After reading Samoa News' March 30th 2021 article concerning Moody’s latest rating for American Samoa, I can’t help but want to crumble up their report and throw it in the trash. Because if this is the credit rating we got as a territory, surely the federal government got it worse. After all, with a US national debt fast approaching 31 trillion dollars, you’d figure that be the case.
Nope.
Instead, Moody gives Uncle Sam its highest rating – an “Aaa”. Now, I got it, comparing the U.S. to American Samoa is like comparing a house to a pebble. In terms of land, resources, capital… blah, blah, blah… we all know the ASG doesn’t belong in the same ring. But in terms of fiscal management and responsibility – either Moody’s is blind or they just choose to look the other way.
Volumes can be written on all the instances where there has and continues to be waste and abuse in the federal government – legal or otherwise. And I’m not even talking about politically sensitive programs. What boils my blood the most is crony capitalism, and the federal budget is rife with loophole after loophole and special favors that largely benefit the wealthy and well-connected.
In my humble opinion, whatever our problems may be, they are ten-times-to-the-power-of-ten-times worse when you look at Uncle Sam’s prolific spending ways.
There has been a lot of talk, as of late, about self-determination and our political status with the United States since the 2020 elections. Concerns have largely centered on protecting the fa’a-Samoa, our way of life.
More of a danger to our fa’a-Samoa, however, than a problematic political relationship (perceived or real), is a local government that fails. Especially one with a culture as interwoven with it as our own.
Probably best we un-crumble that Moody’s report and take to heart what it has to say.
Wednesday, June 08, 2022
Thursday, June 02, 2022
Samoa mo Samoa
There is no doubt that government under both the Naval Administration and the Department of Interior has catapulted our small islands, with relatively little natural resources to exploit, into the 21st century. Since the U.S. flag was raised here on April 17 1900, we went from largely fishing and boat building communities to become a mini-city of sorts, fashioned in the image of Honolulu herself.
Establishing local government amongst our people has been no easy task, and for a long time, we looked outside for the expertise we knew we needed to get the job done. Whether it was our own sons and daughters coming back home after receiving education and/or experience from abroad or from folks of non-Samoan descent who had just as much love for our country as we do. Today, we’ve gotten to the point where we can largely self-develop talent within our own shores - to the best extent possible - before looking outside for help.
This progress has been guided by our unofficial motto, "Samoa mo Samoa". A philosophy (with its roots in the Mau Movement) that is less about race and more about ensuring that the treasure of our culture survives.
I am an afatasi, and I am proud of both my Samoan and Palagi heritages. But I can tell you that I am especially proud to see Samoans take the lead in any capacity whether private or public sector, here or around the world. So to have our people in charge of entities such as ASTCA, ASPA, DBAS, not to mention the ASG and all of its departments - it's a point of pride that I will never take for granted.
But what happens when our pride starts to overlook merit? What happens when our pride turns a blind eye to corruption and the rule of law? What happens when our pride starts to devolve into political manipulation, where the handing out of jobs looks more like an effort to cement one's legacy rather than being a sincere act of charity?
At the end of the day, the costs of local government is borne by local residents and businesses. Is the bill we hand to them (ourselves really) a fair and reasonable one? More importantly, can that bill compete with our competitors in the region such as Samoa, Tonga and Fiji?
When you have a government that is fair, transparent, equitable and limited to its essential roles and functions, the questions above are relatively easy to answer. And when we are able to answer these questions in a manner for which we can have true pride, the closer we get to achieving a better "Samoa mo Samoa" that's worthy of the name.
Establishing local government amongst our people has been no easy task, and for a long time, we looked outside for the expertise we knew we needed to get the job done. Whether it was our own sons and daughters coming back home after receiving education and/or experience from abroad or from folks of non-Samoan descent who had just as much love for our country as we do. Today, we’ve gotten to the point where we can largely self-develop talent within our own shores - to the best extent possible - before looking outside for help.
This progress has been guided by our unofficial motto, "Samoa mo Samoa". A philosophy (with its roots in the Mau Movement) that is less about race and more about ensuring that the treasure of our culture survives.
I am an afatasi, and I am proud of both my Samoan and Palagi heritages. But I can tell you that I am especially proud to see Samoans take the lead in any capacity whether private or public sector, here or around the world. So to have our people in charge of entities such as ASTCA, ASPA, DBAS, not to mention the ASG and all of its departments - it's a point of pride that I will never take for granted.
But what happens when our pride starts to overlook merit? What happens when our pride turns a blind eye to corruption and the rule of law? What happens when our pride starts to devolve into political manipulation, where the handing out of jobs looks more like an effort to cement one's legacy rather than being a sincere act of charity?
