Resolution of situation in Syria

Dear Mr. President,

I am sending this to the President of the United States, the President of the Russian Federation, and the President of Syria
(via the Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations).

I am greatly encouraged by your current efforts to resolve the problem of chemical weapns in Syria without using military force. In my opinion, the best way to accomplish this goal is for Russia to propose a UN Security Council resolution as follows:

1. Syria will immediately become a signatory to the 1997 Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC).
2. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will dispatch inspection teams to Syria as soon as possible to secure all chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities with the cooperation of the Government of Syria.These teams should be composed of not more than 10% of members from the United States.
3. Due to the ongoing conflict, the United Nations will assemble forces to protect and defend the OPCW teams. These forces should be composed of units from many countries, with probably most of them from the Russian Federation (since the Russian Army is known to be competent in the handling and transport of these weapons), with the United States providing air superiority and logistical support, but no ground forces. The UNPF forces will not intervene in the civil struggle in Syria, but will only defend the OPCW teams and themselves.
4. The chemical weapons shall be transported from Syria to
internationally-agreed sites for destruction. Chemical weapons
production facilities shall be demolished or rendered inoperable.

I believe that this path will lead to a solution to the current
situation which is acceptable to the international community and with minimal chance of loss of non-combatant life.

Thank you for your time,

Intervention in Syria

Sent to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Sen. Brian Schatz, and Sen. Maize Hirono

I understand that the use of chemical weapons by the Bashir Assad regime in Syria is a serious affront to international norms of behavior and must be addressed by the community of nations. I also understand that, due to statements made by President Obama, the reputation and resolve of the United States are on the line on this issue. I wish, however, to urge extreme caution before the United States takes any unilateral action in this matter.

While it appears to me - a citizen without access to any classified data -
that the evidence indicates that the Assad regime (or elements within the regime) did indeed initiate the August chemical attacks, the sense of urgency surrounding this enter question is disturbingly reminiscent of the buildup to the Iraq war in 2003. Then, as now, we were told that US intelligence agencies had strong evidence to justify our proposed actions, which evidence later proved to be incorrect.

While I am glad that President Obama has asked for authorization from Congress for any proposed action against Syria, I urge you to require strong international support for any military strike. The United States is not the policeman for the world - if the community of nations objects strongly to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, any punitive action should be truly international in scope and in composition.

As far as I can see, there is no imminent threat to the United States or our interests from Syria, and no need for precipitate unilateral action. I also fail to see how any type of remote strikes can effectively "punish" the Assad regime for the alleged chemical weapons attacks. It would be difficult to destroy the existing chemical stockpiles (without releasing and dispersing the agents) with anything less than a JDAM or nuclear attack, either of which would probably result in many civilian casualties - which are exactly what we are trying to prevent. Destruction of C&C facilities would hamper the regime's military operations, but wold not preclude subsequent use of chemical weapons - and what do we do then?

The threat here is non-existent. The mission is unclear. The consequences are unknown. In this situation, in my opinion we should authorize military force only in response to a UN Security Council resolution. I agree with UN Secretary Ban that any other attack against a nation which has not attacked us is a violation of the United Nations Charter and thus illegal under international law. How can we claim to be upholding international law (prohibiting chemical weapons use, even though Syria is not a signatory) while at the same time flauting international law by attacking a Member of the United Nations in violation of the Charter?

I urge you to vote against any use of US military forces against Syria unless in accordance with a UN Security Council resolution. The United States should never initiate military action against a nation which has not attacked, and as far as we know has no intention or capability of attacking, us.

Sincerely,
Henry Stilmack

Assault Weapons and other matters

Dear Sen. Reid,

While I realize that, as Senator from Nevada, your primary obligation is to the citizens of Nevada, it is in your capacity as Senate Majority Leader - which is a position with national implications - that I address these remarks to you.

I can understand from a political standpoint that you would prefer not to bring Bills to the floor of the Senate unless you believe they will ultimately pass, but how many more mass shootings will it take for Congress to actually do something? We had an "assault weapons" ban for 10 years, and I can't see that it did any damage to the Republic. Some issues are so important that, even if you do not think a Bill will pass, there is value in forcing a vote on it so Senators will be on the record.

