Semper Fidelis-often shortened to Semper Fi-is a Latin phrase meaning "always faithful." It's most commonly known as the motto for the United States Marine Corps. The phrase has taken on a new meaning for me as details about the poisoning of Marines and Marine Corps families who lived at Camp Lejeune, the United States' largest Marine base, have come to light. For decades, the Marine Corps dumped toxic waste in Lejeune which leached into the groundwater, affecting as many as one million Marines and their families.

Baby Heaven at Camp Lejeune

While many Marines directly suffered from the effects of carcinogens like Benzene that leached into the groundwater, the hardest hit may be the children who were born around Camp Lejeune. In a study done by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, kids born around Lejeune experienced a rate of birth defects and childhood cancers at five times the national rate. But no study can speak adequately to the existence of a section of the base's graveyard known as "baby heaven" where hundreds of sick and malformed babies have been buried.

For me, this story is more than an abstraction. I was born at Lejeune in the 1980s. My father joined the Marines to help pay for college, and he served for four years as an officer before returning to Harvard to get a second (and eventually a third) degree. My dad was stationed in Lejeune in 1989, and I was born on July 4th of that year--a fitting start for a Quaker peace activist. When I first read about this story in The Washington Post, it hit me right in the gut. Is this me? Could I be sick? How could this happen?

My dad during his Marine years.

One of the most disturbing parts of this story has been the failure of the military and the federal government to address this issue. The Marines have refused to even contact the people who might have been affected by the toxic dumping saying that it would be too large an undertaking. The Federal Government and the military have betrayed the men and women who proudly pledged "Semper Fi." Being faithful must be a two way street. The government has an overwhelming responsibility to care for the people who have sacrificed for their country.

And really, this responsibility for the government to be faithful to those whom allow it to govern doesn't end with the Marine Corps. It extends to every person under its care. Communities all around the United States face similar dangers. Communities in Pennsylvania and all along the East Coast face exposure to dangerous chemicals that are the byproduct of hydraulic fracturing, a practice for the harvesting of fossil fuels that causes some of the same chemicals that were dumped in Lejeune to leech into the groundwater. Dozens of communities on the Gulf Coast were devastated by the effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. These are only a few examples, but represent a larger problem-the government's refusal to adequately address environmental issues fundamentally puts people at risk.

Some Marines and their families are beginning to get some justice for what has been done to them as a recent documentary and congressional investigations shed light on what happened to them. Two bills are making their way through Congress which seek to do something for Lejeune families who were affected by the poisonings. But I wonder, would anyone have found it if those affected weren't military families? What if this same rash of death had happened in a place like Compton or Anacostia--poor, mostly black neighborhoods where public sympathies don't reach? Would members of Congress clamor for action? Would award-winning documentaries be made about it?

I am blessed. I was born in 1989, two years after the poisonings stopped. But this doesn't change the message I have taken from this story. The government must be always faithful for the basic health of its citizens, or we must faithfully change it.

Citations and Resources

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has approved legislation that would reverse President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. Politicians and pundits alike have been promoting the pipeline because there is a lot of profit to be made. However, in order for the project to be approved they have to convince the American people of all of the hollow benefits that the pipeline would provide. Every single one of those benefits is a deception. Let’s take a closer look at each.

Write to your member of congress, write a letter to an editor, talk to your friends, heck go ride a bike. Do what you can, while you can. It isn’t enough, particularly during the 112th congress, to assume that your elected representatives have your best interests in mind. In fact, that has never been enough, which is the nucleus of Democracy. At the heart if this issue lies nothing but the opportunity to turn a profit at the expense of American health, ecological integrity and agricultural productivity. This issue will set the precedent that will define America’s energy future.

This weekend Matt Southworth and I packed our bags and took our excitement about the upcoming young adult Spring Lobby Weekend on the road, touring the Tri-College Consortium of Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore. It's been great talking on the phone and emailing with people interested in the weekend, but we've also been wanting to speak with people in person.

At Swarthmore, we worshipped with young Friends in a beautiful meetinghouse, and Matt shared the story of his first experience lobbying--at Spring Lobby Weekend 2006, lobbying to end the Iraq war, in which he fought. Speaking about Spring Lobby Weekend after meeting for worship brought a gravity and a power to the conversation that sometimes can get muffled in an office environment. I found that leaving the office and talking with such energized and passionate students gave me a taste for what Spring Lobby Weekend must be like, on a much grander scale.

At Haverford, we met up with my fellow FCNL Program Assistant Emily Temple, and the three of us spoke with students interested in FCNL's internship, the young adult lobby weekend, and the FCNL priorities process by which meetings and groups of Friends weigh in on what policy issues matter to them. Students at Haverford's Quaker House hosted us for a wonderful dinner. I was inspired by the passion and detailed policy knowledge of students there.

At my alma mater Bryn Mawr, I was greeted warmly by faculty who know FCNL well, and students eager to learn more. In particular, political science majors were interested in FCNL's internship and the lobbying weekend. In conversation with some students about the war in Afghanistan (one of the issues of focus at this year's Spring Lobby Weekend) I discovered they had nearly up-to-the-minute knowledge of policy changes regarding the war. Spring Lobby Weekend is designed for people with all levels of knowledge about policy, but Spring Lobby Weekend will be a great opportunity for those students who are already passionate about ending the war in Afghanistan.

As well as getting students excited about Spring Lobby Weekend, one of the effects of the trip was that I am now very excited to spend a weekend with so many passionate, energized students!

Learn about Spring Lobby Weekend 2012, March 17-20.

