Margaret Mead
--------------------
--------------------
Throughout the book we found that our Federal Government is often dishonest, politicians are "on the take," the ideals of the Constitution are trashed, and there is little incentive to change a system based on patronage in the guise of democracy. Selling political favors is not democratic, and those who pocket money to sell us out are not worthy of the honors that accompany leadership. It is not commendable to slavishly lick the boots of a corrupt hierarchy, and yet too many Americans have been doing just that. Federal larceny of the poor must stop.
I don't like revenge, and don't urge that the BIA culprits I have named should go to jail. Still, when people in power lack honesty, accountability and fear of punishment is the only way to stop malicious behavior. We are going to change the basic climate of government, and hold federal employees responsible for their actions, like all other citizens.
End Sovereign Immunity:
This third and final mission is to bring permanent reform to our government. The American Dream needs tending else this beautiful experiment in democracy will fall to some dictator. This legislation will be named the Hobbes-Henry Act, and it will get rid of the ancient and failed Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. Sovereign immunity protects the government from liability, and access to the courts is denied. This must be changed - rights must be enforceable.
Revelations continue daily in the news about dishonesty in government. One day it's a defense contractor and Pentagon employee, and the next day it's the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A friend showed me his documents revealing political graft in the Agency for International Development (AID), which exports corruption to developing nations as a prerequisite for financial aid. A difference in the AID case is that the complainant was an employee of a private contractor, rather than a federal employee, so his chances in our court system are much better - he is not stuck with the limited rights of a federal employee, including sovereign immunity. Whistleblowers are thwarted, honesty is suppressed, and free speech is not available to federal employees. I'm sick of this, and I'll bet you are too.
Our federal lands are being rapidly destroyed in the name of short term profit, with the consent and approval of our federal politicians. This asset is the last of its kind, too precious to trust to the outstretched hands of politicians.
National Trust:
There should be a National Trust, a non-profit organization controlled by a board elected for life and beyond the reach of politicians. All of the land in our National Parks, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and similar land holdings should be transferred to that trust, and it should include the beloved Black Hills of the Great Sioux Nation. This portion of the Trust should be managed exclusively by and for the benefit of the Sioux.
Existing cities and populated areas would be omitted from the trust lands. An advantage of the National Trust concept is that it gets rid of the corrupt Department of the Interior at no cost to the taxpayers. I will leave the National Trust concept for another book, or another author.
The giant step towards correcting government corruption is the end of sovereign immunity. Government must be responsible for it's actions. The word sovereign has a regal sound to it, and well it might. It stands for ultimate, final and complete authority, the kind of thing we associate with God. Sovereignty became the private property of kings. They claimed their authority came from God and the church went along with the act. With the church proclaiming the right of kings to be divine, the king could do no wrong, and since the king's money (actually money taken from the citizens) paid for the courts, the king simply refused to let "his" court bring a case against the king or the king's agents.
The Church claimed to own Divine power from God, crowned the kings in a religious ceremony, and passed the sovereignty along to the State. In turn, the State protected the Church and supported it with money taken by taxing the people. Both the Church and the State lived in splendor at the expense of the people they jointly suppressed.
Philosophers valued individuals, and people were seen to have rights in addition to those allowed by kings. Both the Church and the State lost their exclusive powers which relied on ignorance of the masses. People learned that both had been taking advantage of them, and discovered they had worth and value on their own.
In time new freedoms led to England's Magna Carta, and our Constitution. The State drew power from the people's consent, not from Divine right. Our Declaration of Independence declared freedom from King George, but King George is with us yet; English law brought with it the idea that the State could do no wrong. Like the Norway rat that infested ships and climbed ashore to prosper everywhere in the world, outmoded feudal concepts about law also made the trip from Europe to the United States.
Our Supreme Court consisted of "English Gentlemen" lawyers trained in English law, and they declared years ago that the doctrine of sovereign immunity applied here. It does NOT come from the Constitution, but lawyers found it difficult to conceive of a system where government would be held accountable for it's acts. The philosophy of the hierarchy and loyalty to leaders at the top (rather than responsibility to the citizens and their principles) crossed the ocean along with the English lawyers and the rats.
Here and there, some "immunity" is appropriate. What about the judge who has to sentence a prisoner, or an executioner, or a President in command during a war? It's obvious that for government to function some immunities are appropriate. The problem is that the "doctrine" grants a wholesale immunity to every person employed in any capacity by the Executive Branch of Government. They are not accountable for wrongdoing if it relates to their job.
This so called "doctrine" does not consist of a written law but simply an ancient rule that protected foreign kings and their agents from the objections of the serfs and peasants. As we approach the year 2000, this is still the rule in the United States, even though we have outgrown the idea of the Divine right of kings. We are not yet free from tyranny. We have produced a no-fault government that is not responsible to the people. This must be changed, and the needed law is described in the final chapter.
As a nation we have developed beautiful principles and points of view which we think of as the American Way. The source of these principles are easy to trace, they come from religion and philosophy and are written into our Constitution and laws. It's normal to have a sense of pride in our country. We like to think that our government really represents all of us and that there is something wholesome about our national direction.
