The party of unlimited government

Michael Hayes, a professor of political science at Colgate University, has another insightful column on Democrats.US http://tinyurl.com/rdazk. Dr. Hayes makes an excellent point that Democrats can and should be the party of government activitism but all too often are seen instead as the party of "unlimited government." With a growing concentration of power in Washington which has taken place under Republican rule, a case can be made that the Republican Party has become "the party of unlimited government." The Bush Administration and the Republican Congressional leadership have certainly lost all credibility on financial matters and Democrats have the opportunity now to emerge as the party of fiscal responsibility. Still, there are lingering perceptions about Democrats and the role of government that need to be addressed if we are to again become the majority party.

Government plays a critical role, however, we need to keep in mind that its powers can be abused and that this important institution exists to serve the public. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi helped to perpetuate stereotypes about our party favoring "unlimited government" when she opposed efforts in Congress to discourage municipalities from using eminent domain to take private homes for economic development following last year's Supreme Court ruling which affirmed such practices. A more appropriate response to the court ruling came from fellow California Democrat Maxine Waters Representative Waters joined in sponsoring legislation to ban federal Community Development Block Grant funds from any city that fails to prohibit such seizures of private homes for private development purposes "It's like undermining motherhood and apple pie," Waters was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle. "I mean, people's homes and their land — it's very important, and it should be protected by government, not taken for somebody else's private use." http://tinyurl.com/et5y7 A knee jerk opposition by Democrats on matters such as experimenting with school vouchers, charter schools or faith based initiatives can leave the impression that we are more focused on catering to narrow constituencies rather than meeting educational challenges or social services needs in a creative manner.

Democrats also must take the lead in reinventing goverment to make it more efficient and customer oriented. For example, there is no reason that government agencies cannot be open more flexible hours to serve the public. One of the 12 points of the U.S. House Blue Dog Coalition is to instill greater accountability in federal agencies. The Blue Dog plan would require agencies to put their fiscal houses in order. According to the non-partisan Government Accounting Office, 16 of 23 major federal agencies cannot issue a simple audit of their books, and the federal government cannot account for $24.5 billion it spent in 2003. The Blue Dogs have proposed a budget freeze for any agency that cannot properly balance its books.I can think of two Democratic leaders from the past who point the way to how Democrats can support activist and efficient government. The late Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, a traditonal New Deal Democrat, often admonished his colleagues that "to be a liberal,” he advised, “one does not have to be a wastrel. We must, in fact, be thrifty if we are to be really humane.” Democrats need to be leading efforts to make government work effectively to provide services and enforce regualtions to protect workers and consumers. During his long Senate career, the late Senator William Proxmire was a strong believer in activist government and yet a zealous opponent of bureaucratic waste. Proxmire introduced the "Golden Fleece" awards which exposed wasteful practices in goverment. Proxmire noted that "highlighting specific, single wasteful expenditures is more effective than simply complaining in a general way about government waste." Given the lack of fiscal responsibility and abuse of power by the Republicans, Democrats have the opportunity to make the case that with proper leadership our government can be more responsive to public needs.


* Catholic Bishops reaffirm opposition to gay marriage

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has reaffirmed their opposition to same sex marriage and civil unions as well as endorsing a constitutional amendment to ban legal recognition of same sex unions. I happen to be a Protestant, but do have a great deal of respect for Catholic social teaching. The Bishop's statement can be viewed at http//tinyurl.com/ny8d confirms that opposition to gay marriage is not limited to evangelical Christians. What I liked especially about the Bishop's resolution was that it did stress the importance of opposing "unjust discrimination, harassment and abuse" against gays and lesbians. We certainly need to protect the basic civil rights of all citizens, however, there are some matters in which we must place the stability of the family unit which is so critical to a stable society first. I would point out that gay marriage is far from the only threat to the traditional family. It would be great to see the Conference of Catholic Bishops and other groups concerned about the family to put far more emphasis on repealing "no fault" divorce laws which have done so much damage to our social fabric in the last thirty years or so.

The reality is that gay unions would further confuse the primary purpose of state recognition of marriage which is to create a stable environment for the rearing of children. Countries like the Netherlands which have approved same sex marriage have increasingly prevalant cohabitation (morality aside - a very bad trend for children) and birth rates at lower levels than needed to replace the current population. One reasonable alternative to gay marriage and civil unions was recently proposed in the Colorado Legislature by Senator Shawn Mitchell. Now let me make it clear that Senator Mitchell is gasp..a Republican who also belongs to the Mormon Chuch (like our own U.S. Senate leader Harry Reid), but I am all in favor of borrowing good ideas regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. SB Bill 166 would establish “reciprocal beneficiary agreements” in Colorado for any adults in the same household not eligible for marriage, including mother-daughter households, grandfather-grandson households, same-sex households, or relatives of any relationship. The agreements could apply to property-sharing rights, decision-making powers over funerals and insurance. Of course, the reciprocal beneficiary agreements proposal is not acceptable to the hard-line social left that wants nothing less than gay marriage or social ultra-conservatives like the Concerned Women for America (see link http://tinyurl.com/hcpv3 ) and the Family Research Institute. All too often the extremists on both sides of the spectrum have a vested interest in perpetuating the culture wars. Democrats need to look for ways to heal the red-blue divisions which isn't be helped by the support of gay marriage by our party leaders in places like New York and California. The last thing that we need is another divisive social issue to further split core Democratic constituencies and alienate swing voters.

* Democrats and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Gun control has been a major stumbling block to Democrats in Middle America. Any Democratic candidate who advocates gun control is going to be shut out of large areas of the South, Great Plains the West and rural areas of even a number of "blue" states. Millions of votes could be placed back into the Democratic or undecided column if progressive activists would just shut up about demanding gun control laws. There is no relationship between gun ownership and violent crime. Even Michael Moore noted in his documentary, "Bowling for Columbine" that Canada has a much higher rate of gun ownership than the United States and yet has a far lower crime rate. The problem of crime and violence is socio-cultural in roots and is certainly not caused by widespread citizen ownership of firearms which often deters criminal activity.

Fortunately, a growing number of Democratic activists and candidates are recognizing that supporting gun rights is good politics and public policy. Amendment II Democrats have launched a national campaign to encourage pro-gun Democratic activists to pass resolutions at the state and local party organization level affirming support of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. See link http://tinyurl.com/zlzeh

Democratic candidates are increasingly seeking and winning the National Rifle Association endorsement. The laterst NRA endorsement went to Capri Cafaro, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Ohio's 13th District. The following is from the Morning Journal (03/18/06).

''I've been a long-time supporter of the Second Amendment and sportsmen's rights,'' said Cafaro. ''There's nothing more American than protecting individuals' freedom.'' Although the NRA has long been seen as a Republican-leaning organization, Cafaro noted that she joins Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Niles, and gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland, D-Lisbon, who also were supported by the NRA.Cafaro said she opposed measures like the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, and supported carrying concealed weapons laws, such as the law that took effect in Ohio in 2004. She said that ensuring citizens have firearms to protect themselves and keeping guns away from convicted criminals is the key to protecting areas such as Lorain, which suffered a wave of gun-related violence last year.'' "If you're a law-abiding citizen, and you're in a neighborhood that has a history of violent crime, you want the opportunity to defend yourself,'' she said. See link to Morning Journal article at http://tinyurl.com/f2fpv It's time for the Democratic Party to affirm the Second Amendment.