In 2007, the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo received a lot of media attention. Prominent actors and U.S. officials traveled to the DRC and were shocked by the appalling situations in the hospitals and the testimonies of the rape victims. Their shock and concern was justified; rape and sexual violence were and are a horrific tactic of terror in the Congolese conflict.

This wave of shock was followed by a wave of financial support. Hospitals received equipment and medicine to aid rape victims. The international response to support victims of sexual and gender-based violence was astonishing. Health programs have increased the survival rates for victims, and charities provide many victims with means to supplement their income and gain access to basic services if they have experienced exclusion from their families and communities.

At the same time, however, other programs remain desperately underfunded. Other health issues remain unaddressed. Medical, STI and therapy treatments are often only available to female victims of rape. These initiatives should not be diminished, however they do not take the other victims of the conflict or the rape crisis into account. There is little to no aid for the victim's family members. A female rape victim can receive vaccinations or treatment for Sexually Transmitted Infections, however her partner or her male children cannot. As a result, some women who receive treatment are re-infected by their partners who do not have access to treatment. To receive vaccination for their children, some parents are even pushed to disguise their male children in dresses and hope that doctors will mistake them for girls.

Suddenly being a rape victim has benefits and enables access to aid unavailable to anyone else. This creates tension and jealousy within the communities. Some women give false reports of being raped to receive treatment they could not otherwise receive. As these tensions grow, they will increasingly become a source of potential conflict.

The Congolese government has little to no means or capacities to step in and fill these gaps. Assistance from abroad is direly needed. Much of the violent conflict in the DRC has moved beyond the point at which preventive policies can be effective. However, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) calls governments and international communities to three commitments: Prevent, Respond, Rebuild. And none of these responsibilities stand alone. The responses and efforts to rebuild must be structured in a way that they also prevent renewed atrocities.

Civil society and non governmental organizations provide a kind of focused, effective support that is irreplaceable. They are able to raise an enormous amount of valuable funding for specific causes, however government programs have a greater capacity to reach beyond the limits of specific donations. To fulfill the international responsibility to protect, we need to pair robust civil society programs with flexible government assistance.

More resources:

This blog post is a special edition guest blog written by Asha Warner, who volunteered at FCNL this winter. One of her projects was to call all of our Letter Writing Coordinators to learn how to improve our letter writing campaign. Please see below for a brief bio written by Asha.

I was rather nervous as I picked up the phone to dial the first on a long list of FCNL Letter Writing Coordinators and anxiously hoped that I wouldn’t blank on my prepared questions. Instead, a reassuringly chatty voice answered the phone, and my rather shaky introduction led into a seven-minute conversation with a kind woman who was delighted to talk to me. After nearly two-hundred of these calls, my nervous questions have steadied and my respect for the work which both FCNL and its participants do has grown.

The most common response I got when asking, “So, how has letter writing been going in general?” was a little chuckle. Most would go on to explain that they sent out emails detailing the FCNL causes and set up letter writing tables after worship or during potlucks. There were a few Friends who did astounding work--such as one man who traveled between three different Quaker meetings and collected letters which he then hand-delivered to several representatives around his state. Most people were also busy with their hectic lives and found it difficult to consistently find time for letter writing. They would say rather apologetically that only about five or ten letters were written and sent each month, but to me that sounded like quite a few.

People often spoke of the discouragement they felt with the current state of politics in the United States. They would wonder if the letters actually make a difference, if their representatives read them, and if so, would they listen? Yet despite this outlook, whenever I asked: “Is there anything FCNL could do to improve, or to make letter-writing easier for you?” the response was always no. I often heard from Letter Writing Coordinators that FCNL is doing great, and that “we just need to get more letters written.” These coordinators amazed me. They cheerfully took the time out of their busy day to chat with me, explain their process, give feedback, and to express how much FCNL’s work means to them. Despite the worries over Congress and how effective FCNL constituents can be as citizen lobbyists, they keep on writing and keep on trying to make a change. I see those five or ten letters they help to get written as an accomplishment. Even more than that, these letters send a fantastic message from the organization as a whole. FCNL and Letter Writing Coordinators are moving us all another step forward.

About the author: Asha Warner is a freshman at Haverford College with an interest in political science and activism. She plans to become fluent in Chinese and study-abroad in China, if only for the opportunity to enjoy their cuisine. She has spent three weeks volunteering at FCNL, and has thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

If you are interested in receiving our monthly Letter Writing Coordinators materials to begin a letter campaign in your own, or if you have questions about the process, please contact Emily Temple at emily@fcnl.org or 800.630.1330 ext. 2504.

In 1935 the unemployment insurance program was established and described as a program that "differs from relief in that payments are made as a matter of right not on a needs basis, but only while the worker is involuntarily unemployed." What a wonderful idea! To have a social insurance program in which people are eligible for the compensation based on having been a part of the work force and having paid into the program but are now unemployed. This program was not intended to have stipulations placed on it that were unrelated to job loss however H.R. 3630 would like to place an education requirement, drug testing, and other barriers on the program for the unemployed and states.

One change that the bill proposes is that those receiving compensation either have a high school diploma, the equivalent, or working to obtain this education requirement. There are two prominent concerns with this. One is that over 80% of those that are relying on U.I. are over the age of 45 and have been in the work force for years, not needing a high school education. Although it is hard to imagine in today's world, people once could support themselves without high school diploma. These numbers speak for the many that did just that until their skilled labor jobs were sent overseas. The second concern is that states are not equipped with educational programs to allow people to sign up for their GED even if they wanted to. There are waiting lists, lasting for months, for such programs totaling 160,000 people in 2009 into 2010.