We are always being told that, as citizens, the way we can counter the influence of lobbyists is by bringing pressure on our Representatives and Senators. We cannot do that, however, if they do not get to (or have to) vote on issues! There is no way for the public to hold our Legislators accountable if they never do anything.

In my opinion, there are several issues that deserve a vote. Senator Feinstein's amendment is just one of them. Why not break out the various gun control proposals into separate Bills, and schedule up-or-down votes in them individually? At least, that way we would all know where our Legislators stand.

I am also very disappointed that no meaningful filibuster reform was done in this Congress. It is obvious that your "handshake agreement" with Senator McConnell is not going to work - the least you could do is force any Senator blocking a Bill or nomination to hold the floor, as Senator Paul did last week.

Please reconsider your decision to not bring Senator Feinstein's Bill up for a vote. The entire country would thank you.

Sincerely,
--
Henry Stilmack

Sent to Congress today

Dear [Sen. Akaka/Sen. Inouye/Rep. Hirono/Rep. Hanabusa],

I am writing to ask you, in the strongest possible terms, to stand firm with President Obama on the issue of raising the national debt ceiling. In the first place, raising the debt ceiling should not be held hostage to major budget restructuring - it should be, as it has been in the past, a simple housekeeping measure. Given that the Republicans in Congress have forced this wholly avoidable crisis on us, it is extremely important that any budgetary adjustments must include a revenue-enhancing component.

Those of us in the working class have been "sacrificing" for years - although not by choice. We have seen our incomes stagnate, or even decrease, while the prices for everything we need in our daily lives (food, fuel, utilities - especially here in Hawai`i) keep going up. Yet, we see hedge fund managers making billions and only paying a 15% tax rate, and major corporations, also making billions, and paying no taxes at all. How can this be fair?

Please, [$NAME], do not let the Republicans press us into a cuts-only solution here. Personally, I would like to see a dollar-for-dollar match between actual spending (appropriations) cuts and revenue enhancements. Actually, I'd like to see a clean bill to simply raise the debt ceiling, and deal with the deficit reductions later. Of course, I know that if you did that, Congress would never get around to doing that work - it seems that only a deadline with dire consequences can force action.

Sincerely,

Henry Stilmack

On a Personal Note...

Dear Mr. President,

I've been contacting you frequently of late with my thoughts regarding the nation's debt limit "crisis". Today, I'd like to express my concerns on a somewhat more personal level.

My wife and I form a middle class family unit. We are definitely in one of the bottom tranches of what can be considered middle class - my salary is a little less than $100,000 per year, and my wife gets a whopping $650 per month from Social Security. I have good health insurance coverage through my employer (and thanks to Hawaii's health insurance laws), and my wife is covered by Medicare.

Mr. President, we are hurting. Five years ago, we were able to make our mortgage, utility and consumer credit payments, buy groceries and gasoline, and occasionally splurge a little on small luxuries. We both drive older, paid-for vehicles. In those five years, my salary has increased less than 3% in total, while nearly all of our costs (food, utilities, insurance, fuel) have increased by 15% or more. At this point, we are lucky to have as much as $100 left in disposable income at the end of the month after paying bills and purchasing necessary food, fuel, etc.

Economists might say that inflation has been low, but they factor housing costs into their calculations - and we don't buy houses every year. In fact, the equity in our home has shrunk by at least 30% since 2005. The fact is (and as you know, especially in Hawaii where a small increase in fuel prices gets multiplied into an increase in the price of everything) that the cost of everything we need to live has been going up while our income has been steady, which translates to a net decrease in disposable income for people like us.

Right now, my wife's Social Security income, small as it is, is the only thing that is helping us keep our heads above water. Yet, you now say you are willing to consider cutting even that meager amount. Mr. President, we and those even less fortunate cannot afford any reduction in our income - especially while the top 1% of earners in this economy are amassing over 90% of the wealth.

Please, Mr. President, please defend these minimum safety-net programs. They are, literally, the difference between life and death for many of our citizens. Don't throw away the legacy of FDR, JFK, and even LBJ for some short-term political gain.

