National Suicide?

 It’s a familiar story. 

Yesterday, in Rock Hill, SC, five people died as result of gunshots, including four from the same family. The alleged killer was a former professional football player armed with a .45 caliber pistol. He later took his own life. It was the fourth high profile mass shooting to occur in the United States in the span of twenty-two days. 

On March 16, a 21-year-old man armed with a Glock semiautomatic pistol attacked three massage spas in the Atlanta area, killing eight people, including six women of Asian descent. Six days later, another 21-year-old man wearing an armored vest and carrying a modified Ruger AR-556 pistol and a semiautomatic handgun, murdered ten people in and around a Boulder, CO, supermarket. The Ruger firearm is a shortened version of the semiautomatic AR-15.  And on April 2, four individuals, including a nine-year-old boy were slain in Orange, CA, by a 44-year-old man also armed with a semiautomatic pistol. 

All weapons used by the killers in the first three incidents were apparently bought legally. The source of the firearm involved in yesterday’s massacre has not been revealed. 

Members of the media and assorted politicians immediately began speculating as to the motives of the shooters and their possible mental health. The Atlanta gunman claimed to be a sex addict, which conflicted with his strict religious beliefs, but he denied being racist. The Boulder slayer is a naturalized US citizen with a history of paranoia and problems with anger management. The Orange killer apparently had a business-related gripe, although that hardly explains murdering a nine-year old kid. Possible motives for the Rock Hill shooter have not been identified. 

Given the presence of so many firearms in the US and the lax character of our gun safety regulations, neither the motives nor the mental health disorders of the gunmen seem relevant. With approximately 400 million lethal weapons easily accessible there likely is always going to be someone with a grievance or a personality defect who can acquire a firearm in America and slaughter several of his fellow citizens. 

Our lax gun safety regulations make it impossible to determine exactly how many US homes have a firearm or how many Americans actually own a firearm, but survey data does provide us some reasonable estimates. According to a Gallup poll in 2019, there are firearms in only about 40 percent of US households, and only about 22 percent of Americans own such a weapon. On a per capita basis the US leads the developed world with 120.5 firearms for every 100 people. Canada has 34.7 and England only 4.6. 

While only a minority of Americans own firearms, those who do apparently are obsessed with owning more. USA Today reported in February that Americans bought nearly 40,000,000 guns in 2020 and an additional 4,137,480 in January 2021. Closer to home, residents of South Carolina bought 52,622 guns in January and residents of North Carolina bought 86,017. 

And while shootings that result in four or more deaths receive the greatest media attention and give the most energy to debates about guns in America, they are not the worse aspect of our irrational gun violence. Suicides, a growing public health crisis in the US, are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths annually, including the highly visible mass shootings. More than half of all suicides involve a firearm. 

Some mental health specialists believe that an attempted suicide is a plea for help. Unfortunately, when a gun is used, help is seldom an option. 

Given the circumstances, one would expect a responsible debate among the nation’s political leadership as to how to reduce the trauma of gun violence. That is sadly not the case. 

At a hearing of the US Senate Judiciary Committee about gun safety shortly after the Atlanta massacre, US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a blanket dismissal of any legislative action, “What happens in this committee after every mass shooting is Democrats propose taking away guns from law-abiding citizens (italics added) because that's their political objective,” His words and attitude are hardly an indication of an open mind or the basis for finding common ground. 

On April 1, US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and South Carolina Attorney General Allan Wilson visited the newly opened facility of a SC-based firearms company in Greenville. The company’s mission statement is quite clear: “We want to sell as many AR-15 and AK-47 rifles as we can and put them into common use in America today.” Graham did not disappoint his host, stating emphatically his opposition to any ban on assault rifles. He also touted the value of guns for self-protection, citing three cases in South Carolina where citizens had used guns to defend themselves. 

Reports of the visit did not indicate comments by either politician about the 40 South Carolina children under 18 who died as result of firearms in 2020. According to the SC Victims Assistance Network, in half of the home with guns in the state, firearms are kept unlocked and loaded. 

The simple truth is there are too many firearms in the US today and there is no meaningful system in place to insure a reasonable degree of safety from gun violence for the public. Gun manufacturers are producing weapons that are more and more lethal and have been relieved by Congress of any responsibility for how those weapons might be used. 

