In January of 1968, fifty years ago, brandishing a CR1 (conditional resident) visa, indicating marriage to a U.S. citizen, I legally entered the United States. I did not expect gold-plated sidewalks. However, I was ill prepared when I arrived in New York in the middle of a protracted garbage strike. First impressions do matter. I did not linger long, and proceeded to California, to my wife's home in San Carlos.
Immigration is not for the fainthearted. It does help to be a bit naïve. I left The Netherlands because I felt that the country had become provincial and somewhat narrow-minded. This perception had probably more to do with the country's size, population density, and the area in which I grew up, than with its culture. I arrived with a high school level English language proficiency, $300 in my pocket, and an offer of temporary lodging from my in-laws, people I had never met. While I focused on the promise of, ill defined and still intangible, future opportunities, I gradually began to realize that I had left my Dutch family and all my friends behind. I had moved from the relative comfort of a familiar environment for one presenting new challenges at every turn. My life in Holland had been fairly uncomplicated, and could potentially have become financially secure in a rapidly expanding family business. I surrendered the security of universal healthcare, and the cradle to grave protection of the Dutch welfare state. And I quickly found out that I had transitioned from being part of a relatively tolerant culture to being immersed into a more fractious one. Yet, I was fully convinced that I made the right decision, and I looked forward to showing the people back home that I had moved to the promised land.
Idealism transitioned into a challenging reality soon enough. Having served two years in the army in The Netherlands, a NATO partner, I was, by treaty, not obligated to serve in the U.S. military. However, I was required to register for the draft. A few weeks after I submitted my registration I received the news that the Draft Board, in its wisdom, had decided to give me a 1-A classification, meaning that I was "available for military service." The TET offensive in Vietnam kicked off January 31 that year, and, at the time, every week more than 500 U.S. service members were killed in action. Needless to say, I had to get this obvious error corrected, or catch the next flight back to where I had come from. I had no intention of becoming part of that statistic. Since I could not take care of this over the phone, I confronted the responsible clerk in San Francisco. She exhibited her ignorance when she admitted she could not find "Holland" on her list of NATO countries. I pointed at "The Netherlands," indicating that that was one and the same. I still remember her asking me if Denmark was the same as well.............
I also quickly found out that my limited vocabulary affected my self confidence. My father had admonished me that I did not need to get a car right away, that I should use public transportation. The reality on the ground dictated the need to acquire my own transportation, however, this meant getting a driver license. Passing a driver's test in Holland had always been very involved. I was uncertain that I really wanted to go through this over here, especially since my father-in-law had provided us with a car twice he size of anything I ever drove in Europe. After essentially memorizing a study guide, I took a deep breath, and walked into the DMV. They did not make me drive, and I aced the written test. Challenge overcome.
It took a while before my level of confidence improved appreciably. I reluctantly recognized that I needed to overcome obstacles native-born citizens were not confronted with. Finding work proved difficult. However, the more you interview, the more proficient you become. Sears finally hired me as a sporting goods salesman, and after circling the Admin Building at De Anza College several times, I finally got up the nerve to walk in to register for an English class - even though I felt offended when I was forced to take a remedial class instead of English 1-A. That decision initiated a life-long affection for the academic life.
And so it went.
In the mean time, 1968 developed into one of the most turbulent years of the 20th Century. The TET offensive changed the course of the Vietnam war. On March 16 U.S. troops from Charlie Company rampaged through My Lai, killing more than 500 Vietnamese civilians. On March 31 President Johnson withdrew from his bid to be re-nominated as a candidate for re-election. On April 4 Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. Riots followed, and 46 people were killed. On June 5, in Los Angeles, Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy, who was well on his way to become the Democratic Party's nominee for president. During the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August, when Hubert Humphrey was nominated , violent demonstrations and street fights with Chicago police anchored the event in full view of the entire world. And in November that year Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were elected to take over the White House.
