Rand Paul leads the way on NSA spying issue

Pity poor Rand Paul. He really is just a sanitized version of his father, Ron Paul.

By that it is meant that Ron Paul is unpolished, not conscious of his image, candid, even brusque. He really doesn’t care what people think of him; in fact, he wasn’t really interested in seriously competing for the presidency, and was most concerned about crusading for his brand of strident libertarianism.

He really wasn’t a Republican either, nor were many of his followers, who proved it in November of 2012 by staying home by the millions rather than vote for Mitt Romney, thereby paving the way for President Obama’s re-election.

By contrast, Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, has sought to conceal that very same libertarianism under a veneer of tact, emphasis and context, preferring instead to reveal it only on issues in which the people are really engaged. Unlike his father, however, he takes himself seriously as a presidential candidate and seeks to use the Republican Party as a vehicle to achieve that end.

There really is no substantive difference between the two on the issues, including a decidedly isolationist or non-interventionist foreign policy.

That said, Rand Paul knows what issues might catch the public’s fancy and talks about them in a timely fashion.  One on which he has played a key role is the domestic spying issue connected to disclosures about the extent of surveillance carried out by the National Security Agency.

Rand Paul has launched a petition drive seeking support for a class-action lawsuit against NSA.

Because of the scope of the NSA’s activities, Paul told MSNBC “every person in America who has a cell phone would be eligible for this suit.”

“We now have several hundred thousand people who want to be part of this suit to say to the government and the NSA, ‘No, you can’t have our records without our permission or without a warrant specific to an individual,’” he said.

This is God’s work, supported by people across the political spectrum.  It is interesting that this issue wouldn’t even be on the table — as Paul acknowledges  — were it not for the revelations of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, now a fugitive from the United States.

Snowden’s disclosures led to a review of NSA’s practices by the Obama Administration, which is expected to recommend major reforms in the NSA surveillance program next week.

All of this suggests the criminal status the U.S. has placed on Snowden might be inappropriate. Some people regard him as a national hero. But that is another subject for another day.

This criticism of Obama is not constructive

There is something unseemly about former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s tell-all memoirs.  

He said President Obama didn’t believe in his own strategy for Afghanistan. 

 Who isn’t confused  about what is happening in that part of the world.  Who blames Americans if they feel increasingly hopeless about the Middle East in general.

Clearly polls show the country is war-weary.  The Afghans and Iraqis just don’t seem to want to do enough to help themselves, although their own domestic political situations should make all of us grateful we don’t live there.

Why did Gates feel he had to speak out now? What does he hope to accomplish? As former head of the Pentagon, shouldn’t he, of all people, respect the chain of command?

It’s so easy to attack a president. George W. Bush became a hapless target of critics in his second term and now it is happening to Obama. With three years to go in his term, it seems that constructive criticism would be more suitable than the dirty laundry Gates is exposing in his book, “Duty.”

Weather hysteria is not productive

God bless the Michigan’s Mackinac Center for Public Policy — again — for decrying the excesses of governmental officials.

This time is cites hysterical weather-related traffic pleas and restrictions, citing examples from public officials in Lansing and Indianapolis.

The public didn’t need much encouragement to skip work or school, impeding progress, commerce and economic recovery along the way. But if a mature adult knows his automobile is functioning well and the roads are clear, he or she ought to be able to make short trips to the library or grocery store, or show up at work.

Kudos to Oakland government on Monday for telling county employees if they weren’t going to make it to work, they needed to take a personal day.

And if wind, rain, snow or sleet couldn’t stop delivery of U.S. mail, apparently the cold temperatures could, even in areas where mailboxes were accessible in West Bloomfield Township.

The day’s normal activities — school, work,  buying and selling — benefit all of us. Stay safe, yes.  But let’s add some common sense. Adults in a democratic society only need advice; they do not need to have their freedoms taken away.

Extend jobless benefits, but pay for it

Extending unemployment benefits for three months ought to be a non-controversial proposition, but that’s also true about the notion of paying for it.

Democrats say simple compassion makes the issue an emergency. But our national debt is an emergency too, and we shouldn’t be adding to it.

The unprecedented extension is necessary due to the weak pace of our economic recovery, but that should be blamed, at least partially, on politicians of both parties. While it is true economists disagree on the importance of reducing — or at least not adding to — the  $17-trillion national debt, the risks of not seriously addressing it are certainly greater than any temporary cost of dealing with it.

We have seen the evidence of economic collapse due to profligate public spending in places like Greece, Cyprus and Detroit. And when the crisis comes, there is little warning, just as there was little warning for the financial crisis of 2008.

What U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said the other day about extending the benefits may not have been popular, but he at least was one of the few in Congress with the courage to say it.

“What I have always said is that it needs to be paid for, but we also need to do something for long-term unemployed people and that is we need to create something new that would create jobs,” Paul told ABC News.