Background checks are riddled with loopholes, making them a sad joke. The so-called “Charleston loophole,” which allows a purchaser to buy a firearm after three days regardless of whether or not the background check has been completed, is still in place. It has been six years since it made possible the massacre at Charleston’s Emanuel African American Methodist Church in June 2015. 

Not only can virtually anyone buy a firearm in the US, rarely are there any qualifications or training required for ownership. Neither are there any restrictions on the number of firearms an individual can own. Nor are gun owners required to insure their firearms are not easily stolen or accessed by children. 

The January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol should be a wake-up call. Consider what could have happened if firearms had been carried by most of those who sought to disrupt the legitimate processes of the US government. Farfetched?  Already there are more semiautomatic firearms in civilian hands in the US than are available to American law enforcement and military. 

Specifically, there should be national legislation banning the sale of semiautomatic firearms to the general public. High-capacity ammunition magazines and armored-piercing ammunition should not be generally available to civilians. Examinations should be required for all firearm purchasers proving they have the skills and knowledge to operate safely and efficiently the weapon they wish to buy. And insuring firearms against theft or from falling into the hands of underage youth should not be left to chance. There should be a regular system to confirm proper security. 

Perhaps I am foolish to suggest such a set of regulations for gun safety. But the fact is the proposals listed are in place in many other developed countries today---countries that have far lower gun death rates that the US.  Our gun death rate of 3.4 (per 100,000) is the highest by far among developed countries, seven times higher than any other developed country. 

Our failure to act is a form of national suicide.

Raise the Minimum Wage

For the past forty years or so, the interests of the Bezos and Zuckerbergs have held  almost absolute sway in America. Shareholder value reigns supreme. If it cannot be monetized, it must not be of any value. That has to change or America will lose its soul.

The current debate over Joe Biden’s proposal to raise the minimum wage in America to $15 is heating up and once again the bias against the poor in the US economy is appallingly obvious. Even though the increase is designed to be implemented over a four-year period, some politicians and businessmen predict financial ruin. 

Their scenario is bizarre.  A boost in wages will produced an annual salary of slightly more than $31,000, less than half the current national median household income of about $68,000. The increase will affect about 40 percent of the US workforce, but only about two percent of the nation’s work force receives the existing minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. 

Critics have seized upon a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that project a loss of 1.4 million jobs if the Biden proposal is adopted. However, the study also estimates that 900,000 Americans would escape poverty. Exactly how having nearly a million of our fellow citizens enjoy better financial circumstances would lead to a loss of jobs is difficult to comprehend. 

Virtually all of the workers who would receive a pay increase under this legislation are likely to increase their spending accordingly. In our consumer-based economy that inevitably will lead to more jobs being created. 

It should also be noted that many of those being paid the current minimum wage, or something close to it, are employed in fields that are of critical importance although they do not always  require educational certification--- jobs like home health aide, childcare provider, janitor or housekeeper, and food preparer. These jobs are not likely to be eliminated. 

Truthfully, the Biden proposal is about more than economics. It is about whether or not we care about the worth and dignity of every American. 

The pandemic has exacerbated some of the income equities that are reflected in today’s society. According to the Pew Research Center, since 1989 the wealth gap among the nation’s richest and poorest families more than doubled. An analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies claims that since March 2020, the net worth of America’s 643 billionaires increased from $2.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion while another 29 were added to the list. 

The level of inequity is apparent in that the increase in billionaire wealth was twice as much as the value of all the stimulus checks paid out to Americans thus far. 

CEO compensation  provides another example of the income inequities rampant in our economy. The management guru Peter Drucker in the 1970s suggested a CEO-worker pay ratio of 20-1. Today, despite legislation requiring corporations to reveal publicly the ratio has climbed to an average among leading companies of approximately 300-1. Median pay for the top 400 corporate chief executives has stayed in the neighborhood of $20 million annually. 

These numbers seem to earn little more than a yawn from political leaders. Probably related to the fact that corporate CEOs are major campaign contributors. 

