A Citizen's Thoughts

Resolution of situation in Syria

2013-09-11T13:27:00.001-07:00

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

2013-09-04T16:00:00.001-07:00

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

2013-03-20T17:53:00.001-07:00

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

2011-07-26T13:16:00.000-07:00

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...

2011-07-22T17:36:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-07-21T18:26:00.001-07:00

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

2011-07-13T17:10:00.001-07:00

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.

Please, get your act together!

2011-07-12T18:46:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr President,

I was an early supporter in 2008. I had the first "Obama '08" yard sign in my neighborhood. For the first time in my life, I contributed my own money to your campaign. I had high hopes that, after the Bush decade, you would finally be able to start bringing this country back to what I've always thought were its core values - individual liberty, personal responsibility, respect for basic human rights, and compassion for the less fortunate among us.

I have to say I have been disappointed. You have failed to close the prison at Guantanamo; you have increased the US military presence in Afghanistan and have committed us to participate in a new war against Libya; you (in my opinion) squandered the opportunity provided by strong majorities in both Houses of Congress to pass a comprehensive universal health care program; you allowed the Bush tax cuts to be renewed; we still do not have any meaningful energy policy; and over 14 million Americans are still unemployed.

Now, the Republicans in Congress are threatening to bring about a potential financial catastrophe unless you agree to forgo any revenue-enhancing measures. Mr. President, we all know that the nation's deficit can never be decreased by spending cuts alone. They are trying to pressure you into draconian cuts to many important programs, after which they may, grudgingly, accept the elimination of some small tax expenditures.

Before considering cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs which primarily help those of us at the middle to bottom of the economic scale, please fight to eliminate all tax credits, allowances, and subsidies to corporations. Eliminate the capital gains loophole for hedge fund managers. Roll back the Bush tax cuts - on everyone, if that's the only way to do it. Bring the troops home. END THE DAMN WARS! Eliminate the FICA salary cap.

Mr. President, I will probably vote for you in 2012. I would like to do so because I think you are the best candidate, rather than the less disastrous alternative. I know that several people who were enthusiastic about your 2008 candidacy are feeling lukewarm, about 2012. I am afraid that, if you continue your current course, a large number of "natural Democrats" will just sit out the election, which could lead to your defeat. I don't want to see that, and I presume you don't either.

Remember: Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono. Malama na kanaka. Malama ka aina.

(You know, the 2500 character limit on the White House contact page SUX!)

Let the Tax Cuts Expire!

2010-08-04T16:44:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. President,

First, let me offer my sincere best wishes to you on your birthday. I hope you had a really good day.

My comment today regards the Bush Administration's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Since these are due to expire, absent Congressional action, at the end of the year, I suggest that you strongly encourage Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid to use all of the considerable resources at their
disposal to delay any vote on the issue. Force the Republicans to introduce any legislation extending the cuts, and in the Senate encourage the more liberal members to filibuster (real, old-style filibuster) any attempt to bring a bill to a vote before the end of the year. If you want to extend cuts to the middle class, do it in a separate bill next year.

Just my $.02 - as a member of the middle class I am perfectly happy to let *all* the cuts expire on schedule.

Sincerely,
Henry Stilmack

De-credential FOX News

2010-07-21T17:06:00.001-07:00

Please visit
http://act.truemajorityaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=103
and sign their petition:

Dear President Obama,

Thanks for offering Shirley Sherrod her job back. But this mess started because you let FOX News set the agenda of your Administration, and that's not OK.

To make sure that this never happens again, it's time to kick FOX out of the White House Press Corps. This is not a legitimate news organization. And they cannot be allowed to spread lies and misinformation that hurts innocent people.

It's time to draw the line - It's time to fire FOX, instead of honest public servants.

My comments:

FOX News has become a blatant advocacy organization. They employ "pundits" who are nothing more than far-right agitators, and spread multiple untruths on a daily basis. To consider them a legitimate journalistic organization is ludicrous - one might as well grant White House credentials to The Daily Worker (CPUSA) or The Kourier (KKK).

Energy Policy

2010-06-30T17:46:00.001-07:00

President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

With the focus of the nation on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, now is a perfect time to aggressively promote a policy aimed at weaning the United States off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Many observers are concerned that we are near (or, perhaps, past) the "peak oil" point, at which we can no longer increase the amount of oil we can extract from the planet. Petroleum is too important for many industries for us to be burning up our supply to produce energy and move people and goods. Other fossil fuels can be used in the short term to transition away from an oil-based energy economy, but our goal should be to produce over half of our energy needs from renewable resources within the next 50 years.

