A Call for Open Government

In 1775, a nation was purportedly conceived behind a veil. Amidst the shut windows and closed doors of the Pennsylvania State House, 343 of the nation’s most stalwart citizens entered and exited the Second Continental Congress in what was legendarily secret. Here they managed a ballooning crisis with their fatherland, and, together, forged a common bond that founded a nation.

But those officials had something today’s do not – government accountability. The unjust taxes, the innocent citizen casualties, and the dismay of Great Britain were shared. It bridged a gap between citizen and government. Vital to this connection was the media, and the outcome of the American Revolution may have been substantially different without the honesty and clarity they transferred.

But this pivotal role did not cease at national foundation. William Lloyd Garrison was a beacon of morality that helped abolish slavery. Journalism raked through the unsanitary conditions of the early 20th Century food industry. Nary could an American dismiss Walter Cronkite as he delivered the Vietnam War to American television sets. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward used transparency to unearth Watergate. And, most recently, DrudgeReport.com revealed the shocking Whitewater scandal in 1998.

Though investigative journalism shed light on a litany of our government’s darkest secrets, Americans have come to accept a deeper veil of secrecy. Beginning September 11, 2001, many citizens became so terrified, they delivered Pres. Bush a blank check to protect us. There was little concern over what rights we lost or crimes we were about to commit.

And so, the blindness and shortsightedness of our government led us to war without evidence of weapons of mass destruction; to disobey The Constitution at Guantanamo Bay; to condone the atrocities committed by BlackWater mercenaries; and accumulate a deficit beyond imagination.

Slinging war money as though it were confetti is only the prelude to our morose economic climate. Undue tax relief complemented by bad loan industry oversight, shady banking procedures, and corporate bailouts doomed Americans without their knowledge. And here we stand, on the verge of collapse. A fall we knew little about.

The new incoming president has many difficulties to overcome, least of these being an open government. Barack Obama has resigned himself to the task, beginning Change.gov, a website dedicated to his administration’s tasks at hand, compiled in a Citizen’s Briefing Book.

But an e-book is just the beginning; the public is thirsty for more than rhetoric. They want honesty. Americans yearn to eliminate backroom, partisan politicking, and hope that the next decision to go to war or expunge previous policies is completed in public and not behind a veil. They want an environmental policy that is as realistic as it is idealistic, fair enough to keep jobs while improving an endangered environment. Americans want a government that will support them when health concerns arise rather than seek the political donations from the pharmaceutical industry. They want to feel safe from attacks and not threatened with their liberties. But most of all, Americans want to ascertain where their tax dollars are being spent. They want a government who helps them while accounting for every one of the hard-earned dollars it takes to accomplish that.

President Obama seems ready to the task at hand. He stated, in his inaugural address, “Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

Our Founders rebelled from a government who failed to bridge a gap between the people and their government, a government who kept them in the dark. Hope and change led an admirable mission to create the American democracy; only open government can relight that mission and make it admirable again.

Dollars & Democracy: The 2008 Election Highlights American Excess

Like a credit card bill from hell, first quarter fundraising reports showed an excessive amount of dollars collected for the 2008 presidential candidates. Senator Hillary Clinton leads the soon-to-be spending spree, having raised $36 million through the first three months of her campaign, quadrupling the record amount collected by Al Gore in 1999. Even John Edwards – the third place finisher in the Democratic primary – has eclipsed Gore’s numbers, raising a cool $13 million for his campaign; America still awaits for Barack Obama’s and Republican figures to be disclosed.

It has become safe to assume the 2008 presidential election will be costlier than any election in the history of our world. Spending will, undoubtedly, eclipse the $1 billion mark in this decisive race. Seems like an excessive amount of zeroes for a job that pays $400,000 per year, but it becomes even more extreme when one realizes $1 billion is a higher dollar amount than the entire GDP of 28 nations.

But people like Jonah Goldberg would have you think that this price tag is by no means intolerable. According to his March 28^th article in the Washington Post, “More money means more communication, more debate, more education. In other words, more democracy.”