But the numbers have consequences. If pay for each of those 400 corporate executives was reduced to say $5 million and the other $15 million paid out in salary and wages to employees earning less than $142,800, nearly $400 million in additional money would be paid into the Social Security Trust Fund alone, forget about the benefits of the additional earnings available as well as the additional jobs that might result. 

Not everything of value in society can be monetized. Taking care of the elderly and the infirmed, caring for children, ensuring their health and safety, and making sure our food and drink are safe to enjoy, all are invaluable. The janitors and housekeepers in my granddaughters’ school may not be as important as their teachers, but if custodians fail to do their jobs, the environment for learning  suffers severely. Just think of how critical the efforts of these workers have been during the pandemic in limiting the threat of infection from Covid-19 and its variants. 

And by the way, our society does not appear to consider teachers as important as we should, given the role we expect teachers to play in preparing our children for life. In both Carolinas the starting salary for teachers is not much better than $15 an hour. 

We need to examine what constitutes economic growth in America. The current system for calculating Gross Domestic Product is absurd. A dollar spent on repairing hurricane damage is valued the same as a dollar invested in a school or health facility. In order to determine real worth some consideration should be given to the purpose for which a dollar is spent. 

That is what needs to be done in evaluated the proposal to raise the minimum wage. The benefits of improving the livelihood of people who have not been served well by our economy in recent years are clear. Surely they are just as valuable as Jeff Bezo’s dreams of space travel or Mark Zuckerberg’s quest for a social media monopoly. 

And if there are temporary or even permanent changes that need to be accommodated, government has the capacity to make those adjustments. America proved that during the Great Depression, we can do it again in the 21^st century.   

GOP Answer to Riot

The events of January 6 in Washington, DC, clearly represented an act of insurrection against the legitimate governing institutions of the United States. Even the Republican Minority Leader of the US Senate, Mitch McConnell has recognized that fact and has identified Donald Trump as bearing major responsibility for the violence. Trump and the other speakers at the rally prior to the storming the Capitol had no other purpose in mind but to intimidate the joint session of Congress meeting that afternoon to receive the certified election returns from the states, the last step in confirming the presidential victory of Joe Biden. 

Some of the people attending what was called the Save America Rally may not have fully appreciated what they were supporting, but ignorance, willful or not, is no defense. More egregious has been the Republican answer to this attack by a destructive mob on the citadel of our democracy. 

I watched this morning on ABC television as the Republican Senator from Mississippi Roger Wicker was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. The ABC anchor asked Wicker if Trump should be held accountable for inciting the insurrection. Wicker refused to respond specifically to Stephanopoulos’s question, but claimed that Trump cannot be convicted because he is no longer in office. Stephanopoulos than played a video of Wicker as a Congressman in 1999 voting to impeach Bill Clinton. The hypocrisy blared from the screen. 

Republicans are grasping at straws in their frantic search for a reasonable way to avoid voting to convict Trump. They talk about “precedents” as if there have been frequent impeachment trials. There have been very few because America has had very few presidents who have abused the office with such total disrespect for our country’s laws and traditions. 

In his first impeach trial Trump was acquitted in February 2020 by Senate Republicans, save one. Some even admitted that he was guilty of abusing his office and undermining the national interest for personal gain. Two reasons were given to justify the acquittal: an election was pending in which the public could make a judgement (they did) and Trump had learned his lesson (he proved quickly he had not by summarily removing several of the individuals courageous enough to disclose his abuse). 

The Republican party is facing an historic turning point in its history. That Donald Trump was ever nominated by the party for the presidency was a major blow to the party’s image as a responsible national political organization. Despite a campaign of disgusting racial and sexist language, Trump managed to win the presidency. His victory was at least in part the result of the inequities built in to the structure of the US Senate, and consequently, the Electoral College. Although he lost the popular vote by nearly three million, Trump collected 304 electoral votes.

In the2020 election there was an earthquake-size shift in voter sentiment. Joe Biden won the popular vote by over seven million. Reflecting the same structural inequities, Biden's electoral count was only 303. It is also noteworthy that although the GOP retains 50 seats in the Senate, the Republican senators represent 41 million fewer voters than do the 48 Democrats and two Independents, who organize with the Democrats. 

