert Shiller wrote an article for the New York Times on the balanced budget concept.   He referred to “the balanced-budget multiplier and of raising taxes and government expenditure by the same amount, dollar for dollar..., such a policy would be one-for-one expansionary...”In other words, the more we spend, the more we need to infuse the economy with more income.  Income for the government comes through taxes.  Otherwise Draconian measures are needed now and even in the future, from which the recession might not recover.

An article online at the Economist spells out what many economists are saying about having a balanced budget amendment:  “But the idea of enshrining this Congress' pathologies into the constitution is terrifying. Let's see Congress design some quality fiscal rules using the normal legislative process first, and then we can talk about adding those to the constitution.”