Normally, these events would have prompted my European family to question my sanity, were it not that in Europe that year France, Italy, Northern Ireland, Czechoslovakia and other countries were also on fire. The world changed in 1968. It became a year of seismic social and political change across the globe. Buried in the midst of it all were the trials and tribulations that changed my life.
Over time I managed to eke out a career, and after some personal setbacks during the later seventies, I met and married a beautiful individual with whom I will celebrate a 38-year partnership in 2018. Fifty years later, I am more comfortable at home in my adopted country than in Holland. However, its history and culture will always remain part of my DNA.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Monday, January 1, 2018
COAL IN THEIR STOCKINGS
On the Wednesday before Christmas, on the White House Lawn, President Trump accompanied by a sizable gathering of republican legislators, came together to celebrate their only significant legislative achievement of the year. This was a public ceremony spotlighting a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system. Mr. Trump was lavished with praise by the leaders of the House and the Senate. Obviously elated, the president exclaimed that it was "always a lot of fun when you win." Convinced as ever, he reiterated over and over again "we are winning."
Throughout the run-up to the vote on this legislation Mr. Trump promised that the tax bill constituted a fabulous Christmas gift for the middle class, and that he himself as well as his friends would actually lose financially because of it. However, that too proved to be political banter. At a Friday night dinner at Mar-A-Lago he reportedly greeted a gathering of his wealthy friends with: "You all just got a lot richer." How much richer? Alan Blinder, professor of economic and public affairs at Princeton University, and a former Vice Chairman of the Federal reserve, estimates that Mr. Trump's cut could amount to a minimum of $15 million annually. While billionaires found extravagant goodies in their stockings this Christmas, many others got lumps of coal.
Some of the people discovering coal in their stockings included: the millions of poor kids facing the imminent loss of federal funds for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the 13 million people who may lose their health insurance, the older, sicker, segment of the population who will soon face significant premium increases, and the 800,000 DACA recipients whose fate was again left in limbo during year-end budget negotiations.
The CHIP program was created in 1997 when Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) pushed a bipartisan campaign to create legislation that would secure access to healthcare for 10 million uninsured children nationwide as part of the Balanced Budget Act. Many of these children grew up in working households that made too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Reiterating his support for this program in 2007, Senator Hatch proclaimed that: "No child should have to go without healthcare. The healthcare children receive when they are young will largely determine their quality of life for their adulthood." Nearly half of the country's children ages 3 or younger receive healthcare through this program. However, funding ran out on September 30, 2017. Although prompted by many, Congress missed re-authorization, focusing instead on the tax overhaul. By the end of January, sixteen states, including California, Texas and Florida, will run out of federal funds. By the end of March this will include thirty states, and by June all but two will be out of money. After the tax bill passed without money being allocated to re-fund CHIP, Jackie Speier (D-Ca) lamented: "What we're doing here today is basically saying: "wealthy Americans, big fat Christmas gift for you; Tiny Tim, we're taking your crutch away, from you and all the other kids in the country, and we're putting a lump of coal in your stocking." (NBC News, Dec. 21, 2017).
By including the repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate, which penalized individuals who failed to have health insurance, the writers of the tax bill were able to pay for $338 billion in additional tax cuts over the next decade. However, contrary to a statement the president made, this does not mean that Obamacare has been repealed. What it does mean is that this move will result in an estimated 13 million fewer Americans having health insurance. Without the mandate many of the young and healthy will forgo insurance, diluting the insurance pool to the detriment of the old and frail, and affecting steep premium increases. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts an estimated ten percent increase in premiums in many areas, often for people who can least afford these. For example: a 60-year old not receiving subsidies could face premium increases of $1,781, $1,469, $1,371, and $1,504, respectively, in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Maine. (David Blumenthal, Harvard Business Review, Dec. 19, 2017).