“So what I’d like to do when we get back is one, if we extend it we pay for it, but two, we add something to it that would create jobs … I do think, though, that the longer you have it, that it provides some disincentive to work, and that there are many studies that indicate this,” Paul said. “So, what I’ve been saying all along, we have to figure out how to create jobs and keep people from becoming long-term unemployed.”

The price tag to the government for extending the benefits is $6.5 billion. It can easily be paid for with agreed-upon reforms of the nation’s farm subsidy program, reductions in military spending or cuts to non-essential bureaucratic programs in the Departments of Education or Transportation.

Congress ought to be able to get this done, but the temptation to play politics with the issue may be formidable.

Religious liberty at stake? Really?

If you look at the actual facts of the case in which the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged claims that the federal government is infringing on its religious liberty, any fair person can see how frivolous the arguments are.

The case revolves around the government’s requirement that employer group health insurance policies provide access to birth control services.

Religious organizations are exempt from the requirement if they choose. It’s that simple. All they have to do is fill out the form and give it to their insurance carrier.

The insurance carrier is then required to offer the service to employees, if it qualifies for any government assistance. The service is, in essence is then paid for through government subsidy and not the policy holder, in this case Little Sisters.

However, in this particular case, the insurance carrier also qualifies as a religious institution and, thus, is not forced to provide the contraceptives coverage.

The Little Sisters argue that the very act of filling out a form that in other circumstances would allow the insurer to provide the services violates the organization’s religious liberty.

We’re splitting hairs here folks.

Religious liberty, like personal liberty, does not free a person or group from the necessity to comply with laws in general. We are all subject to the law.

Actually, the government itself defines religious liberty. As Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. points out in his argument in the case, it is the Internal Revenue Service that defines religious employers. The IRS code spells out the definition of non-profit organizations regarding, as Verrilli states, “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, conventions or associations of churches, and the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.”

The Little Sisters organization claims the regulations governing contraceptives “violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 … which provides that the government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless the application of that burden is the least restrictive means to advance a compelling governmental interest.”

Notice that the verbiage gives the government — which is, after all, the people — rights too. “Compelling governmental interest.”

As Verrilli points out, courts previously have held that to qualify as an infringement, the alleged violation must be  “indisputably clear.”

RFRA itself defines infringement as an act that “substantially” burdens a person’s exercise of religion.

Let fair-minded individuals weigh in on this case. Read Verrilli’s argument. Then decide whether you really think the Obama administration is an enemy of religious liberty.

At this writing, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has issued a retraining order that sides with Little Sisters. She can either rule on the case’s merits herself or refer it to the court as a whole.

The case proves two things. First of all,  any constitutional guarantees are worthless if you have a bad government.

Secondly, regardless of how this case comes out, it illustrates that the United States is a world model for religious liberty. All the Little Sisters have been asked to do to claim their freedom of conscience is sign a paper.

Is that unreasonable? You be the judge, but in fairness, read Verrilli’s argument first.

Mental health courts: Real achievement for Michigan

Although many states beat Michigan to the punch in creating mental health courts,  officials from all branches of government should  nevertheless be commended for finally embracing the concept.

Thousands — perhaps tens of thousands — of people will benefit as a result.

It is well known that too many victims of mental illness end up in our criminal justice system when what they really needed was treatment, not punishment.

Mass shootings, like those at Sandy Hook school in Newtown, Ct., appear to be persuading the general public that ignoring mental health as a policy issue can lead to horrible disasters.

The basic idea of a mental health court is to allow suspects suffering from mental illness to be able to appear before judges in a setting where their special conditions can be addressed. 

Michigan has been methodical in its approach. It tested the idea of mental health courts in pilot counties, including Oakland and Macomb. Then officials empirically studied the outcomes. 

A three-year evaluation of 10 Michigan mental health courts found that participants re-offend at significantly lower levels than comparable groups of offenders who do not participate in the mental health courts.

The evaluation, which was conducted by the State Court Administrative Office, found that one year after starting the program, mental health court participants’ recidivism rate was 300 percent lower compared to similar offenders. The difference persisted even after the courts no longer supervised the offenders: 30 months later, over a year after graduation, participants had a recidivism rate of 18.97 percent, compared to 43.22 percent of the comparison group.

Mental health court participants also enjoyed improved mental health, education and job outcomes, the survey found.

“... Results show that mental health courts have reduced recidivism, improved medication compliance, improved quality of life, and assisted participants in averaging over 300 days of continuous sobriety prior to graduation,” the SCAO report states. The mental health courts show good outcomes even for mentally ill offenders with substance abuse problems, who “are generally believed to be especially difficult to rehabilitate,” the report adds.

State Court Administrator Chad C. Schmucker said that the survey, which followed 331 mental health court graduates, provides “evidence that these programs really do work.”

“The central premise of mental health courts is that, by addressing the offender’s mental health issues, we can prevent future crimes and also help the offender become a contributing member of society,” Schmucker said.