Of great disappointment was the fact that a majority of Republicans in the US House attempted to overturn the presidential election returns immediately after the Capitol riot in which five people died, including a police officer defending the legislators and their staffs. That same majority save ten refused to vote to impeach the man who incited the riot. It is also disappointing the ten who voted their conscience, and who include some of most loyal Republicans in the House, have been subjected to bitter scorn and even censure by Trump supporters who control the GOP in some states. 

Eleven Republican members of the Senate also voted to overturn the presidential election after the riot. The two most outspoken dissenters, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas, obviously have presidential ambitions. Building a campaign for the top office in the land on the basis of unsubstantiated challenges to state certified election returns may prove to be an uphill battle. 

And given the fact that Trump’s charge to the insurrectionist mob called for attacking his own vice president, it may prove difficult for Hawley or Cruz to find a running mate any time soon.

Republicans in the Senate who oppose convicting Trump must recognize that they are encouraging the fringe elements that the deposed president has energized. If he is acquitted, it will give new life to the conspiracy theorists and white supremacists who have emerged as a potent force in GOP politics. They will not go away if Trump is not held accountable for his disregard of his responsibilities as president. 

Acquittal will also mean that Trump will not only be free to run again, but he will receive as a former president benefits worth at least one million dollars annually. In addition to staff support and office rental, a pension of at least $200,000 will be provided by US taxpayers. That seems particularly unjust in view of the Republicans quibbling over whether or not families struggling with the economic fallout of the pandemic should receive $1000 instead of $1400 in one-time aid. 

The 2022 elections may seem like they are far away, but American voters are beginning to realize that some politicians just don’t seem to learn anything from their earlier mistakes, so it is up to us to remind them.  

Time to Abolish the Death Penalty

 

The decision of the Trump Administration to resume execution of those convicted under federal law of capital crimes has intensified the public debate about the death penalty as a legitimate form of punishment.  So far in the six months since July when the first executions were carried out, nine men have been killed by the US government. Two other men and one woman have been scheduled to die between now and January 20 when Joe Biden become president. 

In the United States the public attitude generally has been in favor of capital punishment. It has been as high as 80 percent in favor (1994). This year according to Gallup 54 percent of Americans support the death penalty. 

The broad backing for capital punishment should not be surprising. Individuals charged with a capital crime are usually not particularly attractive---no one you would wish for a neighbor.  Still, a sizeable number of Americans are bothered by the potential consequences of a penalty that has no recourse if applied in error. 

My personal skepticism was born in a courtroom in Bennettsville, SC, in January 1964 when as a television newsman, I witnessed the trial of a young black teenager charged with the rape and murder of an elderly white woman.  Johnnie Poe had allegedly confessed to the crimes and was being defended before an all-white jury by a white, court-appointed attorney, Marlboro County State Senator John “Jack” Lindsay. 

The racial breakdown in Marlboro County at the time was pretty even, but the Voting Rights Act had not been passed. Therefore, Lindsay had nothing to gain by defending Poe vigorously, but he did just that. He revealed that a state-sponsored examination of the defendant’s intellectual abilities indicated Poe had an IQ lower than 95 percent of all Americans, which meant he could not have written or dictated the confession attributed to him. Lindsay also pointed out his client was the third person to confess to the crime and the only one without a record of violence. In addition, when challenged by the senator, an FBI examiner assigned to the case was unable to positively tie hair found at the scene to Poe. 

It took the jury slightly more than an hour to find Poe not guilty. With a lesser defense attorney, the young teenager might easily have been convicted. After witnessing that trial, I have never felt comfortable about the death penalty. 

With regards to the use of capital punishment, the United States is something of an outlier. According to Amnesty International, 142 countries have abolished the death penalty in either law or in practice. Among the 56 nations that retain the death penalty, the US ranked seventh last year in executions. Four countries: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan, accounted for nearly 90 percent of the 657 documented executions in 2019. China, like North Korea, keeps its death penalty statistics secret, but Amnesty International estimates the number executed by China in 2019 was in the thousands. 

The United States does not share political philosophy or humanitarian goals with any of the countries continuing to use capital punishment extensively.  