Finally, consider the plight of the 800,000 dreamers who President Obama protected with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. In September, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that, effective March 6, 2018, the administration was rescinding the program. Early reports, following discussions between the president and democratic leadership, suggested that a deal had been struck whereby democrats would support a budget agreement in exchange for a permanent DACA fix, including deportation protection, for program participants. Sadly, both continuing resolutions that were past to temporarily keep the government funded did not deliver on that promise. And many republicans appear adamantly opposed to such linkage. This leaves these individuals, many of which only know the U.S. as their home country, uncomfortably in limbo.
So, when President Trump uses "winning" as a mantra, or even as a strategy, we ought to remember, to paraphrase an old saying, that "winners see the gain, while losers endure the pain."
Happy New Year!
Throughout the run-up to the vote on this legislation Mr. Trump promised that the tax bill constituted a fabulous Christmas gift for the middle class, and that he himself as well as his friends would actually lose financially because of it. However, that too proved to be political banter. At a Friday night dinner at Mar-A-Lago he reportedly greeted a gathering of his wealthy friends with: "You all just got a lot richer." How much richer? Alan Blinder, professor of economic and public affairs at Princeton University, and a former Vice Chairman of the Federal reserve, estimates that Mr. Trump's cut could amount to a minimum of $15 million annually. While billionaires found extravagant goodies in their stockings this Christmas, many others got lumps of coal.
Some of the people discovering coal in their stockings included: the millions of poor kids facing the imminent loss of federal funds for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the 13 million people who may lose their health insurance, the older, sicker, segment of the population who will soon face significant premium increases, and the 800,000 DACA recipients whose fate was again left in limbo during year-end budget negotiations.
The CHIP program was created in 1997 when Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) pushed a bipartisan campaign to create legislation that would secure access to healthcare for 10 million uninsured children nationwide as part of the Balanced Budget Act. Many of these children grew up in working households that made too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Reiterating his support for this program in 2007, Senator Hatch proclaimed that: "No child should have to go without healthcare. The healthcare children receive when they are young will largely determine their quality of life for their adulthood." Nearly half of the country's children ages 3 or younger receive healthcare through this program. However, funding ran out on September 30, 2017. Although prompted by many, Congress missed re-authorization, focusing instead on the tax overhaul. By the end of January, sixteen states, including California, Texas and Florida, will run out of federal funds. By the end of March this will include thirty states, and by June all but two will be out of money. After the tax bill passed without money being allocated to re-fund CHIP, Jackie Speier (D-Ca) lamented: "What we're doing here today is basically saying: "wealthy Americans, big fat Christmas gift for you; Tiny Tim, we're taking your crutch away, from you and all the other kids in the country, and we're putting a lump of coal in your stocking." (NBC News, Dec. 21, 2017).
By including the repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate, which penalized individuals who failed to have health insurance, the writers of the tax bill were able to pay for $338 billion in additional tax cuts over the next decade. However, contrary to a statement the president made, this does not mean that Obamacare has been repealed. What it does mean is that this move will result in an estimated 13 million fewer Americans having health insurance. Without the mandate many of the young and healthy will forgo insurance, diluting the insurance pool to the detriment of the old and frail, and affecting steep premium increases. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts an estimated ten percent increase in premiums in many areas, often for people who can least afford these. For example: a 60-year old not receiving subsidies could face premium increases of $1,781, $1,469, $1,371, and $1,504, respectively, in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Maine. (David Blumenthal, Harvard Business Review, Dec. 19, 2017).
Finally, consider the plight of the 800,000 dreamers who President Obama protected with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. In September, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that, effective March 6, 2018, the administration was rescinding the program. Early reports, following discussions between the president and democratic leadership, suggested that a deal had been struck whereby democrats would support a budget agreement in exchange for a permanent DACA fix, including deportation protection, for program participants. Sadly, both continuing resolutions that were past to temporarily keep the government funded did not deliver on that promise. And many republicans appear adamantly opposed to such linkage. This leaves these individuals, many of which only know the U.S. as their home country, uncomfortably in limbo.
So, when President Trump uses "winning" as a mantra, or even as a strategy, we ought to remember, to paraphrase an old saying, that "winners see the gain, while losers endure the pain."
Happy New Year!