At the end of the day, the costs of local government is borne by local residents and businesses. Is the bill we hand to them (ourselves really) a fair and reasonable one? More importantly, can that bill compete with our competitors in the region such as Samoa, Tonga and Fiji?
When you have a government that is fair, transparent, equitable and limited to its essential roles and functions, the questions above are relatively easy to answer. And when we are able to answer these questions in a manner for which we can have true pride, the closer we get to achieving a better "Samoa mo Samoa" that's worthy of the name.
People Don't Want to Live in Am. Samoa
If leaders really care about our future, the message they would get out of the 2020 Census is that a lot of people decided they no longer wanted to live in the territory. When you factor in that our population was projected to be 63 thousand last year, we actually lost 14K to net out-migration, not just 6. With a trend like that, Am. Samoa is fast becoming a museum if nothing is done soon.
Rather than admit that we have a problem, leaders are collectively going through the first stage of grief, which is denial. Somehow, some way, the experienced folks at the Census Bureau, who've been doing this since 1790 with proven statistical tools, got it wrong. Unfortunately for the ASG, any attempt to dispute their numbers just comes off as blatantly biased for obvious reasons, no matter how legitimate.
As most of us who have gone through all of the stages of grief at some point in our lives know, the sooner we accept reality and responsibility, the sooner the healing process can begin. A question that may be helpful for our leaders to ask, at that point, is why do people leave never to return and what can they do to attract people to come, stay and raise a family?
To me, it's not always about the money, which is primarily what the ASG is fretting about right now.
For me, it's the little things that count. When schools are closed down because they're condemned as unsanitary, people want to leave. When parents are waiting for hours at LBJ to have their children seen for emergencies, people want to leave. When roads are decrepit, filled with potholes for years on end and flooded every time it pours, people want to leave. When one or two businesses are favored during the procurement process while the rest are hung out to dry, people want to leave. When there are rolling blackouts, polluted drinking water and fire trucks that show up late to the scene because the trucks don't work, people want to leave. When taxes, regulation and an anti-business attitude strangle folks' entrepreneurial spirit, people want to leave.
It pains me to list the above because I hate to knock all the great work that a lot of awesome people in the ASG have done and continue to do for our people every day, I really do. But the truth is that these things are actually not so "little", and our leaders treat them as such. The attitude can sometimes be that we should just be grateful to have a hospital, to have electricity, to have phone service, internet, etc. Stop complaining.
But conservatives like to say that the most damning judgment voters can pass on a governing party is not the one they deliver at the ballot box... but rather the one they demonstrate with their feet when they decide they've had enough and leave.
Our approach in A.S. to providing services critical to a good quality of life has always been one that puts government in the driver's seat rather than the customer. That has always been understandable given our history and geographical constraints. But times have changed and so has technology; we're not condemned to a future where things have to be "just the way it is", and the 2020 Census is telling us it's time to try something new.
Otherwise come 2030, expect to count another 14K off the books.
Rather than admit that we have a problem, leaders are collectively going through the first stage of grief, which is denial. Somehow, some way, the experienced folks at the Census Bureau, who've been doing this since 1790 with proven statistical tools, got it wrong. Unfortunately for the ASG, any attempt to dispute their numbers just comes off as blatantly biased for obvious reasons, no matter how legitimate.
As most of us who have gone through all of the stages of grief at some point in our lives know, the sooner we accept reality and responsibility, the sooner the healing process can begin. A question that may be helpful for our leaders to ask, at that point, is why do people leave never to return and what can they do to attract people to come, stay and raise a family?
To me, it's not always about the money, which is primarily what the ASG is fretting about right now.
For me, it's the little things that count. When schools are closed down because they're condemned as unsanitary, people want to leave. When parents are waiting for hours at LBJ to have their children seen for emergencies, people want to leave. When roads are decrepit, filled with potholes for years on end and flooded every time it pours, people want to leave. When one or two businesses are favored during the procurement process while the rest are hung out to dry, people want to leave. When there are rolling blackouts, polluted drinking water and fire trucks that show up late to the scene because the trucks don't work, people want to leave. When taxes, regulation and an anti-business attitude strangle folks' entrepreneurial spirit, people want to leave.
It pains me to list the above because I hate to knock all the great work that a lot of awesome people in the ASG have done and continue to do for our people every day, I really do. But the truth is that these things are actually not so "little", and our leaders treat them as such. The attitude can sometimes be that we should just be grateful to have a hospital, to have electricity, to have phone service, internet, etc. Stop complaining.