What is behind the reluctance to eliminate capital punishment in America? 

Some people believe the death penalty is a deterrent that prevents future capital crimes, but there is no supporting evidence. Obviously, it deters the guilty party from future crimes, but whether capital punishment has any influence on potential perpetrators is unproven. 

The argument is also made that the death penalty is appropriate when the crime is of a heinous nature. Society expects to see a person guilty of inflicting death suffer death in return. But the American justice system is not flawless and often capital punishment is applied arbitrarily. 

Racial discrimination is rampant in the imposition of capital punishment. In both North Carolina and South Carolina more than 50 percent of inmates on death row today are African Americans, even though the race represents only 26 percent of the population in South Carolina and 22 percent in North Carolina. 

In addition, eyewitness misidentification, poor forensic science, prosecutorial misconduct, and bias profiling by police are factors that can produce incorrect results. Nonprofit organizations like the Innocence Project and the Equal Justice Initiative have uncovered hundreds of cases involving murder convictions of innocent defendants. 

A major problem with the exercise of the death penalty in the US is our federal system. Criminal laws in general are enforced by the states, and currently, capital punishment is considered legal by 28 states, American Samoa, the US military and the federal government. There has been, however, little discernable difference in the murder rates in states with the death penalty and those without. But it is a murky system of justice where the punishment for a crime depends in part upon the geographic location or the jurisdiction in which the crime occurs. At some point the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment should come into play.

Thus far, the US Congress has refused to grapple decisively with the issue of capital punishment. It has been left primarily to the US Supreme Court to attempt to address the obvious inequities in it imposition. That is not how the system is supposed to work. Enacting appropriate laws is the responsibility of our national legislature. 

Capital punishment cannot be defended as a legitimate criminal penalty today. Its effectiveness as a deterrent has not been established. There is clear evidence of racial and socio-economic discrimination in the operations of the system. As well, mistakes happen within the system. Despite the best intentions of those staffing the system, the risk of executing an innocent person will always exist. 

The US Congress should immediately abolish the death penalty in all jurisdictions. Attention in the future could then be turned to implementing a fair and equitable system of justice that reflects the humanity of the American people.

The Threat of "Gig" Companies

Since Election Day 2020 most attention in the US has been on the presidential contest and Donald Trump’s avalanche of frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps some scrutiny is due the passage of a California ballot measure, Proposition 22. It undermines worker rights and has the potential for also threatening the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. 

Labelled the “Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers” initiative,” Prop 22 overturns a California law that sought to insure workers in the so-called “gig” economy receive appropriate benefits and protections. Borrowed from the musical world where musicians often refer to a performance as a “gig,” the term emphasizes the short-term or temporary nature of a worker’s employment. 

Uber, Lyft and DoorDash designed the ballot measure that won with 58 percent of the vote. Among the leaders in the “gig” economy, these companies, which provide transportation services, want to continue to classify their drivers as “independent contractors” instead of considering them employees as California law would require. 

Workers designated as “independent contractors” are not entitled to the normal benefits employees receive, such as workman’s compensation and wage and hour protections. They also have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes out of their own pockets. 

The companies justify their position by denying they are transportation companies. They are primarily technology companies in their view---they use smartphones to connect clients with their drivers. Therefore, they should not have to meet the requirements related to licensing, safety checks and employment which generally are imposed on transportation enterprises.  Several states and courts, and other countries, have rejected this assertion consistently since 2009 when Uber was founded. 

It was something of a surprise that Prop 22 passed. Labor unions opposed it since it obviously stripped workers of significant rights. A few weeks prior to election day only 39 percent of the public indicated support for the measure. 

But the companies invested over $205 million in the Yes campaign, bombarding the television airwaves, social media and their own apps with messages touting a minimum wage for drivers and other benefits consistent with a fulltime job. The ads also claimed that most drivers supported Prop 22, but that could have been inspired in part by the companies’ threat to leave California if the measure failed. 

Yes campaign ads also caused some voter confusion. For example, while the companies promised support for a generous minimum hourly wage, the method by which that wage would be computed was not clear. According to one post-election survey 40 percent of voters who cast a Yes ballot thought they were supporting a “living wage” for gig workers, but the promised wage will cover only hours drivers spend ferrying clients, not hours waiting or otherwise engaged in support of the service. 