(Out of space again - this 2500 character limit is junk.)

Malama ka aina. Malama na kanaka.

Just Raise the Debt Limit, Already.

Dear Mr. President,

As we get closer to the deadline to raise the nation's debt ceiling, I am watching with dismay as all of the involved parties continue posturing without anyone producing a reasonable plan. As I have previously expressed to you, I wish you would insist on a "clean bill" to raise the debt limit - which we have to do - and then use the normal budget process to work out a deal to get the nation's deficit under control. It is shameful if the only way Congress can be persuaded to work constructively on a budget is to hold the process hostage to artificial deadlines that have nothing to do with it.

Really, Sir, we know that the debt limit has been raised twelve times in the last ten years. We know it is simply a bookkeeping measure. You and the congressional leaders are really not fooling any of us that this is some kind of dire, unprecedented emergency.

I am also dismayed by the idea that, once again, the most vulnerable among us are, based on all the proposals being discussed, going to be bearing the brunt of any spending cuts. We know, Mr. President, that Social Security is NOT a contributor to the deficit. We know that simply removing the FICA and Medicare payroll tax caps would make both those programs solvent well into the future, with plenty of time to seriously consider any needed modifications. Many of us feel that cutting student loans is one of the worst things we can possibly do. We do not want the Government to stop ensuring we have clean air, clean water, wholesome food, and safe drugs. We do not want the Government to stop enforcing safety practices for mines, offshore oil platforms, or any other industries.

What we want is for all Americans to pay their fair share. Eliminate the capital gains carry loophole, and tax all income as, well, income. Eliminate the subsidies and exemptions that allow major corporations to pay a lower effective tax rate than the average citizen. End the wars - NOW. Bring the troops home, and start closing overseas bases - we can no longer afford a huge military presence in Germany, Japan, and other places.

As a good starting point, why not revert the budget and the tax code to what they were in 2000? This would be before the Bush tax cuts, and before the doubling of the defense budget. Things weren't so bad then.

I've hit my 2500 character limit.

Malama ka aina. Malama na kanaka.

Some Advice

Dear Mr. President,

In my letter from yesterday, I admit I took you to task for your performance in office, and for your negotiating stance on the debt ceiling. Today, I'd like to offer some concrete suggestions.

First, go back to the normal process; that is, push for a bill to increase the debt ceiling (because it is necessary), and move all the negotiation over deficit reduction into the normal budgeting process, where it belongs (I realize we haven't had a budget for several years, but that's another topic). Please do not fall for Sen. McConnell's latest proposal - it's a trap. The Republicans would block any of your proposed spending cuts under that plan, and portray you as a "tax-and-spend Democrat" - as usual. Don't fall for it.

You could make a public statement that, if the debt ceiling is not raised, we will pay military and railroad pensions, Social Security, Medicare, and interest on outstanding debt instruments, because that is required by the Fourteenth Amendment. What will stop immediately are payments to non-essential Federal Employees - which includes all Congressional staff, Customs Inspectors (no imports), air traffic controllers (no flying at all), Interior Department employees (no mining, drilling, or forestry permits), Patents and Trademarks Office (no patents), etc. Maybe even announce a freeze to military salaries. Let the people, and more importantly, the Republicans' campaign contributors, know exactly how they will be affected. I bet the Congressional Republicans' tune would change, quickly.

Mr. President, you talk about "shared sacrifice" - but it always seems that the only ones sacrificing are those of us at the middle to bottom of the economic ladder. Let's eliminate all Tax Code spending first, then look at what else needs doing to reduce the long-term deficit. In any case, increasing the debt ceiling should not be held hostage to deficit reduction negotiations.

Please, Mr. President, stand firm on this issue. You have, too often, given up too much to the Republicans' extortive tactics. You need to tell them, this time, that it's not going to work. If you do, and explain it to the people, you will come out ahead. If you give in, you will be blamed for the inevitable hardships that will follow an "austerity" program - and that could lead to a Republican victory in 2012. I can't imagine what shape the country would be in after that - no matter which of them won.

Malama na kanaka. Malama ka aina.