Elderly and Homeless and Poor, Oh My!

October is upon us, and as is the case each October, the month promises to provide an assortment of ghouls, goblins, and ghastly specters that incite dread and fear in young and old alike. October brings with it not only ghosts and Jack-O-Lanterns, but also a new session of the Supreme Court. This Halloween season, politicians and liberal lawyers are making it a point to frighten three groups in particular: the elderly, the homeless, and the poor, into thinking they are in danger of losing their right to vote. Such notions are as fictional as the Headless Horseman, but that fact is easily obscured through scare tactics worthy of the most chilling spook alley.

One of the cases the court will review involves the constitutionality of Indiana's state law requiring voters to present a form of photo identification to prove their identities at local polling stations. The law was challenged by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party immediately after its passage in 2005. Both moved quickly to stir up fear by declaring that the law would limit the right to vote among the elderly, the homeless or disabled, and of course the poor. The tactics used by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party were simple and stolen directly from the Democratic playbook for fighting Social Security reform: scare the elderly into believing their benefits will disappear at the hands of nasty conservatives and then sit back and watch them flood Congress and newsrooms with angry letters and voice mail. The "right" to Social Security is perhaps the most cherished American "right," second only to the right to vote. Most of the time the two are related, as elections that promise to have the most impact on Social Security are also the elections with the greatest voter turnout.

The irony is that the ACLU and Democrats who oppose the voter identification laws are remarkably ignorant of the host of government services that already require that the elderly, homeless, and poor possess a form of government-issued identification before they can obtain them. A visit to a Social Security Office for any kind of service, even for registering a newborn baby for a Social Security number, requires government-issued photo identification, and in some cases multiple forms of identification.

As for the homeless, a group that one would expect not to consistently carry any form of identification, most cities issue benefit cards that require at least some identifying information. For example, Santa Monica, California, an affluent and intensely liberal city with miles of beautiful beachfront properties, is a Mecca for the homeless. Mild coastal weather and generous available services have swelled the ranks of the homeless in Santa Monica, resulting in large gatherings and lines at city buildings. Yet even liberal Santa Monica issues public service identification cards to its homeless population. This identification serves three purposes: one, it allows workers at shelters to distinguish between those who have registered with the city as homeless and those who have not; second, it allows Santa Monica's Police Department to have a means for identifying homeless residents in the event they violate laws or if they are victimized by crime themselves; third, it allows homeless residents to obtain other city services, such as libraries.

In exchange for city services, the homeless agree to register for free for a Santa Monica identification card. Those who do not wish to do so simply move on to a city without such a requirement. Yet most stay and enjoy the benefits offered to them. As Santa Monica is their official place of "residence" established by their city-issued card, they can obtain a Post Office box or similar service which further establishes that they have a local mailing address and reside in the city. At California polling locations, that combination is usually already sufficient to allow them to vote. What then is the hardship for the homeless in making the city-issued card they already willingly obtain at no cost into a free photo identification they can take to the polls?

Opponents argue that requiring the elderly, homeless, and poor to obtain government-issued photo identification presents a hardship because people in these voter classifications have difficulty navigating bureaucracy. These groups should be insulted by such a claim. The Social Security bureaucracy is considerably challenging, yet millions of elderly Americans somehow obtain the services they need despite the daunting bureaucracy. State and federal welfare programs surely contain the most complex requirement and eligibility rules known to man and endless bureaucracies to administer them, yet millions of needy families have applied for and obtained public assistance services far more challenging than filling out one form and getting a picture taken for a free voter identification card.

The low opinion liberals have of the elderly, homeless, and poor is as evident in this fight as it is in affirmative action and other liberal entitlement programs. They consistently underestimate the abilities and intellectual capacities of entire segments of the population while claiming their actions are for the "good" of these groups.

The key factor is that if something is sufficiently important to someone, he or she will find a way to navigate endless layers of bureaucracy to obtain it.

Opponents of Indiana's voter identification law would have us believe that the elderly, homeless, and poor are incapable of filling out a form for a free card, sitting for a picture, and taking the card home with them for use at their polling stations. The Indiana law even includes provisions that would exempt the disabled or those living in rest homes or assisted care facilities from the photo identification requirement. Let's be clear then that the ACLU and Indiana Democrats do not consider mobile, self-sufficient elderly residents, homeless people, or poor people smart enough to obtain a free identification card.