Then there is also a provision for drug testing. This seems to be based on the idea that those unemployed are lazy drug users. Interestingly enough at least 20 states already deny benefits to anyone who had job loss related to drug use. This would be a huge expense to states with a guarantee of almost no results. The drug testing alone would cost states between $25 and $75 dollars per test. Similar drug testing in Florida for TANF and in Indiana both have proven to have been unfounded expenses in comparison with those found using drugs to only have been 2% and 1% respectively.

There is also a requirement to determine the "need" of compensation because of an exaggerated claim that millionaires are receiving benefits. This sets the stage for not allowing those with high income levels to qualify for benefits. Again since this is an insurance program for all workers that become unemployed it is unfair to exclude high income earners since losing a job could have significant impacts on their well-being as well. U.I. is not a viable solution to get richer quick since states cap the maximum amounts of benefits. This ranges from $235 in Mississippi to $625 in Massachusetts per week, not to mention in 2009 only 0.015% millionaires received unemployment benefits. Another aspect that would affect people receiving U.I. is the proposed requirement that beneficiaries would have to do mandatory community service to "work off" their benefits. This would allow employers to have a largely free labor force even though these methods have not been any more successful at returning the unemployed to the work force. As if that is not enough, there is also the authorization to states to reduce unemployment compensation by $5 each week to fund re-employment services that have previously been funded through taxes. Five dollars is a significant amount considering the average benefit is slightly under $300, only a third of the averages workers normal wage.

The House bill is intrusive and overbearing on states and people with no justification. There would be additional requirements on states to more heavily track those unemployed applying for jobs, a requirement states to not have the funds to meet, even though many states already have programs in place that work best for their state's circumstances. Also states would be required to collect over-payments to those unemployed even if the fault was not on the part of the unemployed. Previously, had an error been made by the state in the amount paid to a beneficiary the state would correct the error but not demand repayment. However, by changing the wording of the current law, the state would be required to collect from anyone who had been overpaid, without consideration of the hardship that this may cause the person.

Just like SNAP and other safety nets in place to shield from the blow of a faltering economy, U.I. is doing exactly what it was intended to do, demonstrated by more people using the insurance program. The changes being proposed are not trying to fix a broken system, but instead to hinder a program that could actually use more help not more barriers. With the ratio of people seeking work to available jobs being 4 to 1 it can be expected that this program is needed more so now than in the past. There is no foundation for the claims that those who do not have jobs are drug users or uneducated. If Congress truly wishes to help the unemployed and the unemployment insurance program then it should fund job placement programs, educational and training programs, and work to create more jobs for a struggling economy.

This week Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced a new strategy for the Pentagon reflecting the nearly $1 trillion in Pentagon cuts mandated by the failure of the deficit supercommittee combined with $450 billion in already planned cuts. Although these cuts represent only a small portion of the military budget, defense hawks on the Hill are up in arms insisting that they would endanger national security. As Arnold L. Punaro, a consultant for the Defense Business Board, was quoted as saying in the New York Times, "we're going to turn the Department of Defense into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist." Of special chagrin to some on the hill is Panetta's insistence that the U.S. must move away from a "two war strategy" in which the U.S. is always ready and willing to engage in two major ground offensives at any given time. Instead, he argues, it will move to a footing in which the U.S. should be able to maintain and win one major ground war, "spoil the ambitions" of one adversary, and provide humanitarian and emergency services around the world.

I find the myopic thinking that leads to the bellicose rhetoric from defense hawks on this issue astounding. The "two war strategy" that the U.S. has pursued for the last ten years has been frankly disastrous. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost as much as 4.4 trillion dollars, not to mention the human impact it has had on our veterans and on people in Iraq and Afghanistan. These metrics also don't take into account the diminished the global stature U.S. has today--more playground bully than city on the hill.

So as much as I welcome the cuts to the Pentagon, I think they reflect a lack of imagination. We don't need a one war or a one and a half war strategy. We need a no war strategy. We should have a military that is not planning for the next war, but rather one that thinks how to prevent it before it starts. As Albert Einstein once said, "you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Many might claim that a no war strategy is just Wilsonian isolationism; a withdrawal from the world in order to maintain peace that allows evil to flourish as during Hitler's rise. But this is not what an effective peace strategy would look like. It is the opposite of isolationism-it is really a stronger engagement with countries around the world by working with them before violence occurs. It is a robust United Nations that will help mediate disputes between states. It is civilian negotiators who are able to defuse violent conflicts between regional groups. It is a robust and well funded USAID that is able to provide targeted assistance to communities endangered by conditions that deny people their livelihoods and spark violence.

A strategic approach that focuses on conflict prevention will lead to a United States that can easily meet its financial obligations; if we accept Admiral Mike Mullen's assertion that "the single, biggest threat to our national security is our debt" our country will be more secure as well. It will lead to a U.S. that wields a strong moral authority in the global community by not only talking peace and global cooperation but also doing it. And maybe most importantly, a no war strategy will free up the money to help build communities in the United States where people are employed, where kids get a good education, and where everyone has access to the basic necessities. This is not a dream that it is out of our reach. It is a vision that we can make happen if we elect strong moral leaders who believe in peace and a vision of security that goes beyond bombs and tanks to a human security built around peace.

In returning to Washington after a month-long trip to Kenya, one conclusion from my time there has become all the more clear: as Kenyan Friends continue to empower their communities toward peace in the upcoming year, those of us in the U.S. should ensure that our country’s policy supports, not undermines, the success of their programs and others like them. With 2012 already here, the countdown to Kenya’s elections has begun – and now is the time to make peaceful prevention a U.S. priority, sooner rather than later.