Based on their success in California, it is anticipate that Uber, Lyft and DoorDash will pursue similar legislation in other states. They have also indicated a desire to seek federal legislation to further their objective. 

The business model of gig enterprises is based on reducing in every possible manner any obligation to share profits with workers, the people who actually provide the services a company delivers. In fairness to gig companies like Uber and Lyft, they are only mimicking to the extreme the negative policies towards workers already being pursued by most of today’s corporate giants. This is a major factor in creating the income inequity that has plagued America for the past four decades. 

But it is not only the workers of these companies that will be impacted as result of Prop 22. 

The Social Security Trust Fund is already under pressure. The latest official estimate is that by 2035 the fund may not be able to pay full benefits to recipients. If companies are allowed to continue to expand the number of workers classified as independent contractors, this problem will be exacerbated. 

Why? Because companies are not required to withhold taxes from wages paid to independent contractors, nor to remit due payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare). Instead, workers classified as independent contractors are considered self-employed and are responsible for filing and paying all taxes themselves. 

It has been well documented that a significant percentage of self-employed workers misreport their income for tax purposes. A 2018 tax preparer industry survey found that 32 percent of self-employed workers admitted underreporting, while 36 percent “don’t do taxes at all.” 

A 2019 study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College estimates that underpayment of Social Security contributions in 2014 amounted to nearly $6 billion. Given the expansion of the gig economy, it seems logical to assume the number of independent contractors has increased in the past six years and the underpayment has grown. 

The failure of independent contractors to fully pay due payroll taxes has consequences. Not only does underreporting lower the Social Security benefit the individual gig worker will receive, but it also threatens the benefits of all beneficiaries by undermining the solvency of the Trust Fund. 

Congress needs to act now to head off this infringement of workers’ rights. No state should be allowed to undermine a federal program, especially one as important to the economic viability of so many citizens as Social Security. Nor should any company be allowed to enrich its management and shareholders at the expense of its workers.   

Legitimate Reasons for Statehood

Discussion of statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico is becoming intense as the Biden administration begins to take shape. Part of the intensity is the result of fear that a recalcitrant US Senate under the iron thumb of GOP Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will frustrate the ambitious goals of the new president. Adding four new senators might change the political math of the US Senate and reduce McConnell’s power. 

The expectation that the new states would send Democrats to the senate may turn out to be wishful thinking on the part of Biden supporters. There are, however, legitimate reasons to grant statehood to both of these entities, regardless of partisan concerns. Although the characteristics and history of DC and Puerto Rico are quite different, their political status is the same: residents of both are US citizens, but they are not allowed to exercise fully their citizenship rights for only one reason…where they live.  

Nearly fifty years ago, I completed a Ph.D. dissertation that addressed the status of “US-Administered Overseas Areas,” which included Puerto Rico. In the study I acknowledged the reluctance of Americans to admit that the US is a colonial power and our difficulty in reconciling the traditional American support for the right of self-determination with continuing to govern overseas areas as dependent possessions. That conundrum still exists today. 

Although the Constitution grants to Congress the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” (Art. IV, Sec 3), there never has been a conscious, consistent policy to guide the country’s governance of dependent territorial areas. Most such dependencies were acquired for strategic reasons related to American military involvements, and little planning has gone into their political and economic development. 

Puerto Rico was acquired in 1898 along with the Philippines and Guam as result of the Spanish-American War. The island’s residents were not granted US citizenship until 1917 under the Jones Act. They were not allowed to elect their own governor until 1948. The election of Luis Munoz-Marin led in 1952 to what was touted as a unique creation: the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Originally, “commonwealth” was to be a transitory status between independence and statehood within the US. Under this arrangement Puerto Ricans were to enjoy self-government in all domestic matters, electing their own government and passing their own laws, as long as they did not contradict the US Constitution, law and regulations. Foreign affairs remained the purview of the US government. The Eisenhower administration used the status to persuade the United Nations to remove Puerto Rico from its list of non-self-governing territories. 