But conservatives like to say that the most damning judgment voters can pass on a governing party is not the one they deliver at the ballot box... but rather the one they demonstrate with their feet when they decide they've had enough and leave.
Our approach in A.S. to providing services critical to a good quality of life has always been one that puts government in the driver's seat rather than the customer. That has always been understandable given our history and geographical constraints. But times have changed and so has technology; we're not condemned to a future where things have to be "just the way it is", and the 2020 Census is telling us it's time to try something new.
Otherwise come 2030, expect to count another 14K off the books.
Self-Rule or Status Quo
In his letter to the editor regarding the Fitisemanu v. United States case, Charles Ala’ilima points to a question we all seem to be thinking but don’t want to ask – do we want to remain as a territory (status quo) or vote for some form of self-rule?
Now some may say that we shouldn’t be having a debate on citizenship to begin with. The plaintiffs should have just left things well alone. I strongly disagree with that assessment.
For one, change is not the sole jurisdiction of the courts. The applicability and scope of the law can change literally overnight these days, whether by an executive order, legislation or even by some popular social movement.
Second, the issue is less about the right to automatic citizenship and more the extent to which the Constitution applies to our territory and the implications that will have on our traditional institutions and way of life. Whether it’s this case or another like it 5, 10 or 50 years from now, do we really want to leave that question out there to be decided by some judge?
If anything, this case brings that issue front and center. We can no longer plead ignorance. Either we take the reins into our own hands and chart the course of our future on our own terms, or… we can continue to roll the dice.
But how? Through some form of semi-independent status? And why would anyone want to do that?
A central government is built on the promise of providing for the common good – unbiased, fair, equal and just. Has the ASG proven itself competent and consistent in delivering on that promise? While better than other municipalities in the U.S., to include the swamp that is D.C., the jury is still very much out on that question.
Why move to become a more sovereign state and give more power to a local government that only serves the interest of the powerful, well-connected and those on the inside track? Why remove a layer of federal oversight that actually serves as a last resort to keep those with the power in check?
Without a proven track record of consistent, good governance that rules above parochial interests, there is little confidence that any kind of sovereignty will be in the interest of all of our people.
So where does that leave us? A guy at the bar who’s just listened to both sides but wants to get back to drinking his beer may say something like: “Hey plaintiffs, you’re right, we’re a territory, constitution’s the supreme law of the land, citizenship, free speech, equal opportunity, all that stuff, you’re right. ASG over here is just asking for a time-out… to figure out what that all means to the stuff that’s important to the both of you. Can you give him a break? Thanks.”
An oversimplification for sure.
While I personally believe that all of our fa’a-Samoa institutions can survive full incorporation of the U.S. Constitution, the truth is there’s no body of work that makes that case. There’s been no vigorous debate, no theoretical underpinnings spelt out on paper, no conventions of leaders and thinkers to put such ideas to scrutiny and to the test.
All we have is a court case.
When we looked to create a legislature of our own and move out from under the purview of the U.S. Navy, great leaders like High Orator Tuiasosopo Mariota I and other giants of his time stepped up to the plate and laid the foundations upon which we all stand today.
One wonders if we will ever see their like again.
Now some may say that we shouldn’t be having a debate on citizenship to begin with. The plaintiffs should have just left things well alone. I strongly disagree with that assessment.
For one, change is not the sole jurisdiction of the courts. The applicability and scope of the law can change literally overnight these days, whether by an executive order, legislation or even by some popular social movement.
Second, the issue is less about the right to automatic citizenship and more the extent to which the Constitution applies to our territory and the implications that will have on our traditional institutions and way of life. Whether it’s this case or another like it 5, 10 or 50 years from now, do we really want to leave that question out there to be decided by some judge?
If anything, this case brings that issue front and center. We can no longer plead ignorance. Either we take the reins into our own hands and chart the course of our future on our own terms, or… we can continue to roll the dice.
But how? Through some form of semi-independent status? And why would anyone want to do that?
A central government is built on the promise of providing for the common good – unbiased, fair, equal and just. Has the ASG proven itself competent and consistent in delivering on that promise? While better than other municipalities in the U.S., to include the swamp that is D.C., the jury is still very much out on that question.
Why move to become a more sovereign state and give more power to a local government that only serves the interest of the powerful, well-connected and those on the inside track? Why remove a layer of federal oversight that actually serves as a last resort to keep those with the power in check?
Without a proven track record of consistent, good governance that rules above parochial interests, there is little confidence that any kind of sovereignty will be in the interest of all of our people.