Over the next 12 months, FCNL will continue to look toward Kenya as a case in which U.S. preventive tools can be utilized to help avert violence before it begins. In advancing the specific policy recommendations of our recent brief, we’ll emphasize the importance of U.S. support for community peacebuilding, diplomacy, and international cooperation. We’ll also work to continue connecting the concerns of Friends building peace in Kenyan communities to the capacities of the policymakers we work with here in Washington – particularly when the U.S. might be able to play a role in helping to prevent renewed violence.

As Kenya’s national elections in 2012 approach, the U.S. will undoubtedly have an eye on the country that remains its strongest political and economic partner in the East African region. But considering Kenya’s proximity to and recent armed intervention within Somalia – which hosts a militant group, al-Shabab, that has ties to al-Qaida – the potential for a U.S. focus on military aid and counterterrorism over peacebuilding and violence prevention will only increase. Requests for direct U.S. assistance of the operation have already been made, and while Kenya's government claims that the action is in their citizens' best interest, many Kenyans I spoke with were fearful of the increased tension and violence that the incursion has already caused within their country’s borders.

Though the “war on terror” too often succeeds in dominating U.S. foreign policy, the next year could instead mark one in which our government takes concrete steps toward preventing, rather than fighting, war. In 2012, the PPDC program looks forward to working toward a United States that supports Kenya's peacebuilders over its warmongers. After all, Kenyan Friends have already demonstrated just how much impact one voice for peace can have.

This is officially the least popular Congress in history and not without reason. But behind the partisan gridlock, FCNL has been making some real progress towards peace.

This is what I've seen in Washington during my last five months here--small victories for peace that only sometimes make the headline news. But for some reason, people don't believe me. They see the obstructionism surrounding the payroll tax extension and the legislative shenanigans around federal appointments, but they don't see substantial increase in funding for nuclear non-proliferation and the Senate vote to get out of Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong, if I were polled I would say that I disapprove of the way Congress has done its job as a whole. But if I could, I would add a short addendum. It hasn't been all bad, and a quiet group of Friendly persuaders has helped make sure that it has been a good year for peace. This year marks the exit of U.S. troops from Iraq, the beginning of a trend that I believe will end in a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and increased funding for programs like the Complex Crises Fund that help prevent violence before it starts.

The thing is it's not just the staff at FCNL who have made these accomplishments over the past year. It's really people like you--FCNL supporters who write letters, visit congressional offices, and donate to FCNL who make the difference. So for you all, I've put together a little website, themed after the twelve days of Christmas, showing off some of our successes in the past year.

So please, check it out. I'll be unveiling a new page with a new FCNL success every day from now until the New Year.

I've posted an index here that I will update as I publish the web pages.

Happy New Year! Here's to more progress towards the world we seek in 2012.

In the conversations I have had with FCNL constituents, from our November Annual Meeting to visits in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, one concern has been raised again and again: how can I be sure that my senators and representative are listening? How can I believe that advocacy and citizen lobbying is worth my time?

I am fortunate to work at FCNL and see the myriad of ways in which citizen lobbying can and does make a difference, but I can understand how it might feel doubtful far away from Capitol Hill. Whether it is calling your senator to vote no on legislation to authorize an increase in military budget, or to support diplomacy with Iran, even urging your representative to do something you are almost positive he or she will not do, lays the groundwork for future communication. Laying the groundwork may mean that you are developing a relationship, slowly but surely, with your representative’s staff, or it may mean that taking FCNL materials with you will give that office exposure to our work.

This fall, we urged you to lobby your in a variety of ways to cut $1 trillion from the Pentagon over the next ten years. We asked you to write to your Congressional offices, write letters to the editor, call about sign-on letters, and deliver information such as the Sustainable Defense Task Report in face-to-face meetings. The Sustainable Defense Task Report was released in June 2010 as the product of a bi-partisan research effort into how to cut non-essential Pentagon expenditures as a tool to reduce our deficit. Please read the report here for more information.

In the last few weeks, we have heard from several constituents about their positive lobbying experiences, as encouraged by us at FCNL. We recognize that many more of you lobbied and listened than we have heard from; thank you to all of you. The following examples illustrate that indeed your voices are heard in these offices and that each interaction, whether it be a meeting with a staffer, dropping off information, or a personalized letter, can feel worthwhile.

These interactions illustrate a few of the many ways we are empowered as Americans. Despite the partisan state of Congress and a deeply wounded economy, these people were able to make their voices heard.

When I came to Washington, I thought it might be a difficult place to be optimistic. I have in fact become more hopeful since arriving in the capitol. The persistence and passion of our constituents is enough to inspire hope anywhere.

If and when you call the FCNL office, it just may be me you reach on the phone. I can tell you that members of congressional offices call us to ask for information, reports or opinions. I took a call recently from a senior staff member in a Senator’s office who was looking for information on Quakers to include in a speech for the Senator to deliver. Each of these interactions—even the ones that feel small—are extremely valuable.

Each moment is really another rung on the ladder of engagement and is critical to help move along our focused campaigns on pertinent issues like cutting the Pentagon budget. The relationships you, our constituents, build in communicating with congress are what will make the difference in limiting Pentagon spending and preserving funds for necessary domestic programs that create jobs, educate, and care for our communities.

After months of international conference calls, research, and Washington-based advocacy, I’m beyond grateful to have the opportunity to spend time in the beautiful country about which I've been lucky enough to learn. I arrived in Nairobi on November 28th, and the two weeks since – during which I’ve been able to speak with facilitators and participants from three different violence prevention and peacebuilding programs – have been enlightening and empowering. The workshops are organized by groups part of our Quaker collaboration to prevent deadly conflict in Kenya (which includes the African Great Lakes Initiative, Friends Church Peace Team, Quaker Peace and Social Witness, and the Quaker United Nations Office), and, though I've seen just a small fraction of their work, the impact these efforts have had seems immeasurable.