Autonomy has been illusionary under commonwealth status. Puerto Ricans were drafted into the US military, but they have not been allowed to vote for the US president or representation in the US Congress. Until the late 1960s, it appeared commonwealth status might produce economic progress for the island, but that too has proven a false promise. 

Despite US corporations receiving significant tax breaks for the thirty years between 1976 and 2006, the latest available household income data indicates residents of Puerto Rico have an annual income of a little over $20,000, less than a third of that for US residents. Forty-three percent of the island’s residents live in poverty, including fifty-seven percent of the island’s children, according to recent US Census Bureau data (2018). With no regard for the deprivation reflected in these numbers, Puerto Rico is not allowed equal participation in essential social programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. 

Ironically, since Puerto Ricans hold US citizenship, they may move to any US state and participate fully in all programs, including voting for President and Members of Congress. The past decade has seen a significant increase in migration of Puerto Ricans to the mainland, Florida being the primary magnet. As a result, there are over 5 million people who identify as Puerto Rican in the US today, while the island’s population has decreased from 3.6 million in 2000 to an estimated 3.2 million today. 

DC, with its population of an estimated 717,000, is not governed under the same legal authority as US territorial dependencies. A provision in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution created the District and authorized Congress “To exercise exclusive  Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States,…” 

Over the years Congress has subjected DC to a variety of governing structures. For ninety years it was governed as a municipal corporation with three commissioners appointed by the President. Congress was DC’s legislature. In 1961, DC residents were granted by constitutional amendment (XXIII) the right to choose electors for President “equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State;…” It was another decade before DC was allowed a non-voting delegate to Congress.

The Home Rule Act, passed in 1973, provides the governing structure currently in place. It gives DC residents the right to elect their own mayor and a 13-member council which functions as a legislative body. Congress still retains the right to review all legislatioin passed by the council before becoming law and has authority over the DC budget. Also, the President appoints DC judges, and there is still no voting representation in Congress. 

In terms of population, both DC and Puerto Rico compare favorably to existing states. With 717,000 citizens, DC is larger than Wyoming and Vermont and is approaching in size Alaska and North Dakota. Puerto Rico’s 3.2 million makes it larger than 20 existing states and DC. The large number of people claiming Puerto Rican descent living in the US today over 5 million, increases the urgency of providing statehood. 

From an economic point of view, DC residents pay a higher per capita federal income tax than residents of any current state. Puerto Ricans do not pay as much as DC residents, but net federal expenditures (expenditures minus taxes) of the island are less than those of 19 current states, including South Carolina. Puerto Rico is also home to 12 of the world’s 20 top pharmaceutical companies and five of the top selling drugs are manufactured on the island. 

It is increasingly problematic that the US citizens who reside in the District of Columbia and in Puerto Rico can reasonable be denied the right to full participation in their own governance when granting statehood to both DC and Puerto Rico would effectively accomplish this objective. The alternative makes little sense in terms of fairness and national security. 

DC, our national seat of government, originally had a population of less than a few thousand souls. Today, it has nearly three-quarters of a million US citizens. Is it wise to continue treating them like “wards” of the federal government? 

Puerto Rico has been a US dependency for more than a century. Its strategic importance was the original motivation for retaining control over the island. That has not diminished. The Roosevelt Roads Naval Station is the cornerstone of our Caribbean Defense System. Welcoming Puerto Rico into the US family will enhance respect for our nation among Latin Americans. 

The fiscal costs of granting statehood to DC and to Puerto Rico are infinitesimal. The political and security costs are difficult to underestimate.

A Dangerous Message

My wife and I were watching the local weather report the other morning when the commercial popped up on the screen. The product being offered was not too surprising---your very own AR-15 rifle. The message was unnerving.

The company making the offer boasts a name that sounds as though it might be an official government-based entity. According to the off-screen narrator, one purpose of making AR-15s available is to guarantee ‘‘freedom.” To guard against “tyranny” is another goal.