These opponents also set forth the claim that requiring photo identification places an undue financial burden on poor voters, because driver's licenses and state identification cards involve fees ranging in some states from $10 to $30. They raise the racial specter of the old Southern poll taxes and accuse conservatives who support the identification law of attempting to "disenfranchise" minority voters. To refute such a claim, most of the 26 states requiring photo identification at polling stations offer free voter identification cards. Where then is the financial hardship on the poor in obtaining a free card to take to the polls?

It is impossible to honestly identify any classification of legal voters who would be "disenfranchised" by being required to show photo identification. Certainly the elderly, homeless, and poor have already obtained far more complex services, all of which required some form of government-issued identification. Yet the media continues to portray voter identification as "a move that can limit participation of the elderly and poor in elections." The NAACP refers to identification requirements as "undue burdens" on voters, but offers no convincing evidence of that claim. States requiring voter identification have already made accommodations for the disabled, have made the cards available at no cost, and have made it no more difficult to obtain than any of the other public services these "disenfranchised" groups already have applied for successfully.

To claim otherwise is a political scare tactic in this season of sinister spooks.

Technorati Tags:
Indiana, Voter Photo Identification, Disenfranchisement, Supreme Court, Voter Registration Laws, Constitutionality, Entitlement Programs, Liberals

Summer Intern Wilts ABC Poll Headline

ABC News can hardly be blamed for getting a headline backwards. After all, news is a serious business and with so many important events out there to cover it is easy to be distracted by other, more intriguing stories that arise. Apparently ABC News employees were focused so intently on one particular human interest story, that when it came time for them to frame a headline for a comparatively dry article reporting poll results on the public’s perceptions of the Supreme Court, they mistakenly concluded that thirty percent was a more significant number than seventy percent. What was the cause of the distraction?

When news spread through ABC News offices that a summer intern had posted nude pictures of herself on the Internet and may have even posed in college for Playboy, ABC News employees threw themselves into a feverish online search for the highly sought-after intern images. ABC News information management officials noticed a spike in employee visits to adult Internet sites and were forced to send an email to all employees reminding them that surfing adult sites during work time was discouraged. According to the New York Daily News which broke the story reported that ABC News had approximately seventy summer interns and ABC News employees were not sure which intern was the alleged Internet vixen. Thus, employees were captured in the web (no pun intended) of adult Internet sites and the natural human desire to solve a mystery.

So what resulted at ABC News from this nearly institution-wide loss of concentration? ABC headline writers apparently pulled themselves away from their surfing long enough to skim the results of an ABC-Washington Post poll that asked Americans whether they thought the Supreme Court was too liberal, too conservative, or balanced. In their clearly hasty review of the poll statistics, they crafted this misleading headline: “Three in 10 call SCOTUS ‘Too Conservative.’” The statistic itself was not misleading, but the choice to emphasize the thirty-one percent of Americans who felt the court was too conservative over the sixty-nine percent who did not, certainly was calculated to create the impression among readers that the court is too conservative. The ABC report also implied that the court had become too conservative since the additions of justices Roberts and Alito.

What the poll results actually revealed was that forty-seven percent believed the Supreme Court was balanced in its political ideology, with eighteen percent stating the court was still too liberal despite Roberts’ and Alito’s influence. When sixty-nine percent of Americans in a poll jointly constructed and conducted by two left-leaning news organizations state that the court is not too conservative, liberals should give close attention to what that statistic portends for their political futures, as it strongly implies that a significant majority of Americans would approve of the selection of additional conservative justices when further openings occur. If ABC News employees had given as much attention to selecting a headline that emphasized what the poll results actually indicated rather than how they wanted those statistics to be interpreted by readers, the headline would have been quite different.

Senator Chuck Schumer (NY-D) was so convinced of the court’s alleged conservative imbalance that he referred to the court as “dangerously imbalanced,” and called on fellow Democrats to block all future court nominees from President Bush because the current court is “ultraconservative.” Schumer’s inflammatory exaggeration of the court’s ideological makeup was based on his objection to the court’s reversals of decisions made by previously liberal-dominated courts. Schumer’s math is shoddy at best and disingenuous at worst. Conservatives on the Supreme Court hold a 5-4 majority, but even conservatives complain that the court did not move far enough to the right or center even with the additions of Alito and Roberts. When conservatives hold only a one vote majority on the court, use of the term “ultraconservative” is blatantly inaccurate. Apparently when a court votes to reverse unconstitutional decisions of prior courts, such as affirmative action programs that differentiate between races, colors, or other factors prohibited by the constitution, that is “ultraconservative” to Schumer. Perhaps that explains why sixty-nine percent of Americans still feel the court is not too conservative, leaving room for it to move even further to the right in restoring constitutionality to the court’s decisions.