CONGRESSIONAL PROCESS FAVORS ACCUSED SEXUAL MOLESTERS
The recent spate of bombshell allegations of sexual harassment perpetrated by powerful public figures, leading to terminations and forced resignations, almost seem to have become routine. The effect of the "Me Too" post-Weinstein movement is reverberating across the country. However, nowhere is the effect more prominent than at the highest levels of our government. While the resignations of Senators Al Franken (D-Min) and Trent Franks (R-Tex) and Representative John Conyers (D-Mich) are suggestive of public pressure applied by their congressional colleagues, it should not be surprising that all of them would have preferred to have their cases heard by their respective congressional ethics committees. Others, like Representatives Blake Farenthold (R-Tex) and Ruben Kihuen (D-Nev) seem to be holding out to do just that.
In the House and the Senate, ethics committees determine whether a member of Congress violated House or Senate ethics rules. In the Senate, the committee is made up of three Republicans and three Democrats, five men and one woman. These committees can't impose criminal sanctions, but in the most severe cases they can recommend that a member should be expelled. To activate such a recommendation the respective chamber must adopt it by a two thirds majority vote.
What makes this process attractive to accused members of Congress is that, for instance, the Senate Ethics Copmmittee has not issued a public punishment in a decade. The most recent expulsions occurred in 1861 and 1862 when 14 senators were expelled for disloyalty during the Civil War. More recently, in 1995, the committee voted unanimously to expel Senator Bob Packwood. He resigned before the matter was voted on by the full Senate.
It has been alleged that these committees are simply used as tools to bury cases until the public storm passes. They have developed a history of routinely disposing of submitted ethics complaints. In 2016 the Senate committee received 63 complaints of violations, 43 were dismissed out of hand for lack of "subject matter jurisdiction." Even when allegations were judged to have merit, the decision was made that no violation of Senate rules existed. The remaining 20 cases were dismissed for a variety of technical reasons. No case led to disciplinary action.
The closest thing to a Human Resources department for employees of the Legislative Branch of our government is the Office of Compliance, set up by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. The Act was initiated to protect more than 30,000 governmental employees. The O.O.C. Is its administrative arm charged with ensuring its integrity through programs of disputes resoliution, education and enforcement. In a typical case, staffers file complaints of sexual harassment with the O.O.C. The process used to resolve complaints is convoluted and time-consuming, and it is allegedly designed to protect the office of the accused member of Congress. Various sources details specifics.
To recap: After an incident, but before filing an official com plaint, victims are required to go through 30 days of "counseling" with an O.O.C. employee. Following that process, they have 15 days to decide whether they want to pursue the next step, which is 30 days of mandated "mediation." During mediation, a lawyer representing the congressional office gets involved. His or her job is to protect the office and the institution. This lawyer is funded with taxpayer money. If no settlement is reached, there is a 30-day cooling-off period, before a complaint can be filed. If a settlement is reached, it is usually accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement, and paid for with taxpayer money. (Emily Stewart, Vox, Nov. 20, 2017).
Representative Jackie Speier (D-Ca) and others are now pushing Congress to retool this process. According to Speier, the O.O.C. is "toothless" and "a joke." She recently told the House Administration Committee that "for some victims the complaint process is worse than the sexual harassment itself." During a Nov. 20 interview of MSNBC, she reiterated that "we have to make sure that a complaint is taken seriously, and the person who is the victim is not somehow tortured or intimidated into not filing a complaint. That's what it is right now in Congress."
It should not surprise anyone that sexual harassment appears to be prevalent in many state capitols. The ingredients are all there: power, ego, a disproportionate supply of testosterone and an abundance of ambitious young staffers who could worry that speaking up may be a career killer. We have a long way to go to eliminate inappropriate behavior by powerful people in prominent positions. Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, Mario Batali and others can be fired. But at the pinnacle of power in our government we are stuck with individuals with individuals who, for political reasons, won't be removed. We have a Supreme Court justice who was confirmed by the Senate in 1991, even though he was credibly accused of sexual harassment. And we elected a president, even though he bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault, and who just recently publicly supported an accused pedophile who ran for a Senate seat from Alabama.