Lt. Gov. Brian Calley last week signed a four-bill package of legislation allowing for the expansion of Michigan’s the program.

Calley was appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder to serve as chairman of the Michigan Mental Health and Wellness Commission. He also is chairman of the Mental Health Diversion Council, which is housed within the Michigan Department of Community Health and provides recommendations for ensuring that offenders with mental health or substance abuse issues receive appropriate treatment rather than jail time. This legislation is a key component of the council’s plan.

“The most effective and humane way to deal with the problem of recidivism is through a comprehensive system of ‘smart justice’ that recognizes the connection between enforcement and prevention,” Calley said. “Mental health courts play a critical role in that system. They have demonstrated their value by ensuring public safety, easing the strain on our corrections system and providing mentally ill offenders with needed treatment. Allowing for the creation of additional mental health courts is both compassionate and cost-effective. Breaking the cycle in which jail becomes a revolving door for mentally ill offenders means a safer, healthier Michigan.”

Concerning the legislation, HB 4694, whose chief sponsor was Rep. Ken  Cotter of Mt. Pleasant, sets forth relevant definitions for mental health courts and the process for creating a mental health court. A circuit or district court may adopt such a program by statute or through court rules.

 HB 4695, whose chief sponsor was Rep. Gail Haines of Waterford, statutorily creates mental health courts in Michigan. It sets forth the requirements for someone to complete a mental health program. An individual participating in the program must abide by all court orders

HB 4696, whose chief sponsor was Rep. John Walsh of  Livonia,  requires an individual to plead guilty or no contest to their criminal charges in order to be admitted to the program.

HB 4697, whose chief sponsor was Rep. Margaret O’Brien of Kalamazoo County, deals with the collection of data and expenditure of funds. Under the bill, each mental health court must collect data on each individual participant and the entire program as required by the State Court Administrative Office.

“Mental health courts have proven to provide mentally ill individuals in the criminal justice system with a solution to their illness instead of incarceration,” Haines said. “The corrections system is not the most appropriate venue to address the mental health needs of individuals, and too often their needs go unattended. These reforms will save the taxpayers money, and more importantly provide the proper rehabilitation of offenders and allow them to become productive citizens.”

 “This reform shows what good government can accomplish, especially when all three branches of government work as partners," Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert P. Young, Jr. said. "Michigan courts showed, through pilot programs, the worth of these mental health court programs in reducing recidivism and returning offenders to productive, responsible lives. The benefits — to the offenders, to their families, and to society — are far-ranging and profound. Mental health courts are changing lives."

Mental health courts, done the Michigan way, should benefit all of us. The executive, legislative and judicial branches of Michigan’s government deserve to be commended.

Wolf in sheep’s clothing subverts democracy

There’s a lot of fuss being made over 658 wolves in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. But what should be of concern to everyone is the attempt to subvert the democratic process in the state.

In March 2013, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, a coalition of animal welfare groups, conservationists, veterinarians, business owners, faith leaders and Native American tribes, submitted more than 255,000 signatures of Michigan citizens allowing voters to decide in the November 2014 election if the wolf should be designated as a game animal.

Now, the gathering of those signatures is no easy feat. It involved a lot of hard work by dedicated volunteers. To be sure, there may have been financial backing involved in gathering the signatures, but it is fairly certain we’re not talking about plutocrats here.

Before the people even had an opportunity to vote on the issue, legislators and the governor hastily approved  PA 21, allowing the  Natural Resources Commission to designate the wolf and other protected animals as game species, a decision that could not be overturned by the voter referendum process. So the wolf-protection group launched a second petition drive in August 2013 to overturn PA 21.

The group has a March deadline to gather the some 250,000 signatures required. But this attempt to have voters settle the issue also could be sabotaged.

Another group, Citizens for Wildlife Protection, has launched an initiative that, among other things, would solidify the role of NRC in designating game animals. Oh, it has a high-falutin name, the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, but basically it is designed to protect the hunting lobby. An initiative is different than a referendum, and requires more signatures, but basically gives the legislature time to enact the requested law before the issue is placed on the ballot. There is a good bet lawmakers would do so, caving to the gun and hunting lobbies.

“The group behind this petition drive has no intention of putting the initiative on the ballot, because they know that the people of Michigan do not support the trophy hunting of wolves,” said Jill Fritz, director of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected. “Legislators are afraid to let the people of Michigan vote. They’d rather put their trust in the bureaucrats of the Natural Resources Commission, who will be sure to grant the wishes of big game and trapping interests.”

The issue here is not the issue, folks. Whether you are for or against hunting wolves is beside the point. The point is citizens ought to have the right to vote on and settle the matter. Hiding behind legalities to subvert the will of the people is exactly the type of thing that frustrates people with the democratic process. Eventually, the people will get their act together and take power away from the lobbyists and politicians. It would be better for the process if folks could settle such issues amicably.