So where does that leave us? A guy at the bar who’s just listened to both sides but wants to get back to drinking his beer may say something like: “Hey plaintiffs, you’re right, we’re a territory, constitution’s the supreme law of the land, citizenship, free speech, equal opportunity, all that stuff, you’re right. ASG over here is just asking for a time-out… to figure out what that all means to the stuff that’s important to the both of you. Can you give him a break? Thanks.”
An oversimplification for sure.
While I personally believe that all of our fa’a-Samoa institutions can survive full incorporation of the U.S. Constitution, the truth is there’s no body of work that makes that case. There’s been no vigorous debate, no theoretical underpinnings spelt out on paper, no conventions of leaders and thinkers to put such ideas to scrutiny and to the test.
All we have is a court case.
When we looked to create a legislature of our own and move out from under the purview of the U.S. Navy, great leaders like High Orator Tuiasosopo Mariota I and other giants of his time stepped up to the plate and laid the foundations upon which we all stand today.
One wonders if we will ever see their like again.
Empower Our Fourth Branch of Government
It hurts when we see the name of our family, village, district or country in the news for something bad that has happened. As a person, I know I have to be upfront with myself about the natural bias I have when it comes to my judgment on any of these things as it relates to me. I pray that I have had and always will weigh things objectively and fair; but then again, I am only human.
So to see the name of my beloved district of Tuala-tai in the news because of a string of criminal activities in the county, I’d have to admit, I rather look the other way. For us Samoans, our district names are more than just some boundaries on a map – they point to a larger network of kin who share blood and a common history. It is more of a family than it is a place.
I pray that whoever has knowledge of who assaulted Mrs. Catherine Adler in Taputimu comes forward and notifies the authorities, whether that person is from Taputimu or not. It is the right thing to do.
But this assault on Mrs. Catherine Adler is a culminating point for a number of headlines involving drugs in our territory. Along with the reporting have been cries for our matai and aumaga in our villages to stand up and be counted in the war on drugs. And these calls are not off the mark; a strong, engaged and responsible community has always served as the fourth branch of government that amplifies the public good the other three bring to the table.
But the real question is how can our matai and aumaga fight this war, or any other, plaguing our communities? By what authority? By what framework do they operate within the law to assist law enforcement while at the same time respecting our constitutional rights such as due process? And with what funds could they get the appropriate training they would need?
Without deliberate effort, guidance and resources from the ASG and the public-at-large, trying to enlist our village fono and aumaga in the war on drugs (or any other law enforcement activity for that matter) would do more harm than good.
It goes without saying that calling our traditional, fa’amatai system the “fourth” branch is an injustice, as it was here way before the other three. Perhaps a look to our cherished past and to our roots can help address areas where contemporary government falls short.
Let’s just hope it’s not too late.
So to see the name of my beloved district of Tuala-tai in the news because of a string of criminal activities in the county, I’d have to admit, I rather look the other way. For us Samoans, our district names are more than just some boundaries on a map – they point to a larger network of kin who share blood and a common history. It is more of a family than it is a place.
I pray that whoever has knowledge of who assaulted Mrs. Catherine Adler in Taputimu comes forward and notifies the authorities, whether that person is from Taputimu or not. It is the right thing to do.
But this assault on Mrs. Catherine Adler is a culminating point for a number of headlines involving drugs in our territory. Along with the reporting have been cries for our matai and aumaga in our villages to stand up and be counted in the war on drugs. And these calls are not off the mark; a strong, engaged and responsible community has always served as the fourth branch of government that amplifies the public good the other three bring to the table.
But the real question is how can our matai and aumaga fight this war, or any other, plaguing our communities? By what authority? By what framework do they operate within the law to assist law enforcement while at the same time respecting our constitutional rights such as due process? And with what funds could they get the appropriate training they would need?
Without deliberate effort, guidance and resources from the ASG and the public-at-large, trying to enlist our village fono and aumaga in the war on drugs (or any other law enforcement activity for that matter) would do more harm than good.
It goes without saying that calling our traditional, fa’amatai system the “fourth” branch is an injustice, as it was here way before the other three. Perhaps a look to our cherished past and to our roots can help address areas where contemporary government falls short.
Let’s just hope it’s not too late.
Wednesday, June 01, 2022
ASGERF's Case Should Be Made to the People, Not the Fono
I commend Senator Togiola for his lone vote against the ASGERF funding bill. He’s right, the new administration should “have time to breathe” before being asked to approve something as consequential and as permanent as this bill. But more important than the Governor or Lt. G are the folks who would be impacted the most by this legislation – the very employees who would be required to hand over more of their hard-earned money.
And it’s not just ASG employees; you’re affected here too, Private Sector. Who else do you think is going to pay for the extra percentages the government would be required to kick in to help cover the ASGERF’s unfunded liability?