Change can't come soon enough. More power to the bi-partisan group of, mostly female, legislators pushing for reform. However, given the intricacies of our congressional decision making process, and the players involved who need to take the lead to affect a satisfactory outcome, nobody should hold their breath.
In the House and the Senate, ethics committees determine whether a member of Congress violated House or Senate ethics rules. In the Senate, the committee is made up of three Republicans and three Democrats, five men and one woman. These committees can't impose criminal sanctions, but in the most severe cases they can recommend that a member should be expelled. To activate such a recommendation the respective chamber must adopt it by a two thirds majority vote.
What makes this process attractive to accused members of Congress is that, for instance, the Senate Ethics Copmmittee has not issued a public punishment in a decade. The most recent expulsions occurred in 1861 and 1862 when 14 senators were expelled for disloyalty during the Civil War. More recently, in 1995, the committee voted unanimously to expel Senator Bob Packwood. He resigned before the matter was voted on by the full Senate.
It has been alleged that these committees are simply used as tools to bury cases until the public storm passes. They have developed a history of routinely disposing of submitted ethics complaints. In 2016 the Senate committee received 63 complaints of violations, 43 were dismissed out of hand for lack of "subject matter jurisdiction." Even when allegations were judged to have merit, the decision was made that no violation of Senate rules existed. The remaining 20 cases were dismissed for a variety of technical reasons. No case led to disciplinary action.
The closest thing to a Human Resources department for employees of the Legislative Branch of our government is the Office of Compliance, set up by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. The Act was initiated to protect more than 30,000 governmental employees. The O.O.C. Is its administrative arm charged with ensuring its integrity through programs of disputes resoliution, education and enforcement. In a typical case, staffers file complaints of sexual harassment with the O.O.C. The process used to resolve complaints is convoluted and time-consuming, and it is allegedly designed to protect the office of the accused member of Congress. Various sources details specifics.
To recap: After an incident, but before filing an official com plaint, victims are required to go through 30 days of "counseling" with an O.O.C. employee. Following that process, they have 15 days to decide whether they want to pursue the next step, which is 30 days of mandated "mediation." During mediation, a lawyer representing the congressional office gets involved. His or her job is to protect the office and the institution. This lawyer is funded with taxpayer money. If no settlement is reached, there is a 30-day cooling-off period, before a complaint can be filed. If a settlement is reached, it is usually accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement, and paid for with taxpayer money. (Emily Stewart, Vox, Nov. 20, 2017).
Representative Jackie Speier (D-Ca) and others are now pushing Congress to retool this process. According to Speier, the O.O.C. is "toothless" and "a joke." She recently told the House Administration Committee that "for some victims the complaint process is worse than the sexual harassment itself." During a Nov. 20 interview of MSNBC, she reiterated that "we have to make sure that a complaint is taken seriously, and the person who is the victim is not somehow tortured or intimidated into not filing a complaint. That's what it is right now in Congress."
It should not surprise anyone that sexual harassment appears to be prevalent in many state capitols. The ingredients are all there: power, ego, a disproportionate supply of testosterone and an abundance of ambitious young staffers who could worry that speaking up may be a career killer. We have a long way to go to eliminate inappropriate behavior by powerful people in prominent positions. Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, Mario Batali and others can be fired. But at the pinnacle of power in our government we are stuck with individuals with individuals who, for political reasons, won't be removed. We have a Supreme Court justice who was confirmed by the Senate in 1991, even though he was credibly accused of sexual harassment. And we elected a president, even though he bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault, and who just recently publicly supported an accused pedophile who ran for a Senate seat from Alabama.
Change can't come soon enough. More power to the bi-partisan group of, mostly female, legislators pushing for reform. However, given the intricacies of our congressional decision making process, and the players involved who need to take the lead to affect a satisfactory outcome, nobody should hold their breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)