If the adage is true that if you tell people something often enough it becomes truth, then ABC News and Senator Schumer are working diligently to create a fictional truth about the court. Both are attempting to convince Americans of an ideological imbalance on the Supreme Court when in fact no such imbalance actually exists. Then again, ABC News employees were also desperately searching for Internet intern photos that may or may not exist. Chasing desirable mirages, whether they be summer interns or poll statistics that don’t quite fit the liberal argument, appears to be the currently preferred activity for ABC News staffers. Along with emails warning employees about surfing adult Internet sites, ABC News should advise staff to match headlines with the actual content of their news stories.


Technorati Tags:
ABC News, Supreme Court, Summer Interns, Chuck Schumer, Conservative Court, Poll Results, Misleading Headlines

America and China Move Steadily in Opposite Directions

America is becoming China, while China is becoming America. As one who came of age during the Cold War and was inspired by Ronald Reagan’s aggressive fight to roll back Communism, I read my opening statement with equal parts dismay and disgust. As I examined an article appearing in today’s online Washington Post, I was struck by the truly remarkable irony in the events the report described.

Maureen Fan’s article, “China Legislature Introduces Property Law” caught my eye as I scanned the Post, and my heart was filled with hope as I read the following excerpts from the article:

In preparation for likely approval, China's legislature on Thursday began examining a much-debated law that helps protect private property in an increasingly well-off society.

Though the Communist Party still believes the state owns all land, the growing economy has meant that private property "has been increasing with each passing day" and the protection of it is the "urgent demand of the people," the draft legislation states.

"As the reform and opening-up and the economy develop, people's living standards have improved in general, and they urgently require effective protection of their own lawful property accumulated through hard work," said Wang Zhaoguo, Deputy Chairman of the National People's Congress, in introducing the latest draft of the measure to the legislature.

Individuals shall own "their lawful incomes, houses, articles for daily use, means of production and raw materials," the legislation states. "Lawful deposits and investments of individual persons and the gains derived from their investments shall be protected by law." Illegally taking possession or destroying any such property is forbidden.

Of course, China has not renounced Communism or state ownership of land, but the significance of this legislation that appears headed for approval should not be underestimated. China’s government according individual ownership rights to personal property, financial accounts, investments, profits, and “means of production and raw materials” would be perhaps the most important move toward human rights it has made in recent memory. The Communist government appears to realize that its economy relies heavily on private investments, and keeping investors happy is critical, even if doing so requires loosening state control over personal property.

According to Fan’s research, it has taken Chinese activists 14 years to move the pending legislation to this point, but they are optimistic that economic reality will secure final approval. Economics wields a powerful influence over property rights policies, and governments tend to be at the mercy of those who create and maintain consistent revenue sources. If granting and protecting personal property rights appeases China’s growing wealthy entrepreneurial class, the Communist government may consider that as a small price to pay to maintain its hold on other aspects of Chinese governance.

It may take another 14 years, but the next step for China’s property rights advocates will focus on land ownership rights which, as America’s Founding Fathers understood, establish true freedom for individual citizens who could not be removed from their dwellings or livelihood by government. China’s property rights activists recognize that they have made great strides with the personal property legislation, but the fundamental right to the land itself is the ultimate goal:

“As long as the problem of land ownership is not solved, conflicts on unfair land seizure cannot be avoided. Since land is in the hand of the government, a developer can bribe an official and make the official claim that the land is seized for public use," said Liu Xiaobo, a leading political dissident and literary critic. "If the developer could get the approval from the official, he is legally entitled to seize the land."

Still, Liu said the legislation had benefits. "This is the first law in our country for property protection. The public can at least cite a specific law when their property rights are violated," he said.

Though China's Constitution states that "lawful private property is inviolable," farmers and even city dwellers are routinely forced from their homes when developers and local officials decide the property is more profitable as an apartment block, government building or major shopping mall.