And to the senator’s point about stretched paychecks…well, he’s right again. I can only imagine the little guy who currently sees a 2% wage tax on his pay stub, now has to watch his 3% employee contribution jump to 5%. Essentially paying an overall tax of 7%.
And for what? Will the increases lead to larger retirement checks in the future for the employee? No, it’s to pay for an unfunded liability that exists today – a deficit that may have had come about because “investment returns dropped”? While there’s always uncertainty in the marketplace, there is also such a thing as bad investment management. ASG employees and taxpayers both deserve to know that the fund is in prudent hands, and that they’re not being asked to pay more because of poor investment decisions.
Now I’aulualo testified that ASEDA repaid ASGERF for the $17 million dollars lent out to ASTCA for the Hawaiki cable. The problem I have is that all three of these alphabet organizations are all part of the same umbrella entity we know as the ASG. It just sounds like a bit of a shell game where the liability just ended up on a different balance sheet, but in-house.
I may be wrong. But between all of these bonds and loans the ASG as a whole has made in the past, don’t we deserve to know how well of a position the government is in paying all of them back before having to cough up more of our money? Obviously, there’s not gonna be any help on that front from the Hawaiki cable until they find a buyer for its 200 gigs of bandwidth.
Good luck.
I am not betting against the ASG out of spite, and I definitely believe that employees should contribute more when they have to.
The problem I have is that there is a history of municipalities across the U.S. (i.e. Chicago, Puerto Rico) who have taken their respective government retirement funds for a ride to pay for other things. It’s that type of mismanagement that resulted in a level of unsustainable debt, which in the case of Puerto Rico, led to their government having to declare bankruptcy.
Like COVID-19, that’s not the type of problem we want arriving on our shores. If this bill is truly worthy of its intent, then all parties involved could afford a month or two making the case to people it will affect the most.
And it’s not just ASG employees; you’re affected here too, Private Sector. Who else do you think is going to pay for the extra percentages the government would be required to kick in to help cover the ASGERF’s unfunded liability?
And to the senator’s point about stretched paychecks…well, he’s right again. I can only imagine the little guy who currently sees a 2% wage tax on his pay stub, now has to watch his 3% employee contribution jump to 5%. Essentially paying an overall tax of 7%.
And for what? Will the increases lead to larger retirement checks in the future for the employee? No, it’s to pay for an unfunded liability that exists today – a deficit that may have had come about because “investment returns dropped”? While there’s always uncertainty in the marketplace, there is also such a thing as bad investment management. ASG employees and taxpayers both deserve to know that the fund is in prudent hands, and that they’re not being asked to pay more because of poor investment decisions.
Now I’aulualo testified that ASEDA repaid ASGERF for the $17 million dollars lent out to ASTCA for the Hawaiki cable. The problem I have is that all three of these alphabet organizations are all part of the same umbrella entity we know as the ASG. It just sounds like a bit of a shell game where the liability just ended up on a different balance sheet, but in-house.
I may be wrong. But between all of these bonds and loans the ASG as a whole has made in the past, don’t we deserve to know how well of a position the government is in paying all of them back before having to cough up more of our money? Obviously, there’s not gonna be any help on that front from the Hawaiki cable until they find a buyer for its 200 gigs of bandwidth.
Good luck.
I am not betting against the ASG out of spite, and I definitely believe that employees should contribute more when they have to.
The problem I have is that there is a history of municipalities across the U.S. (i.e. Chicago, Puerto Rico) who have taken their respective government retirement funds for a ride to pay for other things. It’s that type of mismanagement that resulted in a level of unsustainable debt, which in the case of Puerto Rico, led to their government having to declare bankruptcy.
Like COVID-19, that’s not the type of problem we want arriving on our shores. If this bill is truly worthy of its intent, then all parties involved could afford a month or two making the case to people it will affect the most.
Bye Bye Fono
Over the weekend, an uncle of mine spoke to me about “vafealoa’i” – the relationship of respect between brother and sister, between parents and their children, between the matai of a village, etc. – and its importance to the Fa’asamoa.
Basically he was saying that mutual respect is the glue that holds the whole system together, and that without it, everything pretty much falls apart.
In the same fashion, he says that our republican system of checks and balances is also founded on and held together by a relationship of respect – not just between the three branches of government but also between them and the procedural rules and protocols that define our democratic institutions.
Our discussion was obviously in respect (no pun intended) to the Governor’s action to keep the ASG open using last fiscal year’s dollars by sole virtue of his executive order.