On the company’s website, I found the following mission statement (capitalization included):

OUR MISSION IS TO MAXIMIZE FREEDOM, NOT OUR PROFITS. WE WANT TO SELL AS MANY AR-15 AND AK-47 RIFLES AS WE CAN AND PUT THEM INTO COMMON USE IN AMERICA TODAY. OUR FOCUS ISN'T TO MAKE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY BUT TO SPREAD FREEDOM AS FAR AND WIDE AS POSSIBLE. OUR LEGACY WILL NOT BE ABOUT MONEY; WE WANT OUR LEGACY TO BE ABOUT MAXIMIZING AMERICAN FREEDOM. AND WE WORK EVERY DAY TO DO JUST THAT. WE MAKE HIGH-QUALITY FIREARMS AT AFFORDABLE PRICES FOR EVERYONE! THEN WE BACK THEM WITH A FULL LIFETIME WARRANTY.

A more detailed explanation of the company’s objective indicates the desire to take advantage of a US Supreme Court reference to the “in common use” standard relative to firearms covered by the Second Amendment. According to that criteria, originally stated in United States v. Miller (1939), the Second Amendment right to bear arms extents to any firearm found to be “in common use.” By aggressively expanding the availability of A-15s, a semi-automatic rifle that easily can be converted to automatic operation, the company intends to cement legal access to this deadly weapon.   

This arms manufacturer is turning the First Amendment on its head. Giving to our citizens the right to freedom of speech was considered by the Founding Fathers to be a means of protecting, even promoting, democracy which requires open debate combined with fair elections. Cynically offering AR-15s to protect “freedom” begs the question: freedom from what? The annoying opinions and wishes of people who disagree with us?

Such a strategy is not only at odds with democracy, but it is especially disturbing, even dangerous, in today’s America.

In the past year, anger over the deaths of some African Americans at the hands of police has led to widespread protests in several American cities. One reliable source has identified more than 7,000 Black Lives Matter protests across the US between May and August of this year. Those protests have been met with counter protests, frequently involving armed white supremacists.

Donald J. Trump has inflamed the situation further by labelling BMU protesters “anarchists” and “terrorists” and by praising would-be vigilantes like 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse. Last August, the teenager killed two men during unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Armed with an AR-15, Rittenhouse showed up in Kenosha without authorization from local law enforcement officers. He is not even a resident of Wisconsin.

Trump also deployed federal agents during the protests in Portland, Oregon, against the wishes of Oregon authorities. He threatened to use federal forces in other cities where protests occur, but apparently ran into opposition within his own administration to such a step.

During the presidential campaign Trump made endless unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud and accused election officials and other unknown parties of rigging the voting process to his disadvantage. He is now engaged in an effort to persuade Republican state legislators to replace popularly elected presidential electors with those committed to him, an undemocratic act if not an unconstitutional one.

Only a few GOP members of the US Congress have distanced themselves from Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and electoral machinations, abetting Trump in his refusal to cooperate with President-Elect Joe Biden. Trump’s intransigence is obviously at attempt to thwart the will of the American people and de-legitimize our election process. It also puts at risk effective implementation of the rollout of coronavirus vaccines in the midst of a pandemic that has already taken nearly 275,000 American lives.

In many parts of America, the country is a tinder box. Paramilitary groups encouraged by Trump’s endorsement have blatantly sought to intimidate critics of the president. When armed opponents of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's stay-at-home order invaded the Michigan legislature in May, Trump praised them and tweeted “LIBERATE MICHIGAN.” Later in October, the FBI uncovered a plot to kidnap the Michigan chief executive and revealed there was a similar plan to seize the governor of Virginia.   

Mankind has wrestled for many centuries with the almost universal problem of how to regulate the use of weapons. Whether for purposes of defense or to conquer and subdue an enemy, weapons have been viewed as necessary. Maintaining order and security, domestically or internationally, requires weapons of various types and levels of destructive capability.

Generally speaking, the destructive capability needed domestically is assumed to be considerably less than that required in the international arena. In neither setting is it viewed as wise to allow unfettered availability or use of any and all weapons. At some point, restraint is essential.

The US Supreme Court has wrestled with how to interpret the Second Amendment for many years. Thus far, it has not denied government at any level the authority to place reasonable limits on access to certain types of firearms, especially those frequently used to the detriment of public safety. Specious advertising seeking to manipulate court decisions for personal profit is not healthy for the future of our democracy.