As I read the quoted paragraphs above, my initial excitement at witnessing China moving, albeit slowly, in the direction of increasing individual property rights was dampened by the contrasting direction in which America is heading when it comes to this same issue of property rights. As China prepares to approve extended rights, America, the great champion of human rights and liberty, is experiencing a steady increase in seizures of privately owned land by local governments, only to see that same land given to developers who promise huge increases in tax revenue from profitable commercial developments or high density residential housing.

The concluding paragraph of Fan’s article, as quoted above, ironically described precisely what is currently occurring in China and America. The difference lies in the fact that China is moving slowly away from such land seizures, while America, compliments of the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London (CT), is moving steadily in the opposite direction.

In July 2005, popular radio and TV personality Larry Elder wrote a powerful commentary for World Net Daily in which he provides examples of eminent domain land seizures and how, despite nearly unanimous public opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the pace of seizures by local governments is increasing as they seek to secure a larger tax revenue base in their communities. Lest one think that these seizures only happen to owners of “blighted” or “deteriorating” properties, Elder included the example of the Gamble family in Norwood, OH, whose home for 35 years was anything but blighted:

I interviewed Joy and Carl Gamble on my nationally syndicated radio program:

Joy: Six months after we retired, we opened up the newspaper and found out this developer ... wants our neighborhood. We had a nice home and a lovely neighborhood ... we were not a slum. We were not a threat to the health and welfare of Norwood.

Larry: The City Council said your neighborhood is deteriorating and blighted.

Joy: "Deteriorating" is so broad. ... Everybody's home is deteriorating. And now by this ruling by the Supreme Court, we are all renters. Nobody owns their home. ... Matter of fact, we're worse than renters – we're serfs.

Larry: Higher tax base, more revenue for the city, so the heck with Joy and Carl Gamble.

Joy: That's correct, and we lost our home. ... We had to flee or be evicted.

Larry: Did they offer you fair market value?

Carl: Yes ... but we haven't touched the money.

Larry: You don't want the money. ... You weren't going down to Florida and retire. You want to stay in your home.

Carl: That's what we told them.

Larry: They're offering you twice, three times, what they first offered you, Joy, and you're not taking it?

Joy: It's not a question of money. It's our home ... money does not buy everything.

Yet money was the prevailing factor that led to the city’s seizure of the Gamble’s home. The city reportedly was seeking an annual $2 million tax revenue increase in order to balance the city’s budget.

The Gamble’s were evicted, moved to Kentucky, but continued their legal battle. In 2006 the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Gamble’s as co-plaintiffs, but it was too little too late to save their neighborhood, as reported by USA Today: the 3 plaintiffs’ houses were “the only houses left in what used to be a neighborhood of about 70 middle-class homes.” Residents in other states have lost similar battles. Remarkably, the ACLU, NAACP, and the AARP have all filed briefs on behalf of threatened land owners, yet the seizures nationwide continue at an ever increasing rate.

Government attempts to seize private land on behalf of private developers were already increasing prior to the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision. As Elder wrote:

Most Americans, no doubt, assume that this rarely happens. But according to the Institute for Justice, it occurs far more often than we think. From 1998 to 2002, government, at all levels, used eminent domain to acquire, or attempt to acquire, private property for private purposes on over 10,000 occasions.

As I reread Elder’s WND commentary, the contrasting influence of economics, positive in China and negative in America, was troubling. While Chinese activists struggle to acquire property rights America once held inviolable, America’s local governments are slapping long-time residents and even churches with eviction notices and eminent domain condemnation declarations. The city of Sand Springs, OK, set its sights on a local church that serves the local black community. The church building, only 7 years old and reportedly in good condition, stood in the way of a proposed commercial development anchored by a Home Depot. Churches are particularly endangered by eminent domain seizures because the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision established that economic improvement was sufficient justification. Churches are tax exempt and thus produce no revenue for cities. In the minds of many city councils, nearly any tax revenue producing enterprise would be of more value than a church.

Although I disagreed with many legal decisions made by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I applauded her dissent in the Kelo decision. She understood the incredible danger inherent in the court’s decision, and in her forceful dissent, warned Americans that:

The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. . . .

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

America and China appear to be passing each other on the property rights highway, heading in opposite directions, both motivated by the desire for money. Unless the trend in America is reversed, in coming years my Cold War generation may witness the advent of greater property rights in Communist China than in the “land of the free."