gerrymandering with an idea for changing everything

A Sun-Times reader (June 30) was essentially begging for someone to respond to his letter, so I feel I must.

The issue was gerrymandering, and he is hoping that the public will respond with a tsunami of voters who will turn red states blue, in apparent defiance of a Supreme Court who he sees as favoring Republican gerrymandering.  He seems to have missed the fact that the Court had two gerrymandering cases on hand, one apparently favoring Republicans and one apparently favoring Democrats.  The Court didn’t favor Republicans over Democrats.  It just turned its back on the whole issue.

I helped a Republican candidate for Congress in the last election.  He was an unknown, and I told him to sue the state for rigging the election.  Our district is clearly gerrymandered in favor of the Democratic incumbent.  How do I know this?  Make two fists and then touch your thumbs together.  That is what the 9th Congressional District looks like.  It passes over two or three suburbs to pick up another one much farther west. 

The only way to get rid of gerrymandering is to allow no demographic information on voters to those who draw the maps.  All they need to know is where people live. 

Unless: and here’s an idea.  We could create virtual districts.  In an age of computers, we don’t need physical boundaries beyond state boundaries.  I haven’t thought through the entire arrangement, but it could be the only to solve the dilemma of gerrymandering reform and politicians wanting to control the electoral process.

hypocrisy in government?

It is not hypocrisy for a government to consider an activity illegal that a lot of the people participate in (Sports gambling - Rick Morrissey: Leading Off, June 30).

Why?

Because people commonly equate morality with legality.  If something is legal, there must not be anything wrong with it.  That is not a good way to live your life. 

But morality assumes a Higher Power that has rules for human conduct, and that is an idea that our society has been trying to rid itself of for decades. 

Coming soon will be legalized prostitution.  Please don’t call our society and government hypocrites for taking so long to do this.  Laws are meant to protect our people, even from themselves at times.

misplaced outrage

I was outraged to read about a police officer who retired early apparently to avoid disciplinary actions for using the forbidden n-word when speaking of our last President.

I was doubly upset that this article was written by “The Watchdogs”, and they missed the real outrage of the story. 

Here is a man who at age 52 is receiving a pension larger than most of us will ever make in our lifetime by working, and all this is at the public’s expense.  Where is the outrage over this? 

And, adding outrage to outrage, apparently the writers of this piece were in agreement with Superintendent Johnson wanting to suspend this officer for 9 months without pay.  I would have given him maybe the rest of the day off without pay.

We are forgetting that our country was built on the belief that God gave people unalienable rights, such that our First Amendment says that the freedom of speech should not be abridged.  The officer did not yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater; he expressed his contempt for the President of the United States, which is indeed quite common now in our country. 

Oh, and one more outrage.  That with all the problems in the world, in Chicago, in Illinois, and the problems in the black community, particularly the incredibly high black-on-black murder rate, a police officer’s one-time use of one word even makes the newspapers. 

And, frankly, I wouldn’t consider his remark as expressing his view of a race but of a person.  Like swearing, even refined people often resort to off-color language to express the full emotion of their feelings.  This police officer had no respect for President Obama.  That is no crime in America.

gerrymandering and voter IDs

I have fought against gerrymandering for decades.  How?  I write letters.  I’m not an organizer and nobody listens to me, but I write anyway. 

So I agree with much of what the Sun-Times had to say how the Supreme Court ruling affected gerrymandering (June 28).  I must add, though, that I think the paper made some major errors that weakened its case.

The paper complained about North Carolina where Republicans had only 49% of the vote and won 50% of the seats.  That’s proof of gerrymandering?  This can be easily explained if Republicans won smaller victories in the districts they won, and Democrats won larger victories in the districts they won.  And that’s hardly the result you would expect if Republicans gamed the system.

You lament the push for voter ID requirements that somehow discourage more Democrats from voting than Republicans.  To me, just saying that ID requirements affect Democratic voters more than Republican makes that entire claim open to question.  I don’t know how anybody can get by in society today without an ID, but a lot of Democratic voters do?  Please explain how this is possible.

Obtaining an ID is a simple thing to ask in order to be able to vote.  Major elections are 2 years apart.  There’s plenty of time for anyone who really wants one.  And any person responsible enough to vote (I didn’t say old enough.) shouldn’t object.  They will need an ID for dozens of other things just to get along in our society.  I needed one just the other day to get my medical tests results.

reparations - for slavery, or all the other injustices then, since, and now?

A writer in the Tribune argued today for reparations (June 24), but apparently not just for slavery, but for innumerable injustices that have occurred since and still are occurring today. 

So, while originally reparations were for slavery, and the descendants of slavery, now apparently all black people need to be recompensed.  Even if they moved here willingly from Africa 20 years ago.  No doubt they have experienced hurt and exclusion and discrimination.  After all, that is what America is all about. 

I haven’t heard any numbers yet as to what would be a just compensation, but it must be asked: what will change after these millions of checks are issued.