While each of those I’ve met over the past fourteen days shared stories that demonstrate the power of non-violent action, community empowerment, and grassroots peacebuilding, my most meaningful experience so far occurred just two days ago. After traveling via three different matatus (public vans packed full of passengers) and two hours of motorcycle taxi, I arrived at a small town a couple of kilometers from the peak of Mt. Elgon. The mountain is strikingly beautiful, known both for its fertile land and for its long, brutal history of associated displacement and violence. As Kenya’s national elections set for late 2012 approach, tension among those frustrated with unaddressed grievances and current lack of land reform is only growing.

In response to a request from those living in one of Mt. Elgon’s communities, Friends Church Peace Team began a series of four Healing and Rebuilding Our Communities (HROC) workshops. The program, which was developed in Rwanda and Burundi, focuses on helping communities in the aftermath of extreme violence to address and heal from trauma – as individuals, families, communities. During my brief visit to Mt. Elgon, I spoke with seven participants and one facilitator about how the program has affected them.

Within minutes of opening our meeting, a man described a neighbor with whom he’d had a longstanding conflict over the boundaries of their property. Though the two live side by side, they each refused to speak to the other. After participating in a HROC workshop, this man decided to begin a conversation about what he'd learned; since then, he says, the two have begun to act as “good neighbors.” The interaction was by no means a resolution, by no means an end to the concerns that divided them. It was, however, a step away from hate, a step toward healing, and, without a doubt, a step in support of peace.

His story was not the only one. Others spoke of spreading the message to their partners, their children, their religious communities. One suggested that the group raise funds to build a peace house or center, in order to teach others how to heal from the violence that has ravaged their region. By the end of the afternoon, a number of concerns about a return to conflict were raised – but each expressed a commitment never to take part again.

A single program – a myriad of programs – cannot eradicate the roots of deadly conflict within a community, nor can it heal all its members of the losses and injustices they’ve survived. But in Mt. Elgon, a single program has both begun the process of building peace and facilitated a concrete commitment to preventing violence renewed. Were Kenya, the United States, the entire globe, to invest more in these kinds of efforts – rather than, as is far too often supported, further funding the use of violence – the power to heal and rebuild could be found in people and communities worldwide. In just a few short hours, those in Mt. Elgon provided me with proof that peacebuilding can be more than an idea for which we advocate. When used by those communities seeking tools of peace in the wake of none but war, programs like HROC demonstrate just how real the peaceful prevention of deadly conflict can be.

There is bipartisan support for a payroll tax extension. The conflict comes from how to pay for it, with many Republicans wanting cuts while many Democrats want taxes. There are other aspects of passing this payroll tax cut extension that raise serious concerns. Controversial issues like the Keystone XL pipelines and revoking health care reform are being tied to this payroll tax cut extension. Extending these cuts would deplete Social Security’s revenue source. On the other hand, not extending the cuts would hurt the middle class and could hurt the recovering economy. Is this bad deal worth it?

There have been two proposals in the Senate so far that sought to extend the payroll tax cut. Senate Republicans proposed keeping the payroll tax at 4.2% instead of the normal 6.2%, which would mean the average worker would pay $1,000 less. The cost would be paid for through a pay freeze and some layoffs for government workers, and higher Medicare premiums for the wealthy. This failed 22-76. Senate Democrats proposed a 3.1% payroll tax--a further cut to the base 6.2% rate. This would have meant a saving for workers of $1,500. The cost would be funded through 1.9% tax on people with incomes higher than $1 million lasting for 10 years and additional revenue from raising fees paid to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This proposal was blocked 50-48, needing 60 to pass.

Currently, the House is working on a bill that would keep the payroll tax at 4.2%. This package would also include a one-year extension of unemployment insurance but with cuts to benefits from 99 weeks to 59 weeks—a bad deal for the unemployed. Also included are controversial issues like the Keystone XL Pipeline, attacks on health reform, and possibly the rolling back of EPA rules that limit toxic emissions from boilers along with banning any new proposals from EPA proposing a new standard in the near future. This plan would also sell some federal assets, institute a pay freeze, and layoff government workers, increase Medicare premiums for the wealthy, and change flood insurance. Support for the payroll tax cut expansion is increasing with these additions and the threat of an Obama veto--another chance to challenge the president.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this plan is “essentially suggesting that there is a political trade-off to be had, that extending tax cuts for middle –class and working Americans should only occur in return for a political gift or an ideological item.” Carney also asked an important question, “What happened to Republican support for tax cuts?” Part of the complaining about extending the tax cut is because it was meant to be temporary (sort of like the Bush tax cuts…hmm?). Some have suggested trying to phase the payroll tax cuts out, but that would cost the government more in the long run.

Advocates for Social Security are also worried because the payroll tax funds Social Security. Last year the program brought in less money than it paid out, a trend that will only worsen as more baby boomers reach retirement age. The original payroll tax cut approved last year by Congress cut revenues by $105 billion for Social Security. Many agree that there needs to be tax relief for the middle class but that payroll tax cut extensions are not the way. The longer it is extended, the harder it will be to return to the standard 6.2% payroll tax rate.

It seems that this proposal is laced with political agendas from all angles. Reelections are coming up, and many politicians are finding their job security a little shaky. The goal is to attract support and force acceptance through additional provisions that normally would not be even talked about when considering a tax cut proposal. Unfortunately it seems as though there are no clear answers on what would be the best for the country as a whole, but adding in unrelated bad ideas does not help the matter either.

We can't do our work on environmental issues like the Keystone XL pipeline without your help. Consider making a donation to FCNL today.