What was clear to the two of us (and we’re betting, to the vast majority of people as well) was that no amount of legal gymnastics on the Governor’s part could reconcile his actions with the public’s understanding of basic civics – that it is the Legislature that approves the expenditure of a specific amount of taxpayer funds, for a specific purpose, for a specific amount of time.
The Governor’s apparent end-around of the Fono was blatant disregard of our democratic norms, and it shows a lack of respect not only for our legislature but also for our people’s understanding of and fidelity to the constitution.
His executive order may be limited in scope today and cover a period of only 15 days, but like they say, when you give someone an inch, they’ll take a mile. The next executive order may be for a month, the next after that, a year.
Soon enough the Fono will be rendered nothing more than a relic of the past.
Basically he was saying that mutual respect is the glue that holds the whole system together, and that without it, everything pretty much falls apart.
In the same fashion, he says that our republican system of checks and balances is also founded on and held together by a relationship of respect – not just between the three branches of government but also between them and the procedural rules and protocols that define our democratic institutions.
Our discussion was obviously in respect (no pun intended) to the Governor’s action to keep the ASG open using last fiscal year’s dollars by sole virtue of his executive order.
What was clear to the two of us (and we’re betting, to the vast majority of people as well) was that no amount of legal gymnastics on the Governor’s part could reconcile his actions with the public’s understanding of basic civics – that it is the Legislature that approves the expenditure of a specific amount of taxpayer funds, for a specific purpose, for a specific amount of time.
The Governor’s apparent end-around of the Fono was blatant disregard of our democratic norms, and it shows a lack of respect not only for our legislature but also for our people’s understanding of and fidelity to the constitution.
His executive order may be limited in scope today and cover a period of only 15 days, but like they say, when you give someone an inch, they’ll take a mile. The next executive order may be for a month, the next after that, a year.
Soon enough the Fono will be rendered nothing more than a relic of the past.
Righteous Indignation
The letter to the editor by Dr. Toafa (“Bias News?” dated 7/10), aims to taint reporting about the COVID-19 payouts to legislators by suggesting bias in the media, but his arguments rely on really shaky grounds. For one, if media bias were excuse enough to dismiss a controversy, then Trump would definitely be having an easier time in office. It is the deed that is the center of the matter, not the circumstances surrounding its revelation.
But what’s especially weak is his assertion that since both the Executive and Judiciary already have their hands in the cookie jar, the Legislature might as well get in on the action too. To be fair, the author says that all of this sharing between the three branches is okay as long as they spend it within the “specifications authorized under the COVID-19 Stimulus”.
Now whether the COVID-19 payouts to legislators are within such specifications, we'll find out soon enough thanks to Mr. Hueter’s complaint filed with the U.S Treasury.
But whether these payouts to public officials with really no guarantee of accountability or liability are ethical and in line with proper stewardship of taxpayer money is a question for us voters, not regulators at the Treasury. And I submit to you that your standard-issue 5th grader will tell you that the answer to that question is ‘no’.
That is the matter that’s before the court of public opinion. And it is worthy of discussion, debate and even protest… and I’d be quite ashamed of our growth as a self-governing democracy if we didn’t make as much fuss about these payouts as we have… bias or not.
If one needs a guidepost for how government should operate on sound ethical principles, they should look at what Reagan once said of the economy — that it should be a rising tide that lifts all boats.
By that standard, these COVID-19 payouts don’t look to serve the overall public good or our general welfare. Instead, they go on to reflect a government that picks winners and losers, a government run by those on the inside track versus those on the out, a government of the malosi vs. the vaivai.
These COVID-19 payouts may be a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things and the controversy may blow over like every other, but they’re not representative of the type of governance most of us would like to see for our future generations, and they’re an insult to the heritage left to us by those who came before us.
That is not bias, that is righteous indignation.
But what’s especially weak is his assertion that since both the Executive and Judiciary already have their hands in the cookie jar, the Legislature might as well get in on the action too. To be fair, the author says that all of this sharing between the three branches is okay as long as they spend it within the “specifications authorized under the COVID-19 Stimulus”.
Now whether the COVID-19 payouts to legislators are within such specifications, we'll find out soon enough thanks to Mr. Hueter’s complaint filed with the U.S Treasury.
But whether these payouts to public officials with really no guarantee of accountability or liability are ethical and in line with proper stewardship of taxpayer money is a question for us voters, not regulators at the Treasury. And I submit to you that your standard-issue 5th grader will tell you that the answer to that question is ‘no’.
That is the matter that’s before the court of public opinion. And it is worthy of discussion, debate and even protest… and I’d be quite ashamed of our growth as a self-governing democracy if we didn’t make as much fuss about these payouts as we have… bias or not.