Will more blacks be hired at higher wages?  Will more blacks be accepted in colleges?  Will whites be more welcoming to blacks that move into their communities?  (Hint: no)

Will anything change?  And if not, will we be having this discussion again in 50 years?

A question I have to ask: do people want things to change, or do they just want money? 

If reparations were limited to the issue of slavery and the descendants of slavery, it would still be a tough sell.  We forget that only half the nation had slavery, and the other half fought a war with the first half to end it.  The cost of that war for both sides was enormous.  It has been suggested that the price paid for their freedom is reparations enough.

When you start expecting reparations for all the perceived injustices done to blacks over the years, those people familiar with government know that this will soon spread to all minorities, because they all are victims of oppression.   Minorities now compose around 40% of our country, and almost all of our 2-3 million new immigrants a year are minorities, so this would become a program that would overwhelm our federal spending and solve nothing.

I would like to offer a suggestion.

Major League Baseball for a long time did not have any black players.  Then, without any government programs involved, one team thought it would be a wise investment to sign a black player.  That went very well, and other teams did the same.  Now nobody cares what race a player is before signing him or negotiating a contract.  And all this without affirmative action, a government training program on discrimination, or discrimination lawsuits. 

You can blame white people or other people all you want for the problems in the black community, but truth be told, black neighborhoods, for example, are not considered safe neighborhoods.  True or false, that is the perception.  The only people who can change that are black people.  When black neighborhoods become safe neighborhoods, then more people will think of black people as safe people. 

You want other people to change first, and they think you should change first.  Since you cannot change other people, then you change what you can change.  Yourself.    

Government cannot make people like other people.  We used to teach our kids to love your neighbor as yourself, and Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, but people wiser than us ruled that we can’t have Bible teachings floating around in public, because people might follow them.  I think we were better off when we did.

The Influence of religion in public policy

The group Catholics for Choice had a full-page notice in the Tribune (June 23) commending Illinois lawmakers for their bold action on abortion rights.  Actually, more than that, they thanked God for them.  I suppose that was because God put these lawmakers in place and gave them the courage to do the right thing.

So apparently, they saw God as being actively involved in the government of Illinois.

I was troubled, though, by their depiction of the separation of church and state.  They opposed any religious body seeking to impose its will upon the general populace, but non-religious bodies can?  Why is one bad and the other good?

The issue of abortion is divisive, because one side looks at the rights of the mother and the other side looks at the rights of the child.  They’re accusing religious groups of imposing their beliefs that abortion is an immoral act, but then those who favor abortion are imposing their beliefs on everyone else by expecting them to pay for them.  So, both sides are imposing their beliefs on everyone else, but one is deemed legitimate and one not. 

Religious people have as much right as any other group of people to be involved in public life and politics and to advocate for public policies and for particular candidates.  The whole notion of separation of church and state is entirely misunderstood today.  The concept is not in the Constitution, the First Amendment prohibits a national denomination like existed and still does in England, and the free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited. 

If a politician is, say, a Catholic, and his church has a position on a particular matter, of course, the leaders of that church have a right to influence that person any way they can.  It is the politician’s choice and right to affiliate with any religious group he wants.  If he doesn’t agree with the positions of that group, then maybe he should not be a member of that group.

Another government program to the rescue

I appreciated the information in the June 24 editorial about the brain development of very young children.  The article then identified a need and then strongly recommended the solution: another government program requiring enormous amounts of money.

Our nation has become a nation of cripples.  That word is now considered inappropriate, but the politically correct revision doesn’t do justice here.  America used to be all about freedom and independence, but now we are a people dependent on the government for everything.

Whether you believe in God or evolution, they both ended up with the union of a man and woman to create a new human being, the implication being that both of them would be there to take care of this child. 

Yet 4 out of 10 children are born to unwed mothers.  Yes, they need help in raising their children, but if we just try to solve all of our problems with government programs without, as in this case, for example, encouraging our children to marry before having families, we will simply foster a nation of people who can’t take care of themselves. 

That is not the path we want to take as a nation.

reparations

A reader (June 23) takes Republican lawmakers to task for not supporting reparations. 

We forget that only half the nation had slavery, and the other half fought a war with the first half to end it.  The cost of that war for both sides was enormous.  It has been suggested that the price paid for their freedom is reparations enough.

But the writer insists that America was built on slavery, slavery helped to create the white middle class. and that the opportunity to create wealth depended on government programs which were denied to blacks.

You can find articles that support the idea that America was built on slavery, but I would suggest reading things that were written before the time of American deconstruction.  Like Alexis De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America from the 1830s. 

He recounts, for example, traveling down the Ohio River, free state Ohio on the right and slave state Kentucky on the left.  The differences between the two states were obvious and significant.  Forced labor is never as productive as willing labor, and the costs for keeping slaves extended from their birth to their death.   “ . . . in the end, the slave has cost more than the free servant, and his labor is less productive.”