The “North American Security Act” Is the GOP’s attempt at forcing a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days. The act will take the form of a rider on the payroll tax cut extension legislation. Proponents insist it will create 20,000 direct jobs. It is argued that the pipeline will strengthen national security by reducing conflict oil dependence by promoting trade with a neighbor. It is also suggested that the U.S. economy would benefit. Here is what lies beneath the rug.

It is true that Canada’s oil reserves are among the largest in the world. However, that fact does not provide a sufficient justification for extracting and refining this resource. Tar sands are an inherently dangerous and short-sighted solution to America’s energy needs, particularly when it is considered that all the investment required could be allocated to clean energy infrastructure and good long term jobs for the American people.

Denying future generations of sound ecosystems, water and air purity is ethically unsound. It is necessary to juxtapose the relatively short term benefits with the ultimate costs of such an initiative. Pursuing clean, sustainable energy will provide technological advances and the market presence necessary to maintain a leadership position on the international stage. Promoting unscrupulous business practices while polluting our environment to give TransCanada access to a larger export market is a deplorable plan hidden beneath the guise of “job creation.”

It is imperative that the American public starts to think critically, and outside of the rhetorical box. It would be irresponsible for the president to accept a project simply because it has been deemed “shovel ready” by profiteers. Let’s hope it doesn’t take an environmental catastrophe for the nation’s leadership and their respective constituents to realize it. Please write a letter to the editor or your congressional representative to voice your concern.

Please explore the following links for further information concerning Keystone XL employment figures.
State Department Study
Cornell University Study
TransCanada Vice Pres. Comments

Twenty years ago, Senators Sam Nunn (GA) and Dick Lugar (IN) recognized a grave threat to security of the world and the United States. The Soviet Union was falling apart, and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev asked for assistance in securing and dismantling some of his country’s tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. Senators Nunn and Lugar, aware of the danger of nuclear warheads and material being smuggled out of Russia and other former Soviet sates, drafted a bill to create the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.

This program, commonly known as the Nunn-Lugar program, provides “U.S. funding and expertise to help the former Soviet Union safeguard and dismantle its enormous stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, related materials, and delivery systems.” Over the course of its 20 years, Nunn-Lugar has been enormously successful. According to Lugar, over 7,600 nuclear warheads have been deactivated and nearly 800 intercontinental ballistic missiles have been destroyed. Three countries, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, are now nuclear weapons free thanks to Nunn-Lugar.

Steps must be taken protect the world from the threat of vulnerable nuclear material and stray warheads. Although our ultimate goal is to see a world free of nuclear weapons, supporting nonproliferation programs is an important part of the nuclear disarmament program.

Funding for nuclear nonproliferation programs is an issue that comes up as part of the federal budget every year. This year, funding for Nunn-Lugar has remained safe. Instead, much of FCNL’s focus has been on maintaining funding for President Obama’s four-year plan to secure all vulnerable bomb-grade nuclear material around the world. We have worked with legislators, such as Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA), and our constituents to push for adequate funding. Thus far, we have been successful. The Senate approved the required funding for the President’s programs earlier this year and we continue to work to support the passage of a final bill by Congress that maintains this level of funding.

Such programs, however, are not possible without the support and leadership of individuals like Senators Nunn (who is now retired) and Lugar. Sen. Lugar continues to be a strong advocate of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament issues. He was a leader in the ratification of the New START treaty, last year, and has been pushing for the continuation and expansion of the Nunn-Lugar program. We celebrate the accomplishment of these two men on the 20th anniversary of their groundbreaking work.

This past Wednesday, I got a chance to attend a meeting at the Carnegie Institute of Peace that had the catchy title, "Faith and Global Policy Challenges: How Spiritual Values Shape Views on Poverty, Nuclear Risks, and Environmental Degradation--A Study of American Believers" or FGPCHSVSVPNREDSAB for short. The meeting was convened to explain the findings of a survey done by the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland on the political stances of people of faith in America, and it was well attended by people in the faith lobbying community in Washington.

The aim of the study was to "understand how the general public and individuals with specific religious traditions that think that their faith intersect[s] with global policy challenges…as part of a larger effort to engage with faith communities in addressing these challenges." The study took a randomly generated sample of around 1,500 people of faith and asked them a series of questions around policy issues ranging from nuclear nonproliferation, to abortion, to the environment. The study began with general questions about whether people believed they had a "spiritual obligation" to take action on policy issues and then began to delve further into specific ones.

One central focus of this study was to examine the difference between initial reactions to policy questions and opinions given after reading carefully crafted theological arguments on both sides of the issue. For example, a series of questions were asked around whether or not there was a "spiritual obligation" to protect the environment. In the beginning less than half of all believers and a bare majority of Evangelicals were familiar with the concept. This question was followed up with a brief pro-con exchange rooted in the current theological debate around the issue. The results were surprising. When presented with the concept of an obligation for environmental stewardship, three out of four embraced it--a majority rejected the counterargument that it should be left in God's hands.

For me, there were two important takeaways from this study. The first is that although evangelicals and people of faith broadly are often pigeonholed as universally conservative or close-minded, this is not the case. I believe Quakers and more conservative evangelical Christians don't think, or for that matter pray, that differently. But to find a place where we agree, we may have to change the terms of engagement. Quoting a scientific study on the melting polar ice caps might be less effective in convincing someone on the importance of tackling global warming than quoting Psalm 24:1, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein" and then building on that verse by saying that we have a responsibility to be responsible stewards of God's creation. Secular progressives and many Quakers claim to be open-minded, but refuse to engage with people of faith on their own epistemological turf.