If one needs a guidepost for how government should operate on sound ethical principles, they should look at what Reagan once said of the economy — that it should be a rising tide that lifts all boats.
By that standard, these COVID-19 payouts don’t look to serve the overall public good or our general welfare. Instead, they go on to reflect a government that picks winners and losers, a government run by those on the inside track versus those on the out, a government of the malosi vs. the vaivai.
These COVID-19 payouts may be a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things and the controversy may blow over like every other, but they’re not representative of the type of governance most of us would like to see for our future generations, and they’re an insult to the heritage left to us by those who came before us.
That is not bias, that is righteous indignation.
Impeachable Political Dichotomy
When Trump was elected President, I read a great article where the author mused how an overwhelming pro-Democrat federal bureaucracy would work overtime to limit his powers during his time in office. As a libertarian, I was excited at the prospect of watching an imperial office being stripped of its clothes by the very people who lavished it to near divine reverence during the Obama years.
I don’t have an exhaustive list of references to that point, but I’ve read quite a few liberal articles during that time about how outdated the U.S. Constitution had become and how a more empowered presidency was needed.
Not so much these days with Trump in office.
Now don’t get me wrong, those articles had good points that I hope the country could come together one day to address via a constitutional convention. I like to tell people that there’s always nuggets of wisdom even from unsolicited criticism. But none of their arguments warranted a straight rewrite of the constitution, just to assist the former president achieve his (their) goals.
But it’s not only liberals who are doing back flips on positions they took when the other party held the presidency. It’s a bit amusing, if not sad, to watch Republicans twist themselves into knots explaining why obstruction during the Obama years was necessary and patriotic while obstruction against Trump is not.
If there’s anything impeachable in D.C. these days, it’s all of their flip-flopping, the hypocrisy and the lack of principle. For the rest of America, most of us like to think we can have a decent conversation with one another, debate things on their merits and admit when we’re wrong and move on.
It goes without saying that our country is really diverse. Taking all of the minority ethnicities the U.S. is blessed with out of the picture for a second, and the country is already Balkanized along cultural, religious, economic and regional lines… on paper.
I’d argue, along with many, many others, that a constitution with a light touch, with an emphasis on process rather than delivery and with reverence for the individual rather than government, is what continues to hold this country together.
And if you disagree with that notion, then let’s just agree to disagree.
I don’t have an exhaustive list of references to that point, but I’ve read quite a few liberal articles during that time about how outdated the U.S. Constitution had become and how a more empowered presidency was needed.
Not so much these days with Trump in office.
Now don’t get me wrong, those articles had good points that I hope the country could come together one day to address via a constitutional convention. I like to tell people that there’s always nuggets of wisdom even from unsolicited criticism. But none of their arguments warranted a straight rewrite of the constitution, just to assist the former president achieve his (their) goals.
But it’s not only liberals who are doing back flips on positions they took when the other party held the presidency. It’s a bit amusing, if not sad, to watch Republicans twist themselves into knots explaining why obstruction during the Obama years was necessary and patriotic while obstruction against Trump is not.
If there’s anything impeachable in D.C. these days, it’s all of their flip-flopping, the hypocrisy and the lack of principle. For the rest of America, most of us like to think we can have a decent conversation with one another, debate things on their merits and admit when we’re wrong and move on.
It goes without saying that our country is really diverse. Taking all of the minority ethnicities the U.S. is blessed with out of the picture for a second, and the country is already Balkanized along cultural, religious, economic and regional lines… on paper.
I’d argue, along with many, many others, that a constitution with a light touch, with an emphasis on process rather than delivery and with reverence for the individual rather than government, is what continues to hold this country together.
And if you disagree with that notion, then let’s just agree to disagree.
Fa'a-Samoa and Fa'a-Matai can Survive Citizenship
The recent case in Utah federal courts deciding that persons born on U.S. territory (specifically Am. Samoa in this case) are automatically entitled to citizenship has caused much consternation for all of us who care about the preservation of our culture and traditions. It has also caused a bit of finger-pointing and questioning of intentions from both sides of the issue.
What’s lost in all of the discussion so far is that many, if not all, of our cultural practices and traditions have somewhat equivalent counterparts found throughout the U.S. that pass constitutional scrutiny. If the day were to ever come where we were forced to apply all the tenets of the U.S. Constitution to our great territory, we would have courses of action via a constitutional convention to tailor our customs and practices accordingly.