He found that in the slave states, “labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank (i.e. free states), it is identified with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side, it is degraded, on the other, it is honored. . . .  Thus slavery not only prevents the whites from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so. [Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. Francis Bowen, trans. Henry Reeve, Fourth Edition, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Sever and Francis, 1864), 465-467.]

The war ended in 1865, and the United States didn’t achieve world leader status until late in the 19^th century.  Any link to pre-war slavery is nonexistent.  And the middle class?  That was the result of American manufacturing and the rise of unions in the early 20^th century. 

And government programs don’t provide opportunities to create wealth.  Government has no money but what it first must take from everyone else.  Wealth creation comes from private business, historically, agriculture, manufacturing, fishing, and mining.  But any business that generates profits can be said to create wealth.

If reparations beyond that of the shedding of blood to secure their freedom are required, that question should have been asked and dealt with in the few years following the Civil War.  Now when it will be seen how hard it is to prove actual descendancy from former slaves, the entire reparations matter will end up being extended far beyond any descendants of slaves to all ‘oppressed minorities,’ merely by the fact that they are a minority.

When Rights Conflict

I have never been particularly vocal about the abortion issue.  Maybe that’s because it seems that that is the only public issue that Christians get involved with.  They have that pretty well covered, so I can think about a host of others.

But then I just realized how this pictures perfectly the underlying problem in our country. 

The right to an abortion is based on the 14^th Amendment.  No need to look it up, because you won’t find anything there.  You’ll need to the read the Court’s ruling to see what they were thinking. 

But even if the 14^th Amendment did support a right to an abortion, it is not an unalienable right.  Why do I say that?  Because it requires people to do things for other people, which is the exact opposite of an unalienable right. 

Our country was founded on the basis of unalienable rights given to people by God.  The Founders considered that a fact, but the courts would call that a religious opinion, and so our government and public school can’t talk about that anymore. 

But our government is quick to talk about rights.  The government doesn’t call them unalienable rights, but that’s good enough for most people.  An ever-expanding list of things that the government is now required to see that people have.  What’s not to like?

Most state and federal abortion laws have some kind of exemptions for people that do not want to participate in abortions due to religious reasons, but not all, and the number will diminish.  Why do I say that?

The states and federal government already require people who don’t believe in abortions to pay for them.  If as the courts ruled, money is speech, governments are already requiring pro-abortion speech from people who believe it is morally wrong.   And exemptions are exceptions, and nobody likes exceptions except when they are their own. 

However, the right to life is an unalienable right, which our government was instituted to secure, according to the Declaration of Independence. 

So the real question is: at what point should the government recognize the unalienable right of this developing child to live? 

And, frankly, that is a discussion that needs to take place apart from the discussion about a right to an abortion.  These are separate issues, and I would contend that unalienable rights are higher than government given rights. 

But don’t women have a right over their own bodies?  Of course they do.  And that right didn’t start only after they became pregnant. 

I’m not going to minimize the difficulty that many women experience when they find themselves unexpectedly expecting, but I am concerned that too many women minimize the significance of this creation of a new human being inside of them.  If you can’t raise it, give it up for adoption.  But don’t destroy it.

A letter to the President re: our southern border

Mr President

You, your family, and your administration are in my prayers every day.

Sir, we have lost control of our border.  It is unconscionable and irresponsible to allow thousands of people into our country without health screenings, vaccinations, background checks, and full interviews. 

Border crossings should be limited to certain specified areas.  Those who cross at other places should be returned to Mexico with directions to the next crossing point.  Those who come to the crossing points should be issued numbers, and they will be allowed in according to our ability to process them.  They are out of those countries from which they fled, and they seem to have done well since, so they will be fine for a little while longer until we can fully process them

.

But they should not be admitted beyond our capacity to fully screen them.  This will create masses of people in Mexico, but Mexico allowed them to travel through their country, so they should have no problem if they settle down there for a while. 

I don’t believe our asylum or immigration laws demand that we release unscreened people into our country immediately upon their request.

Thank you.

Property Tax Relief, Equitable School Funding, and Affordable Housing all in One

Now that property tax, school funding, and affordable housing are all in the media’s and politicians’ minds, I offer again my solution for all of this.

The state decides on a minimum dollar amount per student for a quality education.  This will be raised through an income tax.  This income tax will be separate and kept separate from the other state income tax: a school funding tax.  The other state income tax should be reduced slightly, because it already collects some money for schools.  Yes, the overall state income tax will increase. 

This amount is then deducted from property taxes.  Local districts are still free to raise additional funds for their schools however they decide.

 

Since two-thirds of property taxes goes for schools, everyone should see a substantial reduction in property taxes, including renters.  Income taxes will increase, but proportionate with income.  Lower property taxes will make houses more affordable in all neighborhoods, so housing will be more accessible in every neighborhood.

And while the following is not a necessary part of this program, it is necessary as a form of social justice.  People who pay tuition for private schools should receive an education income tax reduction equal to the amount of that tuition with no rebate if they pay more.  Parents have a right to send their children to the school of their choice and not be penalized for doing so.