This conveniently leads into the second lesson that this meeting taught me, namely that engaging people of faith and faith communities as a whole is a necessary and important strategy for creating change. People of faith have an enormously influential voice in public policy and politics--Pat Robertson and the power of the religious right has taught us that much. But their voices are understood by politicians to be only a voice against progress, against peace, and against equality. If this unified voice of "faith" became a clamor of voices for peace and for the poor, it could transform American politics. This study shows that people of faith beyond the Quaker community are receptive to these ideas. We just have to learn to engage with them partly on their own terms.

The focus in Congress is currently on extending the payroll tax cut. Before the end of the year they will also be considering extending unemployment insurance which is a benefit program intended to financially support people while they search for work. The importance of this extension is rooted in the struggling economy. For every dollar spent of unemployment benefits, more jobs are created or maintained, further stimulating spending. This means unemployment insurance creates a positive effect on the economy. However, some would argue that unemployment insurance is an enabler for lazy people to do nothing.

For anyone with this mindset I would ask that you consider that unemployment benefits are not exactly bounteous, as the average weekly benefits are merely 74 percent of the poverty threshold for a family of four. According to an LA Times op-ed, some politicians believe that benefits should be reduced in amount and the length of time that they can be received so the government can “wean folks off” assistance. How can a person be weaned off sustenance? That to me sounds about as ridiculous as saying, lets wean people off of food and water. In reality people that receive unemployment benefits are not buying luxuries. They are buying food and paying rent.

According to a 2011 study done by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, unemployment insurance does not give people an excuse to stop looking for work. As noted in the previously mentioned study, Former Chairperson of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan said in 2003, “[U]nemployment benefit insurance here is essentially restrictive because it’s been our perception that we don’t want to create incentives for people not to take jobs. But when you’re in period of job weakness where it is not a choice on the part of people whether or not they’re employed or unemployed, then, obviously, you want to be temporarily generous. And that’s what we’ve done in the past, and I think it’s worked well.”

The benefits of unemployment insurance not only help those unemployed, but also the economy. People that receive these benefits are not putting the money in a savings account as a way to retire early. These people need money and therefore put that money back into the economy creating a multiplier effect for the economy at large which is exactly what it is intended to do. For every dollar paid out in unemployment benefits additional money is generated in the economy. In May of 2010 the President’s Council of Economic Advisers estimated that every dollar spent on unemployment insurance benefits raises Gross Domestic Product by $1.60. Unemployment benefits are just as much a safety net for the economy as a whole as it is a safety net for individuals and families.

It is absurd and offensive to claim that people want to be out of work so they can receive unemployment benefits. As mentioned in an earlier blog, Good News vs. Bad News About the Economy, people are discouraged and no longer seeking work and thus the unemployment rate has dropped. Being discouraged is understandable when the ratio of jobs to people seeking work is 1:4. Keep in mind however, that a stipulation to receiving unemployment benefits is that one must be looking for work and therefore those who fall into the category of no longer seeking employment do not receive benefits either. Nearly two million will lose unemployment insurance in January if nothing is done to extend benefits and an additional six million will lose benefits over the rest of the year. Do not fall prey to the idea that people can pull themselves up by their boot straps when many do not even have boots.

Small steps may be the key to reforming our largely unjust and broken immigration system.

One of those small steps is exactly what the nation witnessed when H.R. 3012 was passed by a whopping 389 votes in the House. The vote, which took place last Tuesday night, marks the first immigration bill that has passed either chamber of Congress with bipartisan support since the DREAM Act passed the House in 2010. H.R. 3012, also know as The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011, has two main pieces to it.

First, it would eliminate country-based caps on employment based visas. According to the Capitol Immigration Law Group, “the current law places a limit so that immigrants from a country can obtain no more than 7% of the 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas (or green cards) issued annually. That cap applies equally to all countries, regardless of the country’s population and creates an imbalance and backlogs for larger countries such as India and China.” In fact, there is a 70 year wait for applicants in China and a 20 year wait for those in India. The bill would help streamline this backlog by cutting many years off of this wait.

Second, it would boost the percentage of family based visas per country from 7 to 15 percent. This adjustment could slightly ease the backlog for naturalized citizens, particularly from Mexico and the Philippines, trying to bring relatives into the country.

Why does FCNL support this bill?

While the title of the bill implies that only high-skilled workers will benefit from this bill’s implementation, the bill would actually benefit workers of all skill levels applying for employment based visas. Although the bill does not resolve the issue of what to do with undocumented immigrants who are already here, any step towards a more fair immigration system is a step in the right direction. This bill at least begins to develop a more equitable policy toward immigrants seeking employment in the U.S. by allowing immigrants from countries with a higher number of applicants to be able to have their applications processed and approved in a more timely manner. FCNL’s Quaker roots also lead us to be particularly supportive of the provision of the bill that will facilitate the reunification of families.

And what about the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are already living in the U.S.?

Some of those people who are in the country currently without documents are also some of the same people who are in line for a visa or green card. For the rest of those who are undocumented in the US and who were not eligible to get in line in the first place, H.R. 3012 does not come close to addressing this hot-button issue. However, with any type of large scale change, whether on a societal or an individual level, progression towards that change tends to come in small steps that eventually add up to a significant and lasting change. The passage of this bill also shows that bipartisan support for an immigration measure can happen! And bipartisan support is ultimately what will be needed to move forward on creating more just, inclusive policy in our laws for immigrants.

Let us start with the good news. In November the private sector, mainly small businesses, created 140,000 jobs and the public sector cut 20,000 for a net gain of 120,000 jobs. Over the last five months 100,000 jobs or more have been generated each month. This job creation has some to do with the unemployment rate dropping to 8.6% which is the lowest it has been in two and a half years. All these numbers sound good but do not scratch the surface on what is the reality.