If our elected leaders do things that seem contrary to this image, it's natural to give them the benefit of any doubt. Few of us have the time or depth of knowledge to question foreign policy matters. To raise questions or complain about national issues is seen as un-American. After all, if we are proud to be Americans, and our country did it, it must be right.
But is everything really all right? If you look at smaller countries under our control or influence, things are far from good. We preach democracy yet support third world governments that suppress their citizens. What these countries have in common is a long history of U.S. influence, military dictatorships, a low level of education, and economic systems that, like our Indian Reservations, border on feudalism. After long experience with us, some, like Cuba, seemed to prefer Soviet influence over what we offered.
If you take a close look more patterns are apparent. Similar to the old colonies that existed for the benefit of colonial powers, most of them have something we want, and we find a way to take it. Some provide military bases, others fruit or natural resources that we import cheaply, hence the term "banana republic."
Instead of transplanting education and democracy to them, more often we provide military aid and CIA support to a series of dictators. We prefer the stability of a strong dictator (assuring a dependable flow of commodities and profits) over the turmoil of a slow transition to democracy. A feudal system is maintained, land reform does not happen and the education needed to produce a middle class and social reform does not materialize.
Why do our leaders often seem to short-circuit what we see as the American Way? If there is a "conspiracy," I see it as the drive for personal and political money and power. Our elected leaders put personal or party interests ahead of the common good, and as loyal members of the hierarchy their subordinates "kiss-up" to their leaders, right or wrong, to ingratiate themselves and to seek favors and job security. This is justified with misapplied slogans like "duty, honor and country." The spoils system operates on an international basis as well as within our country, it is our shame.
It takes millions of dollars plus substantial personal services to win elections. To get the services of campaign workers, there are implied promises of profitable jobs and contracts. It's no accident that former party leaders and fund raisers are appointed to positions of power. It's the very reason they became fund raisers or party leaders; there was a benefit in sight; a profit motive. Political and judicial appointments are passed out like keys to a candy store. Take what you want, old buddy, just don't be too obvious about it, and remember who gave you the key.
The money needed for political expenses comes from organized sources, such as unions, industry groups and corporate officers. In other words, from special interests. As an accountant I've looked at hundreds of personal check books for decades, and I can tell you that relatively little money for political campaigns comes from individuals who expect nothing in return.
Special interest groups are not successful in fund raising unless they can point out the benefits to be gained by the contributor. There is a profit motive, George Bush's quid pro quo. Give now, our candidate will return benefits to you. He or she understands our special needs; developing trade, opposing national medical care, cutting timber, or increasing wasteful military spending.
This line of discussion could be expanded to fill a book, and there are books that do just that. In your own experience you probably know of situations where there is at least an appearance of a political pay-off at the federal, state or local level.
The concept of sovereign immunity is slowly on the way out. In many states it is possible to bring a suit against a policeman or a judge for heavy handed or dishonest treatment. At the national level, all we have developed in two hundred years is the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows claims against the United States in relatively limited circumstances. That's not enough. With just one Bill, we can take a giant step in favor of responsible and honest government.
Federal politicians claim that their judgment is not corrupted by accepting money from special interests. In turn, the PACs tell their members that they are getting good value (quid pro quo) for the money. The President of my home state CPA society (Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants) wrote to tell me that this money "provides access" to gain the ear of the politician.
If it is true that this money "provides access" to those who contribute, then they place themselves in line ahead of those with less (or no) money. Being "better recognized" as his letter also states, by definition causes others to be less recognized. To present ideas is one thing, but paying politicians is quite another. By this process citizens and voters have lost much of our democracy.
If judges were to solicit and collect money from interested parties before hearing a case, we would be outraged. This diminishes the equality of the vote, and of democracy itself. It does harm to our fellow citizens. We blame the politicians who prostitute themselves, but we are also a party to it and all of us are cheapened. Getting rid of sovereign immunity will make federal graft illegal, and the PACs will die a natural death, with no one willing to accept their money. Federal financial officers will want audits, in the way that corporation financial officers do. Good auditing proves to the public that financial administration is not corrupt, and in that way it benefits those who manage money. Responsible corporate officers demand audits, and federal financial officers (when they are responsible for their acts) will also demand audits as a matter of self protection.
Do you remember that unguarded cash box, described in the irrigation audits? If you were hired as cashier, and were responsible for the cash in the box, I believe you would insist that the box should be kept in a secure place, and you would not share the key with anyone. You would want an occasional audit, to protect yourself from any possible suspicion. And so it goes, when personal liability is applied to federal employees. The climate is one of responsibility.
If you're still with me, then here comes the part where you can "step through the looking glass" and enter into the story. Like the hero Holden Caulfield in The Catcher In The Rye, we have a unique opportunity to save people at the brink of destruction. We will leave a mark on history, and be worthy of the respect of our children and future generations.
No comments:
Post a Comment