Many observers have noted that production from several of the deep wells in the Gulf is falling quite short (20-40%) of initial estimates. It is becoming increasingly difficult to discover new sources on land, and even in coastal waters, worldwide. It is an indisputable fact that, at
some point, we will run out of oil - and that point is getting closer every year.

In addition, our disproportionate reliance on oil for energy and transportation makes us hostage to foreign governments, not all of whom are particularly concerned about the health of our economy (except as it relates to the amount of oil we can buy from them). It is widely
supposed that the ulterior motive of the Iraq conflict was to secure the oil fields for US companies, and some suggest that the desire for a pipeline from the oil fields of Kazakhstan through to Pakistan is an underlying motive for a continuing US presence in Afghanistan. The
foreign policy implications for the United States are obvious, especially as the growing economies of China and India increase their consumption and thus come more into competition with us for the resources.

It will require a monumental engineering and research effort to convert the bulk of energy production in the United States to using renewable resources. We have, however, done things like this before - the Apollo and Manhattan Project programs are just two examples. We can do it again, if you strongly push a program.

As an interim measure, I suggest legislation to require all interstate truck operators (anyone who needs an ICC license) to convert their fleets to using natural gas by the year 2020. This would allow 10 years for the truckers to convert, and for someone - perhaps the current
gasoline distributors - to develop a network of natural gas fueling stations in parallel or co-located with existing gasoline stations. The automobile manufacturers could be incentivised with tax credits or loan forgiveness to create more cars that can run on natural gas (it's a
relatively easy conversion for existing vehicles - maybe a tax credit for consumers, too?). We burn 71% of our total petroleum for transportation (source: DOE Basic Petroleum Statistics, 2008) - any reduction in this use will greatly reduce overall demand.

Going forward, it is my belief that every home or apartment building in the United States should be encouraged to install solar water heating at minimum, and, where possible, photovoltaic systems. Water heating is approximately 12% of the average household's energy use - this could be cut to well under 10% by using solar heating. While there are existing
tax credits for this purpose, if we are serious about changing our energy profile, we should provide homeowners with a 100% tax credit for installing solar water heating or photovoltaic systems.

While the production of electricity uses a wide variety of fuels, and I realize the difficulties of providing a steady flow of electricity with most renewables, I believe we should work toward moving electric power production to natural gas, nuclear, and renewable sources as quickly as
possible. To accomplish this, a combination of cap-and-trade carbon credits and tax incentives for moving to cleaner sources can be used. Coal will continue to be a major fuel for electric power production for some time to come, but it has serious environmental problems and we
should work at reducing our need for coal, also.

I was one of your supporters in 2008 - in fact, that was the first year since 1972 that I was motivated enough to actually contribute to a campaign. I trusted that you had a new vision for America, that would move us into the new century and break some of the paradigms of the
past. Please continue to work for a clean energy future.

Sincerely,
Henry Stilmack
Papaikou, Hawaii

Drilling in the Gulf

2010-06-28T14:48:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr. President,

I realize that you probably will not see this email - some staffer will read it, possibly summarize its content for some other staffer, and you might get some of the content in an aggregate of public opinion. That's fine. I'll be sending these as ideas strike me, and I just hope that some of the ideas eventually reach you.

I support the 6-month moratorium on deep-water drilling for oil and gas.

I do understand that, for the workers on the 33 or so drilling rigs that would be suspended, and for the employees of companies that service those rigs, this is a real hardship - but the danger of continued drilling without a thorough evaluation of what happened to the Deepwater Horizon could create an even worse situation. This is simply one of the costs that BP is going to have to cover.

In addition to the moratorium, I propose that before any company is allowed to drill in deep waters (say, over 200 feet), all companies holding leases must set up a consortium charged with cleanup of any future leaks or spills. The consortium should have adequate resources (booms, skimmers, etc.), as well as adequate authority, to take charge of any future cleanup effort and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

Such a consortium could be funded by a relatively small levy on the companies involved. Since the existence of the consortium would relieve the companies of responsibility for spill cleanup, they should support it.

Please consider this idea - it's not earth-shaking, but I believe it could help in the future.

Sincerely,
Henry Stilmack
Papaikou, Hawaii