More money does not mean more communication. More money means more bought votes, more you scratch my back while I throw dollars at yours. Money is to political campaigns what PowerBait is to the first day of fishing – you just have to continuously apply until you get every fish to bite, because they are all hungry. Plus more money usually means more painful, slanderous and repetitive advertisements; not what the Framers would consider a two-way communicative conduit.

Neither does more money mean more debate; it eliminates it. Today we hardly elect the candidate with the best ideas. We elect the candidate who gets our attention, and that usually comes at a price and with many purse strings. According to OpenSecrets.org, we elect the candidate with the biggest checkbook 97% of the time. This causes many deserving candidates to drop out of the race early simply because they cannot keep up with the fundraising. More money means less candidates and less debate.

And to believe that more money equals more education? Considering that 5% of voters elected Bill Clinton in 1992 because he played the saxophone or that 6.25% of voters placed George Bush in office in 2000 because he was a guy they could “sit down and have a beer with,” if we really wanted to educate the voters, we could do it in a much more effective and efficient manner than making signs and barraging them with tasteless, purchased propaganda.

Instead, political races should have a level political playing field. This nation was founded upon equal opportunity, and the current price tag of elections virtually eliminates any hopes of average citizens with great ideas to play in the same arena as the millionaires and billionaires that run the system and the corporations that sponsor them. Watch Bullworth or Man of the Year if you want to laugh at that biting but honest audacity.

Money has not enhanced our democracy, it has squandered it. The only way to solve this is to slowly take it back from campaign donors and pork-barrel spending projects and for every voter to look at their politician like they would their teenager with our national credit card. Call it "American Excess," because that is what money has done to our political system. If we neglect to watch it, recover it, and reinvent it, the great democratic system that was fine-tuned in this country and replicated around the world will not be every where we want it to be.

Gun Control Should be a Local Issue

December 7th, 2007, KeystonePolitics.com

Growing up in middle-state PA, I have a different interpretation of gun rights than some one from Philadelphia.

Like many others in central PA, I remember the first time I ever shot a gun. I was 15 years old, barely able to pull the trigger without wincing my face in fear of the violent kickback. Still, I eyed the target and fired sixteen times to pierce as many holes in the paper target dangling from its hanger.

Contrast this with a friend of mine from Philadelphia, a young man who grew up in a street gang. He remembers the first time he pulled a trigger: It was not to hunt game, and it wasn’t to fire at a piece of paper. His target was real. His target was a person on a drive-by homicide attempt.

We began talking about gun use, and – surprise! – both my friend and I had very different views on the topic. My friend believed that guns were evil – maybe even demonic – components of plastic and metal intended to do harm. I, on the other hand, noted gun sportsmanship and the self-defense that it provides.

This is the line that divided us; it has become the one that divides our legislature.

On the same day that the PA General Assembly Black Caucus vacated the House deliberation on gun control, a shooting spree erupted in Omaha killing 8 and injuring five. The two events, though autonomous, represent the problems and concerns associated with gun violence.

Any person – gun owner or not – should note that the government needs to take steps to ensure public safety everywhere in our Commonwealth. It is imperative that our elected officials protect our people from dangerous threats wielding a gun.

On the other hand, a huge portion of gun owning Americans – me included – have had no problems owning, maintaining, and bearing their firearms. They have obeyed the law and acted sensibly with the most powerful weapon the average American can own. This, in tandem with the basic rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, should continue to allow them the right to possess their fire arm, one that “should not be infringed.”

As the General Assembly debates state-wide gun control reform, ask your lawmaker to omit their vote. If and when a bill passes, it will be a diluted, powerless law that provides minimal protection to the public and becomes a hindrance to the common gun owner.

Gun control has not been a national issue, and it should not be a state-wide one. Gun control should be handled by the county and municipality one lives in. It shold be local, and local alone.

Only our local areas of residence, Philadelphia in my friend’s case and Carbon County for mine, understand how to best solve the problems associated with gun violence, if any. Giving the task to Harrisburg will not solve any problems. It will create more.