Right under the good news is the bad news. The unemployment rate fell largely because 315,000 people simply stopped looking for jobs. This number is unusually high for the typical number of people dropping out of the search for work. Labor force participation is only 64%, 0.2 percentage points down from the month before. This does not mean that the economy is doing so much better than last month; it means that people are discouraged about their chances of finding work and thus giving up.

It is also important to consider that job creation does not necessarily mean that the jobs created are good. Many people are taking part-time work when full-time is not available. The underemployment rate, which is not calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is up from 17.8% in October to 18.1% in November according to a study done by Gallup. This means that 9.6%, about 8.9 million people, are working part time but wish to have full time employment.

Since February 2008 the economy has lost nearly 8.7 million jobs and only regained about 2.5 million, a net loss of 6.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession. Many of the jobs that were lost are jobs that people with less formal education and/or job related skills depend on. Based on an article from Brookings, the employment rate for a male high school graduate is 75% today compared to 96% in 1970, with today’s male high school graduate earning only $26,000 annually instead of the $50,000 earned in 1970, adjusted for inflation. According to Brookings, if the economy were to add a little over 200,000 jobs per month it would take over 12 years to close the jobs gap. This says that although the unemployment rate is dropping, the average worker is still hurting.

According to a studying released by the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, only 7% of people that lost their jobs during the recession have returned to employment that has allowed them to maintain or exceed their previous financial status. Where does this leave the other 93%? The 15% at the bottom say that their loss was drastic and more than likely permanent with major changes to their life style. This also has implications on young graduates entering the work force. Those that once held better paying, upper level jobs are now seeking entry level positions that once were given to new graduates. The unemployment rate for the ages of 20 to 24 is 14.2%, and for the ages of 25 to 34 it is 9.2%.

It seems the greatest focus here in Washington, DC is deficit reduction. Talks of cuts to programs that help low-income people or those that are unemployed are all considered a way to curb the insatiable U.S. spending. But let me ask you, what should be considered more vital to America? Creating jobs, while in the meantime maintaining or increasing help to the Americans who need it the most, or allowing the military to remain overindulged and inefficient, while giving tax breaks to the most fortunate? I believe that job creation and maintaining safety nets for the most vulnerable is what is needed to get the U.S. back on track. This decline in unemployment may be a glimmer of hope, but it is certainly not cause to be considered a job well done. Let us give America back to the once middle class.

The United States is the only nation on the globe where political leadership has failed to come to the consensus that climate change is both a real and immediate issue. There is debate as to what percentage of warming is attributable to human activity, but governments the world-over have cut through the rhetorical fat and at least agree that the issue requires attention. The implications of a warming planet are so daunting in scope and severity that punditry and partisan finger pointing in America is an unacceptable waste of time. The energy of our leadership needs to be redirected at constructive dialogue.

The 17th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change began Monday, November 28th in Durban, South Africa. Although the United States won’t have anything to do with the Kyoto Protocol, there remains an opportunity for this country to take a leadership role at the talks. At the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Convention the U.S. and other developed nations indicated their willingness to be involved in the development of a global climate financing system.

Poor and undeveloped nations with no energy economy or supporting infrastructure do not contribute significantly to the anthropogenic warming of the globe. America, as well as much of Europe and the developed world do, and have since around the time of the industrial revolution. The idea behind the climate financing system is that wealthier nations would pool some capital in a fund that could be allocated to poorer nations whose economies must grow in concert with their populations and subsequent resource demand. The pooled money would be divided proportionally among poorer nations to offset the expense of expanding infrastructure without using regressive fossil fuel technologies.

The following is a pre-inauguration speech excerpt from President Obama:“Few challenges facing America -- and the world -- are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. ... Once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change. Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences, too serious.”

It’s imperative that this pledge be brought to fruition. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report on Extreme Weather and Climate Change shortly before the talks commenced. It provides sobering analysis of the implications of Climate change as a global scale issue. Please write a letter to the editor of your local paper, or any paper, and convey your concern. It is unacceptable for political posturing in this country to continue to endanger the quality of life of future generations, both here and abroad. The Durban climate talks represent a priceless opportunity to reshape policy, beginning with adopting a leadership position in the process of developing the Global Climate Fund.

I have a bit of a funny story for you all. One of my jobs at FCNL is working on the various action alerts that we post on our website that people use to contact their members of congress and write letters to the editor. This past week, I posted a letter to the editor alert responding to the supercommittee's failure and urging Pentagon cuts.

To make sure that the alert worked, I decided to give it a try and write a real letter to the editor. I had read through FCNL's tips on how to write a letter to the editor, so I went and found an interesting article to comment on and personalized the form letter to the editor with my concerns about local schools. Then I clicked send. I got an automated response saying that my letter had been submitted. My job was done.

Or so I thought. Less than ten minutes later, I got an e-mail from a staff member at the Charlotte Observer—the flagship paper in my home state of North Carolina. They wanted to publish my letter in the Friday editorial section!

More than 160,000 people read the Charlotte Observer every day (not including those who read it online), and many of them read my letter to the editor. Senators Burr and Kagan's staff also almost certainly read my letter while looking through the paper to see what their constituents are saying. In less than five minutes I was able to reach a huge audience, including my members of Congress, by filling out a simple form letter.

And you can too! Write a letter to the editor on our website advocating for Pentagon cuts. Our statistics show that people on our website are much less likely to write letters to the editor than to write to their elected officials. But as my story shows, it's a really easy process and it can have a huge impact. Write a letter today and tell your community and your legislators that you support $1 trillion in Pentagon cuts over the next ten years.