For example, we can institutionalize our village fono along the lines of the neighborhood boards we find in Oahu or neighborhood councils found in Los Angeles, Tacoma and San Diego. These boards and councils act much like the fono of our villages by working primarily to address issues at the community level. And what is a neighborhood watch other than our version of the aumaga? Retaining family land in the manner we do today through the Fa’amatai system may be a bit trickier, but I don’t see why we couldn’t also tailor it to work according to U.S. trust law. With a trust, grantors (our families) would leave assets (their lands) in the care of a trustee (their chief) to administer and manage as appropriate.
And the hardest issue for us to address, of course, would be our matai titles. To pass constitutional muster, I’d imagine that we would have to remove the hereditary and aristocratic aspects of these institutions in order for them to survive. That would mean making them elective offices that anyone can run for and win election to.
While we would have to make these offices open to anyone, there is no reason why we could not institute non-discriminatory qualifications that will work to ensure candidates/holders have relation to the family name according to our customs and traditions. Such qualifications could include requiring them to live on family land, provide service to the family and village and/or be nominated by one of the family clans. Any person can technically meet any of these conditions regardless of race, color, religion or sex.
All of the above obviously requires more in-depth analysis and comprehensive work to ensure we cover all of the fine print. Luckily, we are blessed with many of Samoa’s sons and daughters who have that legal background. The idea is that once we constitutionalize our cultural practices and traditions, we can further dress them up in all of the Samoan pomp and ceremony we’re accustomed to. That is no different from what we as Americans do with positions in Congress and the White House to all of the branches of the military.
And we would retain all of our Samoan nomenclature of course: we would still call the fono of a village a 'fono' although it would be constitutionally designed as a neighborhood board.
But outside of working to add a Samoan flavor to the U.S. Constitution, much in the same way we have done with Christianity, our only other recourse is to seek independence or redefine our political relationship with the U.S.
Which brings me to the other emotion (other than consternation and finger-pointing) this debate has conjured: fear. Our dependence on the millions we receive in federal funding every year, leaves our fate ultimately up to the mercy of our masters in D.C. The real question in this debate may be how far are we willing to go to fight for our Fa’asamoa and Fa’amatai if it came down to that or putting food on our table?
What’s lost in all of the discussion so far is that many, if not all, of our cultural practices and traditions have somewhat equivalent counterparts found throughout the U.S. that pass constitutional scrutiny. If the day were to ever come where we were forced to apply all the tenets of the U.S. Constitution to our great territory, we would have courses of action via a constitutional convention to tailor our customs and practices accordingly.
For example, we can institutionalize our village fono along the lines of the neighborhood boards we find in Oahu or neighborhood councils found in Los Angeles, Tacoma and San Diego. These boards and councils act much like the fono of our villages by working primarily to address issues at the community level. And what is a neighborhood watch other than our version of the aumaga? Retaining family land in the manner we do today through the Fa’amatai system may be a bit trickier, but I don’t see why we couldn’t also tailor it to work according to U.S. trust law. With a trust, grantors (our families) would leave assets (their lands) in the care of a trustee (their chief) to administer and manage as appropriate.
And the hardest issue for us to address, of course, would be our matai titles. To pass constitutional muster, I’d imagine that we would have to remove the hereditary and aristocratic aspects of these institutions in order for them to survive. That would mean making them elective offices that anyone can run for and win election to.
While we would have to make these offices open to anyone, there is no reason why we could not institute non-discriminatory qualifications that will work to ensure candidates/holders have relation to the family name according to our customs and traditions. Such qualifications could include requiring them to live on family land, provide service to the family and village and/or be nominated by one of the family clans. Any person can technically meet any of these conditions regardless of race, color, religion or sex.
All of the above obviously requires more in-depth analysis and comprehensive work to ensure we cover all of the fine print. Luckily, we are blessed with many of Samoa’s sons and daughters who have that legal background. The idea is that once we constitutionalize our cultural practices and traditions, we can further dress them up in all of the Samoan pomp and ceremony we’re accustomed to. That is no different from what we as Americans do with positions in Congress and the White House to all of the branches of the military.
And we would retain all of our Samoan nomenclature of course: we would still call the fono of a village a 'fono' although it would be constitutionally designed as a neighborhood board.
But outside of working to add a Samoan flavor to the U.S. Constitution, much in the same way we have done with Christianity, our only other recourse is to seek independence or redefine our political relationship with the U.S.
Which brings me to the other emotion (other than consternation and finger-pointing) this debate has conjured: fear. Our dependence on the millions we receive in federal funding every year, leaves our fate ultimately up to the mercy of our masters in D.C. The real question in this debate may be how far are we willing to go to fight for our Fa’asamoa and Fa’amatai if it came down to that or putting food on our table?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)